Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Commissar 05-13-06, 05:03 PM	Here's an interesting one: whenever a critical hit gets inflicted (so not counting anything immune to criticals in this) the target has to make a Fortitude Save against a DC = to the damage inflicted or drop to -[d10] hp. It makes combat more deadly ala sword and sorcery literature, but doesn't overpower anything and it still gives high level characters an edge. They have to worry a bit more now, though.
Witch 05-13-06, 05:13 PM	So basically you're giving your PC's a Save-or-Die on critical effect?
Commissar 05-13-06, 05:57 PM	So basically you're giving your PC's a Save-or-Die on critical effect? Not just them. Anybody. It's like a massive damage save except it's specific to confirmed critical hits, and the DC is the damage inflicted by the attack. So it also gives the PCs a shot at taking down the big bad on a lucky hit as well. I should also say that my games are pretty low combat compared to the standard. I assign XP for accomplishing quest goals (and/or however much I feel like giving out) rather than the traditional award for killing monsters. If they can figure a way around a fight, solve it by diplomacy or accomplish the quest without even going to where the monster/villain is then that's fine, I give them full XP. So they usually only get into fights if they make a mistake, or if they really mean it.
locksley92 05-14-06, 02:07 PM	So, let me see what would happen with a level 8 fighter with a greatsword and Improved Critical/Weapon Specialization. +1 Fire Greatsword +15 [crit range 17-20] (2d6 + 1d6 fire + 8 or on crits 4d6 + 1d6 fire + 14) with Improved Critical. If I did well, I could make the opponent up against a DC 19 minimum all the way DC 44. Ouch for whomever.
was_fired 05-14-06, 02:49 PM	This is a really bad idea. First of all the saves are nearly impossible to make in most cases, and second of all it favors high crit range weapons far too much. Consider a fight of two 10th level fighters against each other who will hit the other on a: 6 on the first attack, and an 11 on the second. Both have WF, WS, and Improved Critical in their weapon of choice and to make this simple lets assume equal strength (18) and a simple +4 weapon with no other specials. To make this simple lets say they just have 100hp. One fighter has a greatsword and the other has a falcion (this system's best weapon): The guy with the greatsword deals 2d6 + 12 per hit so he will require 6 hits to win this fight without crits. The falcion user deals 2d4 + 12 per hit so he wil also require 6 hits without crits. The falcion user however has a 30% chance of forcing a Fortitude Save DC 28 to 40 (34 average) every attack provided he confirms. The greatsword user has a 20% chance of forcing a Fortitude Save DC 28 to 48 (38 average). Assuming both have always deal average damage (otherwise the variables get out of hand) and they have a +12 Fortitude Save at level 10 (which is good) their odds of instantly taking the other down each attack are as follows: Falcion First Attack: 3/10 * 15/20 * 19/20 = 21.4% Second Attack: 3/10 * 10/20 * 19/20 = 14.3% Per Round: 33% Greatsword First Attack: 2/10 * 15/20 * 19/20 = 14.3% Second Attack: 2/10 *15/20 * 19/20 = 9.5% Per Round: 22%
Tony111 05-14-06, 05:15 PM	This is a bad houserule. -Tony
theblindman 05-15-06, 11:27 AM	What's wrong with favouring high-crit-range weapons? Is that any different from favouring high-damage weapons? There's absolutely no attempt made in the PHB to enforce some "all weapons are created equal" blasphemy. I'm not sure I really like this rule, but that doesn't strike me as a very good argument against it.
StormKnight 05-15-06, 12:12 PM	Personally, not something I would favor, because it increases sudden and luck-based character (both PC and NPC) death, not something I support at all. It also costs high HP characters some of their only protection against attacks (since its just as easy to hit a high level fighter as a low level wizard if both are unarmored). If you don't mind that, shouldn't be too much of a problem. What if instead the DC was based on the BAB on the attacker instead, so that it would be fairly low, and would factor more into the character's combat ability than raw damage output? What's wrong with favouring high-crit-range weapons? Is that any different from favouring high-damage weapons? It throws off the balance of the game. As is, weapons are balanced by a mixture of damage, crit range and special abilities. This doesn't mean all weapons are equal, but (for example), all one handed martial weapons are approximately comparable; generally any given weapon in that category will have some reason to use it over a different weapon in the same category. Increasing the power of one particular aspect will cause some weapons to be better choices in the same category than others with no corresponding loss of ability. I haven't any idea which weapons this will most heavily affect (the formula would be a mix of crit range, crit multiplier and base damage, not just crit range) but its likely some weapons would be rendered obsolete.
was_fired 05-15-06, 09:43 PM	What's wrong with favouring high-crit-range weapons? Is that any different from favouring high-damage weapons? There's absolutely no attempt made in the PHB to enforce some "all weapons are created equal" blasphemy. I'm not sure I really like this rule, but that doesn't strike me as a very good argument against it. Because without any twinking I just proved that a falcion user can kill another fighter of equal level 30% of the time in a single round? The best bet is actually dual wielding kukri's or scimitars (using oversized TWF) with an energy burst on them. That way you get twice as many attacks for a mere -2 to hit, and without lowering the save DC from only possible on a 20.
necrom99 05-15-06, 10:06 PM	I like your idea, but you leave out a small mathematical detail, your NPC/villains/monsters generally hit the characters more often then the characters hit ALL of them. figure even the crappiest creatures could hit and crit often enough. I use a similar house rule.....when u roll a natural 20 to hit and roll a natural 20 to confirm u kill what u hit, unless there immune to criticals or you can't actually deal them damage for whatever reason....so i'm faced with a similar dilemma. But i still think you've made the right choice, to hell with all those powergamers who get miffed when you make it tough for there best min/maxed characters......... I say...and you can quote me on this...... it's time the DM got a little retribution on powergamers or munchkins or whatever you like to call 'em, y'know what, just because you can create the ultimate character it doesn't mean you life is'nt in jeopardy... stike fear into the hearts of your adventurers, after all thats why we give 'em the XP...
was_fired 05-15-06, 10:51 PM	This isn't like the 20/20 rules for auto-death it's worse. That happens one out of four hundred attacks, and most DMs require that second twenty for confirm so even less than that. If your fighting mostly humanoids, which this sounds to be the case, all will most likely be packing falcions (why use anythign else?), and the odds of you dying to a random minions full attack past level ten without even without them taking improved critical end up as about 8% PER MINION per round.
theblindman 05-15-06, 11:14 PM	Because without any twinking I just proved that a falcion user can kill another fighter of equal level 30% of the time in a single round? The best bet is actually dual wielding kukri's or scimitars (using oversized TWF) with an energy burst on them. That way you get twice as many attacks for a mere -2 to hit, and without lowering the save DC from only possible on a 20. Is that not the point of this rule? But in all fairness to your general point... It makes combat more deadly ala sword and sorcery literature, but doesn't overpower anything and it still gives high level characters an edge. They have to worry a bit more now, though. It's the part in bold that I think w_f (and I) would take issue with. It most certianly does overpower certain weapons. To whic I say that this is not a problem. Have you considered a feat to negate the effects of Improved Critical? Something that reduces the crit-range on weapons with non-20 ranges? Call it something like anti-keen, give it some steep prereqs, and you have a must-have-feat for any combat-oriented character, given the above mechanics. Might help balance out the system too, if you're in to that sort of thing.
theblindman 05-15-06, 11:45 PM	Double-post, sorry. Some additional ways of balancing a "gritty-critty" system. (haha, geddit?) Seriously limit the types of weapons available, make most weapons with a large threat-range exotic.This means players (and NPCs) will have to burn one feat to even wield these weapons. You can leave all simple weapons as is - make short swords and daggers very common, which, if you're going for some modicum of historical realism, is very accurate. Depending on your time period, longswords and rapiers may not even exist yet. And what are kukris even doing as martial weapons in a european setting? Make exotic weapons more rare and more costly. An exotic weapon should be freakin' expensive anyway, on account of it being exotic and by definition rare and therefore, as I believe I have stated, freakin' expensive. Again, you can fiddle with the time period such that certain weapons are beyond the technical prowess of contemporary weaponsmiths, and that the only remaining weapons of these types were forged by some now long-forgotten empire. Or just make them rare weapons that are forged by a more advanced civilization far away on the other side of the continent. Drastically increase the price of non-bludgeoning weapons. The only bludgeoning weapon with an exceptional crit-range is the heavy flail, and it should maybe be made into an exotic weapon as per option 1. Then again, maybe not, it all depends on the balance you want. Bludgeoning weapons are really, really easy to make, since all you need is a mold. They're a sinch to mass-produce. That's off the top of my head anyway, but I'll keep thinking about it... I'm not sure if any of this really addresses your concerns, w_f.
Commissar 05-20-06, 01:19 PM	Personally, not something I would favor, because it increases sudden and luck-based character (both PC and NPC) death, not something I support at all. It also costs high HP characters some of their only protection against attacks (since its just as easy to hit a high level fighter as a low level wizard if both are unarmored). If you don't mind that, shouldn't be too much of a problem. What if instead the DC was based on the BAB on the attacker instead, so that it would be fairly low, and would factor more into the character's combat ability than raw damage output? Since combat isn't the default activity in my games, but something that represents a big dramatic climax or a sudden heart-pounding surprise, I can't accomplish my goals for the game if high-HP characters have a buffer zone against sudden death. In my game, the very idea of combat should make the players stop and think if they want to commit to that course of action. I also don't dole out magic items with any regularity, so it isn't surprising to go up against an 8th or 10th level character who has no magical swag. Individual magic swords are generally famous, have histories and so on. But I'm interested in the notion of basing the save DC partly on BAB. It should still have something to do with the damage inflicted by the weapon, however, since the save is triggered by a crit... weapons that have larger crit ranges have lower mulitpliers. I'll have to think about it some more. Seriously limit the types of weapons available, make most weapons with a large threat-range exotic.This means players (and NPCs) will have to burn one feat to even wield these weapons. You can leave all simple weapons as is - make short swords and daggers very common, which, if you're going for some modicum of historical realism, is very accurate. Depending on your time period, longswords and rapiers may not even exist yet. And what are kukris even doing as martial weapons in a european setting? I lean toward this kind of thing also. It is common for people in a town, for example, to have a dagger or dirk or knife, but few people wear swords around and almost nobody goes around armored except the town watch (and nobles, who can get away with practically anything short of treason). Weapons that are not from your own culture should count as "exotic" and require a feat (kukri is a good example). "Exotic" is a good category for D&D, but since it's a relative term you have to apply it properly. If you are from an Indian/Nepalese culture, kukri is a martial weapon but a bec de corbin is an exotic weapon. Also, since I treat magic weapons like mini-artifacts (and wizards, particularly high-level ones, are also rare and guard their secrets jealously) I don't assume that even a high level character will have one. For me, a 10th level Fighter is a famous hero or warmaster... he probably has 16 Str, no magic items, and the best weapons and armor of his culture. If he has a significant magic sword (+4 equivalent) then at that point he's Elric: he will probably kill you. But even he should be worried about 1/2 dozen 3rd level rogues with crossbows, laying in ambush. Anybody should be worried about that.
Khementari 05-20-06, 04:07 PM	Commissar, in the scope of your game this sounds like an excellent house rule. Perhaps if you detailed how your setting is powered there wouldn't have been so many judgements against your idea. When I read what you proposed I felt as if the exact setting you later described was inherently implied. Surely the math runs against it when every 7th level fighter is running around with a +4 flaming, keen, swift, berserking, life-stealing, icy, mean, three-handed sword, but at some point in life that style of play becomes childish. I've always had a fancy for Mournblade because it has that romantic, death-dealing quality in the flow of it's name, but she is still the twin sister of Stormbringer, who lays gods down low, spreads bloody murder everywhere you go, and eats your friend's souls.
Bulletproof_Condom 05-20-06, 06:55 PM	I don't have a problem with this rule as long as you also do the old Dark Sun thing where you make three characters at any given time so that when the first one dies, you can move to the next one and keep playing. Always have at least two back-up characters, because the first one is going to die.
theblindman 05-21-06, 11:35 AM	"Exotic" is a good category for D&D, but since it's a relative term you have to apply it properly. If you are from an Indian/Nepalese culture, kukri is a martial weapon but a bec de corbin is an exotic weapon. Agreed :) I believe I even said as much. Anyway, I appreciate the intent of the rule, especially given the particular flare you bring to your own setting. I just find the mechanics of it a bit blunt. Drop to -1d10 hitpoints? Why not just -10? Why not just instant kill? What about rolling on a critical hit table to simulate particular effects (broken arm, pierced liver, top of cranium shaved off)? I'm assuming that you like 1d10 because it offers some variation when it comes time to heal/stabilize. But couldn't you get the same effect, by simply increasing the damage-multiplier on criticals? x6 instead of x2, x8 instead of x3, x10 instead of x4, etc... Or something similar? That strikes me as more elegant, but then again, it's not my game now is it? Just throwing ideas out there really.
Freedon_Nadd 05-22-06, 05:18 AM	have to say i would (if you're going to change combat) do what theblindman suggested. That would seem to be a GREAT way of taking care of things. I'm tired atm, so if you already mentioned this forgive me. But if you switch to that system I foresee ALL the pc's instantly purchasing something of fortification (saving up for heavy as they progress in levels) for the simple reason the edge would be in their court then. Every crit they do they would potentially kill an npc, while an npc rolling a nat 20 could -never- crit the pc's. i know i'd be best friends with my local cleric / wizard / artificer if such a change were to be implemented into any D&D game i play simply for the fortification enchantments. Settings aside (so we're not into what's martial where and how), if i were to use a scimitar that's keen, i'd be able to crit on a 15+ so long as I hit their AC, which is a 25% chance to critical. potentially 1 in 4 rolls would be a chance for a crit. (Scimitars crit on 18 - 20, with keen 18 drops 3 to 15). Anywho, my 2 cents worth. :)
Commissar 05-22-06, 10:10 PM	Commissar, in the scope of your game this sounds like an excellent house rule. Perhaps if you detailed how your setting is powered there wouldn't have been so many judgements against your idea. When I read what you proposed I felt as if the exact setting you later described was inherently implied. Surely the math runs against it when every 7th level fighter is running around with a +4 flaming, keen, swift, berserking, life-stealing, icy, mean, three-handed sword, but at some point in life that style of play becomes childish. Thanks. I probably should have described my setting preferences up front. I tend to run fantasy as low and dark: Conan, Elric, Fafhrd, etc. Old school! :) My next foray may even be running something semi-historical with GR's Medieval Player's Manual. There aren't going to be any keen, swift +4 falchions running around Norman England. I don't go for the gonzo, over-the-top "Stan Lee's Lord of the Rings" play style where everybody flies around with a sword from a Final Fantasy game chopping continents in half. It's cool for other folks - I don't have anything against it. But it's not what I'm here for. Agreed :) I believe I even said as much. Anyway, I appreciate the intent of the rule, especially given the particular flare you bring to your own setting. I just find the mechanics of it a bit blunt. Drop to -1d10 hitpoints? Why not just -10? Why not just instant kill? What about rolling on a critical hit table to simulate particular effects (broken arm, pierced liver, top of cranium shaved off)? I'm assuming that you like 1d10 because it offers some variation when it comes time to heal/stabilize. But couldn't you get the same effect, by simply increasing the damage-multiplier on criticals? x6 instead of x2, x8 instead of x3, x10 instead of x4, etc... Or something similar? That strikes me as more elegant, but then again, it's not my game now is it? Just throwing ideas out there really. The main reason for the -1d10 is that jumping to -10 is like a decapitation or something equally gory, whereas -8 will be something mortal but not immediately fatal, whereas -1 is something critical. I don't go for the critical hit table mainly because it's just another thing to keep track of: as a DM, I'm good at improvising the splattery details. At the same time, I like the variation. have to say i would (if you're going to change combat) do what theblindman suggested. That would seem to be a GREAT way of taking care of things. I'm tired atm, so if you already mentioned this forgive me. But if you switch to that system I foresee ALL the pc's instantly purchasing something of fortification (saving up for heavy as they progress in levels) for the simple reason the edge would be in their court then. Every crit they do they would potentially kill an npc, while an npc rolling a nat 20 could -never- crit the pc's. i know i'd be best friends with my local cleric / wizard / artificer if such a change were to be implemented into any D&D game i play simply for the fortification enchantments. Settings aside (so we're not into what's martial where and how), if i were to use a scimitar that's keen, i'd be able to crit on a 15+ so long as I hit their AC, which is a 25% chance to critical. potentially 1 in 4 rolls would be a chance for a crit. (Scimitars crit on 18 - 20, with keen 18 drops 3 to 15). Anywho, my 2 cents worth. PCs purchasing magic items? Are you daft! You'll offend the Gygax! :D But seriously, magic items aren't up for purchase in my games. Except maybe for potions and perhaps a rare scroll. They're too rare and precious! The PCs could sell an item if they wanted to and could find a buyer, but that sort of thing is very rare. Most magic items are either limited use or rare works of ancient magic, with their own individual stories and heritage. It's true that a scimitar, esp a keen one, would provoke lots of criticals. So you would get a fair number of critical hits with one. But you're only rolling 2d6 + bonuses, so that's not going to be a very high DC. Even if you've got a 16 Str, a +2 keen scimitar is going to average a save DC of 17 (3.5+3.5+6+4), which is a fairly easy save. And getting hit by a magical sword is supposed to be a big deal in my games: a competent fighter with a magic sword ought to be hacking his way through groups of lesser men. At least until he gets a crossbow bolt in his eye: but that's what you risk by going into combat.
Kalis Atrud 05-22-06, 10:50 PM	How about this houserule on crits: Whenever an NPC rolls a critical hit against a character, I get to kick the player in the stones. That's basically what's your rule does, I'm just cutting out the ingame effect aside from damage. You care nothing for generic orc number five, while the players should love their characters. And they will be critted much more in their lives then an encounter they fight once.
Commissar 05-23-06, 10:27 AM	How about this houserule on crits: Whenever an NPC rolls a critical hit against a character, I get to kick the player in the stones. That's basically what's your rule does, I'm just cutting out the ingame effect aside from damage. You care nothing for generic orc number five, while the players should love their characters. And they will be critted much more in their lives then an encounter they fight once. Good point. I forgot that my houserule is going to come over to your house and take over your game. So I can understand why you're so terrified of it. And my players should not "love" their characters. They should enjoy playing them, but you don't "love" something inanimate.
theblindman 05-23-06, 12:11 PM	Fair enough. I'm definitely with you on the "critical table" thing. I still think it's clunky, but it's not my game now is it. Good point. I forgot that my houserule is going to come over to your house and take over your game. So I can understand why you're so terrified of it.:rofl:
Freedon_Nadd 05-23-06, 12:32 PM	PCs purchasing magic items? Are you daft! You'll offend the Gygax! :D But seriously, magic items aren't up for purchase in my games. Except maybe for potions and perhaps a rare scroll. They're too rare and precious! The PCs could sell an item if they wanted to and could find a buyer, but that sort of thing is very rare. Most magic items are either limited use or rare works of ancient magic, with their own individual stories and heritage. It's true that a scimitar, esp a keen one, would provoke lots of criticals. So you would get a fair number of critical hits with one. But you're only rolling 2d6 + bonuses, so that's not going to be a very high DC. Even if you've got a 16 Str, a +2 keen scimitar is going to average a save DC of 17 (3.5+3.5+6+4), which is a fairly easy save. And getting hit by a magical sword is supposed to be a big deal in my games: a competent fighter with a magic sword ought to be hacking his way through groups of lesser men. At least until he gets a crossbow bolt in his eye: but that's what you risk by going into combat. Was meant to point out certain things, and knowing now about your setting a bit more ( hehe = P ) just means that at some point in time someone is going to take Improved Critical which will still double the crit threat ranges from a feat as opposed to the weapon having it. Also keep in mind, while the fort save may only be as small as 17, pc's can still roll 1's and fail it. And my players should not "love" their characters. They should enjoy playing them, but you don't "love" something inanimate. You would be surprised with how attached to characters some people can get. While I don't "love" my characters, I am attached to several of them and would pitch a ***** fit beyond belief if certain ones died (after the game of course so as to not ruin things). Love was meant to show affection and attachment to a char, not mean love as in "I love my family" kinda way.
Bulletproof_Condom 05-24-06, 02:30 PM	And my players should not "love" their characters. They should enjoy playing them, but you don't "love" something inanimate.You don't drive, do you?
Freedon_Nadd 05-24-06, 03:32 PM	You don't drive, do you? ROFL
RecycledDM 05-24-06, 05:46 PM	Count me in the camp that can see Commisar's point of view...that any character, no matter how high a level, should have SOMETHING to fear from even the lowliest of weapon-wielding foes. Perhaps make it so that only a critical roll that comes up a natural 20 equals death.
Twippie_Diggs 05-24-06, 07:01 PM	Count me in the camp that can see Commisar's point of view...that any character, no matter how high a level, should have SOMETHING to fear from even the lowliest of weapon-wielding foes. Perhaps make it so that only a critical roll that comes up a natural 20 equals death. damn was gonna say that. but ya to each their own. and having it be on a natural twenty would eliminate the whole problem of high crit weapons favoring
Freedon_Nadd 05-24-06, 07:06 PM	there is the last optional rule of "roll 2 natural 20's in a row and confirm the second natural 20 and your opponent is dead". ex: roll to hit - natural 20 confirmation roll - natural 20 confirmation roll - hit's the ac of said mob mob = ded (dead = )