|
One thing that I have never liked about 3.5 is the fact that you have to confirm critical hits. I understand that this most likely will not change because of backward compatability issues, but I would suggest reformimg the system anyway. One house rule that I have been using for a long time now is that critical hits do twice your maximum damage. This way a player is not penalized for a crappy damage roll on a critical hit. Imagine the half-orc barbarian with 18 strength and greataxe who flubs his damage roll and ends up only doing 15 points of damage on his critical hit. Compare that with the 48 damage that they would do if the did max damage. Remeber the excitment you used to feel when you rolled a critical? Its time to bring it back.
The counter to that analogy being that the only time the commoner hits is when he gets past all the fighter's defenses, and thus hits critically.
Basically, the Fighter is blocking attacks from the commoner so well, it has to be a blow that gets through to a weak spot that connects.
.
.
I dunno. I've never had a problem with crits as they are in 3.5e (or 3.0e with stacking Keen and Improved Crit).
The only change I'd be for is if they changed it so a crit does max damage + the second roll, instead of rolling twice or doubling a standard roll.
So a crit from a Longsword (1d8, x2), would be 8 + 1d8. Instead of 2d8 or 1d8x2.
A crit from an axe (1d8, x3), would be 8 + 2d8, etc.
This means your crits will always be higher than your standard attack rolls. Always. Even if you rolled a 1.
This ups the lethality on crits slightly, but only the average, as we are still within the same realm of potential damage, just more frequently higher than before.