Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5805578" data-attributes="member: 22424">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.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.)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.</blockquote>

Verification