# Confirming crits, good idea, bad idea, or worst idea ever



## Bohemian Ear Spoon (Feb 16, 2012)

I never understood the use or need for crit confirming.  it adds a second roll that turns "awesome!" into "WTF!" and really, all it does is make it go from a 5% chance of occurrence to a 3-4% chance, what is the point, use, or value in this rule?  It seems like a math fix where there wasn't a problem.  i ran crits on nat 20s for years and it never seemed like "I need to confirm!"  The whole idea seems alien and weird.

The reason I bring it up is because I read in a report that they have crit confirmation in the 5e playtests, and i would like to put in a vote for executing this mathy, unneeded complexity with fire.


----------



## Hassassin (Feb 16, 2012)

Make it full damage before confirmation and let the roll add even moar damage or cool things like tripping.


----------



## steeldragons (Feb 16, 2012)

Bohemian Ear Spoon said:


> I never understood the use or need for crit confirming.  it adds a second roll that turns "awesome!" into "WTF!" and really, all it does is make it go from a 5% chance of occurrence to a 3-4% chance, what is the point, use, or value in this rule?  It seems like a math fix where there wasn't a problem.  i ran crits on nat 20s for years and it never seemed like "I need to confirm!"  The whole idea seems alien and weird.
> 
> The reason I bring it up is because I read in a report that they have crit confirmation in the 5e playtests, and i would like to put in a vote for executing this mathy, unneeded complexity with fire.




100% Agreed. "Alien and weird" is a great way of putting it.

Utterly pointless.

Never used it. Never will.


----------



## Grazzt (Feb 16, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> 100% Agreed. "Alien and weird" is a great way of putting it.
> 
> Utterly pointless.
> 
> Never used it. Never will.




Agreed. Nat 20 = crit. Done.


----------



## JeffB (Feb 16, 2012)

Not a fan,especially  for the "wtf" reason mentioned in the 1st para of the OP. Agreed also with gist of Hassassins post.


----------



## Cassander (Feb 16, 2012)

Going back to the time before 3e came out, I had always been against critical hits before because I thought it was ridiculous that someone with a high chance to hit would have the same chance to crit as someone with a low chance to hit. For example, if you could hit a weak monster on an 11 or more, then only 10% of your hits would be crits. But facing big, bad, armored monster, where ya need an 18 or more to hit, then suddenly 33% of your hits would be crits. Huh?

3e sold me on crits by adding the confirmation roll, which did away with this problem.

Nowadays, that issue isn't quite as important to me, though I still like confirming crits due to 1) tension/excitement and 2 nostalgia. Definitely preferred crits in 3e to 4e.


----------



## delericho (Feb 16, 2012)

I prefer rolling to confirm, but only marginally - it's certainly not something I'm going to take a big stand over.

In particular, I quite like the idea that the character, on rolling a 20, could choose - roll to confirm the crit (and get more damage) or instead make an attempt to sunder/disarm/trip his opponent.


----------



## Hassassin (Feb 16, 2012)

Bohemian Ear Spoon said:


> I never understood the use or need for crit confirming.  it adds a second roll that turns "awesome!" into "WTF!" and really, all it does is make it go from a 5% chance of occurrence to a 3-4% chance, what is the point, use, or value in this rule?




BTW, the problem the confirm attempts to solve is that someone with 10% chance to hit should be critting a lot less than someone with a 90% chance. Without confirm both have a 5% chance. With the confirm, the former becomes a 0.5% chance and the latter a 4.5% chance.

If you don't have something like that, you are going to make combat against a lot of weak monsters more swingy than combat against a single strong monster. You can't really do x3 critical damage and expect reasonable results. Hence, max damage in 4e.

Edit: TL;DR - what [MENTION=8838]Cassander[/MENTION] said.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2012)

I understand the reasoning behind confirming crits, which Hassassin lays out pretty well; it removes the extreme case where every hit is a crit because you need a natural 20 to hit in the first place. With confirmation rolls, 5% of all _hits_ are critical, instead of 5% of all _attacks_.

If we had a computer doing all the math for us and rolling the dice, I'd be in favor of confirming crits. However, since we don't (and I wouldn't want to), I find it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd rather just have crit on a 20 and accept the slight wonkiness.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 16, 2012)

Never liked this rule. A twenty should be a crit.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 16, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I understand the reasoning behind confirming crits, which Hassassin lays out pretty well; it removes the extreme case where every hit is a crit because you need a natural 20 to hit in the first place. If we had a computer doing all the math for us and rolling the dice, I'd be in favor of confirming crits. However, since we don't (and I wouldn't want to), I find it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd rather just have crit on a 20 and accept the slight wonkiness.




In this case, it might make sense to require a back up roll. But i dont see the need if you are rolling against AC 18


----------



## tlantl (Feb 16, 2012)

I don't mind confirming crits but it would be nice if there aren't threat ranges on weapons. 

I also believe that if you need to roll a 20 to hit something then you are never going to get a critical hit if you ever do hit it.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Feb 16, 2012)

I like (and miss) crit threat ranges. I dislike confirming crits. To hell with realism, I want my 20 to mean something!


----------



## billd91 (Feb 16, 2012)

tlantl said:


> I don't mind confirming crits but it would be nice if there aren't threat ranges on weapons.
> 
> I also believe that if you need to roll a 20 to hit something then you are never going to get a critical hit if you ever do hit it.




That handles that case sure. But should a person who needs a 19 to hit have the same overall crit rate as someone who only needs a 11? Why does the less skilled combatant crit on 50% of his hits vs this opponent while the guy who needs a 11 or better crits on only 10%?

I've seen crit systems that apply if someone rolls 5 more than needed to hit the minimum AC. Adding that to the natural 20 might alleviate the problems associated with different abilities of the combatants.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Feb 16, 2012)

While confirming the critical makes a degree of sense, for the reasons mentioned above, it is antithetical to the reasons we like critical hits on a 20, which is that we _want_ a natural 20 to mean something special every time. It's the same reason why automatic success and failure rules for skills became a common house rule, and why a 20 on a roll was often granted a higher level of success.

If you recall the polls here and on Wizards.com from a couple days ago, which asked which features you wanted to see in D&DNext, _Critical Hits_ was consistently the most universally wanted mechanic. The specialness of a natural 20, no matter how gamist it might be, rises above other concerns. It resonates with us. Anything that diminishes that is a tragedy.


----------



## delericho (Feb 16, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> BTW, the problem the confirm attempts to solve is that someone with 10% chance to hit should be critting a lot less than someone with a 90% chance. Without confirm both have a 5% chance. With the confirm, the former becomes a 0.5% chance and the latter a 4.5% chance.




Yep, that's the theory. Of course, in practice you're almost always fighting monsters with an AC in the mid-range - you have a decent, but not certain, chance of scoring a hit.



Jeff Carlsen said:


> While confirming the critical makes a degree of sense, for the reasons mentioned above, it is antithetical to the reasons we like critical hits on a 20, which is that we _want_ a natural 20 to mean something special every time. It's the same reason why automatic success and failure rules for skills became a common house rule, and why a 20 on a roll was often granted a higher level of success.




I agree. Getting some special effect on that nat-20 is indeed cool, even if it is probably that little bit too frequent. By the same token, I absolutely don't agree with crits on anything less than the natural-20 _unless_ we're bringing back the confirmation roll.

I wouldn't agree with your 'tragedy' assessment, but I certainly agree that the emotional argument for "natural 20 = crit" is definitely very strong.


----------



## Paraxis (Feb 16, 2012)

What if you only crit on a nat '20' wich equals max damage, but instead of confirmation had a margin of success bonus where if you get 10 higher than the AC you add dX damage.  This way sometimes when get that nat '20' you also get the extra damage sometimes you don't.

So no confirmation roll but the higher skilled vs easier to hit target still get a bonus some of the time independent of rolling a critical.

I do like the idea of having an extra effect of crits like trip, bull rush, ect...seems kind of like stunt points from Dragon Age wich are cool.

EDIT:  Second Idea, have a crit be on natural '20' only but have it do max damage plus the number you exceeded the targets AC by, so you roll a 20 have a +7 to hit and the targets AC was 15 you do max damage plus 12.


----------



## tlantl (Feb 16, 2012)

billd91 said:


> That handles that case sure. But should a person who needs a 19 to hit have the same overall crit rate as someone who only needs a 11? Why does the less skilled combatant crit on 50% of his hits vs this opponent while the guy who needs a 11 or better crits on only 10%?
> 
> I've seen crit systems that apply if someone rolls 5 more than needed to hit the minimum AC. Adding that to the natural 20 might alleviate the problems associated with different abilities of the combatants.




By confirming a critical you need to reroll the die and hit it again. That is why confirmations work better in those situations. If you need a 19 to hit and don't roll one there is no critical hit.

In that play test the confirmation was for extra damage, though.

The game has always assumed that the guy behind the screen has the final say at the table. The group gives you that authority by letting you sit there, they should trust you to make good decisions or at least have a good reason for the one you made. If it doesn't seem fair that everyone regardless of skill can do max damage on a 20 then communicate that to the group. If you are playing at another table and the DM likes that rule then you can advocate for a house rule, live with it, or go find another group to play with.

I am going to assume that some form of critical hit bonus is going to be core. I also assume they will give us a few different methods of determining the methods used to confirm the crit and the resulting bonus.


----------



## Hassassin (Feb 16, 2012)

delericho said:


> Yep, that's the theory. Of course, in practice you're almost always fighting monsters with an AC in the mid-range - you have a decent, but not certain, chance of scoring a hit.




In 4e that's true, and another reason auto-confirm works.

In 3e you'll see a lot of variation, even in balanced encounters. A CR 5 monster may have AC 20+. Four CR 1 monsters (still EL 5) may have AC 10-13. The same is true for attack bonuses.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 16, 2012)

I wouldn't be terribly worked up if confirm rolls were removed altogether, and only moderately annoyed if they remained. (They aren't difficult to remove.) It's what having them says about the rest of the system that is more pertinent to me.

I would really prefer that natural 20 mean -- "max damage on current roll" + "extra damage roll based on whatever weapon, magic, and special crit options you have with that attack" --then with options to replace the second part of that with a variety of effects (if you want). For one thing, it's a lot easier to manipulate the options to get the style that a table wants. 

With such a system, a compromise position might be to require confirmations for the extra part (either damage or some option that replaced it), but only when the creatures needs some arbitrary cut off to hit in the first place. Let's say 15+ required to hit, for sake of example, but it might be more in the range of 16 to 18, depending on system expectations. 

That's high enough that it will not apply to many routine attacks, which are probably more in the 45% to 65% range. But it's low enough that it will apply to many creatures with high defenses (i.e. boss monsters that you'd just as soon not go down to a string of natural 20's from a relatively weak attack). That is, use the 80/20 rule here, requiring a confirmation roll on the minority of attacks where it really matters that much, but not slowing the game down otherwise. 

In a close fight, it also turns borderline attacks against tough creatures into situations where a little bit of bonus can mean a lot. So that fighter flanking the dragon with the rogue, and getting a +2 to hit, could mean a lot more than 10% increased chance of hitting.

Even when you can't get the extra, at least you get the max damage on a natural 20. If your character is one of those concepts of high chance to hit with extra effects, relatively low base damage (AKA - a crit fisher), then a string of crits at the very least gives you some solid damage even against very defensive opponents. Likewise, if you are one of those brawny barbarian types with the d10 or d12 base dice and lots of mods in your relatively low chance to hit attacks, getting the max damage is nice in its own right, even if you can't confirm.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 16, 2012)

SpydersWebbing said:


> I like (and miss) crit threat ranges. I dislike confirming crits. To hell with realism, I want my 20 to mean something!




This.


----------



## Kingreaper (Feb 16, 2012)

Confirming crits=annoying.

Now, if nat 20=crit, and you then roll to see if it's a minor or a major critical, could be an interesting mechanic, but nat 20 needs to be "Cool I crit!" not "Cool I... Oh, wait, confirmation roll... oh, a 5, well I guess I just hit then :-("


----------



## mkill (Feb 16, 2012)

The weird part wasn't just crit confirmation, it was also the weird dance around getting rid of it with a feat or class feature. It was just not possible, all you could get was a +4 on the roll IIRC. 3E just had too many fiddly bits in all places. It's like one of those swiss army knife with 30 tools - sure, it promises that you can do anything, but try to do any real work with it and it breaks in your hands.

My top 3 of "3E fiddly bits I houseruled out, never missed and never want to see again"

* cross-class skills cost 2 per rank
* favored class
* crit confirmation

Funny that PF kicked #1, left #2 in but made it bearable and kept #3


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 16, 2012)

It should also be noted that if you are absolutely wedded to the concept of directly simulating "people with more accurate attacks critical more often, however swingy those criticals are," then confirmation rolls is probably your best mechanic. 

However, if what you want is the concept of "people with more accurate attacks do more damage on criticals," then you can get the same effect with less annoyance and handling time by simply adding an extra damage roll for crits, based on the flat plus of the attack. This is especially true in a system that seeks to flatten out the attack bonus.

That is, you don't need to consider the relative accuracy of the attack versus the AC (or other defense). If Joe the 1st level Fighter has +4 to hit with his longsword, he gets some modest bonus to damage on all crits (in addition to max damage or normal roll or whatever else you do to make them special). Joe at 10th level hits harder, so that number goes up.

Except for one special case, it gets tricky to include special modifiers (like +2 to flanking) in that equation, but some might see that as feature, not bug. You get bonus damage on criticals based on your raw accuracy--separate from the situation. Of course, if you define the system where the bonus to damage on crits equals the modifier you had with the attack, then it isn't that hard to include the situations, either. Flanking becomes +2 to hit and +2 damage on crits, every time. (Such a system would presumably keep the base damage relatively low.)


----------



## Estlor (Feb 16, 2012)

I'm not a fan of rolling to confirm crits.  I prefer the simplicity of 4e where 20 = auto-hit, if it hits anyway it's a crit.

That said, they're a little more palatable under the model of the confirmation roll only being for the BONUS damage.  The fact that a nat. 20 still gets you an auto-hit and max damage makes it meaningful even if you fail to confirm.


----------



## delericho (Feb 16, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I would really prefer that natural 20 mean -- "max damage on current roll" + "extra damage roll based on whatever weapon, magic, and special crit options you have with that attack" --then with options to replace the second part of that with a variety of effects (if you want). For one thing, it's a lot easier to manipulate the options to get the style that a table wants.




Too powerful for my taste. Way too powerful for my taste.

If we're having 20 auto-crit, then a critical should simply be "max damage (inc bonuses)". Even the 4e effects that do even more damage on a crit should be eliminated.

Only if we're having a confirmation roll should we have "roll double damage" or "max damage plus even more damage" or "roll damage plus effect".

Having a 20 auto-crit already makes crits a bit too common. I would agree that that's fine because of the emotional argument that "a 20 should be special"... but if we're going that way then we should make sure we don't make a 20 _too_ special.

IMO, of course.


----------



## Bohemian Ear Spoon (Feb 16, 2012)

it seems like rolling nat 20s still only happes a couple times a session, how is that too common?  My theory is that the fuzzy math involved in confirming crits has no bearing in real world game play.

on the other hand, critting on anything other than a nat 20 blows my argument out of the water.

On the third hand, I would be content with a crit being auto max damage and then a roll to confirm "extra bad-assery"


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 16, 2012)

delericho said:


> Too powerful for my taste. Way too powerful for my taste.
> 
> If we're having 20 auto-crit, then a critical should simply be "max damage (inc bonuses)". Even the 4e effects that do even more damage on a crit should be eliminated...




Part of my assumption that this structure is able to cater to a wider variety of styles is that it allows you to turn that "extra thing on crit" into "nothing" easily, if you so choose. Max damage on a natural 20 is a relatively modest base from which to do that. Or more likely, you use the normal rolled damage + some relatively modest extra on critical. 

You can't so easily manipulate something like the 3E great axe crit multiplier, because it has such a wide range of effect for a relatively narrow set of parameters.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 16, 2012)

I miss the old days where you had a 5% chance of getting your head lopped off.


----------



## delericho (Feb 16, 2012)

Bohemian Ear Spoon said:


> it seems like rolling nat 20s still only happes a couple times a session, how is that too common?




Well, auto-crit on a nat-20 is a flat 5% of all attacks resulting in a crit (barring the corner case of the very-high AC... but frankly, I'd be inclined to just drop that rule). With five PCs and five monsters, that's an average of one crit every other round or so.

Basically, yeah, I feel that that's "too common". I would be much happier with the 2-3% chance that the confirmation roll gives.

Of course, it's all a matter of taste. YMMV, and all that.


----------



## hemera (Feb 16, 2012)

I personally hate them with a passion, but that stems from a keen rapier and really bad luck on confirmation rolls. 

Objectively though, I do think it diminishes the "specialness" of the natural 20 a bit. I do like the idea of trading the crit for a disarm, trip, sunder attempt though. That's a mighty fine idea! ^.^


----------



## Stormonu (Feb 16, 2012)

In my game, we treat the d20 roll as an "open roll".  That is, if you roll a 20, you get to roll again to hit again.  Should you roll 20 again, you get to attempt a 3rd hit, and so on. (Similar mechanic for fumbles)

So technically, in my game it's not a confirmation so much as a chance to get in extra "hits".  Though now I'm considering to make it that on a 20, the damage is also maxxed (the second/confirm roll wouldn't be automatically maxxed).


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> It should also be noted that if you are absolutely wedded to the concept of directly simulating "people with more accurate attacks critical more often, however swingy those criticals are," then confirmation rolls is probably your best mechanic.
> 
> However, if what you want is the concept of "people with more accurate attacks do more damage on criticals," then you can get the same effect with less annoyance and handling time by simply adding an extra damage roll for crits, based on the flat plus of the attack. This is especially true in a system that seeks to flatten out the attack bonus.
> 
> That is, you don't need to consider the relative accuracy of the attack versus the AC (or other defense). If Joe the 1st level Fighter has +4 to hit with his longsword, he gets some modest bonus to damage on all crits (in addition to max damage or normal roll or whatever else you do to make them special). Joe at 10th level hits harder, so that number goes up.




To boil this down to the simplest possible version: Any natural 20 is a crit, and the meaning of "crit" is "bonus damage equal to your attack bonus." So if you've got +7 to hit, then you get +7 damage any time you roll a 20 on the attack roll.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 16, 2012)

I don't mind the confirmation roll if there's also a critical range being used (not just 20, but like 19-20, 18-20, etc.).  But I also think that natural 20's should be automatic crits and not require a confirmation roll.

Twenty always brings the pain.


----------



## vagabundo (Feb 16, 2012)

If the leak is true then the new crit mechanic seems pretty tasty. Max damage is the meat and potatoes.The confirmation roll the gravy. Even if I don't make it I still have a satisfying meal.

Now for dessert I want a generous helping of critical fumbles.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2012)

vagabundo said:


> Now for dessert I want a generous helping of critical fumbles.




Ick, no. I freaking hate critical fumbles. Auto-miss on a natural 1 is plenty. If crit fumbles must be in the system, I hope they're off in some extremely optional module.


----------



## vagabundo (Feb 16, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Ick, no. I freaking hate critical fumbles. Auto-miss on a natural 1 is plenty. If crit fumbles must be in the system, I hope they're off in some extremely optional module.




Don't be such a wuss, soldier. What kind of adventurer are you?


----------



## JoesephBear (Feb 16, 2012)

Nat 20 = Crit.

A crit is an automtic hit.

Roll damage, then double it.


That's how I've always done it. That's how I always will do it.


----------



## BobTheNob (Feb 16, 2012)

Grazzt said:


> Agreed. Nat 20 = crit. Done.



Eh. We have to remember WHY confirms were there in the first place. The level 10 warrior with  his +X plate, his +Something Feat, His "Shield of you shall not hit me"

Then a goblin with a lowsy to-hit comes up at take a shot. The goblin needs to get a 19 or better to hit.

That means they will hit once every ten swings but 50% of those hits will crit

Thats what I call odd


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Feb 16, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> Make it full damage before confirmation and let the roll add even moar damage or cool things like tripping.




That's what the NDA "breaks" say it is, not crit confirmation.

It's likely this: 

Some people like crit confirmation 'cause it stops the problem of always critting if you always need a 20 to hit, and removes some swingy-ness.

Everyone hates it when they roll a crit and fail the confirmation. It's a huge burst of your fun bubble.

Some people hate crit confirmation because of the above, and because it's just another die roll.

WotC probably decided to check if they removed the bubble-burst, but kept the rest, they could have the best of both worlds.  It's a test, and really, really easy to change before publication if no-one likes it.

But for now they are testing: Crit for max damage, hit again for extra damage (and/or riders?).

Not the same as confirming crits, but may still prove unpopular.

I kinda like it, though I'd have to play with it awhile to see for sure.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 16, 2012)

The idea that a low level wizard swinging a stick is just as likely to crit a storm giant as a skilled fighter is to crit an average orc is dysfunctional.

The idea that weapons can gain distinction through crit differences is cool.

A 20 is still cool because it is an autohit.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 16, 2012)

For the longest time I hated confirming crits.  Why?  Because I had a bad DM who did it wrong, and I was under the impression that in order to confirm you had to get a nat 20, twice.(that makes for a .00025% chance to crit)

Then I learned how confirming crits REALLY worked.  And I hate it less, but still feel it's wholly unnecessary.


----------



## Bohemian Ear Spoon (Feb 16, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> Eh. We have to remember WHY confirms were there in the first place. The level 10 warrior with  his +X plate, his +Something Feat, His "Shield of you shall not hit me"
> 
> Then a goblin with a lowsy to-hit comes up at take a shot. The goblin needs to get a 19 or better to hit.
> 
> ...





So its a rule for something that never would happen.  Goblin survived 10 rounds against a 10th level warrior?  he deserved to get critted.  Or maybe it was 20 goblins, and they got 2 got crits, so that is double damage from a GOBLIN at level 10.  Double damage is still pathetic ,and doesnt break any simulationism I can see.

if a wizard should go toe to toe with a storm giant and opt to whack him with a staff and rolls a d20, you bet he deserves the crit (ooh 1d6 doubled that giant is in trouble!) because it will probably be the last crit the wizard ever gets.

This rule is for some sense of realistic alignment of averages for corner cases that never happen and are so silly that crits are the least of the realism-wrecking going on.  That's my opinion of course, but it is infallible (to me)


----------



## The Human Target (Feb 16, 2012)

How many times in 3e did I see a players face light up with joy on a "Crit", only to see them remember they had to roll to confirm it and then fail and then get sad.


----------



## tlantl (Feb 16, 2012)

Bohemian Ear Spoon said:


> So its a rule for something that never would happen.  Goblin survived 10 rounds against a 10th level warrior?  he deserved to get critted.  Or maybe it was 20 goblins, and they got 2 got crits, so that is double damage from a GOBLIN at level 10.  Double damage is still pathetic ,and doesnt break any simulationism I can see.
> 
> if a wizard should go toe to toe with a storm giant and opt to whack him with a staff and rolls a d20, you bet he deserves the crit (ooh 1d6 doubled that giant is in trouble!) because it will probably be the last crit the wizard ever gets.
> 
> This rule is for some sense of realistic alignment of averages for corner cases that never happen and are so silly that crits are the least of the realism-wrecking going on.  That's my opinion of course, but it is infallible (to me)




Perhaps if you remove the goblin and replace the name with rogue or wizard and put them into your own party and looked at it from that perspective it becomes more relevant. 

It was pointed out by a poster earlier that they didn't think it was fair that someone who needed to hit on an 18 critted statistically more often than a player that hit the same creature with a roll of 11.


----------



## kitsune9 (Feb 16, 2012)

I know there's some gamers who don't like crit confirming and I definitely see their point. However, I love it. When you're in a battle for your life and you really really need a crit, it's awesome to roll that confirm to either get it or blow it. I enjoy that extra level of tension and possible frustration.

I know the argument can be said just for the to-hit roll and I see that point, but I just love me some confirms, just sayin'.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 16, 2012)

Crits are hard to design right. If you're going to have them (which D&D has to), you need to have them occurring on rolls other than 20 (as 3e did). Then again, you don't want them becoming ubiquitous. Confirmation was a somewhat inelegant solution, but it is the best crit system we've seen in any version of D&D thusfar, and I haven't seen any better ideas.



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> The idea that a low level wizard swinging a stick is just as likely to crit a storm giant as a skilled fighter is to crit an average orc is dysfunctional.
> 
> The idea that weapons can gain distinction through crit differences is cool.
> 
> A 20 is still cool because it is an autohit.



These are all good points.


----------



## Herschel (Feb 16, 2012)

Worst. Idea. Ever.

It was one of the things I hated most about 3E. The skilled guy who gets the crit finds an opening to use and the unskilled guy who gets the crit got lucky. A 20 is a 20, voila! Done. 

I also like the 4E crit math if you aren't going to have an effects chart. The chart is fun, but rather random.


----------



## delericho (Feb 16, 2012)

vagabundo said:


> If the leak is true then the new crit mechanic seems pretty tasty. Max damage is the meat and potatoes.The confirmation roll the gravy.




I do not like it. Either auto-crit on a nat-20 for max damage, or a confirmation roll for crits with whatever riders you want.

Pick one, I don't really care which. But this approach is just too powerful, and will be a strike against 5e in my eyes.



Dausuul said:


> Ick, no. I freaking hate critical fumbles. Auto-miss on a natural 1 is plenty.




Likewise, I detest critical fumbles.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> ...you need to have them occurring on rolls other than 20 (as 3e did).




Why?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 16, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> To boil this down to the simplest possible version: Any natural 20 is a crit, and the meaning of "crit" is "bonus damage equal to your attack bonus." So if you've got +7 to hit, then you get +7 damage any time you roll a 20 on the attack roll.




One of the nice minor side effects of that option is that a 10th level fighter forced to use a mundane dagger during an escape still crits pretty darn hard compared to 1st level guy with a battle axe.  That is, "improved critical damage" is a function of getting better with an attack--which is the way things would really be in any kind of world with even a nod to realism.  As opposed to "only people who train with specific weapons, have magic, or take special feats" hit harder on criticals.

There is a sense in which criticals are out of place in a system as abstract as D&D, with attack rolls and then a range of damages.  They aren't as bad as "called shots to the head" in that respect, but still a bit off.  This kind of critical mechanic fits the abstraction that "skilled guy hits harder".


----------



## fuindordm (Feb 16, 2012)

I really liked the 3E crit system. It made weapon choice more interesting, crits occur with the right frequency for skilled/unskilled characters, and rewarded martial characters in a minor but exciting way.  I wasn't happy about the 3.5 tweak that kept Keen and Imp. Critical from stacking. 

However, I also agree that the "Cool, nat 20! Aww..." letdown sucked for players. So I would be very excited about a system where the 20 always netted a minor bonus, such as max damage, but the confirmation roll did something more exciting.

As a side note, my 2E DM required a confirmation roll of 20 for critical hits--he thought 1/400 was the right frequency. If you got a crit, the opponent had to save vs. death or drop to -1 hp immediately.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 16, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Why?



That would be this other post I quoted:


> The idea that a low level wizard swinging a stick is just as likely to crit a storm giant as a skilled fighter is to crit an average orc is dysfunctional.
> 
> The idea that weapons can gain distinction through crit differences is cool



There's also the kobold problem. If an inferior opponent who can only hit on a 20 crits you with every hit, that makes combat too swingy. It shouldn't be impossible to have a non-critical hit.

Do you have a point as to why critical threat ranges (and multipliers) are not a good thing?


----------



## The Human Target (Feb 16, 2012)

A wizard with a stick can crit all day long, he's still not going to do anything compared to a fighter hitting all day long, let alone crit-ing.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That would be this other post I quoted:
> There's also the kobold problem. If an inferior opponent who can only hit on a 20 crits you with every hit, that makes combat too swingy. It shouldn't be impossible to have a non-critical hit.
> 
> Do you have a point as to why critical threat ranges (and multipliers) are not a good thing?




Not as such, no. I have no objection to critical threat ranges or multipliers; I just don't feel a compelling need for them that would justify the inclusion of an additional die roll--one more small element slowing down combat.

I understand and agree that "If you need a 20 to hit, you always crit" is an undesirable result, and the Perfect Crit Rules would not produce it. However, I have not found that it's an issue for me in practice, and therefore I prefer to keep the system clean, fast, and simple. How often is the wizard taking on monsters with a stick? Except at very low levels--where there isn't a huge difference between wizard and fighter attack bonuses to begin with--it's extremely rare for anybody to be using weapons except the trained weapon-users. In fact, when the wizard is going head-to-head in melee, I _want_ her to crit often, because that means the situation is desperate and the party is probably teetering on the brink of a TPK.

With respect to fighting a bazillion kobolds, it depends on how much damage their crits inflict. If they attack for 1d4 and crit on a 20 for double damage... they're dealing 2d4. On one attack out of twenty. Meh. Or if you're using the 4E approach, they're minions with fixed damage, so a crit does nothing for them.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 16, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Not as such, no. I have no objection to critical threat ranges or multipliers; I just don't feel a compelling need for them that would justify the inclusion of an additional die roll--one more small element slowing down combat.
> 
> I understand and agree that "If you need a 20 to hit, you always crit" is an undesirable result, and the Perfect Crit Rules would not produce it. However, I have not found that it's an issue for me in practice, and therefore I prefer to keep the system clean, fast, and simple. How often is the wizard taking on monsters with a stick? Except at very low levels--where there isn't a huge difference between wizard and fighter attack bonuses to begin with--it's extremely rare for anybody to be using weapons except the trained weapon-users.



I thought that was an interesting idea; base the results of the crot on how skilled you are, and perhaps onee that would reduce the power of crits enough to have threat ranges without confirmation rolls.

I'm not an enormous fan of having to roll extra dice, but I would hesitate to change something that works. That said, I do hope they come up with something new and good.


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 16, 2012)

If you need a 20 to hit, then basically the only way you are ever going to hit the person in question is on a very lucky fluke hit, so why shouldn't that also be a critical?

I'm not a fan of critical hits, though. In the long run, they hurt the players more than monsters.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 16, 2012)

The Human Target said:


> A wizard with a stick can crit all day long, he's still not going to do anything compared to a fighter hitting all day long, let alone crit-ing.



Irrelevant.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 16, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> If you need a 20 to hit, then basically the only way you are ever going to hit the person in question is on a very lucky fluke hit, so why shouldn't that also be a critical?
> 
> I'm not a fan of critical hits, though. In the long run, they hurt the players more than monsters.



Random elements always favor the underdog.

In 4 out of 5 fights the monsters are the underdog.


----------



## Kingreaper (Feb 17, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> To boil this down to the simplest possible version: Any natural 20 is a crit, and the meaning of "crit" is "bonus damage equal to your attack bonus." So if you've got +7 to hit, then you get +7 damage any time you roll a 20 on the attack roll.




Damn you mr. Requirement to Spread XP around man... 

IOW: Good idea.


----------



## Aramax (Feb 17, 2012)

What I did to make rolling to crit more palateble,I had a non confermed crit chart and a confermed crit chart,I havent updated this into pathfinder but I think I will.


----------



## Erik le Rouge (Feb 17, 2012)

I'm of the old school. I truly enjoyed Rolemaster and its crit. tables. I understand the complaint that its more trouble for some adding another roll on top of another. But how long is it to roll an extra dice? I think this process could be resolved very rapidly with an experienced DM.

Anyway, the Next edition gives the power back to the DM which can house rule it in an instant and revert to the 4e way of doing things. I really don't see a big deal with crit. rolling.

Personally, I think it can add depth and fun ! YMMV.


----------



## Kynn (Feb 17, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> There's also the kobold problem. If an inferior opponent who can only hit on a 20 crits you with every hit, that makes combat too swingy. It shouldn't be impossible to have a non-critical hit.




Note that in 4e, this wasn't a problem: If a level 1 kobold can only hit the level 10 fighter with a 20, then when he hits, that attack isn't a crit.


----------



## Gundark (Feb 17, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> Make it full damage before confirmation and let the roll add even moar damage or cool things like tripping.




This is the supposed thing they were playtesting in the second "leaked" report. If this is actually the case, I have no problems with this. Don't like the confirmation roll? Fine, drop it and just use max damage like 4e.

I don't see what the issue is.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 17, 2012)

Gundark said:


> This is the supposed thing they were playtesting in the second "leaked" report. If this is actually the case, I have no problems with this. Don't like the confirmation roll? Fine, drop it and just use max damage like 4e.
> 
> I don't see what the issue is.




That actually sounds pretty nice to me.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 17, 2012)

I think the game could do just fine without any criticals in the core at all. 

They mainly just serve as a justification for numbers inflation.


----------



## Ichneumon (Feb 17, 2012)

It's not a bad rule. You have a Little Crit, and if you roll high enough second time, a Big Crit. The problem is in calling it a confirmation, because this brings back memories of having to settle for a plain result after the excitement of seeing a 20.

So I think the second roll should be referred to as a _follow-up_. This term removes any connotations of checking to see whether it's a 'real' crit, instead giving the impression of lining up more punishment after dealing a mighty blow. Extra damage could be the default result of a successful follow-up, with the possibility (say, in the tactical combat module) of other options, such as pushing the target back or giving a nearby ally advantage. The PC might also have the option of relinquishing the follow-up in favour of a defensive move, such as withdrawing.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 17, 2012)

I suppose it depends on how you rationalize critical hits.

We see them as pure luck.  Skill means you hit on a natural 5.  Lack of skill means you need a natural 19.  Luck means you crit. on a 20 confirmed no matter how good or bad you are at fighting - and that is also why our confirm roll has nothing to do with to-hit and AC; it's a straight d10, with 8-9-0 being critical doing 2x-3x-4x damage respectively...a lucky strike.

We also have fumbles - a natural 1 or a roll brought to 1 or less by negative modifiers - confirmed by rolling 1 on a d6.  We have a d% table for what happens next, ranging from the mundane (e.g. dropped weapon, common) to the extremely painful (e.g. possible crit. hit into self or ally, very rare).

Both of these apply to everyone - PC, NPC, monster, whatever.

Lan-"oh, by the way, I vote that the confirm roll remain in some form"-efan


----------



## stevelabny (Feb 17, 2012)

Critical hit confirmation as opposed to nat 20 = double damage helps to balance the math logically,  add weapon differences via crit range, add weapon differences via crit multiplier.

So rolling to confirm is a good idea with a lot of possible benefits. 

And the entire time I played 3rd edition, I never once saw the group not cheer for a 20. (Part of this could be because one of the campaigns used the nat 20 = max damage house rule, but even without it, the confirmation roll always drew all eyes to the die)

I don't think D&D has done enough make weapons different from each other.  Crit range, crit multiplier, weapon proficiencies, speed factor, vs armor types, and even special attacks should all be used.


----------



## Bohemian Ear Spoon (Feb 17, 2012)

Thought:  In a game where a d20 is rolled for many different things besides to-hit, such as skill checks, initiative, and many other reasons (including random boredness) and crits ONLY affect to-hit rolls, then the percentage of crits is actually less than 5%.

So in a game like 3e, where iterative attacks meant to-hits are 50-75% of the rolls, then maybe it would seem like crits happen too often, but in a game with lots of die rolling (a la 5e so we hear) the crit will be rare and the need to confirm will be lessened somewhat.

Also, and in contradiction to the above, I think EVERY d20 die roll, even initiative and skill checks, should have the option to "go crit" on a 20.


----------



## Hassassin (Feb 17, 2012)

Bohemian Ear Spoon said:


> Thought:  In a game where a d20 is rolled for many different things besides to-hit, such as skill checks, initiative, and many other reasons (including random boredness) and crits ONLY affect to-hit rolls, then the percentage of crits is actually less than 5%.
> [...]
> Also, and in contradiction to the above, I think EVERY d20 die roll, even initiative and skill checks, should have the option to "go crit" on a 20.




Depending on what you mean by "go crit", that was true for some other rolls in 3e. Almost every check other than a skill roll was automatically successful on a 20. Spells critted when the enemy rolled 1 on a save.

In addition to what has been done before, I would consider making saves crit so that save-halves effects allow a second save on a natural 20 to avoid even the partial effect. Skills shouldn't crit by default, since the effect can be anything and the check shouldn't always succeed even on a natural 20.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Feb 18, 2012)

I agree with no confirmation.  Let a natural 20 be a crit, and just double the rolled damage (that's 2x the number showing on the base damage die, not 2x the added damage, or 2x added dice like sneak attacks).  It's simple, easy, instantly able to be calculated by the player, and provides more than you get with a regular hit (which is why max damage is a let down -- you can do that even without a natural 20).


----------



## Naszir (Feb 18, 2012)

Max damage for a crit plus some sort of add on effect. This way you get beyond the "I could just roll max damage with a regular hit" and you don't have deal with the disappointment of a confirm roll that "misses".


----------



## GSHamster (Feb 18, 2012)

Here's another idea, courtesy of The Old Republic: A 2-roll system.

The first roll is the to-hit roll. The second roll details the result of the hit. So if you roll a 20 on the second roll, you score a critical.

What this does is changes the distribution of crits. Normal D&D states that 5% of all your _attacks_ are criticals. A 2-roll system states that 5% of all your _hits_ are criticals.

Thus if you hit more often, you get more crits than someone who misses a lot. It's also easier to add extra critical ranges  to the second roll. Like a specific weapon could change a crit to 18-20, then you crit on 15% of all your hits.

SWTOR goes the extra distance and adds shield chance onto the second roll. So if you roll a 1, maybe you only do half-damage if the opponent is wearing a shield.

Of course the downside is that you roll a second die for pretty much every attack, which is a lot slower.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Feb 18, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> Of course the downside is that you roll a second die for pretty much every attack, which is a lot slower.




That and the disappointment of nothing interesting happening when you roll a 20  on the first die.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 18, 2012)

Dont really care about 5E much but I too never got the whole confirmation roll thing and promptly excised it from both my 3.5 game and then my Pathfinder one. 

Having to confirm just sucks all of the air out of the room after what should be a awesome moment.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 18, 2012)

I prefer a nat 20 just being a crit. The proposed system isn't terrible, but I think removing the confirm roll would make it more elegant.

Yes, if a kobold can only hit you on a 20, and a 20 is a crit, that's a bit weird. However, I feel the need to point out that the kobold is not, in fact, critting any more often than if it could hit you on a 2+. The kobold who only crits on a 20, is in fact, missing on 19 of 20 attacks.

Honestly, if the math is tight (as I'm hoping, from their discussion of flatter bonuses, it will be), the corner cases are edged out.

If attack bonus/ AC disparities never grow too large, it never becomes a problem. You're never going to notice that a kobold who needs a 16+ to hit you crits 1 in 5 hits. What you're going to notice is that the kobold misses you _a lot_. 

Additionally, if scaling is based more upon damage than attack bonus (as I suspect may be the case) that kobold's crit will be pathetic compared to the 10th level fighter's. If the kobold crits for 8 damage, while the fighter crits for 32 damage, why would anyone care that the kobold crits as often as the fighter? Those crits mean completely different things. The kobold's crit is enough to drop a commoner, while the fighter's crit is more than enough to kill a warhorse. (Same thing with a wizard trying to melee a giant.)


----------



## Kynn (Feb 18, 2012)

Hey, y'know?

*An opposed defense roll is effectively a "confirm to crit" roll as well, if implemented correctly.*


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 18, 2012)

Kynn said:


> Hey, y'know?
> 
> *An opposed defense roll is effectively a "confirm to crit" roll as well, if implemented correctly.*



Won't fly with those who already think rolling to confirm is one roll too many, as opposed defense checks take the extra roll and apply it to every swing.

Besides, just like not every shot on goal goes in the net, not every 20 has to be a critical.

Lan-"critical critic"-efan


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 19, 2012)

Crit confirmation rolls are absolute garbage for numerous reasons I won't even get into since most people brought them up already.

Now if we get the one they hinted at in the leaked playtest where you roll again for bonus damage, I could see that. But don't call it a confirmation roll. That brings back bad memories of 3e. Call it a critical bonus roll or something.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 19, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Won't fly with those who already think rolling to confirm is one roll too many, as opposed defense checks take the extra roll and apply it to every swing.




Yeah, if I had to choose between confirming crits and opposed defense, I'd take confirming crits hands down. At least there you only have the extra roll 5% of the time instead of 100%.


----------

