So after reading over a few of the house rule threads, my roommate and I decided to change our current critical system (which is massive criticals/fumbles - you can keep critting for more dice and you can keep botching for more screw ups).
What we've come up with so far:
- Natural 20 means you're given an option:
A) Auto hit and auto crit
B) Roll to confirm: if you "miss", it's just a hit, but you can continue confirming for massive crits if you land within crit range
- Natural 1 means you're given an option:
A) Auto miss and you drop your weapon
B) Roll to confirm: if you "miss" again, you have the chance to hit an ally or even an enemy (determined randomly), but you can not drop your weapon if you "hit"
I have two questions here:
One, do you guys see any problems? The idea is that there is a trade off for choosing to roll again.
Two, what to do about critical threat range that isn't a 20? Do they not have the chance to massively crit, only to confirm the first crit?
Any suggestions are appreciated.
For the fumbles it is not really a good idea. 5% is a high percentage for some to drop their weapon. I am not even a trained sword fighter, but I can try to hit someone 100 times without dropping a sword or any other weapon. The characters train at this for years and are probably going to be among the best in the world.
For the the crit one I would just take my autocrit, but for the sake of argument if I have a high crit weapon you might kill a boss too easily. Most people like exciting boss fights so the drama of the moment is killed if you tag him for like 5 crits.
Critical hits and botches for me are weird.
-------
For example:
The level 20 fighter, wielding a longsword, with which he has all of the weapon focus/specializations for, lifts his blade towards his opponent, a challenge.
Across the battlefield, the rock sits there, like a statue. The fighter charges, shouting his token battle cry as he rushes in. Swinging his sword with skill that the gods themselves envy, he - [rolls a 1] - .. misses.
A slight tremor from the ongoing battle between the warriors and the stones causes this particular rock to roll towards the fighter's foot. [rolls a 20] The rock smashes the fighter's toe, causing 1d2-1 (minimum 1) nonlethal damage.
-------
Anyway, point is, by allowing criticals in the game, the (albeit exaggerated) situation above can exist. However, they make perfect sense in terms of "I hit a good spot." I've seen the [20=30, 1=-10] rules, and I don't like that very much.
In my opinion, critical hits should be an equal opposite to critical fumbles. But I dunno, I'm still not really sold on anything.
Oh, and in terms of the boss insta-kill, I've seen it done. Saw a swashbuckler from 3.5e roll and confirm 6 times. Autokilled a dire ape we were supposed to capture. I have also personally crit the BBEG with the BBEG's weapon (after he threw it) and killed him with it. While in game, the effect seems less than dramatic, all the players at the table got to see the rolling and they were excited about it, so it kinda balances out.
While in game, the effect seems less than dramatic, all the players at the table got to see the rolling and they were excited about it, so it kinda balances out.
And behind his screen, your GM cried rivers.
I don't think you should botch as much as you crit. You are actually trying to kill someone. In no job/activity that I know does someone royally mess up, as much as they succeed. It is like I said before if my non-training can allow me to not fumble, then a fantasy warrior should not be fumbling/botching that much.
If he was that incompetent that he would drop his sword that much in a real fight he would probably be kicked out of the army(ancient armies) or die very early.
I try to kill the boss early, but I don't really enjoy it when I succeed. I had a druid animal companion grapple a boss and pin it. The party then stood around and stabbed it to death. It was kind of a letdown.
While in game, the effect seems less than dramatic, all the players at the table got to see the rolling and they were excited about it, so it kinda balances out.And behind his screen, your GM cried rivers.
No... no, I'm pretty sure we ALL wanted to see that BBEG die. That whole adventure was excruciating.
Vendis buried the real question we had here: if we adopt the auto-crit on 20 rule, how should be adjudicate high threat range weapons like rapiers? If a nat 20 is an auto-crit, what is a critical threat (that meets/exceeds AC)?
As of right now, my leaning is to do it like this: a nat 20 automatically crits, no confirmation required. A threat (15-19, based on the weapon and other things) would still require confirmation, and just cut out massive crits altogether I doubt they would be missed as they happen far less frequently than normal crits, obviously.