Critical Hits

[Chris_Nightwing]

The most recent articles discussing save-or-die effects and how deadly the game ought to be made me think.

Critical hits are loved by players, but perhaps dreaded by DMs, especially at that moment when you know you've hit the hovering-near-death wizard. 4E made them less deadly than 3E, at least until later levels. My question is, how should critical hits be handled in the next edition - entirely within the damage framework, with another mechanic, or should they exist at all?

For the record, I would like to see 'some other effect', which might include more damage. I would make it dependent on the weapon or magic involved. I might be tempted to allow critical hits only with increased weapon training (give Fighters some love!).

 

[delericho]

My question is, how should critical hits be handled in the next edition - entirely within the damage framework, with another mechanic, or should they exist at all?

Critical hits should certainly exist. They're just fun. My preferences:

- A natural 20 (only) is an automatic hit, and a critical threat (as in 3e). You then proceed with the confirmation roll.

- If the confirmation roll fails, you do normal damage. If the confirmation roll succeeds, you do critical damage.

- Critical damage should generally be approx double damage. Whether this is literally a case of rolling the damage twice (3e), or whether it's max damage (4e) doesn't matter, but it should be about that. The 3e x3/x4 critical multipliers should be eliminated (as indeed any threat ranges - crit on nat-20 only!), as should those mundane weapons and feats that do extra damage on a crit.

- However, some powers and/or magic items and/or combat maneuvers should allow the possibility of the character forgoing the extra damage from a crit, and instead triggering some other effect instead. Indeed, for such powers and effects, there's not necessarily a need for the confirmation roll to be the same as the original attack roll.

Some examples:

The Fighter attacks with his rapier. He scores a natural 20, and decides to go for a disarm. Therefore, his confirmation roll is an attack vs Reflex, and if he succeeds he does normal (not critical) damage, and his target is disarmed.

The Rogue makes a sneak attack. He scores a natural 20, but decides to just go for maximum damage, rather than trigger his hamstring option. Thus, he makes a confirmation roll, and if successful does double damage (including all those lovely d6s from his sneak!).

The Wizard casts disintegrate. The initial attack is against Reflex, and does 8d6 damage. He scores a natural 20. Now, he can decide to confirm for a further 8d6 damage if he wishes, but the disintegrate spell allows him to instead confirm for a further 4d6 damage and turns it into a Save-or-Die. The wizard gleefully goes for the second option, rolling his confirmation against Reflex again...

I believe having confirmation rolls of this sort opens up a bigger design space (since the confirm doesn't need to be the same as the basic attack), it is conceptually a bit cleaner (since you're less likely to crit a guy in plate than one in leather), and it allows for crits to be that bit more devastating when they do happen.

Plus, allowing a confirmed crit to become a Save-or-Die means that a SoD spell has about a 1% chance of killing outright (5% of nat-20, then approx 70% of confirm, then 45% on the save) which feels about right, and avoids them being "all or nothing" effects (since you always get the normal damage anyway).

 

[Ramaster]

Critical hits should certainly exist. They're just fun. My preferences:

- A natural 20 (only) is an automatic hit, and a critical threat (as in 3e). You then proceed with the confirmation roll.

- If the confirmation roll fails, you do normal damage. If the confirmation roll succeeds, you do critical damage.

- Critical damage should generally be approx double damage. Whether this is literally a case of rolling the damage twice (3e), or whether it's max damage (4e) doesn't matter, but it should be about that. The 3e x3/x4 critical multipliers should be eliminated (as indeed any threat ranges - crit on nat-20 only!), as should those mundane weapons and feats that do extra damage on a crit.

- However, some powers and/or magic items and/or combat maneuvers should allow the possibility of the character forgoing the extra damage from a crit, and instead triggering some other effect instead. Indeed, for such powers and effects, there's not necessarily a need for the confirmation roll to be the same as the original attack roll.

Some examples:

The Fighter attacks with his rapier. He scores a natural 20, and decides to go for a disarm. Therefore, his confirmation roll is an attack vs Reflex, and if he succeeds he does normal (not critical) damage, and his target is disarmed.

The Rogue makes a sneak attack. He scores a natural 20, but decides to just go for maximum damage, rather than trigger his hamstring option. Thus, he makes a confirmation roll, and if successful does double damage (including all those lovely d6s from his sneak!).

The Wizard casts disintegrate. The initial attack is against Reflex, and does 8d6 damage. He scores a natural 20. Now, he can decide to confirm for a further 8d6 damage if he wishes, but the disintegrate spell allows him to instead confirm for a further 4d6 damage and turns it into a Save-or-Die. The wizard gleefully goes for the second option, rolling his confirmation against Reflex again...

I believe having confirmation rolls of this sort opens up a bigger design space (since the confirm doesn't need to be the same as the basic attack), it is conceptually a bit cleaner (since you're less likely to crit a guy in plate than one in leather), and it allows for crits to be that bit more devastating when they do happen.

Plus, allowing a confirmed crit to become a Save-or-Die means that a SoD spell has about a 1% chance of killing outright (5% of nat-20, then approx 70% of confirm, then 45% on the save) which feels about right, and avoids them being "all or nothing" effects (since you always get the normal damage anyway).

I like this aproach, I used to have a similar mechanic myself for a homebrew game I made.

In my game, the sistem was just for spells, and you had two "standard" options (double damage or no MP spent to cast the spell) and then each spell would get special options (like double duration, for status efects; aditional bonuses, for buffs, etc...)

 

[FireLance]

I kind of liked the system that was described in a supposedly leaked playtest: a natural 20 deals maximum damage, and then you get to roll to confirm and deal even more damage. This way, you always get something for rolling a natural 20, but greater skill also counts.

The possibility of getting other effects instead of more damage on a confirmed crit is intriguing, though, and I think I would like that.

 

[Naszir]

I kind of liked the system that was described in a supposedly leaked playtest: a natural 20 deals maximum damage, and then you get to roll to confirm and deal even more damage. This way, you always get something for rolling a natural 20, but greater skill also counts.

The possibility of getting other effects instead of more damage on a confirmed crit is intriguing, though, and I think I would like that.

I agree with this. Though, if there is some sort of "minion" in DDN, then I think a nat 20 should allow for some other options. (It sucks to have wasted a nat 20 on a minion).

For example the other option could allow a melee attacker who rolled a nat 20 to make an immediate attack an adjacent creature instead of doing max damage.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I kind of liked the system that was described in a supposedly leaked playtest: a natural 20 deals maximum damage, and then you get to roll to confirm and deal even more damage. This way, you always get something for rolling a natural 20, but greater skill also counts.

The possibility of getting other effects instead of more damage on a confirmed crit is intriguing, though, and I think I would like that.

That's close to what I prefer. My dividing line is if there is a confirmation roll for that extra damage, then there should also be other things that you can do besides simply apply extra damage. Otherwise, I'd just go with normal damage + 1 damage per attack bonus. (You crit with your longsword, which is +7 attack, 1d8+4. You get 1d8+11 damage.) Simple max damage for crits is great in one sense, but a bit underwhelming in some cases. That's why 4E has that elaborate set of extra damage dice on top of max damage.

Confirmation roll + yet another damage roll is too much effort for too little payoff. A confirmation roll + possibility of some other effect is making the time to do the confirmation roll worth it. Rolls should matter.

 

[TerraDave]

T...
Critical hits are loved by players, but perhaps dreaded by DMs, especially at that moment when you know you've hit the hovering-near-death wizard. ...

I think me and my players may feel the opposite...

But maybe thats just my DMing style.

 

[stevelabny]

All of the above.

Max damage on a 20. "Mulitplied damage" via rolling additional damage dice on a confirmation. AND other effects.

I have always wanted D&D to have an official injury system. Where broken bones / sprains / wounds / damaged organs / etc can happen and provide short or long term impediments to characters but I've never seen a system I particularly liked.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Damage multiplication is much more fun than maximization (and more meaningful). I would also like to see the quality of damage on a crit change, but that depends on having a system that allows for some damage to be more severe than other damage. Threat ranges and crit multipliers (or something to that effect) are essential components of describing skill and weapon properties.

 

[Li Shenron]

I honestly don't mind the actual implementation that much, more or less none of those suggested would bother me...

But I definitely like criticals to be in the game!