Critical Hits: What's Best?

[FireLance]

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).

It's not, especially if you have any fixed damage bonuses.

If your damage on a normal hit is 1d10+4, your damage on a 4e critical is 14, but your average damage on a 3e (doubled) critical is 19. Even without the bonuses, it will be 10 vs 11.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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?

Because you want to have a fairly predictable average damage while still giving enough randomness to make the game interesting. If you told all players they'd be doing 3 damage a round regardless of rolling they'd stop playing.

On the other hand, in order to balance a game effectively, you need LESS randomness. Because you can't do math to figure out about how long a character will live in a battle against an enemy if there is enough randomness that any time a monster gets a crit it ends the battle that round.

There is still a large amount of randomness. On any particular round you might miss or might do minimum damage. But now combat is a bit more predictable.

In general, people like strategy and planning. DMs like to plan out an entire adventure and be 90% certain that all the players will survive if they want them to. Players want to know that if they use good tactics and teamwork against reasonable opponents that they will win. In order for these assumptions to work most of the time you need to reduce the randomness.

 

[FireLance]

Because you want to have a fairly predictable average damage while still giving enough randomness to make the game interesting. If you told all players they'd be doing 3 damage a round regardless of rolling they'd stop playing.

Not necessarily. Some might even like the greater predictability.

 

[Musrum]

The 4E system is best.

We have always been at war with Europa.

 

[Pinotage]

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).

That's a good point. Thanks for pointing that out.

Pinotage

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

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.

The funny thing about speculation is that it doesn't really mean or represent anything.

 

[Zweischneid]

But now combat is a bit more predictable.

Which is not a good thing.. alas, opinions differ. Predictable combats are at best an oxymoron.

At worst, they take out the very reason one ought to simulate bloody adventures in a safe table-top environment. I'm riding the Lady Luck and betting the life of my beloved little PCs on the roll of the dice in the chaotic thrill of combat precisely because I don't feel like doing that to myself in real life.

On the other hand, I don't feel like simulating a predictable, low-risk, plannable career of advanced computable monster slaying because thats already sounding so dry I wouldn't even want to do that in real life if I could....

 

[Simon Marks]

Other system.

Roll a 20, throw a dart at the player. If the player screams in pain, deal double damage. If the player goes to hospital, character is dead. Otherwise Max damage. Some weapons allow you to throw more than one dart.

On a crit against a Monster, a player of the DM's choice must stand in.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Other system.

Roll a 20, throw a dart at the player. If the player screams in pain, deal double damage. If the player goes to hospital, character is dead. Otherwise Max damage. Some weapons allow you to throw more than one dart.

On a crit against a Monster, a player of the DM's choice must stand in.

Right just give everyone a reason to resurrect the Spin the Stungun game. Every time you yell the crit multiplier goes up!

 

[ZoA2]

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.

Non of those points has any ability to withstand scrutiny.
1) It may be simple but also is 3.x system. I can both describe in single sentence
3e –If you roll critical range roll another attack to double, triple or quadruple damage.
4e –If you roll 20 maximise damage.
2) max damage is boring because it happens so frequently and average bonus is so small. On long sword I get max damage 12.5 % hits, more frequently then 5% critical on natural 20, and bonus on average is only 3.5 . People that get excited by that should probably be taking some kind of medication.
3) look under 2
4) So you can in 3e system, probably more so, so 4e improves nothing in that area too.

Frankly I think much of unconditional support for 4e changes comes form sort of Stanley Milgram compliance to authority as embodied in supposed WotC E&D expertise in game design. It is purely irrational.

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).

Sorry to say but you are wrong on both accounts. Even on unmodified damage roll average bonus on max damage is less then on double damage (for 1d8: max 8 < double average 9). If roll is modified effect is even greater, for example long sword with +2 strength bonus (1d8+2: max 10 < double average 13). Also it does not follow characters will do more criticals in 4e system then in 3e. Before all other factors frequency of criticals in 3e was function of attack roll buns and threat range. Long sword as typical martial weapon could have crit frequency anywhere between 9.5% and 0.25 % depending of how high character would have to roll to beat AC. In fact if we take 4e assumption that PC attacks should hit in 3 out of 4 attacks crit frequency with long sword should be 7.5 %, which is higher then fixed 5% in 4e.Martiall weapons with threat on 20 typically had x3 multiplier meaning they still got average game crit damage as 19-20 x2 weapons. Weapons that had 20 x2 were either in simple category, therefore it made sense to make them substandard, or had some other special bonus (double damage on charge, disarm or trip bonus and so on)