New Crit Rule

[seasong]

I'm just thinking about this, and wanted to see what the ENW Geniuses thought.

I already have this rule in place:
- natural 1s equal a -10 rather than automatic failure.
- natural 20s equal a 30 rather than automatic success.

I'm thinking of adding to that:
- a "crit" is exceeding the DC/AC by 10 or more.

Thus, against an AC 19, a 20 is a crit, since 30 is at least 10 higher than 19. However, this would also mean that someone with a BAB +10 could crit on a natural 19 as well.

I'm not sure how to handle wider range crit weapons (18-20/x2) under this rule, however...

Another option I'm thinking of, instead, would be:
- you may reduce your chance to hit by -5 in return for +1 to the threat range.
- example: fighter with BAB +10 takes a -5 (total +5 to hit) with an 18-20 weapon; the weapon becomes 17-20.

If I go this second path, I may make it a feat, or just roll it into the basic rules and let anyone use it.

Thoughts? Criticisms? Suggestions?

 

[Datt]

So would any roll crit or would you still have to roll inside the crit range? I can see that becoming a problem in higher levels if you did away with the crit range. My current character has a +32 to attack. Now if I am fighting a foe with an AC of 33, then I would need to hit 43 or better to crit. That would mean all I would need to roll is an 11 or better and I crit. That greatly increases my crit range. Or are you thinking of combining crit range with the over 10 rule? I remember in 2.5E they had it where you had to beat the AC by at least 5 in order to crit.

Then again, IMC we have institued that if you roll in the crit range you have to roll again to see if you actually scored a crit. If the second roll would hit the AC of the target then the hit is a crit, if you miss then it is just a regular hit. We also use the 3 20s in a row is an insta kill rule.

 

[seasong]

So would any roll crit or would you still have to roll inside the crit range?

For the first option, yes, that's exactly what would happen. Any roll of sufficiently high number would crit.

I can see that becoming a problem in higher levels if you did away with the crit range.

Yup. I'm not sure there's a way to fix that, either. Hence the second option. Any ideas on that?

Then again, IMC we have institued that if you roll in the crit range you have to roll again to see if you actually scored a crit. If the second roll would hit the AC of the target then the hit is a crit, if you miss then it is just a regular hit.

This is the standard D&D rule. The crit range is just a 'threat' of a crit; you have to roll to hit again to actually get the crit.

 

[ichabod]

I'm thinking of adding to that:
- a "crit" is exceeding the DC/AC by 10 or more.

Thus, against an AC 19, a 20 is a crit, since 30 is at least 10 higher than 19. However, this would also mean that someone with a BAB +10 could crit on a natural 19 as well.

I'm not sure how to handle wider range crit weapons (18-20/x2) under this rule, however...

The obvious way would be to reduce the ammount they need to exceed the AC by. So if you normally need 10 greater than the AC, with an 18-20 weapon you would only need 8 greater than the AC. That would give you the same increase in percentage chance to threaten.

I like the general idea of the rule, but I'm not sure if 10 greater is the right number. I'd want to crunch some numbers on that. You see, you still want a 5% chance to threaten with a weapon with a range of 20. That's because the balance between an 19-20/x2 weapon and a 20/x3 is that they both increase expected damage by the same ammount. If a 20 threatens more than 5%, it will make the narrow threat range weapons weaker, and vice versa. Of course that could make weapon choice a factor depending on who you are fighting, something they seem to be encouraging with the new DR rules for 3.5e.

 

[seasong]

Good point!

So, let's assume a 10th level fighter, BAB +10, STR +3, Weapon Specialization +2, Magic Bonus +3; total to hit of +18. His AC is 10 DEX +2, armor +4, Magic Bonus +3; total AC 19.

Hm... okay; we'll say he needs to roll 20 higher by default. The most accurate conversion would be to roll 19 or higher, but I think that gets ugly?

 

[Murrdox]

BAH!!

If anything, so far these ideas are taking steps towards making it EASIER to score a critical hit!!

I find that critical hits are already easy enough to obtain. A keen scimitar weilded by a Druid with Improved Critical leads to critical hits just about everytime she hits.

 

[Corlon]

here I come again with my laziness

If the system is trying to be balanced with the earlier one so that it has pretty much the same chance of scoring critical hits, but it requires more work to create and has many unforseen loop-holes...why make it in the first place?

not trying to insult new rules, just a simple question

 

[seasong]

Re: here I come again with my laziness

not trying to insult new rules, just a simple question

No insult taken. I had a brain fart and the thought occurred to me, so I'm playing with it, seeing if it will be better. So far, looks like it won't be.

The idea was that there would be situations in which a low-level fighter with a sword DOESN'T have a 10-15% chance of critting on a dragon... and situations where a high level fighter with the same sword has a better than 15-20% chance of critting on the low level fighter.

Overall, I don't think it works as well as I'd hoped.

The second option (take -5 for a +1 to the threat range) seems pretty sound, however, and works with the original rules, particularly if taken as a feat (Sacrifice Ploy, perhaps?).

 

[Khorod]

I like the idea of that feat. It should be easier to get than Improved Crit, whose high requirements make sense but are frustrating for many lower level character concepts. I'd guess around 3rd or 4th level for fighter types.

Would it be incrementable? As in, could you choose -10/+2?

 

[seasong]

Probably - I'd want it to continue to be as useful for high level fighters.