Critical Hits:
Critical hits are now triggerd on the part of the weapon statistic that says critical. All it means is when you roll that much or higher on the d20, your weapon hits, regardless if you met the AC or not.
If you roll a 19 or 20 on your dagger attack roll, you hit, period.
20=Max Damage:
If you roll a 20 on your attack roll damage is maximum.
Multiple:
Damage is now multiplied within the confines of a normal attack roll. So like a club deals 1d6 x2 damage, not just 1d6 damage.
Internal Damage:
When you deal more damage then your opponent's constitution score, internal damage is triggerd, they take the amount of internal damage as indicated by the weapon every round untill they succeed at a dice-check also listed on the weapon. Not a saving throw, not a skill-check, no modifiers. Just a pure d20 roll...
This was planned to overlap massive damage, but it is not nesscary to do so. (Though reccomended..)
Bastard Sword
Damage: 1d10+1 x2. Critical: 19-20 Internal Damage: 5 DC: 5
Immagine a level 20 wizard thinking he's badass, a level 10 commoner being smart enough to train himself in a bastard sword. (It was worth the feat burn..)
On a 19-20 his attack will always work. On a 20 the damage is maximum. (22 damage)
That's probably enough to trigger internal damage, so every round the wizard has to roll 5 or higher on a d20 or take an additional 5 damage.
The level 20 wizard may reconsider attacking a village at this rate..
Seems fun...
But would you have to do the DC for each weapon manually or is there a formula?
Also not weapons with X4 Crit are alot better than now...
D-End
P.S. Also, a level 20 Wizard can still kill a level 10 commoner (Fly)
Otherwise I'm actually pretty OK with this.
Modifying something this basic seems pretty safe 'cause it's going to impact everyone but spell casters with equal severity. You should playtest the hell out of your proposed crit-threat to insta-hit system, but that's so restricted in third edition all it's likely to really do is encourage two weapon fighting a bit, and that's A-ok.
This means that my level 40 fighter with an AC of 146 will always be hit 30% of the time by a first level commoner with a keen scimitar (15-20 crit).
This also means that a wizard with a spell like the dagger-thowing one (where you can throw a bunch of daggers per round - don't remember the name) will be a better fighter than the fighter thanks to simple mechanical oversight.
This also means that spells like shocking grasp will dominate the playing field, as they almost always do more damage than a person's CON score (and never more than that) with a simple touch to hit. This includes inflict moderate wounds (2d8+level offers that at level 3 you're doing an average of 12) and fireball (AoE that does multiple dice of damage - which means bleed city).
Even if you restrict it to weapon attacks only, this still includes weapon-like spells such as shocking grasp and inflict wounds, as mentioned above.
All this means is that the wizard is still badass, infact he is even more so now (truestrike with an enlarged greatsword = equals character death almost every time). Meanwhile the fighter now has to fear peasantry armed with sicles and daggers - this is because he cannot levitate or fly, or has clones, or mirror images, or the ability to turn invisible.
This "system" needs a major overhaul before it can be considered to give non-casters an edge, and not just make them suck even more.
I'm still play testing my spellcraft spellcasting check. Which requires all spellcasters to make a spellcraft skillcheck whenever they cast a spell, something like 10+the spell's level x2.
(So a level 1 spell DC 12, a level 9 spell DC 28)
That will probably only work till high levels, but there's still a 5% (rolled a 1) chance that the spell could go awry, and the wizard is running from his own floating knives and just wasted a spell-slot.
I hate to break it to you, but spellcasters will always **** the rules royally. If it exists, spellcasters will find a way to abuse it. I know that's kind of their whole schnict, but it can be annoying when the poor fighter can't do what he does best cause the wizard and druid are doing it better without trying.
It does not mean that you are justified in exacerbating the problem, even inadvertently. Since a potential flaw has been pointed out, you should be trying to revise and resolve it, rather than trying to cling onto your (already proven) faulty concept and insisting that it works.
I'm still play testing my spellcraft spellcasting check. Which requires all spellcasters to make a spellcraft skillcheck whenever they cast a spell, something like 10+the spell's level x2.
(So a level 1 spell DC 12, a level 9 spell DC 28)
What makes you think they will have problems making those checks? I can't see a wizard ever failing those dcs.
What makes you think they will have problems making those checks? I can't see a wizard ever failing those dcs.
That and it really hinders the half-casters, like the ranger and the paladin. Now those martial classes are even more beaten down unless they opt to go spell-less (which means one less option available to the player).
People hated it, yeah, combat went faster. That is to say people died within a round. (No joke, a round)
Because of the horridous amount of attacks dexterity bestowed, it did not matter how much HP you gained (and I made you gain alot the odds were stacked against anyone who went second in combat. Period. To say this made non-casters balanced with casters was moot, because yeah, casters weren't dealing as much damage, but it doesn't matter cause everyone died all the same.
Infact my players got so snippy about it. They began to sarcasticaly snark at the table.
Patrick: James! Give me a reading of this guy's damage output!
James: IT'S OVER 9000!!!!!
Patrick: What?! 9000?! There's no way that could be right COULD IT?!?!?!
Amaya: I think it's right, after all, he was trained in the art of crappy house-rules.
Jim Profit: Ok, I'm glad you're all really good at quoting dbz.. but comeon! I'm your boyfriend Amaya! I expected you--
Amaya: I love you Jim. But why do we play test any of your crap?! It's like putting a hamster in a microwave, and expecting a result that doesn't involve blood, pain, and moral disgust!