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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 5821765" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>I wouldn't be terribly worked up if confirm rolls were removed altogether, and only moderately annoyed if they remained. (They aren't difficult to remove.) It's what having them says about the rest of the system that is more pertinent to me.</p><p> </p><p>I would really prefer that natural 20 mean -- "max damage on current roll" + "extra damage roll based on whatever weapon, magic, and special crit options you have with that attack" --then with options to replace the second part of that with a variety of effects (if you want). For one thing, it's a lot easier to manipulate the options to get the style that a table wants. </p><p> </p><p>With such a system, a compromise position might be to require confirmations for the extra part (either damage or some option that replaced it), but only when the creatures needs some arbitrary cut off to hit in the first place. Let's say 15+ required to hit, for sake of example, but it might be more in the range of 16 to 18, depending on system expectations. </p><p> </p><p>That's high enough that it will not apply to many routine attacks, which are probably more in the 45% to 65% range. But it's low enough that it will apply to many creatures with high defenses (i.e. boss monsters that you'd just as soon not go down to a string of natural 20's from a relatively weak attack). That is, use the 80/20 rule here, requiring a confirmation roll on the minority of attacks where it really matters that much, but not slowing the game down otherwise. </p><p> </p><p>In a close fight, it also turns borderline attacks against tough creatures into situations where a little bit of bonus can mean a lot. So that fighter flanking the dragon with the rogue, and getting a +2 to hit, could mean a lot more than 10% increased chance of hitting.</p><p> </p><p>Even when you can't get the extra, at least you get the max damage on a natural 20. If your character is one of those concepts of high chance to hit with extra effects, relatively low base damage (AKA - a crit fisher), then a string of crits at the very least gives you some solid damage even against very defensive opponents. Likewise, if you are one of those brawny barbarian types with the d10 or d12 base dice and lots of mods in your relatively low chance to hit attacks, getting the max damage is nice in its own right, even if you can't confirm.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5821765, member: 54877"] I wouldn't be terribly worked up if confirm rolls were removed altogether, and only moderately annoyed if they remained. (They aren't difficult to remove.) It's what having them says about the rest of the system that is more pertinent to me. I would really prefer that natural 20 mean -- "max damage on current roll" + "extra damage roll based on whatever weapon, magic, and special crit options you have with that attack" --then with options to replace the second part of that with a variety of effects (if you want). For one thing, it's a lot easier to manipulate the options to get the style that a table wants. With such a system, a compromise position might be to require confirmations for the extra part (either damage or some option that replaced it), but only when the creatures needs some arbitrary cut off to hit in the first place. Let's say 15+ required to hit, for sake of example, but it might be more in the range of 16 to 18, depending on system expectations. That's high enough that it will not apply to many routine attacks, which are probably more in the 45% to 65% range. But it's low enough that it will apply to many creatures with high defenses (i.e. boss monsters that you'd just as soon not go down to a string of natural 20's from a relatively weak attack). That is, use the 80/20 rule here, requiring a confirmation roll on the minority of attacks where it really matters that much, but not slowing the game down otherwise. In a close fight, it also turns borderline attacks against tough creatures into situations where a little bit of bonus can mean a lot. So that fighter flanking the dragon with the rogue, and getting a +2 to hit, could mean a lot more than 10% increased chance of hitting. Even when you can't get the extra, at least you get the max damage on a natural 20. If your character is one of those concepts of high chance to hit with extra effects, relatively low base damage (AKA - a crit fisher), then a string of crits at the very least gives you some solid damage even against very defensive opponents. Likewise, if you are one of those brawny barbarian types with the d10 or d12 base dice and lots of mods in your relatively low chance to hit attacks, getting the max damage is nice in its own right, even if you can't confirm. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Confirming crits, good idea, bad idea, or worst idea ever
Top