Critical hits in 4th edition


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I've been an outspoken opponent of 4th in nearly every way, shape, and form - but I have to love how they gave up on the range of crit threat numbers and made a crit only on a natural 20 again. Then, they max the dice instead of doubling the dice. (See the new article in Dragon for the whole article.) While obviously the 20 rule has been around before, the full damage is new (for me) I haven't used it in a game yet, but I think I really like it - it does seem a little too lethal for lower level characters - so maybe I might still like the idea of the confirmation roll. But then again - it might not. Hmm...

What do you think?


I played the "full damage" way in 2E.

The problem with it is if a hit can *only* be made on a 20, then you either hit for full damage or not at all, which I don't really like.

The advantage to it, of course, is that there is no "confirmation" roll, and thus speeds up play. It could also allow the removal of the many feats that were based on "threat range" factors, simplifying the game.

I prefer the 3.x method.

It brings to mind a potential hybrid method: if you roll a 20 (or critical threat) then you do max damage if the roll us unconfirmed, or double (regular) damage if the threat is confirmed (with the caveat that you do at least regular max damage).

Dark Archive

I like that the confirm rolls being dropped. It always seemed anti-climactic.

*dice clatter*

Player: Nat 20!

*group cheers*

DM: Ok, roll to confirm.

Player: Oh....yeah.

*group sighs*


I agree - it does seem tough that every time you get a auto-hit 20, it's also a crit. Again, more food for thought on the possibility of a confirmation roll. Just off the cuff, maybe a fort save vs the dam done in some way? Of course, it's not that hard to roll a confirmation roll. But it's probably not necessary and can be disappointing too. How did your players take it - and how did it work with the monsters as they got more powerful?

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
DangerDwarf wrote:

I like that the confirm rolls being dropped. It always seemed anti-climactic.

*dice clatter*

Player: Nat 20!

*group cheers*

DM: Ok, roll to confirm.

Player: Oh....yeah.

*group sighs*

I agree totally, but just max damage doesn't seem all that great, now when a monster crits I doubt the players are going to be holding their breath like they do now. I kind of like that fact that a good critical hit would wipe out a top boss or player.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

I don't see stealing this rule for my 3.x games.

That said, It's good to see that all these 'crit on a fireball' type stories we've heard in play test won't be as devistating.

It also explains, in part, why power attack isn't as loved in 4.x since it doesn't double either.

Anyone think this might be why combats go longer? More HP + less devistating crits + no more save or suck?

Wow, traps and now this. Two things that don't make me wail and gnash my teeth.


I don't know. At lower levels, I think the rogue is going to be very worried when he gets hit with a crit by something like a bear with some obscene strength, or orc wielding a greatsword. Granted, the higher the original dice - the more to lose - instead of 6d8+10 (max of 58) you get 29 - but it also means you didn't get a 15 either; whereas 2d4+2 isn't that much better than a surefire 5. It's almost like guaranteeing the average. I don't think I'd wholesale lift it for my 3.5 games, it makes me think a bit.

The Exchange

I like it.

As a GM I roll behind the screen and i have often ignored critical hits from monsters. The damage they can do is just too much. I do not want fights to end because a PC or a critter managed to pull of a monster hit.

Dark Archive

Matthew Morris wrote:

Wow, traps and now this. Two things that don't make me wail and gnash my teeth.

I'm feeling the same way. I'm liking these rules. But they really don't seem to necessitate a new edition. I think my new long term D&D plans are to continue using 3.5 but houserule in what my group and I like of 4.0.


Just getting the Nat 20 and its a crit will speed things up a bit, which i like. I dunno, i might make it 1.5 damage rounding up. Still gives the hit some ommph but wouldn't go over board.


Low Level characters will have more hp in 4E as well so a crit won't have the insta-kill potential for a 1st level PC (or so current thinking goes)


FabesMinis wrote:
Low Level characters will have more hp in 4E as well so a crit won't have the insta-kill potential for a 1st level PC (or so current thinking goes)

Oh nice, I might be able to play a wizard that doesn't get killed by a summer breeze.


Halvdan wrote:
FabesMinis wrote:
Low Level characters will have more hp in 4E as well so a crit won't have the insta-kill potential for a 1st level PC (or so current thinking goes)
Oh nice, I might be able to play a wizard that doesn't get killed by a summer breeze.

Breeze attack 1d6+1 = 7. Sorry Merlin, you're down to -3 and bleeding. :D


Well, that's 2 changes I like. WOTC is on a roll.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1. Natural 20 = Critical. Yowza! I like. This is the way SWSE works. Makes sense and streamlines the game.

2. Critical Hit = Maximum Damage (except for bonuses like fire, cold, etc.). Um. Verdict's out. I still like the double damage .. which exists in SWSE, too. The problem with 4e's take is that a critical hit simply means maximum damage. You can make maximum damage on a good roll even without a critical. I like my criticals to be something different ... and something more. I like double damage. However, I also will have to look at 4e as a whole. With all the remaking that's taking place, double damage may become unbalancing with 4e.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Max damage seems a little underwhelming, but I like crits on a 20 and no confirmation roll.

Liberty's Edge

So I roll a Critical Hit and I do Maximum Damage.

But if I roll Maximum Damage, was it a Critical Hit?

Also, I don't understand how it simplifies the game to replace one dice roll, that many people already house-ruled out, with a table that has to contain every weapon, its type, and if it has "special" qualities and a decription of those qualties?

The Exchange

DaveMage wrote:
It brings to mind a potential hybrid method: if you roll a 20 (or critical threat) then you do max damage if the roll us unconfirmed, or double (regular) damage if the threat is confirmed (with the caveat that you do at least regular max damage).

I like this hybrid idea allot. This is what I like best about 4th Edition; stealing from it. Stealing the good, combine with 3.5 and make a hybrid. Whether I eventually switch to 4.0 is irrelevant. I benefit either way.

The Exchange

I think it is also worth noting that magic weapons 'suffer'. The 'Flame' effect only adds to your damage if you critical. It is like 'Flaming' is gone and you can only go directly to 'Flaming Burst'. I presume this works with fewer magic items and added levels/abilities. You should still be doing more damage as you go up in level, but apparently it comes from different power sources. I would guess it also helps prevent 'Min-Maxing'. Probably a good overall idea, but will people find ways to circumvent the intent?

Basically 3.5 multi-classing, Magic Weapons and Crticals can be abused. But hopefully 4.0 level abilities, fewer 'multi-classing' options, modified magic weapons and modified critcials will prevent 4.0 game abuse. Time will tell.

But this is an intriguing point. I keep thinking of all these rule changes idividually. I like some of the changes, I am indifferent to some, and I dislike some. I worry they will combine in bad ways. But if it is done right, the overall effect may be good. Again, time will tell.

This topic might deserve a thread: What will the synergy of all these rule changes be? Do some build together to enrich the entire experience? Or will it be a train wreak?

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Hmm... I don't like it. Unless they're completely changing damage dice for weapons, things like daggers and axes will be pretty much worthless. I'll wait to see if that's the case before I officially crap on this rules change, though. If they make greataxes do obscene amounts of damage (say 2d10 compared to a greatsword's 2d6) and other such modifications, it might be okay... but then greatswords would be worthless. Hmph.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013

I like dropping the confirmation roll, but I still want fighter types to be able to extend their crit range. Stretching to a 19-20 seems very worth a feat. The question is: would it only apply to a weapon or class of weapons?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
ancientsensei wrote:
I like dropping the confirmation roll, but I still want fighter types to be able to extend their crit range. Stretching to a 19-20 seems very worth a feat. The question is: would it only apply to a weapon or class of weapons?

Unless they've changed it since then, one of the earliest developers' articles said that different weapons would have different abilities or styles for the fighter using them. Comparing how much a weapon hits for with a crit probably isn't going to be the end-all for judging weapons against each other.

Dark Archive

Fatespinner wrote:
Hmm... I don't like it.

Can't say that I like it either.

Now if you have a mob of kobolds trying to hit the AC 58 fighter and only (auto) hitting on a 20, now all those (granted infrequent) hits are crits as well?

Nope. Don't like it one bit.
Oh well.


FabesMinis wrote:
Halvdan wrote:
FabesMinis wrote:
Low Level characters will have more hp in 4E as well so a crit won't have the insta-kill potential for a 1st level PC (or so current thinking goes)
Oh nice, I might be able to play a wizard that doesn't get killed by a summer breeze.
Breeze attack 1d6+1 = 7. Sorry Merlin, you're down to -3 and bleeding. :D

ha you know once i had a wizard whose party got caught in an ambush, Elven wizard no less, by a bunch of woodelves for entering their forest without permission. Out of all the shots the DM fired at us, I was the only one to get hit, and I went to -1... thankfully the elves turned out to be a little more friendly once the insane thief in the party was restrained and they saw a couple of elves, one now dying from an arrow wound, in the party.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well here's the article for anyone who hasn't seen it yet...

WOTC wrote:


Critical Hits
It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Crit-Mas

To score a critical hit in 4th Edition D&D, do the following:

Roll 20.

Simple enough, right? Just one number to remember. And more importantly, just one roll.

Yes, the confirmation roll is gone. So why did we get rid of it? Because we, like so many players, had rolled crits only to have the confirmation roll miss. And we didn't like it. We don't think that many people did. (I look forward to reading the posts of people who disagree.) Having one roll is faster, and it's more fun. It keeps the excitement of the 20, and ditches the disappointment of the failure to confirm.

Critical Damage
Here's the part that's going to take some getting used to: Critical hits don't deal double damage. This changed because doubling everything 5% of the time led to some pretty crazy spikes that were very unpredictable.

Let's say you roll a crit with a power that deals 1d10+4 normally. So the crit deals 2d10+8. The next turn, the monster attacks you using a power that deals 3d6+4 damage. He crits, dealing 6d6+8. Between the extra dice and the doubled ability modifier, that's a pretty huge difference! (And a pretty painful one.)

Instead, when you roll a critical hit, all the dice are maximized. So your 1d10+4 power deals 14 damage and the monster's 3d6+4 deals 22. Generally speaking, randomness is more of an advantage to monsters than PCs. More predictable critical damage keeps monsters from insta-killing your character.

Having maximized dice also helps out when you have multitarget attacks. You'll roll an attack roll against each target, so maximized dice keep you from needing to roll a bunch of dice over and over -- you can just write your crit damage on your character sheet for quick reference.

Beefing Up Your Crits
PCs also have some extra tricks up their sleeves to make their criticals better. Magic weapons (and implements for magical attacks) add extra damage on crits. So your +1 frost warhammer deals an extra 1d6 damage on a critical hit (so your crit's now up to 14+1d6 damage in the example above). Monsters don't get this benefit, so PC crits outclass monster crits most of the time.

Crits can be improved in a couple of other ways. Weapons can have the high crit property, giving extra dice on a crit. Like this:

Weapon Prof. Damage Range Cost Weight Category Properties
War pick 2 d8 -- 15 gp 6 lb. Pick High crit, versatile

In addition, some powers and magic items have extra effects on a hit. So crits are doing just fine without all those dice.

Crits in Play
In playtest, it does seem like critical hits come up more often. The subtitle of this article is stolen from Chris Tulach, who sings a bit of, "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Crit-mas" whenever the natural 20s come out to play. Fortunately, hit points are higher, especially at low levels, so there's a bigger buffer to keep those crits from killing people too quickly. It still feels great to roll one, but the fight goes on.

We've tried to corral the numbers but keep the feel that a critical hit is a special event. So grab your d20 and your big, nasty magic axe, and get ready to crit for the fences!


Barrow Wight wrote:

I've been an outspoken opponent of 4th in nearly every way, shape, and form - but I have to love how they gave up on the range of crit threat numbers and made a crit only on a natural 20 again. Then, they max the dice instead of doubling the dice. (See the new article in Dragon for the whole article.) While obviously the 20 rule has been around before, the full damage is new (for me) I haven't used it in a game yet, but I think I really like it - it does seem a little too lethal for lower level characters - so maybe I might still like the idea of the confirmation roll. But then again - it might not. Hmm...

What do you think?

We used max damage on 20 back in AD&D...

My favorite critical hit system was the root of the Confirmation Roll - the optional system in 2e which said "If you roll a Natural 20 you get an immediate extra attack with all the same modifiers to hit and damage". Simple, elegant, and could "Explode" on a few lucky rolls of 20...

I like this change, actually.

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I guess I am the only person who likes crit-confirmation rolls.


I played around with a number of house crit systems in 2e. The natural 20 auto hit = critical was one of the reoccuring problems. I finally decided that if a character could only strike a target on a natural 20, that the hit was the "critical" and extra effect happened. It may seem a bit unfair, the players were cool with it and it was easy to deal with.

That said, if a crit in 4.0 just deals max damage, then allowing it on an auto hit is probably fine.

One thing I am curious about is the part where a monster's critical hits may not be as potent as that of PCs. I am not sure if I like that, a least when it comes to major villains.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
WOTC wrote:

Maximized dice keep you from needing to roll a bunch of dice over and over -- you can just write your crit damage on your character sheet for quick reference.

I don't like this aspect of it at all. It's fun to roll damage, especially when you get to roll lots of dice (presumably cuz you're unable to very often).

Further, it is scary when the DM starts counting out all those d6s for his dragon's fireball -- everyone holds their breath as he counts up the little 3s, 4s and (hopefully few) 6s -- all the while praying for a handful of 1s.

And that's more fun than knowing how much dmg every time. It lessens the nat 20 impact.

As I describe in Heath's Critical Hits Thread in the "General Discussion" area, I definetly like going back to a nat 20 = crit. But double damage -- or Empowered damage even, would be more fun.

-W. E. Ray


I don't like it.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure it plays fine. And I am sure it works as intended.

My problem is that this way is a munchkins wet dream.

It will take nearly no work at all to determine the best one or two weapons, and no other weapons will be used. (3.X at least required some statistical knowledge to figure out the best weapons... Crits are static across the board and no multipliers makes it quick and easy to see exactly how many weapons suck.)


Mactaka wrote:
I guess I am the only person who likes crit-confirmation rolls.

Nope. I dislike everything about the 4e crit system (assuming it has been described correctly). I like crit ranges, confirmation rolls, and multiple damage rolls.

Looks like I'll be putting yet another check-mark on the "Con" side of my "should I switch to 4e?" balance sheet.

The Exchange

Halvdan wrote:
FabesMinis wrote:
Low Level characters will have more hp in 4E as well so a crit won't have the insta-kill potential for a 1st level PC (or so current thinking goes)
Oh nice, I might be able to play a wizard that doesn't get killed by a summer breeze.

... or a house cat.


Erik Mona wrote:
Max damage seems a little underwhelming, but I like crits on a 20 and no confirmation roll.

Not nearly as underwhelming as confirming your crit then dealing 2 points of damage. Now that's anticlimactic.


I have to agree that the confirmation roll DID make for a great anti-climax. I remember the "WHOO! Nat 20!" cries made by players when they did that. Now its a semi-enthused "ooh", followed by either a "sweet" or a sigh.

I see the logic behind confirmation rolls, as it didnt make sense that non-combat characters would either miss or get a brutal lucky shot in. Now, its not as extreme. A wizards max weapon damage will probably be less than the fighter's average damage.

For those that think that the numerous changes being employed dont necessitate a new edition, you would likely complain because you would have a haphazard patching of new rules on top of old ones that would require you to reference several books just to make one character, which would probably just confuse the heck out of new players who arent sure which rule supercedes which.

They arent making a "few rules changes", its a very big overhaul. If you like most of the new changes, apply the ones you DO like to your current game and dont buy into 4E.


Sean Robson wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
Max damage seems a little underwhelming, but I like crits on a 20 and no confirmation roll.
Not nearly as underwhelming as confirming your crit then dealing 2 points of damage. Now that's anticlimactic.

As opposed to dealing what? 2-4 points of damage depending on how the coin landed?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So I would have to say as written I dont like this, BUT it has potential. I have to give this rule idea a check on the CON and PRO side.....which brings my total to 100 CON and 1 PRO.

ANYWAY

I would have it, if you dont use a confirmation die roll then max out the first damage and add random value die to second damage.
EXAMPLE: Fighter rolls natural 20 using a long sword. Ok thats 8 pts of damage. Now add a second 1d8 roll. You are still doing more damage than a regular maxed out roll, but you get a lil extra.


Molech wrote:
WOTC wrote:

Maximized dice keep you from needing to roll a bunch of dice over and over -- you can just write your crit damage on your character sheet for quick reference.

I don't like this aspect of it at all. It's fun to roll damage, especially when you get to roll lots of dice (presumably cuz you're unable to very often).

Further, it is scary when the DM starts counting out all those d6s for his dragon's fireball -- everyone holds their breath as he counts up the little 3s, 4s and (hopefully few) 6s -- all the while praying for a handful of 1s.

And that's more fun than knowing how much dmg every time. It lessens the nat 20 impact.

As I describe in Heath's Critical Hits Thread in the "General Discussion" area, I definetly like going back to a nat 20 = crit. But double damage -- or Empowered damage even, would be more fun.

-W. E. Ray

Except that a dragon couldnt crit with his breath weapon. Also, crits from monsters can seriously mess with the party, especially in the middle of the fight when you are expecting, say, something in the 25-50 damage range and suddenly get 75 damage thrown your way. That could end up wiping out your fighter who was waiting for a cure from the cleric (who isnt doing anything else anyway), which will then in turn spell disaster for the rest of the party. TPK, here we go!

In all seriousness, I often overlook crits from my boss monsters because too often it will just take out a PC, and I dont like having a character die just from one bad roll. I prefer the characters to kind of, deserve the death, either by a series of misfortunate events, or by their own blatant stupidity.

This way, at least the damage falls within a more reasonable level. Its still unexpected and extreme.

Also, rolling all that dice can take a long time, and newer players might not understand completely which dice they are supposed to multiply. Roll that in with the fact that most characters that arent primary warriors will often miss that confirmation roll (and thus, miss out on the crit), and you got a pretty stale natural 20.
I think its a good thing also, because now many more things can crit, meaning that when you roll that breath weapon now, players are gonna hold their breath and pray that it doesnt land on 20.

Finally, we dont know how all the mechanics of a crit are going to work. We dont know if there is going to be an Empowered Critical feat that adds 50% damage on top of the maximum value, or if there will be abilities that grant bonus damage to crits (as some magic traits do), or what the "high crit" weapon quality does.

Dark Archive

Antioch wrote:
Molech wrote:
WOTC wrote:

Maximized dice keep you from needing to roll a bunch of dice over and over -- you can just write your crit damage on your character sheet for quick reference.

I don't like this aspect of it at all. It's fun to roll damage, especially when you get to roll lots of dice (presumably cuz you're unable to very often).

Further, it is scary when the DM starts counting out all those d6s for his dragon's fireball -- everyone holds their breath as he counts up the little 3s, 4s and (hopefully few) 6s -- all the while praying for a handful of 1s.

And that's more fun than knowing how much dmg every time. It lessens the nat 20 impact.

As I describe in Heath's Critical Hits Thread in the "General Discussion" area, I definetly like going back to a nat 20 = crit. But double damage -- or Empowered damage even, would be more fun.

-W. E. Ray

Except that a dragon couldnt crit with his breath weapon. Also, crits from monsters can seriously mess with the party, especially in the middle of the fight when you are expecting, say, something in the 25-50 damage range and suddenly get 75 damage thrown your way. That could end up wiping out your fighter who was waiting for a cure from the cleric (who isnt doing anything else anyway), which will then in turn spell disaster for the rest of the party. TPK, here we go!

In all seriousness, I often overlook crits from my boss monsters because too often it will just take out a PC, and I dont like having a character die just from one bad roll. I prefer the characters to kind of, deserve the death, either by a series of misfortunate events, or by their own blatant stupidity.

This way, at least the damage falls within a more reasonable level. Its still unexpected and extreme.

Also, rolling all that dice can take a long time, and newer players might not understand completely which dice they are supposed to multiply. Roll that in with the fact that most characters that arent primary warriors will often miss that...

Oh yeah, that's right. Characters don't die in 4th edition. Or do they just have to run back from the graveyard?

It really bugs me that a magical weapon doesn't do the same thing in the hands of an npc as they do in the hands of a pc. That just doesn't make any sense in character or out. A pc male human cleric of pelor is different from an npc male human cleric of pelor how? Also, part of earning a magical weapon (imho) is surviving the fight against the guy who's using it against you. That doesn't really work if the guy you're fighting against isn't allowed to use it to it's full potential because he's not a pc. Lame.

I also dislike the removal of threat range and multipliers because it takes away what gave different weapons in game differences while still being balanced. In 1st and 2nd edition it was obvious which weapons were best because they did more damage and there wasn't much of difference other than that (everyone used a longsword or two-handed sword). 3rd edition made axed and hammers and other weapons playable, cool, and balanced. If that changes it will be a step in the wrong directions.

The Exchange

Erik Mona wrote:
Max damage seems a little underwhelming, but I like crits on a 20 and no confirmation roll.

Guess that would give reasons to use the critical hit deck without modification. ;-)

Dark Archive

The high AC baddie paradox, which can be hit only by auto-confirmed critical hits, invalidates this change (for me, obviously).


I have not been a big fan of the info they have been releasing about 4e and I'm not sure whether the 'max damage' critical is good or bad.

Maximum just seems anticlimatic.

One good thing that they have mentioned is the 'no save or die' rules.

Petrifying gaze and death attacks were always something I kept to a minimum as one run of bad rolls could wipe out the party. A medusa once got three out of four characters in a single round.

And death magic was even worse in that you needed a 7th level spell to undo the effects.

So that particular idea seems to work, but there has to be something more to a critical hit.

Maybe a bit of STR damage (or another ability) to make it feel more significant. Even a scar is better than nothing, but that really only affects recurring villains or player characters.


Everything is trending toward less dice rolling, from crits, to character creation, static saves etc. ... and less randomness.

Now, it's a matter of taste, but a lot of the fun for me at the table is rolling the dice, leaving my character's fate to chance. If I don't get to roll, what's the fun? And if everything is already predetermined by my character build, then we're just plugging numbers to get results.

Some folks like diceless games. I don't.

I need to see some preview stuff where I get to roll some dice soon, or I'll be joining the 3.5 crowd soon.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Maybe ive missed something but how is this simpler than the old system?
What i mean is from the way they seem to have described it i would think if you had a character with a magic weapon and a few of those feats they are talking about then would it not quickly become complicated? (well at least as complicated as the current system anyway)


Wow, the ONE of very few things I actually like about 4th Edition that COULD'VE easily been applied to 3rd Edition with a wave of the WotC's Magic Wand.

Again, 3E was just one big 4E playtesting ground, I believe. Until I personally see WotC's records myself, nothing will convince me otherwise.

Sovereign Court

I've seen many a time where a player rolled a critical threat, but failed to confirm, and felt a little disappointed. I've also seen players look on fearfully when, as GM, I've rolled a critical threat against them, and then waited for the confirmation roll. They've breathed a hearty sigh of relief when the crit wasn't confirmed. Mind you, I also use the Instant Kill rule (nat 20, confirmed by nat 20, confirmed by successful hit roll), modified with a Fortitude save for PCs (as per Coup de Grace, DC 10 + damage dealt). So, I think I'll continue to use the current critical system for the time being, but will certainly look at 4E and use what works.


In addition, some powers and magic items have extra effects on a hit.
_____________________________________________________________________

Why do people say:"I like my crits to be more than max damage."

They will.

Powers or feat will likely enhance crits...even if WotC doesn't do it, you can. I'm sure there will be a power that give higher crit damage.

But it opens up some interresting options too. Crit with a mace, the target is stunned. Crit with a fireball, target catched fire. Crit with a slashing weapon, the target moves at half speed, etc.

This change could open the way to more crit diversity.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

The 8th Pagan wrote:

I have not been a big fan of the info they have been releasing about 4e and I'm not sure whether the 'max damage' critical is good or bad.

Maximum just seems anticlimatic.

Maybe a bit of STR damage (or another ability) to make it feel more significant. Even a scar is better than nothing, but that really only affects recurring villains or player characters.

I like my save or dies, thank you :P

And I see where you're coming from with ability damamge, like the rogue special ability. But I think I've seen that ability damage is going the way of the dodo as well.


Crodocile wrote:
Antioch wrote:
Molech wrote:
WOTC wrote:

Maximized dice keep you from needing to roll a bunch of dice over and over -- you can just write your crit damage on your character sheet for quick reference.

I don't like this aspect of it at all. It's fun to roll damage, especially when you get to roll lots of dice (presumably cuz you're unable to very often).

Further, it is scary when the DM starts counting out all those d6s for his dragon's fireball -- everyone holds their breath as he counts up the little 3s, 4s and (hopefully few) 6s -- all the while praying for a handful of 1s.

And that's more fun than knowing how much dmg every time. It lessens the nat 20 impact.

As I describe in Heath's Critical Hits Thread in the "General Discussion" area, I definetly like going back to a nat 20 = crit. But double damage -- or Empowered damage even, would be more fun.

-W. E. Ray

Except that a dragon couldnt crit with his breath weapon. Also, crits from monsters can seriously mess with the party, especially in the middle of the fight when you are expecting, say, something in the 25-50 damage range and suddenly get 75 damage thrown your way. That could end up wiping out your fighter who was waiting for a cure from the cleric (who isnt doing anything else anyway), which will then in turn spell disaster for the rest of the party. TPK, here we go!

In all seriousness, I often overlook crits from my boss monsters because too often it will just take out a PC, and I dont like having a character die just from one bad roll. I prefer the characters to kind of, deserve the death, either by a series of misfortunate events, or by their own blatant stupidity.

This way, at least the damage falls within a more reasonable level. Its still unexpected and extreme.

Also, rolling all that dice can take a long time, and newer players might not understand completely which dice they are supposed to multiply. Roll that in with the fact that most characters that arent primary warriors...

Need, another cheap WoW slam, that never gets old. Do PCs only ever get killed in your games by critical hits? If not, then I guess they will still die in your games just the same.

The article DID state that "monsters" wont get this benefit, so that PC crits will outclass them "most" of the time.
Also, you must have missed the bit on weapons in an earlier Design & Development posting: weapons will have more than crit mod/multipliers to make them balanced and "unique".


Razz wrote:

Wow, the ONE of very few things I actually like about 4th Edition that COULD'VE easily been applied to 3rd Edition with a wave of the WotC's Magic Wand.

Again, 3E was just one big 4E playtesting ground, I believe. Until I personally see WotC's records myself, nothing will convince me otherwise.

Which people would have complained about. Its kind of weird that some people think that Wizards could just somehow apply these changes with a new book, something that people would just whine about anyway.

I dont think that 3rd Edition was intentionally designed as a big global playtest. I do think that, as they said, they began work on 4th Edition a couple years after 3rd Edition's release as they were getting feedback on what people generally did and didnt like about the game.


Troy Taylor wrote:

Everything is trending toward less dice rolling, from crits, to character creation, static saves etc. ... and less randomness.

Now, it's a matter of taste, but a lot of the fun for me at the table is rolling the dice, leaving my character's fate to chance. If I don't get to roll, what's the fun? And if everything is already predetermined by my character build, then we're just plugging numbers to get results.

Some folks like diceless games. I don't.

I need to see some preview stuff where I get to roll some dice soon, or I'll be joining the 3.5 crowd soon.

I'm sure nothing will stop you from rolling your ability scores, especially since the "averages" of 10-11 arent changing at all. All thats being done is some dice rolling is removed. So, one roll is being removed from crits. Saving throws arent going entirely away, someone is still rolling against them.

I think that you can be expected to roll slightly less dice, but not by a huge amount.

1 to 50 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Critical hits in 4th edition All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.