Eliminate the Confirmation Roll with the CritAC

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

I've been tossing around an idea in my head, for a while, now. The goal of the idea is to eliminate the need for a confirmation roll concerning Critical Threats/Hits.

Basically, every combatant would have an additional AC that I call the Crit AC. The Crit AC would be 5 points higher than the normal AC. An attack roll totalling enough to hit the Crit AC would be a Critical Hit. No confirmation roll necessary.

The main problems that I can think of concerning this include:

Threat ranges on various weapons would be meaningless. One possible solution would be to adjust damage dice for these weapons up one step per point of threat range better than 20. For instance, a longsword, with a threat range of 19-20 would have its damage dice increased from 1d8 to 2d6. A second possible solution would be to increase the critical multiplier on such weapons. So, using the longsword, the multiplier would be x3 instead of x2.

Certain feats, abilities, spells, and magic items that increase threat ranges would, instead, adjust the either the damage dice or the critical multiplier as in 1, above.

Abilities like Fortification which have grant a percentage chance to negate a Critical Hit could remain unchanged. Or, as an option, they could, instead, increase the combatant's Crit AC.

Additionally, it might be necessary to record the value of the Flat-Footed Crit AC.

What do you think of this idea? What problems with this have I overlooked?

Thank you.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Interesting approach. I've come across a similar idea in a third party book, but it was alongside many other rules and options.

I guess critters and characters with a low 'to hit' going up against high AC enemies will just plain ol' never get crits, and that's that.

Otherwise, there probably wouldn't be too much outright change, just shuffling things around, getting rid of / fixing various feats, spells, class features, etc.

Yeah, fortification might give +1 CAC per 5%. . .? Hm, flat-footed and touch could be written in terms of '-x' for each, rather than actual fixed numbers. Oh, and I would go for the increased multiplier for weapons (and feats), rather than increased base damage.

The way it interacts with Power Attack (for example) might need looking at; not sure.

 

[cooperflood]

The number of crits in the game will go up tremendously. Take for example abilities that attack touch AC. Many of those attacks hit on a roll of less than 10. And don't forget about all those spells that are touch attack or ranged touch attacks. They do double damage on a crit just like weapons. Personally I think a radical change like this would require a lot of number crunching and play testing.

 

[chando]

If you want to eliminate the confirmation roll, do just that: eliminate the confirmation roll.

when you roll a 20 with an great axe, you do x3 damage. When you roll a 19 with a longsword, you do x2 damage. just don't roll the confirmation. it will increase the crits for players and monsters but not by much, as the confirmation is many times just a formality, and other times is frustrating to roll a natural 20 and roll really low on the confirmation (like 2-5).

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I just eliminated the Confirmation roll when I ran my game. No biggie. Sure, crits happened more often. That was part of the point.

The idea.... honestly, it seems awfully fiddly for no payoff. You eliminate a Confirmation roll *shrug*. You've replaced the extra time you would have spent making a 2nd roll with having to learn a whole new subsystem, having to rejigger feats, and mess around with weapon stats.

If the goal was to make things easier, you're heading the opposite direction.

If the goal is to try and make crits happen more often, you're just doing a shell-game.

It also means that against a character like my 12th level Fighter with a 24 AC, monsters are going to be critting him quite frequently. Monster to Hits increase a heck of a lot faster than PC BaB and AC.

 

[Thanael]

If you want to eliminate the confirmation roll, do just that: eliminate the confirmation roll.

when you roll a 20 with an great axe, you do x3 damage. When you roll a 19 with a longsword, you do x2 damage. just don't roll the confirmation. it will increase the crits for players and monsters but not by much, as the confirmation is many times just a formality, and other times is frustrating to roll a natural 20 and roll really low on the confirmation (like 2-5).

That's how it was in 2E and this resulted in the highly armoured foe that is always critted when hit. That's the reason they invented the confirmation roll.

In 2.5E Combat & Tactics tackles this by saying you're only critted when the roll is a crit and hits by a margin of 5. So effectively your crit AC was your normal AC +5.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

That's how it was in 2E and this resulted in the highly armoured foe that is always critted when hit. That's the reason they invented the confirmation roll.

Makes sense to me--if you're really heavily armored, the only way you'd be hit at all is to be hit in a more vulnerable place, and being hit in a more vulnerable place damages you more, so a high-AC character only taking crits should be fine; they're still taking less damage than those taking crits plus normal hits.

 

[El Mahdi]

With this approach, all I see is a lot of extra record keeping and calculations for something that can just be done by eliminating the confirmation roll period. And the posts above are correct, this will increase the number of crits that occur. However, IMO that's not a problem. I like fast, brutal, high crit games.

The way I do it is simply eliminating confirmation rolls for natural 20's (just like it used to be in 2E), but keep confirmation rolls for the rest of the threat range. So, 20's are automatically crits (not just automatic hits), and any other roll (15, 16, 17, 18, 19) all still need confirmation rolls.

This approach increases the amount of crits, but not as much as it would if any hit with a roll in the threat range was considered an automatic crit. And, it doesn't nullify any feats that concern critical hits. It also saves you from adding any extra record keeping and makes it the responsibility of the players to pay attention to whether rolls fall within their threat range.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Interesting approach. I've come across a similar idea in a third party book, but it was alongside many other rules and options.

I'm sure it's not an original idea with me. Someone's already posted that the idea was in presented as an option in 2E. I'm wanting to eventually expand on it with more house rules.

I guess critters and characters with a low 'to hit' going up against high AC enemies will just plain ol' never get crits, and that's that.

True... But, from my perspective, the purpose of armor is to reduce the chance of taking a critical hit. So, unarmored combatants should suffer criticals more often than armored combatants, all other things being equal.

Otherwise, there probably wouldn't be too much outright change, just shuffling things around, getting rid of / fixing various feats, spells, class features, etc.

I hope that's all there is to it. I'm almost ready to test it. There are some wrinkles I'm trying to work through, though.

Yeah, fortification might give +1 CAC per 5%. . .?

Yeah... Fortification, might not get changed, at all. The 75% fortification would equate to a +15 to CritAC. That seems like an awful lot, but maybe not. Needs more thought. A normal AC of 15 and a CritAC or 30 might be fine, depending on style of play.

Hm, flat-footed and touch could be written in terms of '-x' for each, rather than actual fixed numbers.

Yes, it could.

Oh, and I would go for the increased multiplier for weapons (and feats), rather than increased base damage.

That's one of the wrinkles that I mentioned. It could make some weapons extremely deadly on a critical. In other words, it would make criticals CRITICAL! But, I'm too much of a good thing could kill a game.

The way it interacts with Power Attack (for example) might need looking at; not sure.

This one, I hadn't thought of. Power Attack is a weird feat, in my mind, anyway. But, the idea of using Strength to hit, to begin with is odd, too. But, that's a whole 'nother houserule discussion. And, I think there should be a Base Damage Bonus that increases with level, as opposed to only a Base Attack Bonus. But, that's just me.

Thank you, Aus_Snow.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

The number of crits in the game will go up tremendously.

I agree, Cooperflood. But, I like that the increase will be more related to the combantants' skill than luck.

Take for example abilities that attack touch AC. Many of those attacks hit on a roll of less than 10. And don't forget about all those spells that are touch attack or ranged touch attacks. They do double damage on a crit just like weapons.

Thank you. This is something that bothers me about the 3.5 system. I'm not sure there's solid logic in allowing touch attacks to score critical hits. I don't understand it. The damage from Critical Hits is generally classed with precision damage. The idea of causing a Critical Hit from an attack that only requires a touch attack to hit is really odd, to me. I'd be tempted to remove Critical Touch Attacks from the game. What would be the drawback?

Personally I think a radical change like this would require a lot of number crunching and play testing.

I'm sure it will. If I decide to go forward with this, I'll be working on it for 3 or 4 months before introducing it to my game. Our group has two DMs that alternate and each DM uses his own houserules. So, I'm not in a rush to implement this.

Thank you for the reminder about Touch Attacks causing Critical Hits. I think that rule will have to go for this to work. Can't see a reason for it, in the first place.