Critical Confirmation

[Mr. Zolrane]

Just wondering how many of you guys houserule out critical confirmation rolls. It's funny, I've been delving into Pathfinder, and it seems to mention it a lot more than the 3.5 SRD. My group never played with it this year, and I never knew it existed until recently. I don't really care for it, I must say. So yeah, does anyone else houserule it out? Why? Why not?

[Dylaer]

I've been houseruling out the entire time I've been DMing. It may be because that on my part I have a fondness for Crit specialists when I melee, which means I crit roughly 1/4 of the time, so for 1/4 of my rolls, I'd have to roll twice.

[huttj509]

I'm generally inclined to do so because of the letdown...


"Woo, a 20!"

"Aww, only a normal hit"

Probably consider leaving them in for monsters though, to reduce the low level "crit, you're dead", I can compensate the monsters getting swatted rarely in other methods.

[Remmirath]

I always house rule it out. It just seems to take something away from it, to me, if you have to rule to confirm. It certainly makes people less excited about rolling in the crit range, and it's just not as fun.

Confirming also drastically reduces the chance of managing to land a critical hit on an enemy who's hard to hit, and I think that's usually nicely dramatic.

[Tvtyrant]

I tend to make crit fishing easier on TWFs as an evening factor; essentially allowing 3.0 stacking rules for crits on light weapons. Other types don't really need it, since casters already win and THFs get PA.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

i always go along the lines of you critical, and now see if you hit

[Katana_Geldar]

We have it, as it's SO AWESOME when you crit twice and then confirm.

And if you crit three times...

[Mr. Zolrane]

I've been houseruling out the entire time I've been DMing. It may be because that on my part I have a fondness for Crit specialists when I melee, which means I crit roughly 1/4 of the time, so for 1/4 of my rolls, I'd have to roll twice.

True, there's just "Bloody heck, I have to roll another friggin' dice" annoyance factor.


I'm generally inclined to do so because of the letdown...


"Woo, a 20!"

"Aww, only a normal hit"

Probably consider leaving them in for monsters though, to reduce the low level "crit, you're dead", I can compensate the monsters getting swatted rarely in other methods.

I kinda have a mental block against having something count for the players but not for the monsters, i.e., either everyone confirms or no one does. Preferably no one does. As for the issues at low level, I'm personally at a point where I hate low levels with a passion that burns with the white-hot intensity of a thousands exploding multiverses, and as such refuse to play anything below level 5.


I tend to make crit fishing easier on TWFs as an evening factor; essentially allowing 3.0 stacking rules for crits on light weapons. Other types don't really need it, since casters already win and THFs get PA.

Care to elaborate on this point a bit? Also, I can't seem to recall what PA stands for; must be a mental blank if it's a common abbreviation.


i always go along the lines of you critical, and now see if you hit

Can you clarify this? I'm not sure what you mean.


We have it, as it's SO AWESOME when you crit twice and then confirm.

And if you crit three times...

I can kinda see what you mean there. I don't subscribe to that ideology, but I can see why some people would find that exciting.

[Dylaer]

Care to elaborate on this point a bit? Also, I can't seem to recall what PA stands for; must be a mental blank if it's a common abbreviation.


PA stands for Power Attack. And I share your incredible hatred of low levels. There's not much interesting for most classes at low levels, really.

[Tvtyrant]

Care to elaborate on this point a bit? Also, I can't seem to recall what PA stands for; must be a mental blank if it's a common abbreviation.


3.0 let you stack the crit modifiers that came from different sources, like Keen and Disciple of Disipator. This meant that builds based on crit fishing were more effective in 3.0 than in 3.5, however I don't drop the confirmation roll because it helps two handed fighting more than two weapon fighting. Crit fishing should be a TWF ability, not a power attack for full chargers.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

Can you clarify this? I'm not sure what you mean.

what i mean is when you to attack and the dice roll into the critical range, i take it as a critical, then the player has to roll to see if they hit the opponent.
so even if they do critical and the attack does not hit the target it is not a normal hit.

[Dylaer]

3.0 let you stack the crit modifiers that came from different sources, like Keen and Disciple of Disipator. This meant that builds based on crit fishing were more effective in 3.0 than in 3.5, however I don't drop the confirmation roll because it helps two handed fighting more than two weapon fighting. Crit fishing should be a TWF ability, not a power attack for full chargers.

Disciple of Dispater explicity stacks with Improved Critical, which is handy. Indeed, it's the entire point of the class.

[Tvtyrant]

Disciple of Dispater explicity stacks with Improved Critical, which is handy. Indeed, it's the entire point of the class.

Right but the rules of 3.5 don't let that work, and general 3.5 trumps 3.0 specific.

[Mr. Zolrane]

PA stands for Power Attack.

Oh, right. Herp derp. I have no excuse for not getting that. I played a barbarian last campaign.:smallsigh:


3.0 let you stack the crit modifiers that came from different sources, like Keen and Disciple of Disipator. This meant that builds based on crit fishing were more effective in 3.0 than in 3.5, however I don't drop the confirmation roll because it helps two handed fighting more than two weapon fighting. Crit fishing should be a TWF ability, not a power attack for full chargers.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be dense, but I don't quite follow your logic here. Can you explain this a little further? How does crit confirmation even out TWF with THW. I'm confused.

[Volos]

Now what I am hearing from a good number of people so far is that rolling to confirm is a let down, disappointing, annoying, or generally just not fun. It seems that many of you didn't know or weren't aware that you had to confirm a crit. So my question goes out to those of you who did not know about the crit confirm and then heard about it later... do you think you would have been as let down, disappointed, annoyed, or not had fun if you had known about the crit confirm from the beginning as part of the RAW and were not given the option to houserule it out? While I do feel that DMs/gaming groups should houserule out anything that makes the game less fun, I also believe in my humble opinion that one shouldn't complain about a game mechanic not working the way they think it should when they didn't bother to read the rules.

[Dylaer]

If it wasn't updated for 3.5, it still applies. First Law of 3.0 Conversions, is that. Disciple of Dispater, RAW, still stacks with Imp. Crit.

EDIT: I did know of crit confirmation. I just disliked it intesely.

[Tvtyrant]

Oh, right. Herp derp. I have no excuse for not getting that. I played a barbarian last campaign.:smallsigh:



I'm sorry, I don't mean to be dense, but I don't quite follow your logic here. Can you explain this a little further? How does crit confirmation even out TWF with THW. I'm confused.

Because TWF uses more attacks, so its more likely to get into crit range. By letting them stack crit heightening abilities (Improved Critical and Keen) they can do a much higher average damage than they normally would, which raises a TWF Rangers damage to closer to a PA Barbarians.

[Absol197]

I still use crit confirmation rolls, but I also imported a rule from 4e that I liked: a nat. 20 is max damage. So players still get a benefit from rolling a nat 20, and then get the chance to confirm the crit. Even if they don't they still got a little boost (especially if they're wielding a weapon with multiple dice of damage, since they rarely roll max).

[Ravens_cry]

Because TWF uses more attacks, so its more likely to get into crit range. By letting them stack crit heightening abilities (Improved Critical and Keen) they can do a much higher average damage than they normally would, which raises a TWF Rangers damage to closer to a PA Barbarians.
Ooh, and Vorpal worked on ANY critical hit back then, making it something worth saving up for.

If it wasn't updated for 3.5, it still applies. First Law of 3.0 Conversions, is that. Disciple of Dispater, RAW, still stacks with Imp. Crit.
Not quite. Improved Critical explicitly says, and I quote:

This effect doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
And Keen says:

This benefit doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat).
Keen Edge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/keenEdge.htm) says essentially the same thing. Sorry, but WoTC really covered their bases with this one. It is something I have considered house-ruling otherwise, but that is just that, a houserule.
As for criticals, I've always confirmed them, but mostly because I never saw any reason not to.

[LOTRfan]

I still use crit confirmation rolls, but I also imported a rule from 4e that I liked: a nat. 20 is max damage. So players still get a benefit from rolling a nat 20, and then get the chance to confirm the crit. Even if they don't they still got a little boost (especially if they're wielding a weapon with multiple dice of damage, since they rarely roll max).

Ooh, I like that rule. I think I might steal that from 4e, too. :smallsmile:

[Absol197]

Ooh, I like that rule. I think I might steal that from 4e, too. :smallsmile:

I've stolen a lot of little rules from 4e. I really dislike the powers system, but all the little rules changes (+Con score to hp at 1st level; 2 ability ups at every 4th level; max damage on a nat 20; racial feats; etc.) I love.

The thing you need to make sure of when you use the nat 20 is max damage rule is that this applies only to the first instance of damage. For instance, a person crits with a greataxe (x3 multiplier), so they deal 12+2d12+(3xStr) damage, not 36+(3xStr). Otherwise it's just silly :smallsmile: .

[Malimar]

So my question goes out to those of you who did not know about the crit confirm and then heard about it later... do you think you would have been as let down, disappointed, annoyed, or not had fun if you had known about the crit confirm from the beginning as part of the RAW and were not given the option to houserule it out?

I first played in a campaign that didn't have critical confirmations. When I found out about the RAW, my reaction was "Oh! That makes so much more sense! This explains why criticals are so depressingly, boringly frequent in that game!"

So I include critical hit confirmation in every game I run, for reasons including the following:

1.) Critical hits should be something special, and they become dull and cheapened if they happen every round or two. This is extra-true if you play with a critical hit deck, which I like to when I can (which is rarely, as I don't currently own one of my own).

2.) The PCs in my games tend to have higher attack bonuses and AC than the foes they fight, so PCs will more frequently make their confirmation rolls than the foes will. Which is good: an NPC going down to a lucky crit is generally thought of as awesome by all concerned. A PC going down to a lucky crit is just lame.

3.) I also play with a "natural 1 is a threat for a critical fumble" rule, and I like to keep things consistent, so I make the two rules simply mirrors of one another. Just like with critical hits, PCs can manage to turn a fumble threat into a mere miss more often than the critters can. At least one powerful NPC has died of biting itself to death, and my players retell that story with approval to this day. None of my players have ever lost a PC to an unlucky fumble.

4.) I could have sworn I had a fourth reason. Maybe it'll come to me.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Because TWF uses more attacks, so its more likely to get into crit range. By letting them stack crit heightening abilities (Improved Critical and Keen) they can do a much higher average damage than they normally would, which raises a TWF Rangers damage to closer to a PA Barbarians.

I see a case there. Not sure I agree with it, but you make a valid point.


I still use crit confirmation rolls, but I also imported a rule from 4e that I liked: a nat. 20 is max damage. So players still get a benefit from rolling a nat 20, and then get the chance to confirm the crit. Even if they don't they still got a little boost (especially if they're wielding a weapon with multiple dice of damage, since they rarely roll max).


Ooh, I like that rule. I think I might steal that from 4e, too. :smallsmile:

I may steal that as well.

[Volos]

I still use crit confirmation rolls, but I also imported a rule from 4e that I liked: a nat. 20 is max damage. So players still get a benefit from rolling a nat 20, and then get the chance to confirm the crit. Even if they don't they still got a little boost (especially if they're wielding a weapon with multiple dice of damage, since they rarely roll max).

This is an interesting houserule and I could see myself using it for a very melee focused campaign, but I am confused by one thing you said. "So that players still get a benefit from rolling a nat 20..." Don't nat 20's come with the benifit of an automatic hit? I may use this houserule in a PbP game I am going to be running soon as it may have a heavy melee focus with only one or two players. This houserule will probably benifit the players more, as PCs tend to make more attack rolls than their foes (non-withstanding natural attacks from multiple limbs).

[Mr. Zolrane]

I first played in a campaign that didn't have critical confirmations. When I found out about the RAW, my reaction was "Oh! That makes so much more sense! This explains why criticals are so depressingly, boringly frequent in that game!"

So I include critical hit confirmation in every game I run, for reasons including the following:

1.) Critical hits should be something special, and they become dull and cheapened if they happen every round or two. This is extra-true if you play with a critical hit deck, which I like to when I can (which is rarely, as I don't currently own one of my own).

2.) The PCs in my games tend to have higher attack bonuses and AC than the foes they fight, so PCs will more frequently make their confirmation rolls than the foes will. Which is good: an NPC going down to a lucky crit is generally thought of as awesome by all concerned. A PC going down to a lucky crit is just lame.

3.) I also play with a "natural 1 is a threat for a critical fumble" rule, and I like to keep things consistent, so I make the two rules simply mirrors of one another. Just like with critical hits, PCs can manage to turn a fumble threat into a mere miss more often than the critters can. At least one powerful NPC has died of biting itself to death, and my players retell that story with approval to this day. None of my players have ever lost a PC to an unlucky fumble.

4.) I could have sworn I had a fourth reason. Maybe it'll come to me.

1) I disagree. Crit is an important part of melee's usefulness. Without a decent number of crits, the gulf between melee and casters just gets bigger, and that's bad. Also, what is a crit deck? I've never heard of that before.

2) I've yet to DM myself (though I plan to in the fall) so I can't speak to this directly, but I would think that if you have to put that kind of gulf between the PCs and the enemies, unless you're intentionally making an encounter trivial, would mess with the CR. I haven't crunched any numbers, so I'm prepared to be entirely wrong about this.

3) How do you confirm a critical fumble? Another 1? That is, I believe, a 1 in 800 chance. That's hardly equivalent to the crit confirmation chance for a hit. I personally play the "your attack ends on a nat 1." No critical fumbles at all. Not sure if I'll change that, as I'm not in love with it, but we'll see.

4) When you do, I'll be sure to nitpick it. :smalltongue:

[Absol197]

This is an interesting houserule and I could see myself using it for a very melee focused campaign, but I am confused by one thing you said. "So that players still get a benefit from rolling a nat 20..." Don't nat 20's come with the benifit of an automatic hit? I may use this houserule in a PbP game I am going to be running soon as it may have a heavy melee focus with only one or two players. This houserule will probably benifit the players more, as PCs tend to make more attack rolls than their foes (non-withstanding natural attacks from multiple limbs).

Sorta. I run the variant from the DMG where a nat 20 counts as a 30, and a nat 1 counts as a -10. So yes, there's the extra boost from that +10 on a nat 20, but come on: 90% or more of the fights that the PCs participate in, the AC of their enemies isn't so high that a normal 20 + attack bonus is not going to hit. even against most bosses, the fighty-types will still hit on at least an 18. So what extra benefit it that +10 (or auto-hit, if you prefer) actually adding? If you hit on an 18 and up, then on an 18, 19, or 20, it's always an auto-hit, right?

EDIT: And on the conversation about critical fumbles, the variant I use is if your total attack roll is negative, then you've fumbled in some way. The severity of the fumble is based on how negative your roll. This means that a nat 1 (treated as a -10) is likely to fumble, but for someone who'se very trained (a high-level fighter, perhaps?), it's not much of a danger. It also means that someone who'se not very trained, or has a lot of penalties stacked up against her, can fumble even when the die roll is not a nat 1.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Sorta. I run the variant from the DMG where a nat 20 counts as a 30, and a nat 1 counts as a -10. So yes, there's the extra boost from that +10 on a nat 20, but come on: 90% or more of the fights that the PCs participate in, the AC of their enemies isn't so high that a normal 20 + attack bonus is not going to hit. even against most bosses, the fighty-types will still hit on at least an 18. So what extra benefit it that +10 (or auto-hit, if you prefer) actually adding? If you hit on an 18 and up, then on an 18, 19, or 20, it's always an auto-hit, right?

Unfortunately, that's hardly universal. My DM last semester, for example, was a great DM otherwise (good combat and above average storytelling, especially the ending) but he had this nasty habit of making bosses ACs so high that most of the melee generally needed a Nat 20 auto-hit to hit them. Why you ask? For some reason he was intent on forcing us to Aid each other to hit them. Again, good DM otherwise, but that was kind of annoying.

[Absol197]

Unfortunately, that's hardly universal. My DM last semester, for example, was a great DM otherwise (good combat and above average storytelling, especially the ending) but he had this nasty habit of making bosses ACs so high that most of the melee generally needed a Nat 20 auto-hit to hit them. Why you ask? For some reason he was intent on forcing us to Aid each other to hit them. Again, good DM otherwise, but that was kind of annoying.

Ah, I see. Well, that's never really a problem in my group; except in the instance of fights the PCs aren't meant to win, no enemies' AC is that high. Plus, we make good use of the aid another action anyways (and we use another house rule that says you give a +1 for every 10 of your check result, not a flat +2), so the auto-hit of a nat 20 tends to not be needed nearly as much.

[Malimar]

1) I disagree. Crit is an important part of melee's usefulness. Without a decent number of crits, the gulf between melee and casters just gets bigger, and that's bad. Also, what is a crit deck? I've never heard of that before.

This is probably true at levels higher than I've ever played. I don't explicitly play E6, but I don't tend to go much beyond it, either. At these levels, the melee guys still only have one or two attacks each, so they're not critting any more often than the casters are (if said casters are mostly sticking to orbs and rays, which, in my games, they usually do).

And this (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/gameMastery/itemPacks/v5748btpy872f) is the critical hit deck of which I speak. They make a critical fumble deck (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/gameMastery/itemPacks/v5748btpy89mn), too, which drastically needs fumble confirmation rules to not be terrible. (Or else you can play the variant where, if you make a critical hit, you can bank your card and use it to cancel out a later fumble, which sounds like a fun thing to try, though I never have.)


2) I've yet to DM myself (though I plan to in the fall) so I can't speak to this directly, but I would think that if you have to put that kind of gulf between the PCs and the enemies, unless you're intentionally making an encounter trivial, would mess with the CR. I haven't crunched any numbers, so I'm prepared to be entirely wrong about this.

As in, the gulf where my NPCs tend to have lower AC and attack bonus than my PCs? That just seems to result from using the CR system as written (though I admit it might just be an illusory impression, I haven't been keeping statistics or anything). A single equal-CR foe gets rocked by the action economy, a swarm of lower-CR foes get rocked by each being substantially weaker than the PCs. Recently I've been taking the balance out of the hands of the CR system and put it into the hands of the players, by allowing them to pick where they go and what kinds of monsters they're comfortable fighting (partially because I never was good at using the CR system to balance).

If you mean the gulf where requiring critical confirmation nerfs NPCs more than it nerfs PCs, I don't think it's enough to negatively affect balance, only enough to positively affect fun.


3) How do you confirm a critical fumble? Another 1? That is, I believe, a 1 in 800 chance. That's hardly equivalent to the crit confirmation chance for a hit. I personally play the "your attack ends on a nat 1." No critical fumbles at all. Not sure if I'll change that, as I'm not in love with it, but we'll see.

Critical hit threat on a 20; it's a critical hit if your confirmation roll would hit the target's AC.
Critical fumble threat on a 1; it's a critical fumble if your confirmation roll would miss the target's AC.


4) When you do, I'll be sure to nitpick it. :smalltongue:

This isn't what my fourth point was, but it does occur to me that there are plenty of feats and spells that give you substantial bonuses to confirmation rolls, or allow you to reroll confirmation rolls, or so on. So a dedicated crit fisher build can spend a feat or two to get right back where they started, leaving all the non-crit-fisher types in the dust. Which, yes, I know, "here's another thing to spend feats on!" probably isn't a selling point.

[veven]

I personally like critical conformations. I don't have anything new to add to this discussion but I would like to agree with Katana_Geldar in saying that critting on a confirmation roll is awesome. My 4th level lucern hammer (x4 crit) wielding crusader rolled two 20s in a row on a full power attack for a x7 crit. So awesome. I killed the guy I was fighting like, ten times over which really isn't necessary but it was super fun. That one battle actually reduced crime in the town by a huge amount because the one guy who survived the battle made sure to let everyone know that we would relocate their head into their pelvis if they kept up with the highway robbery shenanigans.

[ericgrau]

The awkwardness may come from evening out probabilities. I've done the math before and crit confirmation usually* makes the average damage boost from crits a flat percentage regardless of the attacker's attack bonus or the target's AC. Removing crit confirmation favors those with a low attack bonus. Practically speaking it only becomes a serious problem when a monster can't hit a PC at all and then boom he finally hits and crits. The PC suddenly goes from "Don't worry I'm totally fine" to insta-dead. It would have been nice if the monster finally did normal damage instead of finally doing crit damage. EDIT: @V Ya, this problem is even worse when the monster crits for X3 or X4 or crits frequently from a large range.

*This doesn't hold when the range of numbers that hits is smaller than the crit range, since you can't crit when you don't hit.

[Mad Gene Vane]

Upon further reflection I think confirming crits makes sense. In 2.0 you didn't need to confirm critical hits, but critical hits only happened when you rolled a natural 20.

With weapons that have critical ranges of 18-20 and with improved critical feats or Keen weapons, you can extend the critical range to 15-20, I think it makes sense to confirm the critical.

Also, if I remember 2.0 rules correctly you could only double damage on a critical roll. Weapons didn't allow triple or quadruple damage (picks).

If you have the benefit of getting a critical hit on a non- 20 roll, I think you need something to balance that out, especially when you could possibly get a critical hit on a roll as low as 15.

[Seth62]

Criticals are useful but they get a little overdone like a keen rapier (15-20) for example, face it It is easy for me to stab you vitals, I kinda feel that a axe is more critically lethal then a sword if you are hit in the chest.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I personally like critical conformations. I don't have anything new to add to this discussion but I would like to agree with Katana_Geldar in saying that critting on a confirmation roll is awesome. My 4th level lucern hammer (x4 crit) wielding crusader rolled two 20s in a row on a full power attack for a x7 crit. So awesome. I killed the guy I was fighting like, ten times over which really isn't necessary but it was super fun. That one battle actually reduced crime in the town by a huge amount because the one guy who survived the battle made sure to let everyone know that we would relocate their head into their pelvis if they kept up with the highway robbery shenanigans.

Am I missing something here? Are you supposed to increase your critical multiplier when you get a crit on a confirmation? Is this is a houserule? If not, where can the rule be found? What I'm saying is, barring houseruling the no crit-stacking away, I'm unaware of any means by which to expand you crit range beyond 17-20.


The awkwardness may come from evening out probabilities. I've done the math before and crit confirmation usually* makes the average damage boost from crits a flat percentage regardless of the attacker's attack bonus or the target's AC. Removing crit confirmation favors those with a low attack bonus. Practically speaking it only becomes a serious problem when a monster can't hit a PC at all and then boom he finally hits and crits. The PC suddenly goes from "Don't worry I'm totally fine" to insta-dead. It would have been nice if the monster finally did normal damage instead of finally doing crit damage. EDIT: @V Ya, this problem is even worse when the monster crits for X3 or X4 or crits frequently from a large range.

*This doesn't hold when the range of numbers that hits is smaller than the crit range, since you can't crit when you don't hit.

Is that a bad thing, really? I mean, "insta-dead" seems rather unlikely if the monster has been spending most of the fight not hitting jack. If his attack bonus is so low that he can't hit without a 19 or 20, but his damage is so lethal as to one-shot a tank, someone screwed up building this monster. Granted, this may come from my experience playing a barbarian recently (only serious character I've thus-far played) and being like "Crit? Fine, monster, screw you too. I can handle like six of those."


Upon further reflection I think confirming crits makes sense. In 2.0 you didn't need to confirm critical hits, but critical hits only happened when you rolled a natural 20.

With weapons that have critical ranges of 18-20 and with improved critical feats or Keen weapons, you can extend the critical range to 15-20, I think it makes sense to confirm the critical.

Also, if I remember 2.0 rules correctly you could only double damage on a critical roll. Weapons didn't allow triple or quadruple damage (picks).

If you have the benefit of getting a critical hit on a non- 20 roll, I think you need something to balance that out, especially when you could possibly get a critical hit on a roll as low as 15.

I think it's balanced out by the fact that the guy standing next to you either A) Has a narrower crit range but a bigger crit multiplier, evening things out, B) Can bloody disintegrate people, more than evening things out, C) Has the exact same critical capabilities as you, definitely being even, tautologically so, or D) Specializes in Gnome Hooked Hammer, and has discovered the HOLY WEAPON OF ULTIMATE CHEESE (moreso in PF after the Spiked Chain nerf), and there's not a lot you can do about that.

[Curmudgeon]

Disciple of Dispater explicity stacks with Improved Critical, which is handy. Indeed, it's the entire point of the class.

If it wasn't updated for 3.5, it still applies. First Law of 3.0 Conversions, is that. Disciple of Dispater, RAW, still stacks with Imp. Crit.

Disciple of Dispater stacks with 3.0 Improved Critical. In a 3.5 game the primary sources (Player's Handbook for Improved Critical, Dungeon Master's Guide for keen) rule.

[John Campbell]

And this (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/gameMastery/itemPacks/v5748btpy872f) is the critical hit deck of which I speak. They make a critical fumble deck (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/gameMastery/itemPacks/v5748btpy89mn), too, which drastically needs fumble confirmation rules to not be terrible. (Or else you can play the variant where, if you make a critical hit, you can bank your card and use it to cancel out a later fumble, which sounds like a fun thing to try, though I never have.)
We played with those for half a fight once, and then the DM threw them in the trash and retconned out all of their effects.

[ericgrau]

Is that a bad thing, really? I mean, "insta-dead" seems rather unlikely if the monster has been spending most of the fight not hitting jack. If his attack bonus is so low that he can't hit without a 19 or 20, but his damage is so lethal as to one-shot a tank, someone screwed up building this monster. Granted, this may come from my experience playing a barbarian recently (only serious character I've thus-far played) and being like "Crit? Fine, monster, screw you too. I can handle like six of those."
There are monsters like that, they aren't necessarily missing b/c they're low CR. It'd be fine at x1, but not x2. Or besides weird monsters a x3 or x4 crit can do it too. Or the PC can say "heal the other guy at 15%, I'm still at half and this guy only plinks me now and then so I'm fine" (or is otherwise partway down but seems ok) then the monster only has to crit for half his HP.

[McSmack]

Many people houserule that a critical threat on a confirmation role increases the crit modifier of the attack if they succeed on another confirmation role. I've played it both ways, and it's really beneficial to the crit fishers.

Zole, Improved Critical or Keen doubles the threat range of the weapon, meaning weapons with 18-20 crit ranges now crit on a 15-20.
18, 19, 20 = 3 numbers
15,16,17,18,19,20 = 6 numbers.

To my knowledge (I'm no optimizer) that's the best you can do without delving into 3.0/third party stuff.

I've played with the critcal hit/fumble decks and I like them. They add a bit more than simply getting bigger numbers. It's not for everyone, and that's fine. I believe they have rules about not using them for normal BG's, instead reserving them for bosses and players, as they can wildly swing a battle if the right card is drawn.

In my games we've always used the critical confirmation rule, since it was introduced in 3.5. At first we didn't like it. But we started remembering some of the crazy crit-fishing things you could do in 3.0 (Power Critical +True Strike+ Vorpal) and got over it pretty quick.

I'm thinking about changing my houserules up a bit, and putting in that max damage on a nat 20 rule. Or perhaps having a nat 20 automatically confirm. I don't really see the benefit of saying a nat 20 automatically hits. If you're fighting something that you CAN'T hit on a nat 20, someone screwed up somewhere.

[Talya]

I've stolen a lot of little rules from 4e. I really dislike the powers system, but all the little rules changes (+Con score to hp at 1st level; 2 ability ups at every 4th level; max damage on a nat 20; racial feats; etc.) I love.

The thing you need to make sure of when you use the nat 20 is max damage rule is that this applies only to the first instance of damage. For instance, a person crits with a greataxe (x3 multiplier), so they deal 12+2d12+(3xStr) damage, not 36+(3xStr). Otherwise it's just silly :smallsmile: .


It still could get fun with weapon-like spells.

"I cast Orb of Acid." (Natural 20+confirmed crit)

Let's see, 10d6...but it's a crit, so 60+10d6...

[cfalcon]

I resisted the temptation, and am glad I did. I really like armor being in the critical process, and I get to describe a blow to a vital area being deflected by armor.

Also, there's plenty of crits as it is :P

[cfalcon]

OH OH, but I *DO* multiply. This is the same average damage, but puts more weight on the die roll, which is more interesting as the actual roll of the damage die doesn't spend as much time being interesting. So if you crit with a greataxe, you'll roll 1d12, add your enhancement, strength, and other bonuses that are on the weapon, and then multiply that by 3, not roll 3d12.

[Malimar]

We played with those for half a fight once, and then the DM threw them in the trash and retconned out all of their effects.

So you know what I mean when I say no-confirmation crits are way too common for these decks to be anything but terrible. Adding the confirmation makes crits rare enough to make the hit decks practical enough to be awesome.


I personally play the "your attack ends on a nat 1." No critical fumbles at all. Not sure if I'll change that, as I'm not in love with it, but we'll see.

I hadn't heard of this rule before a couple days ago, and I'm not sure if I love it either, but it occurs to me to mention that I'm considering changing my fumble mechanics to this:

If you roll a nat 1, and confirm the critical fumble, then you lose the rest of your attacks. If it would be your last attack anyway, only then do you stand a chance of injuring yourself or an ally, breaking your weapon, or other Bad Stuff.

I think this would benefit high-level melee more than it would benefit casters or low-level melee: if you fumble on one of your first buttload of iterative attacks, then nothing bad happens other than you don't do any more damage that round. But casters and low-level melee are only usually making one or two attack rolls, so if they fumble, actively bad things happen to themselves or to their allies.

(It also serves to negate the common objection to fumbles that their probability shouldn't increase as you get awesomer, even more than the confirmation rule alone does.)

[Absol197]

It still could get fun with weapon-like spells.

"I cast Orb of Acid." (Natural 20+confirmed crit)

Let's see, 10d6...but it's a crit, so 60+10d6...

Yeah basically. In the campaign I just finished, they were fighting some kind of ethereal horror. The warmage used his Sudden Empower feat on an orb of force and rolled a nat 20, then made the confirmation roll. The total damage came out to somewhere around 200, if I recall properly. Oh, well; mt spellcasters use ray spells so infrequently anyways that it doesn't really come up too much in our games.

[Greenish]

Crit fishing should be a TWF ability, not a power attack for full chargers.Who says you have to be one or the other? :smalltongue:

I still use crit confirmation rolls, but I also imported a rule from 4e that I liked: a nat. 20 is max damage. So players still get a benefit from rolling a nat 20, and then get the chance to confirm the crit. Even if they don't they still got a little boost (especially if they're wielding a weapon with multiple dice of damage, since they rarely roll max).That's rather minor for most melee (bar monks and monk-derivatives or others who stack size modifiers), but I bet your casters love it.

"Whee, got a free Maximize on my Disintegrate!"

This houserule will probably benifit the players more, as PCs tend to make more attack rolls than their foes (non-withstanding natural attacks from multiple limbs).A player character is the target of way more attacks than any NPC.

1) I disagree. Crit is an important part of melee's usefulness. Without a decent number of crits, the gulf between melee and casters just gets bigger, and that's bad.Casters can crit, too, and many of them (clerics, druids, some artificers) frequently go melee.

Also, the problem of melee vs. caster isn't about damage (which is the only thing that crits do). Melee can easily deal enough (or too much) damage.

Also, crit with no confirmation required would make fighting in frontlines even more dangerous. That's all well and good for casters who have other options, but melee…


2) I've yet to DM myself (though I plan to in the fall) so I can't speak to this directly, but I would think that if you have to put that kind of gulf between the PCs and the enemies, unless you're intentionally making an encounter trivial, would mess with the CR. I haven't crunched any numbers, so I'm prepared to be entirely wrong about this.CR is a poor approximation at best, and as I pointed out, a PC will be the target of many more attack rolls than most any NPC (over the adventure, of course, not necessarily every battle).

[Edit]:
I kinda feel that a axe is more critically lethal then a sword if you are hit in the chest.Aside from the fact that solid blow from either is likely to be lethal enough in real life, that's represented by axes having x3 crit multiplier.

What I'm saying is, barring houseruling the no crit-stacking away, I'm unaware of any means by which to expand you crit range beyond 17-20.

D) Specializes in Gnome Hooked Hammer, and has discovered the HOLY WEAPON OF ULTIMATE CHEESE (moreso in PF after the Spiked Chain nerf), and there's not a lot you can do about that.Huh, I missed that. What makes Gnome Hooked Hammer even decent, let alone the HWoUC?

We played with those for half a fight once, and then the DM threw them in the trash and retconned out all of their effects.An appropriate reaction. :smalltongue:

Many people houserule that a critical threat on a confirmation role increases the crit modifier of the attack if they succeed on another confirmation role.Really? This is the first I've heard of that.

To my knowledge (I'm no optimizer) that's the best you can do without delving into 3.0/third party stuff.Psychic Weapon Master (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040827d) gets it down to 13-20.


In my games we've always used the critical confirmation rule, since it was introduced in 3.5. At first we didn't like it. But we started remembering some of the crazy crit-fishing things you could do in 3.0 (Power Critical +True Strike+ Vorpal) and got over it pretty quick.That's not "crazy crit fishing". Vorpal only works on nat 20, for example, and Power Critical is rather minor. Crazy critfishing is, for example, the Aptitude Ribbon Great Falchion with Dolorous Blow in the hands of a charger with Lightning Maces and Roundabout Kick.

I don't really see the benefit of saying a nat 20 automatically hits. If you're fighting something that you CAN'T hit on a nat 20, someone screwed up somewhere.You don't always face CR appropriate encounters.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Zole, Improved Critical or Keen doubles the threat range of the weapon, meaning weapons with 18-20 crit ranges now crit on a 15-20.
18, 19, 20 = 3 numbers
15,16,17,18,19,20 = 6 numbers.


Ok, yeah, I definitely see that now. A case of the derps on my part. Someone in our campaign made some mistake somewhere, I know that to be true now. Thanks for the help.



Huh, I missed that. What makes Gnome Hooked Hammer even decent, let alone the HWoUC?

I'm afraid I don't have the numbers on hand at the moment. My DM from last semester was the one who figured it out, not me. I sent him a Facebook message, and when he gets back to me, I'll have the numbers for you.

[Greenish]

I'm afraid I don't have the numbers on hand at the moment. My DM from last semester was the one who figured it out, not me. I sent him a Facebook message, and when he gets back to me, I'll have the numbers for you.What numbers? :smallconfused:

I'm not following at all. The best use for the hooked hammer that I'm aware of involves trading the weapon familiarity in it for something actually useful.

[Mr. Zolrane]

What numbers? :smallconfused:

I'm not following at all. The best use for the hooked hammer that I'm aware of involves trading the weapon familiarity in it for something actually useful.

According to my DM from last spring, it is, when utilized correctly, the best melee weapon in the game. He made an absolutely ridiculous TWF Ranger, core-only using that as his weapon, and claimed he couldn't have picked a better one. He figured it out mathematically, but I don't have his calculations on hand. When he gets back to me, I'll fill you in.

[Greenish]

According to my DM from last spring, it is, when utilized correctly, the best melee weapon in the game.I'll believe that when I see it, but really, it doesn't have any distinguishing features.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I'll believe that when I see it, but really, it doesn't have any distinguishing features.

Again, I don't have all the numbers, but I believe it's based on the fact that it's the only double weapon with a crit modifier higher than x2.

[Greenish]

Again, I don't have all the numbers, but I believe it's based on the fact that it's the only double weapon with a crit modifier higher than x2.In core, yes. What did he use to get certain crits?

[Edit]: Orc Double Axe and Urgosh have x3.

[kardar233]

Again, I don't have all the numbers, but I believe it's based on the fact that it's the only double weapon with a crit modifier higher than x2.

Au contraire, the Orc Double Axe is x3/x3.

[Mr. Zolrane]

In core, yes. What did he use to get certain crits?

Yes, it was a core-only build. Is there something better is some splat I'm not aware of?

Also, I'm not certain what you mean by "What did he use to get certain crits?" Can you be more specific?


Au contraire, the Orc Double Axe is x3/x3.



EDIT: Ninja'd. And you're right. I was wrong. Same goes for dwarven urgrosh. The GHH, however, has a x3/x4. Pretty sure no other weapon is core has that.

[Greenish]

Yes, it was a core-only build. Is there something better is some splat I'm not aware of?Yes. Lots. What do you want? You can get any weapon to have x4 crit, for example, or to treat both ends of your double scimitar as two-handed weapons.


Also, I'm not certain what you mean by "What did he use to get certain crits?" Can you be more specific?I mean that x3/x4 is all fine and dandy, but hardly that useful unless you have some other crit shenanigans going.

[Edit]: Though I don't see why you'd even want a double weapon.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Yes. Lots. What do you want? You can get any weapon to have x4 crit, for example, or to treat both ends of your double scimitar as two-handed weapons.
I mean that x3/x4 is all fine and dandy, but hardly that useful unless you have some other crit shenanigans going.

Again, I'm not sure, I don't have his sheet or his numbers on me, and I guess for those reasons I shouldn't have mentioned to begin with. Sorry for bringing it up.

[Greenish]

Again, I'm not sure, I don't have his sheet or his numbers on me, and I guess for those reasons I shouldn't have mentioned to begin with. Sorry for bringing it up.Hey, if your DM is onto something, I'd love to see it.

Don't leave me dangling, man!

[Edit]: I don't even need specific numbers, I'm just curious of the general outlines, beyond "ranger with hooked hammer". Don't you remember anything other that the build had? What level was it? Was it straight ranger? Did it use spells? Was the theoretical damage while standing still and full attacking? Was PA used?

[Mr. Zolrane]

Hey, if your DM is onto something, I'd love to see it.

Don't leave me dangling, man!



I'll be sure to let you know when he gets back to me. I will say this, he used this trick to basically solo the Tarrasque with a core-only TWF Ranger. I say "basically" because, despite being part of a party of five Level 20 characters, no one else really managed to do anything to the thing.




[Edit]: I don't even need specific numbers, I'm just curious of the general outlines, beyond "ranger with hooked hammer". Don't you remember anything other that the build had? What level was it? Was it straight ranger? Did it use spells? Was the theoretical damage while standing still and full attacking? Was PA used?

I'm pretty sure the math assumed full attacks. I'm not sure, don't quote me on this, but I think he may have had levels of fighter as well. I don't know about PA.

[ffone]

The awkwardness may come from evening out probabilities. I've done the math before and crit confirmation usually* makes the average damage boost from crits a flat percentage regardless of the attacker's attack bonus or the target's AC. Removing crit confirmation favors those with a low attack bonus. Practically speaking it only becomes a serious problem when a monster can't hit a PC at all and then boom he finally hits and crits. The PC suddenly goes from "Don't worry I'm totally fine" to insta-dead. It would have been nice if the monster finally did normal damage instead of finally doing crit damage. EDIT: @V Ya, this problem is even worse when the monster crits for X3 or X4 or crits frequently from a large range.

*This doesn't hold when the range of numbers that hits is smaller than the crit range, since you can't crit when you don't hit.

This. The crit confirmation roll is a clever way of saying "X% of your hits are crits" without requiring an extra d20 or d100 after every attack. As long as you actually hit whenever you threat (for example your rapier doesn't need to roll a 19 or 20 to hit at all, getting its full 18-20 range), and the foe isn't wearing fortified armor or crit immune or whatever, the fraction of hits which are crits is (threat range width) / 20.

Otherwise you have the odd situation where the harder it is to hit your foe, the more likely a hit is to be a crit. At the extreme it will be crit of nothing.

This houserule would penalize PCs who invest in AC.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Otherwise you have the odd situation where the harder it is to hit your foe, the more likely a hit is to be a crit. At the extreme it will be crit of nothing.

True. That's been my experience, playing without crit confirmations. That's true to a point anytime really, unless you houserule out the "Nat20=AutoHit" rule. Something that you need a 20 to hit, you will crit every time you hit.

[ffone]

True. That's been my experience, playing without crit confirmations. That's true to a point anytime really, unless you houserule out the "Nat20=AutoHit" rule. Something that you need a 20 to hit, you will crit every time you hit.

No. Natural 20s do not automatically confirm. (This is a common misconception, or perhaps a common deliberate houserule.) If you need a 20 to hit, then the 20 will have a 5% chance of confirming (via a second 20).

[Greenish]

No. Natural 20s do not automatically confirm.He's not saying that, he's saying that he has noticed what you describe (every hit is a crit) when playing with no-confirmation-needed houserules.

[ffone]

He's not saying that, he's saying that he has noticed what you describe (every hit is a crit) when playing with no-confirmation-needed houserules.

No, right, my bad, I see that now that I actually read carefully. Hmm, I think, anyway, I'm not totally sure how to read it.

In that case I agree totally!

[Greenish]

No, right, my bad, I see that now that I actually read carefully.

In that case I agree totally!You agree with him agreeing with your statement of fact? :smalltongue:

[Mr. Zolrane]

You agree with him agreeing with your statement of fact? :smalltongue:

I dunno, but I agreeably agre with her agreement to my agreement with her statement of fact :P

[Greenish]

Hmm, soloing big T at level 20 shouldn't be that hard. Still, pretty neat for core-only TWF ranger, though I'm not sure about that high crit modifier being all that.

In fact, playing with a PA calculator, I'm not seeing much difference between 15-20/x2 and 19-20/x4 weapon for a basic two-handing fighter.

[Edit]: 19-20/x4 is marginally better than 17-20/x2 (which is equal to 19-20/x3).

[ericgrau]

Big T is CR 20 so soloing him is supposed to be very hard but plenty do-able for a level 20 core character who isn't even designed to fight him nor has any clue what tactics to use. Any advantage you may have beyond that makes it easier. Ya crits help but, on average, they hardly make or break a fight.

[Greenish]

Level 20 orc fighter (18 str before modifiers) with +5 falchion, imp. crit, weapon focus chain and PA, with Haste (weapon or buff) and permanencied Enlarge Person takes about 3 full round attacks to bring big T below zero hp (or rather, inflict over 858 points of non-lethal damage). Of course, three rounds of retaliation would probably kill the poor fellow, but that's just for baseline.

[CigarPete]

We use the crit confirmation, along with the rule that if you role a nat 20 on your crit confirmation, the weapon does max damage before crit multiplication. I don't have any problems with the crit confirmation, you still always hit on a nat 20, you just might not do critical damage.

[Paintomancer]

We use the crit confirmation, along with the rule that if you role a nat 20 on your crit confirmation, the weapon does max damage before crit multiplication. I don't have any problems with the crit confirmation, you still always hit on a nat 20, you just might not do critical damage.

I always liked the idea of adding a random element through house rules crit confirmation. Your rule is nice, but there are bad examples.


I personally like critical conformations. I don't have anything new to add to this discussion but I would like to agree with Katana_Geldar in saying that critting on a confirmation roll is awesome. My 4th level lucern hammer (x4 crit) wielding crusader rolled two 20s in a row on a full power attack for a x7 crit. So awesome. I killed the guy I was fighting like, ten times over which really isn't necessary but it was super fun. That one battle actually reduced crime in the town by a huge amount because the one guy who survived the battle made sure to let everyone know that we would relocate their head into their pelvis if they kept up with the highway robbery shenanigans.

I once played in a group that used the exact same rule. Turned out our party fighter one-hitted the main villain's very old red dragon ally in the first combat round (he rolled like 8 natural 20s in a row). The Great Showdown was ruined, even for the fighter.

I think the critical hit adds a random element to the melee that adds to the excitement. Leaving the confirmation roll out would make it so much more predictable. But maybe there are other ways of making a critical hurt?

Instead of (just) adding damage, critical hits could be played out. Either the DM narrates around this (there could be nasty scars involved, temporary blindness/deafness, stunning or dazing, tripping, staggering, sickening, broken bones, severe bleeding, or simply the old-timey extra damage). You could even have table to roll for the type of injury a victim of a crit has to endure. You could even do this with a ... confirmation roll.

This would make a fight so much more deadly, and fighters would have much more stories to tell at the tavern. On the downside, the party will really have to stock up on restoration and regeneration magic.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The DMs in my group usually houserule out crit confirmation, mostly for the reasons mentioned. To avoid the wonkiness that arises when you need a 20 to hit, we generally also rule that you don't multiply damage if you require a natural [crit range] or higher to hit (e.g. an 18 or higher on a rapier, a 20 on a greatsword, etc.). This fixes the "every hit is a crit" problem, and can also make tactics a bit more useful against more powerful opponents because those extra +2s from flanking or Aid Another or whatever can bring you down from the "don't multiply damage" range to the "crit normally" range. (This last hasn't come up in PC vs. boss fights yet, as none of us tend to build "you need an 18 or higher to hit the guy" bosses, but it has made swarms of minions both more tactically interesting to run and less likely to just chuck weapons at PCs and hope for a string of crits.)

[FMArthur]

I just like crits being a special thing you don't see every encounter unless someone's focused on getting them.

[McSmack]

Psychic Weapon Master (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040827d) gets it down to 13-20.

That's not "crazy crit fishing". Vorpal only works on nat 20, for example, and Power Critical is rather minor. Crazy critfishing is, for example, the Aptitude Ribbon Great Falchion with Dolorous Blow in the hands of a charger with Lightning Maces and Roundabout Kick.
You don't always face CR appropriate encounters.

Was talking about 3.0, when Vorpal worked on any crit, Power Critical allowed a free threat for a crit once/day, and a non-errata'd bladed gauntlet had a base 17-20 crit range. Combine that with the 3.0 weapon master, scabbard of keen edges, Improved Critical, and I think I had a crit range somewhere around 7-20.

I had forgotten about the Psychic Weapon Master, and a host of other cheesy things.

As for stacking critical threats to improve multipliers, I've played in about half a dozen games with differnt DM's who used that rule. DM's who didn't know each other, and so had picked up the rule on their own somewhere else. Most of the people I game with also use that rule when they DM, so I'd say it's not uncommon, at least in my neck of the woods. I do cap mine at +1 modifer though, so greatswords can get a max of x3 if they roll a threat on a confirmation roll.

[ffone]

The DMs in my group usually houserule out crit confirmation, mostly for the reasons mentioned. To avoid the wonkiness that arises when you need a 20 to hit, we generally also rule that you don't multiply damage if you require a natural [crit range] or higher to hit (e.g. an 18 or higher on a rapier, a 20 on a greatsword, etc.). This fixes the "every hit is a crit" problem, and can also make tactics a bit more useful against more powerful opponents because those extra +2s from flanking or Aid Another or whatever can bring you down from the "don't multiply damage" range to the "crit normally" range. (This last hasn't come up in PC vs. boss fights yet, as none of us tend to build "you need an 18 or higher to hit the guy" bosses, but it has made swarms of minions both more tactically interesting to run and less likely to just chuck weapons at PCs and hope for a string of crits.)


Hmm, so under this houserule, if you have a keen rapier (15-20) and an attack mod of +20, and the enemy has an AC of...

...35, then you can never crit.
...34, then you crit with 30% of your attacks (and regular-hit with 5%, if you roll a 14).

So a difference of 1 AC or attack mod can change your crit percentage from 0% to 6/7ths (~86%) and changes average-damage-per-attack by a factor of more than 2 to 1.

This is weird.

Oh, also, you could potentially *decrease* your expected damage by gaining keen, improved crit, or using a better weapon. Example:

PC is attacking BBEG with a rapier. He realizes/guesses that he needs 18 to hit...so he can't crit, with your rule.

...so he drops the rapier and draws a swordsword (an inferior weapon damage-wise). Now he can crit on a 19 or 20. The less crittier weapon is now the crittier weapon, and has a higher expected damage.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Hmm, so under this houserule, if you have a keen rapier (15-20) and an attack mod of +20, and the enemy has an AC of...

...35, then you can never crit.
...34, then you crit with 30% of your attacks (and regular-hit with 5%, if you roll a 14).

So a difference of 1 AC or attack mod can change your crit percentage from 0% to 6/7ths (~86%) and changes average-damage-per-attack by a factor of more than 2 to 1.

This is weird.

Oh, also, you could potentially *decrease* your expected damage by gaining keen, improved crit, or using a better weapon. Example:

PC is attacking BBEG with a rapier. He realizes/guesses that he needs 18 to hit...so he can't crit, with your rule.

...so he drops the rapier and draws a swordsword (an inferior weapon damage-wise). Now he can crit on a 19 or 20. The less crittier weapon is now the crittier weapon, and has a higher expected damage.

That is how it would work out, yes. Only two of us actually do that (out of 5 DMs, in a 12-player group), and a third restricts that to natural 20s (so if you have to auto-hit to hit at all, you don't multiply damage), and I'm one of the other two. I should have clarified that when I said "we generally also rule..." I meant the majority of the DMs do it, not that all of us run it that way. (Personally, I don't like it, but the DMs are good enough otherwise that the group doesn't mind playing with that rule too much.)

As I said, though, it hasn't yet affected any PCs; the ones who rule that way favor waves of mooks over a few strong monsters, and we have seen it make a difference there, given that if you have 30-40 archers firing at the PCs every round, 2 crits per round can add up fairly quickly.

[Greenish]

Was talking about 3.0Yeah, reading comprehension fail on my part.

As for stacking critical threats to improve multipliers, I've played in about half a dozen games with differnt DM's who used that rule. DM's who didn't know each other, and so had picked up the rule on their own somewhere else. Most of the people I game with also use that rule when they DM, so I'd say it's not uncommon, at least in my neck of the woods.Perhaps so, but I haven't run to it before (I don't even remember hearing about it before). Just because it's popular in one area doesn't mean it's universally common.

As I said, though, it hasn't yet affected any PCs; the ones who rule that way favor waves of mooks over a few strong monsters, and we have seen it make a difference there, given that if you have 30-40 archers firing at the PCs every round, 2 crits per round can add up fairly quickly.How are those crits adding up without affecting the PCs? :smalltongue:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

How are those crits adding up without affecting the PCs? :smalltongue:

They don't, that's the point. Statistically you'd get 2 crits per round with 40 need-20s-to-hit archers, but the houserule changes that to 2 normal hits, hence the "we have seen it make a difference."

[ffone]

They don't, that's the point. Statistically you'd get 2 crits per round with 40 need-20s-to-hit archers, but the houserule changes that to 2 normal hits, hence the "we have seen it make a difference."

With core rules only 1/400 attacks are a crit if you need a 20 to hit, so you'd get 0.1 crits per round (and 1.9 regular hits).

So basically the houserule is to back out of another bad houerule (crits auto-confirm); 95% of the 'problem' (mook crits) you're fixing with the 2nd houserule is due to the 1st.

What if the mooks can hit with their bows on a 19 instead of a 20? Now you have 2 crits + 2 reglar hits a round with the houserules.

The 2nd houerule is probably a very 'rough' rounding off of the core threat roll: it's basically as if all threat rolls have a result of X-1 where X is the bottom end of your threat range (so if you need X or more to hit the foe, you never crit; if you can hit on X-1, all threats are crits).

So that's one way of comparing the houserules to core: does it improve the game for every threat roll to have a result of X-1 (which might encourage PCs to choose weapons with larger X, i.e. a narrower threat range).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

With core rules only 1/400 attacks are a crit if you need a 20 to hit, so you'd get 0.1 crits per round (and 1.9 regular hits).

So basically the houserule is to back out of another bad houerule (crits auto-confirm); 95% of the 'problem' (mook crits) you're fixing with the 2nd houserule is due to the 1st.

What if the mooks can hit with their bows on a 19 instead of a 20? Now you have 2 crits + 2 reglar hits a round with the houserules.

The 2nd houerule is probably a very 'rough' rounding off of the core threat roll: it's basically as if all threat rolls have a result of X-1 where X is the bottom end of your threat range (so if you need X or more to hit the foe, you never crit; if you can hit on X-1, all threats are crits).

So that's one way of comparing the houserules to core: does it improve the game for every threat roll to have a result of X-1 (which might encourage PCs to choose weapons with larger X, i.e. a narrower threat range).

Again, I'm not endorsing it, just suggesting it as an option if your group already rules that you don't confirm crits and you find mooks to be too dangerous, since it worked passably well for the DMs I know who found large numbers of mooks to be lethal but didn't want to go back to crit confirmation.

[Heliomance]

Ooh, and Vorpal worked on ANY critical hit back then, making it something worth saving up for.

Not quite. Improved Critical explicitly says, and I quote:

And Keen says:

Keen Edge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/keenEdge.htm) says essentially the same thing. Sorry, but WoTC really covered their bases with this one. It is something I have considered house-ruling otherwise, but that is just that, a houserule.
As for criticals, I've always confirmed them, but mostly because I never saw any reason not to.
Specific trumps general. Disciple of Dispater explicitly says it stacks with Improved Critical; that's more specific than Improved Critical's wording, so it stacks.

[Greenish]

Specific trumps general. Disciple of Dispater explicitly says it stacks with Improved Critical; that's more specific than Improved Critical's wording, so it stacks.Round and round it goes…


Zolrane, still waiting for that proof of hooked hammer's greatness. :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

Specific trumps general. Disciple of Dispater explicitly says it stacks with Improved Critical
That's correct, for 3.0 Improved Critical.

that's more specific than Improved Critical's wording, so it stacks.
Specific's got nothing to do with this matter. It's impossible for a 3.0 prestige class to make a specific exception to a 3.5 rule that wasn't created yet. If you want the wide threat range you're welcome to play a strictly 3.0 game. Otherwise, follow the 3.5 rules.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Zolrane, still waiting for that proof of hooked hammer's greatness. :smalltongue:

It might be a little bit. My friend was recalculating it, and then found out he had a free week of WoW. If you're still interested, I'll PM you whenever he gets it to me, as this thread is kinda dead.

[faus7rav3n]

Kinda new to the forums but my group uses several rules in regards to melee combat and criticals. Melee combat is dangerous to all involved and some of the rules are rightfully imposed to reflect that.

1. Natural 20 = Max Damage
- Nat 20's are special affairs. Everyone cheers when we get one!

2. Crit Confirms are in, RAW. If you fail to confirm refer to rule 1.
- Even if you don't confirm you still get something nice.

3. Massive Damage Rules are imposed.
- Criticals should rock people. If you get blasted for more than 1/2 your HP make a Fort Save or be knocked out of the fight. PCs are not immune to this. Usually it will reduce someone to disabled and bleeding to death rather than outright killing them, dependant upon what it was. Usually for Mooks it's okay to kill them but players get at least a chance beyond the roll.

4. Insta-kills
- In the event that a player rolls 3 or more 20's in a row in the same critical confirmation string, that player gets to describe in bloody graphic detail how he/she eviscerated the baddie. I've done this ONE time in my entire lifetime of gaming and our rogue last session almost achieved this. Players *might* be immune to this. I don't think our GM would do this to a player but you never know.

Just my 2cp on the topic. Awesome inputs and site by the by.

[Greenish]

It might be a little bit. My friend was recalculating it, and then found out he had a free week of WoW. If you're still interested, I'll PM you whenever he gets it to me, as this thread is kinda dead.Sure, it is a most interesting claim, and one I haven't seen before.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Sure, it is a most interesting claim, and one I haven't seen before.

Indeed.

Anyway, I think I've settled on the crit rules that I will use for my campaign, provided the player(s) agree(s) on it, of course:

1. Normal Crit: Confirm as per RAW
2. Natural 20 Crit: Confirm as per RAW; Target is shaken for 1d4 rounds if crit is confirmed. This stacks with any other effect that inflicts the shaken status.
3. Natural 20 on Normal Confirmation Roll: Maximize all damage dice excluding those from precision damage.
4. Natural 20 on Natural 20 Confirmation Roll: Maximize all damage dice including those from precision damage. Target is dazed for 1 round.

Thoughts?

[Greenish]

Thoughts?Isn't that adding unnecessary complications for it?

[Heliomance]

That's correct, for 3.0 Improved Critical.

Specific's got nothing to do with this matter. It's impossible for a 3.0 prestige class to make a specific exception to a 3.5 rule that wasn't created yet. If you want the wide threat range you're welcome to play a strictly 3.0 game. Otherwise, follow the 3.5 rules.

But BoVD was never updated for 3.5, and thus is valid as written, except where general update guidelines are laid out, such as Wilderness lore always being folded into Survival. None of the update guidelines invalidate it from providing a specific exception to Improved Crit.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Isn't that adding unnecessary complications for it?

Perhaps. That was my main concern, really. I may or may not do it, we'll see.


But BoVD was never updated for 3.5, and thus is valid as written, except where general update guidelines are laid out, such as Wilderness lore always being folded into Survival. None of the update guidelines invalidate it from providing a specific exception to Improved Crit.

Careful now. That kind of thinking is the foundation that cheese factories are built on.

[Heliomance]

Careful now. That kind of thinking is the foundation that cheese factories are built on.

Cheese factories are perfectly legal. In a real game, they fall foul of Rule 0: What The DM Says Goes. Not to mention Rule -1: Don't Be A Douche.

Outiside of that, though, the mere fact that something is cheese doesn't invalidate it.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Cheese factories are perfectly legal. In a real game, they fall foul of Rule 0: What The DM Says Goes. Not to mention Rule -1: Don't Be A Douche.

Outiside of that, though, the mere fact that something is cheese doesn't invalidate it.

Quite right. The problem is sneaky munchkins (not saying this is you) who catch DMs off guard and ruin everyone else's fun. Just because something is permissible, does not make it advisable: you can ride a pogo stick into a church, and while it might be fun for you, you're probably going to disrupt everyone else's experience that they came there for.

[Curmudgeon]

But BoVD was never updated for 3.5, and thus is valid as written, except where general update guidelines are laid out, such as Wilderness lore always being folded into Survival. None of the update guidelines invalidate it from providing a specific exception to Improved Crit.
No, they don't invalidate it from providing the exception that was written. That exception is only to the 3.0 form of Improved Critical, and has no power to override rules that weren't yet written.

As for general guidelines about how to resolve issues like this, Wizards of the Coast provided explicit instructions:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. This says that, where the Improved Critical rule in 3.5 Player's Handbook disagrees with the Disciple of Dispater's Iron Power in Book of Vile Darkness, the Player's Handbook is correct.

[Rodimal]

We used to never confirm a critical until we started playing someone who uses the regular rules. Now, we confirm critical for large critical threat ranges (e.g. 15-19 or whatever). On a natural twenty, however we roll to confirm max damage instead.


Out

[Heliomance]

No, they don't invalidate it from providing the exception that was written. That exception is only to the 3.0 form of Improved Critical, and has no power to override rules that weren't yet written.

As for general guidelines about how to resolve issues like this, Wizards of the Coast provided explicit instructions: This says that, where the Improved Critical rule in 3.5 Player's Handbook disagrees with the Disciple of Dispater's Iron Power in Book of Vile Darkness, the Player's Handbook is correct.

But I believe that Specific vs General is also explicit instructions given by WotC, and that suggests the exact opposite conclusion. The question then becomes, which takes precedence: Primary vs Secondary, or Specific vs General? In my opinion, it makes more sense for the latter to be the more important rule, otherwise no splatbook could ever provide an exception to a core rule.

Alternatively, you could argue that the 3.0 BoVD is the primary source for the Disciple of Dispater's Iron Power ability.

[Taelas]

The Iron Power ability emulates the keen weapon enhancement, which is why it even mentions Improved Critical. It specifies that it does not stack with keen but does so with Improved Critical -- because it is supposed to be a replacement for keen, which, in 3.0, stacked with Improved Critical.

In my opinion, Curmudgeon is correct, but I suppose it is debatable.

[Hironomus]

I would refuse to play without critical confirmation.

Maybe our group is just really unlucky with the amount we get critted, but that confirmation roll acts as a shield/ second chance for us when we get criticaled (which is often).

[Greenish]

We used to never confirm a critical until we started playing someone who uses the regular rules. Now, we confirm critical for large critical threat ranges (e.g. 15-19 or whatever). On a natural twenty, however we roll to confirm max damage instead.That favours low crit range, high crit multiplier weapons over their opposite.

Of course, if the intend was to make kukris, scimitars and their kin weaker than longswords, greatswords and that lot, while boosting axes & scythes up significantly, well, it succeeds in what it's doing.