Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8122437" data-attributes="member: 6987520">To address the need for the critical hit, it isn't needed. Period. Natural 20's on an attack roll are just as random as a natural 1. So, there is no valid argument for a critical hit mechanic unless you want the drama it adds. Likewise with critical fumbles/failures.Now, I mentioned in my last post about our confirmation rules. We use them because it decreases the likelihood of a more experienced fighter fumbling simply because he has more attacks. Sure, he has more chances of rolling a nat 1, but he is also more likely to make the confirmation roll and thus avoid the critical fumble.I'll elaborate with an example. The confirmation is DC 15. Let's assume a level 1 PC has +5 (+3 ability, +2 proficiency). That means if they roll a natural 1, they have to roll a 9 or lower to fail the confirmation roll (mishap) and if they fail it, roll another 9 or lower to confirm the disaster. That is only a 2.25% for a mishap and 1.0125% for a disaster.Make it a level 11 fighter with +9 (+4 ability, +4 proficiency, +1 magic/misc). The same 1/20 for nat 1, but now the confirmation failure is only 25% (not 45% as with the level 1). So, the chance of a mishap is 1.25% and a disaster only 0.3125% (1 in 320). So, despite getting 3 attacks, the odds of a mishap or disaster is roughly the same or lower over all.The only rule I think should be implemented in the game as an actual rule (not a house-rule) is that a 1 should always fail (not critically, but fail) and a 20 should always succeed (not critically, either). This way you have no AC's that are invincible, no saves that are impossible, and likewise no guarantees that someone will always succeed or always hit, either.</blockquote>

Verification