D&D 5E Critical Hits Appears to be Next in D&D Archive

[FireLance]

Yes, let's not forget your pure speculation regarding unpublished rules that may or may not actually exist.

If they don't exist, we can make them up ourselves.

 

[Incenjucar]

Also, the original point was you feared that monsters/NPCs could not get a crit at all.

:\

No, I'm aware that they still crit. My concern is that they kept saying PCs over and over (most likely just their cruddy marketing chatter - they really need a better PR editor for these previews).

My assumption is that this is tied to class abilities, which most monsters, lacking classes for the most part, will lack. PCs will also have access to weapons which will boost these crits, while most monsters will lack hands. Monsters/NPCs with levels and/or equipment will be just as deadly as similar PCs, but most monsters will simply be monsters with their own unique ways of ruining your day that don't involve massive criticals.

But I'm -assuming- this. I don't know for sure, and that leads to worry about whether they'll crit as usual, as in, the usual way that PCs crit, which is by specific abilities, rather than "Well, they're PCs, not NPCs, so they get super crits."

 

[The Little Raven]

It's like winning a prize, and then maybe winning an even bigger prize a moment later.

Except when you lose, which makes it a load of BS. Ever seen UHF? It's like the scene on that gameshow, a huge, exciting build-up to... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! YAY!

Whee, +3 dmg, exciting.

Sorry that it's not as exciting as your preferred awesome system of double rolling to get an additional 3 damage from your short sword on a crit, but not all of us are in love with pointless rolls.

Yes, let's not forget your pure speculation regarding unpublished rules that may or may not actually exist.

Yes, because stating that 4e has abilities that play off of successful critical hits certainly hasn't been mentioned in any of the articles. And speculating that there may be feats that permanently modify a capability like critical hits (maybe making the range 19-20, or adding an additional crit die with certain weapons) like previous 3rd Edition feats is just so incredibly off-base.

 

[The Little Raven]

My concern is that they kept saying PCs over and over (most likely just their cruddy marketing chatter - they really need a better PR editor for these previews).

PCs are the characters of the primary segment of the audience: players. You market your preview to the biggest segment of your audience. That's why the primary focus is on players and their characters in all these previews.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I suppose that I am one of the people who disagree with the removal of the confirm roll in 4th edition. Also, this is a response without having bothered to read this thread, so it very probably repeats points others have made.

The article does a good job of explaining the rationale behind it.

- Having a confirm roll fail is not much fun.
- Having to roll extra dice for the attack and damage slows things down
- Rolling a 20 is very simple to check for.

The one thing that the confirmation roll did however, was it fixed the problem that occurs when a targets AC is high enough that only a 20 will hit. Without a confirm roll, having an opponent with a huge armour class always suffer unusually high damage every time a hit is managed is damaging to the suspension of disbeleif. A confirm roll is a very elegant way to keep that problem from occuring.

Also, with the decision to make all crits simply do max damage, I do not think it is nearly as burdonsome as it once was to determine if a critical should be applied.

Benefits of a Confirm roll
- No situations will arise where 'all hits are crits'.
- It allows for weapons to have different threat ranges, which can further differentiate between weapons that otherwise do the same die of damage.
- It makes critical hits less common.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[I'm A Banana]

- No situations will arise where 'all hits are crits'.

I'd be pretty confident that they are across the board trying to get rid of situations where only a 20 hits the AC. A 5% chance to hit something, in most cases, means that it's too hard to bother hitting.

- It allows for weapons to have different threat ranges, which can further differentiate between weapons that otherwise do the same die of damage.

The weapon qualities will differentiate, and can include increasing the threat range. This can still exist in 4e.

- It makes critical hits less common

Why should crits be less common?

 

[small pumpkin man]

I also have a problem with natural 20's being auto crits, but by looking at the way the rules work, it should become clear that this will actually come up far less than it would in in 3e because of the monster creation rules and the way bonuses scale.

In 3e if you wanted a bunch of mooks to fight, you had to use lower CR creatures, meaning their attack bonus's would be much lower, often requiring close to 20 to hit, which, without conformation rolls, would be a problem (and occasionally the same problem in reverse when you create a BBEG), however, proper creation of minion and solo monsters in 4e should prevent this becoming a problem.

But what if you intentionally want to put the PC's up against some really crappy or really grubbly guys you ask? Remember that bonuses scale by +1 per two levels, meaning it's quite possible that by the time attack rolls require this amount, the disparity in hp, damage and other abilities will be so much that the difference in power may be significantly more overt than in 3e.

Well, that's pure speculation, but the minion thing is certainly going to help alleviate the problem.

 

[Jack99]

If you don't like the the setup where one can only hit and thus crit on a 20, simply house-rule that if you can only hit someone or something on a 20, you can not crit it. After all, assuming one really can only hit a creature on a 20, the chances of you actually criting it (with the confirm rules), are slim to none, to say the least (0,25% per attack to be exact).

 

[Wolfspider]

Critting with a fireball is more exciting than saving against one.

And I'm sure being critted against by a fireball with no way in the world to defend against it is exciting, too.

 

[Wolfspider]

Well, I think it's already been explained extensively why confirmation rolls are an extra step that only offers frustration.

Only offers frustration?

As for saving throws... it's a matter of consistency. Attack is active (thus, a roll) and defense is passive (thus, a DC).

Consistency? Makes me think that hobgoblins will be a big part of 4e.

Also, if rolling is what makes it exciting, then having monsters roll saves instead of players rolling to attack with spells must have meant less excitement for spellcaster players.

This is a good point. Maybe the rules should have been modified so that the players are always making the rolls, whether to attack or defend, somewhat like Cinematic Unisystem. In that way, a player would roll a saving throw against a spell effect but also rolls to overcome the spell resistance of an opponent. This way would mean that players are always empowered and always involved.