Confirming crits, good idea, bad idea, or worst idea ever
- Thread starter Bohemian Ear Spoon
- Start date
Erik le Rouge
First Post
I'm of the old school. I truly enjoyed Rolemaster and its crit. tables. I understand the complaint that its more trouble for some adding another roll on top of another. But how long is it to roll an extra dice? I think this process could be resolved very rapidly with an experienced DM.
Anyway, the Next edition gives the power back to the DM which can house rule it in an instant and revert to the 4e way of doing things. I really don't see a big deal with crit. rolling.
Personally, I think it can add depth and fun
! YMMV.
Anyway, the Next edition gives the power back to the DM which can house rule it in an instant and revert to the 4e way of doing things. I really don't see a big deal with crit. rolling.
Personally, I think it can add depth and fun
! YMMV.
Last edited:
Note that in 4e, this wasn't a problem: If a level 1 kobold can only hit the level 10 fighter with a 20, then when he hits, that attack isn't a crit.
Gundark
Explorer
This is the supposed thing they were playtesting in the second "leaked" report. If this is actually the case, I have no problems with this. Don't like the confirmation roll? Fine, drop it and just use max damage like 4e.
I don't see what the issue is.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
That actually sounds pretty nice to me.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I think the game could do just fine without any criticals in the core at all.
They mainly just serve as a justification for numbers inflation.
They mainly just serve as a justification for numbers inflation.
It's not a bad rule. You have a Little Crit, and if you roll high enough second time, a Big Crit. The problem is in calling it a confirmation, because this brings back memories of having to settle for a plain result after the excitement of seeing a 20.
So I think the second roll should be referred to as a follow-up. This term removes any connotations of checking to see whether it's a 'real' crit, instead giving the impression of lining up more punishment after dealing a mighty blow. Extra damage could be the default result of a successful follow-up, with the possibility (say, in the tactical combat module) of other options, such as pushing the target back or giving a nearby ally advantage. The PC might also have the option of relinquishing the follow-up in favour of a defensive move, such as withdrawing.
So I think the second roll should be referred to as a follow-up. This term removes any connotations of checking to see whether it's a 'real' crit, instead giving the impression of lining up more punishment after dealing a mighty blow. Extra damage could be the default result of a successful follow-up, with the possibility (say, in the tactical combat module) of other options, such as pushing the target back or giving a nearby ally advantage. The PC might also have the option of relinquishing the follow-up in favour of a defensive move, such as withdrawing.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I suppose it depends on how you rationalize critical hits.
We see them as pure luck. Skill means you hit on a natural 5. Lack of skill means you need a natural 19. Luck means you crit. on a 20 confirmed no matter how good or bad you are at fighting - and that is also why our confirm roll has nothing to do with to-hit and AC; it's a straight d10, with 8-9-0 being critical doing 2x-3x-4x damage respectively...a lucky strike.
We also have fumbles - a natural 1 or a roll brought to 1 or less by negative modifiers - confirmed by rolling 1 on a d6. We have a d% table for what happens next, ranging from the mundane (e.g. dropped weapon, common) to the extremely painful (e.g. possible crit. hit into self or ally, very rare).
Both of these apply to everyone - PC, NPC, monster, whatever.
Lan-"oh, by the way, I vote that the confirm roll remain in some form"-efan
We see them as pure luck. Skill means you hit on a natural 5. Lack of skill means you need a natural 19. Luck means you crit. on a 20 confirmed no matter how good or bad you are at fighting - and that is also why our confirm roll has nothing to do with to-hit and AC; it's a straight d10, with 8-9-0 being critical doing 2x-3x-4x damage respectively...a lucky strike.
We also have fumbles - a natural 1 or a roll brought to 1 or less by negative modifiers - confirmed by rolling 1 on a d6. We have a d% table for what happens next, ranging from the mundane (e.g. dropped weapon, common) to the extremely painful (e.g. possible crit. hit into self or ally, very rare).
Both of these apply to everyone - PC, NPC, monster, whatever.
Lan-"oh, by the way, I vote that the confirm roll remain in some form"-efan
stevelabny
Explorer
Critical hit confirmation as opposed to nat 20 = double damage helps to balance the math logically, add weapon differences via crit range, add weapon differences via crit multiplier.
So rolling to confirm is a good idea with a lot of possible benefits.
And the entire time I played 3rd edition, I never once saw the group not cheer for a 20. (Part of this could be because one of the campaigns used the nat 20 = max damage house rule, but even without it, the confirmation roll always drew all eyes to the die)
I don't think D&D has done enough make weapons different from each other. Crit range, crit multiplier, weapon proficiencies, speed factor, vs armor types, and even special attacks should all be used.
So rolling to confirm is a good idea with a lot of possible benefits.
And the entire time I played 3rd edition, I never once saw the group not cheer for a 20. (Part of this could be because one of the campaigns used the nat 20 = max damage house rule, but even without it, the confirmation roll always drew all eyes to the die)
I don't think D&D has done enough make weapons different from each other. Crit range, crit multiplier, weapon proficiencies, speed factor, vs armor types, and even special attacks should all be used.
Bohemian Ear Spoon
First Post
Thought: In a game where a d20 is rolled for many different things besides to-hit, such as skill checks, initiative, and many other reasons (including random boredness) and crits ONLY affect to-hit rolls, then the percentage of crits is actually less than 5%.
So in a game like 3e, where iterative attacks meant to-hits are 50-75% of the rolls, then maybe it would seem like crits happen too often, but in a game with lots of die rolling (a la 5e so we hear) the crit will be rare and the need to confirm will be lessened somewhat.
Also, and in contradiction to the above, I think EVERY d20 die roll, even initiative and skill checks, should have the option to "go crit" on a 20.
So in a game like 3e, where iterative attacks meant to-hits are 50-75% of the rolls, then maybe it would seem like crits happen too often, but in a game with lots of die rolling (a la 5e so we hear) the crit will be rare and the need to confirm will be lessened somewhat.
Also, and in contradiction to the above, I think EVERY d20 die roll, even initiative and skill checks, should have the option to "go crit" on a 20.
Similar Threads
