Cadfan said:
5) It doesn't promise you a critical, then take it away through something like a failed roll to confirm.
I'm all behind the 4e critical mechanic because it gets rid of the mentality of the 3rd edition is trying to take a crit away from you. Rolling a critical threat is not a critical, it's part one of determining whether a hit is a critical. By having a threat range and confirmation in 3rd edition it allowed criticals to happen
more often. (18-20 crit range + 50% chance to confirm = 7.5% critical chance compared to a 4e flat 5% chance no matter who you're fighting. 19-20 crit range + 75% chance to confirm = 7.5% critical chance.)
It's a false user premise that creates that disappointment, not an intrinsic error with the system.
4e's system is good because it solves a lot of problems at once. It gets rid of the disappointment due to a false premise. It gets rid of super hits on players. It keeps super hits for players due to the fact that players will have magical weapons while many enemies will not. And it allows for further mechanics on top of that such as the high crit property to get even bigger hits.
I do, though, still see a problem with the critical hits as presented, that the 3rd edition system did solve. When the only thing that can hit you is a natural 20, it's either a crit or miss situation, which is a rather far stretch of the imagination.
The only people I can really see being disappointed with the system are those that don't want to change, or those who like varying random effects on criticals. And even then, those who like varying effects on criticals still have their critical hit charts/decks to use.
