Critical Hits: What's Best?

[ThirdWizard]

"Monsters can't crit." I believe that solution meets all your needs. It is fast. It is easy. It is PC-centric. The PCs only need concern themselves with the normal variance of the attack and damage rolls.

There's this whole rant I have surrounding insta-kill, heal, damage bonuses so large they make the roll insignificant, and other aspects of D&D 3e that I won't get into, but suffice to say that my fix would be fairly drastic. And, after a several house rules gone bad in the past, I'm very cautious about changes I make in my own games. I'm considering putting the 4e crit rule into place in my 3e game, for example, however, I probably won't because the system isn't built with its assumptions in place. 3e for 3e and 4e for 4e, I tend to think.

 

[glass]

It is a guess. Do you think some other dice is more likely?

I think a number of dice based somehow on level is more likely, given what we know so far (which admittedly, isn't much).


glass.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Until 4e, I'm going with, "Spend an Action Point to negate a critical threat."

I'm a big fan, broadly speaking, of Action Points as the ultimate heroic resource to be managed.

 

[ZoA2]

Around here, claiming to know what's going on inside someone else's head is considered rude.

It is strongly suggested you not try to do internet mind reading, as you don't have anything near the sort of information to divine the reasons why a given person or group of people like or dislike something around here.

Rather than point to someone else's research about nameless groups, and claim that's the answer, around here you could ask the individual in question. Since you can ask, assuming is downright rude, and is generally considered dismissive of what may well be well-considered opinions. So, we ask you not to do it. Thank you.

What I said was not rude by any standards, but it is rude to apply double standards in moderation of posts. Question I was commenting on was exactly motive behind people’s support for rule changes, which inevitably includes speculation about “what's going on inside someone else's head” and that is exactly what anybody, including me, did when he commented on the issue. Also labelling my comet was rude just because you disagree with it is red herring, instead of producing relevant counterarguments you attack it as procedural issue. If you saying that WotC R&D authority as major and well known developer has no influence on people’s opinion about 4e provide arguments in that line, and I will on my side reserve right to use well know relevant social science experiments to prove my point. This is how popper debate is conducted, not by calling ones arguments rude and threatening them with mod authority, your intimidation tactics will not work, thank YOU.

P. S. I wanted to make this PM to you, but board did not allow me to do it, so I had to do it this way.

 

[Plane Sailing]

What I said was not rude by any standards, but it is rude to apply double standards in moderation of posts. Question I was commenting on was exactly motive behind people’s support for rule changes, which inevitably includes speculation about “what's going on inside someone else's head” and that is exactly what anybody, including me, did when he commented on the issue. Also labelling my comet was rude just because you disagree with it is red herring, instead of producing relevant counterarguments you attack it as procedural issue. If you saying that WotC R&D authority as major and well known developer has no influence on people’s opinion about 4e provide arguments in that line, and I will on my side reserve right to use well know relevant social science experiments to prove my point. This is how popper debate is conducted, not by calling ones arguments rude and threatening them with mod authority, your intimidation tactics will not work, thank YOU.

P. S. I wanted to make this PM to you, but board did not allow me to do it, so I had to do it this way.

What you could have done was email Umbran.

Talking back about moderation like this is not on, so I welcome you to a short holiday from posting. You might want to re-read the rules while you wait.

Banned for 3 days.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.

Actually it isn't the mathematical average since the double damage rolled also doubles any Strength and magic bonuses.

1d8+5
Average = 9.5
Max = 13
Double average = 19

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Until 4e, I'm going with, "Spend an Action Point to negate a critical threat."

I'm a big fan, broadly speaking, of Action Points as the ultimate heroic resource to be managed.

I think we already discussed the topic of Action Points in another thread.

They are "Hit Points 2.0". "Back in the days", hit points was our "nastiness buffer". It provides protection against something nasty happening to PCs. At some point, effects were added (maybe they were even always there) that bypassed this buffer. At an even later point, people decided that there needed to be a new "nastiness buffer", and we got Action Points.

Not all games use hit points, but most games have some kind of "Nastiness Buffer". Fortune & Fate points in Warhammer, Karma (or now "Edge") in Shadowrun, Possibilities in Torg.

(Warning: venturing off-topic)
I like both, but I think there might be something that could be done to improve them:
Hit points only protects against damage. It doesn't have anything to do with protecting against spells. But Action Points work for everything.
I think it would be cool if there were multiple types of "nastiness buffers". The traditional "damage buffer" of hit points, a "social buffer", a "magic buffer", and maybe we could come up with more?
We just need a good idea how to implement these. The goal is to promote specialization along these "buffers" while still maintaining a common system approach.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think we already discussed the topic of Action Points in another thread.

They are "Hit Points 2.0". "Back in the days", hit points was our "nastiness buffer". It provides protection against something nasty happening to PCs. At some point, effects were added (maybe they were even always there) that bypassed this buffer.

I won't speak for Chainmail, but "nasty effects" existed in 1e, of course. Poison, petrification, death spells-- the works. All the good stuff from the old saving throw categories.

In fact, think about it: 1e had "Instant death, NO SAVE...." effects! The capriciousness of the DM was unbounded by the rules and limited only by common sense (and the players seeking enjoyment elsewhere).

At an even later point, people decided that there needed to be a new "nastiness buffer", and we got Action Points.

All of that is a good observation on your point, and I'll add that 4e seems to have gone the opposite direction, either removing the Nastiness entirely or placing it back on the hit point scale.

 

[Arnwyn]

I voted "Other" - I like both, actually.

I'm unsure about this auto-20 thing, though. Does that mean a monster that must roll a 20 to successfully hit a PC critically hits him everytime he successfully hits? Mmf. :\

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I voted "Other" - I like both, actually.

I'm unsure about this auto-20 thing, though. Does that mean a monster that must roll a 20 to successfully hit a PC critically hits him everytime he successfully hits? Mmf. :\

Not necessarily.... but it might mean that a monster that needs a 19+ to hit crits half the time, a monster that needs a 18+ crits 33% of the time, all the way down to a monster that needs an 11+ to hit crits 10% of the time, which is still twice as often as that creature would have critted you in 3.5, with the confirmation roll.

Since I don't think that's particularly "friendly" or "fun" for the PCs, I predict that monsters just can't crit.

Whether or not that constitutes "cheating," YMMV. At least it would be "official."