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

[Hassassin]

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%.
[...]
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.

Depending on what you mean by "go crit", that was true for some other rolls in 3e. Almost every check other than a skill roll was automatically successful on a 20. Spells critted when the enemy rolled 1 on a save.

In addition to what has been done before, I would consider making saves crit so that save-halves effects allow a second save on a natural 20 to avoid even the partial effect. Skills shouldn't crit by default, since the effect can be anything and the check shouldn't always succeed even on a natural 20.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I agree with no confirmation. Let a natural 20 be a crit, and just double the rolled damage (that's 2x the number showing on the base damage die, not 2x the added damage, or 2x added dice like sneak attacks). It's simple, easy, instantly able to be calculated by the player, and provides more than you get with a regular hit (which is why max damage is a let down -- you can do that even without a natural 20).

 

[Naszir]

Max damage for a crit plus some sort of add on effect. This way you get beyond the "I could just roll max damage with a regular hit" and you don't have deal with the disappointment of a confirm roll that "misses".

 

[GSHamster]

Here's another idea, courtesy of The Old Republic: A 2-roll system.

The first roll is the to-hit roll. The second roll details the result of the hit. So if you roll a 20 on the second roll, you score a critical.

What this does is changes the distribution of crits. Normal D&D states that 5% of all your attacks are criticals. A 2-roll system states that 5% of all your hits are criticals.

Thus if you hit more often, you get more crits than someone who misses a lot. It's also easier to add extra critical ranges to the second roll. Like a specific weapon could change a crit to 18-20, then you crit on 15% of all your hits.

SWTOR goes the extra distance and adds shield chance onto the second roll. So if you roll a 1, maybe you only do half-damage if the opponent is wearing a shield.

Of course the downside is that you roll a second die for pretty much every attack, which is a lot slower.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Of course the downside is that you roll a second die for pretty much every attack, which is a lot slower.

That and the disappointment of nothing interesting happening when you roll a 20 on the first die.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Dont really care about 5E much but I too never got the whole confirmation roll thing and promptly excised it from both my 3.5 game and then my Pathfinder one.

Having to confirm just sucks all of the air out of the room after what should be a awesome moment.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I prefer a nat 20 just being a crit. The proposed system isn't terrible, but I think removing the confirm roll would make it more elegant.

Yes, if a kobold can only hit you on a 20, and a 20 is a crit, that's a bit weird. However, I feel the need to point out that the kobold is not, in fact, critting any more often than if it could hit you on a 2+. The kobold who only crits on a 20, is in fact, missing on 19 of 20 attacks.

Honestly, if the math is tight (as I'm hoping, from their discussion of flatter bonuses, it will be), the corner cases are edged out.

If attack bonus/ AC disparities never grow too large, it never becomes a problem. You're never going to notice that a kobold who needs a 16+ to hit you crits 1 in 5 hits. What you're going to notice is that the kobold misses you a lot.

Additionally, if scaling is based more upon damage than attack bonus (as I suspect may be the case) that kobold's crit will be pathetic compared to the 10th level fighter's. If the kobold crits for 8 damage, while the fighter crits for 32 damage, why would anyone care that the kobold crits as often as the fighter? Those crits mean completely different things. The kobold's crit is enough to drop a commoner, while the fighter's crit is more than enough to kill a warhorse. (Same thing with a wizard trying to melee a giant.)

 

[Kynn]

Hey, y'know?

An opposed defense roll is effectively a "confirm to crit" roll as well, if implemented correctly.

 

[Lanefan]

Hey, y'know?

An opposed defense roll is effectively a "confirm to crit" roll as well, if implemented correctly.

Won't fly with those who already think rolling to confirm is one roll too many, as opposed defense checks take the extra roll and apply it to every swing.

Besides, just like not every shot on goal goes in the net, not every 20 has to be a critical.

Lan-"critical critic"-efan

 

[Dragonblade]

Crit confirmation rolls are absolute garbage for numerous reasons I won't even get into since most people brought them up already.

Now if we get the one they hinted at in the leaked playtest where you roll again for bonus damage, I could see that. But don't call it a confirmation roll. That brings back bad memories of 3e. Call it a critical bonus roll or something.