Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Confirming crits, good idea, bad idea, or worst idea ever
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5821778" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>It should also be noted that if you are absolutely wedded to the concept of directly simulating "people with more accurate attacks critical more often, however swingy those criticals are," then confirmation rolls is probably your best mechanic. </p><p> </p><p>However, if what you want is the concept of "people with more accurate attacks do more damage on criticals," then you can get the same effect with less annoyance and handling time by simply adding an extra damage roll for crits, based on the flat plus of the attack. This is especially true in a system that seeks to flatten out the attack bonus.</p><p> </p><p>That is, you don't need to consider the relative accuracy of the attack versus the AC (or other defense). If Joe the 1st level Fighter has +4 to hit with his longsword, he gets some modest bonus to damage on all crits (in addition to max damage or normal roll or whatever else you do to make them special). Joe at 10th level hits harder, so that number goes up.</p><p> </p><p>Except for one special case, it gets tricky to include special modifiers (like +2 to flanking) in that equation, but some might see that as feature, not bug. You get bonus damage on criticals based on your raw accuracy--separate from the situation. Of course, if you define the system where the bonus to damage on crits equals the modifier you had with the attack, then it isn't that hard to include the situations, either. Flanking becomes +2 to hit and +2 damage on crits, every time. (Such a system would presumably keep the base damage relatively low.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5821778, member: 54877"] It should also be noted that if you are absolutely wedded to the concept of directly simulating "people with more accurate attacks critical more often, however swingy those criticals are," then confirmation rolls is probably your best mechanic. However, if what you want is the concept of "people with more accurate attacks do more damage on criticals," then you can get the same effect with less annoyance and handling time by simply adding an extra damage roll for crits, based on the flat plus of the attack. This is especially true in a system that seeks to flatten out the attack bonus. That is, you don't need to consider the relative accuracy of the attack versus the AC (or other defense). If Joe the 1st level Fighter has +4 to hit with his longsword, he gets some modest bonus to damage on all crits (in addition to max damage or normal roll or whatever else you do to make them special). Joe at 10th level hits harder, so that number goes up. Except for one special case, it gets tricky to include special modifiers (like +2 to flanking) in that equation, but some might see that as feature, not bug. You get bonus damage on criticals based on your raw accuracy--separate from the situation. Of course, if you define the system where the bonus to damage on crits equals the modifier you had with the attack, then it isn't that hard to include the situations, either. Flanking becomes +2 to hit and +2 damage on crits, every time. (Such a system would presumably keep the base damage relatively low.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Confirming crits, good idea, bad idea, or worst idea ever
Top