critical strike house rule - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 starfire311 Mar 07, 2007 8:12:10	Just wondering what you guys would think about a houserule for cirts for weapons with greater than x2 multipier. Instead of making one attack roll to confirm a crit, make 1 attack roll for each multiplier above 1. For each confirmation you do an extra multiple of damage. For example: A scythe has x4 crit multiplier. So you would make 3 attack rolls to confirm a crit. With 1 success you do x2 damage, with 2 successes you do x3 damage, and with 3 successes you do x4 damage. This would make the x4 crits a lot more rare, but it would really reduce the odds of wasting that nat 20 on a high crit weapon. This also fixes something that has always bothered me a bit. The fact that you are far more likely to do 10 points or 8 points of damage with a scythe than 9.
#2 highbulp Mar 07, 2007 8:47:01	Basically you're nerfing anything with a high crit multiplier. Normally, a 19-20/x2 weapon and a 20/x3 weapon are statistically identical in terms of damage. So mechanically there is no difference between a Battleaxe and a Longsword. But your rules would make the higher crit range more important than the multiplier, so that the longsword would actually be a mechanically better choice. Why would anyone use a battleaxe now? Plus, it adds more rolling on a critical threat, which slows the game down. Also, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the scythe's damage range. Your system doesn't really help with that--a short sword (without any other damage modifiers) is still unable to do exactly 7 damage. And your scythe is still unable to do exactly 11 damage. So what? Why does it bother you?
#3 starfire311 Mar 07, 2007 9:03:53	Basically you're nerfing anything with a high crit multiplier. Normally, a 19-20/x2 weapon and a 20/x3 weapon are statistically identical in terms of damage. So mechanically there is no difference between a Battleaxe and a Longsword. But your rules would make the higher crit range more important than the multiplier, so that the longsword would actually be a mechanically better choice. Why would anyone use a battleaxe now? Plus, it adds more rolling on a critical threat, which slows the game down. I think you need to look at it again. 19-20/x2 would still give you a 10% chance of getting 1 threat roll, while in my system a 20/x3 would give a 5% chance to get 2 threat rolls, they are still the same. All this does is make it less likly to get the x3 with a great axe, but you will be much mroe likly to get a x2. assuming a 50% chance to confirm a crit currently you would have a 50% chance to do no extra damage, and a 50% chance to do x3, my system would shift it to a 25% chance of doing no extra damage, a 50% chance to do x2 damage and a 25% chance to do x3. Also, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the scythe's damage range. Your system doesn't really help with that--a short sword (without any other damage modifiers) is still unable to do exactly 7 damage. And your scythe is still unable to do exactly 11 damage. So what? Why does it bother you? maybe it is bad wording on my part, currently a scythe does 2D4 20/x4 fo a total range of 2-8 or 8-32 on a crit so it is possible to do 9 damage, it only happens on a crit, but as you can see it is more likly to do 10 damage or 8 damage on a given hit than 9. and it is entirely possible to do 11 damage with a scythe, not sure what you are talking about, same with a shortsowd, you can do 7 damage with a shortsword, a shortsword can do anywhere from 1 to 12 damage.
#4 highbulp Mar 07, 2007 9:46:32	I think you need to look at it again. 19-20/x2 would still give you a 10% chance of getting 1 threat roll, while in my system a 20/x3 would give a 5% chance to get 2 threat rolls, they are still the same. All this does is make it less likly to get the x3 with a great axe, but you will be much mroe likly to get a x2. assuming a 50% chance to confirm a crit currently you would have a 50% chance to do no extra damage, and a 50% chance to do x3, my system would shift it to a 25% chance of doing no extra damage, a 50% chance to do x2 damage and a 25% chance to do x3. My apologies, I misread. I thought you meant that you had to confirm the x2 damage before you rolled for the x3 damage. Your way does work out (I think anyway--I'm kind of lazy to do the math atm). As long as they can count any of the hits towards the first confirm, it should be okay. It is more dice rolling, but it puts crit damage on a bell curve. Sure, why not. It would be similar to using the 3d6 instead of d20 method, except just for crits. You'll have to let us know how it feels in play. maybe it is bad wording on my part, currently a scythe does 2D4 20/x4 fo a total range of 2-8 or 8-32 on a crit so it is possible to do 9 damage, it only happens on a crit, but as you can see it is more likly to do 10 damage or 8 damage on a given hit than 9. and it is entirely possible to do 11 damage with a scythe, not sure what you are talking about, same with a shortsowd, you can do 7 damage with a shortsword, a shortsword can do anywhere from 1 to 12 damage. No, on a crit a scythe has a damage range of {8,12,16,20,24,28,32}. It is impossible to take two Integers ranging from 1 to 4 inclusive, add them together, then multiply them by 4 in order to get 11 (in normal base of course). But please, if you know of a way for a scythe to deal 9 damage (without any strength/magic/whatever modifiers), let me know. Similarly, it is impossible for a scythe to do 11 damage (without modifiers). And a short sword has a crit damage range of {2,4,6,8,10,12}, so it is impossible for it to do 7 or 11 damage (without modifiers). And again, if you know of a way for a short sword to do 11 damage without modifiers... EDIT: Goddammit, I forgot that you roll the dice multiple times, you don't just multiply. I use wound/vitality so we haven't rolled extra crit damage in a long while :p I'm not sure if the additive curve really makes a 8 or a 10 more likely than a 9 with a scythe, but I guess it could be possible. But even if so--is it really enough to make that big of a difference? EDIT 2: Well I ran the numbers and got the following for when you roll 8d4 (so a crit with a scythe): Show 8 = 1, 1.52587890625E-5 9 = 8, 1.220703125E-4 10 = 36, 5.4931640625E-4 11 = 120, 0.0018310546875 12 = 322, 0.004913330078125 13 = 728, 0.0111083984375 14 = 1428, 0.02178955078125 15 = 2472, 0.0377197265625 16 = 3823, 0.0583343505859375 17 = 5328, 0.081298828125 18 = 6728, 0.1026611328125 19 = 7728, 0.117919921875 20 = 8092, 0.12347412109375 21 = 7728, 0.117919921875 22 = 6728, 0.1026611328125 23 = 5328, 0.081298828125 24 = 3823, 0.0583343505859375 25 = 2472, 0.0377197265625 26 = 1428, 0.02178955078125 27 = 728, 0.0111083984375 28 = 322, 0.004913330078125 29 = 120, 0.0018310546875 30 = 36, 5.4931640625E-4 31 = 8, 1.220703125E-4 32 = 1, 1.52587890625E-5
#5 starfire311 Mar 07, 2007 11:16:30	My apologies, I misread. I thought you meant that you had to confirm the x2 damage before you rolled for the x3 damage. Your way does work out (I think anyway--I'm kind of lazy to do the math atm). It works out to be basically the same as now excpet high threat ranges sacrifice some bang for some consistancy. It is more dice rolling, but it puts crit damage on a bell curve. Sure, why not. It would be similar to using the 3d6 instead of d20 method, except just for crits. You'll have to let us know how it feels in play. yeah that is kinda the idea, and if I use it I will let you know, my current campaign that I am about to start, I have already posted the houserules for so I don't think I chould change them now, but I still like to brainstorm for future games The first number is the amount of damage you get, the second is the number of ways to get that number, and the third is the chance that you roll that number. As you can see, it is a nice proper bell curve, where it is not more likely to get an 8 than a 9. Now I guess if you reduce all these to a 5% weight and then add in 95% weighted 1-8 bell cuve, then yeah you are when attacking with a scythe more likely to do 8 damage instead of 9. But that's normal for switching between both bell curves. It just seems to be such an odd problem to notice... I dunno. I better shuttup now before I make another mistake. thanks for doing the math, that was something I wanted to do but hadn't gotten the chance. anyway as you can see the damage distribution for a scythe under RAW has to peaks one at 5 and one at 20. so you are more likly to do 5 damage than 6, 7 or 8 and more likly to do 8 than 20 but you are more likly to do 20 than 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 or 19. I know it is really more a quirk of the system than a problem really, and I only think about ti anecdotely, but it sticks out sometimes to me.
#6 squidyak Apr 18, 2008 17:42:24	Rule yoinked!

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

starfire311

Mar 07, 2007 8:12:10

Just wondering what you guys would think about a houserule for cirts for weapons with greater than x2 multipier.

Instead of making one attack roll to confirm a crit, make 1 attack roll for each multiplier above 1. For each confirmation you do an extra multiple of damage.

For example:
A scythe has x4 crit multiplier. So you would make 3 attack rolls to confirm a crit. With 1 success you do x2 damage, with 2 successes you do x3 damage, and with 3 successes you do x4 damage.

This would make the x4 crits a lot more rare, but it would really reduce the odds of wasting that nat 20 on a high crit weapon. This also fixes something that has always bothered me a bit. The fact that you are far more likely to do 10 points or 8 points of damage with a scythe than 9.

highbulp

Mar 07, 2007 8:47:01

Basically you're nerfing anything with a high crit multiplier.

Normally, a 19-20/x2 weapon and a 20/x3 weapon are statistically identical in terms of damage. So mechanically there is no difference between a Battleaxe and a Longsword. But your rules would make the higher crit range more important than the multiplier, so that the longsword would actually be a mechanically better choice. Why would anyone use a battleaxe now? Plus, it adds more rolling on a critical threat, which slows the game down.

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the scythe's damage range. Your system doesn't really help with that--a short sword (without any other damage modifiers) is still unable to do exactly 7 damage. And your scythe is still unable to do exactly 11 damage. So what? Why does it bother you?

starfire311

Mar 07, 2007 9:03:53

Basically you're nerfing anything with a high crit multiplier.

Normally, a 19-20/x2 weapon and a 20/x3 weapon are statistically identical in terms of damage. So mechanically there is no difference between a Battleaxe and a Longsword. But your rules would make the higher crit range more important than the multiplier, so that the longsword would actually be a mechanically better choice. Why would anyone use a battleaxe now? Plus, it adds more rolling on a critical threat, which slows the game down.

I think you need to look at it again.

19-20/x2 would still give you a 10% chance of getting 1 threat roll, while in my system a 20/x3 would give a 5% chance to get 2 threat rolls, they are still the same. All this does is make it less likly to get the x3 with a great axe, but you will be much mroe likly to get a x2.

assuming a 50% chance to confirm a crit currently you would have a 50% chance to do no extra damage, and a 50% chance to do x3, my system would shift it to a 25% chance of doing no extra damage, a 50% chance to do x2 damage and a 25% chance to do x3.

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the scythe's damage range. Your system doesn't really help with that--a short sword (without any other damage modifiers) is still unable to do exactly 7 damage. And your scythe is still unable to do exactly 11 damage. So what? Why does it bother you?

maybe it is bad wording on my part, currently a scythe does 2D4 20/x4
fo a total range of 2-8 or 8-32 on a crit so it is possible to do 9 damage, it only happens on a crit, but as you can see it is more likly to do 10 damage or 8 damage on a given hit than 9. and it is entirely possible to do 11 damage with a scythe, not sure what you are talking about, same with a shortsowd, you can do 7 damage with a shortsword, a shortsword can do anywhere from 1 to 12 damage.

highbulp

Mar 07, 2007 9:46:32

I think you need to look at it again.

19-20/x2 would still give you a 10% chance of getting 1 threat roll, while in my system a 20/x3 would give a 5% chance to get 2 threat rolls, they are still the same. All this does is make it less likly to get the x3 with a great axe, but you will be much mroe likly to get a x2.

assuming a 50% chance to confirm a crit currently you would have a 50% chance to do no extra damage, and a 50% chance to do x3, my system would shift it to a 25% chance of doing no extra damage, a 50% chance to do x2 damage and a 25% chance to do x3.

My apologies, I misread. I thought you meant that you had to confirm the x2 damage before you rolled for the x3 damage. Your way does work out (I think anyway--I'm kind of lazy to do the math atm). As long as they can count any of the hits towards the first confirm, it should be okay. It is more dice rolling, but it puts crit damage on a bell curve. Sure, why not. It would be similar to using the 3d6 instead of d20 method, except just for crits. You'll have to let us know how it feels in play.

maybe it is bad wording on my part, currently a scythe does 2D4 20/x4 fo a total range of 2-8 or 8-32 on a crit so it is possible to do 9 damage, it only happens on a crit, but as you can see it is more likly to do 10 damage or 8 damage on a given hit than 9. and it is entirely possible to do 11 damage with a scythe, not sure what you are talking about, same with a shortsowd, you can do 7 damage with a shortsword, a shortsword can do anywhere from 1 to 12 damage.

No, on a crit a scythe has a damage range of {8,12,16,20,24,28,32}. It is impossible to take two Integers ranging from 1 to 4 inclusive, add them together, then multiply them by 4 in order to get 11 (in normal base of course). But please, if you know of a way for a scythe to deal 9 damage (without any strength/magic/whatever modifiers), let me know.

Similarly, it is impossible for a scythe to do 11 damage (without modifiers). And a short sword has a crit damage range of {2,4,6,8,10,12}, so it is impossible for it to do 7 or 11 damage (without modifiers). And again, if you know of a way for a short sword to do 11 damage without modifiers...

EDIT: Goddammit, I forgot that you roll the dice multiple times, you don't just multiply. I use wound/vitality so we haven't rolled extra crit damage in a long while :p

I'm not sure if the additive curve really makes a 8 or a 10 more likely than a 9 with a scythe, but I guess it could be possible. But even if so--is it really enough to make that big of a difference?

EDIT 2: Well I ran the numbers and got the following for when you roll 8d4 (so a crit with a scythe):

Show

8 = 1, 1.52587890625E-5
9 = 8, 1.220703125E-4
10 = 36, 5.4931640625E-4
11 = 120, 0.0018310546875
12 = 322, 0.004913330078125
13 = 728, 0.0111083984375
14 = 1428, 0.02178955078125
15 = 2472, 0.0377197265625
16 = 3823, 0.0583343505859375
17 = 5328, 0.081298828125
18 = 6728, 0.1026611328125
19 = 7728, 0.117919921875
20 = 8092, 0.12347412109375
21 = 7728, 0.117919921875
22 = 6728, 0.1026611328125
23 = 5328, 0.081298828125
24 = 3823, 0.0583343505859375
25 = 2472, 0.0377197265625
26 = 1428, 0.02178955078125
27 = 728, 0.0111083984375
28 = 322, 0.004913330078125
29 = 120, 0.0018310546875
30 = 36, 5.4931640625E-4
31 = 8, 1.220703125E-4
32 = 1, 1.52587890625E-5

starfire311

Mar 07, 2007 11:16:30

My apologies, I misread. I thought you meant that you had to confirm the x2 damage before you rolled for the x3 damage. Your way does work out (I think anyway--I'm kind of lazy to do the math atm).

It works out to be basically the same as now excpet high threat ranges sacrifice some bang for some consistancy.

It is more dice rolling, but it puts crit damage on a bell curve. Sure, why not. It would be similar to using the 3d6 instead of d20 method, except just for crits. You'll have to let us know how it feels in play.

yeah that is kinda the idea, and if I use it I will let you know, my current campaign that I am about to start, I have already posted the houserules for so I don't think I chould change them now, but I still like to brainstorm for future games

The first number is the amount of damage you get, the second is the number of ways to get that number, and the third is the chance that you roll that number. As you can see, it is a nice proper bell curve, where it is not more likely to get an 8 than a 9.

Now I guess if you reduce all these to a 5% weight and then add in 95% weighted 1-8 bell cuve, then yeah you are when attacking with a scythe more likely to do 8 damage instead of 9. But that's normal for switching between both bell curves. It just seems to be such an odd problem to notice... I dunno. I better shuttup now before I make another mistake.

thanks for doing the math, that was something I wanted to do but hadn't gotten the chance.

anyway as you can see the damage distribution for a scythe under RAW has to peaks one at 5 and one at 20.

so you are more likly to do 5 damage than 6, 7 or 8 and more likly to do 8 than 20 but you are more likly to do 20 than 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 or 19.

I know it is really more a quirk of the system than a problem really, and I only think about ti anecdotely, but it sticks out sometimes to me.

squidyak

Apr 18, 2008 17:42:24

Rule yoinked!