Critical Threats/Hits as AoOs/Free Attacks

Here's a tweak I'm considering for the game. I like the way it flows in combat better than the official rule.

In the rules, when a character scores a Critical Threat in the game, he immediate makes a check to see if that hit was, indeed, a Critical Hit or just a normal hit. The check is the same attack throw with all the same modifiers.

The check, during an attack, seems to stagger combat momentum. It just seems...um...ungainly, counter-intuitive, a "break" in the action.

I dunno. That's the way it feels to me. You may be OK with it.





What I'm thinking of doing is this...

Instead of doing a check, I'm thinking of allowing the Critical Threat to indicate additonal free attacks. Scoring the Critical Threat has basically allowed the character to score additional Attacks of Opportunity.

The default would be one additional attack, but if the Damage Multiplier on a weapon is higher, then the character gets more free attacks.

For example, let's say the character is a Gunderman using a Pike. On a 20, he scores a threat. That's considered a hit, and he gets two more attacks (because the pike has a x3 damage rating). So, basically, everytime the Gunderman rolls a 20 with his Pike, he scores a hit with that stroke and gains two more free attacks that he takes right there and then (not unlike an Attack of Opportunity).

One could say that his fighting gained him an AoO.



Conan, on the other hand, using his ancient broadsword, gets only one extra free attack (because the Broadsword is at a standard x2), but he gets it every time he rolls a 19-20 (the thread range of the Broadsword).



Now, there's all sorts of tweaks a GM can do with this to make the game interesting on different levels.

1. Many people complain about high leveled characters and the massive damage rule. If these attacks are considered separate attacks, then this will cut down, hard, on the number of times massive damage is reached.

2. Those GMs who don't want to mess with Massive Damage--want to keep it as is--can just total all damage from the "attack routine". The result will be the same a with the official rule.

3. One could "limit" damage a bit, in this already very deadly game, by ruling that if a throw is missed, then all the Free Attacks are not awarded. In other words, if you get two additional attacks because you rolled a 20 with your Pike, and you roll a miss on the second attack, you don't get your last attack. You only keep getting your attacks as long as you are successful hitting (up to the limit of the weapon, of course).

4. This freebie attack may or may not count towards a character max number of AoOs (at the GM's option) that he can take advantage of during the round. If he doesn't have the right feat, then he can only get one free attack during the combat, as per the AoO rules. Thus, any weapon marked as having x3+ attacks would only get x2 unless the character gets the Combat Reflexes Feat. And, If a character with multiple attacks scores more than one critical threat, the Combat Reflexes feat would be needed to take full adavantage. This would put some additonal shine on Feats that allow extra AoO attacks during the round.


Just some thoughts to ponder.
 
I give the players options. They can:

A) Do multiple damage, as per the core rules. For some reason I can't remember what I called this option.

B) Wound their opponents. I use specific wounds in my game, wounding your opponent can lessen his fighting ability.

C) Perform a free combat maneuver (disarm, trip, sunder, etc.) without provoking an aoo.

D) Drive their opponent back. As bull rush, but using their attack modifier.

E) Something they come up with on their own, such as put an opponent off balance enough that they can grab a rope and swing to another place in the battle.

I find that the weapons that have large crit ranges tend to be the weapons that would be able to pull these maneuvers off most often, so it works for me.
 
Extra attacks? No thanks, there's more than enough die-rolling per round already at high levels.

In our group we have done the opposite: we gutted out the confirmation roll, so any Threat is automatically a Crit. Actually that's not my invention; it's something our GM adopted from the D&D GM we both had before starting the Conan round.
Of course this makes iterative attacks vastly more useful: normally your 3rd or 4th attack has only a moderate chance to hit and very small chance to crit. Without confirmation rolls, my Barb has often turned the tide in a battle by rolling a 19 or 20 on his last attack.

What I'd consider - and had started to work out - is to _reduce_ the number of rolls per round in order to speed up combat. We never got around to playtesting it, but it was supposed to go somewhat like this:
In a Full Attack, you begin with the lowest attack and work your way up to the highest. But on the first blow that connects, you assume that all remaining attacks would also hit, and multiply damage accordingly.

So for instance, if you have 4 attacks per round, you first roll the lowest and it misses, then the second-lowest and it hits, which makes the two highest attacks auto-hit, so you roll triple damage.
If the damage roll exceeds your current opponent's HP, you simply transfer the remaining points to another opponent within range.
That way, a 16th-level fighter might only need to roll one attack and still rock the house.

We haven't worked everything out, especially when it comes to armour and massive damage, and now we're unlikely to ever complete that project. We're converting our Conan round to Savage Worlds, first session with the new system due tomorrow.
 
Clovenhoof said:
Extra attacks? No thanks, there's more than enough die-rolling per round already at high levels.

Yeah, but somehow I find the players really don't mind an extra attack throw--they tend to dig rolling those.

In our group we have done the opposite: we gutted out the confirmation roll, so any Threat is automatically a Crit.

Like the original, "Roll a natural 20 for double damage" rule from the old D&D days.

I like the reason for the crit check, even if I don't like to perform the check. What it does is keep low level, unskilled characters from always hitting with a critical.

For example, a low level character vs. a high level character--he needs a 20 to hit. The rule keeps each hit the low level character makes from being a crit hit.
 
S4 wrote:
For example, a low level character vs. a high level character--he needs a 20 to hit. The rule keeps each hit the low level character makes from being a crit hit.

So where's the problem? I guess David had to score a critical to take down Goliath...:wink: I like the idea of a low level fighter being able to beat a considerably better one. The chances are small, but still there anyway.
 
Well, technically the confirmation roll is there for the benefit of the PCs, not to shaft them. Think of a level 2-3 character who would have something like 20-30HP, and here comes some random creep NPC, swings his battle-axe and rolls a 20 and doesn't need to confirm -- that has a good chance of one-hitting the PC.

That's why I stuck with the confirmation roll back when I GMed Conan (and that saved a few characters' lives at early levels), but our current GM handles it differently. Well, that's what Fate Points are for. Our group is level 12-13 now and we haven't had any PC fatalities yet.
 
Fate points is an amazing ideia implemented in this system, and when my players run out of FPs I usually let them live but whit a permanent wound. At least my players like that option, it gives the characters more color and life.

Anyway it just happened 3 times in my campaign...
 
Heh. We got a FP every session but rarely needed them, so at some point the GM said no more cake until we eat up our ice cream. At that point we had like 12FP on the sheet.
Anyway, a mechanism like Fate Points, Bennies, Karma, whatever you call them are a must-have for me; I wouldn't want to play a system without them anymore.
Sorry for offtopic ^^
 
Back
Top