Another sacred cow. Autohit on 20. Keep or Slay?

[Ruin Explorer]

Not negligible at all. PCs have often encounter weaker monsters in significant numbers. Those Monsters are generally worth some XP and thus need to provide some challenge. Auto hit on a 20 ensures this.

Often times PCs and NPC can crank their AC a fair amount, Auto hit ensures that turtling is not the best option..

Auto miss on a one means a character reduced to low HP is not autodead the moment the next attack is declared.

I have to agree with Frank, these rules have a significant effect on gameplay. I could live without automiss on 1 (though y'know, why?), but auto-hit on 20 is a big deal esp. when you're dealing with lots of weakass monsters.

Of course you could replace auto-hit on 20 with "re-roll and add that to the original number on 20" (continuing with every 20), but that's more complex and somewhat more annoying.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

I intend to run my first 4E campaign rules as written and make any necessary adjustments after the first couple of sessions. So if rules as written say 20 = autohit and 1 = automiss, I'll use those rules.

Though I like the idea that a nat 1 might hit, but means that the PC opened themselves up for an OA.

 

[Raduin711]

I say keep the auto-hit on 20s, just because there is always a chance.

It isn't too strong.

Take for instance a Fighter character. Even if you didn't count the 20 as a auto hit, a 20 is pretty much a given to be a hit. If it isn't, the encounter is waaay above the level of the party and it is either a scenario where the players are meant to fail, or the DM is a jerk.

But lets say a character is all out of options; the werewolf has to be killed with this sacred silver dagger, and the only person left in the party to do it is the strength 6 halfling wizard. Chances are the wizard is going to miss. But I think he should have a shot at it. A slim one to be sure, but if that wizard does pick up that dagger and rolls a 20, I think it would be pretty shoddy to deny that hit.

Now it may not be "realistic" to give that wizard a 5% chance to hit, but it makes for a good story and a good game.

The 1000 archers thing seems to be more of an internet problem than an actual table problem. At the table, the DM has a number of excuses to give the players why they need a band of dragonslayers. Take organizational problems, for instance. You need 1000 archers, which means you have to feed them, pay them, arm them, train them, get them on the parapets when the dragon comes, keep up their morale, etc. And who is to say the dragon will not have some kind of defensive ability that will negate any damage the archers can do? In any event, it's one of those problems that we could probably argue endlessly, and in the end it doesn't matter once we actually get to the gaming table.

As for the auto fail rule, I don't mind it as long as it applies to attack rolls. Everyone should have a chance of missing.

 

[sirwmholder]

I'd not object at all to the variant (in the 3.5 DMG?) that a natural 20 = 30 on the die, and a natural 1 = -10 on the die. That way a natural 20 is almost always a hit, and a natural 1 is almost always a miss, but it means that you can't get 20 commoners each armed with a dragon-exploding catapult and be reasonably sure that you'll end up with a dead dragon.

Aye I seem to recall that as well... and everyone needs a Dragon-Exploding catapult .

William Holder

 

[Raduin711]

I'd not object at all to the variant (in the 3.5 DMG?) that a natural 20 = 30 on the die, and a natural 1 = -10 on the die. That way a natural 20 is almost always a hit, and a natural 1 is almost always a miss, but it means that you can't get 20 commoners each armed with a dragon-exploding catapult and be reasonably sure that you'll end up with a dead dragon.

Good thing I disallowed those 20 dragon-exploding catapults last session.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Not negligible at all. PCs have often encounter weaker monsters in significant numbers. Those Monsters are generally worth some XP and thus need to provide some challenge. Auto hit on a 20 ensures this.

This is why I mentioned "unless something is seriously wrong with an encounter". Sending a bunch of things against the PCs that are so weak they need an autohit to connect is a flawed encounter. Autohitting is an inelegant patch designed to fix a fundamental mathematical problem with the core rules. Minion rules seem like they might fix the problem much better in 4E by allowing weak enemies who have a reasonable shot at hitting the PCs, so this fix is no longer required.

Often times PCs and NPC can crank their AC a fair amount, Auto hit ensures that turtling is not the best option..

The difference between a 5% success rate and a 0% success rate is negligible. No one who has any better options at all would go for a 5% hit rate. Also, this is another symptom of bad math which is just getting an inelegant fix. Ideally, no matter how much you buff your AC, a skilled fighter of equal level should have at least a 25% chance of hitting you. Controlling attack bonuses and AC for characters is a better way of fixing the problem than autohits.

Auto miss on a one means a character reduced to low HP is not autodead the moment the next attack is declared.

This is only the case if the PC's AC is so low that the attack would not miss on a 1. Again, the difference between 95% and 100% is so negligible that no one would rely on the opponent rolling a 1. This, again, is a situation that could be fixed much more elegantly by altering the math of attack bonuses and AC (which, I might add, is something WotC is saying is a major goal of 4E).

Overall, since it seems one of the goals of 4E is to avoid the very situations in which autohits and automisses are necessary, and since we did not see any mention of autohits in the Critical Hits article, whether or not people want them, it seems like they might not be showing up in 4E.

 

[StarFyre]

i like it

it adds a bit of logic...there is always a chance, no matter how good you are, that you could slip, or get distracted, or do something stupid...and miss as a result; abstractly explained via dice roll of a 1. Similarly, you could always get lucky as a creature is distracted and make good contact. Now, if the creature is immune to the weapon etc, that would protect it from not being harmed from a mere orc or something, but the orc COULD still make good contact.

Sanjay

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Overall, since it seems one of the goals of 4E is to avoid the very situations in which autohits and automisses are necessary, and since we did not see any mention of autohits in the Critical Hits article, whether or not people want them, it seems like they might not be showing up in 4E.

People and their crazy theories...

 

[frankthedm]

This is why I mentioned "unless something is seriously wrong with an encounter". Sending a bunch of things against the PCs that are so weak they need an autohit to connect is a flawed encounter.

The only flaw is if the game system isunable to handle such an awsome fight. Taking on a horde of foes is as part of D&D as the Lone BBEG. If that 10-100 orcs have to be level one orc minions, so be it.

 

[DaveyJones]

return it to the sacred cow it was.

therefore remove both.