Segev
2013-08-23, 02:10 PM
So much discussion of house rules about them have gone on lately that my mind has decided to wrestle with the thought of them. It's a bit frustrating to many that 1/20 hits auto-misses and 1/20 hits auto-hits, and everybody's had the frustration of rolling in their threat range and still missing, let alone doing so and not confirming.
The complaint about crit fumbles being even worse because they basically say that every adventurer is a Stooge, to some degree, no matter how skilled, is also at least somewhat valid. (I agree with the complaint, personally.)
So, then, what might be done, especially to appease those who want SOME element of critical failures to be more than just "a miss?"
What if, instead of "nat 20" being the special value, the crit-threat range meant that you got the option to roll an additional d20 and add it to the die roll? Make this open-ended, until one of them doesn't land in the crit threat range (or you choose to stop rolling). An actual critical hit, then, happens not on a "confirmation" of a "threat," but when you exceed the AC of your target by at least 20.
Similarly, a roll of a "1" requires you to re-roll the d20, subtracting 20 from your roll. Additional rolls of "1" require additional re-rolls with additional -20 penalties. If, on your final modified roll, you score less than 0, you critically fumble. We can have a crit-fail chart based on how negative you rolled.
Now, the character who is particularly good might hit even if his initial roll is a "1," though it is definitely less likely, while the character who is lucky might hit even though he lacks the skill. It makes high-threat weapons very valuable for accuracy, though each roll DOES open the possibility of a "1" forcing a re-roll with -20, instead.
Actually, that probably calls for an example:
Let's say the initial die roll is an 18, using a scimitar (so it's in the crit threat range). The player chooses to roll again, and gets a 20! His die roll alone is now worth 38, and he can choose to roll again STILL if he wants to (perhaps he's facing something with really high AC, or merely moderate AC and he's hoping to get 20 over it for a crit).
But his next roll is a natural 1. Now he HAS to re-roll that one, and subtract 20. He gets another 18! But with the -20, that's a -2, for a total of only 36. Still, he can choose to keep rolling, so he does! This time, he gets a 6, for a total "d20" roll of 42, before any other modifiers. Pretty good, but it should be, as he's been lucky! Still, not an auto-hit if the enemy has a particularly monstrous AC!
On the other hand, if he'd rolled a 1, and then a 20, he'd have a total d20 roll of 1 (as 20-20 is 0). He could choose to keep rolling off of that 20, though! Getting a 10 after that would be a total of 11.
And, finally, if he rolled a 1, and then something like, say, a 5, he'd have a 1-15 = -14. Unless his attack bonuses are +14 or greater, he's now critically fumbled.
How workable would such a system be? Would the increased advantage to a high-threat weapon be too much? Any other major problems with it?
The complaint about crit fumbles being even worse because they basically say that every adventurer is a Stooge, to some degree, no matter how skilled, is also at least somewhat valid. (I agree with the complaint, personally.)
So, then, what might be done, especially to appease those who want SOME element of critical failures to be more than just "a miss?"
What if, instead of "nat 20" being the special value, the crit-threat range meant that you got the option to roll an additional d20 and add it to the die roll? Make this open-ended, until one of them doesn't land in the crit threat range (or you choose to stop rolling). An actual critical hit, then, happens not on a "confirmation" of a "threat," but when you exceed the AC of your target by at least 20.
Similarly, a roll of a "1" requires you to re-roll the d20, subtracting 20 from your roll. Additional rolls of "1" require additional re-rolls with additional -20 penalties. If, on your final modified roll, you score less than 0, you critically fumble. We can have a crit-fail chart based on how negative you rolled.
Now, the character who is particularly good might hit even if his initial roll is a "1," though it is definitely less likely, while the character who is lucky might hit even though he lacks the skill. It makes high-threat weapons very valuable for accuracy, though each roll DOES open the possibility of a "1" forcing a re-roll with -20, instead.
Actually, that probably calls for an example:
Let's say the initial die roll is an 18, using a scimitar (so it's in the crit threat range). The player chooses to roll again, and gets a 20! His die roll alone is now worth 38, and he can choose to roll again STILL if he wants to (perhaps he's facing something with really high AC, or merely moderate AC and he's hoping to get 20 over it for a crit).
But his next roll is a natural 1. Now he HAS to re-roll that one, and subtract 20. He gets another 18! But with the -20, that's a -2, for a total of only 36. Still, he can choose to keep rolling, so he does! This time, he gets a 6, for a total "d20" roll of 42, before any other modifiers. Pretty good, but it should be, as he's been lucky! Still, not an auto-hit if the enemy has a particularly monstrous AC!
On the other hand, if he'd rolled a 1, and then a 20, he'd have a total d20 roll of 1 (as 20-20 is 0). He could choose to keep rolling off of that 20, though! Getting a 10 after that would be a total of 11.
And, finally, if he rolled a 1, and then something like, say, a 5, he'd have a 1-15 = -14. Unless his attack bonuses are +14 or greater, he's now critically fumbled.
How workable would such a system be? Would the increased advantage to a high-threat weapon be too much? Any other major problems with it?