Critical Hits: What's Best?

[HeavenShallBurn]

Title is pretty self explanatory: Assuming the poll works what method of handling critical hits do you prefer.

Also how do you do crits now? I noticed that almost everyone in the thread actually rolled extra dice for crits. Ever since I learned to play in the mid 80s I've always used straight multiplication and it generally caught on with groups I played in since it was faster and yielded higher results on average. By 2002 I'd dumped confirming rolls and just said a roll that threatened critted to speed things up.

 

[Derren]

After hearing so many tales of of "Orc Great Axe Crit Instant Kills" and BBEG battles which became disappointing because of a lucky megacrit in the first round I think the 4E variant is best.

 

[StarFyre]

crit hits....

Since the books were written, we use C&T and S&M from 2E.

As below...

1) crit hit doesn't use confirmation roll. Instead, we use the 2E combat & tactics detailed brutal critical hit chart -- very interesting situations for both the party and players due to this.

2) upon casting a spell, roll d20, if a 16-20 is rolled depending on spell, we use the 2E spells & magic detailed brutal critical hit system..also causes many interesting things

Friend has written a small program for us to use, for these crit hit ssytem so its quick and easy. Type in a couple #s and voila, we have the outcome

Sanjay

 

[Cadfan]

The 4e system seems a pretty good one. It fits all my criteria.

1) Critical are useful.
2) Criticals add randomness to combat outcomes.
3) Criticals don't add too much randomness to combat outcomes, such that PC death occurs as a sudden fluke rather than as the outcome of PC choice.
4) Criticals don't take too much time to work out.
5) It doesn't promise you a critical, then take it away through something like a failed roll to confirm.

There may be other systems which could accomplish these things, but this one works well enough for me.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Maximum damage on 20.

 

[JoelF]

Wow, I'm shocked at the dominance of the 4E crit support. As for my other vote:

I like the confirmation roll, since it allows more skilled combatants to crit more than less skilled ones, and also avoids the I miss or I crit, and can't hit otherwise.

As for damage, I'd prefer roll damage as normal, but on a crit apply 50% of the max damage as a bonus. I feel it's a best of both worlds situation. With the 4E crit rules, if you crit, lots of times you're doing the exact same damage you would with a non-crit.

Also, I'm not at all happy that magic weapons behave differently in the hands of a PC vs. the hands of a monst on a crit.

 

[fuindordm]

Maximum damage on a 20, so that the natural 20 is always a feel-good moment. BUT...

Add a confirmation roll for even more damage (say, one extra weapon die) so that skilled combatants are more likely to have meaningful crits.

 

[Greg K]

I didn't vote, but for determining a crit, I'll take either

a) 2e PO: combat and tactics
b) 3.x

actual effects: don't know enough about 4e.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

No crits

 

[A'koss]

While 4e's new way is certainly servicable, I'd still be inclined to include a caveat - your total must be 5 or more above the minimum needed to hit the target in order for it to be a crit. Just a small buffer to prevent the N20-required-to-hit oddities.

I like that the damage is toned down - you could easily implement a skill-based crit rule and it shouldn't be overpowering (eg. Roll 10 or more above the min. needed to hit = crit.).