|
The issue of critical hits and (gasp!) the inclusion of fumbles, has been at the heart of many of my post-gaming session discussions. After reading through the campaign journals on these boards, I was again struck (pardon the pun) by just how deadly the inclusion of these events is for a party.
I believe it is the PHB but it might be the DMG that says something to the effect that “critical hits were put into the game to add excitement and flavor to battle, but are overall bad for the characters because they increase the randomness in battle. Increased randomness tends to favor the underdog, which is typically the foe facing the party, and thus inclusion of critical hits (or fumbles) hurts the party in the long run.”
It took me a bit to grasp what was being said in this sidebar, but it finally struck home when I created an example: I imagined a horse track where a triple-crown contender is racing against no-name swaybacks. On any regular day, the thoroughbred would demolish the competition, but if the track were badly flooded at one point, the racehorse may well go down. In effect, the randomness of the situation would favor the competition; they were likely to lose at any rate and throwing a flooded portion on the track could only hurt the favorite. If this sounds odd, then think of it this way: should you be in a group of 7th level characters that stumble into the lair of an adult red dragon with no reasonable means of escape, when you take that d20 in your hand to strike a blow, what are you thinking? I would wager it is “C’mon roll a crit!” because you know that without a critical hit, you and your companions are going to die. In effect, you are hoping that randomness saves you from a superior foe.
Based on this, the inclusion of criticals, let alone fumbles, introduces a dangerous element into gaming session that often hurts the characters more than helps them because often they are the ones that are the superior force in any encounter. Add to this the desire of DM’s to “push” their parties by creating tougher-than-recommended encounters and it leads to a high mortality rate. While I am all for having characters die to let them know that no fight is certain or to keep them humble, I feel that the criticals and especially fumbles kill too many characters. What do the rest of you think about this? Are crits and fumbles needed to add flavor to the game and a sense of uncertainty no matter what the normal odds? Do any of you use alternate systems that provide excitement without so much randomness?
I only use them in systems where they're much rarer than they are in most versions of D&D. 10% of attacks being potentially critical hits or fumbles is far too much for me. Put it at 1-2% and we'll talk.
I think they should really stand out as rare occurances. You shouldn't see one in most game sessions.
Do any of you use alternate systems that provide excitement without so much randomness?
Not sure if I got this from the rules or not, but I've always used a system of confirms after the roll. A nat 20 is only a critical success if backed up with another nat 20. A nat 1 is only a critical failure if backed up by another nat 1. This changes the chance of this happening from 5% of the rolls to .25% of the rolls.
That being said, my SCAP group probably rolls two critical failures per session average. Don't know why - they just love the ones.
Well, I think a lot of the arguments for and against crit hits will ultimately come down to the style of play you enjoy and have become accustomed to. I’m not going to say that one way is better than the other…
In the current game I am playing in, an Age of Worms path, we use the crit hit rules right out of the books. Fumbles are a 1 followed by a 1… and I’ve yet to see one in the 5-6 sessions of this game so far. The crit hits haven’t made a big difference in the combats, and 25% of the time or so I’d say that we fight things which are immune to crits (undead, constructs, etc.)
This is a large contrast from how I usually run crit hits and fumbles in games… both ways are fun, just different. When I run games, usually campaigns, I tend to keep things more on the “heroic” level. In doing so, I would say that 60-75% of the time or more, my Players are the underdogs in the fights. I’ve inherited this style of DMing from what I consider to be my best DM/GM thus far (or the style I seem to like best from what I have experienced) My crit hit system comes from 1st and 2nd ed, so certain weapons become better than others… still working on that.
Basically if you roll a 20 it’s an auto crit… you then roll another d20. 1-16 = x2 dmg, 17-19 = x3 dmg, a 2nd 20 = a % roll on a table ranging from bleeding wounds to severed limbs.
If you roll a 1 roll another d20, 20 = really bad miss, looks bad, but no other noticeable effect. 4-20 = you miss horribly… lose all subsequent attacks for the round. 2-3 = minor mishap table, weapon strikes into a rock/wall… weapon takes dmg as if sundered, weapon gets stuck in the ground, bow string breaks, etc. A 2nd natural 1 in a row results in a percentile table similar to the crit hit table… hitting your allies, breaking your weapon (if nonmagical / takes damage or a save if magical), daze yourself, etc.
For this system, feats like improved crit, and things like keen add +1 to the first roll only (and do stack… keen + improved crit = 18+)
On an entirely alternative system is the Wounds & Vitality system… where crit hits go right to your true hit points (CON). This seems REALLY deadly at first… but if you then stack on the Action Point (AP) system and change it over to the way SPYCRAFT does it… you get something a little more workable. With all these rules added together you get a system where you have to spend an AP to “back up” a potential crit. This also means that a regular orc, thug, elemental, etc… can never score a crit. Only PCs and NPCs have APs, and therefore only they can back up a potential crit hit. (Important storyline monsters can be given a feat that gives them a few action points.) Similarly a 1 isn’t a “Fumble” unless someone in the battle spends an action point to turn it into one.
I’ve tried this in one game I was running, and it worked great. It took the threat of a henchman running out and ending a hero’s life in 1 REALLY lucky hit… especially useful when you have 20-30 low level mobs attacking a small number of PC’s. I find that this system also works better when I play games where we “roll in the open.”… But we can leave the discussion for rolling in the open vs. rolling behind the screen and its effects on crits, survivability, etc for another time…
I suppose that if you wanted to really limit it like the other fellow in the post above me did... a 1 in 400 chance of double damage definitely does that!
|
Personally, for years I played games where character death was never going to happen. Time and time again would characters be beefed up to near invulnerability. It still had crit fails, but the DM would mostly direct the players away from death. It culminated in a moment where my cleric/sorc set off a bomb to stop a collossus and lived, yet again.
After having three or four games, I decided to run my own game, and followed the rules to the letter. To explain the a little better, randomized treasure, had traps, lower stats rolled randomly, etc.
What I found was that characters died. Now, that may seem like a bad thing, but I viewed it differently.
Look at the life of a fantasy character: They fight creatures to the death, they explore trapped places, fight disease, poison, get attacked on a regular basis, make powerful enemies, and can even have entire planes of existence that want them dead.
Isn't death assumed? Isn't it also assumed that every swing of the ax within three other people hurt them? A weapon dropped? Perhaps a spell gone awry? And aren't there 5 spells that all aleviate this condition they call death? Accidents happen and people die because of them all the time. If you doubt that, check out the Darwin Awards.
BUT, From the sound of it, your group feels that crit deaths suck, and in a fantasy setting, they view that sort of happening as less than heroic. I personally had two deaths by fumbles in a game where I had 19 character deaths total, so it hasn't been the big of an annoyance.
I'd almost say that giving a 1/day DM reroll for crit fails in a game will allow your characters to continue on as heroes, still allow them to have moments of pure godly strenth and not have deaths caused by slipping up.
|
On the note of Vitality/Wound :). I use this system in games where the players have no healing magicks or, in the case of the current campaign I'm designing, spellcasting classes are limited to 1/2- 3/4 {bards & druids} of your total class levels. With these limited healing options, Vit/Wd serves to get the party up and moving in 1-2 days, rather than weeks (which can derail some plotlines).
I will agree that Vit/Wd has its share of deadliness (I like the AP idea, personally) and I've had to make several changes from the UA version to contend w/ 16+ level characters that rarely fail a Fort 15, the Diehard feat, and the as-written flaws in regeneration w/ this system. However, liking the system quite a bit, I will note that the AC/DR system of UA fits very nicely as well- if you permit the DR from armor or high natural armor to lessen wound damage from a crit, the high accuracy super-critters (swashbucklers) don't automatically dominate but let fighters have their due when high-level spells start flying about.
Anyways, I do agree that crits tend to throw more luck into the game than I sometimes enjoy, and thus use the Bell Curve (3d6 system) for skill checks at least. As 3s and 18s only have a .5% chance of appearing, you'll find that the crits and fumbles become far less likely, and in fact large groups of monsters (6+) have their CR reduced accordingly.
If crits/fumbles bother you, I might strongly advice checking out Unearthed Arcana- you'll certainly need to make some adjustments to these often too brief rule concepts {w/ Vit/Wd, give NPCs normal vit like PCs and only divide DR by half, not ignoring it IMO}, but they really can help you bring the game closer to your personal vision.
GL w/ your own works
Do any of you play (or used to play MERP)? I've had the books lying around and saw some very detailed crit tables which I think could spice up games without making them too deadly. However, they would need to be modified heavily, so I was wondering if anyone had some conversion tips.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
I used to play Spacemaster, which was a derivative of Rolemaster. MERP was Rolemaster Light. Loved the crit tables, very fun.
I think combat should be tough and deadly. If you don't have crits or fumbles, you have absolutely ZERO realism at all. (I know, I know, I know)
How in the world could you ever justify needing 10 maximum damage hits from arrows to bring downa 10th level fighter? Yeah, he's heroic and all that stuff, but how many times can you say that "the arrow nicked him" "it dented his armor" "oops, nicked him again."
I'm running 3.5 straight up right now to get a feel for the game system, as I barely switched to 3.5 last year. However, I foresee some major changes coming down the pike for me:
No confirmation of criticals. If you can hit the target by rolling inside your weapons' crit range--auto crit. If you need more than a 20 to hit, if you roll a 20, you need to confirm your critical by rolling inside the crit range of the weapon.
Roll a 1? Anyone who threatens you gets an attack of opportunity.
Flanking your target or target is denied DEX bonus? Critical goes up a category range in damage. (x2 becomes x3 etc.)
I want combat to be a nasty and dirty affair, bloody as hell and over quick. I want the players to be worried every time they get into a fight, even with orcs. I lvoed the very real sweaty palms that my players got in Spacemaster every time they got into combat, because even though they were better than their opponents, they weren't demigods compared to them, as a 10th level fighter is to a kobold in D&D.
Just a matter of personal taste. Won't happen until my next campaign though, as I'm going to give 3.5 a full campaign shakedown before my house rules kick in.
I'll probably allow some "defense" feats that will allow players to "downgrade" enemy criticals by using shields or by using some of the enhanced armor feats from Iron Heroes.
I'm in the nothing is a given camp myself. That is to say I pretty much do crits as written and do fumbles on a 1 with a table thats not that nasty but often steals your weapons and can knowck you prone (which can be bad news).
Personally I like the randomness and the fact that it increases the potential for a combat that should have been a cakewalk to go horribly wrong. My players are too good at (and enjoy to much) metagaming to want to use a system where the bad guys can't get really lucky. Crits earn the Orcs some measure of respect. Sure they don't happen that often but today could be the day that the Orc gets lucky.
Interesting that some one should use a horse racing example...would you really find horse racing exciting if you where absolutely sure that there could be no upset and the favoured horse always won? Personally I like my combat to be exciting and crits help in that department. Killing the 4 Orcs in the room is usually routine - but you never know...
Furthermore players usually have some tricks up their sleeves. When things go wrong often they can still get out more or less intact.
I like criticals and fumbles for exactly the reason described, it adds flavor to the game. The possibility of a critical makes every encounter dangerous, and makes the potential for a real fantasty novel type kill, worthy of artful description.
I also think they add reality to the game. I have done a fair amount of sparing as a martial artist and both crits and fumbles (though you don't usually call them that) happen. And really even if the chances are low, a peasant that charges with a spear should have a chance to seriously injure even a 5th level character if they charge him wit a spear.
But then I am an advocate for character death as well. When coming back from beyond can be accomplished with a 4th level spell on a scale that lists spells that go to ninth.
I have nothing against 'crits & fumbles' as long as we don't use tables. Tables tend to slow the game down. The critical hit system as it is now (with the possible threat, then the critical hit roll) works fine for us. As for the fumbles, in our group, when someone rolls a natural 1, that's a possible fumble and must roll a DEX DC10 to avoid the fumble. If successful, it is treated as a normal miss. If unsuccessful, the player drops his weapon and his round stops right there.
Now, it is true that in the long run that 'crits & fumbles' will hurt the PCs in the long run, but I think it gives an added uncertainty or sense of danger (or even hope) in every combat.
Ultradan
Lich-loved,
Your argument was sound and your points valid. The "unfairness" advantage to the underdog when using crit/fumbles is no doubt the major reason the "powers that be" resisted included them in the official canon for so long. In fact, this debate has been going on for decades and I don't imagine it will get resolved here today. That being said, I can not resist expressing my own opinion on this matter...
I LOVE critical hits and fumbles; and regard them as an integral and invaluable part of the game. They add flavor and excitement that is irreplaceable. I understand the argument of how realistic they are - both sides have valid points on that issue, I think. But the real bottom line is, IMO, that without them every die roll boils down to hit or miss and that quickly becomes pretty boring. It makes the job of epic story-telling by the DM a lot more difficult without any aid from the dice. As stated by others, it also creates an atmosphere of "anything can and will happen". Maybe that puny kobold WILL deal you some serious damage. Maybe your clearly overpowered, outmatched character WILL overcome that uber-monster. Conversely, its best to remain humble because hey, the best laid plans of mice and men...
I also will put my personal plug in for using tables for the fumbles. Better than just dropping your weapon or simply losing your turn, I view D&D as an epic heroic tale where wild and descriptive things happen. Tables aid in that story-telling style (which I realize is not every DM's style of choice). I recently expanded my "flub chart" after some great ideas gleaned from this messageboard. The first opportunity for the new table to "shine" and really add flavor to the game came in the Whispering Cairn in the third session of play just days ago.
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Four players were down (1 permanently) and the sole survivor was engaged in a desperate struggle with the beetle and animated statue in the sleeping chambers. The young monk rolled a 1, followed by a confirmation 1, follwed by a 01 on the percentage die. The results on the appropriate "flub chart" indicated a massive heart attack, Fort Save DC 15 or die instantly. Those three die rolls (each more horrific than the last) were probably the worst of the player's life! His facial expressions were priceless!! When I told him about his heart attack, the player almost had one of his own! His character made the saving throw (and therefore lived, merely ending his turn in game terms) and in the next two rounds dropped both the beetle and the statue, rescued the party, went home with much rejoicing. The player's monk character is only 19 which made the heart attack that much more shocking but the interesting coincidence was that the player's father actually had a heart attack at 26 (and also, thankfully, survived to tell the tale) and the player decided to add a family history of heart problems to his character's backstory. So... in the end, it was a great night of gaming with some truly tragic/heroic moments, great role-playing and added flavor and excitement, and a story I'm sure everyone is going to be talking about for months to come! This kind of superlative story-telling is what makes D&D great.
So in conclusion, critical hits and fumbles might cause fear, frustration and the occassional "unfair" character death but they also provide exciting details and heroic moments that can't truly be accomplished any other way.
I have nothing against 'crits & fumbles' as long as we don't use tables. Tables tend to slow the game down. The critical hit system as it is now (with the possible threat, then the critical hit roll) works fine for us. As for the fumbles, in our group, when someone rolls a natural 1, that's a possible fumble and must roll a DEX DC10 to avoid the fumble. If successful, it is treated as a normal miss. If unsuccessful, the player drops his weapon and his round stops right there.
Now, it is true that in the long run that 'crits & fumbles' will hurt the PCs in the long run, but I think it gives an added uncertainty or sense of danger (or even hope) in every combat.
Ultradan
Nothing wrong with a cool crit hit table as long as you don't bog the game down with it. Like I said, for the one I use you need a nat 20 followed by a nat 20 = 1 in 400 to roll on the table for my normal system. It adds a little something special and memorable when they do happen... A little more work for the DM behind the scenes to make sure the table is set up and balanced, but once you have one you are happy with I think it only adds to the game.
I am certainly not opposed to tweaking the rules to make sense for my campaign. That said, threat ranges on weapons are onee of the devices used to "balance" the weapons and the damage they deal, same with feats.
I think eliminating crits hurts the game and shifts balance
To those who use certain weapons (which is fine if thats what you like) but should be considered in equipping npc's.
A crit/fumble table shouldn't slow down combat too much, or just roll the extra damage as listed in the PHB.
Lich-loved,
Your argument was sound and your points valid. The "unfairness" advantage to the underdog when using crit/fumbles is no doubt the major reason the "powers that be" resisted included them in the official canon for so long. In fact, this debate has been going on for decades and I don't imagine it will get resolved here today. That being said, I can not resist expressing my own opinion on this matter...
I LOVE critical hits and fumbles; and regard them as an integral and invaluable part of the game. They add flavor and excitement that is irreplaceable. I understand the argument of how realistic they are - both sides have valid points on that issue, I think. But the real bottom line is, IMO, that without them every die roll boils down to hit or miss and that quickly becomes pretty boring. It makes the job of epic story-telling by the DM a lot more difficult without any aid from the dice. As stated by others, it also creates an atmosphere of "anything can and will happen". Maybe that puny kobold WILL deal you some serious damage. Maybe your clearly overpowered, outmatched character WILL overcome that uber-monster. Conversely, its best to remain humble because hey, the best laid plans of mice and men...
I also will put my personal plug in for using tables for the fumbles. Better than just dropping your weapon or simply losing your turn, I view D&D as an epic heroic tale where wild and descriptive things happen. Tables aid in that story-telling style (which I realize is not every DM's style of choice)...So in conclusion, critical hits and fumbles might cause fear, frustration and the occassional "unfair" character death but they also provide exciting details and heroic moments that can't truly be accomplished any other way.
Preach it brother. Amen.
I know that realism is not D&D and Sir Marcus made a great point about the criticals and fumbles adding a random element to ensure an exciting story is always potentially in the making.
Combat needs to be scary, not something to be entered into lightly. Knowing that even the lowly town guard has the (remote) potential to bring down your 13th level blackguard reduces powergaming and metagame thinking, I believe.
In my old AD&D campaign, I had a house rule that every attacker beyond the first got a +1 bonus to hit and damage. Even high level characters were scared of large roving bands of goblins, as well they should be!! Surrounded by six goblins who were each +5 to hit and damage beyond their normal bonuses was very important balancing factor.
I never want my players to casually waltz around the wilderness and cities, confident that they can handle anything because of their power, feats, skills and to hit bonuses.
As an example, my players, whose characters are all 9th level, actually ran from an orc warband of about 60 orcs last game, because they were low on spells and weren't sure they could handle them. I want to maintain that level of "realism" and critical hits and fumbles are an important part of that.
Excitement & flavor? No one will ever beat Iron Crown's critical/fumble tables -- hideously complex, and spectacularly entertaining.
Jack
|
The pros and cons of critical hits and misses have been covered well already. I fall into the "added excitement" camp with critical hits. Players love it, so much I have to remind them that undead are immune, as are elementals, even though they've already grabbed the d30 to confirm the critical. Yep, a d30.
I've used a d30 to confirm criticals since 1E. With 3E's arrival, I didn't want to say goodbye to the critical hit/fumble die so I've adapted it in a simple fashion:
Heroes use a d30 to confirm critical hits on a natural roll of 20 on a d20. Weapons with greater threat ranges still only use a d20 to confirm on rolls 19 or less. Adversaries never use a d30 to confirm criticals unless they are the archetype villain of the story line.
Why a d30?
Giving the heroes a d30 to confirm criticals allows them the chance to hit Armour Class values that may be beyond their reach normally. They apply all the their bonuses to the roll as normal. Using a d30 for the heroes while the adversaries still use a d20 to confirm criticals weighs the balance more in favour of the heroes.
The same principle applies to critical fumbles. On a natural one, the hero rolls the d30. If the modified roll still misses the target it's a fumble (I've used the fumble tables from the Melnibone book but lately have gone back to using Best of Dragon V's "Good hits & bad misses").
I also use the d30 rule for skill checks. Someone can "critical" on a skill check applying the same logic except the d30's value is used only if it's confirmation roll is higher than 20. Otherwise it's just a 20 + modifiers skill check.
No confirmation of criticals. If you can hit the target by rolling inside your weapons' crit range--auto crit. If you need more than a 20 to hit, if you roll a 20, you need to confirm your critical by rolling inside the crit range of the weapon.
I already use this rule for my campaign. I feel that there is all sorts of luck involved in combat and that D&D should reflect that. I know that as DM I sometimes hate it when the PCs kill a boss in one hit that was supposed to nearly (if not totally) kill them. But as a player, I love it when I kill the DM's major boss.
That said, I use DEX rolls on fumbles. I have a chart that I use when someone rolls a 1. I don't have that with me right now, I'll have to dig it out and post it later, but I do know that a nat 20 on the DEX save is lose all subsequent turns that round and left off balance (loss of DEX/flat footed) and a 1 is that the weapon flies in the direction of the nearest teammate who then has to make a REF save to dodge.
Personally I love the Crit/Fumble of 3ed and rely on it often to help me through a campaign.
A bit from my Hoarde
I like them. Of cource I have my own critical fumble chart that we use in my game. I also have a critical critical chart that allows for lopping of limbs and dehabilitating blows.
ASEO out
I and my players love critical hits- they may statistically favor the underdog, but the feeling of dishing out a huge amount of damage to an enemy, possibly dropping him in one round when it should take 3 or so, is great. It feeds into fantasy literature as well. How did the knight drop the dragon in one swing? Really good critical.
In AoW, the grimlock barbarian nearly dropped the dwarf barbarian, formerly presumed to be near-invinceable, in just about one hit. The party had split up, it was just he and the rogue facing their foe, and though they nearly died several times, they loved the fight.
I even use the multiple crit rule: when confirming the roll, another nat 20 increases the multiplier by x1. In the free WotC adventure, Dry Spell, the party drove off an ogre guard at the front of a cave and forgot about it. He had returned by the time the party was coming out. The barbarian walked around the corner, right into the ogre, who hear them coming (the ogre wasn't moving, so no Move Silently checks). In the surprised round, he rolled a 20 with his club. Then another. Then he confirmed it. Now his massive club splatted the barbarian's brains all over the wall. Very cinematic, and realistic, I think: If you take a 40-lbs. club to the head without proper defenses/reaction time, you're gone!
|
Contributor
|
For me, it depends on who i'm playing with and how many folks I'm playing with.
With a small group I'm partial to the crit rules in Torn Asunder (mostly because they accomodate a way to use crits against creatures normally immune to crits).
With a large group (over 15 plavers), I go real basic. As far as being too deadly, as the DM you need not confirm every crit you make against your players (they don't have know when you fudge down a roll). If killing the player with a crit would make the game suck, just don't show them the die roll. On the player's side of things, they love crits!!! It makes them more heroic when they can suddenly do uber damage.
Crit Misses are another thing. In the small group make folks confirm a fumble and use a fumble table (two ones in a row) with dropping, damaging, and breaking a weapon as possiblities as well as making wild swings and injuring opponents (I liked the ICE tables too). With a large group, a confirmed critical fumble equals the loss of 1 standard action.
Demonstrating to people that fumble rules are idiotic is a lot like trying to convince them that yellow is a "better color" than blue, so I won't even try.
I'm just glad that the people who think fumbles (1) are a good idea, (2) can be fun, or (3) in any way enhance the D&D game...aren't the people who got to write the official rules.