I think it depends. One of the reasons for ‘confirming crits’ that I saw early on which you don’t mention is that it was a technique to allow better, more competent combatants to be more likely to actually land a critical hit (since they were more likely to be successful with the crit confirmation roll). This worked in D&D, but wouldn’t work in the game you mention above where it is a flat chance. I don’t think a flat chance of confirmation adds anything, and is not an approach I’d prefer.
However, some other systems factor in the competence of the attacker in other ways - e.g. Runequest (and other BRP) scores a crit on 1/20th of the attack chance. So 2% or less if you have a 40% attack, 4% if you have an 80% attack and so on. Built in competence effect, so no confirmation.
Another alternative approach (which I used in my Starguild game) was to score a crit if you beat the target number by 10. Again, no confirmation needed, but more competent people (or more vulnerable targets) improve the chance of a crit.
You might not like Runequest then (at least RQ2 which is where I’m familiar).
1. Attacker rolls to hit (d%)
2. Attacker rolls hit location (d20)
2. Defender may roll to parry (d%)
3. If not parried, Attacker rolls damage (dx+y)
Rinse and repeat for all people and things in the combat.
On the one hand it sounds like a LOT of consecutive rolls. On the other hand, I’ve never come across any game like it that really feels like the cut and thrust of hand to hand combat!
I wonder if confirming crits would be better accepted if presented differently. For example, it sounds like Burning Banners could say something like "for each 7 or 8 rolled, you may roll an additional 1d6. Add any resulting successes to your total." Mechanically it ends up the same but you don't get the feeling of achieving something and having it taken away after.
Thanks for this comment! I hadn’t considered that, but I think you are right. Just that simple phrasing change makes it sound like I have a chance at a bonus rather than having my crit taken away from me. Good thinking! 🤔
I generally don't like having to confirm critical rolls, but it depends on the system. For example, in Rolemaster (and its derivatives), "hits" in combat are treated as causing unconsciousness when the total threshold is reached, not actual physical (or mental) damage. There are extensive critical hit tables that provide the real damage to an opponent. Also, there are different gradients of critical hits and they are much easier to gain, not being a "1 in 20" chance. The entire system is built around using critical hits in this way, so it makes mechanical sense.
I think it depends. One of the reasons for ‘confirming crits’ that I saw early on which you don’t mention is that it was a technique to allow better, more competent combatants to be more likely to actually land a critical hit (since they were more likely to be successful with the crit confirmation roll). This worked in D&D, but wouldn’t work in the game you mention above where it is a flat chance. I don’t think a flat chance of confirmation adds anything, and is not an approach I’d prefer.
However, some other systems factor in the competence of the attacker in other ways - e.g. Runequest (and other BRP) scores a crit on 1/20th of the attack chance. So 2% or less if you have a 40% attack, 4% if you have an 80% attack and so on. Built in competence effect, so no confirmation.
Another alternative approach (which I used in my Starguild game) was to score a crit if you beat the target number by 10. Again, no confirmation needed, but more competent people (or more vulnerable targets) improve the chance of a crit.
Thanks for the detailed comment!
I like the idea of “beating the target by 10”. Lately I’m in favor of less consecutive dice rolls in games.
You might not like Runequest then (at least RQ2 which is where I’m familiar).
1. Attacker rolls to hit (d%)
2. Attacker rolls hit location (d20)
2. Defender may roll to parry (d%)
3. If not parried, Attacker rolls damage (dx+y)
Rinse and repeat for all people and things in the combat.
On the one hand it sounds like a LOT of consecutive rolls. On the other hand, I’ve never come across any game like it that really feels like the cut and thrust of hand to hand combat!
I wonder if confirming crits would be better accepted if presented differently. For example, it sounds like Burning Banners could say something like "for each 7 or 8 rolled, you may roll an additional 1d6. Add any resulting successes to your total." Mechanically it ends up the same but you don't get the feeling of achieving something and having it taken away after.
Thanks for this comment! I hadn’t considered that, but I think you are right. Just that simple phrasing change makes it sound like I have a chance at a bonus rather than having my crit taken away from me. Good thinking! 🤔
I generally don't like having to confirm critical rolls, but it depends on the system. For example, in Rolemaster (and its derivatives), "hits" in combat are treated as causing unconsciousness when the total threshold is reached, not actual physical (or mental) damage. There are extensive critical hit tables that provide the real damage to an opponent. Also, there are different gradients of critical hits and they are much easier to gain, not being a "1 in 20" chance. The entire system is built around using critical hits in this way, so it makes mechanical sense.
Thanks for the comment! Agree that it depends on the system. I think I'd dislike it in most systems, but I really don't mind it in Burning Banners.