[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

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)

[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).