The Unseen Servant forums

I do like that a critical hit can do something other than just increase damage. That will be even more useful as we start fighting higher-level monsters. For example, if Lug rolled a crit against the giant or ogre, making the giant release Bertram could be a useful effect.

In my games, a crit = double damage.
I just try to keep it simple.

Double-damage feels really overpowered and extra-swingy in B/X to me--it's the potential difference between a palpable hit and taking down a monster a couple of HD above you in a single shot. Consider that the toughest monsters anyone has faced so far in this game have about 22-26 HP, that puts them pretty much in range of being taken out by a single crit.

Well, you've beefed those creatures up pretty significantly from what's described in the book, though. And Lug couldn't take out someone with 25 HP in a single hit.

Plus, you really do need an extraordinary set of rolls for double damage to be that deadly, since the doubling happens before bonuses and only doubles the rolled damage. In fact, double damage is going to be less than max damage for half the rolls.

The way I do it in my Ravenloft game (which is an AD&D game) is that a critical hit does max damage unless the roll already is max damage, in which case it does double damage. Thus, the probability of double damage, assuming a weapon that does 1d8 damage, is 1/160. I can live with the chance of an 18-20pt hit coming up that often.

Your point about me beefing them up serves my point well--the toughest creatures, essentially monsters with character levels, are the only creatures not in danger of being one-shotted with a crit

Your second point also supports it: half the time (when you roll poorly) my crit system actually serves you better than a doubled model, though the drawback comes at the high end in preventing huge damage spikes.

Maybe I could do a mixed model: on non-max damage roll, a crit maxes it. On max damage, you roll another of the base dice and add it in.

My point regarding your first point is more that the "bosses" are the only monsters for which one-shotting should be a concern. Most mooks can be killed in one shot without even a critical hit. Lesser bosses, like Nine Tongues, would not be diminished by being killed in one shot rather than two. In Ravenloft, for example, it should not be possible to kill the main villain with a single lucky roll. But it could be rather fun if an otherwise tough minion were taken down much more quickly than would be expected.

As for point two, I am arguing that a double damage rule is not game-unbalancing. I can see an argument, however, that the variability of the double damage rule may be better than simple max damage. But it can also be less satisfying. ("Yay! I got double damage on my...1. Oh. Yay.")

The mixed model sounds reasonable, though I'd still miss the possibility of disarming enemies or knocking them off their mounts or such. I think that mechanic adds a lot of color that mere additional damage lacks.

I take the "fan of the players" approach. I like seeing them succeed.

I go with double damage or max damage, whichever is higher. Lucking out and getting a natural 20 only to double 1hp to 2hp isn't exciting. I like the "cause a special effect" but couple it with your rolled damage rather than "minimum." If I have a "boss monster" I don't have a problem giving it higher hit points.

Bromric killed the Basilisk with two blows - that was friggin AWESOME. He needed almost the natural 20 to hit since we took the blindness penalty for fighting with eyes closed, and the fact that he lucked into two natural 20s was really exciting. That's the kind of badassery that SHOULD be the stuff of game legend.

And I'll point out that that took place under the rules as currently implemented

I'm definitely a fan of the PCs, and want them to succeed, but I don't know that doing double damage on a crit is my preferred venue--I've used it a LOT in other games and I generally am dissatisfied with the impact it has on play overall. I have no problem beefing a minimum-damage roll up to something substantial, but I'm not sold on double-damage as a mechanic. One of my least favorite things in 4e is the "+XdY damage on a crit based on the magic weapon you're using" rule that just turns crit-fishing into a mini-game in and of itself.

Also, we should keep in mind that whatever crit rule we use, monsters use it too (or do they?). A double damage critical hit by a monster could really ruin someone's day.

Come to think of it, I sort of prefer special effects to more damage in many situations, especially if you get the special effect with the damage as rolled.

That was going to be another point--doubling damage will ruin a PC's day more often than it will be relevant to a monster kill (since max damage will often be enough to kill a mook so a double would likely be wasted, whereas double damage received on a PC will always be more painful and in some cases capable of killing the PC outright).

Are there any special effects charts that you might like? That way any natural 20 could just be damage rolled and the GM's roll on the specials effects chart (if the player forgets to).

It would preserve the special effects but streamline it. Though we'd lose player input...



edited at 8:20 PM when I noticed a few typos.

Double damage does tend to make things quite swingy...even moreso against monsters you have a hard time hitting anywhere (in which case, its "feast or famine"...any shot you land is an awesome one). The only thing is whether that's a feature or a bug.

In one of Jeff Rients' low-level gritty campaigns, a natural 20 was an instant kill. Against anything. A 1st level thief with 2 HP scored a 20 against a demon and tore its heart out (which was a pretty awesome boast, afterward). The players were fine with this, because they could expect to get one-shotted already by a substantial portion of stuff they faced. It kinda evened the odds.

I'm currently going for less swingy; in new game, a 20 is an auto hit, but no extra damage...unless you're a fighter. Fighters get double damage on a 20 (throwing them a little bone, considering dwarves are basically fighters with extra abilities).

My only complaint against the current system is that it is rarely (though not never) worthwhile to use the "special feature" aspect of crits; in most cases, we're better off taking the max, which could often end the fight right there. Essentially, for a special bonus to be worthwhile, I feel it needs to have impact for more than 1 round.

I have zero problems with max damage on a crit instead of double.

I'm all about double damage on a crit hit for monsters against the PC's > what's good for the goose...

Pet rat got into the closet and ate the internet cable, and now I'm travelling until Wednesday. OOC me if needed. Thanks!

Haha, hilariously tragic! Safe travels!

Don't have to worry about our rats chewing on any cables. They're all in the freezer.

[two cents]Votes for keeping the system the way it is[/two cents]

Re-reading the expedition with the fall of the dwarven tomb in it, I feel some powerful emotions! That was a fun (if ill-fated) journey.

That was quite the story.

Speaking of stories:

Zhym wrote:[Ulf] looks at the boy's remains—and the curse surrounding it. No doubt against anyone who would disturb the bones. "Won't be the first time I've been cursed," he quips aloud.

This is why I love this campaign. Our PCs have so much in-game history now.