We've always used these house rules and I think they would be a great addition to Pathfinder:
Deadlier Critical Hits: When you roll to confirm a critical, if the confirmation roll would also be a threat, then keep rolling until you don't get a threat. Each time you get a threat, increase the damage by another x1.
Critical Fumbles: If you roll a 1, roll again to see if that would also miss. If so, then you drop your weapon or fall prone if unarmed (or simply lose your turn next round if flying or swimming as you recover and turn around). If you rolled a 1 a second time and on each successive roll, then you not only drop the weapon but you must roll its damage against itself. If you are not proficient in the weapon you are using, then you also do 1 point of damage to yourself. Keep rolling until you do not get a 1.
this belongs in the new rules forum
Oops. How do I move it?
Whereas players like to be 'lucky' and score critical hits, they're pretty glum about fumbling, and it's a bit of a campaign derailer when you break your only silver dagger when fighting the werewolf.
Also, with all the talk about how fighters fall behind in the damage stakes compared to spellcasters they don't need another hinderance.
Cheers
Mark
Whereas players like to be 'lucky' and score critical hits, they're pretty glum about fumbling, and it's a bit of a campaign derailer when you break your only silver dagger when fighting the werewolf.
But it makes for much more exciting battles. It might also force the players to have backup plans in place or to improvise creative solutions. The player who fumbles might be glum but the other players usually find it hilarious.
Also, with all the talk about how fighters fall behind in the damage stakes compared to spellcasters they don't need another hinderance.
Whoever says that is mistaken. A fighter equipped with appropriate gear for his level should be dealing out as much or more damage as a spellcaster, who are going to face more and more magic resistance or high saving throw monsters as they get higher in levels.
Also, with all the talk about how fighters fall behind in the damage stakes compared to spellcasters they don't need another hinderance.Whoever says that is mistaken. A fighter equipped with appropriate gear for his level should be dealing out as much or more damage as a spellcaster, who are going to face more and more magic resistance or high saving throw monsters as they get higher in levels.
It's not the damage casters deal that makes them outperform fighters, it's the many, many ways they can disable or outright kill an opponent (or several opponents) without actually dealing any damage to them.
Yep. Save or Die, or the Save or Suck, spells tend to .. suck.
The blasty evoker can be on par with the warrior and such, but it's the "I wiggle my finger and you die" spells that really make the casters more powerful.
or
"i wiggle my finger and you do what i say"
or
"i wiggle my finger and you can't move while we CdG you"
or any other such spell, of which there are aplenty.
-S
I'm not in favor of deadlier crits. As a DM I want the fights to be tough, but I don't want a PC to be go from unwounded at 70 hits to dead by an extremely lucky series of rolls by a critter. Since the PCs are in very fight that will certainly occur. On the other side, combats are already short enough for my tastes and I don't want to give even more power to the dual wielding ftr with improved cirt types. That said-if it works for your group go with it. Regardless of what is included I'd in PF I'd never use anything that increased the deadliness of crits.
Do you thinhk crits will start to lose some of their sting, with all the "improvements" to the HP system?
(the hit die increase and +1hp/level for favored class, in particular)
-S