Dice are cheap. Buy a smaller d20 same color as your main d20, and always roll the confirm die, anyway, just only read it on a threat.
On one hand I know what the rule's going for: a natural 20 is already giving you the chance to hit a target you already shouldn't, so even just getting that much should feel pretty good. Right?
But yeah, the truth is it's pretty weak sauce. Especially since even if you confirm the critical you still might roll crappy on damage and once again it's a huge letdown for everyone--you roll 2d12 and get 2. Yeah. After rolling two 20s in a row.
Uuuuuuugh.
That's so awful.
Dice are cheap. Buy a smaller d20 same color as your main d20, and always roll the confirm die, anyway, just only read it on a threat.
Yeah. My luck would be that the little d20 that means nothing would crit every single time I rolled it. Unless of course I actually needed it for a confirmation roll and then it would roll garbage.
Well this may lead to more tpks if the gm start rolling good and does not have to confirm at low levels Getting a crit against you in the suprise round and you are bleeding out is no fun and as a gm I don't like it.
Please get rid of this massively stupid rule! You're rollin in combat and BAM! A Nat20 is rolled and everyone is excited and happy. Then the excitement gets ruined by the confirm. Its just garbage.Which is why we dropped the confirmation roll. It can suck ALL the excitement of rolling the classic "natural 20" out of an encounter and the player who rolled it in the first place.
We did as well, one of my players was insisting that rolling a natural 20 was boring otherwise. He hadn't played D&D since 2:nd edition, and in his group they rolled damage twice on nat 20ies. Unfortunately, this didn't work so well with x3 crit multipliers (or x4... ogre hooks killed several PCs in RotRL).
We have now changed it back to core rules, on the player's request, after two glaive 20'ies in one round killed yet another PC in Hell's Rebels. The DM rolls lots of d20's... If you skip the confirmation, my advice is to limit the crit multiplier to x2. Or it might get very bloody very fast... of course, that's maybe what you want. We have no raise dead magics in our campaigns so dead is dead.
To make a natural twenty still mean a little more we added a +2 to the crit confirm roll for nat 20'ies (which you wont get on increased crit ranges).
We stopped using this stupid rule, at least for Natural 20 rolls, before Pathfinder was even released lol. It seriously makes zero sense. For weapons with wider crit-ranges (like the 15-19 range) we still confirm but nat 20's get a free pass.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We stopped using this stupid rule, at least for Natural 20 rolls, before Pathfinder was even released lol. It seriously makes zero sense.
It makes sense in the situation where only a natural 20 hits the enemy. Otherwise, every lucky hit the character gets is also a critical hit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We stopped using this stupid rule, at least for Natural 20 rolls, before Pathfinder was even released lol. It seriously makes zero sense. For weapons with wider crit-ranges (like the 15-19 range) we still confirm but nat 20's get a free pass.
You may think it's stupid. But not everyone does. In fact I think the rule is not only reasonable but desirable.
Well this may lead to more tpks if the gm start rolling good and does not have to confirm at low levels Getting a crit against you in the suprise round and you are bleeding out is no fun and as a gm I don't like it.
It's a good idea to not have enemies use x3 and x4 weapons at low levels for precisely this reason, even WITH crit confirmation.
We stopped using this stupid rule, at least for Natural 20 rolls, before Pathfinder was even released lol. It seriously makes zero sense. For weapons with wider crit-ranges (like the 15-19 range) we still confirm but nat 20's get a free pass.You may think it's stupid. But not everyone does. In fact I think the rule is not only reasonable but desirable.
What's desirable about rolling a natural 20 on an attack just to see it completely wiped away because you couldn't roll high enough again?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's desirable about rolling a natural 20 on an attack just to see it completely wiped away because you couldn't roll high enough again?We stopped using this stupid rule, at least for Natural 20 rolls, before Pathfinder was even released lol. It seriously makes zero sense. For weapons with wider crit-ranges (like the 15-19 range) we still confirm but nat 20's get a free pass.You may think it's stupid. But not everyone does. In fact I think the rule is not only reasonable but desirable.
Not getting killed when the GM rolls a lucky nat-20 to hit you.
I always remember that what is good for the players, is also good for the monsters.
Fighting orcs with greataxes suddenly becomes a lot more scary. (Not to mention redcaps with their Scythes!).
You're showing your age here!
In 3.0 orcs had greataxes! In Pathfinder they wield falchions! Better crit range, but a smaller multiplier.
Well the printed ones in the bestiary do have falcions. well a homebrew gm can change weapons. Now I am thinking of tuckers equipment store which is like tuckers kobolds but with things with more optimized equipment but low levels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I don't know the complete history of the evolution of the crit in D&D. I stopped playing after 2nd edition and picked back up with Pathfinder. Just looking at the probabilities, though, a 5% chance to do x4 damage with a Scythe is just too much. It's already stretching things that an untrained commoner has a 5% chance to score a hit on a 20th level fighter.
Without having to confirm, a 10 STR commoner wielding a scythe that they use in the field would have a 5% chance of dealing 8d4 damage, or an average of 20 points of damage and a max of 32. 20 points of damage will knock unconscious a lot of 2nd level character, and 32 damage will outright kill them. The game is not fun when there's a 5% chance a commoner can kill your character.
Having to confirm, that chance drops to .25%, or once in every 400 attacks. That seems a lot more reasonable. (Most low level characters won't have a 20 AC, so the chance will be higher, but not 1 in 20).
From the PC side, if you need a nat-20 to confirm a critical, there's already something wrong. Your character can only hit whatever you're fighting on a 20. You should probably do something to increase your attack bonus. Even getting to the point you hit on a 16 or better means you'll confirm 25% of your critical threats, meaning that you will crit 1.25% of the time or once in every 80 attacks. You want to crit more often? Make sure you can hit more often than 25% of the time.
If Pathfinder didn't use a d20 system, confirming might not be necessary. In a 3d6 based system, you're only going to get an 18 .46% of the time. Having to confirm that would be annoying.
If you do get rid of confirming crits, then follow the advice in this thread to make all crit multipliers x2. Or have them auto do x2 and have to confirm for full multiplier. So hit someone with a 20 from your scythe, do 4d4. Confirm the hit, do 8d4. At least then a commoner's only killing a 1st level character on a single nat-20.
Not getting killed when the GM rolls a lucky nat-20 to hit you.What's desirable about rolling a natural 20 on an attack just to see it completely wiped away because you couldn't roll high enough again?
1. That promotes fun, intense combat and drama. Without it, the game becomes a pretty boring slog-fest.
2. Its just a character. I often have quite a few back ups waiting in the wings in this unfortunate event.
3. The game has significant and rather easy ways of mitigating death and bringing people back from death.
4. The vast majority of monster's criti multiplier is x2. Meh...
Edit: let me reiterate that I remove critial thrat rolls JUST from natural 20 rolls. Everything else is treated the same.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not getting killed when the GM rolls a lucky nat-20 to hit you.What's desirable about rolling a natural 20 on an attack just to see it completely wiped away because you couldn't roll high enough again?
1. That promotes fun, intense combat and drama. Without it, the game becomes a pretty boring slog-fest.
2. Its just a character. I often have quite a few back ups waiting in the wings in this unfortunate event.
3. The game has significant and rather easy ways of mitigating death and bringing people back from death.
Not at first level, when an unlucky crit is most likely to kill you. And when it’s most annoying to have to start over. Just finished putting in hours of work to get a character just right, then boom, crit. Guess you got to start over.
4. The vast majority of monster's criti multiplier is x2. Meh...
Have you played much PFS? I’d like to introduce you to a halfling named Ledford... His great axe has claimed many a victim, and that’s with needing to confirm.
Edit: let me reiterate that I remove critial thrat rolls JUST from natural 20 rolls. Everything else is treated the same.
This helps. But a 5% chance is still way too often in a game where so many attack rolls are made.
Maybe require a confirm roll if you need a nat-20 to hit in the first place? That way you get lucky once just doing anything, and have to again to deal massive damage.
Not at first level, when an unlucky crit is most likely to kill you. And when it’s most annoying to have to start over. Just finished putting in hours of work to get a character just right, then boom, crit. Guess you got to start over.Not getting killed when the GM rolls a lucky nat-20 to hit you.What's desirable about rolling a natural 20 on an attack just to see it completely wiped away because you couldn't roll high enough again?
1. That promotes fun, intense combat and drama. Without it, the game becomes a pretty boring slog-fest.
2. Its just a character. I often have quite a few back ups waiting in the wings in this unfortunate event.
3. The game has significant and rather easy ways of mitigating death and bringing people back from death.
Hours of work....for a 1st level character?! I can't even imagine.
4. The vast majority of monster's criti multiplier is x2. Meh...Have you played much PFS? I’d like to introduce you to a halfling named Ledford... His great axe has claimed many a victim, and that’s with needing to confirm.
Ah...no I play exclusively in our home games. I dont do Society or Adventure League for D&D.
Edit: let me reiterate that I remove critial thrat rolls JUST from natural 20 rolls. Everything else is treated the same.This helps. But a 5% chance is still way too often in a game where so many attack rolls are made.
Maybe require a confirm roll if you need a nat-20 to hit in the first place? That way you get lucky once just doing anything, and have to again to deal massive damage.
In all honesty, how often do you ever encounter a creature where you must roll a 20 to even hit? 5% chance to do extra damage is perfectly viable expectations in our games. Every other edition of D&D does fine without confirming crits, so I'm still not sure why its a thing in 3.PF? I get weapons with big multipliers but again, the majority of monsters encountered is still x2. Im cool with possible character death early on.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hours of work....for a 1st level character?! I can't even imagine.
Yep, scrolling through feats and traits and spells can take up quite a bit of time, on top of working out the characters story and personality.
It sounds like your games are much different than the rest of us. Having to confirm the crit makes them that much rarer, and more exciting when it does happen. Rolling a natural 20 is it's own excitement, and we don't find it diminished when another die has to be rolled. The anticipation on the second roll is just as important, especially when it's the enemy attack that is threatening the character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hours of work....for a 1st level character?! I can't even imagine.Yep, scrolling through feats and traits and spells can take up quite a bit of time, on top of working out the characters story and personality.
It sounds like your games are much different than the rest of us. Having to confirm the crit makes them that much rarer, and more exciting when it does happen. Rolling a natural 20 is it's own excitement, and we don't find it diminished when another die has to be rolled. The anticipation on the second roll is just as important, especially when it's the enemy attack that is threatening the character.
Pretty much this. There are few more fearsome words from a GM than, "That's a crit threat."
If you want a more lethal home game, I get it, and any of the methods discussed will up the lethality. As a general rule for Pathfinder as a system, though, I'm glad they moved away from a 20 being an autocrit.
As for time spent on a first level character, since I've taken to more or less planning out 11 levels of a build before I play a game, yeah, it's hours of work. Sometimes days. And in PFS, you're sometimes limited to how many of a type of character you can make.
As for needing a 20 to-hit... It's not about how often you encounter something you need a 20 to hit. It's about how often something needs a 20 to hit you.
You want frustrating confirm a crit and against something with a bow and then have it miss because of total concealment boosted from normal concealment by a monster ability.
You want frustrating confirm a crit and against something with a bow and then have it miss because of total concealment boosted from normal concealment by a monster ability.
From my perspective as a RBDM, a delicious experience when it happens to my players - an event to savor.
The third party book Laying Waste does a great job of building a Crit system that seems well balanced and automatically confirms on 20. Even has a free app to go with it. We have been using it the last two campaigns and haven't had any complaints.
I gave it a try on my home campaign before buying the book. I liked it, most of my players didn't. 'Fumbling' the fumbles to make an enemy goblin one-head-shot another one was fun. None of my players died using this system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically re-posting my own opinion from another thread on the same theme:
I have had this discussion with fellow players multiple times, and are strongly opposed to it.
The Critical confirmation roll is absolutely necessary IMO.
Normally, a natural 20 always counts as a hit.
Even if, mathematically, an attacker could not score a hit otherwise, such as having a total +3 attack bonus vs. an AC of 28.
The 20 being a hit allows for those "lucky shots" and general fog of war events, where anything is possible.
All good.
With the confirmation roll being required, an attackers chance of scoring a critical, (by being able to roll confirmation high enough for a regular hit) increases with their attack bonus. This makes very logical sense.
Now, if you make a natural 20, not ONLY a successful hit, but automatically a critical one as well, then all those less capable opponents who would not normally have a prayer of scoring a hit (other than the occasional lucky '20'), now get a critical hit EVERY time they roll that 20.
Only blind luck can give them a hit, but it's always a critical?
Under that system, the low CR, zero-level mook, and the 15th level highly trained/experienced fighter, both have EXACTLY the same chance of scoring a critical. Even against creatures that are waaaayyyyy out of the mook's league.
Mature Dragon? Well, the farmer with pitchfork has same chance of a critical hit, as does the mythic cavalier.
Another major effect having all 20's be critical, is you have just given every feat, spell, and ability that enhances critical hits, a MAJOR buff. (including any possessed by the party's enemies)
Weapons & feats that increase 'threat range' would also become OP.
If I were a player under that system, I would be stacking up on all those critical feats and better threat-range weapons, like there's no tomorrow.
While the example I state, uses combatants of very different power levels, the same principle applies to enemies closer in level. Confirming criticals, means an attacker has a higher chance of making a critical hit, the more skilled they are.
If you want to be generous, the only thing I would personally do, is give the mook a critical if they roll a 20 again on the confirmation (even if that attack roll still wouldn't hit). Hey, two 20's in a row is dang-near impossible, so why not?
Note:
I use the term mook for convenience, to represent a mathematically-challenged attacker, who has little or no chance to otherwise score a hit against an opponent.
No insult is intended for anyone who self-identifies as a mook.
For fumbles, I use the same system above, and for the same reasons.
A much higher skilled attacker should have less of a chance of fumbling an attack.
I play that, on a natural 1, it is definitely a miss. Even if a 1 on an attack roll would still mathematically be enough to score a hit.
I then have a fumble confirmation roll, and if that result would be a miss, then a fumble occurs.
I have my own list of fumble effects, roughly based on how 'much' they fall short on the fumble confirmation. At a minimum, it ends their turn, and goes up from there.
Honestly, I mostly wing it on effects, so that I can choose results that make sense, whether it be slipping prone (in difficult terrain), of losing a weapon (fighting in the rain), etc.
Again, the severity is based on how bad the fumble confirmation missed.
I don't believe these confirmation rolls are much of a burden, if at all. They only come up if a 1 or 20 is rolled; and you've just figured out all the attack bonuses and what's needed to hit, so how much effort is it to toss the die one more time?
I respectfully disagree with the OP's sentiment, that it kills the joy of rolling that nat-20. The potential excitement just moves to the confirmation roll.
Not getting killed when the GM rolls a lucky nat-20 to hit you.What's desirable about rolling a natural 20 on an attack just to see it completely wiped away because you couldn't roll high enough again?
1. That promotes fun, intense combat and drama. Without it, the game becomes a pretty boring slog-fest.
2. Its just a character. I often have quite a few back ups waiting in the wings in this unfortunate event.
I once had a backup character. Not fully specked. Over at least dozen characters.
While I detest fully planned out style of character design, I still can take dozens of hours creating a single character, since I enjoy RP hooks to define why the character is the way it is. I have learned to not do full backgrounds at first, but I do want at least a skeleton. As I level up, I add detail to make the character more interesting and have reason for why a feat was chosen.3. The game has significant and rather easy ways of mitigating death and bringing people back from death.
Not when the first hit crits and kills you. If a crit can one-shot you, then you are not of high enough level to mitigate the death.
4. The vast majority of monster's criti multiplier is x2. Meh...
Edit: let me reiterate that I remove critial thrat rolls JUST from natural 20 rolls. Everything else is treated the same.
I played 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, 4, and PF. HP scaled up big-time in 3rd, as did damage output. Crits just gave a way to make stuff a bit more exciting, but it applied to enemies as well as the party. Several times I have seen party members killed by crits. Especially since going from 1 hp to -CON is easy with a crit. Heck, we even killed someone we were trying to save because the unexpected crit was so potent.
As a player, I like extra damage from a crit, but would gladly play without crits.
From the PC side, if you need a nat-20 to confirm a critical, there's already something wrong. Your character can only hit whatever you're fighting on a 20. You should probably do something to increase your attack bonus.
As to this, when I play a casters, I don't have full BAB, and often have difficulty hitting. When playing against a high AC monster/NPC, I often miss. The character is not built wrong, but rather it is not optimized for DPS.
/cevah
|
|
I was mostly referring to Martials with that last quoted comment. If you’re a caster at half-BAB you’re probably hitting touch AC, so it’s unlikely you’re going to be in many situations where you only hit on a 20. Of course a Wizard swinging a quarterstaff with a low strength might have trouble hitting a well armored opponent. That’s probably not the Wizard’s main tactic.
The point being that a Martial character should confirm around half of the crits they threaten just by the nature of wanting to be able to hit things in the first place. If you’re routinely in Melee combat and needing a 20 to hit, the problem isn’t that you have to roll to confirm a crit, and the solution isn’t to make crits autoconfirm.
@Ferious Thune: You may have been thinking martials, but rogues and clerics are not full BAB, and often don't have ways to improve attacks the way full martials do. As a ninja merchant, my fighting skills falls behind fighters, who get things like weapon training. So it is a 3/4 BAB vs 5/4 BAB. Add in extra feats, and what is a poor merchant to do? Touch AC would be nice, but that is not the way I usually attack.
Clerics have the same problem. At least, as levels increase, they wind up less and less in melee and more and more in spellcasting. But if MAD, there can be difficulty landing spells.
While I agree that 1/2 BAB types should know to stay at range, they don't always have that choice.
/cevah
|
|
I really think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am not saying a character that has trouble hitting is wrong and you shouldn't play it. Having trouble hitting, and only being able to hit on a nat-20 when hitting things in combat is your main function are two different things. The complaint in this thread is that not enough criticals confirm. The numbers just don't back that up for any kind of build focused on combat at all.
A wizard that wades into combat isn't judged by the standards of a more melee oriented class. And they shouldn't expect to hit or confirm crits as often as a melee oriented class.
Clerics get Divine Favor and Divine Power, which essentially make them full-BAB (to-hit, anyway, not for iteratives) if they take an action to buff. If they start with a decent strength, they can be plenty capable. Rogues are an issue, because they have no way to boost their attacks temporarily (short of UMD)..
But the discussion was in the context of confirming critical hits and needing a natural 20 just to hit at all. No 3/4 BAB class is going to be in that position on a regular basis unless something is wrong. Let's take a very unoptimized Rogue. DEX 16 with Weapon Finesse and a +1 weapon at 5th level. No other boosts to attack.
That gives a to-hit bonus of: +3 (BAB) +3 (DEX) + 1 (Enhancement) = +7
The average AC of a monster at CR 5 is 18 (according to the monster creation rules). You hit 50% of the time. You confirm a critical 50% of the time.
Maybe you run into a higher than average AC or a higher CR creature. CR 7 gives an average AC of 20. You still hit/confirm a critical on a 13 or better, or 40% of the time. Now, that may feel like you miss a lot, because you'll miss more than you hit. But it's a long way from needing a 20 to hit at all.
A commoner with 0 BAB and no strength bonus will only hit that CR 7 creature on a 20. They also hit a CR 9 creature, with an average AC of 23 on a nat-20. The Rogue hits it on a 16 or better.
You have to get all the way to a CR 12 creature to have an average AC of 27 and require the Rogue to roll a nat-20.
So, if you're a 5th level Rogue and you're regularly finding yourself in a position that you can only hit on a nat-20, then either your GM is throwing higher than appropriate CR creatures at you, or they are finding appropriate CR creatures with much higher than average AC, or you've built a character with something like a 12 in their primary melee stat and no additional bonuses to hit. Not even a masterwork weapon. Even then, they are hitting AC 20 on a 16 or better.
So, yeah, if a 3/4 BAB character regularly needs a nat-20 to hit, there's something wrong, and it's not that crits are hard to confirm.
Maybe they didn't build for combat, and that's fine. If that's a character they enjoy playing, because they pumped INT, WIS, and CHA to be a skills character, more power to them. But to then turn around and complain that they don't confirm enough crit threats when they're lucky to hit at all, and that the whole system of how confirming crits works needs to change, isn't really fair. If they want to confirm more crits, there are plenty of ways they can boost their attack.
The 'need a 20 to hit' situation rarely comes up in normal games (and when someone does need a natural 20, they usually don't get it).
But a 'natural 20 autocrits' rule might be interesting in certain hypothetical situations.
For example, a party of high level characters goes to confront an army of level 1 warriors:
The wizard says, "I'll use greater invisibility and fireballs to disperse them."
The paladin says, "No, that would be inhumane. I have my magic full plate and shield. They won't be able to hurt me. I'll drive them back, alone, without killing anyone."
He approaches the army.
Four hundred men fire their longbows as he approaches. 380 of them miss. The other 20 hit him with x3 criticals. The paladin immediately takes 270 damage and dies.
That situation is what the troop rules were made for.
The paladin says, "No, that would be inhumane. I have my magic full plate and shield. They won't be able to hurt me. I'll drive them back, alone, without killing anyone."
He approaches the army.
The Troop rules are in play, so all 20 Troops fire at him. Because Troop arrows are innately armor-piercing, his +5 Full Plate Mail and +5 Heavy Shield and +5 Ring of Protection and +5 Amulet of Natural Armor are all worthless. He has to make Reflex saves for half damage instead. He takes 100 points of damage per round until he dies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people want games where the PCs have to run away from armies, and some people want games where the armies have to run away from the PCs.
Some people want games where the PCs are likely to survive to the end of the campaign, and some people want games where the PCs could die at any moment.
No such thing as badwrongfun.
I really think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am not saying a character that has trouble hitting is wrong and you shouldn't play it. Having trouble hitting, and only being able to hit on a nat-20 when hitting things in combat is your main function are two different things. The complaint in this thread is that not enough criticals confirm. The numbers just don't back that up for any kind of build focused on combat at all.
A wizard that wades into combat isn't judged by the standards of a more melee oriented class. And they shouldn't expect to hit or confirm crits as often as a melee oriented class.
Clerics get Divine Favor and Divine Power, which essentially make them full-BAB (to-hit, anyway, not for iteratives) if they take an action to buff. If they start with a decent strength, they can be plenty capable. Rogues are an issue, because they have no way to boost their attacks temporarily (short of UMD)..
But the discussion was in the context of confirming critical hits and needing a natural 20 just to hit at all. No 3/4 BAB class is going to be in that position on a regular basis unless something is wrong. Let's take a very unoptimized Rogue. DEX 16 with Weapon Finesse and a +1 weapon at 5th level. No other boosts to attack.
That gives a to-hit bonus of: +3 (BAB) +3 (DEX) + 1 (Enhancement) = +7
The average AC of a monster at CR 5 is 18 (according to the monster creation rules). You hit 50% of the time. You confirm a critical 50% of the time.
Maybe you run into a higher than average AC or a higher CR creature. CR 7 gives an average AC of 20. You still hit/confirm a critical on a 13 or better, or 40% of the time. Now, that may feel like you miss a lot, because you'll miss more than you hit. But it's a long way from needing a 20 to hit at all. ...
I agree that not all chars are designed for melee. Rogues are designed for melee, and only have 3/4 BAB, and often lower AC.
For your 5th level rogue above, the average CR faced is CR 5. But for a boss fight, it will be CR 7 or even CR 8 [especially if in a larger party.] Add to that, combat monsters tend to have high AC for their CR, and you can end up with boss fights against not AC 18, but AC 23. That now requires a 16 to connect. Add in sickened, dazed, or other status effects, and that 16 climbs to 18 or even 20.
Action economy requires bosses to be extra tough. Otherwise they fall too quickly.
While it may be the character only needs a 16 or 18, my own experience has had too many times where I would need a 20 to connect. Of course, my dice like to mess me up from time to time, and I wind up hitting once or twice in that battle. As I play in a large group, we often face +1 CR or +2 CR monsters, so the boss could be +4 CR or +5 CR rather than the normal +2 CR or +3 CR.
As to spells for the cleric, I had a recent fight where the cleric cast divine favor, and the enemy than cast dispel magic. Poof, no more spell. Annoying. Spells are not reliable. Even with the spell, they still lag behind the fighter's weapon training making the fighter 5/4 BAB.
/cevah
|
|
Nowhere in anything I’ve posted have I said Rogues don’t lag behind fighters. It sounds like you play in a difficult campaign. I assume that you also do things like try to flank, have party buffs going, and other things to improve your chances to hit. I’m sorry that you took a comment about the logistics of the critical hit rule as an insult to your playstyle. That was not my intention, and I don’t think you are doing anything wrong if you enjoy playing that character in that campaign.
That is also not a standard situation in Pathfinder. The thread is (Or was, anyway), about frustration with the critical hit mechanics. In a standard PFS module, you aren’t going to be regularly facing a single creature at CR +5 often (EDITED to make clear I meant +5). Occaisionally you might, but it is meant to be an epic fight. If you need a 20 to hit in an epic fight, that’s not really what I was talking about. If your campaign routinely has epic fights, and you’re fine with needing a 20 to hit, then there’s no problem. If you’re frustrated with needing a 20 to hit, what do you suggest as the solution? My comment was that changing the crit rules to autoconfirm doesn’t solve that problem.
I don’t even think you disagree with that statement, based on the rest of your post. So I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. The Rogue is the weakest of the Martial classes? I agree. You don’t like that I said there was something wrong if you only hit on a 20? I apologize for that use of phrasing. How about there are other ways to correct the issue besides changing the crit rule?
If the desired outcome of this thread is that a player would like to score more critical hits, I will still contend that the better approach is to find ways to improve their bonus to hit, rather than to rewrite a core rule of the system.
To put it another way, would autoconfirmong a crit when your Rogue does hit really help things when that CR +5 creature autoconfirms back? Will it help you feel more effective than the Fighter that also autoconfirms?
If you want a high lethality game where every fight is a struggle, then houserule it, fight over CRed creatures, and have fun. That system isn’t balanced for the average Pathfinder game. The core rule around crits is attempting to be.
@Ferious Thune: Not only did I not feel insulted, I was not even aware of a criticism. No apology needed.
If the desired outcome of this thread is that a player would like to score more critical hits, I will still contend that the better approach is to find ways to improve their bonus to hit, rather than to rewrite a core rule of the system.
Agreed.
My point was that in my games, with a non-full BAB class, I do encounter the need-a-20-to-hit often enough to be noticeable.
I am also aware that what goes for the player goes for the GM. Hence why I am not thrilled with crits. As to feeling left out DPS wise, I play for RP not DPS. As long as I am not draining the party resources in combat but rather contributing at least a little, I am OK with my low DPS. I like skills and magic items much more.
/cevah
Some people want games where the PCs have to run away from armies, and some people want games where the armies have to run away from the PCs.
Some people want games where the PCs are likely to survive to the end of the campaign, and some people want games where the PCs could die at any moment.
No such thing as badwrongfun.
Pretty much this. I already know that it's our house rule and don't play in PFS events so it only impacts my group. Thus far it has largely benefited the players (and that's from playing both 3.5 and PF).
What's desirable about rolling a natural 20 on an attack just to see it completely wiped away because you couldn't roll high enough again?We stopped using this stupid rule, at least for Natural 20 rolls, before Pathfinder was even released lol. It seriously makes zero sense. For weapons with wider crit-ranges (like the 15-19 range) we still confirm but nat 20's get a free pass.You may think it's stupid. But not everyone does. In fact I think the rule is not only reasonable but desirable.
The fact that my high AC character almost never has a crit confirmed against him.
The fact that my high AC character almost never has a crit confirmed against him.What's desirable about rolling a natural 20 on an attack just to see it completely wiped away because you couldn't roll high enough again?We stopped using this stupid rule, at least for Natural 20 rolls, before Pathfinder was even released lol. It seriously makes zero sense. For weapons with wider crit-ranges (like the 15-19 range) we still confirm but nat 20's get a free pass.You may think it's stupid. But not everyone does. In fact I think the rule is not only reasonable but desirable.
Meh...
I really don't get the joy of 'God-Mode' though so, I'm happy for you I guess?
even if you confirm the critical you still might roll crappy on damage and once again it's a huge letdown for everyone--you roll 2d12 and get 2. Yeah. After rolling two 20s in a row.
Uuuuuuugh.
That's so awful.
Agreed. I like a house rule that the first (the regular) weapon dice is maximized and then roll the rest so you always get at least a little more than a normal hit.
E.g. if you had a 2d4 weapon with a x3 crit and a +2 from damage - you'd get 4d4 + 14 (2d4 maximized to 8 + 2 + 2(2d4 + 2).