Is Crit Damage Dead?

[Riggs]

How to nerf fortification: Turn it from an absolute percentage chance into an opposed roll. (Dev quote: "Granting immunity is bad for the game") For example, instead of Arraetrikos having a 50% chance to negate crits, he could have a +10 AC bonus against crit confirmation. This means that having a higher attack bonus is important for that raid, even if you already could hit the boss on a roll of 2. That'll help solve one problem the devs have faced, where it's hard to keep players satisfied that their attacks can work, while still building mobs whose AC matters.

Conversely, if you were going to melee a raid boss, you'd want to wear Heavy Fort for something like +20 AC against confirmation, and then try to get an AC high enough so that even if Arraetrikos hits you 95% of the time, he can't always confirm a crit. So if fortification was an opposed roll, player characters would need to care more about both their attack bonus and AC. They'd be less able to say "Meh, it hits on a 2 or higher, there's nothing to be done"

Naturally, Sneak Attacks would have to be confirmed against the same elevated AC, except that they would check the same number as the initial attack roll. And also certain boss fights would need to be rebalanced now that player characters are no longer 100% crit immune.

Nice ideas.

The only problem of messing with players fort of course is that monsters not only have a higher to hit roll than players in most situations (not counting trash monsters), but also have a ton more hit points....and of course in pretty much any given encounter - there are more monsters than players.

If a 400 hp player is fighting a 2000 hit point devil - the player cna be getting crits every 2 seconds and the devil is still coming out ahead on 'who is doing better at killing the other' on average. If players lost fort on hit to hit monsters - which are also high damage monsters - players would start dying left and right in much easier fights than they do now.

Or maybe encounters would then have to start being...level appropriate. A level 16 player, or players, shouldnt regularly be fighting cr20-28 monsters - or if they do those monsters should be worth a massive amount of xp, just by themsleves never mind the rest of the quest.

[Angelus_dead]

If you added a 1 in 50 chance of instant death every 5 minutes, I feel confident to say nobody would find that fun.

That's quite irrelevant. Your topic was a monster with a 1/200 chance of getting a critical hit. It is incorrect to conflate "crit" with "instant death".

The majority of crits are non-fatal, and when they are fatal it indicates either:
1. The players had made a tactical error by allowing hitpoints to go too low. The healer player gambled it would be OK to allow someone's hp to fall beneath the one-crit level, and they lost. (Possibly, the melee player also made a gamble when he allowed himself to be attacked while at low hp, instead of retreating from danger)
2. The character is outclassed by the content, and should not even be there yet.
3. The content is poorly-designed. A monster who has a 1/200th chance to one-shot a high-AC character with a lucky crit will have a 9% chance to two-shot a low-AC character, or will three-shot him anyhow. That kind of beast would be mega lethal, and probably shouldn't be used as a combat adversary at all.

So obviously you are referring to a narrower meaning of "randomness of that nature"

Yes, I'm referring to the meaning as you had just used it.

That is very different from what criticals potentially could be in the hands of our enemies.

"Potentially?" Well yeah, if a designer is trying to build bad content, then almost any game mechanic has the potential to be used in a foolish way. That's a weak argument against a mechanic.

[Thanimal]

Thanks for the clarification, A_D. This makes much more sense to me now.

"Potentially?" Well yeah, if a designer is trying to build bad content, then almost any game mechanic has the potential to be used in a foolish way. That's a weak argument against a mechanic.

Indeed, it's quite a weak argument. But the only basis I had for comparison currently came from low level content (since crits go away after level 11). And a guy like Bloodknuckles pretty routinely causes instant death when he rolls well.

With your more detailed explanation, I now understand why higher level content criticals should be fundamentally different. And they DO sound pretty fun!

[Monkeytoe]

Why should they make a new enhancement?

You want them to invent a whole new combat statistic just for defeating fort, which is irrelevant when enemies don't have fort, and which would divert APs from whatever else rogues might like to train.

Compare that to an alternative: Sneak Attacks require a confirmation check against a modified AC. In that case, there are already existing stats to help you confirm, and a huge list of existing methods a Rogue can use to improve his ability: Sneak Attack Accuracy, Inspire Courage, Potion of Grace, Bloodstone, Sunder, and simply turning off Power Attack.

That's the advantage of using opposed attack rolls to determine if Fortification works or not: the game already has mechanics to adjust attack bonus up or down.


Why should it only be for sneak attack? There are other characters out there, and many of them care about crits. Just because crits are a smaller percentage of a Paladin's DPS than Sneak Attacks are of a Rogue's, that doesn't mean only Sneak Attacks are worthy of help.

Combat Expertise could be changed to bypass fortification and/or allow sneak attacks.

[Angelus_dead]

The only problem of messing with players fort of course is that monsters not only have a higher to hit roll than players in most situations (not counting trash monsters), but also have a ton more hit points....and of course in pretty much any given encounter - there are more monsters than players.

Well, the actual reason a problem like that could occur is that currently 99% of level 11+ player characters have Heavy Fort, while under 15% of level 11+ monsters have any Fortification at all. So to decree that Fortification is now nerfed would weaken player characters more than it hurts monsters, because very few mobs had ever experienced a benefit from Fort.

Or maybe encounters would then have to start being...level appropriate.

That's why I mentioned an amount of rebalancing would have to be done. I didn't want to get into all of the details, because they're lengthy. But consider mobs who have Rogue levels. Past about level 11 quests (like Wizard King) you probably don't even know which mobs are Rogues, because you've been 100% immune to Sneak Attack. So there are a huge number of Rogue mobs out there (Barbazu and things) who haven't been putting out the DPS they should, because their Rogue levels weren't providing any combat value.

Over time, the developers have compensated for those mobs lacking Sneak Attack damage by adding more of them, or by boosting incoming DPS in other ways. So if Fortification gets nerfed so that some player characters can get Sneak Attacked, those quests become more dangerous and the game difficulty goes up.

However, the reason I said that only some places need to be rebalanced is because the game difficulty is probably on the low side already. It wouldn't hurt if the majority of quests become harder overall, so long as they're careful that the big bosses are adjusted so that the currently hardest-hitters don't become excessively more powerful. Previous design of raid bosses has been on the assumption that the boss will never, ever get a critical hit (unless the player is completely stupid)... so boss damage should be brought down once crits become a realistic possibility again.

[Thanimal]

However, the reason I said that only some places need to be rebalanced is because the game difficulty is probably on the low side already. It wouldn't hurt if the majority of quests become harder overall, so long as they're careful that the big bosses are adjusted so that the currently hardest-hitters don't become excessively more powerful. Previous design of raid bosses has been on the assumption that the boss will never, ever get a critical hit (unless the player is completely stupid)... so boss damage should be brought down once crits become a realistic possibility again.

I'm nodding my head now. Seeing how this makes sense. A lot of enemies could be much more interesting under this proposal.

[Angelus_dead]

Indeed, it's quite a weak argument. But the only basis I had for comparison currently came from low level content (since crits go away after level 11). And a guy like Bloodknuckles pretty routinely causes instant death when he rolls well.

If Bloodnuckles is a non-fun boss for level 2 parties, then that is a problem in itself, and crits should be nerfed (either on that specific kind of mob, or in general).

If it's fun for player characters to have a chance of being crit at level 2, then it should be a possibility at level 20. Or if crit-immunity is essential to fun gameplay at level 20, then that raises a question of if it would be better to remove it at level 2 as well. (Remember that for high level characters, sudden death is much less of a problem than it is for parties who can't cast Raise Dead)

PS. It has occasionally been reported that Ogres use the same attack roll for all three attacks of their combo animation, meaning that they have a unjustified ability to crit 3x in a row. If that's true, then that's a specific bug, and is not something that should be used to judge how crits would function in regular gameplay.

[Garth_of_Sarlona]

Adding weapon types that temporarily reduce fort, or making improved sunder reduce fort would be an elegant way. Alternatively give monks or rogues some kind of strike that reduces fort. This would encourage more tactical play - i.e. not just a boss beatdown, but having to send e.g. a kensai in and weaken the opponent (destruction, sunder, improved sunder) allowing the crit based classes (e.g. barbarian, khopesh users) go in and deal the dps

Garth

[Visty]

Indeed, it's quite a weak argument. But the only basis I had for comparison currently came from low level content (since crits go away after level 11). And a guy like Bloodknuckles pretty routinely causes instant death when he rolls well.

isnt bloodknuckle an ogre?
ogre are a pain at low lvls with their tripple crit insta death but thats a problem with ogres and trolls as no other mob does that

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Why should they make a new enhancement?

You want them to invent a whole new combat statistic just for defeating fort, which is irrelevant when enemies don't have fort, and which would divert APs from whatever else rogues might like to train.

Compare that to an alternative: Sneak Attacks require a confirmation check against a modified AC. In that case, there are already existing stats to help you confirm, and a huge list of existing methods a Rogue can use to improve his ability: Sneak Attack Accuracy, Inspire Courage, Potion of Grace, Bloodstone, Sunder, and simply turning off Power Attack.

That's the advantage of using opposed attack rolls to determine if Fortification works or not: the game already has mechanics to adjust attack bonus up or down.


Why should it only be for sneak attack? There are other characters out there, and many of them care about crits. Just because crits are a smaller percentage of a Paladin's DPS than Sneak Attacks are of a Rogue's, that doesn't mean only Sneak Attacks are worthy of help.

I think the heavy fort breaks the DPS for rogues in a way it doesnt for others, thats why treating it differently makes sense. A D&D high level rogue lives on their sneak.

If I'm not mistaken there is a mechanic in game to reduce fort, there's a rogue special ability for it, even if its limited to constructs.

I wouldn't be opposed to an opposed roll vs modified AC option in any event - whatever is easy to impliment.

[Kiranselie]

Well, shroud elite isn't very practical. There is no real point in running it on elite, and that won't change in mod 9.
In mod 9 there will be even less incentive to do it on elite, as it will be a "low level" raid.

However there is a huge incentive to run the new raid on elite, and guess what, he's got fort similar to Harry/Sally.

[Zenako]

There is the rogue ability to weaken constructs that could be adapted.

One could also see about making things like Sunder's also lower Fort as well as AC when they land. Make Destruction drop 4 AC and also drop Fort by 25%. Have the improved Destruction as seen on Beta drop 8 Ac and Fort by 50% for example.

Would be pretty clean to introduce and as long as one of the party members was able to land those effects, it would open of the cracks in the armor so to speak.

This could also ramp up the arms race for Fortification levels in Excess of 100% so that when weakened you still get good protection. Make some Heavy Armor with +25% Fort Boost, so it would add +25% to any existing level of Fort, giving you 125% if you had Heavy already. Get hit with a minor Destruction and you still have 100% fort, but get hit with an Improved Destruction and you are down to 75%.

[Thanimal]

If it's fun for player characters to have a chance of being crit at level 2, then it should be a possibility at level 20. Or if crit-immunity is essential to fun gameplay at level 20, then that raises a question of if it would be better to remove it at level 2 as well. (Remember that for high level characters, sudden death is much less of a problem than it is for parties who can't cast Raise Dead)

That (emphasis added) is exactly the point I tried to make before. But I think you've shown that Bloodknuckles is an exception to what could be a very fun critical mechanic.

[Dark_Helmet]

First, undead monsters have been in D&D from the start (even in the sample dungeons of basic D&D books) with skeletons and zombies, so it is not a new high-level issue that just came up. It has always been there and will continue to be part of the game to have monsters that are immune to certain attacks. Also, it is more noticable at higher level with the insta-kill effects of weapons vs. the very high HP levels. The issue is that they gave red-named mobs certain immunities that are not normally reserved for undead, thus creating an even larger imbalance within a dungeon.

Second, if you nerf fort, it does give the advantage to monsters since there are more of them than party members in most quests. As a comparison, look at the monster casters spamming their spells where all you need is a 1 to fail. A party of 6 casters can not spam their spells as fast as mobs, hoping for a failure by a monster before they get affected. Attacks by mobs will be the same - except at most boss fights which usally only have a couple of high level monsters to contend with.


If you give monsters items that provide some sort of protection (such as heavy fort), let us loot them!

[cforce]

Huh. I actually expected a lot more, "that's ridiculous -- big red numbers are good!" objection to the OP. It seems like the main contributors have taken the diminishing value of critical and SA damage as a given, and have gone straight to debating ways to fix the problem.

Not that I disagree with my own OP! I guess I expected more dissent, though.

If everyone argees with me, I'm off to go build my unarmed Kensai, then! (Oh, wait -- lack of transmuting still kills unarmed damage. Oh, well -- maybe next mod )

[Angelus_dead]

First, undead monsters have been in D&D from the start (even in the sample dungeons of basic D&D books) with skeletons and zombies, so it is not a new high-level issue that just came up.

And in those basic D&D books, nobody got crits ever.

Second, if you nerf fort, it does give the advantage to monsters since there are more of them than party members in most quests.

The relative numbers of monsters vs player characters is not relevant to the conclusion. Even if you look only raid quests with 1 mob per 12 players, the relative benefit goes towards:
1. The side that did not have universal Heavy Fort before
2. The side with higher hitpoints
3. The side with less healing
4. The side that was previously less likely to win

If you give monsters items that provide some sort of protection (such as heavy fort), let us loot them!

Uh, why would you want to loot it, since you've already had better items since before the mobs got any?

If everyone argees with me, I'm off to go build my unarmed Kensai, then! (Oh, wait -- lack of transmuting still kills unarmed damage. Oh, well -- maybe next mod )

Um, Kensai and Transmuting Handwraps are being released in the same patch.

[maddmatt70]

One of the biggest problems with DDO is lack of content. If Turbine gets back to at least releasing content every 3 months that will help things a great deal. I have no issue with them releasing a Lich with 100% fortification in one mod and then the next mod releasing a boss with 0% fortification assuming we are gettting a steady stream of content and in fact that would be my preference. Variety is what D&D is all about. At the high levels in pnp D&D there are alot of monsters and 'bosses' with some degree of fortification, damage reduction ,etc and DDO should be no different.

[GlassCannon]

Can anyone confirm/deny if Bloodstone damage also applies even if the crit is resisted?

Is there anything else that is associated with criticals but still applies regardless of Fort?

It does not, or I would see rather chaotic numbers in The Shroud when my Ranger swaps from Bloodstone to Kardin's Eye with his Rapiers.

It does not decrease when the crit is resisted(w/o bloodstone), nor does it increase(with). It is standard damage, not amplified by Seeker.

[GlassCannon]

<Intelligent rebuttal>...

Um, Kensai and Transmuting Handwraps are being released in the same patch.

He would have to read and be educated on the subject by self-interested pursuit of knowledge to understand that.

Shh! You'll break his concentration.

[Kaldaka]

Tossing out a lot of fort can completely ruin a class as already mentioned. Rogues already fought their stigma pre mod4, then again in mod5, don't screw em up yet again.

On the flip side, high fort mobs help monks catch up.

It would be really stupid move from turbine that in their desperate attempt to fix 1 class, they nerf another.. again.

I agree that this is the biggest reason not to go to full fort on mobs ...

I pretty much will not be running many raids with full rogues if that happens that's for sure ...