D&D (2024) Just make critical do double damage. Period.

[Justice and Rule]

I mean, if you want to roll more dice but also be more consistent... roll double dice, but pick one set to add to max damage? That'd give consistently high damage while allowing you to roll more dice.

Though honestly I think the excitement from criticals is the possibility of causing massive damage. Raising that possibility so that they are always bigger damage than normal would seem to be a better bet.

 

[Dausuul]

I mean, if you want to roll more dice but also be more consistent... roll double dice, but pick one set to add to max damage? That'd give consistently high damage while allowing you to roll more dice.

Though honestly I think the excitement from criticals is the possibility of causing massive damage. Raising that possibility so that they are always bigger damage than normal would seem to be a better bet.

Another way to do it would be to do max damage, then roll on a crit table for a "special effect." That slows things down a lot, though, especially in 5E. There are just too many attacks flying around; nat 20s are fairly routine.

I've seen even more implementations of critical hits than fumbles, but I always come back to some variant on max damage (or max plus one, or max plus dice). It's simple, it's quick, and you never get the letdown of rolling snake eyes on your double damage dice.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Another way to do it would be to do max damage, then roll on a crit table for a "special effect." That slows things down a lot, though, especially in 5E. There are just too many attacks flying around; nat 20s are fairly routine.

There are bunches of Critical Hit Decks out there. Looking at my PF2 one, they have the three major damage types plus "Magical/Bomb" for other such needs. Notably it's supposed to only be used for rolls of natural 20s (PF2 has criticals when you beat the target by 10 or more, with 20s upgrading a success by one level). Conceptually I think it'd work well for D&D to try it.

I've seen even more implementations of critical hits than fumbles, but I always come back to some variant on max damage (or max plus one, or max plus dice). It's simple, it's quick, and you never get the letdown of rolling snake eyes on your double damage dice.

I think just Max Regular Damage + Regular Damage Roll is clean and simple, though I do think there is something nice about rolling double dice and picking the best: just makes it extremely hard to waste a critical hit.

As to fumbles, I think it might be better to have reactions that could exploit fumbles, like special pushes, potential attacks, etc. You could make up some basic ones for more plentiful enemies and more specialized ones for tougher individuals.

 

[Vael]

"Wasting" critical hits isn't a major concern for me. I've seen crits on monsters that had <5 HP left, and I prefer the comedy of a bad crit roll over critical fumbles, and they make the great rolls feel more special. The dice gods giveth and they taketh away

 

[Andvari]

Good old 3E greataxe critical hits for triple d12+4 on a 1 HP monster.

 

[Horwath]

I would remove nat 20 as Crit hit damage.

Rather have crit double damage if you beat AC by 10,
triple damage if you beat AC by 15,
and quad damage if you beat AC by 20,

 

[delericho]

Criticals should be just that - critical. As in, combat-changing.

Given that, they should also be fairly rare. Having them happen on average once per 20 attacks is IMO much too common.

The answer is to add in a confirm roll, with that second roll giving results on a sliding scale ranging from "nothing extra" on a low-to-mid roll to "fasten your seat belts" on a second 20.

If you're going for that sort of sliding scale, isn't it easier just to roll double the damage dice? A low roll gives you that "nothing (much) extra", a high roll is "fasten your seat belts", and there's no need to worry about extra tables, sliding scales, or things like that.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

If you're going for that sort of sliding scale, isn't it easier just to roll double the damage dice? A low roll gives you that "nothing (much) extra", a high roll is "fasten your seat belts", and there's no need to worry about extra tables, sliding scales, or things like that.

I am 95% against Nat 1 fumble rules. Every time we ever tried it, the game became ridiculous Keystone Cops-like. Player Characters make more rolls on screen than any other character. You know how often they are dropping their swords, or blasting their allies with all the Nat 1s they roll? Not very dignified or serious in the heroism.

While it is not usually my cup o' tea, I would consider it as an optional rule specifically for a comedy game where the heroes get a lot of opportunities to look incompetent, or if the players like to roll with the ridiculous. Like a Guardians of the Galaxy-style game where players mock each other for failing, as fumbles make them fail ridiculously as often as they critically succeed.

That said, I am ok with it as an option to opt into, but not a main core rule.

 

[delericho]

I am 95% against Nat 1 fumble rules.

I'm the same, only moreso - I won't play a game with critical fumbles any longer. The post I was responding to was talking about critical hits.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Critical fumbles work better when they can spark reactions from nearby enemies, rather than just bunches of people tossing their weapons or unstringing their bows.