Hey there,
I would put the following rule to discussion:
1) Critical hit chances are taken away from weapons and only occur on a natural 20 (increasing with certain feats/class abilities).
2) There is no confirmation roll.
3) If you hit your target (with the 20 + your bonuses) you inflict the maximum amount of damage possible by your attack (no dice rolling needed).
4) If you still miss even with a natural 20 rolled, you will hit anyhow and deal normal damage.
Hey there,
I would put the following rule to discussion:
1) Critical hit chances are taken away from weapons and only occur on a natural 20 (increasing with certain feats/class abilities).
2) There is no confirmation roll.
3) If you hit your target (with the 20 + your bonuses) you inflict the maximum amount of damage possible by your attack (no dice rolling needed).
4) If you still miss even with a natural 20 rolled, you will hit anyhow and deal normal damage.
This is pretty much exactly how Critical Hits are done in 4th edition.
Natural 20 only.No Confirmation Roll.
Max Damage and opposed to Double Damage.
I dont like it.
Certain weapons arent as good as other weapons but make up for it with a higher threat range. Thats actually cool.
And not having Confirmation Rolls is just all around bad IMO.
I love confirmiong critial hits. Its a good rule.
Hey there,
I would put the following rule to discussion:
1) Critical hit chances are taken away from weapons and only occur on a natural 20 (increasing with certain feats/class abilities).
2) There is no confirmation roll.
3) If you hit your target (with the 20 + your bonuses) you inflict the maximum amount of damage possible by your attack (no dice rolling needed).
4) If you still miss even with a natural 20 rolled, you will hit anyhow and deal normal damage.
This is pretty much exactly how Critical Hits are done in 4th edition.
Natural 20 only.
No Confirmation Roll.
Max Damage and opposed to Double Damage.I dont like it.
Certain weapons arent as good as other weapons but make up for it with a higher threat range. Thats actually cool.And not having Confirmation Rolls is just all around bad IMO.
I love confirming critical hits. Its a good rule.
Not only that, but there are a number of abilities that negate the need for confirmation rolls (barbarian's Mighty Swing)
Funny, because I REALLY hate confirmation rolls. They just slow everything down. The same goes for the damage multipliers.
And it's like:
1) 20! Yeah! Critical! *rolls confirmation* ... no, it's not... :(
2) 20! Yeah! Critical! *confirms* Yeah! *rolls damage* ...4 points... :(
1) 20! Yeah! Critical! *rolls confirmation* ... no, it's not... :(
It's still a hit and not a miss. Stop frouning. :)
Also my players like the tension of confirming a critical. When a possible crit is rolled and we are in a corny mood we all beat a drumroll onthe table as the player rolls to confirm.plus is 20s are atutomatic crits it tips the probability scales in favor of the monsters.
2) 20! Yeah! Critical! *confirms* Yeah! *rolls damage* ...4 points... :(
True this does sometimes happen.
A weapon that causes 1d8 damage on a critical can still only do 2 points....but you could also get 16!With the 4th edition rules you would get 8...Never any more and never any less.
I know its personal opinion but I dont care for it.
...plus is 20s are atutomatic crits it tips the probability scales in favor of the monsters.
WHAT? Is the DM leading the game or the dice? If I don't want a monster to crit it just don't. Basta.
But I tend to see that this specific topic is much about personal favor...
|
Our gaming group has adopted this rule. Our focus has been ways to expedite play.
1. Critical hit automatic with natural 20. For weapons with ranges greater than 20, e.g., 19-20, 18-20, a lower roll in the range only results in a critical if the attack actually hits.
2. If you roll a natural 20 (or a critical with a weapon with a greater threat range), you can roll again. A second natural 20 (or critical with a weapon with a greater threat range) = Instant Kill.
3. Improved Critical feat stacks with keen weapons.
4. Condition Track. Any damage exceeding the character's Con score causes that character's attacks, damage, skill, and saves to be penalized by -1. (A second blow exceeding the character's Con score = -1, a third = -5, fourth = -10. At -5, the character can only make a standard or move action. At -10, the character is unconscious and dying.)
5. Melee Damage = Weapon Damage + Str Mod + 1/2 CL.
Ranged Damage = Weapon Damage + 1/2 CL.
Two-handed Melee = double Str Mod to damage.
Grapple attacks = BAB + Str or Dex (Player's strongest attribute).
So far, we haven't noticed any imbalance, and if anything, it makes the seriousness of a battle that much more.
My group uses 2d10 instead of d20. Our houserule is that a natural 20 is an automatic confirmed critical hit. If the die roll is within the threat range of the weapon but not a natural 20 then you have to roll again to confirm the critical hit.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
I vote leaving Critical Hits, and confirmation rolls exactly as is.
I don't see anything wrong, difficult, broken, or slowing the game down about it.
Sometimes, you're fighting a monster above your CR, it has a high AC, and some characters can ONLY hit that AC on a natural 20. Removing confirmation rolls is bad maths and poor flavour. It says "not only are you TOO WEAK to hit this opponent, but if you DO manage to strike it, you do DOUBLE damage???" That just makes NO sense. THIS is why the confirmation roll is required, to confirm that you actually have the SKILL required to pull it off.
Actually, in the example above, the encounter is probably telling you that one-on-one combat with this creature is a bad idea - you should be handling the encounter a different way, eg Aid Another: you only have to hit AC10 to provide an ally with a +2 bonus to attack or +2 bonus to his AC, you don't have to be the party's main fighting machine to tip the odds in your favour.
Don't dismiss confirmation rolls for using better tactics!
It does add a certain cinematic suspense to the moment as you wait to see whether the critical is confirmed or not.
Critical Hits are one of those mechanics that people will house-rule anyway. Leave confirmation rolls in for those of us who enjoy it. Let those who don't, house-rule it away.
WHAT? Is the DM leading the game or the dice? If I don't want a monster to crit it just don't. Basta.
But I tend to see that this specific topic is much about personal favor...
I would usually consider myself one of the first people to point out that the GM has ultimate control of the game, but not in this situation.
I don't believe a core mechanics of the game should be written in a way that encourages GM fudging. This concept does exactly that (unless the GM simply refuses, in which case the monsters do indeed gain a sizable advantage).
OK, my opinion on the matter; a big NO to removing the critical threat/hit setup. It's a great setup and adds a certain amount of tension, and is a very 3rd edition thing. So no on removing it.
Does it need some tweaking? Maybe. I've always felt it had a bit of clunkiness to it. And the argument of doubling that 1 point of damage for a critical hit does have merit.
I do personally lean towards the max damage for the critical threat roll, with the additional critical damage rolled normally, so that even with a minimum roll of 1 does not detract from the critical hit. Even the threat roll can be controlled by this.
Example 1 - Bubba the 'fighter' is hitting the 'Monster AC16' with a longsword and rolls a 19 (critical threat). Rolling to confirm, he rolls a total 17, thus confirming the critical. Damage will be 8 (max for threat), + a roll of 3 on a d8, + 2 doubled for Str 14 (hypothetically), for a total of 15.
Example 2 - Bubba the 'fighter' is hitting the 'Monster AC16' with a longsword and rolls a 19 (critical threat). Rolling to confirm, he rolls a total of 7, thus not confirming. Damage will be 8 (max for threat), + 2 for Str 14 (hypothetically), for a total of 10.
Example 3 - Bubba the 'fighter' is hitting the 'Monster AC16' with a Scythe and rolls a 20 (critical threat). Rolling to confirm, he rolls a total 17, thus confirming the critical. Damage will be 8 (max for threat), + rolls of 3,4,5 on 3 rolls of 2d4, + 2 quadrupled for Str 14 (hypothetically), for a total of 28.
All the while the players are waiting breathlessly, drum-rolling and so on. :)
This is something that I think could be tweaked easily into the 3.P system, and it is something that is good for the players, max damage for at least getting a critical threat! No one enjoys finally hitting something hard, then just rolling min damage against the beastie.
This is my thoughts on a tweak that could be used. Any others? Thoughts?
|
If I do max damage with my dagger, I'm still only doing a little bit of damage. How is that different from just rolling max damage without getting a crit.? I actually think your whole system is a little bit odd. Why have confirmation at all (step three), just do the crit.
More to the point, this ruins most weapons. I mean, who wants a pick now? Everyone will just wield great swords and crossbows. Wonderful. You've broken D&D. I won't lie, this just sounds like the words of someone whose gotten critically thumped by too many monsters and had to make a new PC at a lower level or something.
It's not broken. While you might be right with the dagger damage, IF the crit stuff would be taken away from the weapons, they have to be reworked naturally.
Especially adjusting the damage for sure. Light pick and handaxe would make the same damage as would heavy pick and battle axe. But the pick would be piercing while the axe would be slashing.
I am also totally for the weapon used should be more a flavor thing than actuall stat min-maxing. That's for MMORPGs but not for ROLEplaying.
|
|
If I do max damage with my dagger, I'm still only doing a little bit of damage. How is that different from just rolling max damage without getting a crit.? I actually think your whole system is a little bit odd. Why have confirmation at all (step three), just do the crit.
More to the point, this ruins most weapons. I mean, who wants a pick now? Everyone will just wield great swords and crossbows. Wonderful. You've broken D&D. I won't lie, this just sounds like the words of someone whose gotten critically thumped by too many monsters and had to make a new PC at a lower level or something.
With my house rules, a knife fighter can become a serious threat - as he should.
1. Weapon Finesse.
2. Weapon Focus.
3. Improved Critical.
4. 1/2 CL to Damage.
5. Natural 20 = critical. Roll 19 = critical if hits (i.e., 19-20).
6. I haven't implemented this yet, but one question - Dex Mod instead of Str Mod to damage with weapon finesse?
4) I would suggest 1/2 or full BAB on damage.
6) Might be ok, since it's just working for light weapons and those special finesse weapons.
I broke D&D? Does that make me epic?
You want me to try? That might be fun...
The main thing that is diruptive about criticals is multiplying the damage beyond the weapon's base damage (Strength damage, Power attack damage, etc.). I'd like to see the confirmation remain (there's a lot of potential there that's actually unused) and change crits to just multiple the base weapon damage and/or maximize that damage. No more critical for 2 points of damage.
On the confirmation rolls, I think you could design several armor features for fighters around the confirmation rolls. Greaves, Bracers, Codpieces and the like might not add to actual AC, but could add against confirmation rolls. This would be a form of "poor man's fortification" for the meleer's.
The critical hit tables from 4E are one of the things I actually like. It's simple, and it keeps the munchkin Improved critical + keen weapon + mercurial weapon oh I was power attacking and look I just did 60+ damage with my x3 weapon.
I made a character like this using a Falchion years ago, and after tossing the character I vowed to not allow that breed of character in any of my games. To each his own, my groups used to play with modified Rolemaster crit tables, and while it was fun to get a lucky crit removing your opponents spleen, it was more gritty than most of my players liked, especially when they were on the receiving side of the crit.
The max damage averages out almost exactly the same as doubling the damage (save the doubling of the strength bonus I guess) and saves a lot of extra rolling that just adds to the monotonous drawl that 3.5 and 3.e combat becomes sometimes. Finding ways to speed up combat is good in my opinion.
|
|
It's simple, and it keeps the munchkin Improved critical + keen weapon + mercurial weapon
You do realize that in the description for improved crit and keen weapon, it CLEARLY states that they CAN NOT be stacked? I've had so many players over the years try this, and again and again I must remind them that it doesn't work. Not sure about the Mercurial weapon, don't own the book.
The key here is that they are trying to be backwards compatible. If you changed every weapon, that would make it not backwards compatible. If you want new weapons and really super-duper new rules, go join the 4e boat. It's my understanding that they have cookies.
Hey there,
I would put the following rule to discussion:
1) Critical hit chances are taken away from weapons and only occur on a natural 20 (increasing with certain feats/class abilities).
2) There is no confirmation roll.
3) If you hit your target (with the 20 + your bonuses) you inflict the maximum amount of damage possible by your attack (no dice rolling needed).
4) If you still miss even with a natural 20 rolled, you will hit anyhow and deal normal damage.
Never. You can have that in that 4e non-D&D, but I want to keep the confirmation roll, the different multpliers, as well as the non-max damage.
You can houserule the other stuff in, but it won't be standard. Basta.
|
I'd like to see the confirmation remain (there's a lot of potential there that's actually unused) and change crits to just multiple the base weapon damage and/or maximize that damage. No more critical for 2 points of damage.
I think that confirmation should remain. A critical threat does max damage, and a critical hit should do the weapon's critical multiplier of maximum damage. In normal combat, every hit has two rolls - to hit, then damage. This method preserves the normal two hits - to hit, then confirmation. Players get that "Woo hoo! Natural 20!" excitement even if they don't crit, and you don't add any extra dice rolling to combats that already can get bogged down.
I've never been a fan of confirmation rolls myself, so I wouldn't mind seeing them go away. After all, I don't make the players do a confirmation roll on natural 1, I just grin evilly >:)
I've never been a fan of confirmation rolls myself, so I wouldn't mind seeing them go away. After all, I don't make the players do a confirmation roll on natural 1, I just grin evilly >:)
My group does require a confirmation role on a natural 1. If the second roll fails, only then is it a botch/fumble/critical failure. If the system requires confirmation for critical hits then it should for critical failure as well.
I personally like the concept of confirming both critical successes and critical failures. Given the probability of the d20, I dislike the idea that 5% of the time the most highly trained and competent person can suffer a critical failure. COnversely, the most inept and untrained person has a 5% chance of a critical success. Requiring confirmation means that more skilled person is much more likely to achieve a critical success and much less likely to suffer a critical failure.
Sidenote: because of the above mechanics, my group prefers 2d10 to 1d20 for tests. Using 2d10, a natural 20 and a natural 2 have only a 1% chance. Achieving a natural 11 is 55%. Which is much more acceptable to my group. For attack criticals, we do not require a confirmation on a natura 20, but do for a weapon that crits on a natural 19 or lower.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I like crits the way they are, and it would seriously screw with the various existing weapons from all over d20-dom. Plus, this really is only one step away from "small sword-medium sword-large sword," which might work in some games, but isn't how D&D has done it over the years.
There is nothing wrong with confirmation rolls, and it gives you a lot of room for abilities that auto confirm or make confirmation rolls easier.
If you make crits change with different weapons and create crit tree feats and the like, you are creating a whole new sub system to the game, and one that is a lot closer to 4e's way of doing things than 3.5's, which may be fine for some people, but its not exactly "tweaking 3.5" anymore at that point.
|
|
I think that confirmation should remain. A critical threat does max damage, and a critical hit should do the weapon's critical multiplier of maximum damage. In normal combat, every hit has two rolls - to hit, then damage. This method preserves the normal two hits - to hit, then confirmation. Players get that "Woo hoo! Natural 20!" excitement even if they don't crit, and you don't add any extra dice rolling to combats that already can get bogged down.I'd like to see the confirmation remain (there's a lot of potential there that's actually unused) and change crits to just multiple the base weapon damage and/or maximize that damage. No more critical for 2 points of damage.
I don't know... I don't like that automatical max. damage, because a fighter who had Devastating Blow with scythe would make DMs weep. Also, just like in 4E, it would feel odd if low-level monsters, PCs and NPCs would always inflict max. damage when they hit a being with a high AC.
Here's my suggestion:
Natural 20: Regardless of whether you confirm the critical or not, you get your LVL*1/2 bonus to damage. If your confirmation roll succeeds, you do not multiply this bonus damage -- it is simply added to the final result. This would make natural 20 feel more significant at higher levels -- whether your actually "crit" or not.
NOTE: This could also apply to Skill Checks, too -- you would add 1/2*LVL to the end result (which would affect such skills as Craft, Perform or Profession, at least)?
Another suggestion:
Natural 20: Instead of applying any "level-based" bonus damage, each weapon could have 'Qualities' that would grant "special" effects on natural 20, such as Stunning with bludgeoning weapons? (NOTE: In Warhammer FRP every weapon has Traits/Qualities that, for example, occasionally let you stun your opponent or roll twice for damage and pick the better result). Maybe you could even improve these Qualities with Feats, such as taking 'Stunning Strike' (+4 to FORT DCs against Stunning when you're using a weapon that has this quality)? Piercing Weapons might have 'Bleeding' (which would stack with the rogue's ability), and 2-H weapons might do 1 point of CON damage. And so on.
Thoughts?
Nah. Keep 3e's way of dealing with crits.
I like the drama of the confirmation roll. I like how different weapons are more or less likely to do crits, or more or less devastating on crits.
I don't like changes that force you to change the whole weapons table, or that just add level into anything (that just doesn't make sense).
|
|
Nah. Keep 3e's way of dealing with crits.
I like the drama of the confirmation roll. I like how different weapons are more or less likely to do crits, or more or less devastating on crits.
I don't like changes that force you to change the whole weapons table, or that just add level into anything (that just doesn't make sense).
Oh, I was not suggesting that confirmation rolls should be removed -- on the contrary! My suggestions would, however, be "extra stuff" that happens with threats/crits.
The first change is easy -- each weapon is simply "tagged" with a few keywords. Come to think of it, that's not even necessary -- you could just include a couple of lines like: "Bludgeoning weapons can stun opponents on a natural 20 (1d4 rounds for small weapons, 1d6 rounds for medium weapons and 2d6 rounds for large weapons). The DC is 10 + your STR modifier and +1/2*your LVL for small weapons, DC 15 plus modifiers for medium weapons, and DC 20 plus modifiers for large weapons".
NOTE: This is exactly what happens when a monk uses Stunning Fist and rolls a natural 20.
As for that level-based damage -- it would add a simple number to the total damage, and would make Natural 20s feel more special even in cases they don't "crit". And low-level/low-HD beings (such as goblins or kobolds or typical orcs) would add +0 to the damage, while 20th level PCs would add +10. I think it's actually quite simple, right?
The only change I would consider would be making the Threat (can hits a target) automatically do max damage, to alleviate the issue of wimpy crit rolls.
I don't mind making all criticals somewhat devastating hits.. it's kind of the point of criticals.
I also don't see how it would break the weapon system either. Running the average damage math on a rapier (d6, 18-20) vs longsword (d8, 19-20) vs axe (d8, 20 x3), the actual difference in average damage gets smaller (and the change is .025 points in making the rapier catch up).
I don't really see the drawback, unless some really wild weapon crit types get swingier results.
|
Here's my house rule.
You always gain atleast full damage from 1 damage die.
Examples
Longsword (x2) 8+1d8
Battleaxe (x3) 8+2d8
Pick, heavy (x4) 6+3d6
IMO critting with a longsword and hitting for 2 wasn't really a crit was it, and just doing 8 doesn't even make critting worth while since you'll never do more than normal damage. This way a crit will always do more damage than an average swing, while still allowing some truly damaging hits.
|
|
Here's my houserule:
Natural 20, automatic crit...utilize Crit Chart (been using one of these since 1st edition, and my players love it)
Roll within the Crit range (i.e. the Scimitar has 18-20, PC rolls a 18), roll another attack roll. If the second attack roll hit's use Crit Chart. If second attack roll misses use standard crit damage for the weapon per PHB.
Ya there is more rolling here, but i've found with my groups they enjoy the suspense in waiting for the dice roll.
While I see that my proposal doesn't appeal to most of you, I will just use it my games and leave it to that.
But since everybody started to post their system, I will clearify mine, since there was some (little) misunderstanding:
1) Crits only occur on a natural 20 (feats and other rules not taken into account)
2a) If you would have hit the enemy with your roll (nat20+modifiers >= AC) you inflict FULL damage.
2b) If you missed the enemy even with rolling the nat20, you hit nonetheless, but do NORMAL damage
3) The same goes for critical failures (nat1) with either missing normally (hit the enemy dispite the nat1) or suffering a fumble/botch (missing with the nat1)
4) There will be some (new) feats which improve or alter the changes and effects of critical hits/failures.
While I see that my proposal doesn't appeal to most of you, I will just use it my games and leave it to that.
But since everybody started to post their system, I will clearify mine, since there was some (little) misunderstanding:1) Crits only occur on a natural 20 (feats and other rules not taken into account)
2a) If you would have hit the enemy with your roll (nat20+modifiers >= AC) you inflict FULL damage.
2b) If you missed the enemy even with rolling the nat20, you hit nonetheless, but do NORMAL damage3) The same goes for critical failures (nat1) with either missing normally (hit the enemy dispite the nat1) or suffering a fumble/botch (missing with the nat1)
4) There will be some (new) feats which improve or alter the changes and effects of critical hits/failures.
I like confirmation rolls - they add to the tension and make for a nicer probability curve of critical hits.
Nevertheless, your system is not bad and I would find it acceptable. My main objection to the 4E system was that every hit is automatically a critical hit for weak monsters/characters attacking strong characters/monsters (weak/strong in terms of attack bonus and AC of course), but your system resolves that, so that's fine. I still prefer the current 3.X edition system, but your system would be acceptable too.
|
|
While I see that my proposal doesn't appeal to most of you, I will just use it my games and leave it to that.
But since everybody started to post their system, I will clearify mine, since there was some (little) misunderstanding:1) Crits only occur on a natural 20 (feats and other rules not taken into account)
2a) If you would have hit the enemy with your roll (nat20+modifiers >= AC) you inflict FULL damage.
2b) If you missed the enemy even with rolling the nat20, you hit nonetheless, but do NORMAL damage3) The same goes for critical failures (nat1) with either missing normally (hit the enemy dispite the nat1) or suffering a fumble/botch (missing with the nat1)
4) There will be some (new) feats which improve or alter the changes and effects of critical hits/failures.
I like confirmation rolls - they add to the tension and make for a nicer probability curve of critical hits.
Nevertheless, your system is not bad and I would find it acceptable. My main objection to the 4E system was that every hit is automatically a critical hit for weak monsters/characters attacking strong characters/monsters (weak/strong in terms of attack bonus and AC of course), but your system resolves that, so that's fine. I still prefer the current 3.X edition system, but your system would be acceptable too.
My suggestion for Natural 20 inflicting automatically (whether you confirm the actual crit or not) +1/2*LVL (or HD) points of extra damage would make rolling that 20 actually feel special *without* being an automatical crit for low-level/low-HD beings (i.e. 1st level characters or 1 HD monsters would add +0 to the total).
|
|
Here's my house rule.
You always gain atleast full damage from 1 damage die.
Examples
Longsword (x2) 8+1d8
Battleaxe (x3) 8+2d8
Pick, heavy (x4) 6+3d6IMO critting with a longsword and hitting for 2 wasn't really a crit was it, and just doing 8 doesn't even make critting worth while since you'll never do more than normal damage. This way a crit will always do more damage than an average swing, while still allowing some truly damaging hits.
Now this is actually an interesting solution. I must admit that often it bothers me to roll a crit and end up inflicting *less* damage that I would with a normal attack. Great idea, Diodric! :)
This system would be an elegant and simple solution to the problem. If Jason is reading this thread, I suggest that this would be made official. In any case I think I'll give it a shot in my own campaigns! :)
I wonder if you could add this to my suggestion about natural 20 -- if you confirm the crit, a 10th level character would inflict (with a greatsword) 2D6 + 12 (the "base" crit damage) +5 (*1/2 LVL) + other modifiers. Hmmm... I have to try it.
I was wondering if anyone else would like to see any "special effects" related to Natural 20/Crits, such as bludgeoning weapons potentially stunning opponents with a natural 20?