Increased critical chance based, not luck based.

[nyhotep]

I would like to increase the frequency of critical hits, but not by just changing the dice range. My idea is as follows:

Any attack total exceeding the defence value by 5 or more is a critical. Thus, an attack totalling 23 would cause a critical against an AC of 18 or less. A natural 20 would still count as a critical (allowing non specialists to get lucky, normal restrictions apply).

I suppose the same could apply to normal skill checks if you wished.

Anyone have any thoughts, for or against?

 

[erf_beto]

hmmm... not sure if it's ok, but it will be fun, that's for sure.
If it turns out too unbalanced, you can rule that instead of a regular critical, anytime you exceed the defense value by 5 or more, you deal maximum damage (without de +1d6 from magic weapons and the like). That will make it special, without causing much trouble - and a natural 20 will still be a great moment at the table.

 

[Syrsuro]

Although the idea isn't necessarily bad, I would definately increase the margin to quite a bit more than 5. With a margin of 5, you are going to have a crit nearly every other hit.

As it currently stands, you hit on a 10 or so (often less) against a typical foe. Which means that half of your hits (and one-fourth of your swings) will result in a crit. So unless you were going for an extremely bloody and 'gritty' game, I would not go with this as written. On the other hand, if you want quick deaths remnent of OD&D, this is the way to go about it.

Perhaps start with a margin of +10, rather than +5 and see how it goes from there. This will result in a slightly more varied criticals and the frequency will be highly dependant upon the level difference (higher level creatures/PCs will critical lower level creatures/PCs significantly more often, and lower level creatures/PCs will critical higher level foes less often).

Carl

 

[Stalker0]

My main argument against this is that attack rolls already play a very important role in the game because many powers have effect that only work if you hit.

This rule would make attack bonuses even more critical (pun intended), which encourages more min/maxing of stats, more importance on choosing the right race for the right class, etc.

 

[nyhotep]

Some good points here, especially, the margin of difference required. Thanks for your thoughts.

My fighter with an attack bonus of +6 against a typical AC 16 goblin would hit on a 10+, crit on 15+ (using 5 over) or on a 20 (using 10 over). So, if I use 10 greater than AC as the critical threshold, I am no different to the existing rule. However, as my fighter's attack bonus increases, so does his critical chance against the same poor old goblin. This actually sounds like what I was hoping to achieve. I shall try 10 levels, and see how it goes.

 

[Nifft]

You'll be disproportionately rewarding powers that grant attack bonuses.

For example, a nearby Cleric with Righteous Brand gives the Fighter a +4 to his attack rolls for a round. Normally this is ~20% increase in expected damage, but under your rules, it's also a 20% decrease in crit threshold, which means a lot more than just 20% more damage.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kaelkatar]

Mind-numbingly overpowered.
Limiting crits to only 5% of the time makes up for the fact that crits deal approximately 200% damage, and often have side effects.

It makes +1 to attack rolls, increase the crit chance by 5%, thus making it worth more than an EPIC FEAT.

In order to counterbalance the fact that there are so many crits happening, you need to either increase the number of enemies, or level them up drastically. Either way combat will become 10 times harder to balance and you will likely either end up giving up out of frustration or constantly feeding the PCs encounters that are far too easy.

 

[nyhotep]

Good points, I hadn't considered the massive increase in the number of powers that give to hit bonuses. Maybe the ideas in this thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=239741
are more useful.

Although doing double damage is no different than the existing suggestions for halving the number of hitpoints for faster combats.
Don't forget, it applies to monster rolls as well. What I don't like about the current system is that higher level characters are no better at handing out crits than lower levels (or fighters than wizards), unless they take precision. Lucky hits are all well and fine, but a skilled fighter knows where to aim to disable or kill much better than a novice.