Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Illion the Red 08-23-05, 12:21 PM	When I started DMing 3.0 (one of these days I'll actually get to play again :( ), I used the variant critical rule of Threat, Threat, Confirm, Dead. After dealing with more than a few "big creatures" felled by this variant, I abandoned it in the second (and subsequent) campaigns. Somehow, I still have the feeling that rolling two critical threats in a row should do something special. So here's what I have been pondering for a while now. It will be loosely based on a "open 20" system as follows: If a critical confirmation roll is also a threat, the threat is confirmed and roll again. If the next roll is a confirmation, the critical multiplier increases. (x2 becomes x3, x3 becomes x5, and x4 becomes +7). If the roll is a threat, repeat the process. Examples: Bob the fighter swings his longsword and rolls a 19...a threat. Bob then rolls a 20 to confirm...threat confirmed, but also another threat. Bob then rolls a 17 (enough to hit, but not a threat). Bob rolls damage of 3d8+3x other applicable bonuses. Terry the barbarian swings her greataxe and rolls a 20...a threat. Terry then rolls a 20 to confirm...threat confirmed, but also another threat. Terry then rolls yet another 20 ...threat confirmed, but also another threat. Terry then rolls a 17 (enough to hit, but not a threat). Terry rolls damage of 5d12+5x other applicable bonuses. Now my question is this: Is this a good idea to implement in lieu of the instadeath variant, or is it merely a waste of good die rolls, time, and effort?
Blackrazorblade 08-23-05, 12:26 PM	i would say the only time this would be terribly unbalenced is with characters with ridculous threat ranges. Otherwise a good alternative to the instant death thing
Kjartan 08-23-05, 12:28 PM	natural 20, natural 20, natural 20 should in my humble opinion result in death.. I can't calculate the probability of such rolls, but I think they are very, very far apart... I think your idea is pretty good, but as a player I think I would have wanted more when rolling that many natural 20's (not just threats) in a row... :)
JakeQuistis 08-23-05, 12:29 PM	Well, I would say you would have to hit 20-20-20, not just get within the critical range. Even if you rolled a 19 or lower and got a threat, you couldn't roll the third dice because you didn't get a 20 the first time.
triss_erventine 08-23-05, 12:30 PM	I have to agree with black razorblade
Abulafia 08-23-05, 12:30 PM	natural 20, natural 20, natural 20 should in my humble opinion result in death.. I can't calculate the probability of such rolls, but I think they are very, very far apart... 1 out of 20^3, or 1/8000. Nice to get an easy one for a change.
Sinaz 08-23-05, 12:33 PM	First, I want to make sure you were using the 20,20,confirm, death variant appropriately... the instant death only works on two consecutive 20's (not crit ranges... pure natural 20's) then a confirm. So, for instant, if a crit range is 19-20, rolling two 19's and a confirm is not instant death. With that said, I just read in another thread of someone doing exactly what you do... stack multipliers with every consecutive crit. He says it works great.
Dichotomy 08-23-05, 12:36 PM	IMO (which is not humble), this is horrid. The thing to keep in mind is that, as a general rule, when you increase the randomness in the game, the game becomes harder for the PCs. (This is because of the general rule that the PCs "should" win most fights. Increased randomness makes it more likely that what "should" happen won't. You can take a look at the sidebar on pg 26 of the DMG for more info.) With this in mind, what your changes to the crit system do is make it more likely that your PCs will die. I guess this is fine, if you think the game is "too easy" or something. But if you think the game is too easy, there are better solutions than adding randomness.
Yak of Darkness 08-23-05, 12:47 PM	I do something similar. "Rolling" criticals where the multiplier just increases by one for every additional threat confirmed. Although it does give weapons with a higher threat range a larger chance to continually increase their critical multiplier (and since the multipliers for a x2 and x4 weapon, under my system, increase at the same rate, it can kind-of send things into the direction of favoring threat ranges over multipliers), the higher multiplier weapons start at a better base crit (plus, even if a 15 is a threat, that doesn't mean it's always a hit), so it all ends up pretty balanced. When I DM, I also allow "skill" threat increases (like Improved Critical) stack with "magical" threat increases (like keen edge). It's wild, and neither I nor my players have had a single problem with any of it, which is really what it's all about. ;) * None of this is meant to imply that I have rigorously mathematically tested this method to see if everything comes out completely and perfectly even, but that in no way should stop anyone who likes that kind of stuff to post pages and pages of tables showing one method increases damage by 3% above the other, making the entire game broken. You can even use charts with that "code" tag, and (if you're really ambitious) a solid page and a half of C++ coding that will prove it's broken based on the fact that nobody wants to read it all and reftue anything. Just preempting the thread away from where crit discussions always end up. ^_^
DraconsNighthawk 08-23-05, 12:54 PM	I follow the DMG about two nat 20s, then a comfirm. Sure it sucks when your duel wielder has that freaking magical die that rolls twenties and nineteens most of the time. But it mostly saves their butts more often then not.
Illion the Red 08-23-05, 01:20 PM	First, I want to make sure you were using the 20,20,confirm, death variant appropriately... the instant death only works on two consecutive 20's (not crit ranges... pure natural 20's) then a confirm. So, for instant, if a crit range is 19-20, rolling two 19's and a confirm is not instant death. I was, in fact, NOT using it correctly at first, but corrected it after I double checked after the Improved Critical/Keen longsword offed yet another BBEG. (3.0 was nasty that way) IMO (which is not humble), this is horrid. The thing to keep in mind is that, as a general rule, when you increase the randomness in the game, the game becomes harder for the PCs. (This is because of the general rule that the PCs "should" win most fights. Increased randomness makes it more likely that what "should" happen won't. You can take a look at the sidebar on pg 26 of the DMG for more info.) While I normally agree with you on this point, I'm not sure that the randomness that this adds is all that common an occurrence, so I'm not that concerned with it killing off my players all that much. I certainly will discuss the idea with my players before implementing it, but I'm not too concerned about overwhelming player deaths just yet. Thanks everyone for the feedback :)
Murrdox 08-23-05, 01:35 PM	I would never allow this to happen. Ever. In every campaign I DM, I always have at LEAST one min-maxer. Min-maxers love increasing their critical threat as much as possible, and selecting weapons with the highest multiplier they can. As a result, they get critical hits PLENTY of times. The DND rules as is allow for PLENTY of critical hits. Making critical hits easier to happen, or instant death rules is just asking for trouble, imho.
Illion the Red 08-23-05, 01:48 PM	I would never allow this to happen. Ever. In every campaign I DM, I always have at LEAST one min-maxer. Min-maxers love increasing their critical threat as much as possible, and selecting weapons with the highest multiplier they can. As a result, they get critical hits PLENTY of times. The DND rules as is allow for PLENTY of critical hits. Making critical hits easier to happen, or instant death rules is just asking for trouble, imho. If I had even one min/maxer in my campaign, I would hesitate to use it, but I have the great fortune to have a group that either hasn't figured out how to do so, or are not inclined to do so. So, in my case I'm not too worried about the rule being explioted, and if it does wind up getting exploited, well, I have an answer for that as well.
Bruunwald 08-23-05, 02:10 PM	First, I want to make sure you were using the 20,20,confirm, death variant appropriately... the instant death only works on two consecutive 20's (not crit ranges... pure natural 20's) then a confirm. So, for instant, if a crit range is 19-20, rolling two 19's and a confirm is not instant death. Yeah, that's what I understood, as well. Doing it as a simple threat, threat, confirm might make it appear more often, if you've got combatants with say a 17-20 crit range. But as a 20-20-confirm, it's way rare enough to be exciting and allowable for me. Especially since there's every chance it'll happen against a dire rat or some other such unexciting target. I'm thinking I might have seen it happen once in the past five years, but I can't remember it. So it can't be that big a problem unless the OP'S players have loaded dice. ;)
Murrdox 08-23-05, 02:13 PM	If I had even one min/maxer in my campaign, I would hesitate to use it, but I have the great fortune to have a group that either hasn't figured out how to do so, or are not inclined to do so. So, in my case I'm not too worried about the rule being explioted, and if it does wind up getting exploited, well, I have an answer for that as well. I envy you and your campaign. Fighters or basically any melee character (I've seen it done with a Cleric and a Druid as well) in my campaigns run by a min-maxer always somehow end up with a 16-20 critical threat range on a x4 weapon, or some similar crap.
Illion the Red 08-23-05, 02:21 PM	Yeah, that's what I understood, as well. Doing it as a simple threat, threat, confirm might make it appear more often, if you've got combatants with say a 17-20 crit range. But as a 20-20-confirm, it's way rare enough to be exciting and allowable for me. Especially since there's every chance it'll happen against a dire rat or some other such unexciting target. I'm thinking I might have seen it happen once in the past five years, but I can't remember it. So it can't be that big a problem unless the OP'S players have loaded dice. ;) Heh...I'm pretty sure they don't have loaded dice...the players have only rolled one critical since the campaign started. Maybe they got the dice loaded on the wrong side ;)
Blackrazorblade 08-23-05, 02:26 PM	Am i the only who thinks min/maxing (in moderation) helps a game? If you do have one character that is uber it makes a nice challenge in trying to get around their strength because it is MIN/maxing not max/maxing, every min/maxed character has a weakness. In fact whenever i have min/maxed i made sure that my character had a nice big weakness my DM could get around and when my players do it i have no problem with it. You see if it becomes a huge problem the DM can Min/max too... and better. Now i am not saying everyone shold do it, just that it makes things interesting.
Illion the Red 08-23-05, 02:26 PM	I envy you and your campaign. Fighters or basically any melee character (I've seen it done with a Cleric and a Druid as well) in my campaigns run by a min-maxer always somehow end up with a 16-20 critical threat range on a x4 weapon, or some similar crap. You have my sympathies. I actually have a pretty good group, with one player who actually stabbed a zombie for four rounds with a spear before switching to his sword. The "Player" knew about the DR, but the "Character" didn't, so he played it that way. Once his character was sure that the spear wasn't doing anything to the zombie, he dropped it and tried with his sword, shouting for someone to get some fire or something to kill it.
Illion the Red 08-23-05, 02:30 PM	Am i the only who thinks min/maxing (in moderation) helps a game? If you do have one character that is uber it makes a nice challenge in trying to get around their strength because it is MIN/maxing not max/maxing, every min/maxed character has a weakness. In fact whenever i have min/maxed i made sure that my character had a nice big weakness my DM could get around and when my players do it i have no problem with it. You see if it becomes a huge problem the DM can Min/max too... and better. Now i am not saying everyone shold do it, just that it makes things interesting. The danger of a single min/maxer in a party is that either the min/maxer will overshadow the other players in combat, or that the opponents will be beyond the ability of the non min/maxers and will off them just to be able to deal with the min/maxer. As a whole, I don't have a big problem with min/maxers, but it gets to be problematic if the DM has to up the challenge to deal with the singular individual rather than the party as a whole.
Dichotomy 08-23-05, 02:32 PM	Heh...I'm pretty sure they don't have loaded dice...the players have only rolled one critical since the campaign started. Maybe they got the dice loaded on the wrong side ;) I think that you miss the point. Whether 20-20-confirm happens often or not isn't really the issue (as I see it). The issue is that when that 20-20-confirm happens, it is much more likely that a PC will be on the receiving end. Even if it happens to a "bad guy" rather than a PC, most likely the only result is ending the fight sooner. (This is based on the generalization that PCs win most fights they get in.) But if it happens to a PC (which is by far more likely than it happening to any particular "bad guy"), the PC is dead from an encounter that likely wouldn't have normally killed him/her. My point is merely that this IS a change in the game, when it happens that change WILL be significant, and that significant change IS against the PCs. I think that is unnecessary, but I am sure others disagree.
was_fired 08-23-05, 03:09 PM	The instant death variant really isn't a good rule at all. Consider a 20th level dual wielder with all the proper feats, and as such 7 attacks a round on a full attack (yes, it is easily possible to get more with magic or interesting feat combos). If his attacks have the following chances to hit: 95%/95%/70%/70%/45%/45%/20% we find that his chance of instant killing on a each round is actually .65%, and that isn't that unlikely. Now if he had two extra attacks (which came say from using a halberd with the spinning halberd feat, TWF using his unarmed attack, and being hasted) we end up with (this adds a 95% chance and a 70% chance assume the monsters AC went up as much as haste added) we get a .74% chance of an instant kill every round. Doesn't that seem like a bit much?
Graven 08-23-05, 03:51 PM	If you're worried about it happening too much, rule that instant kills only happen on 3 consecutive 20s, since it only happens 1/8000 times. The probability of an instant kill on any given attack is 1/8000. By increasing the number of attacks you add the probability. So 7 attacks have a 7/8000 chance of instant killing, which is a .0875%. If you add 2 more attacks its only 9/8000 or .1125%. Going by the actual variant rules (20,20, confirm), the probabilities depend on what you're fighting. If a 20th level dual wielder is fighting something he has a 95% chance of hitting on the first two maybe three shots (he hits on anything that isn't a 1) i don't think that instant kill is going to matter cause he's going to destroy it anyways. I find the current variant rule fine if the players want to risk playing by it, since it hurts them more than it helps. My last group decided to play by it, but reduced all instant kill effects to making them drop to -7. In this situation the instant kill variation mainly just added flavor. Here's an example: Our party was attacked at sea in a storm by around 20 sahaguin. My character was a bow-fighter who was had an extreme phobia with large bodies of water. He stayed below deck for the first few rounds, but eventually decided to climb up to try to help his friends in what sounded like a very difficult battle, despite his horrible sea-sickness and fear of the ocean. He was promptly swept almost off the boat by a wave immeadiately upon stepping upon the deck, barely catching the rigging on the side of the boat. He slowly climbed up, a sahaguin trying to follow him. He finally climbed up to the main deck, hoisted himself over the side, drew his bow and fired a single arrow through the head of the closest sahaguin. Instant kill. It was an extremely exciting battle, and the rest of the PCs who saw my shot feared my character's bow from then on.
Nomad4life 08-23-05, 03:59 PM	Am i the only who thinks min/maxing (in moderation) helps a game? Yes.
Ekranoplan 08-23-05, 04:11 PM	Yes. How bold of you to speak for everyone. I beleive min/maxing in moderation helps a game, and here is why. Min/maxing in moderation does help a game (though if it is in moderation, its really not min/maxing. Its making an effective character). Lots of people enjoy making an effective character and enjoy using said characters.
Illion the Red 08-23-05, 04:31 PM	I really wasn't expecting this to degrade into a debate on the merits of min/maxing and the like, but I guess that is the nature of the beast. Anyway, in my case, I don't see it as an issue, in fact, I'd say a few of my players could use a bit of a lesson in min/maxing.
Bruunwald 08-23-05, 04:44 PM	The instant death variant really isn't a good rule at all. Consider a 20th level dual wielder with all the proper feats, and as such 7 attacks a round on a full attack (yes, it is easily possible to get more with magic or interesting feat combos). If his attacks have the following chances to hit: 95%/95%/70%/70%/45%/45%/20% we find that his chance of instant killing on a each round is actually .65%, and that isn't that unlikely. Now if he had two extra attacks (which came say from using a halberd with the spinning halberd feat, TWF using his unarmed attack, and being hasted) we end up with (this adds a 95% chance and a 70% chance assume the monsters AC went up as much as haste added) we get a .74% chance of an instant kill every round. Doesn't that seem like a bit much? That's all very good on paper, but in practical application have you seen it? Because I've been playing for 24+ years, and I've rarely seen multiple 20s in the same session, much less rolled consecutively by the same player on multiple turns. What people tend to forget when they average the odds, is that odds don't improve per turn. They stay the same for every single time you roll the dice. That's really important here, because we're not talking about getting enough to hit. We're talking about a naturally rolled 20. Let's say you're flipping a coin and it lands up heads three times in a row. What are the odds it will be heads again on the next flip? That's right: 1 in 2. The odds don't change simply due to consecutive flips, so the odds of rolling a 20 remain the same per attempt. Someone put the odds at getting a 20-20-20 as 1 in 8000. Even if you use the actual rule of 20-20-then a crit confirm (likely a roll of 12 or better), it's not much better than that. The point of the 20-20-confirm rule is precisely to add a surprise element. It's the sort of thing that adds fun to a game by showing up unexpectedly and surprising everyone and even upsetting the game. How many of us have delighted to a confirmed crit with a super dangerous weapon that resulted with maximum damage from the dice? Or a 20 in that last desperate moment when nothing else would get through? Same thing. But does it happen often? Like I said, in the five years since 3.0 came out, I've maybe seen the 20-20-confirm happen once.
Murrdox 08-23-05, 04:56 PM	How bold of you to speak for everyone. I beleive min/maxing in moderation helps a game, and here is why. Min/maxing in moderation does help a game (though if it is in moderation, its really not min/maxing. Its making an effective character). Lots of people enjoy making an effective character and enjoy using said characters. By my definition, you CANNOT moderate min/max. Someone who makes a "Effective Character" is not min/maxing. An "Effective Fighter" is any fighter with a good strength score, a good melee weapon, and a selection of feats to choose from to make him good at fighting, and a few skills that help this. A "min/maxed Fighter" is a fighter who picks a x4 crit weapon, boosts his threat range to 15-20 by use of magic items and feats, and gets magic items to boost the specific stats he needs and sacrifices anything else. This character becomes such a combat borg that it unbalances the party - this charcter can wade through monsters equal to his level while the rest of the party views them as legitimate threats. A min/maxed fighter, wizard, or anything can be a DM nightmare. Basically you end up with one or two characters that can annihilate anything you throw at them, while the rest of the party just sits idley by. Aside from screwing up the balance of your encounters, this ends up frustrating the other players, because the min/maxers steal the spotlight in every combat.
Kalidor 08-23-05, 04:57 PM	I solved the "problem" of making the 20-20-20 rule hinder the players by making it so that only 'named' NPCs and players can affect or be affected by that rule. Or "bosses", if you will. In other words, a player cannot kill or be insta killed by "Guard", but they can kill or be instakilled by "Captain Stevens". Adds a bit of flare to the encounters without punishing the players with the risk of a kobold insta-killing them. (Unless of course the Kobold is Grinkle to All Knowing!)
SodaGuy 08-23-05, 05:13 PM	I think threat-20-confirm should be a double critical (ie: x2 becomes x4). I don't like auto-kills so if you include them at all, I'd make them 20-20-20-dead.
Spus Widgetwatcher 08-23-05, 05:15 PM	Here's the rule I planned on using- 20/20/20 doesn't instakill- 20/20/20 is Crit with definite max damage. Bob the Fighter with 16 str and his Falchion, with Weapon Specilization does 26 damage when he super-crits. Kannon, the Scythe Wielding Athiest Cleric, 14 str, deals 2d4+2 maximized x4. Effectively, 44 damage. Kannon did more than Bob, but Bobs chances would come more often, since his threat range is larger. Massive Threat Ranges are counteracted by having low crit multipliers. I'd also rule the second 2 confirmations must be 20s. The threat range only starts the chain- the 20s must finish it.
Sinaz 08-23-05, 06:07 PM	Here's the rule I planned on using- 20/20/20 doesn't instakill- 20/20/20 is Crit with definite max damage. Bob the Fighter with 16 str and his Falchion, with Weapon Specilization does 26 damage when he super-crits. Kannon, the Scythe Wielding Athiest Cleric, 14 str, deals 2d4+2 maximized x4. Effectively, 44 damage. Kannon did more than Bob, but Bobs chances would come more often, since his threat range is larger. Massive Threat Ranges are counteracted by having low crit multipliers. I'd also rule the second 2 confirmations must be 20s. The threat range only starts the chain- the 20s must finish it. That's kind of cool... with melee weapons, an effective super-crit could yeild massive damage to a creature... forcing them to make a fort check or die... a nice system if you ask me.
SKB 08-23-05, 07:35 PM	This is all nice with weapons, threat ranges, and multipliers. However, what if a non-weapon is used like a rock. In a 20-20-Confirm = Death model a rock would instantly kill the target. Sort of like David and Goliath, but that's a myth and this is fantasy. Imagine the village commoners using their pet rocks to volley at the invading orc forces and win. I would use a 20-20-Confirm = -1 HP, effectively dropping the target and starting the dying process.
Bruunwald 08-23-05, 07:43 PM	Sort of like David and Goliath, but that's a myth and this is fantasy. Imagine the village commoners using their pet rocks to volley at the invading orc forces and win. Personally, my feeling is that myth, fantasy and religion are all the same and all fullfill the same function. But if we can split hairs for a second, do you mean to say that David killing Goliath with a single blow from a sling does not fit into the realm of D&D fantasy, or apply to the 20-20-confirm rule? Or that it is an example of it? Because I would say it's 100% a great example of it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that example was one that was on the playtesters' minds when they played it/invented it.
was_fired 08-23-05, 07:52 PM	The odds of an event taking place which is composed of two other probabilities is: 1 - (1 - Prob of Event A) * (1 - Prob of Event B), not Prob of Event A + Prob of Event B. While you have only seen it happen once I have to ask how often you see people who make builds which attempt to cause it. In the case of the 9 attack build we find that he has a 50% chance of instantly killing something at least once per 93 rounds. If you have every combat you have is against an equal CR foe and lasts for three full attacks you will have 13 and 1/3 encounters per level or 40 full attacks per level. This means that roughly every two levels you could flip a coin to find out if you instantly killed one of your foes.
SKB 08-23-05, 09:19 PM	Bruunwald: It was an example. The myth and fantasy line is sarcasm, but it didn't come across as such. Myth and fantasy do full fill the same function, but myth doesn't have game mechanics and fantasy (D&D) does. I'm also not here to state "intent" of play testers/inventors, but I am simply stating my game mechanics opinion that I would rather get dropped to -1 HP from a rock then to receive death.
Duration_10_Rounds 08-23-05, 09:27 PM	I dont see it happening much we have always used the 20/20/Hit = insta-kill. In the last 2 years its happned to a player once and I did it 3 sessions ago to a worg (woop-te-frikken-do)and thats been our insta-kill rate for 2 years. It's rare, it deserves a little extra effect. Insta kill is no biggy. This game has low CR creatures (6 i think is the lowes i have seen) with frikken death gaze abilities. Thats one roll, save or die on a low level encounter. Awesome melee hits are hardly out of the scope of the game and 20/20hit is rare enough to make it worth an insta-kill.
Chosen of the Dark Sun 08-23-05, 10:15 PM	natural 20, natural 20, natural 20 should in my humble opinion result in death.. I can't calculate the probability of such rolls, but I think they are very, very far apart... I think your idea is pretty good, but as a player I think I would have wanted more when rolling that many natural 20's (not just threats) in a row... :) The triple 20= death variant is what I use. It kind of sucked though when that kind of insta-death happened to my DMPC from a standard goblin... :weep:
Loren Pechtel 08-23-05, 11:54 PM	natural 20, natural 20, natural 20 should in my humble opinion result in death.. I can't calculate the probability of such rolls, but I think they are very, very far apart... I think your idea is pretty good, but as a player I think I would have wanted more when rolling that many natural 20's (not just threats) in a row... :) 20, 20, 20 occurs 1 in 8000 rolls. It can be quite lethal in some circumstances. Eons ago the party was scouting an orc army. They goofed up and ended up running for their lives under fire. I forget how many hundereds of arrows a round were coming their way. (By the RAW they wouldn't have made it. However they all had at least large shields which they were holding over their heads against the arrow fire. Since the orcs needed a 20 to hit anyway the RAW said that what should be an effective tactic would be of no benefit. Thus I allowed the shields to deflect some percentage of the arrows.) Using a 20/20/20 rule would mean something like a 50% chance of a PC death from this single unplanned encounter (the mission they were given was pure recon. They decided to capture a commander by an ambush at the latrine. They were all busy with their captive ignoring the fact that they were in the enemy camp and got seen by the next orc to come by.) quite apart from the hp's being done by the arrows. That's the most attacks I've ever done in a single encounter but I probably fired about as many over a series of encounters caused by a single malfunctioning item. By 3E rules these would have been very low XP encounters. CR 3's for a party level of about 10.
Boredom801 08-24-05, 12:10 AM	The triple 20= death variant is what I use. It kind of sucked though when that kind of insta-death happened to my DMPC from a standard goblin... :weep: OK, so this is off topic, but DMPC?? Why do a lot of people I know INSIST on having one of their PC's play whilst they DM?!?! If you want to play, play, and if you're DM'in, you're not playing. Sorry about hijacking this thread a little, but I guess that's just a thing that bugs me. I know there are types out there who DM a whole lot and don't get to play that often, but you should try to find a group where more than one person is willing to DM, just to break up the monotony. I think threat-20-confirm should be a double critical (ie: x2 becomes x4). I don't like auto-kills so if you include them at all, I'd make them 20-20-20-dead. As for this one, am I the only one who has read in the back of the book about multiplying multipliers?? According to the rules, if there are two multipliers, you add up how ever many multipliers there are, and then subtract one for every multiplier beyong the first. For example, the multiplier given (x2), if it was a double critical, it would move up to x3 (2+2=4-1=3). Then again, I guess since we're using house rules for this part, it's ok to not use the regular rules for most other situations that there are rules for... Well, if I'm wrong on anything, I'm sure I'll be told about how I'm wrong and all feedback is taken into consideration, so please leave me a message to tell me how stupid and idiotic I am.
Kojiro James 08-24-05, 12:17 AM	The triple 20= death variant is what I use. It kind of sucked though when that kind of insta-death happened to my DMPC from a standard goblin... :weep: That's what you get for having a DMPC. You deserved it.
Xanthia 08-24-05, 12:18 AM	20-20-Confirm is safe to use. In my 7 years of DMing, it's only ever happened 3 times, and it was always on a Kobold or some other easy-to-kill creature.
KeltenVonRatzenberger 08-24-05, 01:20 AM	OK, so this is off topic, but DMPC?? Why do a lot of people I know INSIST on having one of their PC's play whilst they DM?!?! If you want to play, play, and if you're DM'in, you're not playing. Sorry about hijacking this thread a little, but I guess that's just a thing that bugs me. I know there are types out there who DM a whole lot and don't get to play that often, but you should try to find a group where more than one person is willing to DM, just to break up the monotony. I played a DMPC in the beginning of the campaign because there were 3 players and nobody played a caster. For Party balance I had a Sorc in the party to cover bases. As the group grew, my DMPC took off (being exposed as an agent of the enemy in the process). Now me and another DM in the group switch off campaigns once a month so we each get a chance to run just a PC. Works out well. As far as the variant death rule, I use 20-20-20=Dead. All the DMs in the group do and in all the years and all the campaigns I think it's only happened twice.
Boredom801 08-24-05, 02:10 AM	I played a DMPC in the beginning of the campaign because there were 3 players and nobody played a caster. For Party balance I had a Sorc in the party to cover bases. As the group grew, my DMPC took off (being exposed as an agent of the enemy in the process). Now me and another DM in the group switch off campaigns once a month so we each get a chance to run just a PC. Works out well. Well, I guess my question here is more indepth than I led it to believe. I guess I can understand from one aspect of a character's been adventuring with a wizard for 3 yrs of real-life campaigning and he has come almost dependant on the wizard to make a magic item for him when it's necessary, but then, because the player is now the DM, the DMPC is always 'too busy' to help the guys who he has adventured with and helped bring him his massive fortune and such. That, I guess I have no problem with, but for someone to just plug their own character in whenever the party needs (character type X), I see that as kinda silly and selfish. Yes, I know building and crafting each individual NPC can be rather tidious and boring, but I don't know if pluggin one of your characters in as an NPC that they can call on is a better option. Yes, I understand that creating the world and adventure and such can be time-consuming and you don't feel like there's enough time to customize every Tom, Dick & Harry out there, but fleshin out a few NPC's, or maybe getting an NPC generator that gives you kind of an insight (in the form of highlights, not looking for a discertation here) as to how someone ticks. I guess all I'm really getting at is that out of the millions, if not billions, of NPC's out there, why do a lot of DM's think that their character is the only one fit for the job??
danzig138 08-24-05, 03:06 AM	Because I've been playing for 24+ years, and I've rarely seen multiple 20s in the same session, much less rolled consecutively by the same player on multiple turns. But does it happen often? Like I said, in the five years since 3.0 came out, I've maybe seen the 20-20-confirm happen once. I've been playing for 17 years, and DMing for 16. Just this last game day, I hit the same character for 12 critical hits, all off nat 20s. None of them came from attacks with threats of 19 or lower. And that's not counting the nat 20s I scored on the other characters but didn't confirm. The same character also was killed by a 20/20/confirm in the same session. I changed dice repeatedly to make sure it wasn't my dice. For some reason, I roll an ungodly number of nat 20s when making rolls against that player's characters. If I thought my dice were sentient, I'd have to think that they didn't like him. I'd say that since 3E came out and we've been playing (the beginning), there have been about 10-15 PC deaths and several NPC/critter deaths from the 20/20/confirm rule.
KeltenVonRatzenberger 08-24-05, 03:39 AM	I guess all I'm really getting at is that out of the millions, if not billions, of NPC's out there, why do a lot of DM's think that their character is the only one fit for the job?? I think we disagree on the definition of a DMPC, or I am wrong in my definition. The particular situation I was referring to was one where the party wanted a caster to travel with them. I played the NPC that they had tag along. (They met on a boat, were heading to a region the Sorc was familiar with and he served as a guide and combat partner.) Yes I filled out a character sheet for him but that was only because of the length of time he was with the party. I guess my question comes down to what's the difference between a NPC and a DMPC? Both interact with the PC's, both are played by the DM. All the NPCs are my characters.
Illion the Red 08-24-05, 08:31 AM	I guess my question comes down to what's the difference between a NPC and a DMPC? Both interact with the PC's, both are played by the DM. All the NPCs are my characters. My primary DMPC definition has to do with experience and treasure. If the NPC is getting a full share of either or both, then chances are that the NPC is, in fact, a DMPC. A secondary measure would be how active is the NPC. If the NPC is noticably active, then chances are it is a DMPC. A Tertiary measure would be how much information the NPC has/uses. Another tertiary measure is "spotlight time." NPC almost never take the spotlight away from PCs unless it is in a confrontational situation such as the BBEG gloating over captured PCs. None of these are absolute, but they all seem to be good indicators.
Blackrazorblade 08-24-05, 02:27 PM	By my definition, you CANNOT moderate min/max. Someone who makes a "Effective Character" is not min/maxing. An "Effective Fighter" is any fighter with a good strength score, a good melee weapon, and a selection of feats to choose from to make him good at fighting, and a few skills that help this. A "min/maxed Fighter" is a fighter who picks a x4 crit weapon, boosts his threat range to 15-20 by use of magic items and feats, and gets magic items to boost the specific stats he needs and sacrifices anything else. This character becomes such a combat borg that it unbalances the party - this charcter can wade through monsters equal to his level while the rest of the party views them as legitimate threats. A min/maxed fighter, wizard, or anything can be a DM nightmare. Basically you end up with one or two characters that can annihilate anything you throw at them, while the rest of the party just sits idley by. Aside from screwing up the balance of your encounters, this ends up frustrating the other players, because the min/maxers steal the spotlight in every combat. It all depends on what one considers min/maxing. I've seen character ideas that have almost zero gameplay sense but are based on a "cool" concept. As i said though, if a min/max'd ftr has a great threat range make the party face a lich and his golem or a few vampires. His crits are useless now, and the cleric get to shine agianst the undead. Next encounter could add some needed stealth, its impossible to accomplish their goal by force so the rogue and wizard need to help the party sneak in to enemies fortress and steal the whatever. Then add some encounters where the fighter CAN shine ( or don't to teach him a lesson). Also, i made a character once that was amzing against drow, was a ranger/assassin, now the Dm had told us it would be a "drow" campaign, where we all were drow in a city with the whole cliche warring houses. I took what the DM told us and made a very very good anti-drow character would you consider that min/maxing? All i did was make a workable character type that i could have a believeable background to RP