I do, too. Why wouldn't I???
I use them all the time. Back in I was in high school (Read: young and foolish), we didn't use them (because we skimmed the combat rules and didn't update our notion of crits from our 2e playing experience), but after I joined the RPGA and started attending organized play events, I really started sticking to the rules for stuff like that.
I'm not sure which question you are asking: whether we use critical hits at all, or whether in your game a roll to threaten a critical hit is automatically a critical hit. Either rule change will change the balance of the game.
My group uses the critical hit rolls. There's a note in the 3.5 DMG (p. 26 Behind the Curtain) more or less detailing the advantages/disadvantages of using critical hits in general. It adds more variables to the game, which generally disadvantages the players, but it adds excitement, which advantages the players. My players love the excitement so there was never any doubt about dropping them.
If you were asking the second question -- whether a critical threat roll is automatically a critical hit -- that changes game balance too. It makes weapons with a wider threat range, such as 18-20, even more valuable. It also is going to mean your players are going to be subjected to a lot more critical hits.
I'm not sure which question you are asking: whether we use critical hits at all, or whether in your game a roll to threaten a critical hit is automatically a critical hit. Either rule change will change the balance of the game.
My group uses the critical hit rolls. There's a note in the 3.5 DMG (p. 26 Behind the Curtain) more or less detailing the advantages/disadvantages of using critical hits in general. It adds more variables to the game, which generally disadvantages the players, but it adds excitement, which advantages the players. My players love the excitement so there was never any doubt about dropping them.
If you were asking the second question -- whether a critical threat roll is automatically a critical hit -- that changes game balance too. It makes weapons with a wider threat range, such as 18-20, even more valuable. It also is going to mean your players are going to be subjected to a lot more critical hits.
+1.
At higher levels, when Improved Critical and Keen become easier to access/come across (and the relevant spell), it makes weapons with higher threat ranges more useful than those with lower ranges - I would take a Scimitar over a Longsword any day if I didn't have to confirm. Now, it's a tough choice (I go Longsword, btw).
I don't make them confirm a natural 20. But anything else in the crit range I do.
|
I do, because I'm not sure I want characters critting on every 15-20. I have a friend who ALWAYS gets keen rapiers for the 15-20 crit range.
I do however houserule that when you roll a natural twenty, your first damage die is maxed. So if you confirm your crit with a greatsword, you roll 2d6+12+other mods. Makes sure you never roll lower than max damage on a crit. (I.E all ones on the dice.)
I dont use the critical confirm rules.
Because it sucks the air out of the room when a PC rolls that natural 20 or that crit and then fails to to confirm.
I also use the Crit and Fumble deck, with the inital caveat that only named NPC's and big Bad guys get to draw from it. My PLAYERS argued that ANYONE scoring a critical hit should be able to draw from it. I as the DM argued with them that it if I played that way odds are that They would be critted against MORE than than they would be critting. They were absolutely fine with it and that's the way we've been playing for almost a year and a half now.
We've had only ONE PC death and that death had nothing to do with critting and everything to do with a bad tactical choice made by one player that put another player's PC in jeprody resulting in that other PC's death.
Critical hits have been scored vs. PC's, but the most memorable crits have been the PC's vs. thier opponents.
One PC' critted an aligator that I was planning to use to to drag said PC underwater. The PC ctitted, pulled the crit card that basically applied a save or die effect (decapitation I think) vs. the target. It was an alligator it must have a decent save right? I rolled a 3. WHAP! Dead Gator. They still talk about that to this day.
More recently the rogue foiled the attempted escape of a vampire spawn by critting it and drawing a crit card that was basically a heart shot (which I think applied extra damage). She rolled close to maximum damage and killed the vampire spawn in ONE SHOT. That was last session and the excitement at the table after that was amazing. To see my players faces light up and the cheers after that, was one of the reasons why I DM in the first place.
Before this group I used the confirm crits and it was great when PC's were able to confirm but kind sucked when they didint. So, with my next group the confirm crit thing went right out of the window.
Like most everyone else, I and all my groups have followed the critical rules as written. It's a good rule.
I've tried the Critical Deck but didn't really like them that much. If anything, it really just slowed down combat quite a bit. I've been tempted to use the Fumble deck but that just seems mean.
I'm in a pbp game now that's trying out a variant. Similar to what someone said earlier in this thread, though.) On a critical threat, the weapons die damage is maximized. Then we roll for confirmation as normal, with standard additional damage.
Ogre hook. Natural 20. Full Power Attack.
-> dead PC. Ouch. =(
To the original question of WHY:
Let's say all critical threats automatically confirm. You end up with a couple questions.
1) You have occasions where someone needs a natural 20 to hit. Now, they always critical when they hit. Somehow, despite having almost no chance to injure someone, they manage to always strike lucky blows.
2) Someone with a keen rapier or similar combination now scores a critical hit 30% of the time. Only double damage, but it still happens routinely in battle. Doesn't seem quite so special.
3) What if our guy with the keen rapier needs an 18 to hit? Does he still critical when he rolls a 16? Simple question to answer, no, he missed, but wait, it was still in his critical threat range....
4) Someone with a scythe or another weapon with a x4 multiplier. Now they're guaranteed to land 1 blow in 20 that obliterates someone. Before, the opponent still had a chance to just take a solid hit. No confirmation roll=massive damage for sure.
Now, let's make things worse. I've managed to score critical hits with touch spells. You just removed the confirmation roll. That means my harm spell for my cloistered cleric lands for 300 damage, save for half. Sound like fun to you? I can now annihilate people 1 shot in 20 to the point where dragons cringe. And think, your PCs will face a 15th level cleric before they reach that same point....
Confirmation rolls give everyone a chance to avoid a rather messy demise. But PCs can still die without them, especially at higher levels. In our campaign so far, the critical hits have nearly killed several people, but it has been poor tactical decisions and blown saving throws that have actually killed people. I'm sure someone with less rusty mathematical/statistical skills can also demonstrate how automatic critical hits favor one side or the other and hopefully that person will post.
|
Chance to roll a 20 on a 20-sided die: 5% (1 in 20)
Chance to roll a 20 twice in a row: 1.2% (12 in every 1000)
Chance to roll a 20 three times in a row: .20% (2 in every 1000)
I do play with the confirmation rolls. I have a house rule, though, where 2 twenties in a row, or a critical hit followed by a 20 on the confirmation roll is an auto-kill. 12/1000 is a livable number for auto-kill for me. Even with a keen rapier, for example Threat Range (16-20)
Chance to roll a critical and a 20 on confirmation: 5% (1 in 20)
Unless I'm completely wrong. It feels about right, though, but math has never been my strong suit, especially statistics. I'm basically taking percentages of percentages here.
|
|
Unless I'm completely wrong. It feels about right, though, but math has never been my strong suit, especially statistics. I'm basically taking percentages of percentages here.
Chance to roll a 20 on a 20-sided die: 5% (1 in 20)
Chance to roll a 20 twice in a row: 1.2% (12 in every 1000)
Chance to roll a 20 three times in a row: .20% (2 in every 1000)
Chance to roll a 20 on a 20-sided die: 5% (1 in 20 or 50/1000)
Chance to roll a 20 twice in a row: .25% (1 in 400 (1/20*1/20) or 2.5/1000)Chance to roll a 20 three times in a row: .0125% (1 in 8000 (1/20*1/20*1/20) or 0.1 in 1000)
Unless I'm completely wrong. It feels about right, though, but math has never been my strong suit, especially statistics.
It is a wise man who knows his limits. :)
I use the critical confirm rules. After threatening a critical, the player rolls a second attack roll against the creature's AC. If that roll would hit, the critical is confirmed.
I also use the Critical Hits deck and the Critical Fumbles deck.
I also have players roll to confirm a fumble, and all they have to do is miss the AC to confirm fumble.
I like the confirm rules as they add a second layer in there so crits/fumbles aren't going off all the time, and I often encourage people to roleplay a near-crit or a near-fumble if they don't confirm. "The blade slashed down through the creature's face, but the cut wasn't deep enough to blind the beast."
just wondering why people would actually use them...
I use them necause they work well.
I have a house rule, though, where 2 twenties in a row, or a critical hit followed by a 20 on the confirmation roll is an auto-kill.Wow that seems incredibly unfair to the players since the DM makes about 4 times as many to hit rolls as the players. Seems like you would be auto-killing a lot of PCs!
Used that rule in a recent 2nd edition campaign for a while. Caused a TPK after it killed 2 PCs in a single fight during Night Below (troglodytes under the effect of a prayer dropping their damage to 1d2-1 and their Thac0 to 20 feel like they shouldn't instant kill a 7th level priest or mage 4 / theif 6 who each have an AC in the negatives, but there you go). One poor player lost 3 characters in 2 sessions to it (sadly orc on an elf, and trolls on dwarves - looks like ancient enemy extends to the dice rolls themselves). The PCs had their share of instant kills on enemies, but number crunching and in practice the rule worked out against them. I'll never use the rule again (this is how we learn)...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In my home campaign, I use the Critical Fumble deck (but not Critical Hits) but I modified it as follows:
The confirmation roll for a Fumble is the amount of damage the character has suffered / 5.
The reason this makes a difference is that it's really lame when a Big Bad Evil Dude wanders on stage, roars his campaign-changing challenge, and attacks -- only to fumble and kill himself, with no PC effort required.
By linking the confirmation roll to the damage the character has taken, it now feels like the party is still responsible for victory. They did enough damage to him that his own engagement in combat became dangerous to him. He didn't die just because he got unlucky; he died because the party took away his fighting prowess.
|
|
Used that rule in a recent 2nd edition campaign for a while. Caused a TPK after it killed 2 PCs in a single fight during Night Below (troglodytes under the effect of a prayer dropping their damage to 1d2-1 and their Thac0 to 20 feel like they shouldn't instant kill a 7th level priest or mage 4 / theif 6 who each have an AC in the negatives, but there you go). One poor player lost 3 characters in 2 sessions to it (sadly orc on an elf, and trolls on dwarves - looks like ancient enemy extends to the dice rolls themselves). The PCs had their share of instant kills on enemies, but number crunching and in practice the rule worked out against them. I'll never use the rule again (this is how we learn)...I have a house rule, though, where 2 twenties in a row, or a critical hit followed by a 20 on the confirmation roll is an auto-kill.Wow that seems incredibly unfair to the players since the DM makes about 4 times as many to hit rolls as the players. Seems like you would be auto-killing a lot of PCs!
As soon as this happens, I'll probably throw the rule out. So far, we're having fun with it. I like to keep Rule #1 front and center, usually at the expense of game balance and realism. :P
|
We don't use the Confirm Crit rules... I run a game that includes a couple of kids (11 and 8 yrs), so keeping Crit hits and Crit fails keeps in the excitement, but I felt that leaving in the confirmation roll just added difficulty that wasn't necessary. We love the Crit Deck and I love (and they love to loath) the Crit Fumble Deck... almost always good spice to the fight.
We recently had a rooftop fight where crits (both hits and fumbles) worked both for and against the players through a looong battle. Especially when the rogue lost her grip on her sword and it went over the edge of the tower leaving her very vulnerable. Or when the paladin cheek pierced the enemy caster.
When the Dice Gods smile or frown on you or a player, you are no one to question their judgement.
Yep. I've never seen anybody not use them.
I've also never seen anyone not use them. Despite the fact that the rule is technically bad for the players, most players I know would bemoan the thought of losing them.
Our house rule variant is a hybrid of several techniques discussed in this thread. I find confirming fumbles and natural 20s tedious and anticlimactic (though we still roll to confirm threat ranges below 20). Additionally, we use the Critical Fumble deck but NOT the Critical Hit deck, which changes the dynamics of combat.
Additionally, I want outliers to be memorable. If a player is so handicapped (or his opponent is so formidable) in combat that he can only hit something on a natural 20, then I want it to be well worth his while when he does get lucky on his attack roll.
So: a natural 1 is always a fumble and the player or NPC draws a card. A natural 20 is always a hit that deals double damage. This makes outliers on dice rolls much more deadly and/or inconvenient for the person who suffers the ill effects, but we feel that the resulting drama more than makes up for it in practice.
We never used confirmations in 3.5, and therefore had no problems with 4E. I am finding it painful to do it in Pathfinder, but those are the rules. It all comes down to preference I guess, but I have never seen a game broken when it was not used. I am not sure I will have chance to test that theory in Pathfinder, since I am only a player and not a DM.
|
We never used confirmations in 3.5, and therefore had no problems with 4E. I am finding it painful to do it in Pathfinder, but those are the rules. It all comes down to preference I guess, but I have never seen a game broken when it was not used. I am not sure I will have chance to test that theory in Pathfinder, since I am only a player and not a DM.
A few high STR Large+ creatures with scythes will set you straight.
We never used confirmations in 3.5, and therefore had no problems with 4E. I am finding it painful to do it in Pathfinder, but those are the rules. It all comes down to preference I guess, but I have never seen a game broken when it was not used. I am not sure I will have chance to test that theory in Pathfinder, since I am only a player and not a DM.A few high STR Large+ creatures with scythes will set you straight.
That makes sense, as I never optimized creatures as a DM, as I was more focused on flavor, and didn't have time to do the former.
|
|
That makes sense, as I never optimized creatures as a DM, as I was more focused on flavor, and didn't have time to do the former.We never used confirmations in 3.5, and therefore had no problems with 4E. I am finding it painful to do it in Pathfinder, but those are the rules. It all comes down to preference I guess, but I have never seen a game broken when it was not used. I am not sure I will have chance to test that theory in Pathfinder, since I am only a player and not a DM.A few high STR Large+ creatures with scythes will set you straight.
I used to wonder why the confirmation rules are so important until I ran the (Skinsaw Murders spoiler)
Ever since, I can't imagine a flat 5% crit chance in 3.5/PF. Far too swingy.
I use the confirmation roll for sure. I don't like blowing the energy out of a natural 20 though, so I always make a natural 20 MAX damage. If you roll a 20 and do not confirm, at LEAST you will do max damage. A natural 20 crit can be bad for the receiver if you confirm, as it will multiply the max damage.
I also have a funny house rule where I will add a multiplier for each natural 20. If you roll a 20 and confirm with a 20 you will add one to your damage multiplier, (X3 for longsword, etc) and attempt a natural 20 again to add another Damage modifier. This can carry on until the player rolls a 19 or lower. In all my years of gaming, I had one player get X5 dmg with a longsword. A natural 20, confirm 20, roll again 20, roll again 20.
If your too hit roll is 20 I apply max damage always. If you crit with 19 or below but your confirm roll is a 20, I add one multiplier.
Yep. I've never seen anybody not use them.
Yeah, this.
We use them because we like them.
|
|
I and every 3.x gaming group I've ever played in or DMed for has used them. Statistically, the confirmation rules favor the PCs over NPCs. The DM generally has a greater chance of inflicting critical hits against the PCs (as he/she makes more attack rolls than the players), so without the confirmation rules critical hist become more frequent and PC mortality (and the chance of TPKs) increases dramatically... and that can really put a damper on storytelling and role-playing.
Yes, we use the critical confirm rules.
We use the crit confirm rules, though I do miss the days of 2E and not having to confirm.
The critical/fumble decks can be extremely swingy, really abusive to players IMO, as they will always get the majority of the use out of the decks... against them.
When the decks aren't being vicious, they're downright pointless, such as doing "normal damage and 2 CHA damage" to a "skeleton"... instead of the always useful x2(or more) damage. Oh noes, an ugly skeleton with 2 hitpoints left, RUN!! One of many examples.
Or the cards that have you roll damage dice on a fumble, potentially having an enemy do more damage then it would have if it HAD NOT FUMBLED!
I use them, they work well for both sides of the DM screen!
I play in a group where one DM uses the rule for confirm as is but doesn't roll the extra damage dice, just multiplies the initial rolled damage by the crit multiplier!
It's very sucky to be hit by a magma dragon for a critical confirm and then have it's attack damage doubled, tripled or quadrupled automatically.
The DM of that game got annoyed about halfway through the campaign as one of the players had a force bow and scored crits most of the time, Manyshot, Far shot combination Force arrows are not nice!