"Rolling a Critical"

[martin4frogs]

I've been thinking about this a little bit, and since most of my gaming group are D&D players, I'm sure it'll come up. Anyone have any thoughts on how to build a power with a "crit chance"?

My thoughts are using a custom limitation on additional linked damage that it can only be used on let's say an attack roll of 4 or less.

Any other ideas, suggestions, concepts?

[mayapuppies]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

Trigger works perfectly for this

[ghost-angel]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

Usually, you make it a campaign ground rule. You're either going to use Critical Hits, or you're not.

[martin4frogs]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

Huh, I don't know why that never occurred to me. Thanks for the input.

Mine is a fairly new group to the system. Trying to get them away from fantasy and D&D and into something more fun.

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

Trigger works perfectly for this

 

The problem with 'trigger' is that it costs more. If you are going to make any extra damage 0 END anyway, you might as well just buy extra damage at zero END and use it with all attacks (it doesn't inconvenience you any more) AND THEN limit it so that it only occurs in certain situations: compare:

 

Critical: 22 active, 9 real - Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (22 Active Points); Requires A Roll (Attack roll, -1 per 5 Active Points modifier; -1 i.e. ab attack roll at -4), No STR Bonus (-1/2)

 

with

 

Critical: 30 actie, 20 real - Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Trigger (Activating the Trigger requires a Zero Phase Action, Trigger requires a Zero Phase Action to reset; Triggered by an attack roll 4 or more better than needed; +1/2) (30 Active Points); No STR Bonus (-1/2)

[Doc Democracy]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

The thing that you also want to think about with respect to criticals is what you want to achieve with them. It is not immediately obvious to many people but criticals are detrimental to PCs. However players (like most normal people) love getting something for nothing (or a prize for doing well - even it is is a random roll).

 

I'd be inclined to limit critical attacks to PCs and named villains - the important ones (and even then, their critical opportunities should come at critical junctures in the story). I might even have a red card that I could throw in the middle of the table to indicate to players that the villains were now capable of scoring criticals.

 

Should criticals simply be extra damage or should they be something else? Possibilities include inflicting disabilities or impairments, causing a scar or other imperfection, possibly even breaking an item or a power. All of these are accomplishable within the system - you need to think what is going to add most to your game and deliver most fun to the players.

 

Doc

[Matt Holck]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

in my game,

assuming the character has a 7- chance to hit or more

a roll of 4 does x1.5 damage

a roll of 3 does x2 damage (alternatively, I allowed the character to choose hit location)

 

a 5- roll is an automatic hit based on the 5% (1 in 20 chance)

[Doc Democracy]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

Is there a reason you went for x1.5 and x2 damage?

 

I think that I would have been more likely to opt for additional dice or perhaps defence negation. The options in HERO are extensive...

 

If you could bear the effort - different weapons could achieve different kinds of criticals

 

Doc

[Ternaugh]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

We used to use the rule that we'd max out the damage dice for a critical hit (see 6E2 118, though I seem to remember it from 2e/3e days). I'd be more inclined to use Doc Democracy's suggestions now, however.

 

JoeG

[Tasha]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

Or you could use a number of optional rules. In old School Fantasy hero; Any roll that is made by less than half (ie rolling a 5 or less on an 11-less roll) would cause Maximum damage. I have seen house rules that increased the damage by 2 dcs when a "Crit" is rolled.

 

Also using the hit location charts can give the same feeling of a "Critical Hit" rolling a 3-5 or a 13 causes the body damage to be doubled after defenses and has a x5 or a x4 stun multiple. If you like really deadly games combine both. Critical hits and the hit Location chart.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

I dislike automatic criticals on a specific roll - hard to hit targets never get hit with a non-critical hit! I prefer the D&D approach of "this gives you a chance, but you must roll again to confirm". Maybe you need to hit by some margin to critical. If you had to hit by 5, then needing 11- (OCV = DCV) criticals on 6-, and if you need a 7 or less, you're just not good enough to get a critical against that opponent.

 

As DD says, criticals ultimately work against PC's. The more battles you are in, the more chances for a critical to come up. Nameless Orc #7 will never be seen again, regardless of the outcome of the battle. If one in 100 attacks is a critical, most NPC's will never be hit with one, but all the PC's will eventually.

 

I like the idea of just adding X DC's, rather than a 50%/100% increase in damage. A 12d6 attack against a target with 25 defenses does 17 damage average. Add another 2d6, and 24 damage gets through - a 40% increase. Add 4d6 and 31 gets through - almost double damage. If you mutiply damage by 1.5 or 2, damage through jumps to 38 (about 2 1/4 times) and 59 (over 4x) past defenses.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

I've always found the stock HERO critical hit system mentioned above (Roll under half what you need to hit for maximum damage) to work well. If implemented, however, it does change the dynamics of a campaign. You begin to see attacks in terms of their maximum damage rather than their average damage, Crits come to represent more of a "really solid hit" rather than a "once-in-a-blue-moon spectacular lucky blow", there is far more decision making in the allocation of levels (because increasing OCV can also potentially increase damage), and the gap between Normal Damage and Killing Damage is fairly well closed (by allowing Normal attacks to break their otherwise quite restrictive bell curve and actually do max damage more than once in the life of a player). It's a very workable system once you get used to it... I've used both Crits and Hit Locations togetehr for quite a long time noppw, even in Supers games, and they do the job quite nicely. It's just another way to tune the system.

[casualplayer]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

I've always found the stock HERO critical hit system mentioned above (Roll under half what you need to hit for maximum damage) to work well. If implemented' date=' however, it does change the dynamics of a campaign. You begin to see attacks in terms of their maximum damage rather than their average damage, Crits come to represent more of a "really solid hit" rather than a "once-in-a-blue-moon spectacular lucky blow", there is far more decision making in the allocation of levels (because increasing OCV can also potentially increase damage), and the gap between Normal Damage and Killing Damage is fairly well closed (by allowing Normal attacks to break their otherwise quite restrictive bell curve and actually do max damage more than once in the life of a player). It's a very workable system once you get used to it... I've used both Crits and Hit Locations togetehr for quite a long time noppw, even in Supers games, and they do the job quite nicely. It's just another way to tune the system.[/quote']

 

I second this, and this is what I use. By using this you start gauging powers based off of the "perfect strike," and 40-50 AP will kill someone dead or hospitalize them for a really, really long time with a perfect strike. Lower damage rolls are glancing blows or partially rolled with or somehow hampered.

 

It also gives meaning to extraordinary levels as every two levels OCV effectively increases your crit range by one. It doubles as a mook rule because heroes are going to almost always crit the 3 DCV mooks, do maximum damage and move on with out having to hesitate to do the unheroic coup de grace.

 

I found it let me have highly accurate, low DC characters running with high DC powerhouses and everybody pleased how things went and their contributions to the combat.

[Matt Holck]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

Is there a reason you went for x1.5 and x2 damage?

 

I think that I would have been more likely to opt for additional dice or perhaps defence negation. The options in HERO are extensive...

 

If you could bear the effort - different weapons could achieve different kinds of criticals

 

Doc

 

3 and 4 occur rarely enough if the game and I run super heroes so truly outrageous rolls make for good memories

 

defense negation sounds interesting

 

oh

16 is an automatic miss

17 a slip

18 a spectacular fumble

[prestidigitator]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

In terms of what constitutes a critical success or failure, I've always done it this way (though I usually use roll-high, so the sense is actually reversed when I use it in most of my games): 3-4 is a critical success as long as you hit by a margin of at least 3 (IOW if you needed a 6- to hit, 3 is a critical success but 4 is not); 17-18 is a critical failure as long as you miss by a margin of at least 3 (IOW if you needed 14- to hit--meaning you need a 15+ to miss--then an 18 is a critical failure by a 17 is not).

 

As far as what HAPPENS when a critical success or failure comes up, it varies from game to game. In some game it's a fixed result (like max or additional or double damage for a success, or dropping or breaking a weapon or slipping and falling prone for a failure); in some I decide on the spot based on the situation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

3 and 4 occur rarely enough if the game and I run super heroes so truly outrageous rolls make for good memories

 

defense negation sounds interesting

 

oh

16 is an automatic miss

17 a slip

18 a spectacular fumble

 

Sounds punitive to characters with high OCV and beneficial to those (like giants) with lousy DCV. More than a 4 point spread between OCV and DCV doesn't enhance the chances of hitting, and those spreads are pretty common in most Supers games I've played.. Of course, there's slightly less than a 5% chance of rolling 16 - 18, so if you're looking to simulate the odds of a 1 on a d20, 16 - 18 works. 3-5 is about as likely as rolling a 20.

 

Like critical hits, fumbles work to player detriment in the long term, as they will get far more chances to fumble, and far more chances to receive a critical hit. If the game has "critical = max damage" and the typical damage is 12 DC, I need to either build my chararcter to survive a hit of 24 BOD (likely more - there are always Big Bads who break the damage cap) or make another character for when the law of averages catches up to the first one.

[JohnTaber]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

I have a critical system that I use for Fantasy Hero. It is combined with a brownie pt/karma system to make a complete picture. The critical part is pretty simple. If you roll half of what you need to hit or less you crit. When you crit you do max damage. It does NOT control the hit location only the damage. So if you need a 11- to hit you crit on a 5-. If you need a 19- to hit you crit on a 9-. This dynamic makes it interesting for those fencer types. Pump OCV and hope for a crit can sometimes work out to max damage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

I don't use critical rules for the reason Doc D mentions: they hurt the PCs - even though many PCs don't recognise this.

 

I also do not like critical systems because I mainly play superhero games and I like the idea of being able to build tough characters who are relatively easy to hit but relatively hard to damage - criticals really prejudice that sort of character concept unless you use some pretty convoluted builds.

 

If you ARE determined to use criticals, probably the best bet is the 'roll X under what is required' type as it makes it much less likely that mooks will score a critical as they generally have lower CVs than the PCs.

 

One relatively innocuous form of 'level of success based damage' is to use your roll to hit as part of the damage: assuming the damage is at least 3 dice (and if it is not, use three different coloured d6, and apply the damage in order: Blue, Red, White - or whatever). So if you are doing 10DC, roll 3d6 and, if you hit then roll 7 more dice and add them to the roll to hit (or roll the damage with 3 of the dice different colours). That means in fact that a roll to hit of 3, whilst it will almost always hit, but you won't do so much damage, whereas if you hit with a 15, you do more damage. Of course you can ONLY hit with a 15 if you are significantly better in combat than your opponent, so it actually makes sense...and it speeds up combat as you are rolling less dice.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

Sean, wouldn't that method make it impossible to ever do max damage. I know the chance of doing max, or near it, are remote once you get a handful of dice anyway, but the way you describe would take what would generally be considered a a "good hit" and turn it into a mediocre strike...

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

Sean' date=' wouldn't that method make it impossible to ever do max damage. I know the chance of doing max, or near it, are remote once you get a handful of dice anyway, but the way you describe would take what would generally be considered a a "good hit" and turn it into a mediocre strike...[/quote']

 

Yes it would, unless you allow hits on an 18, rather than an automatic miss. However, we have to think carefully about what we mean by a 'good hit'.

 

There's two ways you can do criticals - you either build them (extra paid for damage that occurs in certain situations) or you house rule them - if you think anyone should be able to manage an enhanced effect with a 'good hit'.

 

Assuming you house rule them, you have to decide what triggers a critical: usually a low roll, in Hero. That usually either means a 'fixed' roll (3, or 3-5 or whatever) or a proportion of the normal roll to hit or a certain amount under the roll. If you score a critical then you also need a way to determine what the effect is.

 

Rolling a '3' is entirely metagame, and more to the point anyone can do it, so, whilst it is unlikely, it involves no actual skill on the part of the character AND there is no way to build a character who criticals more often than normal without also building additonal rules. So I don't like that, even if it is the 3rd ed d20 way to do it (bear in mind 3eDnD had a critical then a confirmation roll - you had to roll to hit again, and if you succeeded you criticalled, IIRC).

 

Rolling 1/2 what you need or x-4 is a better system IMO because it allows you to build someone who criticals more often (+OCV, only to determine if critical scored). I mean, nice. However, we still have to determine what the effects are...I'm not a big fan of 'maximum damage' or 'double damage'...as AmadanNaBriona said - you then have to build characters who can deal with maximum damage, or double damage - or it becomes a combat ender. So that skews the whole game.

 

This is why I like the method I suggested:

 

1. It means that you roll less dice so combat is quicker: I'm a big fan of streamlining.

2. It means that people who are better at combat can do more damage than people who are less competent, but they do not ALWAYS do more damage, which makes sense.

...but, you know, not so much that it EITHER disrupts the whole way you play the game or unduly exaggerates the importance of DCV over defence.

3. It provides the bonus for the success there and then with no extra steps or stuff. Like I say: fan of streamlining.

4. The actual bonus is directly linked to how well you do in the roll.

 

Now I've never ever convinced anyone that this makes sense, and I'm not stupid enough to think I'm going to start now, but, hey, I'm a born again optimist.

[The Main Man]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

While I haven't read the thread, I thought that I would just point out that a "nat-3" doesn't get you a critical in 6e anymore (though I houseruled it back in, but it's a house rule.)

 

If you read it, it's if you make your attack roll by half or greater.

 

Sounds like a boatload of OCV if you asked me.

[Rapier]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

I use both critical hits and misses. I've got a progressive chart I use. If you crit, roll for severity/location and then bonus damage. I think max is +4 DCs.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

While I haven't read the thread' date=' I thought that I would just point out that a "nat-3" doesn't get you a critical in 6e anymore (though I houseruled it back in, but it's a [i']house rule[/i].)

 

If you read it, it's if you make your attack roll by half or greater.

 

Sounds like a boatload of OCV if you asked me.

I'm pretty sure any form of Critical Hit was purely optional in 5E as well...

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

First off we need to be clear: it may well be that critical rules are more attractive in some genres than others, and it may be that different critical rules might be appropriate in different genres.

 

Here are some universal truths though:

 

First, if you allow an automatic hit on a 3 then even Clumso-Clod can hit Zappo-Zoom sometimes. If you think that is a good thing, cool. I do. I'm not sure it is the right mechanic though. Not quite. If you need to roll less than 3 to hit, you need to roll a 3 and then you roll again on 3d6 to see if you hit. You need to roll 18-(3-(whatever you needed to roll to hit)). So, you would hit on a roll of 0, you need to roll a 3 and THEN roll 18-(3-0)=15.

 

In practice that might not be that different, but it makes more sense to me.

 

Second universal truth, max/double damage on a critical means that you either have to build characters who can take max/double damage or accept that even the toughest characters can be one-shotted. (Actually that rather depends on the effect of criticals in your game, but I'm trying to make a point here. Work with me.)

 

Third Universal Truth: Democracy is a con.

 

Fourth Universal Truth: Creationism's greatest recruiter is Richard Dawkins. Hell, I almost believe after listening to him.

 

Fifth universal Truth: It doesn't take much for ME to get off topic.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: "Rolling a Critical"

 

Third Universal Truth: Democracy is a con.

 

Hey!