variant:critical misses...Dex or Ref?

[paulewaug]

Which do you feel would be "better" to use with regards to Critical Misses?
The DMG lists making a Dc 10 Dex check.

I like the idea of a Reflex save, as it adjusts for the characters levels and increasing experience. The higher the level and more experience they have the better they will be at not leaving themselves open or grossly messing up.

What do you guys think?
Which do you like better (if either)?
or do you just hate the idea of Crit Misses anyhow?


BTW-I would put the "penalty" for a crit miss as basically "costing an action." So next round you would not be able to take a full round action.
Feelings about this are welcome too, the idea here was that it should be the negative equal to a crit hit.

 

[Sertimon]

Hi paulewaug!

I think that Dex checks are "fairer", since not all classes have good Reflex saving tables (such as rogues and bards). And I can't really imagine how a rogue would be less likely to critically miss, than a fighter who is trained to ... well, fight.

I used to have a small Critical Failure table with various penalties when someone did a critical miss. Worked out pretty well and the PCs liked the system.

My two cents ...

 

[kreynolds]

I like the idea of a Reflex save, as it adjusts for the characters levels and increasing experience. The higher the level and more experience they have the better they will be at not leaving themselves open or grossly messing up.

Actually, IME, it's best to just drop critical hits and misses at high level altogether. I've got a couple epic games going right now, and I'll be instituting the -20/+20 variant soon.

 

[paulewaug]

Hey Sertimon, that's a good point!

Rogues, for one, have a better Ref save than a Fighter-who, by definition is the most trained in combat.
In theory the fighter should be better at not "leaving himself open."
But on the other hand maybe fighters tend to be more aggressive (hence the higher BAB) in their fighting style whereas the Rogue fights more defensively, waiting for that "golden moment."

But that is a good point about the Dex vs.. Ref being "fairer."


Hey kreynolds,
I can definitely see how playing above level 20 would probably require the use of the -20/+20.
It kind of makes me sad that characters seem to go up levels so fast now (compared to 1e 2e) because I feel like d20 may sort of fall apart after level 20.

Having said that though we have not played 3e/3.5eRev enough to reach the "lofty levels" so I have no real experience to go on here.
So far I have planned on just ending the current campaign when the pcs reach/exceed 20. (They are following the Adventure Path with thses pcs, and it will likely end with most of the group dead...hehe! But then characters that high level are darn powerful!)
But that could be tiresome if it happens time after time and I hate to have to make it seem like "Great you have reached the end of your career, congratulations!" any time they get that far.
I guess I could "Dragonlance" it. (irrc: in Dragonlance when you hit the extreme levels you coudln't advance any more or had to leave the world or something like that?)

 

[Gothmog]

I like the idea of Dex checks better. What I have done IMC is if a 1 is rolled, then make a Dex check, with a DC dependent on the type of weapon.

Light weapon: DC 10
Medium Weapon: DC 12
Heavy Weapon: DC 15
Bows, Crossbows: DC 12
Thrown Weapon: DC 10

This way, you take into account the unweildiness of the weapon relative to the size of the user. I then have a series of miss tables that are rolled on for melee, missile, and unarmed attacks that determine the outcome. Hope this answers your question!

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Neither.

I use a attack role versus DC 15.

It makes no sense in my opinion for a dextrous first level rogue to be better able to avoid critical misses (which imply a failure at skill at arms) than a high level fighter.

 

[paulewaug]

I had considered using the attack roll method.

A few things about that option then.

How would strength bonus affect it?
On one hand the stronger you are the more you may be able to exert control over the weapon, but on the other hand that strength could work against you because you are delivering more energy to the swing that needs to be controlled-

maybe just use a straight up BAB adjustment to the DC?

 

[SteelDraco]

I'd do a simple BAB roll against DC 15. A natural 1 would always fail. That means it's just a 1 in 400 chance that a really skilled warrior (BAB 13+) would ever roll a critical fumble. Really poor people in combat (say, a 1st level wizard) would have a better chance - but it's still only 3 in 80, if I'm remembering my statistics right. Keeps critical fumbles to a minimum, which I think is a good idea, since they mostly screw over PCs.

 

[kreynolds]

Hey kreynolds,
I can definitely see how playing above level 20 would probably require the use of the -20/+20.

Yup, but for levels 10 and up, I actually encourage the -10/+10 variant. I've only ever used that in one game though, but it worked really well.

It kind of makes me sad that characters seem to go up levels so fast now (compared to 1e 2e) because I feel like d20 may sort of fall apart after level 20.

Well, on average, one level for every 13.33 equal EL encounters really isn't that fast. Epic levels actually hold together fairly well, but I've only had experience with running up to 27th-level (ECL, which ends up being the same thing, more or less).

For more solid epic level play, I'm waiting for the Immortal's Handbook.

 

[DonAdam]

We do a natural 1 as a critical miss "threat."

You then reroll your attack roll. If you miss again, it's a fumble.

I then consult the Kalamar DM screen, and assign the penalty based on how much the confirmation roll missed by.