Critical Hits and Alternate Attack Rolls

[Armitage]

6E2 118 describes a critical hit system in which you inflict maximum damage if you roll less than half what you need to hit.

This works fine when combat is run as "roll less than 11 + OCV - DCV", the standard method.

e.g. OCV 6 attacking DCV 5 hits on 12- and criticals on 5-. OCV 6 attacking DCV 4 hits on 13- and criticals on 6-.

 

It doesn't work as neatly using the alternate attack roll method many people use, and which was described as standard in Champions Complete.

11 + OCV - 3d6 = highest DCV you hit.

 

Champions Complete p. 160 talks about rolling less than half what you need to hit, like the original, but that would require extra information, since in the alternate method the player doesn't know his opponent's DCV, and doesn't need to tell the GM what he rolled.

 

What seems to work is DCV you hit - the attack roll - 1.

i.e. 11 + OCV - 3d6 = DCV you hit. 11 + OCV - (3d6 x 2) - 1 = DCV you critical hit.

 

Old system: OCV 7 hits DCV 5 on a 13- and critical hits on 6-. OCV 12 hits DCV 7 on a 16- and critical hits on 7-.

New system: OCV 7 rolling a 6 hits DCV 12 or less (11 + 7 - 6) and critical hits DCV 5 or less (12 - 7). OCV 12 rolling a 7 hits DCV 16 or less (11 + 16 - 7) and critical hits DCV 8 or less (16 - 8).

 

I ran it through a quick spreadsheet and it seems to work for any OCV/DCV combination.

(Since the forum search doesn't seem to be working yet, feel free to ignore this thread if this has been discussed before.)

[Old Man]

Neat, I hadn't noticed the alternate attack roll system in 6E.

[psyber624]

Actually the "new" system you list from CC isn't new at all, it is exactly what the basic attack roll is as described on 6e2 35. Also note that there is a significant difference between the attack and critical points. An attack roll (in either format, your simply moving things around with basic algebra to isolate whichever aspect you want) is Number or LESS (i.e. if your math comes out to a 12 you need a 12 or less.) The critical attack ONLY occurs (Optional RAW) if you roll LESS than 1/2 (so if you need a 12 to hit, you only crit if you roll 5 or less.

 

"roll less than 11 + OCV - DCV" is not the standard method (at the very least it should be equal to or less than, not just less), it is just a simple way to figure out what your "Roll to hit" is for purposes of determining what your roll to crit is. "11 + OCV - 3d6 = highest DCV you hit." is the standard system as you should not automatically know what a villain's DCV is but would know all the other information.

 

Of course all that aside your "calculation" for DCV you crit with your roll works, its just math after all. (although you made a typo in your example, under New system: you should have (11+12-7), not (11+16-7) )

[Armitage]

Actually the "new" system you list from CC isn't new at all' date=' it is exactly what the basic attack roll is as described on 6e2 35. [/quote']

 

Huh. I guess that would have been something else for the thread I started a while ago on changes to 6e that were overlooked until Champions Complete.

Prior to 6e, it was always written as 11 + OCV - DCV or less.

[bigbywolfe]

I know in 5ER it gave 2 or 3 formulas and while 11+OCV-DCV may have been the "default" (if there was one) it specifically addressed the fact that some GMs would not want their players to know the targets DCV when it presented the other formula(s).

[ghost-angel]

I honestly don't know anyone who ever used 11 + OCV - DCV.

 

I've used 11 + OCV - 3D6 = DCV Hit since I started playing with 4E some 18 years ago. Because from a Player's point of view, it's easier.

 

Never used the optional Crit rule though.

[jp42]

I always used the 11+OCV-DCV, but that's probably because that's how it was in Champions, back in the day. The very old day. 2nd Edition days, I believe.

 

That said, the version where the player doesn't get to know, but can eventually deduce the target's DCV is a better option in most cases.

 

[PaycheckHero]

It doesn't work as neatly using the alternate attack roll method many people use,

 

 

Halving doesn't work, however the method you describe is correct and actually neater than the original.

 

 

Champions Complete p. 160 talks about rolling less than half what you need to hit, like the original, but that would require extra information,

 

 

I imagine they failed to catch that because everyone involved has played Champions for ages with the canonical roll being 3d6 <= 11 + OCV - DCV to hit. It's hard to catch a mistake like that because your brain "knows" it is correct. As for extra information, to use it as stated the GM would have to determine whether a crit was scored. Feasible, but pointless extra burden since it is unnecessary as you show.

 

 

What seems to work is DCV you hit - the attack roll - 1...I ran it through a quick spreadsheet and it seems to work for any OCV/DCV combination.

 

Ah, experimental mathematics. :-) It's easy to prove that it's always correct, however, so you don't need to do spreadsheet experiments. It is also a (slightly) better computation than the original, because for most people subtraction is easier than division.

 

Unfortunately, that critical rule is the only rule in the hero system that comes to mind (there may be others) that requires the roll low mechanic. Roll high arguably has some nicer(*) properties than roll low (the magic number is 10 instead of 11, which the decimal system makes particularly fast and easy, and you can describe skill rolls the same way as hit rolls), but maybe the most important thing is that it's one less barrier to bringing new players to Hero. However, the crit rule becomes computationally very cumbersome for roll-high; I derived several alternatives and none of them were any good. That's too bad, as I'd idly thought about writing up a set of "Hero for d20 players" guidelines, and roll high would fit that better. It still will as long as you don't use crits, but it's annoying to have that restriction.

 

* I say that as someone who has used roll low systems for almost all my gaming. Nevertheless the algebra says roll higher can be made nicer for Hero, though--it's almost like Hero is a roll high system in disguise. (Dons flame-retardant suit.) Except for critical hits, unless get out the paper again and find a nicer system.

[prestidigitator]

I use a roll-high method, but it could easily be reflected for the reverse. I do critical hits/success when you either roll a natural 18 or hit by a margin of 3 or more and roll a natural 17. I do critical failure/fumbles if you either roll a natural 3 or fail by a margin of 3 or more and roll a natural 4. This makes either event pretty rare, but I also make the result more extreme: double damage on critical hits (plus checking hit location and using optional rules like disabling and bleeding even when they normally aren't applied in the game) and things like dropping weapons, falling prone, loss of actions, hitting the wrong target, etc. on fumbles.