4th Ed: Critical Hits!

[Ceres]

New article is up. Pretty sweet stuff. Of particular interest is the weapons-table.

Spoilered for your convinience:

Spoiler

Show

To score a critical hit in 4th Edition D&D, do the following:

Roll 20.

Simple enough, right? Just one number to remember. And more importantly, just one roll.

Yes, the confirmation roll is gone. So why did we get rid of it? Because we, like so many players, had rolled crits only to have the confirmation roll miss. And we didn't like it. We don't think that many people did. (I look forward to reading the posts of people who disagree.) Having one roll is faster, and it's more fun. It keeps the excitement of the 20, and ditches the disappointment of the failure to confirm.

Critical Damage

Here's the part that's going to take some getting used to: Critical hits don't deal double damage. This changed because doubling everything 5% of the time led to some pretty crazy spikes that were very unpredictable.

Let's say you roll a crit with a power that deals 1d10+4 normally. So the crit deals 2d10+8. The next turn, the monster attacks you using a power that deals 3d6+4 damage. He crits, dealing 6d6+8. Between the extra dice and the doubled ability modifier, that's a pretty huge difference! (And a pretty painful one.)

Instead, when you roll a critical hit, all the dice are maximized. So your 1d10+4 power deals 14 damage and the monster's 3d6+4 deals 22. Generally speaking, randomness is more of an advantage to monsters than PCs. More predictable critical damage keeps monsters from insta-killing your character.

Having maximized dice also helps out when you have multitarget attacks. You'll roll an attack roll against each target, so maximized dice keep you from needing to roll a bunch of dice over and over -- you can just write your crit damage on your character sheet for quick reference.

Beefing Up Your Crits

PCs also have some extra tricks up their sleeves to make their criticals better. Magic weapons (and implements for magical attacks) add extra damage on crits. So your +1 frost warhammer deals an extra 1d6 damage on a critical hit (so your crit's now up to 14+1d6 damage in the example above). Monsters don't get this benefit, so PC crits outclass monster crits most of the time.

Crits can be improved in a couple of other ways. Weapons can have the high crit property, giving extra dice on a crit. Like this:
{table=head]Weapon | Prof. | Damage | Range | Cost | Weight | Category | Properties
War Pick | 2 | d8 | -- | 15 gp | 6 lb. | Pick | High crit, versatile[/table]

In addition, some powers and magic items have extra effects on a hit. So crits are doing just fine without all those dice.

Crits in Play

In playtest, it does seem like critical hits come up more often. The subtitle of this article is stolen from Chris Tulach, who sings a bit of, "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Crit-mas" whenever the natural 20s come out to play. Fortunately, hit points are higher, especially at low levels, so there's a bigger buffer to keep those crits from killing people too quickly. It still feels great to roll one, but the fight goes on.

We've tried to corral the numbers but keep the feel that a critical hit is a special event. So grab your d20 and your big, nasty magic axe, and get ready to crit for the fences!

[Ecalsneerg]

So your +1 frost warhammer deals an extra 1d6 damage on a critical hit (so your crit's now up to 14+1d6 damage in the example above). Monsters don't get this benefit, so PC crits outclass monster crits most of the time.

I sincerely hope this is only implying monsters won't often have magic items, or this only exacerbates this slightly stupid "T3h PCs are 1337" line some of the 4e articles have shown so far.

Otherwise, hey, this is a much bigger simplification which makes sense. I like it.

[Spiryt]

Wow, any idea what "versatile" in description of pick is supposed to mean?

[Draz74]

One of the most interesting parts for me was the apparent "Proficiency Level" of the sample weapon (2). Apparently, now, weapon proficiency is a numerical stat, rather than a list of weapons you're proficient with. I like that ... although I'm not sure how it will work with Exotic weapons that should be one-shot deals.

As far as the Crit system ... I still really don't like:

- How a common Kobold fighting a mid-level guy in plate will get a critical hit anytime he gets a hit at all (i.e. on natural 20's). That's what the confirmation roll was for.

- How weapons can't be differentiated anymore by how often they crit (i.e. larger threat ranges). That was a great bit of flavor for scimitars, kukris, etc.

[Orzel]

Nice max damage on crits. Fear the deadly dagger!...

WAIT A SEC!

Prof 2?

Weapon proficiency is by numbers now. Zawhaaaaa?

[Crow]

Not really impressed one way or the other. I like the confirmation roll going away, but i will miss the multiplied damage. For us, that's what really made it exciting. The bit about getting the crit (or being critted upon), but the fight goes on was kind of a bummer as well. Our group cut it's teeth on Shadowrun and other high-lethality games. Sometimes a lucky shot can end your life, and we're used to it. Being able to score a battle-ending lucky shot or even the real threat of being hit by one yourself is something my group likes.

We'll see how things develop.

Oh yeah, and I preordered my core books already, so I am giving 4e a chance. Don't get on my case and say I'm just being negative.

[osyluth]

PCs also have some extra tricks up their sleeves to make their criticals better. Magic weapons (and implements for magical attacks) add extra damage on crits. So your +1 frost warhammer deals an extra 1d6 damage on a critical hit (so your crit's now up to 14+1d6 damage in the example above). Monsters don't get this benefit, so PC crits outclass monster crits most of the time.

Stupid. Monsters should follow the same rules as PCs.

In playtest, it does seem like critical hits come up more often. The subtitle of this article is stolen from Chris Tulach, who sings a bit of, "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Crit-mas" whenever the natural 20s come out to play. Fortunately, hit points are higher, especially at low levels, so there's a bigger buffer to keep those crits from killing people too quickly. It still feels great to roll one, but the fight goes on.

Extremely stupid. "Your axe splits his head down the middle. He keeps fighting, unhindered." This was a big problem in 3.5, 4th E is making it even worse.

[Spiryt]

Good point Draz...

With this system anemic halfling commoner can do quite serious damage to scaled dragon in 5% of strikes, when he have heavy pick or something.

Even if he has let's say - 8 penalty to attack.

I think that they should leave some confirmation.

[Kyeudo]

For the first time, the development team is doing something that I'm not a big fan of. Maximized damage on a crit instead of double damage is fine, but wierd extra damage on a crit just because its a magic weapon?

If it has a special property that triggers on a crit, that's fine with me, but just because I have a +1 sword shouldn't also give me a minor form of flaming burst.

Also, what about weapons with bigger crit ranges, like scimitars and rapiers?

[SurlySeraph]

...
Okay, I don't mind the change, but the justification for it makes no sense. In the example they gave, of course the monster's attack did much more average damage on a crit than the PC's average damage on a critical hit. It did considerably more average damage without a critical hit too.

They're saying it's bad that the damage is unpredictable? The POINT is that the damage is unpredictable! If everything was perfectly predictable, all the weapons did a fixed amount of damage instead of rolling dice, etc., someone would figure out how to break the system in a few weeks. When things are unpredictable, it means that many different options can be viable because it's harder to notice that on average they are less effective. Randomness is why it's fun - you don't KNOW whether you can beat every encounter or not until you try.

And the thing about randomness being an "advantage" to monsters over PCs? Well, first off, monsters are supposed to be powerful. An encounter of your CR should be winnable but not a pushover. It's not like there's some competition between monsters and PCs over who's "better"; it's a game. It's not a struggle between the DM and the PCs as to who can create the tougher challenge, it's a game. Plus, randomness does not consistently benefit anyone. That's what makes it random. It's called random, because who it helps is random, because its effects are random, so it's random!

The actual mechanics are good, though. Weapons still have different critical hit properties so you can't just choose the one with the biggest base damage and assume it's the best. Plus, I'm glad they dumped the confirmation roll. Those were irritating as all hell. As long as what they're doing is good, how they explain it doesn't matter.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Stupid. Monsters should follow the same rules as PCs.

No, they shouldn't. They never did, though--from monster abilities like Pounce and Improved Grab that PCs didn't used to have access to, to the many natural attacks players couldn't get, to the lack of magic items, monsters have never worked the same as PCs.

Extremely stupid. "Your axe splits his head down the middle. He keeps fighting, unhindered." This was a big problem in 3.5, 4th E is making it even worse.

...
Maybe if the enemy keeps fighting unhindered, you could try, I don't know, not describing it as splitting his head down the middle, maybe?

[Draz74]

"Your axe splits his head down the middle. He keeps fighting, unhindered." This was a big problem in 3.5, 4th E is making it even worse.

Meh ... at least 4E defines when HP actually represent physical wounds instead of dodging stamina/luck/morale. (I don't agree with their definition, which is "below 50% HP," but it's better than no definition.)

[Theodoxus]

Simple, don't make a nat 20 auto hit.

Sometimes you really just are that outmatched (or outmatching, depending.)

Sorry little kobold, you can't hit the armored knight. But hey, he doesn't get any xp for killing you because you're not a threat. Lose/lose ftw :)

Meh

I hated rolling confs. I use spells and abilities that minimize the need for confs.

FWIW, there's nothing stated that weapon won't have higher crit margins. (or feats ala Improved Critical.)

[Draz74]

Plus, randomness does not consistently benefit anyone. That's what makes it random. It's called random, because who it helps is random, because its effects are random, so it's random!

Actually, this part of what they said was correct. "Not a pushover" means "some small chance of actually losing if they dice treat you badly enough." "More random factors" means "more chance of the underdog actually getting lucky and winning." And in most encounters, the monsters are the underdog.

Not to mention, monsters are expendable, except for the occasional recurring NPC. The DM hasn't actually lost anything when randomness favors the PCs and they have an extra-easy encounter against those Wights. But when the randomness goes the other way and the Nagas get lucky and pick off the Wizard, the PCs have to work a lot harder to cover their loss.

[Spiryt]

Meh ... at least 4E defines when HP actually represent physical wounds instead of dodging stamina/luck/morale. (I don't agree with their definition, which is "below 50% HP," but it's better than no definition.)

I wonder, if they are doing what you had written, maybe they will develop some penalties for being wounded.

I mean, if HP will now clearly represent actual wounds, situation will look like that:

1HP of overall 95HP Your 5 ribs are broken by club impact, six arrows impaled your body, your respiratory system is serioulsy burned by some magic fumes, your left foot is almost off. Your head hurts, beacuse somebody droped small anvil on it.
But you are swinging your sword and avoiding attacks just as well as healthy guy. With no problems.

Then you fell someone's boot on your ass ( 2 damage), and you suddenly fall down all dying and stuff.

I know that situaton above can be described : " You are getting weaker and weaker, so the final enemy strike, just as dangerous as others, drops you down, while previous ones merealy hurted you".

But since you said

HP actually represent physical wounds

...

[MammonAzrael]

I like the critical confirmation going away. Most of the time our group didn't use it anyways.

I'm guessing the "High Crit" property will be replacing the x3 and x4 criting weapons. I'd also think that there will be a property for the weapons that crit on rolls other than 20.

As for that +1 Frost Warhammer, I hope the Frost property will be doing something when you don't crit. I've never been a fan of enchantments that only activate on a crit.

And for those who still want your crits to be potentially life ending, go use the 2nd Ed Critical Tables. Fun times.

[Orzel]

The confirmation roll never made all that sense to me anyway. If I rolled the nat 20, that means I got lucky and broke your defense. Rolling again is stupid since I broke your defense already.

Double damage never made sense to me either. The varying damage of the weapon represents the varying threat of the weapon. If I broke your defense, my attack should deal the maximum threat not double it.

I'm glad their combining the auto hit and the critical hit into one. If Lil Timmy gets lucky and stabs Sir Thomas in the face, he got lucky and stabbed Sir Thomas in the face. He doesn't roll a 20 (attack) then a 2 (confirm) then a 1(damage) and stab his middle toe.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Having maximized dice also helps out when you have multitarget attacks. You'll roll an attack roll against each target, so maximized dice keep you from needing to roll a bunch of dice over and over -- you can just write your crit damage on your character sheet for quick reference.

Great less rolling.

PCs also have some extra tricks up their sleeves to make their criticals better. Magic weapons (and implements for magical attacks) add extra damage on crits. So your +1 frost warhammer deals an extra 1d6 damage on a critical hit (so your crit's now up to 14+1d6 damage in the example above).

Ahh, I see what you guys did there... you rolled the less rolling back.

[Jothki]

I was kind of hoping that crits would lower the target's condition, instead of spiking damage. That way, they would be nastily effective without being overly lethal.

[Matthew]

No, they shouldn't. They never did, though--from monster abilities like Pounce and Improved Grab that PCs didn't used to have access to, to the many natural attacks players couldn't get, to the lack of magic items, monsters have never worked the same as PCs.

Wow, I actually agree with Rachel about something.

Great less rolling.

Ahh, I see what you guys did there... you rolled the less rolling back.

My thoughts exactly. I think I see where this is going...

[Draz74]

I'd also think that there will be a property for the weapons that crit on rolls other than 20.

Any ideas? (Either speculation or Homebrew, it's effectively the same thing at this point.) Because I'll need something to use in my games for this stuff.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Who here ever actually doubled the dice? My group has always rolled normally and double the result, easy. We all got criticals every now and then, we all enjoyed doubling the result. This is going to cheapen the event for us, I think.

For example: [In 3.5]
P1: Yes! Critical hit on the Troll!
DM: That's 2d8+8 damage then. Roll 'em monkeyboy
P2: If it's anything more than 15 the thing goes down!
P1: 8! Yes! That's 16+8, for a total of 24 damage!

[In 4E]
P1: Yes! Critical hit on the Troll!
DM: That's max damage then.
P2: Okay, so it'll go down slightly faster than I thought
P1: Great, we just need to get through the next 3 hit points plus 5 for Regen with no Cleric and a disabled Wizard. Anyone have a pen?

[lord_khaine]

i really dislike this new change, as allready mentioned it allows for a lot less differentiation of weapons, and less rolling isnt allways better.

[Kyeudo]

I don't miss the confirmation roll going, since it always sucks to have a threat hit and then fail to crit.

I don't miss the randomness on crits going. Ever crit for 2 damage? It sucks.

But adding wierd extras to what should be a simple damage boost is not a good idea.

[GoC]

Hopefuly they've remove the "20 is always a hit" thing then...

[Lyinginbedmon]

Hopefuly they've remove the "20 is always a hit" thing then...

That was always a variant anyways

[North]

I dunno. I like the idea of getting rid of confirmation rolls. Max damage instead of doubling. It could work, but theres lots of valid points of it making weapons less unique. Although getting rid of ridiculous duel keen kukris is nice.

[Artanis]

That was always a variant anyways

Not according to the SRD it isn't.

[Dhavaer]

That was always a variant anyways

What? From the SRD:

Automatic Misses and Hits

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.

[TheThan]

I’m hit and miss with this (no pun indended). I like how they combined both rolls into one and really like how they redefined hit points (something that was a huge pet peve with me to begin with).

Now I don’t like how they simply maxed out damage on crits. Sure its not that bad of a mechanic. But a 1d4-damage knife is still going to not do that much to that 180 hit point monster. I would much rather see some sort of condition track. I would love rules that granted you the ability to create conditions on your foes. For example a mace should be able to stagger and stun an opponent (via bashing them in the head). While a dagger should be able to cause bleeding wounds or an axe that could sever limbs. It would make it so that any weapon a hero chooses is going to be effective. Players would have much more options, and there would be reasons to take other weapons other than the “best” weapons available (IE spiked chain, great sword, and any high crit weapons).