What is the current status of crits? One of the few things I've liked about 4E was getting rid of needing to roll to confirm a crit. What good reason is there for keeping yet another roll that serves only to frustrate players?
|
Never ever confirmed crits and fumbles since i started playing the game in over 30 years. Just make sure the baddies are capable of rolling crits and fumbles as well. If players play smart... e.g. using terrain, roges, skills, etc, youll be just fine. Enjoy!
Btw, there are plenty of crit and fumble charts on the internet, just do a search.
Thoth-Amon
I think I prefer the crit confirming. As others have said, if critical hits can do X3 and X4 damage it is pretty important to make them a bit more rare (and the confirm roll helps achieve that). If we were to do away with the confirmation roll, then the damage should be reigned in more (perhaps like what 4E did).
Huh, well that's different. I've honestly never encountered that opinion before.
I don't think I'd want every single 20 to be a crit. They would be more common, they would seem less cool (that extra roll really creates a sense of "earning" it, rather than it being strictly luck), they would make it easier for crappy warriors to really hurt more powerful characters and they'd probably kill a lot more PCs than they do at present.
I guess I can see the "old school" appeal of doing it that way. Crits are fun, in a crazy kind of way, even when you're taking them.
If I did this I would eliminate the "20 always hits" rule, or at least, say that you don't get your crit unless you would have hit without that rule (as someone said, critting every time you hit because your attack bonus is -1 verses AC 20 is lame). I would also change every weapon to 20/x3 or 19-20/x2, scrap Improved Crit, and get rid of Keen and Vorpal weapons (burst weapons should be fine, those suck as-is).
|
|
Huh, well that's different. I've honestly never encountered that opinion before.
I don't think I'd want every single 20 to be a crit. They would be more common, they would seem less cool (that extra roll really creates a sense of "earning" it, rather than it being strictly luck), they would make it easier for crappy warriors to really hurt more powerful characters and they'd probably kill a lot more PCs than they do at present.
I guess I can see the "old school" appeal of doing it that way. Crits are fun, in a crazy kind of way, even when you're taking them.
If I did this I would eliminate the "20 always hits" rule, or at least, say that you don't get your crit unless you would have hit without that rule (as someone said, critting every time you hit because your attack bonus is -1 verses AC 20 is lame). I would also change every weapon to 20/x3 or 19-20/x2, scrap Improved Crit, and get rid of Keen and Vorpal weapons (burst weapons should be fine, those suck as-is).
In my games, a 20 doesnt always crit unless it's a hit anyway, but a 1 is always a fumble of some sort... then check chart. Heck, swords break all the time, and so do bows and bow strings. Even spellcasters have spells go awry. When did this change? Other than that, it seems fair, for even the crappy warrior gets lucky. That's why you decrease the odds by using terrain, obstacles, skills, etc.
One case in point, archers are seriously dangerous and a crit arrow could easily kill or maime(sp?). My players know to use terrain and obstacles to increase their AC. I hate, as i am sure many of you do, that character that seems oblivious that an archer is shooting at him/her. Why? Because s/he knows that the arrow offers no real threat. Nonesense i say; in history, arrows turned battles and therefore must be taken seriously. So if youre dopey enough to ignore the archers firing at you or decide that you are of such a level that the squad of kobolds offers you no real threat, then you are gravely mistaken in my game.
The mantra in my game has always been, "Play stupid and die. Roleplay your character effectively, and you just may live long enough to have Bards write songs about you."
Thoth-Amon
|
What is the current status of crits? One of the few things I've liked about 4E was getting rid of needing to roll to confirm a crit. What good reason is there for keeping yet another roll that serves only to frustrate players?
The reason is to introduce character skill to the determination, not just make it a 5% chance on every attack.
If a hypothetical player is frustrated, let them gain more levels and put character resources into it to gain the percentages they think they deserve, or better, realise that the confirmation roll is the real prize and occasion for rejoicing, not just rolling a 20 which is merely the set-up.
There's nothing preventing you from eliminating the confirmation roll for critical hits in your game. However, be aware that this makes the game more "swingy" and unpredictable; it also tends to favor the monsters, since PCs are the target of more attacks than they dish out over the course of a campaign.
Nonesense i say; in history...
Real world history takes place in the real world.
In history no one had more than ten hitpoints.In my mind, once you get even to level 8 or 10, you're talking some serious Leonidas/Herculese/Achilles s&~!. They can do and survive things no human being on earth can, even without magic.
If he can jump off a 100 foot cliff face with sharp rocks at the bottom because he knows he's tough enough to survive, why not brave oncoming arrows?
But then, if I had to guess you have a smattering of other houserules in place to handle things like falling damage as well.
Whatever works for you.
What good reason is there for keeping yet another roll that serves only to frustrate players?
It makes fighters better than wizards at inflicting crits -- so it's a level of realism. My groups love it, though I know of many that ignore the rule and don't feel they miss anything.
To each their own :)
|
I have to agree with those in favor of keeping the crit confirmation rolls. Crits are pretty powerful things, and can cause major swings in battles both for and against the players. Moreover, I really don't want those that have 10 million attacks (two-weapon fighters and bow users) critting every single time (sometimes with their 14-20 crit range).
|
I have to agree with those in favor of keeping the crit confirmation rolls. Crits are pretty powerful things, and can cause major swings in battles both for and against the players. Moreover, I really don't want those that have 10 million attacks (two-weapon fighters and bow users) critting every single time (sometimes with their 14-20 crit range).
Exactly, I have had some major encounters that the whole adventure was supposed to hinge on spoiled because my players rolled several crits in a row, and confirmed them. Just one example is that they were dealing with a swoop gang thet had information that they needed. The gang leader drew her weapon. Our jedi whipped out his lightsaber and swung it at her. At that moment I made the decision that if he struck he would sever the gun hand and she would spill the beans. Instead he critted and knocked her way passed the death threshold. If they were getting crits everytime they rolled a 20 it would just ruin my game.
|
|
The confirmation roll is needed. Allowing a flat 5% crit chance (or any crit chance at all really) disadvantages the characters since the characters tend to be strong than their foes. Since randomness favors the underdog, the crits will be hurting the players more often than they hurt the foes. By leaving the confirmation roll in, there are still crits, though fewer in number, which adds excitement to the game without over-jeapordizing the characters.
|
|
Nonesense i say; in history...Real world history takes place in the real world.
In history no one had more than ten hitpoints.In my mind, once you get even to level 8 or 10, you're talking some serious Leonidas/Herculese/Achilles s#@*. They can do and survive things no human being on earth can, even without magic.
If he can jump off a 100 foot cliff face with sharp rocks at the bottom because he knows he's tough enough to survive, why not brave oncoming arrows?
But then, if I had to guess you have a smattering of other houserules in place to handle things like falling damage as well.
Whatever works for you.
Did you not read what i wrote for you missed my point?
Thoth-Amon
Crits confirm because of the number of weapons that extend the crit range, moreso than because of high crit modifiers.
With 18-20/x3 weapons, with keen or imp crit, you crit on a 15+ (assuming the roll would have hit). Removing confirmation means you do double damage roughly 25% of the time. That's nothing to sneeze at. Requiring the confirmation roll just reduces the chance of an actual crit happening in such an environment.
If you wanted to do away with them in moderation I would suggest a hourerule that said:
When you Can hit on a roll other than 20, but roll a natural 20, then it's automatically a crit.
Otherwise, roll confirmation.
(this keeps 20 special while not making the 19, 17, or 18 weps even better than they already are).
just my .02
-S
I used the confirm differently - you definately got it right off the bat, but the second roll would determine the severity.
On a natural 20, you got to add and roll again - that was taken from the Rolemaster system, and if you roll amazingly well (several 20's in a row), it is possible to make that 'impossible shot' that takes out the Uber-baddie in one hit.
And of course, the monsters get to do likewise. <Ebil Grin>
|
In our campaign:
Natural 1 = Automatic Miss. Natural Fumble. If we use the critical fumble deck, then a card gets drawn. If we don't have the critical fumble deck, then it tends to be the DMs call.
Natural 20 = Automatic Hit. Automatic Critical.
Natural number beyond 20 that falls within the critical threat range = Automatic Critical . . . assuming it hits.
Second Roll = "Confirmation" = "Critical Hit" = Instant Kill.
We've had no problems thus far.
Did you not read what i wrote for you missed my point?
Thoth-Amon
I read every word. As for missing your point, I might have. I doubt it was my fault. But hey, sometimes I make obvious mistakes.
Either way though, I'm quite willing to listen patiently if you would like to try again.
No need to get snappy.
With 18-20/x3 weapons, with keen or imp crit, you crit on a 15+ (assuming the roll would have hit). Removing confirmation means you do double damage roughly 25% of the time. That's nothing to sneeze at. Requiring the confirmation roll just reduces the chance of an actual crit happening in such an environment.
A keen or improved crit. scythe gets the same overall increase to average damage as a keen or improved crit. scimitar.
Actually, it's technically a little more, because the scimitar loses in cases where it threatens on a miss. But this is balanced (in theory) by the instances where a scythe's x4 is overkill (there's little benefit in that kind of damage when a x2 would have killed it just as dead).
|
|
Keep the confirmation, and keep auto-fumbles to a minimum as well, since having 5% of a trained warriors attacks result in some sort of mishap ends up with fun results like 20 members of a 1000 dwarven warband killing themselves every round... (Elven archers with Rapid Shot might lose men twice as fast to auto-fumbles!)
The PfPRG should include critical hit confirmation. This is an example where I think PfRPG should be considered the complex version of 4.0. We ought to design PfRPG modular enough so that people can choose what they want. It should be easy for a DM to use the 4.0 citical hit system. And ideally vice versa, DM's who play 4.0 should find it easy of use the critical hit confirmation system of PfRPG. (This might be a tough goal).
I am not saying make PfRPG a list of optional rules. But since we all houserule to death and Paizo hopes to migrate people from 4.0 to PfRPG someday, we should plan for interoperability. There is already an established pattern of PfRPG being a step up from 4.0.
Now what do I want? I don't even know yet. I am tempted by the simplicity of making a 20 a critical with maximum damage.
EDIT: For clarity.
Have played in a variety of campaigns, over a variety of years, with a variety of crit rules...
Gotta say that the 20 as a automatic max damage also appeals to me, as I've always struggled with the "Power Attack, x3 or x4 killer combos" that do ridiculous amounts of damage. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy a good critical hit as much as the next northman, but a flat damage rating works for me.
Improved Crit feat could essentially bump it up to double damage, making more powerful Fighters and PC's a little tastier in combat.
Again my 2 coppers worth...
|
|
What is the current status of crits? One of the few things I've liked about 4E was getting rid of needing to roll to confirm a crit. What good reason is there for keeping yet another roll that serves only to frustrate players?
The confirm is still needed - especially when the "only hits with a 20" is true.
This forces someone who can only hit with a 20 to have to roll 2 20s in a row for it to be a critical. Allowing something to do a critical automatically by rolling a 20 that wouldn't have hit otherwise, would be too gracious of a system.
Robert
Alright, I have to chime in again. I don't like to take rules individually. In the case of criticals, how does it interact with multiple attacks? So even if I like confirming critical hits and I like two-weapon fighting and I like high level iterative attacks, I don't like them all working together. Especially at high levels.
And I know there are work arounds. But I don't like rolling a million dice simultaneously. (Feels like Tunnels & Trolls). I don't like people pre-rolling attacks. I don't like house ruling a lot.
Along similar lines, I like critical threat ranges and feats that extend the threat range and magics that extend the threat range of the critical. But when you start stacking (even with correct multiplication) it looses some of the fun.
I respect why the 4e designers did what they did. I just hope we can find a better 'mostly' reverse compatible solution.
|
|
Gotta say that the 20 as a automatic max damage also appeals to me,
Back in earlier days, we used a 'max damage, or roll double' option. Some preferred to roll two dice (NOT multiplying modifiers, just the base weapon die), others preferred to take max.
as I've always struggled with the "Power Attack, x3 or x4 killer combos" that do ridiculous amounts of damage. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy a good critical hit as much as the next northman, but a flat damage rating works for me.
And, for me, that's the *real* problem here. Weapons that get x3 or x4 crits, like the Pick or the Scythe, are just overly 'swingy.' Take those extra multipliers and add them instead to the chance to crit (so a Scythe would crit for x2, but on a roll of 18-20), and I think it would be a bit more balanced.
For that matter, I might be moved to take it a step further and not have things that were never used as weapons of war and weren't that effective as such, such as Picks and Scythes, and not make them numerically advantageous over swords and axes and spears.
Maybe some uber-deadly magic weapon property would allow a x3 crit, but I don't really like the amount of 'swing' that x3 and x4 crit options add to combat, particularly in mass encounters. Forty Kobolds using Picks (not an out of line weapon choice for a race associated with mining and tunneling) have a 10% chance per round of doing completely inappropriate amounts of damage to their target and turning a challenging encounter into an unplanned 'write up new characters while giving the apologetic DM the stank-eye' session...
If you calculate average damage, factoring in criticals, the "best" 18-20/x2, 19-20/x2, 20/x3, and 20/x4 weapons are actually fairly well balanced. A scythe does more damage than a greataxe on a critical, but does less damage on a normal hit, etc.
At least 3.5 is better than 3.0 when it comes to criticals. The 3.0 build for the critical machine was Improved Critical (falchion) + keen falchion + Weapon Master PrC (Sword & Fist). Because Improved Critical and keen stacked in 3.0, and Weapon Master had a class ability that added + 2 to the critical threat range, it was possible to have a character who threatened a critical 55% of the time (on a roll of 10-20).
Alright, I have to chime in again. I don't like to take rules individually. In the case of criticals, how does it interact with multiple attacks? So even if I like confirming critical hits and I like two-weapon fighting and I like high level iterative attacks, I don't like them all working together. Especially at high levels.
And I know there are work arounds. But I don't like rolling a million dice simultaneously. (Feels like Tunnels & Trolls). I don't like people pre-rolling attacks. I don't like house ruling a lot.
Along similar lines, I like critical threat ranges and feats that extend the threat range and magics that extend the threat range of the critical. But when you start stacking (even with correct multiplication) it looses some of the fun.
I respect why the 4e designers did what they did. I just hope we can find a better 'mostly' reverse compatible solution.
I don't see the kinds of changes people are calling for in this thread actually happening. I think crits are one of the few things a lot of gamers are relatively happy with (there was no change from 3.0 to 3.5, f'r'instance). Doesn't mean it isn't a good discussion, though.
Suppose, if you want to cut back on rolls, that a 20 is automatically a crit but that the effects of a crit aren't so severe (perhaps multiplying only weapon base damage, or adding a flat damage bonus)? Or maybe something tied to how good your character is at fighting; a first level fighter deals +1d6 on a crit, a 20th level fighter deals +10d6?
In any case, it would always be possible for feats or class features to let you do more on a crit, or even have other effects that require a roll to confirm, but that wouldn't be the baseline.
Maybe some uber-deadly magic weapon property would allow a x3 crit, but I don't really like the amount of 'swing' that x3 and x4 crit options add to combat, particularly in mass encounters. Forty Kobolds using Picks (not an out of line weapon choice for a race associated with mining and tunneling) have a 10% chance per round of doing completely inappropriate amounts of damage to their target and turning a challenging encounter into an unplanned 'write up new characters while giving the apologetic DM the stank-eye' session...
Uh, that pick isn't intended to be the digging kind. That's a weapon with a hard beak designed to be armor-piercing. Think of a warhammer that comes down to a point rather than a flat head.
I do agree with you on the scythe though.
Suppose, if you want to cut back on rolls, that a 20 is automatically a crit but that the effects of a crit aren't so severe (perhaps multiplying only weapon base damage, or adding a flat damage bonus)? Or maybe something tied to how good your character is at fighting; a first level fighter deals +1d6 on a crit, a 20th level fighter deals +10d6?
Instead of rolling to confirm, a critical adds your BAB to damage (with a minimum of +1), perhaps? That way you don't have to roll any extra dice (unless using a weapon with special properties) and it scales to fighting ability. The x3 and x4 weapons could add an extra +2 and +4 damage on a critical. This lets you keep weapons with different critical ranges and damage and easily convert them.
Instead of rolling to confirm, a critical adds your BAB to damage, perhaps? That way you don't have to roll any extra dice (unless using a weapon with special properties) and it scales to fighting ability.
Quite boring for a rogue (wiz,cleric, ...) at first level to roll a crit, don't you think?
Quite boring for a rogue (wiz,cleric, ...) at first level to roll a crit, don't you think?Instead of rolling to confirm, a critical adds your BAB to damage, perhaps? That way you don't have to roll any extra dice (unless using a weapon with special properties) and it scales to fighting ability.
Add "(with a minimum of +1)." Corrected above.
Suppose, if you want to cut back on rolls, that a 20 is automatically a crit but that the effects of a crit aren't so severe (perhaps multiplying only weapon base damage, or adding a flat damage bonus)? Or maybe something tied to how good your character is at fighting; a first level fighter deals +1d6 on a crit, a 20th level fighter deals +10d6?Instead of rolling to confirm, a critical adds your BAB to damage (with a minimum of +1), perhaps? That way you don't have to roll any extra dice (unless using a weapon with special properties) and it scales to fighting ability. The x3 and x4 weapons could add an extra +2 and +4 damage on a critical. This lets you keep weapons with different critical ranges and damage and easily convert them.
Has it's appeal.
For my own part though, I would want a crit from a wizard, or a kobold, to hurt. Like, not seriously hurt, but noticably-more-than-usual hurt.
I personally don't like the crit rules the way they are now. A 6th level fighter and a 1st level wizard have the same chance of threatening to score a critical hit if using the same weapon. And more, without the Improved Critical, a 20th level fighter and a 1st level wizard still have the same chance... This is ridiculous for me.... yeah, you could say the wiz will have a lower chance to confirm the critical, but the point is: To threaten a critical doesn't matter your skills, to confirm it does. It bogs down gameplay by having another die roll.
I'd prefer critical (and fumbles) much more if they were relative by how much you hit the target. Say, by 12 or more it's a critical. One might argue "but then a high level fighter with a big bonus to attack will hit a crit every time on low AC targets...." well.. yeah, its a high level fighter focused on fighting with his weapon, a champion of battle.. fighting against a couple low level orc bandits? Hell yeah he'll drive his sword through them like butter.
Anyway, I'd prefer criticals if they depended more on the attack roll vs AC than only a fixed 5-10% chance... but... I'm one of those who can't grab the "armor makes you harder to hit" concept and uses armor as DR.. so.. just my copper piece
Critical confirmation is a beast of high threat ranges. With how easy it is to get a wide range for crit, confirmation is just another buffer to keep crit levels somewhat low.
Rolling anotehr die is extremely simple.
Get two 20's that are different colors.
Declare which is your "primary" and which is your "confirmation".
Roll both.
Rolling two dice takes as much time as rolling one die.
If it's not a crit, ignore the 2nd die.
The same is done with multiple attacks, fairly often.
(works best if you write out on a sheet of paper what color does what- and stick with that throughout the game session).
To be honest I'm not sure why folks mind confirmations so much. They take very little time to do, and are only as much math to figure out as the original die roll was. It's not though there are tons and tons of ways to boost it. (there are some, yes, but not alot).
I am happy with the current critical hit system and would be seriously miffed if confirmation rolls were abandoned.
Keep confirmation rolls!
|
|
Critical confirmation rolls are almost necessary for systems that have the following criteria:
1) multiple attacks per round;
2) damage multipliers for critical hits;
3) damage multipliers greater than "double";
Without the confirmation roll as a diluting factor, it becomes too easy to create a crit-monster character, or to fall into the player mentality of "well, I can't hit without a natural 20 anyway, so I might as well load everything I can on my attacks so that if I hit, it's a monster." Critical confirmation rolls create an environment slightly less conducive to wild swings and the immersion-breaking phenomenon of the guy who never hits, except with a deadly shot.
Jeremy Puckett
I use the Paizo critical hit and critical fumble cards and can recommend them to any of you as a good alternative to the boring old *2 to *4 damage.
Back to the OP and his origional point, 4e does away with multipliers on the damage, instead you do max damage on a critical hit which is only a 20. If you were to translate 3.5 across to this system then you would need to alter the threat range of any weapons that do *3 or more. So a great axe would threaten on 19-20 the same as a sword. Any other solution starts making certain weapons far more attractive than other weapon choices.
As other people have pointed out, the crit confirm role is there to stop the uber high AC monsters only being hit for a critical.
As an example, bob has +12/7 to hit with his longsword, and is fighting a creature with AC-30. In the normal system he only hits on a 18 or higher with his first attack and a 20 with his second.
So let us just take his first attack, he has a 15% chance of hitting but only a 1.5% chance of the hit being a critical (a 10% chance of a critical threat with only a 15% chance of confirming that critical which is a 1 in 66.66666 chance).
In the OPs system he would have the same 15% chance to hit but a massive 10% chance of a critical on that hit.
His second attack is even worse, he will hit 5% of the time and only score a critical 0.25% of the time (1 in 400 chance).
With the OP's suggested system, he still only hits 5% of the time, but every hit is a critical.
So I think the moral of the story is, if you do away with the critical threat role, you need to lower the damage done to the target and either make all weapons have equal threat ranges, or increase the threat ranges of weapons that do more than a times 2 multiplier.