Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
I don't know about the extra dice, but I do like the max damage on critical hit. I definitely don't like 3E's confirmation roll. A simple rule of "On a natural 20, you do maximum damage on the attack" would be preferred.
Rule-of-Three: 01/24/12
- Thread starter Knightfall
- Start date
I don't know about the extra dice, but I do like the max damage on critical hit. I definitely don't like 3E's confirmation roll. A simple rule of "On a natural 20, you do maximum damage on the attack" would be preferred.
I think the confirmation roll was needed in 3E, and I was fine with it
I'm not sure about automatical maximum damage; without any multiplier I feel it's kind of unsatisfactory because you can roll max. damage with a regular attack too (i.e. a "ghetto crit"). If crits happen only on a nat. 20, there should be an added effect or extra damage; maybe 5 points per Tier (and I hope Tiers remain in the game and play a mechanical role as well) or 2 pts. per level, and/or the opponent would be knocked prone/stunned/taking ongoing damage/etcetera (weapon/damage types might have different effects, perhaps?).
Another reason why I don't like "crit/nat. 20 = max. damage" type of mechanic is that it felt kind of jarring back in AD&D that weak opponents couldn't even hit a mid-level fighter unless they critted, which always resulted in double damage. This meant that another fighter armed with a non-magical sword would usually hit you more often but for less/average damage, while a regular 1-HD orc couldn't inflict a "normal" wound/scratch unless it rolled really badly on the damage dice.
Syunsuke
Roll 21.
I've been toying around this idea about weapon damage type and armor as AC or DR.
Under 3/3.5 rule;
When you roll higher than AC, you deal full damage. Armor doesn't reduce damage at all.
When you roll less than touch AC, you miss, so you deal no damage. Armor doesn't matter.
When you roll higher than touch AC but lower than AC, you deal no damage. You touch your target, but his/her armor reduce damage completely.
Then, how about "you deal partial damage when you roll higher than touch AC but lower than AC"?
You graze your enemy, his armor soaks some force , but you somewhat hurt the enemy.
"Partial damage" can be simply "half damage." Just halving numbers isn't that hard, I guess.
Or each weapon could have both "full damage(when hit)" and "partial damage (when touch)" to represent damge type.
Like, a sharp blade has higher full damage but much lower partial damage, and a mace has decent full damage and not-so-lower partial damage.
Adding "critical damage" for each weapon is also possible.
With this rule, armors should have higher AC bonus (and small "touch AC" bounus), for damage will be dealt more frequently.
Also, you can't roll damge and atack roll at the same time. This can be small drawback.
Under 3/3.5 rule;
When you roll higher than AC, you deal full damage. Armor doesn't reduce damage at all.
When you roll less than touch AC, you miss, so you deal no damage. Armor doesn't matter.
When you roll higher than touch AC but lower than AC, you deal no damage. You touch your target, but his/her armor reduce damage completely.
Then, how about "you deal partial damage when you roll higher than touch AC but lower than AC"?
You graze your enemy, his armor soaks some force , but you somewhat hurt the enemy.
"Partial damage" can be simply "half damage." Just halving numbers isn't that hard, I guess.
Or each weapon could have both "full damage(when hit)" and "partial damage (when touch)" to represent damge type.
Like, a sharp blade has higher full damage but much lower partial damage, and a mace has decent full damage and not-so-lower partial damage.
Adding "critical damage" for each weapon is also possible.
With this rule, armors should have higher AC bonus (and small "touch AC" bounus), for damage will be dealt more frequently.
Also, you can't roll damge and atack roll at the same time. This can be small drawback.
Similar Threads
