[AD&D2] Decision on critical hits

[Eric E.]

I've been debating a method of dealing with critical hits for AD&D 2nd edition. By critical hits, I am referring to a strike that is a natural 20 on the attack roll. I thought about going with the old stand-by, double damage. Problem - the "shit I rolled a 1" look in someone's eyes when they did so. I thought about cribbing the crit system from D&D 3.x. Not bad, pretty easy, but I don't want to use the confirming system of 3.x.

Well, today while leaving work and dodging cars in the parking lot, I came up with what might be my ideal solution. With a natural 20 roll, the attack does the weapon's maximum damage + the weapon's damage. So a long sword that strikes for 1d8 damage, will do 8+1d8. I'm unsure at this point whether magic damage will double (+3 long sword doing 8+3+1d8+3). I've not seen this system used before, so I'm looking for feedback.

Any comments?

[weasel fierce]

We played for years with a simple "20 is max damage". We never really liked the idea of doing more damage than normally possible.

[Tori Bergquist]

I always used the rule of double damage for my AD&D games (and still do). I let them either roll double dice or multiply one rolle by two....and any and all adds to it are automatically doubled (Str, Magic, proficiency, whatever). If you rolled a 1 for damage, well, too bad better luck next time!

That said, I do like your system. It guarantees an impact with that crit!

[Piestrio]

It seems workable. Duplicating the effect of "piercing" damage (from Hackmaster).

I personally use the Critical hit charts in Combat and Tactics.

Piestrio

[birthright]

Sounds like an elegant mechanic to me. I like the auto max damage rule myself.

[brianm]

If you wanna make it really nasty, make the damage roll exploding. By that I mean, if they then roll max damage, they get to roll another time, adding up all their rolls until they don't roll max again.

But that might make the game deadlier than you want.

- Brian

[3rd Level Fighter]

Or crib the massive damage rule from 3.0/3.5? (Actually, was it already in AD&D2?), but on a natural 20 the damage save level drops from 50 to 10, or CON, or whatever (maybe even having max weapon damage or twice rolled damage, or your rather elgeant system as well).

Potentially deadly, but that's what crit hits are for, eh?

[The Last Conformist]

Well, today while leaving work and dodging cars in the parking lot, I came up with what might be my ideal solution. With a natural 20 roll, the attack does the weapon's maximum damage + the weapon's damage. So a long sword that strikes for 1d8 damage, will do 8+1d8. I'm unsure at this point whether magic damage will double (+3 long sword doing 8+3+1d8+3). I've not seen this system used before, so I'm looking for feedback.
Some BRP implementations have used this. :)

[Eric E.]

Any comments from the day crowd?

[Nemigar]

Can I start by saying 'arg', I can't believe anyone still uses the 'natural 20 is a critical hit' rule?

Let's say I'm a low level fighter, no bonuses, and I need a 19 to hit. That means that half my hits are criticals.

The guy next to me is a much higher level fighter. He needs an 11 to hit. 10% of his hits are criticals.

Makes NO sense.

If you want to make a critical hit system that makes sense, it starts with a second roll after every hit, to see if it's a critical hit. Make that a 20 on d20, or whatever, level the playing field so everyone has the same chance for a critical on any given hit.

Of course, that requires yet a third roll (or a flat decision, like double or max damage) to decide what you actually did. Or you can make a chart of some sort for the second d20 roll, like 1-10 no change, 11-15 double the die, 16-18 add an additional max die of damage, 19-20 double max, or something along those lines. One additional and simple die roll.

[fat buddha]

i personally prefer to leave it at 20 being an automatic hit. if their must be a critical system, i'd go with 20 meaning maximum damage. i like to cut down on the number of die rolls, so the d&d3 version would be the worst possible system in my book.

but eric e, i like your idea, too. it doesn't affect the number of die rolls, solves the problem you mentioned, and doesn't increase the damage of critical hits that much. good rules are ones that solve problems without creating new ones.

[Dual_Scimitarz]

I have and still use roll damage, add mod's and then double (x2) damage. But I also use advanced weapon specialization effects that can be chosen by dedicating further proficiency slots beyond the standard specialization modifier cap. For those interested in playing a Paragon of Swordsmanship (Or any single weapon of their choosing) type.

[Piestrio]

Makes NO sense.


Since when did fun have to make sense?

:p

Piestrio

[Belac]

I would go with "roll damage twice and add together, apply all damage modifiers twice" on a 20. (It is weird when the only result that low level characters can get is a critical, but it's not so bad if critical hits just do extra damage.)

I prefer this because using max damage makes critical hits a lot more useful on longswords than heavy maces, and more useful on hand axes than warhammers, even though those two are supposed to be equally damaging.

Also, I prefer to make sure the modifiers are doubled because at later levels, critical hits that just affect the base weapon damage become a lot less cool because so much of the damage is derived from the other modifiers. I think coolness is one of the main reasons to use critical hits.

Still, max damage can work.

[Piestrio]

Let's say I'm a low level fighter, no bonuses, and I need a 19 to hit. That means that half my hits are criticals.

The guy next to me is a much higher level fighter. He needs an 11 to hit. 10% of his hits are criticals.


But for both only 5% of attempts are Crits.

From one perspective it makes perfect sense and from another it doesn't.

Piestrio

[The Last Conformist]

But for both only 5% of attempts are Crits.

From one perspective it makes perfect sense and from another it doesn't.
It makes sense to me from neither perspective. An expert should achieve crits on a greater percentage of attempts than a novice.

[Jerrythehun]

It makes sense to me from neither perspective. An expert should achieve crits on a greater percentage of attempts than a novice.

That's why the 3.5 system works so well. It allows low-level attackers to crit low-level defenders and high-level attackers to crit high-level defenders, while cutting out the "half my hits are crits" phenom.

[Piestrio]

It makes sense to me from neither perspective. An expert should achieve crits on a greater percentage of attempts than a novice.

Only if you think of Crits as based on skill.

If you consider them to be the whims of Fate then equal crit chances make sense.

It's has nothing to do with the attacker OR defender, it's just good luck.

Piestrio

[Eric E.]

Okay, first let me say thanks to everyone who has responded so far. There are a couple of points I want to mention.

I would go with "roll damage twice and add together, apply all damage modifiers twice" on a 20. (It is weird when the only result that low level characters can get is a critical, but it's not so bad if critical hits just do extra damage.)

I prefer this because using max damage makes critical hits a lot more useful on longswords than heavy maces, and more useful on hand axes than warhammers, even though those two are supposed to be equally damaging.


I'm not quite following you on this. A longsword would be 8+1d8 = 9-16, a footman's mace would be 7+1d6+1 = 9-14. A hand axe would be 6+1d6 = 7-12, a warhammer would be 5+1d4+1 = 7-10. In either case, a 2 point difference in damage. With the system you suggest, the damage varies on longsword from 2-16, on the footman's mace from 4-14, a hand axe 2-12, and a warhammer 4-10. Using either way, there is minimal difference in the maximum damage, but significant difference in the minimal damage. I'm trying to avoid the "Crit YAY!" and "Two damage!" result.


Also, I prefer to make sure the modifiers are doubled because at later levels, critical hits that just affect the base weapon damage become a lot less cool because so much of the damage is derived from the other modifiers. I think coolness is one of the main reasons to use critical hits.

I agree, on thinking on it further. Doubling the other modifiers is planned in as well. We get excited when we get that 20 on a die roll, so I want to keep that enthusiasm and coolness instead of letting it drop with a low damage roll.

Can I start by saying 'arg', I can't believe anyone still uses the 'natural 20 is a critical hit' rule?

Sure you can! But as I said, I don't want to use the crit system from 3.x. I like the 20 is a great roll. No, it isn't realistic. No, it doesn't reflect that more skilled combatants should get more criticals versus lower skilled combatants. If I wanted to reflect this, though, I would use the Talislanta 4th D&D conversion I put together.

It makes sense to me from neither perspective. An expert should achieve crits on a greater percentage of attempts than a novice.

I agree with this to an extent, and that is when comparing different skill levels. I do not think an expert should achieve crits on a greater percentage of attempts versus another expert. My assumption is that the other expert is equally skilled in defense. An expert should achieve more crits versus a novice. However, as I menion above, if I want to model that, I would use my Talislanta 4th D&D conversion.

That's why the 3.5 system works so well. It allows low-level attackers to crit low-level defenders and high-level attackers to crit high-level defenders, while cutting out the "half my hits are crits" phenom.

And this I don't really have a problem with the "half my hits are crits" phenomenon. Why is that, you might ask? Because if I, as a DM, put my players up against something they can only hit on a 19 or 20, then they should get some extra reward the few times they do hit. Because chances are, if it has an AC that high, it is probably taking chunks out of them with a good percentage of hits.

[naturaltwenty]

I use the charts from Best of Dragon III (Gold cover). They work well and it's always fun when somebody rolls a one. Last time I had to burn my Luck domain special ability. What's that you say? Why yes, we use the AD&D crit charts in our 3.5 campaign.

Later,

[Lev Lafayette]

That's pretty much identical to the RuneQuest (1978) impale rules (20% of chance to hit). It's a good system - use it.

[Dual_Scimitarz]

Can I start by saying 'arg', I can't believe anyone still uses the 'natural 20 is a critical hit' rule?

Let's say I'm a low level fighter, no bonuses, and I need a 19 to hit. That means that half my hits are criticals.

The guy next to me is a much higher level fighter. He needs an 11 to hit. 10% of his hits are criticals.

Makes NO sense.

The rarity of actually rolling a natural 20 doesnt change with either example. I've never really seen the natural 20 crit as a reflection of weapon skill or experience (given that it cant be triggered by mods), but more as a "lucky blow" while engaged in combat. The fact that its random and can no more be triggered by a 20th level than a 1st level, reflects this (IMO).

In the example above (shared by Nemigar), your low level fighters lack of experience would be visible within his/her hit percentage rate (and damage dealt by a lack-there-of) when compared to the much higher level fighter by your side.

:)