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

[Crazy Jerome]

To boil this down to the simplest possible version: Any natural 20 is a crit, and the meaning of "crit" is "bonus damage equal to your attack bonus." So if you've got +7 to hit, then you get +7 damage any time you roll a 20 on the attack roll.

One of the nice minor side effects of that option is that a 10th level fighter forced to use a mundane dagger during an escape still crits pretty darn hard compared to 1st level guy with a battle axe. That is, "improved critical damage" is a function of getting better with an attack--which is the way things would really be in any kind of world with even a nod to realism. As opposed to "only people who train with specific weapons, have magic, or take special feats" hit harder on criticals.

There is a sense in which criticals are out of place in a system as abstract as D&D, with attack rolls and then a range of damages. They aren't as bad as "called shots to the head" in that respect, but still a bit off. This kind of critical mechanic fits the abstraction that "skilled guy hits harder".

 

[fuindordm]

I really liked the 3E crit system. It made weapon choice more interesting, crits occur with the right frequency for skilled/unskilled characters, and rewarded martial characters in a minor but exciting way. I wasn't happy about the 3.5 tweak that kept Keen and Imp. Critical from stacking.

However, I also agree that the "Cool, nat 20! Aww..." letdown sucked for players. So I would be very excited about a system where the 20 always netted a minor bonus, such as max damage, but the confirmation roll did something more exciting.

As a side note, my 2E DM required a confirmation roll of 20 for critical hits--he thought 1/400 was the right frequency. If you got a crit, the opponent had to save vs. death or drop to -1 hp immediately.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why?

That would be this other post I quoted:

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

There's also the kobold problem. If an inferior opponent who can only hit on a 20 crits you with every hit, that makes combat too swingy. It shouldn't be impossible to have a non-critical hit.

Do you have a point as to why critical threat ranges (and multipliers) are not a good thing?

 

[The Human Target]

A wizard with a stick can crit all day long, he's still not going to do anything compared to a fighter hitting all day long, let alone crit-ing.

 

[Dausuul]

That would be this other post I quoted:
There's also the kobold problem. If an inferior opponent who can only hit on a 20 crits you with every hit, that makes combat too swingy. It shouldn't be impossible to have a non-critical hit.

Do you have a point as to why critical threat ranges (and multipliers) are not a good thing?

Not as such, no. I have no objection to critical threat ranges or multipliers; I just don't feel a compelling need for them that would justify the inclusion of an additional die roll--one more small element slowing down combat.

I understand and agree that "If you need a 20 to hit, you always crit" is an undesirable result, and the Perfect Crit Rules would not produce it. However, I have not found that it's an issue for me in practice, and therefore I prefer to keep the system clean, fast, and simple. How often is the wizard taking on monsters with a stick? Except at very low levels--where there isn't a huge difference between wizard and fighter attack bonuses to begin with--it's extremely rare for anybody to be using weapons except the trained weapon-users. In fact, when the wizard is going head-to-head in melee, I want her to crit often, because that means the situation is desperate and the party is probably teetering on the brink of a TPK.

With respect to fighting a bazillion kobolds, it depends on how much damage their crits inflict. If they attack for 1d4 and crit on a 20 for double damage... they're dealing 2d4. On one attack out of twenty. Meh. Or if you're using the 4E approach, they're minions with fixed damage, so a crit does nothing for them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not as such, no. I have no objection to critical threat ranges or multipliers; I just don't feel a compelling need for them that would justify the inclusion of an additional die roll--one more small element slowing down combat.

I understand and agree that "If you need a 20 to hit, you always crit" is an undesirable result, and the Perfect Crit Rules would not produce it. However, I have not found that it's an issue for me in practice, and therefore I prefer to keep the system clean, fast, and simple. How often is the wizard taking on monsters with a stick? Except at very low levels--where there isn't a huge difference between wizard and fighter attack bonuses to begin with--it's extremely rare for anybody to be using weapons except the trained weapon-users.

I thought that was an interesting idea; base the results of the crot on how skilled you are, and perhaps onee that would reduce the power of crits enough to have threat ranges without confirmation rolls.

I'm not an enormous fan of having to roll extra dice, but I would hesitate to change something that works. That said, I do hope they come up with something new and good.

 

[trancejeremy]

If you need a 20 to hit, then basically the only way you are ever going to hit the person in question is on a very lucky fluke hit, so why shouldn't that also be a critical?

I'm not a fan of critical hits, though. In the long run, they hurt the players more than monsters.

 

[BryonD]

A wizard with a stick can crit all day long, he's still not going to do anything compared to a fighter hitting all day long, let alone crit-ing.

Irrelevant.

 

[BryonD]

If you need a 20 to hit, then basically the only way you are ever going to hit the person in question is on a very lucky fluke hit, so why shouldn't that also be a critical?

I'm not a fan of critical hits, though. In the long run, they hurt the players more than monsters.

Random elements always favor the underdog.

In 4 out of 5 fights the monsters are the underdog.

 

[Kingreaper]

To boil this down to the simplest possible version: Any natural 20 is a crit, and the meaning of "crit" is "bonus damage equal to your attack bonus." So if you've got +7 to hit, then you get +7 damage any time you roll a 20 on the attack roll.

Damn you mr. Requirement to Spread XP around man...

IOW: Good idea.