Natural 20's & 1's?

[Ryujin]

I don't do anything in combat with a 20, other than using the existing mechanic for critical hits. In skill use, even if the person can't make the number required for success, I like to give some form of benefit. I might not give the full benefit, but I'll generally throw the player a bone.

I have to do that rather judiciously though, as we have a player who is "inordinately lucky" in that, given six 20-sided rolls, he can "roll" a 20 five times out of 6

 

[P1NBACK]

Because, say, within a combat which lasts for 3-4 rounds, it is likely that at least 1 or more PCs will roll 1 (or 20). It will happen really frequently.

A combat involves a lot of dice roll. Adding something "more interesting" to natural 1 and 20 will make this game surely much complex (thus, take more time), while not everyone will agree that such extras to be "interesting" or "fun".

Really? That's interesting. At my table, natural 20s usually result in shouts and 1s in oohs and awws. No other dice roll does that.

Now, once we realize that the roll pretty much does "max damage" it typically kind of subsides and we move on.

But to say that natural 20s aren't something special in and of itself, well, that's kind of strange.

Edit: As far as 1s and 20s happening "too often" - at my table I usually don't find that the case. Maybe your group is especially lucky/unlucky. I don't know. Usually a nat 20 is kind of rare and something special. Same with nat 1.

Interestingly, WotC put out a mechanic exactly like the one I suggested one a 1 - it's called Reckless Breakage. I guess they thought that it wouldn't bog combat down too much...

 

[Lord Ernie]

Interestingly, WotC put out a mechanic exactly like the one I suggested one a 1 - it's called Reckless Breakage. I guess they thought that it wouldn't bog combat down too much...

I don't have my books with me, but IIRC Reckless Breakage allowed the player an option to reroll on a 1, and possibly break his weapon if the reroll was bad enough.

As it is, I despise critical fumble rules for reasons already stated. They punish multi and burst attackers, they make a bad event even worse, and they punish players more than monsters.

As for critical hits being 'boring': This may be true in Heroic (max damage is nice, but not great). Things start to change from Paragon level onwards, though, and in Epic you'll see something totally different. With extra critical dice and special effects from higher enhancement weapons, and feats such as Overwhelming Critical or e.g. the tiefling feats Glasya's Charming Words and Royal Command of Asmodeus, they start to get really tasty.

When a big part of high-level Charop becomes about optimizing crits, I'd say it's hard to say crits are not very impressive.

 

[P1NBACK]

I don't have my books with me, but IIRC Reckless Breakage allowed the player an option to reroll on a 1, and possibly break his weapon if the reroll was bad enough.

As it is, I despise critical fumble rules for reasons already stated. They punish multi and burst attackers, they make a bad event even worse, and they punish players more than monsters.

Not really. It's a choice the player makes. It's an option. How does that punish the player? They can completely ignore the option if they choose.

As for critical hits being 'boring': This may be true in Heroic (max damage is nice, but not great). Things start to change from Paragon level onwards, though, and in Epic you'll see something totally different. With extra critical dice and special effects from higher enhancement weapons, and feats such as Overwhelming Critical or e.g. the tiefling feats Glasya's Charming Words and Royal Command of Asmodeus, they start to get really tasty.

When a big part of high-level Charop becomes about optimizing crits, I'd say it's hard to say crits are not very impressive.

I usually play in Heroic and low Paragon. So, maybe that's why my experiences with the game lead me to believe crits could have been implemented in a more interesting fashion. And, my point still stands, considering only in 1/3 of the game - a portion of which I'd say most people don't play in - has "interesting" crit effects.

If you have to optimize your crits for them to be impressive, that imho, is a missed opportunity for 4E's design.

 

[Shin Okada]

But to say that natural 20s aren't something special in and of itself, well, that's kind of strange.

Edit: As far as 1s and 20s happening "too often" - at my table I usually don't find that the case. Maybe your group is especially lucky/unlucky. I don't know. Usually a nat 20 is kind of rare and something special. Same with nat 1.

Well, we are using d20 for attack rolls, right?

That means, 1 in 20 chance, you roll natural1. 1 in 20 chance, you roll natural 20.

Typical combats in heroic to low paragon tier lasts for 3-5 rounds. Assume 4 rounds is a typical combat. Now, a typical party have 5 PCs. They usually roll at least one attack roll per turn.

Now, that is 20-25 attack rolls. It is natural that you will likely to see 1 each or natural 1 and natural 20 per combat, at least.

Actually, most combats involve more attack rolls by PCs. Because you are likely to have someone who rolls multiple attack rolls per turn (ranger, avenger, tempest fighter, and anyone who uses area or close attacks, etc.)

And as the level and the tier goes up, more and more attack rolls are included per combat encounter.

 

[Lord Ernie]

Not really. It's a choice the player makes. It's an option. How does that punish the player? They can completely ignore the option if they choose.

Sorry, my post above was unclear: I was speaking about critical fumble rules in general. Reckless breackage specifically is an optional bonus rather than a penalty, but as I understand it, it depends on Athas' flavour more than anything else. I do think that without either inherent bonuses, or a montyhaul scenario, I don't think I would ever use it; the risk of losing your best weapon (which is presumably what you'll be using most of the time) is 1/4, which is pretty damn big.

I usually play in Heroic and low Paragon. So, maybe that's why my experiences with the game lead me to believe crits could have been implemented in a more interesting fashion. And, my point still stands, considering only in 1/3 of the game - a portion of which I'd say most people don't play in - has "interesting" crit effects.

Paragon+Epic is 2/3 of the game, not 1/3rd. Specifically, there are several paragon paths that buff crits from as early as level 11.

Even without those, early paragon is when you're gonna see a significant jump in damage when you roll a crit, even without optimization. Just as an example, let's take an invoker using Hand of Radiance and a Staff of Ruin +3, who does not take Radiant Servant or its equivalents for an improved crit range. Note that Hand of Radiance might trigger more crits than most other powers (since you'll very likely have 3 targets if there are 3 targets available), but that a maximized 1d4 isn't that impressive. You'll see bigger jumps on powers which use higher amount of larger dice.

Without any other feats and a starting 18 wisdom, this would give us this:

Normal damage: 1d4 + 5 wisdom + 3 enhancement + 3 staff bonus = 1d4+11 damage, or 13.5 damage on average.
Critical hit: 15 damage (max normal) + 3d10 from the staff, or about 31.5 damage on average.

Without any crit optimization and with only a Staff of Ruin as powerful critical element, that's double damage, which is roughly what you'd get on an unoptimized 3.X crit.

If you have to optimize your crits for them to be impressive, that imho, is a missed opportunity for 4E's design.

That is not what I said, though. I said that optimizing crits was an important part of high-level Charop.

Now, if crits were simply not very impressive to begin with, optimizing them would be a waste of time, right? Still, there are several builds out there (such as the IMO rather stupid Twin-Striking Half-Elf Avenger) which are optimized to get as many crits as possible, and every Charop Guide lists the 'better critical range' feats and Paragon Paths as being among the most powerful in the game.

Final tip: If you want to see your crit rounds be more impressive, play a Rageborn Barbarian. Big weapon dice, powers with lots of [W]'s, and free basic attacks will make your crits into something to behold.

 

[Smoke Jaguar]

But, hey, for a beer and pretzel game dropping your prized ancestral weapon into the acid pit and watching it disintegrate is frickin' hilarious.

Right. My group doesn't do anything that harsh. That is just cold and mean spirited. Like I said, it is more for just a little suspense and fun. They hardly ever receive more than 6 damage, which is almost equivalent to them stubbing their big toe.

 

[P1NBACK]

Normal damage: 1d4 + 5 wisdom + 3 enhancement + 3 staff bonus = 1d4+11 damage, or 13.5 damage on average.

Critical hit: 15 damage (max normal) + 3d10 from the staff, or about 31.5 damage on average.

Right. I get it. You deal more damage at higher levels on crits. Like I said, dealing more damage isn't as interesting or flavorful or mechanically distinguished to me.

I think it'd be more interesting if crits were distinguished somehow. This thread is about how to handle crits/fumbles. So arguing with me about my opinion seems kind of strange. You can argue that you think more damage is interesting, fine. But, saying they already are interesting is kind of a bizarre argument in a thread like this. If they're already interesting to you, why do you care if I think they aren't or could have been designed better?

Moral of the story: I think crits could have been designed to be more interesting "out of the box" than just getting more damage (or in Heroic tier... just max damage [which I can get without rolling a crit]). If I were to create a houserule (or resdesign 4E), I'd go in this direction. The same with rolling 1s. I'd give the players more options instead of just "bad stuff" that happens (like WotC has already done using Reckless Breakage as an example). I think recharging an encounter power would be cool when a player rolls a 1.

 

[Ryujin]

Right. I get it. You deal more damage at higher levels on crits. Like I said, dealing more damage isn't as interesting or flavorful or mechanically distinguished to me.

I think it'd be more interesting if crits were distinguished somehow. This thread is about how to handle crits/fumbles. So arguing with me about my opinion seems kind of strange. You can argue that you think more damage is interesting, fine. But, saying they already are interesting is kind of a bizarre argument in a thread like this. If they're already interesting to you, why do you care if I think they aren't or could have been designed better?

Moral of the story: I think crits could have been designed to be more interesting "out of the box" than just getting more damage (or in Heroic tier... just max damage [which I can get without rolling a crit]). If I were to create a houserule (or resdesign 4E), I'd go in this direction. The same with rolling 1s. I'd give the players more options instead of just "bad stuff" that happens (like WotC has already done using Reckless Breakage as an example). I think recharging an encounter power would be cool when a player rolls a 1.

While I agree that criticals could have been made more interesting, every mechanic that is tacked on to an attack ends up lengthening a turn that many already say is too drawn out.

Tie in with the "Magic Items" thread; flavourful and interesting criticals can come from the weapon or implement being used, which can add something more than just a couple of extra dice of damage.

 

[P1NBACK]

While I agree that criticals could have been made more interesting, every mechanic that is tacked on to an attack ends up lengthening a turn that many already say is too drawn out.

Just 5% of turns.

But, really. This thread isn't for those people is it? It's for the people who do something on a 1 or 20.