Critical Hits: What's Best?

[Incenjucar]

Modern living tends to be especially fast-paced due to our immense number of options and only slightly more immense lifespans. Nothing wrong with trying to get in as much living as possible.

 

[Glyfair]

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.

I agree as a second choice (which is actually what I voted for).

My primary choice is maximum damage on a critical hit as well. It requires only hitting the opponent with the attack roll, and having the damage dice roll the highest number on each. Nothing more.

What? You are saying that's the same as no critical hits? I guess I agree. I think critical hits are a part of the game that don't really add much to it. In fact, they tend to take away from the game. They aren't as bad as fumbles, but I think I'd rather do without.

 

[Zweischneid]

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.

Dunno, but a Great Axe, not to mention a longsword aswell, are supposed to be things that kill other things, aint they?

I've usually used 3.5 crit without confirmation roll and a lower damage threshold for a fort-save d20 modern like and I usually don't allow resurrection by players.

If a Great Axe ain't lethal, the game gets rather silly IMO.

 

[Zweischneid]

I have to say that this point of view baffles me. Every roll in D&D is "unnecessary." The entire game is "unnecessary." We play it for the fun of playing itself, not to get somewhere fast. I mean, if you really want to cut down on the "unnecessary" die-rolling, we can simply devise a chart that compares relative power levels and yields a percentage chance of victory for either side, roll one d100, and be done with it!

When did all you "Speed D&D" players infiltrate my hobby?

Slow down, I say! .

Die-rolling is not the game. Die-rolling is a crutch to get across disagreements when the game is stalled and assure realatively fair treatment for everyone participating in the game.

So the less time you spend on rolling dice, the more time you have to let your PC's delve into the roleplaying

 

[Najo]

I have to say that this point of view baffles me. Every roll in D&D is "unnecessary." The entire game is "unnecessary." We play it for the fun of playing itself, not to get somewhere fast. I mean, if you really want to cut down on the "unnecessary" die-rolling, we can simply devise a chart that compares relative power levels and yields a percentage chance of victory for either side, roll one d100, and be done with it!

It is not about playing fast. In a game with as many rules, complexities and possibilities as D&D, you need to streamline and remove rules that add unecessary complication. It leads to a overall better game, and makes room for rules that are more fun.

Another point that was addressed in the article and has not been brought up, it is anti climatic to roll a critical threat, then roll to confirm and fail. They want the 20 to have more power and excitment behind it, and I agree with them. It should not be a let down when it happens. That is just good marketing and common sense.

The strongest argument so far for keeping crit-confirmation rolls is the more skill you have, the more likely you chould cause a critical hit. I agree that seems to be missing in 4e. Though your ability bonus corrects this a bit.

Other than that, confirmation rolls are a boring and unecessary complication to combat, and though many D&D players would argue about this, the roll (along with many other overcomplicated rules like grapple, breaking objects, turning undead, synergy bonsues etc) is what keeps our non-gaming friends from playing. Really when all is said and done, more friends playing and having fun is what is important.

 

[Lanefan]

Side note:

Since I've been on ENWorld, I think this is the first time my vote in any poll has been for the option placing dead last.

And I gotta say, I'm very surprised. I thought there'd be more support for the simplicity of confirm-and-multiply, particularly from 0-1-2e types.

Lanefan

 

[Najo]

Wow, I'm shocked at the dominance of the 4E crit support.

Honestly, I am not. Its not because this is the 4e forum either, there are alot of 4e hating/ 3.5 players in here paying attention to what is going on with the game they love.

The reason the 4e option is winning is because so far:

1) It is simple. No extra rules. If you understand hit rolls and damage, you can handle a critical hit without looking it up in the rule book.
2) It feels right. Max damage is awesome. That 20 always means something!
3) It is exciting. It removes having to roll damage.
4) You can build characters that make use of it. They have said that feats, weapons and class options will add onto criting. So you can make heavy damage, crit type builds for many of the classes I am sure.

There is an irony in all of this too. Max damage is mathematically the same average as double damage rolled. It just loses the low and high damage spikes, but in the long run it is the same effect. Then because of the removal of confirmation, characters are doing more critical hit damage now then before (at least on weapons that only critted in a 20).

 

[Najo]

Side note:

Since I've been on ENWorld, I think this is the first time my vote in any poll has been for the option placing dead last.

And I gotta say, I'm very surprised. I thought there'd be more support for the simplicity of confirm-and-multiply, particularly from 0-1-2e types.

Lanefan

It is because 4e version of crits is simplier even still. Just roll 20 and max damage.

 

[Zweischneid]

Max damage is mathematically the same average as double damage rolled. It just loses the low and high damage spikes, but in the long run it is the same effect.

I don't think it is the same effect in the long run, since it were precisely the low and high damage spikes that made combat.. you know.. random, exciting and dangerous.

If the goal is to eliminate spikes, why not just attribute an average dmg/per round to each character and remove the pesky dicerolling altogether?

 

[Li Shenron]

Roll for confirmation is good because it means that a better combatant has better critical chance, before counting special abilities.

Rolling extra damage rather than multiply is my preference, just because to me it's more fun to roll more damage dice.

Funny thing about this poll is that if this poll had been done before the 4e announcement, the result would have been totally different, with the vast majority agreeing that the 3.5 way is the best possible.