Critical Hits

[El Mahdi]

None of the Above.

I want Maximum Damage + Rolled Damage, and an extra effect (like a movement penalty, attack penalty, defense penalty, ability check penalty, etc.).

I don't want all of those penalties at the same time for one critical hit, but maybe a random roll to see which one is applied. A movement penalty could simulate a wound (more than just HP loss) to a leg, foot, etc. An attack or defense penalty could simulate a wound to an arms (sword arm, shield arm), or could mean a wound to the head. Etc, etc, etc.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm a big fan of 3.x to PF's take on crits. Just love the tension to confirm the roll, but once confirmed, you get to roll more dice. Of course, I enjoy threat ranges too.

What I probably wouldn't be a fan of is if they did away with them in the next edition.

One cool thing we did back in the 2e days was that we used the critical hit tables from Rolemaster whenever a crit was scored. For spells that automatically hit, we'd still roll a d20 just in case it rolled a 20 because then you could do some extra nasty damage. Made combat even more tension filled. Good times.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't like crits. It throws assumptions off. Without crits, you can generally decide to go one more round against the bad guy without withdrawing. If he does 8 points of damage on average and you have 12 hp left, you can generally fight on another round. If you misjudge and he does 13 points due to a good roll, you're still not dead (unless it's Basic or Original D&D). But if he rolls a crit, you're dead. That being said, my players ALWAYS want crits, even though it screws the players over, not the monsters, so I generally use them.

Also, I DETEST status effect crits. If I have 6 orcs that have all been critted and one has a bad ankle (-10 to move), another has a bruised wrist (-2 to hit), the third is bleeding out (-1 hp each round), etc, that's way more crap to track than I'm going to bother with.

 

[BobTheNob]

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).

Dragon Age RPG had something similar to this. It didnt have "Crits" but it had stunts, so on a lucky roll you could
* Add Damage, and/or
* Move your opponent, and/or
* Make a second attack, and/or
* ...e.t.c

The gist of there approach was : No special martial attacks and no crits, but a lucky result becomes (in a way) a martial attack and a crit rolled into one.

It was an interesting approach to how to portray martial "specials" which I have to admit Im kinda fond of. It allowed the martial character to occasionally pull out moments of brilliance without resorting to mashing them into a power structure.

Or course mages got it to, but a different list of coolness to call on.

 

[Aurikalchos]

This is a rather different method that I've thought up regarding crits.

Since I began playing 3.5e, I always felt duped that I was never rewarded for exceeding my opponent's AC and then defense(AC, Reflex, Fortitude, or Will) in 4e.

What if for every point that I exceeded my opponent's defense I dealt an additional point of damage? And say, crits occurred when you exceeded an opponent's defense by, say, arbitrarily, 10?

This would increase the number of crits significantly, but would make getting attack bonuses more important. We could even incorporate the bonus effects depending on the weapon you are using.

 

[Mengu]

None of the above... or maybe any one of the above. Just went with the last option because ultimately I don't care.

It depends on:

The order of magnitude for hit points.
The order of magnitude for damage.
The death rules.

What I expect from crits is:

They should be exciting for PC's.
They should be painful against PC's.
They should help speed up combat by dealing more damage.
They should not take longer to resolve than a regular hit.
They should not be the difference between life and death.

The rest is just design preferences and math. If they hit 3 out of 5 of those criteria, I'm good.

 

[Sirot]

Maximizing damage makes critical hits satisfyingly without additional complexity and without making the combat more dicey.

In the long run, the PCs suffer more from critical hits than monsters.

 

[Gryph]

I would prefer crits to reside in the optional, super-crunchy tactics module. I would rather they were not in the core combat rules.

Since I probably will not use the optional, super-crunchy tactics module, I am indifferent to their final form.

This edition I am all about removing fiddly bits that require extra rolls and multiple layers of modifiers. I want combat rounds to be sleek and shiny and last about 20 seconds per player.

 

[BobTheNob]

This is a rather different method that I've thought up regarding crits.

Since I began playing 3.5e, I always felt duped that I was never rewarded for exceeding my opponent's AC and then defense(AC, Reflex, Fortitude, or Will) in 4e.

What if for every point that I exceeded my opponent's defense I dealt an additional point of damage? And say, crits occurred when you exceeded an opponent's defense by, say, arbitrarily, 10?

This would increase the number of crits significantly, but would make getting attack bonuses more important. We could even incorporate the bonus effects depending on the weapon you are using.

In 4e to-hit was no.1 consideration for offense as it was. Go and do this, character design becomes "What is EVERYTHING I can do to up my to hit...and forget about upping damage as upping to hit does the exact same thing as well as improving my odds of success"

D&D has always maintained accuracy & damage as two sides of the offense coin. If you made accuracy contribute to damage in this way, you break that and make offensive capability all about to-hit...which is something I wanted them to back off from.

Im more for the difference between your to hit and targets defence contributing to lowering the target number for the crit e.g. if your target to hit is 8, drop the target to crit to 19, if your target to hit is 5, drop the target to crit to 18...or something along those lines

 

[Minigiant]

I'd like something close to my homebrew.

A critical hit deasl double damage. Then you get a confirmation roll to get a bonus based on class, race, weapon, theme, etc.

So a elf rogue who rolls a 20 on attack with his longsword deals maximum damage on his 1d8 damage roll. He then rolls a confirmation of the hit. If he hits again he may any one of the following effects.

Longsword: Double the base weapon damage
Rogue: Add sneak attack damage
Elf: The target is dazed
Sailor: The target is disarmed