Critical Hits - another thing fixed that wasn't broken

[FadedC]

Every little extra roll and extra calculation you need to do adds up. While making the extra roll, calculating the total and asking the DM if it hits (doubling your multipliers and some but not all of your dice if it does) may only add about 10-30 seconds to the combat, it's just one of many things that results in high level combats taking over an hour to resolve a few rounds of play.

 

[delericho]

In the past, I have said 4E fixes many things which are not broken. This is a classic example.

While I don't care for the change to critical hits, it is by no means clear that this is anything of the sort. It may well be that the cumulative effect of the other changes that are being made is that critical hits just could not have remained as they are without breaking the game.

If nothing else, a class/level based damage bonus that replaces iterative attacks might have made the existing crits too powerful, especially with a x3 or x4 multiplier.

Or it might be as you say, of course.

 

[Wolfspider]

Every little extra roll and extra calculation you need to do adds up. While making the extra roll, calculating the total and asking the DM if it hits (doubling your multipliers and some but not all of your dice if it does) may only add about 10-30 seconds to the combat, it's just one of many things that results in high level combats taking over an hour to resolve a few rounds of play.

Why not just get rid of all dice other than the d20 and base the damage done in an attack somehow to the result rolled (1 point of damage for every point over what is needed to hit, for example, modified by weapon type).

If saving dice rolls and shaving seconds off the game is so important, then shouldn't there be just one at most for most actions?

 

[Nyaricus]

Failure is not an option in D&D 4e.

Good point.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Why not just get rid of all dice other than the d20 and base the damage done in an attack somehow to the result rolled (1 point of damage for every point over what is needed to hit, for example, modified by weapon type).

And the designers could really get a handle on all the fiddly math if longswords always did the same amount of damage, instead of these crazy "1" valleys and "8" spikes.


Snark aside...

At my table, the 30 seconds of extra time kicked off by the natural 20 is spent with the rest of the table cheering on the high roller, urging them to spend (or save!) action points to help confirm the roll, followed by the exultation of victory or agony of defeat.

It's 30 seconds of dramatic tension one way or the other.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Lack of confirmation rolls just rolls it back to pre-3E critical hits. The weird "threatening/confirmation" stuff was the aberration, IMO.

 

[Wolfspider]

Lack of confirmation rolls just rolls it back to pre-3E critical hits. The weird "threatening/confirmation" stuff was the aberration, IMO.

Well, I never really was a fan of the old critical system.

Wait a minute! When did the 20 for a critical actually enter D&D?

 

[Rechan]

I for one welcome our non-confirming crit overlords.

 

[Darth Cyric]

I for one welcome our non-confirming crit overlords.

As do I.

On the other hand, I do NOT welcome our snowball fallacy overlords that seen to have crept up on these threads.

 

[Dausuul]

Why not just get rid of all dice other than the d20 and base the damage done in an attack somehow to the result rolled (1 point of damage for every point over what is needed to hit, for example, modified by weapon type).

If saving dice rolls and shaving seconds off the game is so important, then shouldn't there be just one at most for most actions?

Sounds good to me. I see no reason why we need to roll attack and damage separately.