The thought it was too good, apparently. This seems an example of aesthetics trumping the math (I remember seeing a fairly competent analysis demonstrating that high-crit-range weapons needed this stacking to keep up with high-damage weapons).
Eh? Not only have I never seen such math, there is no way I'd believe it. Just look at the concept, everything gets the same increase (x3 to crit range) so everything remains exactly where they are now, but the numbers them selves have gone up. If anything, gaps would become wider, not closer and more balanced.
In fact, it's pretty damn simple to prove too. Let's say simple 18 Str for a +4 bonus (+6 THF), and ignore the auto miss of a 1 because the math is just plain easier that way at 3am. Average out the dice (d6=3.5, 2d4=5, etc). Per stacking multipliers, IM-Crit+Keen is x3 to Crit Range. Lastly, the total will be based on twenty attacks, one for each roll value rather than some fancy lie hidden in faulty percentages.
3.0 Stacking
Greatsword (15/x2): 338
= ((7+6)*14)+(((7+6)*2)*6)Scimitar (12/x2): 275.5
= ((3.5+6)*11)+(((3.5+6)*2)*9)Scythe (18/x4): 253
= ((5+6)*17)+(((5+6)*2)*3)None-Stacking Style, aka 3.5
Greatsword (17/x2): 313
= ((7+6)*16)+(((7+6)*2)*4)Scimitar (15/x2): 247
= ((3.5+6)*14)+(((3.5+6)*2)*6)Scythe (19/x4): 242
= ((5+6)*18)+(((5+6)*2)*2)Same ranking order, but gap between the Scythe and Greatsword widens from 71 points to 85 providing you with even less of an incentive to use anything other than a (Kaorti) Greatsword.
