FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1199810068[/unixtime]]
You can even split it up for multiple levels of crits. Say, if you hit by more than 5 you do max damage, and if you hit by more than 10 you do double damage. And better crit weapons can reduce the thresholds which make things go into extra damage.
It won't be as simple to demonstrate the math as the 3rd edition system, but at least it would behave as advertised across all levels of play.
The main problem with that is that it actually requires more math and stuff to figure out how much you beat the DC than it would to simply roll a confirmation roll against a static DC like in 3E.
As far as 20 auto-hits goes, what do people think of the house-rule I've seen around that '20 counts as a 30 rather than auto-hitting' - often paired with counting a 1 as -10, rather than auto-missing.
Fwib at [unixtime wrote:1199820969[/unixtime]]As far as 20 auto-hits goes, what do people think of the house-rule I've seen around that '20 counts as a 30 rather than auto-hitting' - often paired with counting a 1 as -10, rather than auto-missing.
Similar to my "10 higher than AC of target" ruling, and it works well for PCs when facing hordes, has worked for years, and I highly recommend either (yours or mine) over the default.
So your houserule is 'a roll in the threat range only threatens if it beats the enemy AC by 10' ?
So if your AC is 11 or more better than their attack bonus, they can't crit you?
That sounds like it would work well, since PCs ought to have high ACs, and monsters often have low ACs - so you have both PCs and monsters following the same rules, but only the nastier enemies can crit the PCs.
Fwib at [unixtime wrote:1199820969[/unixtime]]As far as 20 auto-hits goes, what do people think of the house-rule I've seen around that '20 counts as a 30 rather than auto-hitting' - often paired with counting a 1 as -10, rather than auto-missing.
Honestly I'm not really sure why you'd want to do that. If you're already that far off the RNG, the battle is trivial anyway.
Should at least be a -9 (0 is a number too!), but you could conceivably do something like a critical Ride Check failure at medium level and not care about it, for instance: Dragon uses Fear attack on Ranger mount Ranger, who cannot take 10 on ride checks, rolls a critical failure on a ride check (-10) However, the Ranger has full ranks in ride at level 7 (10), a +4 Dex mod, and masterwork saddle (+2) for a total of 10+4+2-10=6. He can stay in the saddle (DC 5) despite having made a critical failure. It does raise the point of 'who cares' though.
Fwib at [unixtime wrote:1199830259[/unixtime]]So your houserule is 'a roll in the threat range only threatens if it beats the enemy AC by 10' ?
So if your AC is 11 or more better than their attack bonus, they can't crit you?
That sounds like it would work well, since PCs ought to have high ACs, and monsters often have low ACs - so you have both PCs and monsters following the same rules, but only the nastier enemies can crit the PCs.
