Critical Hits: What's Best?

[Incenjucar]

I'm fine with the 4E method.

A caveat of "You must be able to hit normally to gain the maximized damage" wouldn't be bad though.

But really, I can just visualize it as the equivalent of finding the gap in Smog's armor.

You either can't touch him, or you REALLY touch him.

 

[thalmin]

I like the 3.x crit, but the 5 over AC is a good compromise. No way should a new adventurer get as many crits (5% of the rolls to hit) as a veteran. Especially if the recruit only can hit his opponent on a natural 20.

 

[Raith5]

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.

I agree 100% but I will probably worn down buy these rules when they come out.

But the idea that magic weapons do extra crit damage seems extremely clunky to me. Why cant they have feats that allow PCs (and NPCs) to do extra dmage on crits?

 

[Incenjucar]

They may just make the various crit-boosting powers based on how much over the required to-hit you got, which would be interesting.

+1d6 for every +5 beyond the required roll would be a nice trick.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I voted for the 4E version, but I might not be quite as sold if it weren't for the impressions given by the Design articles and other WotC sources that there will be other ways to enhance crits or benefit from them as characters gain levels. One factor of the crit equation should scale with level, to reflect attacker "skill": either chance of a crit (the old confirmation roll) or damage/effect/benefit output (the direction 4E seems to be going).

One could say the problem with the 3.x version was that both factors scaled with level - bigger crits and increased frequency.

 

[Greg K]

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.

If they did that, I coulddefinitely live with the new system as described otherwise.

 

[Fifth Element]

Since we don't know the full extent of the 4E system, I reserve judgement. We know a bit about the 4E system, but we don't yet know about the qualities some weapons may have, or how feats and class abilities may interact with it. I need the whole picture to choose one.

 

[Demigonis]

Why cant they have feats that allow PCs (and NPCs) to do extra dmage on crits?

Pretty sure they hinted at that in the article.

 

[jeffh]

The third option is worded very unclearly. How is it supposed to differ from the first?

 

[Lanefan]

Voted for "confirm and multiply" but some 3e builds kinda break this. I'd rather keep the rule and break the builds somehow (maybe lose some crit-enhancing feats and-or items, or not allow extra damage gained from power-attack or similar to multiply). In pre-3e, confirm and multiply works just fine, and it's easy.

I notice "Hackmaster" isn't an option...those guys have raised critical hits to an art form!

Lanefan