|
Just a couple quick background points here before we begin. The campaign I am running will have PCs only go to level 11 so any levels after are meaningless to this question. Additionally, we will only be using the Core Rulebook so the feats available are from that book.
Rule Change: I was considering a change to critical damage. It would auto-confirm and simply do maximum weapon damage.
How would this change affect the classes up to level 11?
How would this change affect monsters up to CR 13?
Irrie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would dramatically lessen the usefulness of high crit threat weapons (which tend to do lower damage) and the Keen enchantment.
So anything within crit range, if it hits, automatically confirms? That really makes high crit chance weapons even more appealing. Only max weapon damage and not a crit multiple? Well, that makes high crit multiple weapons even less appealing.
Ultimately, it throws off whatever semblance of weapon balance existed in the game. With the standard rules, a scimitar (1d6, 18-20, x2), a longsword (1d8, 19-20, x2) and a battle axe (1d8, 20, x3) have the same average damage. With your houserule, I'd pick the scimitar every time. The +1 average normal damage and +2 crit damage does not outweigh the doubling and tripling of crit chances over the other weapons.
Further, martials already get a little shafted by the game starting at about level 6-8 (depending on who you ask) and the extra damage allowed by crits does a little to mitigate this. If the only thing you can really be good at is killing things, then it's nice to be able to kill things better.
Ultimately, I don't think it's a terrible change. If you have a party that doesn't optimize much and plays mostly blast-y arcane casters and healbot divine casters, then it shouldn't be a significant swing in power. But I know that if my group decided on this rule, I'd probably be nudged into mostly playing casters. I currently like to switch back and forth, but I'd probably just become the table's resident full caster.
Edit: It seems GoatToucher and I have come to opposite conclusions. So I did some napkin math. Provided all things being equal, in a decision between longsword, scimitar and battleaxe, the longsword increases its average damage over core, the battleaxe loses damage and the scimitar also loses. The longsword goes from being the slightly better option to being the significantly better option. So it's not really a nerf to the game, but it is a limitation on playstyle by hampering mechanics.
If my table were considering this rule change, I would offer an amendment that all one-handed martial weapons be 1d8, 19-20, all two-handed martial be 2d6, 19-20, etc. so that table variation in weapon choice are still mechanically viable. Honestly, I think I might be pushing for the homogenized damage houserule anyway...
I'm having difficulty seeing the dramatic difference in average damage using standard critical rules vs maximum damage rules. It is indicated above that it would dramatically "lessen" the value of these weapons. The difference in many of these weapons using standard vs max rules is roughly one point of damage, but with the added bonus of auto-confirmation, which is a big buff for certain types of weapons.
For clarity, on a critical a character deals maximum weapon damage or maximum potential damage? To be more specific, would bane, sneak attack, etc be maximized as well?
Edit: I should have read more carefully - you stated weapon damage. I agree with the other posters, it would be a bit of a nerf.
This is a kick straight to the magus's knee. And what's the compensation for weapons with increased multiplier? This would render abilities that increase that multiplier completely worthless.
It seems like a bad idea. Of all the systems to houserule, the critical hit system does not really cry out for change.
Apart from what you have been told already, you will get to a point where creatures attacking the characters with only natural 20 (or chars fighting against something where they only hit with natural 19-20) makes that a super-hard-to-hit creature... gets critted everytime it gets hit?
Keep the confirmation roll.
Is your goal to reduce the number of dice that need to be rolled, or to change the power of critical hits? If you want to weaken crits, consider not multiplying some of the bonuses that currently do.
If you want to roll fewer dice, require the confirmation roll to be made at the same time as the attack (different colored die), and multiply the damage rather than rolling it two or three times.
If you are trying tom make crits more powerful, maybe increase the multipliers.
I'm not suggesting that any of these ideas are balanced, just that they will get you certain outcomes. Others have already commented on implications do your original idea pretty well.
|
|
Is your goal to reduce the number of dice that need to be rolled, or to change the power of critical hits? If you want to weaken crits, consider not multiplying some of the bonuses that currently do.
If you want to roll fewer dice, require the confirmation roll to be made at the same time as the attack (different colored die), and multiply the damage rather than rolling it two or three times.
If you are trying tom make crits more powerful, maybe increase the multipliers.I'm not suggesting that any of these ideas are balanced, just that they will get you certain outcomes. Others have already commented on implications do your original idea pretty well.
It really boils down to dice rolling. I have a very limited time to play and I want to trim the time down so we can get more done.
|
|
I'm having difficulty seeing the dramatic difference in average damage using standard critical rules vs maximum damage rules. It is indicated above that it would dramatically "lessen" the value of these weapons. The difference in many of these weapons using standard vs max rules is roughly one point of damage, but with the added bonus of auto-confirmation, which is a big buff for certain types of weapons.
For clarity, on a critical a character deals maximum weapon damage or maximum potential damage? To be more specific, would bane, sneak attack, etc be maximized as well?
Edit: I should have read more carefully - you stated weapon damage. I agree with the other posters, it would be a bit of a nerf.
It would be just weapon damage. Any thoughts on how I take the second roll away and make the damage essentially stay the same? I do not want to nerf martial characters. I simply want the game to move quicker without having the PCs become gods with the ability to destroy everything in their path within seconds.
|
I've gone with automatic crits (although mostly because failing on confirmation checks is so very disappointing and to reduce die-rolling).
For PCs, I've kept it at the normal rules. Which does bump martial damage a bit... but that's not really a balance thing I'm concerned with.
If you want to rein in the damage, you could add a static bonus. The easiest one is probably just adding the maximum value on the die (so +6 on a 1d6, +16 on a 2d8, and so forth).
So instead of 1d8+5 criting to 2d8+10, it could crit to 1d8+13. If the crit was x3, it'd be 1d8+21 rather than 3d8+15.
It's definitely a damage nerf, but since you're giving out free crits, people probably won't be too worried about it.
To make it better, you could have them add the higher of their maximum weapon damage and static bonuses. So 1d8+5 would crit to 1d8+13, but 1d8+10 would crit to 1d8+20.
Cheers!
Landon
It would be just weapon damage. Any thoughts on how I take the second roll away and make the damage essentially stay the same?
Have confirmations, but instead of making the player roll their damage twice, why not just double the damage?
How would this change affect the classes up to level 11?
How would this change affect monsters up to CR 13?
Irrie.
Given your parametres and intention to streamline gameplay, I believe your houserule would work just fine.
Like Mauril said, it does make x3 ad x4 weapons less inviting since it's max damage for all, regardless of their critical multiplier (you could increase base damage of x3 and x4 weapons to mitigate that, or give them a flat damage bonus on critical hits).
Overall, damage will be lower altogether since STR bonuses won't be multiplied. This will particularly affect power attack and diminish the efficiency of power attacking creature so in the end, it will make combat longer since critical hits won't be as decisive table-turners at high-ish levels. The few max-damage critical that would not have been confirmed in a normal game won't quite make up for it, but it should compensate a bit especially a lower levels.
It will also make mobs of weak monsters a bit more threatening (20 being both an auto-hit and auto-critical can make goblins a bit more dangerous against heavily armoured characters).
|
|
Here is another curve ball, yet might help with this discussion. I have taken out all exotic weapons. Players are limited to simple and martial weapons. What if I did something to give martial weapons a bonus? This would then give the fighter types some sort of advantage. Again, though, the goal is less dice throwing. I dislike the confirmation roll. I want it out.
One additional problem I have is that trying to come up with comparisons for these numbers seems insurmountable to me. As it stands, a confirmation roll is needed. How do you determine how often they connect? Someone could have a +2 bonus to hit and another might have a +8. There is a huge discrepancy here. The mathematics involved are simply beyond me to figure out the numbers to shoot for with this rule change.
I do not want to gimp the martial classes. They need love as it is.
Why don't you just double the weapon damage? Nothing else.
|
|
I think I am going to try this system:
- *Crit on only a 20.
*Auto confirm.
*Damage is (max weapon damage + random weapon damage)+(2 x bonuses)
For the most part, the weapons with higher base damage are the types of weapons people would normally choose so I can justify strange weapons not being as readily available.
Thanks for all the advice guys!
Irrie.