Critical Hits

[Fanaelialae]

Damage multiplication is much more fun than maximization

Not on a low roll it isn't...

"Awesome, a crit! Damn... minimum damage..."

(and more meaningful).

Meaningful how? Using damage multiplication, you can end up with less damage than a maximized normal roll.

For example, 1d8+1. Minimum roll, doubled, is 4. Maximized damage is 9.

What about a critical hit that deals less damage than a normal hit is meaningfully critical?

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.

I disagree. Prior to 3e you didn't have threat ranges or crit multipliers, yet weapons weren't carbon copies of each other, and characters could most certainly be described as more or less skilled with a given weapon (weapon specialization).

Personally, I voted for max damage, but I like the system described in the leaked playtest. I think max damage is a minimum however, to avoid the "crit that isn't a crit".

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not on a low roll it isn't...

"Awesome, a crit! Damn... minimum damage..."

That's why I'm talking about the quality of damage as well. In a vp/wp system, for example, if you crit, you might roll low, but if some of that damage is wounds it's still more impactful than a normal hit.

Meaningful how? Using damage multiplication, you can end up with less damage than a maximized normal roll.

For example, 1d8+1. Minimum roll, doubled, is 4. Maximized damage is 9.

What about a critical hit that deals less damage than a normal hit is meaningfully critical?

Realistically, 1d8+1 is a pretty rare damage number. Typically, player characters have better strength than that (and hopefully other modifiers such as magic or PA kicking in pretty fast). The static damage *in general* outweighs the dice, so this scenario is pretty rare. Usually a double damage crit will be at least as good as max damage (let alone a triple or more damage crit). Moreover, the characters with damage mainly deriving from dice are going to be the weak combatants (wizards using crossbows, or kobolds using anything). Those characters don't deserve to do a lot of damage, and since there will more often be monsters than PCs in this boat, it's advantageous for the players to have damage multipliers.

But let's ask the converse, when crits max the damage die. What if you roll a 2 on your attack roll, but your enemy has low AC and you hit anyway? You roll max damage. The next round, you roll a 20 and crit and deal...the same damage. How special is that crit? A crit isn't all that meaingful if it never does more damage than you could have gotten without a crit.

I disagree. Prior to 3e you didn't have threat ranges or crit multipliers, yet weapons weren't carbon copies of each other, and characters could most certainly be described as more or less skilled with a given weapon (weapon specialization).

Personally, I voted for max damage, but I like the system described in the leaked playtest. I think max damage is a minimum however, to avoid the "crit that isn't a crit".

Prior to 3e you had weapon speeds, which likely aren't coming back. Anyway, I'm not saying threat ranges/multipliers are the only way to differentiate weapons, merely that they are a very good way.

I thought the proposed mixed system wasn't bad at all.

 

[FireLance]

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).

Now that you mentioned it, I actually created a table for critical hits and another table for critical "inspiration" for 4e games. You could choose to roll on either table instead of dealing maximum damage. The latter table, in particular, would give you a benefit for rolling a critical against a minion. Here they are:

Critical Hit Table (roll 1d8)

1 - Head strike: The target suffers blurred vision and treats all its enemies as having concealment until the end of its next turn.

2 - Chest strike: The target staggers backward and is pushed 1 square.

3 - Gut strike: The target is winded and grants combat advantage to all attackers until the end of its next turn.

4 - Interfering strike: The target is hit in the arm and takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of its next turn.

5 - Kneecap strike: The target loses its balance and falls prone.

6 - Foot strike: The target's movement is hampered and it is slowed until the end of its next turn.

7 - Arterial strike: The target starts bleeding profusely and takes 4 ongoing damage (save ends). This increases to 8 ongoing damage if the attacker is 11th or higher level, and 12 ongoing damage if the attacker is 21st or higher level.

8 - Vitals strike: The target is hit in a sensitive area and takes 5 extra damage. This increases to 10 extra damage if the attacker is 11th or higher level, and 15 extra damage if the attacker is 21st or higher level.

Critical Inspiration Table (roll 1d6)

1 - Inspired speed: The attacker may shift two squares as a free action.

2 - Inspired defence: The attacker gains a +2 bonus to all defences until the end of his next turn.

3 - Inspired accuracy: The attacker gains a +2 bonus to his next attack roll.

4 - Inspired ferocity: The attacker gains a +5 bonus to the next damage roll he makes before the end of the encounter. The bonus increases to +10 if he is 11th or higher level, and +15 if he is 21st or higher level.

5 - Inspired vigor: The attacker gains 5 temporary hit points. This increases to 10 temporary hit points if he is 11th or higher level, and 15 temporary hit points if he is 21st or higher level.

6 - Inspired recovery: The attacker may make a saving throw. If the attacker is not subject to a condition that a saving throw can end, he gains temporary hit points instead (as Inspired vigor, above).​

And yes, if you are using a bow and you roll a 5 on the Critical Hit Table, your opponent takes an arrow in the knee.

 

[jodyjohnson]

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.

It occurs that Max plus attack bonus damage on a crit is analogous with Max plus level/tier based extra dice.

Max plus attack bonus. Simple and quick while scaling with level.

Just one option among many I'd like to see as options.

 

[Kingreaper]

I like maximum damage+ something extra for crits.

The extra is fine to come after a confirmation roll.

I also think that fighters should get bonus effects on a crit.

 

[gweinel]

effects

For more flavor i would love to see critical tables like the ones we had in 2nd e....

 

[Szatany]

How should critical hits be handled in the next iteration of D&D?
Multiply all the damage! [2E, 3E]
Roll more dice! [3E principle, 4E]
Maximum damage! [4E principle]
No more damage, some other effect.
Critical hits critically fail to interest me.

None of the above. I like the hybrid idea of 3e+4e. With it, a critical hit means you deal maximum damage (4e) but also make a confirmation check (3e). If you succeed, you deal extra dice of damage (based on weapon, skill, whatever).

 

[sheadunne]

In my homebrew game (d20/pathfinder) I do maximum damage on a crit (no confirmation) + special effect, unique to each weapon which requires a Str save (DC = 10 + 1/2 level + str). For instance, a warhammer will push an enemy back 5 feet for every 10 points of damage on a crit (1-10 5 feet, 11-20 10 feet, etc, -5 feet for every size category larger the opponent is, +5 feet for every size category smaller).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There seem to be a lot of people in favour of confirmation rolls! I had honestly forgotten about that mechanic - it did reward skill, though was time-consuming.

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] 's idea of giving players a choice is excellent. Sometimes effects can be superior to more damage - I think it was a shame more 4E weapons didn't do this rather than +XdY type more damage.

I am however *very* wary of multiplying up all damage. It depends on what additional damage exists in the game, but in general it amplifies up minor effects in a way that unbalances said effects.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's why I'm talking about the quality of damage as well. In a vp/wp system, for example, if you crit, you might roll low, but if some of that damage is wounds it's still more impactful than a normal hit.

Realistically, 1d8+1 is a pretty rare damage number. Typically, player characters have better strength than that (and hopefully other modifiers such as magic or PA kicking in pretty fast). The static damage *in general* outweighs the dice, so this scenario is pretty rare. Usually a double damage crit will be at least as good as max damage (let alone a triple or more damage crit). Moreover, the characters with damage mainly deriving from dice are going to be the weak combatants (wizards using crossbows, or kobolds using anything). Those characters don't deserve to do a lot of damage, and since there will more often be monsters than PCs in this boat, it's advantageous for the players to have damage multipliers.

1d8+1 isn't all that rare (for example, a 12 strength Weapon Finesse rogue in 3e, or a fighter with a strength of 16 or 17 in 1e/2e). Besides, the same argument could be made with 1d8+4 or 1d12+8. Both of those are also lower on a min roll, after doubling, than the max. Rolling minimum on a 1d8 or 1d12 isn't exactly a rare occurrence.

Also, there are a fair number of attacks that don't get a modifier at all. The 3.5 version of disintegrate is a prime example. Rolling low damage on a crit with that spell is lame (at least compared to what you could inflict with an average non-crit).

But let's ask the converse, when crits max the damage die. What if you roll a 2 on your attack roll, but your enemy has low AC and you hit anyway? You roll max damage. The next round, you roll a 20 and crit and deal...the same damage. How special is that crit? A crit isn't all that meaingful if it never does more damage than you could have gotten without a crit.

That's why the 4e way is that you get bonus dice on top of the max. High crit and magical damage bonuses all add dice. The only thing I think 4e could have done better in this respect would have been to grant an inherent crit bonus at 1st level.

Prior to 3e you had weapon speeds, which likely aren't coming back. Anyway, I'm not saying threat ranges/multipliers are the only way to differentiate weapons, merely that they are a very good way.

I don't think ranges/multipliers are a good way. Multipliers cause damage to get way out of hand. x2 isn't bad, but x3 and x4 make the game too swingy and luck based. Either you have to make PCs too tough, able to withstand at least 5 regular hits, or you end up with characters who get taken out by a lucky (cheap) shot before they can even act.

Ranges enable the above strategy and also cheapen crits (because, IMO, they make them too common). I'm not saying that we should never see a range of 19-20, but I don't think it should be common, and we definitely shouldn't see ranges of 12-20 ever again.

4e uses the properties High Crit (roll the weapon's damage die and add it to any crit) and Brutal (reroll the weapon's damage die if it is equal or below the brutal number). Those properties differentiate weapons too, but without making them one-shot kills.

I thought the proposed mixed system wasn't bad at all.

That's good hear. At least we can both agree on that! Perhaps there's hope for DDN after all!