[variant] Crits: Skilled not Lucky

[Dhavaer]

Variant 1:

If your attack roll exceeds your opponents Defence/AC by 10 or more, you have threatened a critical hit. Roll again, with all bonuses and penalties of the original attack roll, to confirm the crit. Some weapons are easier to crit with, and grant a bonus to hit that only effects calculation of whether a hit has been scored. Longswords grant a +1 bonus, rapiers a +2, etc.

Variant 2:

Your threat range, instead of being a set amount, varies depending on your HD opposed to your opponent's. For each HD you have over your opponent, you have a 5% chance to score a threat.
e.g. A 8th level Tough hero fighting a 5th level Fast hero has a 15% chance to threaten a crit, or a range of 18-20.
Some weapons increase this chance; a longsword increases the chance by 5%, a rapier by 10%. You chance to threaten never goes below 5%.


I prefer the first option, as it works better with non-human creatures. The second one would only be easy to use in Modern games with only human opponents.

[Umarth]

Variant 2: I think this is too powerful and falls apart in too many situations such as:
Umber Hulk Zombie: CR 7 HD 16
Umber Hulk Zombie Crit chance = 45% against a lvl 7 character.

Variant 1: Low AC characters also tend to be low hit point characters (wizards, sorcerers, ect). While it would be amusing to watch them splatter like a fly when hit by a war hammer I think it's probably unbalanced.

[Dhavaer]

I did note that the second option doesn't work well with non-human(oid) opponents.

As for the first option, I haven't played enough D&D to debate balance there, but I don't think most wizards/sorcerers would get hit terribly often beyond the first few levels, when any hit will probably take them down. I'm judging from a Modern viewpoint, where Mages get a pretty decent Defence bonus.

[Umarth]

Ah didn't even notice your call out on non humans (class based creatures really).

I don't have any experience with modern but I don't think these would work in fantasy D20.

[Miles Invictus]

How about this?

For every five points of BAB the character has, increase the threat range of all that player's attacks by +1. This stacks with other effects that increase threat range, though it is always added after all multiplicative effects have been applied.

For example, a keen longsword, wielded by a level 11 Fighter, has a threat range of 15-20. The longsword's base threat range is 19-20, the keen attribute doubles this to 17-20, and then the fighter's bonus is applied to give it a final threat range of 15-20.

Level 20 Fighter with Improved Critical:
18-20 weapon: 11-20 threat range
19-20 weapon: 13-20 threat range
20 weapon: 15-20 threat range

I think it might be a bit overpowered, but it does emphasize skill over luck...at least as far as a dice-rolling game goes.

[Dhavaer]

The only think I don't like about that is that it doesn't take into account the target. The purpose of my variant was to make a character be more likely to crit and kill a mook, but not one-shot the BBEG.

[icke]

The only think I don't like about that is that it doesn't take into account the target. The purpose of my variant was to make a character be more likely to crit and kill a mook, but not one-shot the BBEG.

You can incorporate this by using Miles Invictus' system for defence as well: for each 5 points of BAB, the threat range for YOU being hit critical goes down by 5%(minimum 5%).

[Idless]

uhuh I like where this is going...

I like the idea that its based on a mix of skill and weapon... but the dmg multiplier is enough for the weapon, the threat range could be the chars abilities.

Else you could say that the threat is determined by the weap, and the confirming part could be based solely on the chars skill, so its not a straight "reroll" roll.

I like variant 1. Miles Invictus have a good proposal, but then with Ickes idea this is really starting to look uber cool. So the meat shield in front is harder to crit, because he knows fighting and getting hit. But if you send an arrow or even worse: slam that caster, he/she/it is more likely to shatter!

I want a combo of all 3. I look at this in a Star Wars Perspective. I want my Heros to be able to down Stormies and other scum and villany, just brushing through them. But I don't like them to one shot my BBEG. but THEN again; I would for them to be able to crit/do extra dmg when they use force points. Here are 10-above-def kinda thing is needed...

anyhow that was just random thoughts, and putting what was already said in perspective. I don't think I have the nessecary expertise and expirience in the d20 system to evaluate it. Thats not my area ;)

...Idless

[Trobby]

I like the first variation of the crit system myself. Probably because I had a similar idea myself once before...but that sounds like it could genuinely work.

More to the point: maybe instead of a bonus, you could have certain weapons crit at a lower number? Such as a short sword critting on a 9, and a Scimitar critting on an 8? I know we're all about weapons Bonuses nowadays, but it seems like it would work a lot smoother if it ran that way.

[Dhavaer]

I think bonuses to a general rule would be smoother than exceptions.

[Miles Invictus]

Hmm...how about this for countering the increased threat range?

Any weapon with a base threat range of 19-20 gets a +2 to confirm critical hits. Any weapon with a base threat range of 18-20 gets a +4 to confirm. Improved Critical gives an additional +4 bonus to confirm.

Armor provides additional AC against confirmation rolls. Light armor gives +2 AC, medium armor gives +4 AC, and heavy armor gives +8 AC. Use the base armor to determine AC bonus (so Mithril Full Plate is treated as heavy armor for this purpose.)

It keeps everything consistent (bonuses only), provides a way of mitigating the increased critical chance, and still makes the increased threat range useful.

[Idless]

More to the point: maybe instead of a bonus, you could have certain weapons crit at a lower number? Such as a short sword critting on a 9, and a Scimitar critting on an 8? I know we're all about weapons Bonuses nowadays, but it seems like it would work a lot smoother if it ran that way.

This is great I think... like with sword you only need to go 9 over the Def and with schimtar 8.

Not sure I like the migation by Armor, I'd rather go for something based on BAB...

now I say what I like and don't like, and you guys make all the intelligent design. me like :smallbiggrin:

keep going :)

...Idless

[Logic]

I think for each multiplier greater than x2, or for each value beyond 20 to crit, add 1 based on the weapon.
So a longsword adds 1, a rapier 2, a scythe 3, and so on.

[Mauril Everleaf]

this may be my old edition bias coming out in me, but why mess with all this when you could just toss in a few skills or feats (whichever is applicable to this, i dont know the difference, i still play using 1979 edition books) that stack and increase crit range. toss in some text that lessens the bonus when the attacked is of higher level, hd, size, whatever. this way only those that want it get it, and the rest (non-melee characters) dont arbitrarily gain this skill. i am working on a way to make BAB (still called thac0 in my games) something you have to choose to get, rather than it jsut happening.

[Miles Invictus]

If you add it in as a skill or feat, you're allow players new features at the cost of finite and exceedingly valuable resources. Which is fine if you're thinking "How can I create some cool new things for fighters to take?"

However, I think that this thread is about asking "How can I better show that martial classes are really, really good at fighting?" And in that case, I think it's better represented as a set of house rules.

[Mauril Everleaf]

Its not necessarily the case that the longer you do something, the better you get at it (which is why for me BAB isnt just given at levels, you have to choose it). Just because ive played baseball for 11 years doesnt mean that im as good as someone who has taken the necessary training and developed his skills in that area. Sure i can hit a ball fairly regularly, but that doesnt mean i necessarily hit it exactly where i want it to go. Same goes for fighting. Sure i can swing my sword and strike the body of my opponent, but that doesnt necessarily mean that just because ive been fighting for some time that i will be able to swing at his vital points.
If you wanna stick with the house rule option, then IMO the crit range should increase as the battle progresses. The more longer you fight with someone (as a skilled fighter, which is what you are assuming) the more you can see their weaknesses. Sure i know that swinging my axe across his neck will do lots of damage, but my blade to that point takes study of actions, rhythms, and idiosyncrasies. It should also require some sort of INT check + Knowledge(whatever applies to the creature being fought) bonus. This is based on the thought that just because im swinging at him doesnt mean that im paying any more attention to him than to know when to dodge, raise my shield, or aim at his body.

[NullAshton]

Um... isn't the system ALREADY based on skill? Even on a natural 20, you still have to HIT your opponent to score a critical... and this would seriously screw up balance with casters against low touch AC opponents.

You would have criticals every single shot... with the higher level touch spells like meteor swarm, it would be insane.

[Dhavaer]

Bullseye: As a full round action, you may make an single attack roll using your full BAB. This provokes an attack of opportunity. If your attack roll exceeds your opponents AC by 10 or more, your attack is automatically a critical threat. Roll to confirm as normal. You may not use this combat option against an opponent who is benefitting from cover or concealment. You must have a BAB of at least +6 to use this combat option.

[Umarth]

Bullseye looks like the best way I've seen to capture the goal so far.

Dhavaer mind if I steal that for my homebrew world?

[Dhavaer]

Dhavaer mind if I steal that for my homebrew world?

Go ahead. I don't mind.

[Dhavaer]

Improved Bullseye
Prereqs: Dex 15, BAB +11
Benefit: You may make Bullseye attacks as an attack action.

[Bobbis]

No way on the improved on; as a free action?! In other words; no limit? Sure, it provokes AoOs, but still...

Maybe you mean instead of a normal attack.

On another note, initially this will also mean that true strike = autocrit.

[Dhavaer]

What the hell? How did that say free? Fixed.

[Umarth]

The improved one probably needs to be an epic level feet I think.

[Dhavaer]

The improved one probably needs to be an epic level feet I think.

Why? + character limit.

[Umarth]

Are you looking at making it as a standard action or so that you can use it with your full round of attacks or any other normal attack?

If you just want to make it a standard action rather than a full round action I’d be okay with that.

If you want it to be with any attack you make I just think it’s to over powered. Especially if you start combining it with things like having to hit touch ACs (don’t forget spells can be critted), High hp/low AC critters, spell casters, ect.

This also looks to me like it will be a feat that will be seen a necessity. If your feat is going to be chosen 95% of the time for any build then you’ve probably got an unbalanced feat.



(Action types can be found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm))

[Dhavaer]

Attack Action, not attack. In D&D, it would be written as Standard Action.

[Umarth]

Ah yah that's okay then.

[magic8BALL]

I havn't read all the stuff above, but I like the very first idea posted.

Here's a few more ideas concerning critical hits and misses.

- Any attack that beats the opponents AC by 10 or more is considered a critical hit.
- On a threat, you gain a +10 bonus to attack. (do not roll to confirm a crit)
- A threat is not considered an automatic hit.
- A natural roll of 1 is not considered an automatic miss, however, you take -10 on your attack result.
- Any attack that is worse than the opponents AC by 10 or more is a critical miss, and provokes an attack of oppotunity from the opponent.

eg.
I have a longsword with a +12 bonus,

If I roll a 15, that's a result of 27. If the target has an AC of 17 or lower, it is a crit. If the target has an AC of 37 or more, my attack is so far below the standards of my opponent, they may make an imediate counter-attack.

If I roll a 19, thats a result of 41. If the target has an AC of 31 or lower, it is a crit. If the target has an AC of 51 or more, my attack is thwarted so effectivly that my opponent may make an imediate counter-attack.

If I roll a 1, that's a result of 3. If the target has an AC of 13 or more, my attack is so poor that my opponent may make an imediate counter-attack.

Yes, the oponent will be getting a whole lot more attacks if your attack is very poor compared to his/her/its AC, but if you're not a frontline fighter, keep out of melee.

Perhaps there is room for feats that reduce the penalties for a nat. 1 (no attack of oppotunity), decrease the chance of a crit. miss (6 or more below instead of 10), or improve the odds of a critical hit (6 or more above instead of 10), just as there are feats that increasde threat ranges.

Is this balanced? Any thoughts?

[The_Ferg]

WAY too many rolls. This would slow down game play a lot. While a certain amount of realism is nice, playing is what matters. Honestly, you can have a 30% threat chance as it is, and a 45% in our house rule that keen and improved crit stack (to widen the crit range by the original again).

[fangthane]

Looks like cool beans. Can I play a balor in your campaign? :)

Because with a vorpal sword and a +33 attack bonus in addition to cleave, I'll dust any 2-3 player characters you like in a given round. In the first round, anyone except a fighter or cleric is fair game to be instakilled by a confirmation that 50 is still 10 points higher than most characters could hope to achieve at level 20. If I make my will save on the banishment attempt, two more are dropping next round. As a balor, I can suck up the return criticals, but every swipe I confirm is a kill.

Not that it's not an interesting idea, but it needs to scale better at the high end; the Balor's just a good example, but there're others. It also makes the Tarrasque a lot more dangerous, and makes engaging an ancient wyrm an exercise in futility. How are you going to avoid taking massive crits off a claw/claw/wing/wing/bite/slap combo? The simple answer is, you're not. Heck, even a black Wyrm has an attack at +42 (and is CR 20) - that means you need a 42 AC to avoid the crit if he rolls average on the attack.

And it's even worse if you play with the rolled AC alternate rules. True, you might avoid the odd crit from a Balor, which is nice, but there'll be more common crits against lesser foes to balance and bring the pain into all encounters, rather than just the ones where base attack > wizard AC+10

[Dhavaer]

WAY too many rolls. This would slow down game play a lot. While a certain amount of realism is nice, playing is what matters. Honestly, you can have a 30% threat chance as it is, and a 45% in our house rule that keen and improved crit stack (to widen the crit range by the original again).

Which suggestion is it you think has too many rolls? I don't, of the top of my head, recall a variant in here that adds another roll.

[magic8BALL]

...hmmm? My system only rolls once for an attack. The result of the attack determins wheater its a crit or not.

If the roll would normally be called a threat, add 10 to your attack bonus.
If the roll is a nat. 1, take a -10 penalty to your attack.
A crit. is when your attack roll beats the AC by 10 or more.
You provoke an AoO if your attack roll is 10 or more less than the AC

Too many rolls is one roll per attack? I think not...

--------------------------------

A CR 20 thing with +42 to attack. That thing needs to roll a nat 20 to hit under current rules with my gaming group. We are playing level 21 at the moment, AC 52 is small. Thats the Monk. The Fighter is like AC 56 or somthing, I don't know, thats not my character. Point is, a crit should be easily avoidable: you need to hit with an attack of well over 50, nearly 60 somthing on an average group. Or here's an idea: dont do toe to toe with somthing over 10 times your size: it might hurt. Either way, your Balor dosnt stand a chance. Come on down, bring your dice.

[The_Ferg]

Which suggestion is it you think has too many rolls? I don't, of the top of my head, recall a variant in here that adds another roll.

The percentile suggestion. That would be a roll, unless you plan on making one up (100!).

[fangthane]

A CR 20 thing with +42 to attack. That thing needs to roll a nat 20 to hit under current rules with my gaming group. We are playing level 21 at the moment, AC 52 is small. Thats the Monk. The Fighter is like AC 56 or somthing, I don't know, thats not my character. Point is, a crit should be easily avoidable: you need to hit with an attack of well over 50, nearly 60 somthing on an average group. Or here's an idea: dont do toe to toe with somthing over 10 times your size: it might hurt. Either way, your Balor dosnt stand a chance. Come on down, bring your dice.
First, that's an epic group, not a level 20 group. The most a level 20 group could get for AC is as follows:
Fighter: Mithral FP +5 --> AC +13, Dex bonus +3, Ring +5, Amulet +5
Total: 36 AC

The monk is lucky he gets to use his wisdom.
Monk: Bracers +8, Dex +5, Wisdom +5, Ring +5, Amulet +5, Dodge +1
Total: 39 AC

So a maximally-equipped monk with good stats at level 20 can be critted on a 16 by my Balor, and will almost-assuredly take a hit per round in any case. Odds are good he drops within two rounds. The fighter is going to be chum within about a round and a half on average, and any other character class is toast in under a round.

As to the dragons, I should point out that I did have a party which dealt quite successfully with a red Great Wyrm at level 20, who beat our fighter like a pinata but got hosed down by the rest of the party; meanwhile, with an attack bonus 3 higher than a monk's maximum reasonable AC, even the inferior black Wyrm is going to be laying out large numbers of crits. If we'd been up against the same red under these "beat it by 10" rules, our fighter would have been critted to death in the first round. As it was, it was only a timely Heal that kept him in it.

[Dhavaer]

The percentile suggestion. That would be a roll, unless you plan on making one up (100!).

You did notice it went up by 5% each time, yeah? It just changes the threat range, it doesn't add any rolls.

[Umarth]

Max AC is higher than 36 at 20

Base (10 base)
Mith FP +5 (13 armor)
Dex (+3 dex)
Dodge (+1 dodge)
Animated Heavy Steel Tower Shield +5 (9 shield)
Combat Expertise (+5 unnamed)
+5 Defending stick x 2 (+10 unnamed)
+5 Amulet of Nat Armor (+5 natural armor)
Marshall Aura (+4 circumstance)
Dusty rose Ioun Stone (+1 insight) should be something better than this.

That's an AC of 51 and all but one of those come from the SRD.
So your Balor would need a 18 or better. Still could get crit but it's a lot less likely. It's also unlikely a single character would have all those items.

Of course we could still tack on Heavy Fortification (which using this variant becomes almost a necessity)

[Closet_Skeleton]

Any method that involves working out something from the opponent's HD is too complicated. Look at size modifiers, instead of having to compare attacker and defender's sizes you have a static number and get the same result you'd get if you compared. I was considering the every 5 points of base attack = -1 threat range idea myself a while ago as a replacement (ie removing) the Improved Critical feat. I was planning on making every bonus to threat range stack, but no threat range increase are above -1. Threat range doubling is the problem with stacking threat range increases, if all threat range increases are just subtractions it won't turn insane so quickly.

My other preferred idea was replacing fortification % with critical armour. For example, making the Fortification property give a +2 bonus per level of fortification to armour class when a creature is confirming the critical. Then you could also give characters a bonus to critical armour based off their attack bonus.

[magic8BALL]

Monk AC at level 20

base +10
Monk Bonus +4
WIS +8 (base 15, +6 enhance, +5 inherant)
DEX +8 (base 15, +6 enhance, +5 inherant)
Nat +5 (not including racial)
Def +5
Bracers +8

Thats 48 without any feats, defending weapons, Ioun stones, magic items that provide continuous effect as the shield spell (4 000 gp by the rules in the DMG...) or racial bonuses to DEX, WIS or Nat Armour (all of wich my Thri Kreen Monk has). Add in a DM that lifts the 'no epic items for sale' rules, and we buy Amulets of Nat +14, Ring of Def +10, Gloves of DEX +14 (these are often cheaper than those inherant bonuses too, so we buy up big), and all of a sudden the PC's AC is Gargantuan (just like a High CR monsters size, and bonus to hit, really...)

----------------------------------------------------------------

...ok... at high levels, the PC's opponents (high CR monsters) have large attack bonuses. Traditionally, this gives them the option to make fairly large Power Attacks, still hit and deal out some big damage. WIth my system, it is mathematically better (and hence more sucsesful, and thus the natural thing for a preditor to do, elimentating any meta-gaming DM remarks) for the monster to remain focused, take good aim, and ripp off some heads. Sounds like what a Lawful dragon would do, but not to fun for the people fighting said Lawful dragon.

Is there anyway to keep my proposed system balanced and fun at high levels? 'Cuz I like the idea that someone who can hit well can hit true more often than someone who cannot, and that the opponents AC actually counts towards protection from Crits.

[Logic]

Suggestion: Instead of 10 greater than AC becoming an automatic critical hit, it is instead X greater than AC, where X=HD of target.

10 still works, but I think if I were to adopt this optional rule, I would probably add my edit.

[Umarth]

[QUOTE=Logic;1667071]Suggestion: Instead of 10 greater than AC becoming an automatic critical hit, it is instead X greater than AC, where X=HD of target.
QUOTE]

So at level one if something hits you for more than 1 point above your AC it's a possible crit?

Those first 10 levels or so are going to be rather painfull.

[Logic]

Suggestion: Instead of 10 greater than AC becoming an automatic critical hit, it is instead X greater than AC, where X=HD of target.

So at level one if something hits you for more than 1 point above your AC it's a possible crit?

Those first 10 levels or so are going to be rather painfull.
Yup, sure is. But it works both ways.
I like to show how frail the characters are at low levels, that way the players feel better about earning their status as world-class-heroes.

[magic8BALL]

...they wont earn it if every confirmed hit is a crit at level 1. The barbarian has about 16 hp (depending on CON) when raging at level 1. An orc with a Falcion deals 4d4+8 on a crit. On average, the biggest meat bucket dies if he loses initiative.

Thanks for the thought, though.

[Logic]

As I understood it (and I admit, at the time I understood it poorly) it was for the confirmation roll, making most uneccesary. Sorry for my error.

[ibitak84]

I think the problems really is that if a char manages to hit something with an attack roll of 10 above said something's AC, he'll confirm the crit anyway, too. (Or does the confirmation role have to exceed the opponent's AC by 10, too? Maybe require it to exceed the opponent's AC by 1/2 opponent's HD on the second roll?)

[magic8BALL]

I dont want to have a second roll.
I want a simple: Player: "I hit for AC X." DM: "Crit."

A formular with the oponents HD seems to be a common thread, but that means that monsters, wich even in mid levels start having way more hit dice than the PC's, gain an unfair advantage.

What about:

- If the roll would normally be called a threat, add 10 to your attack bonus.
- If the roll is a natural 1, take a -10 penalty to your attack.
- If your attack roll beats the AC by more than 10 or 1/3 the opponents AC (wichever is higher), you land a critical hit. (no re-roll is needed)
- If your attack roll is 10 or more less than the AC, you provoke an Attack of Oppotunity.

If I have an AC of 24, say, anyone hitting me for 34 or more scores a crit.
If, however, my AC is 45, they need to hit for 60 or more to score a hit (becouse 45/3 = 15, is more than 10)

This means people (and monsters) with higher AC's have even less chance of being crit'ed than before. This also makes the +10 to attck for a threat less powerful against creatures with AC 30+ (these are often the monsters that low-level PC's need a threat to hit on, so this may be a new problem)



...also... Dhavaer, I seem to have hyjacked your thread. Please feel free to tell me to bugger off any time you like.

[Mauril Everleaf]

you could always go back to 2 ed rules (i know you all are going to hatem me for this) wherein crits for all weapons were base 20 (no expanded base crits) and has crit damage of 2x. you could still include improved crit and keen, which would bump crit by +1 threat range each (and could now stack!). crits ran that if natural roll was in crit range (most often just nat 20) the creature took double damage. on nat 20 (and nat 20 alone) you rolled % dice for a mortal blow. if within mortal % (less than 10% or lower depending on armoring) then the creature either insta-died or took double damage again for a total of 4x base damage (last part is houserule and dependant on hit-dice, RAW stated insta-death). in 2 ed my houserule was that AC less than 0, no insta-death just massive damage. this would have to be modified to be something like "AC over 35" or something like that for 3.x.
Crits by nature IMO are supposed to be lucky strikes at vital points (sneak attack is aimed not lucked upon) i think that this kinda reflects that better than the "my weapon crits on a 9-20 and does 12x damage" (i know thats an exaggeration, but its similar to that in game). i like some of 8ball's ideas from above, but seems like a lot of math to me. figures like AC 23 and AC 49 (which dont divide easily by 3 in your head) bog down combat some ("was that a crit?" "I dont know. lemme grab my calculator"). It would work fine mechanically, but not sure players would like it all that much.

[fangthane]

In terms of keeping criticals relatively rare at higher levels, I'd amend the crit formula to say that if the attack roll beats the AC by 10 or the target's HD, whichever is greater, that would give the 11+ crowd a little of the survivability which is otherwise limited by such a linear mechanism. It's a little easier to calculate than 1/3 of AC bonus which might make it a bit more accessible as a method*. Because of the sheer breadth of mechanisms at higher level for exponential growth in specific areas, and creatures predicated on the concept that their bonus virtually guarantees that they'll be hit, and will also themselves hit, every round, crits would otherwise be far too predictable in some cases, and I don't think that's what anyone really wants. Also, while it's nice to get a surprise-round attack on the wizard, the general aim is to scare him, not guarantee a critical and potentially one-shot or massive-damage him. If the wizard has to take a full round to back away from the bad guy, that's enough; he doesn't need to automatically be down and dying because the bad guy's attack bonus beats his risible AC by 15

I have to admit, I'd forgotten about items - even so though, that's a +6 so suddenly the monk alone is unlikely to be decapitated instantly. The fighter's still got a round and a half though, and he could take down a rogue, a bard and a wizard (within 20 feet of one another) in a round without breaking a sweat. Well, unless the bard has battle caster and armor pro: medium to go with mithral full plate too.

*Granted, this does break down a bit for creatures with massive HD so it also might not be ideal in some situations... Perhaps the attack needs to hit by (5+1/2 HD) to be a crit? There has to be a workable balance that's not too unwieldy to use, somewhere in there. Most stuff with massive HD isn't susceptible to crits anyhow (undead, constructs etc) so it may not be too critical I guess...

[magic8BALL]

Mauril Everleaf:
yeah, threats are lucky strikes... but thats what this threads out to change: we are trying to find a way that avoids fullplate clad fighters being crit'ed by a kobald, and have this eliete warrior turn around and chop of the reptilians head not only becouse he is trained to, but the small humanoid is poorly armoured.

...2nd Ed rules... look like about half a dozen rolls after "threat" was called. Looks like it would slow down play heaps.

Yes, my system involves a lot of math (as will a whole lot of mine), but thats side-effect of me taking a major in a double degree in maths. There's nothing stopping anyone putting AC 49 (crit 65) on the page, you don't need to work it out then and there. But thanks for pulling me into line: I realise some people do maths like I spell, REAL BAD. I'll avoid working in thirds and surds, hey?


fangthane
Mr Melee, the Tarresque has AC 35 and 48 HD. ...who hits for AC 83 these days? With the 5+1/2HD sugestion, even AC 64 is out of reach for most PC's... unless you roll a 20, add 10 for threat and have +34 to attack... Thats what we're after!

I'm going to do a backflip on this: using the opponents HD seems to work for the Tarresque.

Ogre Mage? AC 18, HD 5, CR 8. Crit on AC 25. Heaps easy for a lvl 8 fighter, even without the treat. What about "beat the AC by 10 or 5+1/2 opponents HD, wich ever is higher", so the rules read:

- If the roll would normally be called a threat, add 10 to your attack bonus.
- If the roll is a natural 1, take a -10 penalty to your attack.
- If your attack roll beats the AC by more than 10 or 5+1/2 opponents HD (wichever is bigger), you land a critical hit. (no re-roll is needed)
- If your attack roll is 10 or more less than the AC, you provoke an Attack of Oppotunity.



Just another thought I had before I looked into fangthanes idea:
What about adding
"a creature gains a +1 bonus to AC for determining critical hits for every 10 HD it has", and
"when a threat is scored by a creature, it gains a +1 bonus to attack for every 5 points of BAB it has"...?

The big beasties get some protection from crits (as do higher level PC's), and a idea of a threat isn't lost through the thought of your opponent having triple the HD you have. (remembering threats are auto hits in 3.x, not in this variant)

[fangthane]

Hehe dangit I was hoping you wouldn't pull the Tarrasque into the mix... It's not really a fair CR20 anyhow, more of a truly epic beastie (if exceedingly weak for epic) - I figure it's really more of a 21 or 22, myself. That's the sort of thing which tends to break down the idea of tying things directly to HD... On the other hand, your comment about BAB has me thinking, what if ac-versus-crits received a +1 per n points of base attack bonus (retaining the minimum of 10)? It'd still tend to hose stuff like the ogre mage (though he'd still use the minimum of 10) but should be a little easier to handle on some of the big stuff - and the ogre mage who gets too close to the party's zog - while visible - deserves to be critted... I suppose the alternative is to have a formula for class-based characters' bonus and some kind of arbitrary setting for specific monsters, but that's far from ideal.