What If: crit when beat AC by 5 or more

[Skrum]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The number doesn't have to be 5 either; it could be/probably should higher. Maybe 7?

Personally, I don't like the extra math involved and having to remember essentially two AC numbers, but I do like the base math - make having more armor worth more, as well as make boosting your attack roll that much better.

[P. G. Macer]

I’m pretty sure Pathfinder 2e does something along this line; maybe look there for further inspiration?

[Cikomyr2]

I played with the idea of doing "critical as excess to AC" when i wanted to add a Savage World-flavor to the game and allow for exploding dice on max roll.

For ***everything***. Then i realized a nat 20 should explode as well, so i needed to make the possibility of a double-exploding die interesting. So I realized an ever-progressing scale of bonus damage should apply.

Instead of "double damage", i was thinking the rule should be +1 biggest die you have/per 5 above the AC.

Thing is, I wanted to minimize the math involved, and i also consider making it +1die/10 AC. With exploding damage dice, every additional die can be really consequential.

[stoutstien]

I just made the damage dealt by attacks to be the difference between the AC and the rolls total. You roll a 15 with mods targeting 10 AC, you deal 5 damage.

Criticals can happen on any attack with the weapons that are capable of it. They occur ~10% of the time after accounting for missed attacks.

[Arkhios]

Would nat20 still be an automatic hit, even if not a crit?

Edit: to rephrase that, I have a feeling that with nat20 still being a hit, but a crit requiring a value exceeding the AC by X would eventually lead to strange situations.

[DeTess]

I think the main problem is that there are a bunch of monsters, particularly at higher CR's, that have very high hit bonuses. Think stuff like adult red dragons and the like who could roll a crit like this very easily. If you incorporate this idea you'd have to redo some monster math and CR's to avoid nasty surprises.

There are systems that do something like this, but they tend to reduce how effective crits are on the NPC side. For example, in Lancer you crit whenever you roll a 20 or higher in total, but crits only allow you to roll your damage dice twice and pick the highest number (though there are some stuff you can unlock that adds bonus damage on crits). In this system however the vest majority of NPC's do fixed damage on hit, and there fore don't benefit from crits at all.

[Mastikator]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The number doesn't have to be 5 either; it could be/probably should higher. Maybe 7?

Personally, I don't like the extra math involved and having to remember essentially two AC numbers, but I do like the base math - make having more armor worth more, as well as make boosting your attack roll that much better.

Try it at your table and tell us. Run a one-shot with this homebrew rule.

[Chronos]

Quoth Cikomyr2:

Thing is, I wanted to minimize the math involved, and i also consider making it +1die/10 AC. With exploding damage dice, every additional die can be really consequential.

Exploding dice actually aren't all that consequential. Everyone pays attention to the shiny "I can do unlimited damage with a single attack!", but those very high damage values almost never actually come up. On average, exploding dice only add about +1 per roll (depending on exactly how you implement them).

[Unoriginal]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The number doesn't have to be 5 either; it could be/probably should higher. Maybe 7?

Personally, I don't like the extra math involved and having to remember essentially two AC numbers, but I do like the base math - make having more armor worth more, as well as make boosting your attack roll that much better.

PCs who are not focused on AC will generally have between 15 and 19 AC for their whole careers.

PCs who are focused on AC will generally have between 20 and 23.

Let's take a randomly selected CR 6 monster... I got "Mist Hulk" from Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants, with two +8 attacks.

That means crit on a 17, if the PC has 20 AC, or crit on a 14 if the PC has 17 AC.

Now let's take a randomly selected CR 10 monster. I got "Young Gold Dragon" from the MM, with three +10 attacks.

That means crit on a 15 if the PC has 20 AC, or crit on a 12 if the PC has 17 AC.


I don't think that having 30% chances to get critted against a CR 10 enemy when you're in plate armor with a shield is an enjoyable prospect.

[RSP]

I don't think that having 30% chances to get critted against a CR 10 enemy when you're in plate armor with a shield is an enjoyable prospect.

Just to build on this analysis:

Crits generally help monsters more than PCs, unless the PC is specifically built for crits. Monsters tend to have bigger dice pools behind their attacks, which get doubled. While the usual route to adding damage for a PC is bonuses like “add [stat] mod to damage” or the +10 from GWM/SS. Paladins and Rogues benefit with Smites and SA, respectively.

Also, crits against mooks are less helpful and sometime just wasted damage due to their lower HP total, while any crit the monsters make is much more likely being done on a PC, and be much more a significant factor in the combat. Removing any given monster from the fight is less impactful than taking down a PC.

[Cikomyr2]

Exploding dice actually aren't all that consequential. Everyone pays attention to the shiny "I can do unlimited damage with a single attack!", but those very high damage values almost never actually come up. On average, exploding dice only add about +1 per roll (depending on exactly how you implement them).

Mathematically, you are right.

But i said "every damage die CAN be consequential". I.e., theres always a chance that the goblin with 1d4+2 attack get a lucky break and does 20 point of damage.

Personally, i love these huge swings and minimize combat time, making every attacks a potentially very dramatic occurrence. But its a personal preference of how i enjoy my tabletop rpg, not my study in Game Theory or balance or whatnot.

[Psyren]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The fighter already has more HP, so the equal chance to crit still affects them less, so I'm not sure what this adds. It sounds similar to PF2, but keep in mind PF2's approach is predicated on that game's much tighter math, and also critical successes often do more than just damage, making them more dramatic. Fighters also have even more effective HP once you factor in Second Wind and Indomitable, especially the improved versions of both we're getting this year.

TL;DR try it and see if you like it but I don't think it will be as good a fit for 5e as it might appear.

[LibraryOgre]

In 2e, with the Combat and Tactics supplement, crits became "18 or higher on the dice, and beat the AC by 5 or more." So, if you can only hit on a 20, you won't crit, but if you can hit on a 10, you still need at least an 18 on the die.

Crits went to people with better skills.

[Zuras]

The fighter already has more HP, so the equal chance to crit still affects them less, so I'm not sure what this adds. It sounds similar to PF2, but keep in mind PF2's approach is predicated on that game's much tighter math, and also critical successes often do more than just damage, making them more dramatic. Fighters also have even more effective HP once you factor in Second Wind and Indomitable, especially the improved versions of both we're getting this year.

TL;DR try it and see if you like it but I don't think it will be as good a fit for 5e as it might appear.

Yeah, I don’t like the idea for the extra damage side of crits, but the ability to add extra effects for successes more than 5 or 10 sounds fun. The problem is you really need a full alternate monster manual detailing those effects on a creature by creature basis, plus a mighty deeds system (like DCC’s) detailing what PCs can do.

[stoutstien]

Mathematically, you are right.

But i said "every damage die CAN be consequential". I.e., theres always a chance that the goblin with 1d4+2 attack get a lucky break and does 20 point of damage.

Personally, i love these huge swings and minimize combat time, making every attacks a potentially very dramatic occurrence. But its a personal preference of how i enjoy my tabletop rpg, not my study in Game Theory or balance or whatnot.

Check out CWN traumatic hit mechanic. Any hit can be a trauma if it meets the threshold. It's usually a 6 and the smallest die is a d6 but it be as high as a D12. If it happens it flat out multiplies the damage X2 to X4. A goblin with a small blade might do 1-2 damage on miss, ~6 damage on a hit, and 18 damage on a traumatic hit. Makes better armor and avoiding unnecessary attacks vital but at the same time I don't think tactics is meant to be *that* big of a deal nowadays. the normal number of attacks in it is *1* but it's not hard to modify it for something like DND.

So far it's been a good way to make 2hd weapons actually worth something besides a means to apply feats.

[KorvinStarmast]

I played with the idea of doing "critical as excess to AC" when i wanted to add a Savage World-flavor to the game and allow for exploding dice on max roll.

For ***everything***. Then i realized a nat 20 should explode as well, so i needed to make the possibility of a double-exploding die interesting. So I realized an ever-progressing scale of bonus damage should apply.

Instead of "double damage", i was thinking the rule should be +1 biggest die you have/per 5 above the AC.

Thing is, I wanted to minimize the math involved, and i also consider making it +1die/10 AC. With exploding damage dice, every additional die can be really consequential.

Death to arcane casters.
If that's what you want, that's what you'll get.

I think the main problem is that there are a bunch of monsters, particularly at higher CR's, that have very high hit bonuses.

Yes.

PCs who are not focused on AC will generally have between 15 and 19 AC for their whole careers.

And they will get chewed up with this rule as Tier levels increase. Death to arcane casters. [/quote] Nice example.

I don't think that having 30% chances to get critted against a CR 10 enemy when you're in plate armor with a shield is an enjoyable prospect.

bingo.

Crits generally help monsters more than PCs, unless the PC is specifically built for crits.

This also.

In 2e, with the Combat and Tactics supplement, crits became "18 or higher on the dice, and beat the AC by 5 or more." So, if you can only hit on a 20, you won't crit, but if you can hit on a 10, you still need at least an 18 on the die.

Crits went to people with better skills.

Did that include weapons mastery bonuses, or am I thinking about 1e Unearthed Arcana?

[Cikomyr2]

Death to arcane casters.
If that's what you want, that's what you'll get.

You say that like its a bad thing.

Omg, casters are becoming glass cannons again and we have to take care our most vulnerable members are protected from harm.

Oh noooes what will we do.

[LibraryOgre]

Did that include weapons mastery bonuses, or am I thinking about 1e Unearthed Arcana?

Flat, natural, die roll.

So, let's say you have a ThAC0 of 10, and your opponent convenient has an AC of 0. Between strength, weapon specialization, and magic weapons, you have a +4 to hit.

If the die shows 6-17, you will score a normal hit... 6+4 = 10 - 10 ThAC0 = Hits AC 0.
If the die shows 18, 19, or 20, you score a critical.

The die showing 17 will give you a total of 21, but it won't be a natural roll, so you won't crit.

Now, let's say your buddy has a ThAC0 of 20, but a +6 to hit (+2 from 18 Dex, +2 from point blank range with a specialized bow, +1 from being an elf, +1 from a magic bow). He can only hit an AC of 0 when his total is 20; with a +6, the die will need to be 14 or higher. If he rolls an 18, his total is 24... he does not crit, because he needed 5 higher (25 or more) than the total necessary to hit.

In short, you never have more than a 15% chance to critical, and you only have that if you've got a good bonus above the ThAC0.

[Unoriginal]

You say that like its a bad thing.

Omg, casters are becoming glass cannons again and we have to take care our most vulnerable members are protected from harm.

Oh noooes what will we do.

That would imply the rest would be able to protect them from harm.

Not happening with that houserule.

[Leon]

Hope you like Exploding PCs because that's what is going to happen. Change like this is significant in favor of the things the PCs fight thru volume of attacks. Not that some lethality in the bubble wrapped world 5e would be bad

[Theodoxus]

I could see using something like that on the player side. So, a nat20 is auto hit but not necessarily crit, and AC+X is a crit.

I'd probably do something different for the monster side of the equation. Either keep it per the book, or perhaps grant all armor a natural Damage Reduction equal to their [AC Bonus - 10]. So, Plate grants 8 DR; Padded grants 1. Then a crit bypasses this native DR of armor - I'll let others decide if dice should also be doubled, or crit just bypasses DR with no additional damage.

Magic should also increase the DR (so +2 Plate is DR 10. Mage Armor is DR 3). I don't think shields should be included in the calculation, though I do like the idea of sacrificing a shield to negate a crit (I think that's from 13th Age?). HAM isn't bypassed though - except by magical attacks, obviously. Feats shouldn't be easily negated by base homebrew rules.

[Rynjin]

You would want to implement a full "degrees of success/failure" system for this, like Savage Worlds or Mutants and Masterminds. It's fairly hard to convert an existing system to use this because it creates its own imbalances when you try to backport it to an existing one; this is part of why most spells feel so worthless in Pathfinder 2e. They tried to keep the same spell effects as 1e but shift them down based on degrees of failure...but have the same effects they used to have on a "normal success" be reserved for a critical success.

Not much point in casting a Fireball when ANY enemy can save for none.

[Cikomyr2]

Hope you like Exploding PCs because that's what is going to happen. Change like this is significant in favor of the things the PCs fight thru volume of attacks. Not that some lethality in the bubble wrapped world 5e would be bad

Yhea, so the PCs wouldnt just assume fighting 20 low level soldiers to be a walk in the park.

Its just a different way to engage threats. Everyone is more fragile, people can die of a single lucky sword stroke or arrow. Players may consider combat to be a thing to avoid rather than "one of ten encounter balanced for a proper adventuring day".

But i am not saying ***my*** play sensibilities are the best. I just dislike certain aspect of dnd where hp inflation make battles a bit chonky and extended, so exploding dice would help increase the swings and make fights dramatic except "something balanced to be faced 10 times"

[Rynjin]

I think it's also worth noting that there's a reason that competent RPGs which use a degrees of success system also have fundamentally different ways of "dealing damage" than D&D/Pathfinder do. Most of these systems have an attack roll, whereupon the defending player or enemy makes a saving throw to avoid damage. For everything, even standard melee attacks.

This inherently eliminates some of the swinginess.

[Skrum]

PCs who are not focused on AC will generally have between 15 and 19 AC for their whole careers.

PCs who are focused on AC will generally have between 20 and 23.

In my experience, EVERY character has AC in the low to mid 20's (once reactions like shield are factored in). Weird table....maybe? But we actually have rules *against* the stacking of certain benefits: like using a ring of protection and +1 armor at the same time. And still, virtually every character, except barbarians, has 20+ AC (or the ability to raise it that high as needed).

This isn't high end optimization. It's just basic stuff. IMO, if you're rolling with 16 AC and you're not a barb (or a ranged character that can avoid being attacked at all)... Lol that's on you.

[Amechra]

While people are focusing on the PC side of things... keep in mind that monster AC tends to be surprisingly low.

Like, let's say that the party is fighting a Knight (which have unusually high AC for a CR 3 creature). They have an AC of 18 (20 when parrying), which might sound high... but it means that someone with a +5 to hit is going to crit on an 18+ (20 if they choose to parry). And, again, that's against an enemy with high AC. A Winter Wolf has ~50% more HP than the Knight in order to compensate for having an AC of 13 — with this rule in play, someone with a +6 to hit would crit on a 13+ — you're about as likely to crit them as you are to hit normally!

Is this a bad thing? I dunno! All I know is that it definitely changes up the combat math — the Winter Wolf goes from needing +50% HP to make up for having lower AC to needing +100% HP, so a lot of "meatbag" monsters are going to suddenly be much more fragile than they are historically.

[LudicSavant]

So instead of an attacker being equally likely to crit a robed wizard as a plated fighter, it's much harder to crit the fighter.

The number doesn't have to be 5 either; it could be/probably should higher. Maybe 7?

Personally, I don't like the extra math involved and having to remember essentially two AC numbers, but I do like the base math - make having more armor worth more, as well as make boosting your attack roll that much better.

Robed Wizards have Shield. The real victims are going to be those meat sack monsters with like 11 AC.

Also, it's easier to boost a single attack's accuracy than multiple, so it'll be pretty easy to, say, make even something as basic as a (tier 3) Fire Bolt crit for ~+17 damage.

Also makes stuff like Bless and Peace Cleric Bond and Bardic Inspiration and so forth generate crits in addition to everything else.

[Unoriginal]

In my experience, EVERY character has AC in the low to mid 20's (once reactions like shield are factored in). Weird table....maybe?

As was established in the past, your table is very unusual, yes.

But we actually have rules *against* the stacking of certain benefits: like using a ring of protection and +1 armor at the same time. And still, virtually every character, except barbarians, has 20+ AC (or the ability to raise it that high as needed).

This isn't high end optimization. It's just basic stuff. IMO, if you're rolling with 16 AC and you're not a barb (or a ranged character that can avoid being attacked at all)... Lol that's on you.

Having more than 20 AC is definitively optimization. Perhaps not high-end, but optimization still.

I guess your table doesn't have any DEX-based character? Or everyone got magic armor early on?

Also, ranged characters can't "avoid being attacked at all", usually.

While people are focusing on the PC side of things... keep in mind that monster AC tends to be surprisingly low.

Like, let's say that the party is fighting a Knight (which have unusually high AC for a CR 3 creature). They have an AC of 18 (20 when parrying), which might sound high... but it means that someone with a +5 to hit is going to crit on an 18+ (20 if they choose to parry). And, again, that's against an enemy with high AC. A Winter Wolf has ~50% more HP than the Knight in order to compensate for having an AC of 13 — with this rule in play, someone with a +6 to hit would crit on a 13+ — you're about as likely to crit them as you are to hit normally!

Is this a bad thing? I dunno! All I know is that it definitely changes up the combat math — the Winter Wolf goes from needing +50% HP to make up for having lower AC to needing +100% HP, so a lot of "meatbag" monsters are going to suddenly be much more fragile than they are historically.

Also true.

[Skrum]

Having more than 20 AC is definitively optimization. Perhaps not high-end, but optimization still.

Taking the defensive fighting style, and then getting a +1 shield around level 6 or 7? That's 22 right there, with plate. Isn't that just...basic?

I guess your table doesn't have any DEX-based character? Or everyone got magic armor early on?

A few. Two bladesingers (each with 20ish AC when singing, plus shield). A couple of rogues, who have less AC - but they stay pretty far range. Not to say they don't get attacked at all, but they certainly get attacked a lot less - being 50, 60, 70 ft away will do that.

Also, ranged characters can't "avoid being attacked at all", usually.

No they can't - but they can mitigate a lot. If a melee character is gonna get swung on 10 times, and there's a 20% chance they get hit with each attack, a ranged character with a 50% chance of getting hit can equal out to the same overall mitigation by "not being there" for 6 of the 10 hits. Frankly, that sounds about accurate. A melee character gets attacked 5 times for every 2 times a ranged character does.

[Unoriginal]

Taking the defensive fighting style, and then getting a +1 shield around level 6 or 7? That's 22 right there, with plate. Isn't that just...basic?

1) Getting a specific magic item is never "just basic".

2) Having both the fighting style and access to plate is limited to Fighters and Paladins, unless a feat is spent.

3) Going shield + Defense fighting style is certainly possible... but it is definitively focusing on AC rather than something else. A PC could prefer Great Weapon Fighting and a greatsword, for example.

The point is that you have to commit to have that king of AC.

A few. Two bladesingers (each with 20ish AC when singing, plus shield). A couple of rogues, who have less AC - but they stay pretty far range. Not to say they don't get attacked at all, but they certainly get attacked a lot less - being 50, 60, 70 ft away will do that.

That requires having a battlefield that big, though

No they can't - but they can mitigate a lot. If a melee character is gonna get swung on 10 times, and there's a 20% chance they get hit with each attack, a ranged character with a 50% chance of getting hit can equal out to the same overall mitigation by "not being there" for 6 of the 10 hits. Frankly, that sounds about accurate. A melee character gets attacked 5 times for every 2 times a ranged character does.

So you don't face a lot of foes with ranged options?