Confirm Critical in 5E

[rhammer2]

I was using the confirm critical hit rules before they became standard on 3rdE, I'm thinking about bringing them back for 5E. I don't like getting critical damage for every 20, when the hitter needs a 20 to hit.

Is anyone working on a house rule extension to add this to 5E?

How do you feel about the standard rule where every 20 is not just a hit, but a critical hit?

- Robert

[Zacchaeus]

I like things simple and if you get a 20 you get critical damage. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't get critical damage just becasue you need a 20 to hit; in fact I'd rule that since needing a 20 to hit would be so difficult you should get critical damage anyway. You are only going to get a critical 5% of the time and that's low enough without making it any lower.

[kylania]

How do you feel about the standard rule where every 20 is not just a hit, but a critical hit?

That's the whole point of rolling a 20. :) People get excited about it. They jump up and yell and scream and celebrate.

They already confirm crits by grabbing the person next to them, thrusting their face into their dice tray and saying "SEE! it's a 20! Tell the DM that's a 20!'.

Why would you want to take that joy away from people? Why take the whole concept of what rolling a 20 means and replace it with disappointment and time wasted rolling more dice to confirm a critical?

[Thingoin]

Same to me. One of the reasons I passed Pathfinder away. 5E makes gaming easy and simple in a great atmosphere. Give the players what the players want and add some more hit points to your villains if necessary.

[midas]

I'm fine with every 20 being a critical. It's an important distinction that rolling a 20 on the die is a statistically rare occurance. Needing a 20 to hit and getting there with your overall roll is more common/feasible, as you'll have proficiency modifiers, ability score modifiers, possible magical weapon modifiers, making it so--as an example--any die roll of 10 or higher could result in an overall result of 20, but rolling a natural 20 is to reproduce that heroic moment where you hit them juuuuust right.

It almost feels like you're thinking that any roll *equaling* 20 is a critical, which I'd hope you're not (as that would be incorrect). :)

[rhammer2]

A natural 20 happens 5% of the time (statistically speaking). My problem with 20s always being criticals is when that is the only way for the person or monster to be hit. I was doing confirm critical rolls before D&D made them standard in 3rd edition. I'm surprised no one else spoke up for this, but it still bothers me. I'm ok with a 20 being an auto hit, just not always a critical.

[midas]

But if the 20 is what's required to hit the monster, the player has any range of rolls to reach that. For example a level 5 fighter with 16 STR and a +1 longsword will have +7 to their attack roll (+3 proficiency bonus, +3 ability score modifier, +1 for longsword), meaning any die roll 13 or higher is going to hit that 20AC target. Even at level 1 with no magic weapon that same fighter will hit on a die roll of 15 or higher.

In a 20AC target situation it isn't like there's only one number they can roll on the die to hit the target (20), and you're making it critical. Unless there's something I'm just missing in your scenario, anyway.

[Zacchaeus]

Fair enough. It is your game after all and you don't need anyone else to agree with you to introduce a house rule like that.

[midas]

As usual, I agree with Zacchaeus.

[LordEntrails]

No extension of this type has been posted, either published or otherwise under development. You would either need to write the extension (unless someone else volunteers) or handle it manually.

As for my opinion on the matter, I don't like confirm critical. Too much extra die rolling (we usually ignored it in 3E). Though if an extension was written, then I wouldn't care much.

I also don't see a need for it, as very rarely do my players face an opponent where the only way they can hit is with a natural 20. IMO, if that happens, it better be that I planned it that way as some plot development, otherwise I would consider myself doing a poor job of matching the encounter to the party capabilities.

To me, these are heroic adventures, crits 5% of the time are just about right :)

[Willot]

i havent got fg on this computer but i think you can turn off auto criticals in options? if so why not then turn on fumbles and criticals in options and make your own zany or awesome fumble critical results. they get to roll on the table if the pc rolls natrual 1 or 20 OR if you like.... natural 5 or 15 (the maths doesnt care its still 5%)

[Zacchaeus]

I also don't see a need for it, as very rarely do my players face an opponent where the only way they can hit is with a natural 20. IMO, if that happens, it better be that I planned it that way as some plot development, otherwise I would consider myself doing a poor job of matching the encounter to the party capabilities.

This is a very good point and I now realize what the OP was saying when he said creatures that can only be hit on a 20. 5E works using bounded accuracy so an AC will never be more than 30; the max ability bonus is +5 and max proficiency bonus is +6 so even something that has an AC of 30 (and there's only one NPC with an AC that high) can still be hit on a 19 or a 20 - even without taking into consideration magical weapons. The next highest AC I can find are in the region of 22 or 23 and that's easily hittable. So I can't really find the problem with creatures that can only be hit on a 20 unless as LordEntrails alludes the PC's are coming up against Ancient Gold Dragons at level 3. And if they are then they are going to need those criticals if the party isn't going to get wiped.

[Nilram the Grey]

Has anyone made progress on the confirm critical extension to the 5e rule set? I greatly dislike auto-critical on 20 (or 19-20 for extended critical) because it reduces the value of high AC. High AC should reduce the chance of receiving a critical and that is what confirming a critical does. More importantly it helps reduce the rate of criticals on the frontline fighters who take on most of the damage in a well run party. Also people are forgetting the impact of negative modifiers when making their arguments. To make it count when it does happen I do max damage on the first die and roll the second. In this way I don't need the critical oriented character builds. Also it doesn't alter the number of dice being rolled this way either even though such considerations shouldn't matter in a VTT with all the automation. For those playing P&P it has no impact on game time either if you always roll hit and damage together (time saver). The extra roll just changes from a damage die to a d20.

Either way people are free to run their game as they wish, I'm just hoping someone has fixed what I see as a glaring hole in the 5e rules in FG as I don't think I'm skilled enough to implement this extension at this time.

[Zacchaeus]

As far as I know no-one is working on anything like this.

Also this isn't a 'glaring hole in the 5e rules in FG'. FG is implementing the rules as they are written. It would be (in your opinion) a glaring hole in 5e as written by Wizards of the Coast.

If you don't like critical hits then don't use them. If the character rolls a 20 then if they then roll again to 'confirm' the hit then that will automatically remove the 'critical'; so when the damage is then rolled it will be normal damage. You can then work out manually whatever extra damage you need or want.

Just out of curiosity what do you consider a 'high' AC?

[Nilram the Grey]

Zacchaeus,

I agree this isn't a FG issue. I think it is a 5e issue and I was clear that it is my opinion by my use of I and saying people are free to run things as they wish. I just tried to provide my rational as to why 5e should have kept confirmation of criticals since this whole group was so dismissive of the OP (out of character for these excellent boards).

In a dry run yesterday (trying to get the group comfortable with FG), to start the first encounter I rolled two 20s on the parties frontline tank fighter builds (AC19) taking them both out. With confirmation of critical the first critical had only a 20% chance to be comfirmed and the second hit only a 10% chance (cover modifier). Instead it was a TPK (dry run with no punches pulled). My group asked me to find a way to restore confirmation of criticals (our normal style of play).

I wouldn't expect the rule set in 5e to have implemented confirmed criticals as a variant either. That is why I was asking if anyone has developed an extension. I believe this is possible. FG supports other rule sets that require confirmation of criticals, so I believe this is possible if I had more skill. I can program, but I don't know my way around FG well enough yet. Can you point me in the right direction? Can you tell me how to turn off auto criticals? I didn't see that option in the settings.

[JohnD]

Just roll another attack that should clear the automatic critical.

[Zacchaeus]

Indeed, as I said roll another attack after the critical one and it will 'overwrite' the first critical. The 5e framework is built around the concept of bounded accuracy so that means that even at relatively high AC (and 19 is pretty high for a first level character) even a kobold can get through and score a critical hit, even on a high level character. Obviously you could have fudged those two crits and you probably would do in a real game but the chances of scoring two in a row are also very high, so you were just unfortunate. From having played the game now for over a year I can promise you that criticals are rare enough that your players will want to have them without needing to roll again. Bounded accuracy is a different animal from the way other iterations of D&D were done. However if they still don't like criticals then all I can suggest in the meantime is to roll again after the crit and then do the damage manually.

I have no idea how you would go about writing an extension for something like this but I'm betting it would not be easy.

[Nickademus]

In a dry run yesterday (trying to get the group comfortable with FG), to start the first encounter I rolled two 20s on the parties frontline tank fighter builds (AC19) taking them both out. With confirmation of critical the first critical had only a 20% chance to be comfirmed and the second hit only a 10% chance (cover modifier). Instead it was a TPK (dry run with no punches pulled). My group asked me to find a way to restore confirmation of criticals (our normal style of play).

Like others have said, just roll a follow-up roll manually. If the second roll is a hit, hold Shift and do the damage. Else the crit will be wiped from FG's roll buffer.

I'm all for DMs house ruling things and won't say not to do anything that makes the players happy, but I have to wonder. What level is the party and what module/content are they running that a single crit takes out a fighter in one hit?

[Nilram the Grey]

Nickademus,

Thanks. That worked. I can even roll the attack again with the attack action on the actions page and get the adjusted attack value for the confirmation roll. What does holding shift mean in this case? I guess the only glitch might be next roll only modifiers. That is pretty rare, so I'll live with it for now.

I see that the dice roll for damage appears in the the order of the dice and not just highest die to lowest die, so now I know how much I need to increase the damage by to max out the first die roll. Do you know of an easy way to increase the damage and get the right modifiers automatically including resistance etc?

I'm asking because we confirm critical and when confirmed we max out the first die roll so that critical oriented builds are not nerfed. Also this method requires no more time or dice rolls to implement. When playing P&P we normally always roll the d20 and damage dice together to save time. If a critical occurs with our method the extra roll is a d20 for confirmation. If a critical occurs RAW you roll an extra damage die. It is time and effort neutral.

[Nickademus]

What does holding shift mean in this case?Holding Shift when rolling damage will cause it to roll critical damage regardless of attack rolls.


I see that the dice roll for damage appears in the the order of the dice and not just highest die to lowest die, so now I know how much I need to increase the damage by to max out the first die roll. Do you know of an easy way to increase the damage and get the right modifiers automatically including resistance etc?

I'm asking because we confirm critical and when confirmed we max out the first die roll so that critical oriented builds are not nerfed. Also this method requires no more time or dice rolls to implement. When playing P&P we normally always roll the d20 and damage dice together to save time. If a critical occurs with our method the extra roll is a d20 for confirmation. If a critical occurs RAW you roll an extra damage die. It is time and effort neutral.Well, one way to do this is not to roll crit damage. Instead, add the max for the first die to the Modifier box and roll damage normally. For example, a longsword is a d8, so a normal crit is 2d8+Str; your crit would be 8+1d8+Str. Add 8 to the Modifier box and roll normal damage (1d8+Str) and you'll achieve the effective maxed crit damage.

[Nylanfs]

Or add a line to the most commonly used weapons that already has that figured in. Click X if normal hit click Y if critical

[damned]

Hi Nilram the Grey and rhammer2 I dont think anyone was intending to be dismissive of rhammer2. Responses in text to questions sometimes inherit tones/nuance that was never intended. RPGs are funny things in that almost all of us have quite specific ways we do things... Extensions tend to get written by people that want that feature themselves. Some are very easy (most of the ones I write are very simple ones) and others are true works of genius. Hopefully someone with time, ability and inclination will take up the challenge...

[Nilram the Grey]

Thanks everyone. I've got a working model now. I did consider adding a line for critical, but when you consider spells and versatile weapons that is a lot of lines. I think I'll go the modifier route for now.

I have written a lot of code in my time. Is this the right place to start to learn the structure/API of FG?

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/modguide/introduction.xcp

Browsing it I can see the basic idea for how you tell FG about an extension and control the load order. The bigger question is going to be how to understand the ruleset implementation. I started poking around in the installation trees and found the ruleset directory with the 5E.pak file in it. I made a copy of it and unpacked it. I assume if I poked around in that directory structure I will find something that resolves attack rolls and can look at how that code was written to see what coding in an option would take. Am I all wet or is this the right direction to take.

Now that I have a working scheme for my group, I can look at automating things as time permits.

[Nilram the Grey]

Ok, a few minutes of digging in the unpacked 5E ruleset file lead me to find these two files:

manager_action_attack.lua
manager_action_damage.lua

I can see the basics already of how criticals are determined. If I updated this to add an optional setting will this be something I can share with the community or is that forbidden by copyright? If I sort this out, I'd love to give back by making this an option in the ruleset that anyone can use if desired. I still need to figure out how settings are parsed and passed.

[damned]

Hola Nilram the Grey the slippery slide has begun!

The 5e ruleset is layered on top of the CoreRPG ruleset. Any extensions you write for 5e will layer on top of that.
So when you start a 5e game with your extension loaded the CoreRPG ruleset is read into memory, then the 5e ruleset is read into memory and it will add heaps of new things and overwrite or modify some existing things, and then your extension will overwrite or modify one or more parts again.
Have a look at a couple of other extensions to get a feel for how its done and how much/little code to change.
You can absolutely share any extensions you make with the community.
Sometimes community code gets sucked into a future version of a ruleset but usually it remains an extension giving people more options in how they use the platform.

Have fun!

[Trenloe]

Is this the right place to start to learn the structure/API of FG?

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/modguide/introduction.xcp

Yeah, that's good. This thread gives a good starting overview with links to additional resources (including the mod guide you link above): https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?20651-Modifying-the-CoreRPG-ruleset

[ShadeRaven]

I am not likely to use confirm critical for 5E myself, but I am going to hop in to defend Nilram at least a little bit. Someone seemed to suggested that there shouldn't be any encounters in an appropriately crafted adventure where a foe is capable taking out a fighter in one shot.... au contraire. Literally, the first night we ran 5E upon release, the party reached a certain bugbear early in the Phandelver module... and the Bugbear's critical upon the Fighter that engaged it didn't just one-shot the poor chap, but killed him outright.

So yes, if the official introductory module that was released with 5E is any indication, there's no reason to believe that a strongly armored (chain, shield, +1 AC fighting style) character still couldn't be taken out in a single blow in combat against level appropriate foes.

As to whether or not adding crit confirms would make the game better, now that's entirely a matter of personal preference that I would only consider if I thought our gaming group(s) wanted to embrace it.

[LordEntrails]

IMO, adventuring is a deadly business. Especially for those without experience. I can think of a related saying ... "Their are old adventurers, their are bold adventurers, but there are no old bold adventurers!"

But, it's all about preferences and tone. It depends greatly upon the group as to how deadly something should be. Lots of threads on ENWorld about this type of topic, and even a few good discussions.