Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6835394" data-attributes="member: 996">I quite liked confirming critical hits - it was something I did in my AD&D campaign, I think it was a pretty common variant (I only broke out the crazy crit tables when the confirm roll was a natural 20) - 3e didn't just confirm criticals, it also increased the damage some weapons did on crits and expanded the threat range on others.  So, while you might have to confirm, you might also crit on a 15-20, or have a x4 or higher multiplier.  5e crits are only double damage dice - a crit can easily roll less than average damage for the attack.  I've seen it happen from time to time.Oh, another thought.  The reason I instituted that variant back in the day was because I wanted characters who hit better to also crit better, while those who had little chance of hitting shouldn't crit most of the time or even every time (or never, depending on the rule you used).  Repeating the attack roll to hit the targets AC made critting 'easy' for high-level fighters, for instance, and hard for mooks.  In 5e, Bounded Accuracy mostly removes the distinction of 'hitting well' or 'barely able to hit,' so, for me, the impetus to confirm criticals is reduced.</blockquote>