Eliminate the Confirmation Roll with the CritAC

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

I've been tossing around an idea in my head, for a while, now. The goal of the idea is to eliminate the need for a confirmation roll concerning Critical Threats/Hits.

Basically, every combatant would have an additional AC that I call the Crit AC. The Crit AC would be 5 points higher than the normal AC. An attack roll totalling enough to hit the Crit AC would be a Critical Hit. No confirmation roll necessary.

The main problems that I can think of concerning this include:

Threat ranges on various weapons would be meaningless. One possible solution would be to adjust damage dice for these weapons up one step per point of threat range better than 20. For instance, a longsword, with a threat range of 19-20 would have its damage dice increased from 1d8 to 2d6. A second possible solution would be to increase the critical multiplier on such weapons. So, using the longsword, the multiplier would be x3 instead of x2.

Certain feats, abilities, spells, and magic items that increase threat ranges would, instead, adjust the either the damage dice or the critical multiplier as in 1, above.

Abilities like Fortification which have grant a percentage chance to negate a Critical Hit could remain unchanged. Or, as an option, they could, instead, increase the combatant's Crit AC.

Additionally, it might be necessary to record the value of the Flat-Footed Crit AC.

What do you think of this idea? What problems with this have I overlooked?

Thank you.

[Aus_Snow]

Interesting approach. I've come across a similar idea in a third party book, but it was alongside many other rules and options.

I guess critters and characters with a low 'to hit' going up against high AC enemies will just plain ol' never get crits, and that's that.

Otherwise, there probably wouldn't be too much outright change, just shuffling things around, getting rid of / fixing various feats, spells, class features, etc.

Yeah, fortification might give +1 CAC per 5%. . .? Hm, flat-footed and touch could be written in terms of '-x' for each, rather than actual fixed numbers. Oh, and I would go for the increased multiplier for weapons (and feats), rather than increased base damage.

The way it interacts with Power Attack (for example) might need looking at; not sure.

[cooperflood]

The number of crits in the game will go up tremendously. Take for example abilities that attack touch AC. Many of those attacks hit on a roll of less than 10. And don't forget about all those spells that are touch attack or ranged touch attacks. They do double damage on a crit just like weapons. Personally I think a radical change like this would require a lot of number crunching and play testing.

[chando]

If you want to eliminate the confirmation roll, do just that: eliminate the confirmation roll.

when you roll a 20 with an great axe, you do x3 damage. When you roll a 19 with a longsword, you do x2 damage. just don't roll the confirmation. it will increase the crits for players and monsters but not by much, as the confirmation is many times just a formality, and other times is frustrating to roll a natural 20 and roll really low on the confirmation (like 2-5).

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I just eliminated the Confirmation roll when I ran my game. No biggie. Sure, crits happened more often. That was part of the point.

The idea.... honestly, it seems awfully fiddly for no payoff. You eliminate a Confirmation roll *shrug*. You've replaced the extra time you would have spent making a 2nd roll with having to learn a whole new subsystem, having to rejigger feats, and mess around with weapon stats.

If the goal was to make things easier, you're heading the opposite direction.

If the goal is to try and make crits happen more often, you're just doing a shell-game.

It also means that against a character like my 12th level Fighter with a 24 AC, monsters are going to be critting him quite frequently. Monster to Hits increase a heck of a lot faster than PC BaB and AC.

[Thanael]

Originally Posted by chando

If you want to eliminate the confirmation roll, do just that: eliminate the confirmation roll.

when you roll a 20 with an great axe, you do x3 damage. When you roll a 19 with a longsword, you do x2 damage. just don't roll the confirmation. it will increase the crits for players and monsters but not by much, as the confirmation is many times just a formality, and other times is frustrating to roll a natural 20 and roll really low on the confirmation (like 2-5).

That's how it was in 2E and this resulted in the highly armoured foe that is always critted when hit. That's the reason they invented the confirmation roll.

In 2.5E Combat & Tactics tackles this by saying you're only critted when the roll is a crit and hits by a margin of 5. So effectively your crit AC was your normal AC +5.

[Eldritch_Lord]

Originally Posted by Thanael

That's how it was in 2E and this resulted in the highly armoured foe that is always critted when hit. That's the reason they invented the confirmation roll.

Makes sense to me--if you're really heavily armored, the only way you'd be hit at all is to be hit in a more vulnerable place, and being hit in a more vulnerable place damages you more, so a high-AC character only taking crits should be fine; they're still taking less damage than those taking crits plus normal hits.

[El Mahdi]

With this approach, all I see is a lot of extra record keeping and calculations for something that can just be done by eliminating the confirmation roll period. And the posts above are correct, this will increase the number of crits that occur. However, IMO that's not a problem. I like fast, brutal, high crit games.

The way I do it is simply eliminating confirmation rolls for natural 20's (just like it used to be in 2E), but keep confirmation rolls for the rest of the threat range. So, 20's are automatically crits (not just automatic hits), and any other roll (15, 16, 17, 18, 19) all still need confirmation rolls.

This approach increases the amount of crits, but not as much as it would if any hit with a roll in the threat range was considered an automatic crit. And, it doesn't nullify any feats that concern critical hits. It also saves you from adding any extra record keeping and makes it the responsibility of the players to pay attention to whether rolls fall within their threat range.

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Interesting approach. I've come across a similar idea in a third party book, but it was alongside many other rules and options.

I'm sure it's not an original idea with me. Someone's already posted that the idea was in presented as an option in 2E. I'm wanting to eventually expand on it with more house rules.

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

I guess critters and characters with a low 'to hit' going up against high AC enemies will just plain ol' never get crits, and that's that.

True... But, from my perspective, the purpose of armor is to reduce the chance of taking a critical hit. So, unarmored combatants should suffer criticals more often than armored combatants, all other things being equal.

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Otherwise, there probably wouldn't be too much outright change, just shuffling things around, getting rid of / fixing various feats, spells, class features, etc.

I hope that's all there is to it. I'm almost ready to test it. There are some wrinkles I'm trying to work through, though.

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Yeah, fortification might give +1 CAC per 5%. . .?

Yeah... Fortification, might not get changed, at all. The 75% fortification would equate to a +15 to CritAC. That seems like an awful lot, but maybe not. Needs more thought. A normal AC of 15 and a CritAC or 30 might be fine, depending on style of play.

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Hm, flat-footed and touch could be written in terms of '-x' for each, rather than actual fixed numbers.

Yes, it could.

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Oh, and I would go for the increased multiplier for weapons (and feats), rather than increased base damage.

That's one of the wrinkles that I mentioned. It could make some weapons extremely deadly on a critical. In other words, it would make criticals CRITICAL! But, I'm too much of a good thing could kill a game.

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

The way it interacts with Power Attack (for example) might need looking at; not sure.

This one, I hadn't thought of. Power Attack is a weird feat, in my mind, anyway. But, the idea of using Strength to hit, to begin with is odd, too. But, that's a whole 'nother houserule discussion. And, I think there should be a Base Damage Bonus that increases with level, as opposed to only a Base Attack Bonus. But, that's just me.

Thank you, Aus_Snow.

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by cooperflood

The number of crits in the game will go up tremendously.

I agree, Cooperflood. But, I like that the increase will be more related to the combantants' skill than luck.

Originally Posted by cooperflood

Take for example abilities that attack touch AC. Many of those attacks hit on a roll of less than 10. And don't forget about all those spells that are touch attack or ranged touch attacks. They do double damage on a crit just like weapons.

Thank you. This is something that bothers me about the 3.5 system. I'm not sure there's solid logic in allowing touch attacks to score critical hits. I don't understand it. The damage from Critical Hits is generally classed with precision damage. The idea of causing a Critical Hit from an attack that only requires a touch attack to hit is really odd, to me. I'd be tempted to remove Critical Touch Attacks from the game. What would be the drawback?

Originally Posted by cooperflood

Personally I think a radical change like this would require a lot of number crunching and play testing.

I'm sure it will. If I decide to go forward with this, I'll be working on it for 3 or 4 months before introducing it to my game. Our group has two DMs that alternate and each DM uses his own houserules. So, I'm not in a rush to implement this.

Thank you for the reminder about Touch Attacks causing Critical Hits. I think that rule will have to go for this to work. Can't see a reason for it, in the first place.

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by chando

If you want to eliminate the confirmation roll, do just that: eliminate the confirmation roll.

It's not just eliminating the confirmation roll that I'm after, Chando. It's making Critical hits more about skill than luck for all characters, not just those with Improved Critical or Power Critical. And it has to do with making DnD combat make more sense in the way our group imagines sword-and-sorcery combat to be. We've went to a houseruled variant of Vitality and Wound Points from Unearthed Arcana because of the general dislike we have for the abstraction of what Hit Points are in the game. And, we've tried the Class Defense Bonus combined with Armor as Damage Reduction, too, but it left us less than satisfied. Applying Damage Reduction for every hit just got to be a chore with creatures with more than a few hit points and decent damage reduction when the weapons weren't dealing very much damage to begin with.

So, with this, we're going for Armor as Critical Reduction. In fact, I almost thought about turning armor's defense bonus to AC into various degrees of Fortification. In other words, Armor would add nothing to your AC, but if you suffered a Critical Hit, you'd roll percentiles and if the roll was right, you're armor would negate the Critical Hit. But, armor wouldn't affect AC, at all. But, there are some wrinkles in that system, too.

Originally Posted by chando

when you roll a 20 with an great axe, you do x3 damage. When you roll a 19 with a longsword, you do x2 damage. just don't roll the confirmation. it will increase the crits for players and monsters but not by much, as the confirmation is many times just a formality, and other times is frustrating to roll a natural 20 and roll really low on the confirmation (like 2-5).

Oh, I agree that rolling a Natural 20 and then missing the confirmation is really frustrating. One of my players hates it. He had a fighter that had a Vorpal Weapon in a long running 1E AD&D game and that character is "lejendary" at our table. The confirmation roll frustrates him to no end on a Natural 20. And, even moreso for Critical Fumbles on a Natural 1.

Someone else, in this thread, posted about removing the Confirmation Roll from Natural 20's. I'll probably do that no matter what else I do. And, I'll remove the Confirmation Roll from Natural 1's for Critical Fumbles, too. Just to be fair.

Thank you, Chando!

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by Scurvy_Platypus

I just eliminated the Confirmation roll when I ran my game. No biggie. Sure, crits happened more often. That was part of the point.

The idea.... honestly, it seems awfully fiddly for no payoff. You eliminate a Confirmation roll *shrug*. You've replaced the extra time you would have spent making a 2nd roll with having to learn a whole new subsystem, having to rejigger feats, and mess around with weapon stats.

If the goal was to make things easier, you're heading the opposite direction.

Oh, I agree... But, the goal isn't just to make things easier. It's to shape DnD Combat more in line with how the folks at my table envision it in the sword-and-sorcery novels. And, it's an experiment, for me, also. I like experimenting with houserules almost as much as playing the game.

Originally Posted by Scurvy_Platypus

If the goal is to try and make crits happen more often, you're just doing a shell-game.

I understand that, but that isn't the goal. The goal in this aspect is to make critical hits more about skill than luck, whether you have Improved Critical or Power Critical or not.

Originally Posted by Scurvy_Platypus

It also means that against a character like my 12th level Fighter with a 24 AC, monsters are going to be critting him quite frequently. Monster to Hits increase a heck of a lot faster than PC BaB and AC.

That's a good point. Thank you for reminding me of that.

I'm a fan for E6. And, as such I haven't played into the higher levels of 3.5. So, I'm not as familiar with that as I am the lower level games. I have had some thoughts about how I'd like to redesign monsters, given the time, though. But, that's more from a Vitality/Wound Point perspective than from a Critical Hit perspective.

Thank you for pointing that out about monster to-hits, Scurvy_Platypus!

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by Thanael

In 2.5E Combat & Tactics tackles this by saying you're only critted when the roll is a crit and hits by a margin of 5. So effectively your crit AC was your normal AC +5.

Thank you, Thanael. I knew I'd seen this somewhere in a DnD book. But, couldn't find it. I still have my 2E books, but honestly, I really only reference 1E for stuff from the old days. Especially, the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide. Great book!

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

With this approach, all I see is a lot of extra record keeping and calculations for something that can just be done by eliminating the confirmation roll period.

Well, the extra record keeping, I could do without. But, if it's no harder than checking to see if you beat the CritAC, I could deal with that. I was already planning on revising the weapon charts, anyway. I was going to adjust it in favor of the characters by increasing the damage dice by one step for most all weapons when wielded by a PC or an elite NPC (especially, ones that I make up). We did this in 1E and it worked very well. And, no one noticed that part of the reason the PC's were so successful was because they did slightly better damage, on average, than the monsters because their damage dice were improved, a little over the monsters'.

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

And the posts above are correct, this will increase the number of crits that occur. However, IMO that's not a problem. I like fast, brutal, high crit games.

Me, too. Grim-n-Gritty is, also, one of my favorite houserules. But, it's just a little too brutal for my table.

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

The way I do it is simply eliminating confirmation rolls for natural 20's (just like it used to be in 2E), but keep confirmation rolls for the rest of the threat range. So, 20's are automatically crits (not just automatic hits), and any other roll (15, 16, 17, 18, 19) all still need confirmation rolls.

I really like this suggestion, El Mahdi! It's simple and workable. As I said, above, I'm eliminating the confirmation rolls on Natural 20's and Natural 1's, immediately. No reason to keep them. As more fun equals better! (Usually.)

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

This approach increases the amount of crits, but not as much as it would if any hit with a roll in the threat range was considered an automatic crit. And, it doesn't nullify any feats that concern critical hits. It also saves you from adding any extra record keeping and makes it the responsibility of the players to pay attention to whether rolls fall within their threat range.

And, if I fully adopted this option, this would be why, El Mahdi. It's beautiful in its simplicity and elegance. I'm just not sure that I'm ready to give up trying to flesh out this houserule, yet.

[Ashtagon]

Simpler version:

* Any roll inside the threat range is always a hit, regardless of AC.
* Any roll inside the threat range that beats the base AC by 5 or more is a critical hit.

This eliminates the confirmation roll, while also preventing the glass jaw problem, where all hits would be criticals.

[Eldritch_Lord]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

* Any roll inside the threat range is always a hit, regardless of AC.

This one's not a good idea. Wielding a rapier and taking Improved Critical would then mean you automatically hit 30% of the time, regardless of AC, and that wouldn't be balanced at all. Automatic hits should stay on natural 20s only or things get out of hand fast.

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Simpler version:

* Any roll inside the threat range is always a hit, regardless of AC.
* Any roll inside the threat range that beats the base AC by 5 or more is a critical hit.

This eliminates the confirmation roll, while also preventing the glass jaw problem, where all hits would be criticals.

Originally Posted by Eldritch_Lord

This one's not a good idea. Wielding a rapier and taking Improved Critical would then mean you automatically hit 30% of the time, regardless of AC, and that wouldn't be balanced at all. Automatic hits should stay on natural 20s only or things get out of hand fast.

Whew! That looked good, in print, at first glance, Ashtagon. But, I think Eldritch Lord is right about the problem it creates.

Thank you, Eldritch Lord, for catching that! ENWorld's people are the best when it comes to talking about houserules. So many times, the person that comes up with an idea can't see the flaws, right away. This forum really helps put the ideas to a test before they ruin a night's gaming. Or, a campaign!