A Better Way to Do Critical Hits?

[Sirot]

I think 4e did it best. It kept the "natural 20" aspect that is ingrained in our culture but removed the need to confirm the critical and by only maximizing damage, probably kept hit points down (and they are already high).

 

[Nylanfs]

Torn Asunder by Bastion Press/Dragon Wing Games

Problem solved

 

[A'koss]

Actually, the 10-over is something I ran variations of back in the 2e days.

We settled into this variation for quite a while:

1. Roll N20, roll again and add to total. Roll another N20, you get to roll again and you keep adding to the total.
2. For every 10-over you inflict double-damage. So if your total was 20-over, you'd inflict triple-damage. And so on.
3. Monsters however were limited to double-damage IMG.

The benefit being that a N20 doesn't automatically crit. if you're using weak opposition to powerful foes.

 

[Mark CMG]

My solution? Natural twenty is a crit with no confirmation needed and the player gets the choice to either automatically do maximum damage or roll to do up to double damage. Non-PCs, except for "named" villains and legendary creatures, do not have crits.

 

[Greg K]

I like the version in 2e PO: Combat and Tactics and wanted it used in 3e and 4e. The confirmation is built into the attack. Your die roll to hit has to fall within the threat range AND the attack has to succeed by five or more. You can't crit if you can only hit the target on a natural 20.

 

[JoesephBear]

There is the (valid) issue that if you can only hit on a 20, then every hit would be a crit.

I don't really see this as an issue. To me, it implies that a foe is so well-armored that the only way to damage him is to hit him in a small but very vulnerable area.

Imagine Smaug getting hit by Bard's black arrow in the sole patch on his breast where a bare patch lay. There was no way a hit anywhere else was going to pierce his gem-encrusted scales. That is an iconic example of a critical hit where only a natural 20 will hit.

 

[trancejeremy]

Imagine Smaug getting hit by Bard's black arrow in the sole patch on his breast where a bare patch lay. There was no way a hit anywhere else was going to pierce his gem-encrusted scales. That is an iconic example of a critical hit where only a natural 20 will hit.

I always thought his Black Arrow was the source for the Arrows of Slaying...

 

[delericho]

In past editions, critical hits...

BECMI didn't have critical hits. 1st Edition didn't have critical hits, and included dire warnings that including them would break your game. 2nd Edition (core) didn't have critical hits, although the DMG discussed a possible house rule of allowing a natural 20 to give the character an immediate extra attack against the same target.

It wasn't until "Player's Option" that critical hits became a formal part of the game.

critical hits usually resulted from rolling a natural 20 on the die. I don't really like this, as it makes critical hits happen irrespective of a character's skill. Shouldn't a master swordsman "crit" more than a novice? Shouldn't it be easier to "crit" a less-defended target than one that is harder to hit in the first place?

Well, yes. That's why 3e had the "critical threat" for a natural 20, followed by the confirmation roll. This (plus keen weapons, the Improved Critical feat, and the like) models what you want exactly, since the master swordsman will naturally pass those confirmation rolls far more often than the novice.

Unfortunately, people didn't like it. The confirmation roll was officially labelled not fun and exiled to the outer darkness. (Yes, that's hyperbole.)

I think I have the solution, and it's pretty simple and straightforward. You score a critical hit if your attack result exceeds your target's AC by 10 or more. You not only hit them, you got an extraordinary success on your attack roll, resulting in a critical hit. Luck is still a factor, but skill is also.

What do you think?

If PCs are regularly fighting opponents with ACs that they can hit with 10 points to spare (or the reverse), then something is off with the campaign - it's either way too easy or way too hard. This approach will make crits really common against mooks and non-existent against real challenges, which isn't good.

Besides, rolling a 20 is just cool.

Honestly, I think either the 3e or 4e models should be adopted. My (slight) preference would be the 3e model, as this gives scope for some additional flexibility (what if, for example, instead of doing double damage you could use your confirmation roll as a disarm attempt?). However, the 4e method is certainly simpler, and does seem to be more fun in actual play.

 

[JoesephBear]

I always thought his Black Arrow was the source for the Arrows of Slaying...

Not sure on that (it's probably true), but I was just giving a good example to illustrate a point.

Besides, the Black Arrow wasn't magical from what I read. It was just a royal family heirloom that had never failed Bard. I always envisioned him as rolling a 20 then rolling high on the damage. Falling damage did the rest.

 

[Khaalis]

Personally, I'm fine with the roll a 20 for double damage. Its simple.

However, I like the way Fantasy Craft did it. First though, you have to understand it is a system that uses a lot of "Action Points" - a resource characters have to do special things and that can be earned in play (so shouldn't be a resource too heavily horded). In FC, Rolling a 20 is a Critical Threat, spend an action die to activate the crit. Then there are various ways to improve your threat range. This allows for characters to crit more often than just a 20, but it also makes it a choice the character has to make as to whether they activate it or not (they aren't unlimited).