Criticals idea. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Criticals idea.

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Iorwerth
Jun 16, 2008 11:28:39 Looking at the new critical rules it reminded me of a critical system we used to use in our 2nd edition games. It too worked on a natural 20 being a critical. One of the differences was that it did not do maximum damage but instead doubled the damage you rolled. The other difference was that if you rolled a 20 you got to roll again. If you rolled another 20 then you doubled the damage you had rolled for the intitial critical. You would then roll again to see if you could get another 20, which would double the damage again. This could repeat so long as you rolled 20's - though I think the maximum we had was only 3 or 4 in a row.

I was wondering if the same type of system could be added to the new D&D? This would allow a greater proportion of a target's hit points being taken out in one blow, if you get very lucky and roll multiple 20's and also creates an outside chance (very outside for creatures with loads of hit points!) that any combatant could be taken out by just one blow. I have always prefered a system where it is theoretically possible for a powerful fighter to be killed from one well placed dagger thrust, even if unlikely.

I would like some advice from people with more experience of this version then myself about whether such a system would break the game or just make combats more dangerous, and also some ideas of how it might work if just doubling damage was considered too overpowering and so needed to be toned down.

Any advice much appreciated..
#2
Thought
Jun 16, 2008 13:49:37 That is basically exactly why the Criticals were revamped for 4e. Ideally, they wanted a Critical to still be exciting but not something that could decide a battle (I've annoyed many a DM by getting a string of Criticals that made the BBEG fall before he even got a turn).

However, that aside, there is no reason why this couldn't be changed in 4e. You already know how it works (and the risks and benefits) from previous editions, so it would do you well to keep those in mind.

This would generally favor the monsters over the players, however. While unlikely in the short run, over long periods of time and many encounters it becomes very probable that a PC will die from this. Players generally don't have fun when there characters are taken out easily. So keep that in mind too.
#3
Iorwerth
Jun 16, 2008 14:32:07 The fact that it makes it more dangerous for characters is part of the reason we like it. For us, the finer line the characters can walk between life and death the more exciting it is - so long as they have a fighting chance. When things are very dangerous it means the players really have to be on the top of their game and tactically astute to ensure things are in their favour. I suppose we have always played in a style where getting to high level is an achievement rather than a common occurence, as many of their comrades will have died along the way. We even banned raise dead and ressurection from our game - once you are dead,that's it.

Given all that, would a system where each additional 20 rolled, beyond the first, causes the damage to double be too overpowering and upset the game balance too much? I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

In our old 2nd edition system, a multi-class barbarian (a class from the White Dwarf magazine) / thief did an insane amount of damage to a frost giant in the Frost Giant's Lair by combining his thief's backstab ability with his barbarian's 'First Attack Ferocity' ability (each multipliers in their own right) and then rolling four 20's. It happened over 20 years ago but we all still remember it (and the one who did it still remembers his final damage total!)
#4
masteraaron
Jun 16, 2008 14:34:03 I agree with Thought. I tried a similar rule in 3.5, and it got very ugly at a couple points. Recurring villain was nearly killed in the first round of combat, and later in the same session an umber hulk's chain crit brought the party's rogue from full health to dying. 4E is designed around longer combats than 3E was, and I'd be leery of changing that.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Iorwerth Jun 16, 2008 11:28:39	Looking at the new critical rules it reminded me of a critical system we used to use in our 2nd edition games. It too worked on a natural 20 being a critical. One of the differences was that it did not do maximum damage but instead doubled the damage you rolled. The other difference was that if you rolled a 20 you got to roll again. If you rolled another 20 then you doubled the damage you had rolled for the intitial critical. You would then roll again to see if you could get another 20, which would double the damage again. This could repeat so long as you rolled 20's - though I think the maximum we had was only 3 or 4 in a row. I was wondering if the same type of system could be added to the new D&D? This would allow a greater proportion of a target's hit points being taken out in one blow, if you get very lucky and roll multiple 20's and also creates an outside chance (very outside for creatures with loads of hit points!) that any combatant could be taken out by just one blow. I have always prefered a system where it is theoretically possible for a powerful fighter to be killed from one well placed dagger thrust, even if unlikely. I would like some advice from people with more experience of this version then myself about whether such a system would break the game or just make combats more dangerous, and also some ideas of how it might work if just doubling damage was considered too overpowering and so needed to be toned down. Any advice much appreciated..
#2 Thought Jun 16, 2008 13:49:37	That is basically exactly why the Criticals were revamped for 4e. Ideally, they wanted a Critical to still be exciting but not something that could decide a battle (I've annoyed many a DM by getting a string of Criticals that made the BBEG fall before he even got a turn). However, that aside, there is no reason why this couldn't be changed in 4e. You already know how it works (and the risks and benefits) from previous editions, so it would do you well to keep those in mind. This would generally favor the monsters over the players, however. While unlikely in the short run, over long periods of time and many encounters it becomes very probable that a PC will die from this. Players generally don't have fun when there characters are taken out easily. So keep that in mind too.
#3 Iorwerth Jun 16, 2008 14:32:07	The fact that it makes it more dangerous for characters is part of the reason we like it. For us, the finer line the characters can walk between life and death the more exciting it is - so long as they have a fighting chance. When things are very dangerous it means the players really have to be on the top of their game and tactically astute to ensure things are in their favour. I suppose we have always played in a style where getting to high level is an achievement rather than a common occurence, as many of their comrades will have died along the way. We even banned raise dead and ressurection from our game - once you are dead,that's it. Given all that, would a system where each additional 20 rolled, beyond the first, causes the damage to double be too overpowering and upset the game balance too much? I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In our old 2nd edition system, a multi-class barbarian (a class from the White Dwarf magazine) / thief did an insane amount of damage to a frost giant in the Frost Giant's Lair by combining his thief's backstab ability with his barbarian's 'First Attack Ferocity' ability (each multipliers in their own right) and then rolling four 20's. It happened over 20 years ago but we all still remember it (and the one who did it still remembers his final damage total!)
#4 masteraaron Jun 16, 2008 14:34:03	I agree with Thought. I tried a similar rule in 3.5, and it got very ugly at a couple points. Recurring villain was nearly killed in the first round of combat, and later in the same session an umber hulk's chain crit brought the party's rogue from full health to dying. 4E is designed around longer combats than 3E was, and I'd be leery of changing that.