"Flipping" saves to attacks

[Remathilis]

That's not a rule in Saga.

I think I just found that my DM uses a house rule we didn't know about...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So what's the point in keeping the critical hits rule?

If it means nothing for a mook to critical hit the PC character, and the opposite is also true, since you can one-hit kill any mook anyway, with or without a critical hit, what's the point?

First off, crits are fun.

Second, it doesn't "mean nothing" for a mook to critically hit the PC. Rather, it means that past a certain point, the only mook attacks which get through your defenses are those lucky shots. Moreover, the increased damage from the critical means that there's a better chance the attack will overcome even a higher-level PC's Damage Threshold, pushing him down the Condition Track (thus lowering his Defenses, making it easier for his mook friends to hit, as well).

Moreover, it ensures that a large number of mooks are still a credible threat to PCs, even though they largely begin to act like dangerous terrain (a conscious design decision while the Devs were making Saga, see here for more).

Two equally powerful characters fighting each other, no matter their ACs, will critical hit each other 5% of the time, so what's the point?

As opposed to 3E, where two equally powerful characters, no matter their ACs, will critically hit each other the same percentage of the time?

 

[F4NBOY]

First off, crits are fun.

Why?
Different poeple will give different answers.
Mine is: They are fun because they really mean something in combat.

As opposed to 3E, where two equally powerful characters, no matter their ACs, will critically hit each other the same percentage of the time?

Sorry, I did not understand you question. Can you remake it please?

 

[Branduil]

You know, it wouldn't be hard at all to just make a house rule where the spellcaster has to roll for each opponent.

 

[RFisher]

First off, crits are fun.

Yeah, but the frequency of them being unfun greatly offsets that in my experience.

 

[DonTadow]

Attacks don't usually target more than one enemy at a time.



Not always. Lots of spells have no effect if the enemy makes their saving throw. But at least, if one enemy made their save, others might fail. Or vice-versa.

The problem with a spellcaster making a single attack roll to target a group of enemies is that it's all or nothing, and both options cause big problems. In 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition, if you cast a Confusion spell on a group of six enemies, and three failed their saving throws, your party members still had to deal with the other three enemies (maybe with a little help from the confused ones, but they were still a threat). Under this system, if a wizard casts a Confusion spell on a group of six enemies, he either wins the fight with one spell, or accomplishes absolutely nothing. The former is no fun for the rest of the party, and the latter is no fun for the wizard. This is a problem.

And another problem is when these kinds of spells get cast on the players. If an enemy wizard casts Confusion on the party, all it takes is one lucky roll on the DM's part and it's a TPK. In 3E, it would have taken four unlucky rolls to make that happen - much less likely.

exactly, spells are more pontent than a basic attack yet they go unchecked. I"ve always house ruled it so that my spell systems required some kind of sacrafice or miss chance.

 

[SteveC]

This (autocrit on a 20) is one of the few rules that I really didn't like in SAGA. As a number of other people have said, it makes defenses useless after a certain point, and brings back the glass ninja problem to D20. It also makes mooks more dangerous, since the only damage they'll end up doing is a critical hit...an orc with a great axe can be a real threat to a medium level character if he gets an attack off.

A number of people have said "that's a good thing," and I can't disagree more: what's the point of having mook rules to make a class of opponents less dangerous, while also making them significantly more dangerous in a way that's not immediately apparent. Might be good for a Grim Tales game, but it's less than heroic.

The house rule I use for SAGA is that if the attack would not have hit the target's Reflex defense, the 20 hits, but only has normal effect. It's worked quite well for now.

--Steve

 

[Grog]

exactly, spells are more pontent than a basic attack yet they go unchecked. I"ve always house ruled it so that my spell systems required some kind of sacrafice or miss chance.

Spells don't go unchecked. They have saving throws (well, most of them).

 

[FungiMuncher]

Honestly, this is the first 4E change I've heard that I'm not wild about. I don't like the idea of my spell having zero effect on any of the six monsters I blasted with it just because I rolled a 1. It really seems too all-or-nothing to me.

As the designated "Schleprock" of my group, I couldn't agree more. There's a lot more riding on that one roll.

Let's hope the designers recognize the problem and adjust.

 

[Jhaelen]

We've prety much been confirmed thatthey are (honestly what dm confirmed crits?). Boring, slow and tedious.

This has been one of the changes I welcomed in D&D 3.X. In my games critical threats rarely come up, so there's no noticeable slowdown.
In fact, it's more dramatic because you have to confirm it with another roll. It's definitely a memorable event when it happens.