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

[BryonD]

The idea that a low level wizard swinging a stick is just as likely to crit a storm giant as a skilled fighter is to crit an average orc is dysfunctional.

The idea that weapons can gain distinction through crit differences is cool.

A 20 is still cool because it is an autohit.

 

[Sunseeker]

For the longest time I hated confirming crits. Why? Because I had a bad DM who did it wrong, and I was under the impression that in order to confirm you had to get a nat 20, twice.(that makes for a .00025% chance to crit)

Then I learned how confirming crits REALLY worked. And I hate it less, but still feel it's wholly unnecessary.

 

[Bohemian Ear Spoon]

Eh. We have to remember WHY confirms were there in the first place. The level 10 warrior with his +X plate, his +Something Feat, His "Shield of you shall not hit me"

Then a goblin with a lowsy to-hit comes up at take a shot. The goblin needs to get a 19 or better to hit.

That means they will hit once every ten swings but 50% of those hits will crit

Thats what I call odd

So its a rule for something that never would happen. Goblin survived 10 rounds against a 10th level warrior? he deserved to get critted. Or maybe it was 20 goblins, and they got 2 got crits, so that is double damage from a GOBLIN at level 10. Double damage is still pathetic ,and doesnt break any simulationism I can see.

if a wizard should go toe to toe with a storm giant and opt to whack him with a staff and rolls a d20, you bet he deserves the crit (ooh 1d6 doubled that giant is in trouble!) because it will probably be the last crit the wizard ever gets.

This rule is for some sense of realistic alignment of averages for corner cases that never happen and are so silly that crits are the least of the realism-wrecking going on. That's my opinion of course, but it is infallible (to me)

 

[The Human Target]

How many times in 3e did I see a players face light up with joy on a "Crit", only to see them remember they had to roll to confirm it and then fail and then get sad.

 

[tlantl]

So its a rule for something that never would happen. Goblin survived 10 rounds against a 10th level warrior? he deserved to get critted. Or maybe it was 20 goblins, and they got 2 got crits, so that is double damage from a GOBLIN at level 10. Double damage is still pathetic ,and doesnt break any simulationism I can see.

if a wizard should go toe to toe with a storm giant and opt to whack him with a staff and rolls a d20, you bet he deserves the crit (ooh 1d6 doubled that giant is in trouble!) because it will probably be the last crit the wizard ever gets.

This rule is for some sense of realistic alignment of averages for corner cases that never happen and are so silly that crits are the least of the realism-wrecking going on. That's my opinion of course, but it is infallible (to me)

Perhaps if you remove the goblin and replace the name with rogue or wizard and put them into your own party and looked at it from that perspective it becomes more relevant.

It was pointed out by a poster earlier that they didn't think it was fair that someone who needed to hit on an 18 critted statistically more often than a player that hit the same creature with a roll of 11.

 

[kitsune9]

I know there's some gamers who don't like crit confirming and I definitely see their point. However, I love it. When you're in a battle for your life and you really really need a crit, it's awesome to roll that confirm to either get it or blow it. I enjoy that extra level of tension and possible frustration.

I know the argument can be said just for the to-hit roll and I see that point, but I just love me some confirms, just sayin'.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Crits are hard to design right. If you're going to have them (which D&D has to), you need to have them occurring on rolls other than 20 (as 3e did). Then again, you don't want them becoming ubiquitous. Confirmation was a somewhat inelegant solution, but it is the best crit system we've seen in any version of D&D thusfar, and I haven't seen any better ideas.

The idea that a low level wizard swinging a stick is just as likely to crit a storm giant as a skilled fighter is to crit an average orc is dysfunctional.

The idea that weapons can gain distinction through crit differences is cool.

A 20 is still cool because it is an autohit.

These are all good points.

 

[Herschel]

Worst. Idea. Ever.

It was one of the things I hated most about 3E. The skilled guy who gets the crit finds an opening to use and the unskilled guy who gets the crit got lucky. A 20 is a 20, voila! Done.

I also like the 4E crit math if you aren't going to have an effects chart. The chart is fun, but rather random.

 

[delericho]

If the leak is true then the new crit mechanic seems pretty tasty. Max damage is the meat and potatoes.The confirmation roll the gravy.

I do not like it. Either auto-crit on a nat-20 for max damage, or a confirmation roll for crits with whatever riders you want.

Pick one, I don't really care which. But this approach is just too powerful, and will be a strike against 5e in my eyes.

Ick, no. I freaking hate critical fumbles. Auto-miss on a natural 1 is plenty.

Likewise, I detest critical fumbles.

 

[Dausuul]

...you need to have them occurring on rolls other than 20 (as 3e did).

Why?