Confirming crits, good idea, bad idea, or worst idea ever

[Bedrockgames]

I understand the reasoning behind confirming crits, which Hassassin lays out pretty well; it removes the extreme case where every hit is a crit because you need a natural 20 to hit in the first place. If we had a computer doing all the math for us and rolling the dice, I'd be in favor of confirming crits. However, since we don't (and I wouldn't want to), I find it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd rather just have crit on a 20 and accept the slight wonkiness.

In this case, it might make sense to require a back up roll. But i dont see the need if you are rolling against AC 18

 

[tlantl]

I don't mind confirming crits but it would be nice if there aren't threat ranges on weapons.

I also believe that if you need to roll a 20 to hit something then you are never going to get a critical hit if you ever do hit it.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

I like (and miss) crit threat ranges. I dislike confirming crits. To hell with realism, I want my 20 to mean something!

 

[billd91]

I don't mind confirming crits but it would be nice if there aren't threat ranges on weapons.

I also believe that if you need to roll a 20 to hit something then you are never going to get a critical hit if you ever do hit it.

That handles that case sure. But should a person who needs a 19 to hit have the same overall crit rate as someone who only needs a 11? Why does the less skilled combatant crit on 50% of his hits vs this opponent while the guy who needs a 11 or better crits on only 10%?

I've seen crit systems that apply if someone rolls 5 more than needed to hit the minimum AC. Adding that to the natural 20 might alleviate the problems associated with different abilities of the combatants.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

While confirming the critical makes a degree of sense, for the reasons mentioned above, it is antithetical to the reasons we like critical hits on a 20, which is that we want a natural 20 to mean something special every time. It's the same reason why automatic success and failure rules for skills became a common house rule, and why a 20 on a roll was often granted a higher level of success.

If you recall the polls here and on Wizards.com from a couple days ago, which asked which features you wanted to see in D&DNext, Critical Hits was consistently the most universally wanted mechanic. The specialness of a natural 20, no matter how gamist it might be, rises above other concerns. It resonates with us. Anything that diminishes that is a tragedy.

 

[delericho]

BTW, the problem the confirm attempts to solve is that someone with 10% chance to hit should be critting a lot less than someone with a 90% chance. Without confirm both have a 5% chance. With the confirm, the former becomes a 0.5% chance and the latter a 4.5% chance.

Yep, that's the theory. Of course, in practice you're almost always fighting monsters with an AC in the mid-range - you have a decent, but not certain, chance of scoring a hit.

While confirming the critical makes a degree of sense, for the reasons mentioned above, it is antithetical to the reasons we like critical hits on a 20, which is that we want a natural 20 to mean something special every time. It's the same reason why automatic success and failure rules for skills became a common house rule, and why a 20 on a roll was often granted a higher level of success.

I agree. Getting some special effect on that nat-20 is indeed cool, even if it is probably that little bit too frequent. By the same token, I absolutely don't agree with crits on anything less than the natural-20 unless we're bringing back the confirmation roll.

I wouldn't agree with your 'tragedy' assessment, but I certainly agree that the emotional argument for "natural 20 = crit" is definitely very strong.

 

[Paraxis]

What if you only crit on a nat '20' wich equals max damage, but instead of confirmation had a margin of success bonus where if you get 10 higher than the AC you add dX damage. This way sometimes when get that nat '20' you also get the extra damage sometimes you don't.

So no confirmation roll but the higher skilled vs easier to hit target still get a bonus some of the time independent of rolling a critical.

I do like the idea of having an extra effect of crits like trip, bull rush, ect...seems kind of like stunt points from Dragon Age wich are cool.

EDIT: Second Idea, have a crit be on natural '20' only but have it do max damage plus the number you exceeded the targets AC by, so you roll a 20 have a +7 to hit and the targets AC was 15 you do max damage plus 12.

 

[tlantl]

That handles that case sure. But should a person who needs a 19 to hit have the same overall crit rate as someone who only needs a 11? Why does the less skilled combatant crit on 50% of his hits vs this opponent while the guy who needs a 11 or better crits on only 10%?

I've seen crit systems that apply if someone rolls 5 more than needed to hit the minimum AC. Adding that to the natural 20 might alleviate the problems associated with different abilities of the combatants.

By confirming a critical you need to reroll the die and hit it again. That is why confirmations work better in those situations. If you need a 19 to hit and don't roll one there is no critical hit.

In that play test the confirmation was for extra damage, though.

The game has always assumed that the guy behind the screen has the final say at the table. The group gives you that authority by letting you sit there, they should trust you to make good decisions or at least have a good reason for the one you made. If it doesn't seem fair that everyone regardless of skill can do max damage on a 20 then communicate that to the group. If you are playing at another table and the DM likes that rule then you can advocate for a house rule, live with it, or go find another group to play with.

I am going to assume that some form of critical hit bonus is going to be core. I also assume they will give us a few different methods of determining the methods used to confirm the crit and the resulting bonus.

 

[Hassassin]

Yep, that's the theory. Of course, in practice you're almost always fighting monsters with an AC in the mid-range - you have a decent, but not certain, chance of scoring a hit.

In 4e that's true, and another reason auto-confirm works.

In 3e you'll see a lot of variation, even in balanced encounters. A CR 5 monster may have AC 20+. Four CR 1 monsters (still EL 5) may have AC 10-13. The same is true for attack bonuses.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I wouldn't be terribly worked up if confirm rolls were removed altogether, and only moderately annoyed if they remained. (They aren't difficult to remove.) It's what having them says about the rest of the system that is more pertinent to me.

I would really prefer that natural 20 mean -- "max damage on current roll" + "extra damage roll based on whatever weapon, magic, and special crit options you have with that attack" --then with options to replace the second part of that with a variety of effects (if you want). For one thing, it's a lot easier to manipulate the options to get the style that a table wants.

With such a system, a compromise position might be to require confirmations for the extra part (either damage or some option that replaced it), but only when the creatures needs some arbitrary cut off to hit in the first place. Let's say 15+ required to hit, for sake of example, but it might be more in the range of 16 to 18, depending on system expectations.

That's high enough that it will not apply to many routine attacks, which are probably more in the 45% to 65% range. But it's low enough that it will apply to many creatures with high defenses (i.e. boss monsters that you'd just as soon not go down to a string of natural 20's from a relatively weak attack). That is, use the 80/20 rule here, requiring a confirmation roll on the minority of attacks where it really matters that much, but not slowing the game down otherwise.

In a close fight, it also turns borderline attacks against tough creatures into situations where a little bit of bonus can mean a lot. So that fighter flanking the dragon with the rogue, and getting a +2 to hit, could mean a lot more than 10% increased chance of hitting.

Even when you can't get the extra, at least you get the max damage on a natural 20. If your character is one of those concepts of high chance to hit with extra effects, relatively low base damage (AKA - a crit fisher), then a string of crits at the very least gives you some solid damage even against very defensive opponents. Likewise, if you are one of those brawny barbarian types with the d10 or d12 base dice and lots of mods in your relatively low chance to hit attacks, getting the max damage is nice in its own right, even if you can't confirm.