PDA

View Full Version : How good was that hit O.o (or... No Crit)



nonsi
2012-02-07, 06:38 AM
.
How about, instead of crit threat/confirmation/dmg-multipliers, a successful attack would deal extra damage according to how much it was successful beyond the to-hit DC ?
Special: Natural 20s are recalculated as 18 + 2d6 (with 30 being the mother of all strikes a character can produce).
Special: Keen property and weapon-specific extra crit-damage could increase the extra damage by 50% (with Keen Scythe multiplying the extra damage by 2-1/2).

Think of it.
It would reduce dice-rolls, promote weapon balance, scale nicely with BAB, spare that precious feat slot and eliminate optimizers' crit-race.

SowZ
2012-02-07, 12:56 PM
There are a few side effects, one of which is making many weapons just plain worse than others, making certain class features/feats/enchantments/powers useless, etc. It also makes certain feats, like Power Attack, less useful.

What I would say is do extra damage based on the success of the hit divided by two or something, for one. Secondly, I would make creatures immune to critical hits immune to this rule. Thirdly, I would not eliminate critical hits but maybe take away crit. confirmation rolls and make damage dice max out on a crit. rather than doubling or tripling damage. That would lessen die rolls without removing the mechanic altogether. (Any weapon with a crit of x3 gets one more to its crit. range, x4 gets two more to its threat range.)

Other than that, a good idea and something that makes accurate attacks more powerful is totally cool.

Absol197
2012-02-07, 06:27 PM
I actually posted this yesterday in a different thread here: this is similar to something I've been considering for a while:


This is pretty similar to an idea I had for re-working critical hits: my idea was that, for every 10 you beat the target's AC by, you get crit damage. So if you're using a 20/x2 weapon, you deal x1 damage at AC +0 to +9, x2 damage at AC +10 to +19, and you deal x3 damage at AC +20 to +29, etc.

If your weapon has a high crit multiplier or threat range, that increases the extra damage or decreases the necessary amount over the target's AC: so a warhammer is x1 (AC +0 to +9); x3 (AC +10 to +19); and x5 (AC +20 to +29). A longsword would be x1 (AC +0 to +8); x2 (AC +9 to +17); and x3 (AC +18 to +26).

A keen rapier would be incredibly deadly: x1 (+0 to +4); x2 (+5 to +9); x3 (+10 to +14); etc.

I chose +10 because it's easy to do in your head (just see how many times you have to increase the first number of the AC until it the attack doesn't hit anymore), and because, unlike doubling, small ACs aren't super-easy to crit, and high ACs aren't impossible to crit. I also use the rule that a nat 20 counts as a 30, and a nat 1 counts as a -10, which I think go well with this.

EDIT: The way weapon's crit stats are represented needs to be changed, though:

THREAT RANGE:
20 becomes +10
19-20 becomes +9
18-20 becomes +8
17-20 becomes +7
15-20 becomes +5

CRIT MULTIPLIER:
x2 becomes x1
x3 becomes x2
x4 becomes x3

So a quarterstaff is a +10/x1 weapon, a dagger, short sword, or longsword becomes a +9/x1 weapon, a rapier or kukri becomes a +8/x1 weapon, a warhammer becomes a +10/x2 weapon, etc.

Yitzi
2012-02-07, 06:49 PM
As I said in the other thread, this is an idea I've been toying with as well, but as SowZ said it requires a lot of changes.

nonsi
2012-02-08, 05:14 PM
There are a few side effects, one of which is making many weapons just plain worse than others,

Weapons are never equal, but how does my suggestion make it worse I don't get.




making certain class features/feats/enchantments/powers useless, etc. It also makes certain feats, like Power Attack, less useful.

Yes, suddenly people can invest feats to do stuff other than pump numbers.
I don't see what's wrong with PA just being an awesome strike rather than a feat (many homebrewers want to give it for free anyway). Now that great red wyrm doesn't need to sacrifice accuracy to pulverize its enemies.




What I would say is do extra damage based on the success of the hit divided by two or something, for one.

Take PA out of the equation and there's no need to (no more PA OVER-9000).




Secondly, I would make creatures immune to critical hits immune to this rule.

I regard the extras as a combination of accuracy and just an awesome strike, so cutting the extra in half seems appropriate to me on this one.
Now you don't have to take strange feats to deal precision damage to specific creature types, because they're all included for the price of a single house rule.




Thirdly, I would not eliminate critical hits but maybe take away crit. confirmation rolls and make damage dice max out on a crit. rather than doubling or tripling damage. That would lessen die rolls without removing the mechanic altogether. (Any weapon with a crit of x3 gets one more to its crit. range, x4 gets two more to its threat range.)

Why not remove the mechanic altogether?
What would it serve with this new approach I've described?

nonsi
2012-02-08, 06:41 PM
I actually posted this yesterday in a different thread here: this is similar to something I've been considering for a while:

I saw it. Gave me the inspiration for this one (just thought to smooth things up rather than go for damage steps).

SowZ
2012-02-09, 12:26 AM
Weapons are never equal, but how does my suggestion make it worse I don't get.



Yes, suddenly people can invest feats to do stuff other than pump numbers.
I don't see what's wrong with PA just being an awesome strike rather than a feat (many homebrewers want to give it for free anyway). Now that great red wyrm doesn't need to sacrifice accuracy to pulverize its enemies.



Take PA out of the equation and there's no need to (no more PA OVER-9000).



I regard the extras as a combination of accuracy and just an awesome strike, so cutting the extra in half seems appropriate to me on this one.
Now you don't have to take strange feats to deal precision damage to specific creature types, because they're all included for the price of a single house rule.



Why not remove the mechanic altogether?
What would it serve with this new approach I've described?

Well, now any weapon with a high threat range will be just worse than those without, since their damage dice will be lower without anything to make up for it.

As far as investing feats to pump numbers, I don't think removing certain options altogether is the answer. This isn't just about feats. It is about class features and weapon enhancements that now become useless.

As far as doing a strong strike, that is what your strength score and damage dice represent. The to hit dice represents accuracy. Using the a gelatin based cube as an example, how would hitting it really accurately matter?

The reason I suggested dividing the success by two is that this means a +1 to damage is always worse than a +1 to hit, which messes with the balance. Strength also becomes a less significant stat for many builds.

Also, rocket launcher tag becomes more of an issue as now offense scales even faster than defense.

I think the general idea is good, but it needs tweaking.

nonsi
2012-02-09, 02:06 AM
Well, now any weapon with a high threat range will be just worse than those without, since their damage dice will be lower without anything to make up for it.

Self Quote (from the OP):
=============================================
Special: Keen property and weapon-specific extra crit-damage could increase the extra damage by 50% (with Keen Scythe multiplying the extra damage by 2-1/2).
=============================================
But now that I think of it, maybe that's not such a good idea, because the higher the BAB, the less a weapon's base damage will be less significant and now all of a sudden those weapons would gain a huge advantage (maybe this still needs a little bit more 'cooking').




This isn't just about feats. It is about class features and weapon enhancements that now become useless.

They don't become useless, just less significant.
Think of the last time you saw a melee character build on a char-op board that didn't have PA.
My guess: never.
Well, doesn't it strike people odd that a very specific feat is labeled "if you pass this one up than you're a moron"?
Doesn't that mean that it should be built in?




As far as doing a strong strike, that is what your strength score and damage dice represent. The to hit dice represents accuracy. Using the a gelatin based cube as an example, how would hitting it really accurately matter?

My interpretations are somewhat different:
Str-mod represents just how much more powerful your strikes are on the average.
Dmg-dice, to me, represent mostly dumb luck (the angle of the blow on the point of impact).
Regarding Gelatinous Cube, better strikes could mean deeper impact, wider slices or combination strikes.
Hit rolls - to me they represent, among other things, one's ability to seize an opportunity to land a strike that connects (that's why iterative-attacks having decreased chances to hit make a lot of sense to me).




The reason I suggested dividing the success by two is that this means a +1 to damage is always worse than a +1 to hit, which messes with the balance. Strength also becomes a less significant stat for many builds.

Let me tell you something I've learned about strength.
My 10 year old son has been studying Karate (shotokan) for the past 2 years. He's fast, I mean like really fast.
Now, I know a thing or two in martial arts and I weigh 3 times more than he does, but even now I find it quite difficult to physically restrain him. By the time he turns 14, I believe he'll be an even match to me (and trust me, I'm no easy target).
What I'm trying to say is that speed, practice and experience are way more important that raw strength.




Also, rocket launcher tag becomes more of an issue as now offense scales even faster than defense.

Without PA and its damage derivatives, rocket-launcher tag is out the window as well (unless you meant something else).




I think the general idea is good, but it needs tweaking.

Yes it does, but I still don't have it fully figured out yet.
Guess I'll have to wait till the inspiration falls on me again (or maybe someone else will beat me to the punch and take it from here).