D&D 5E clunky crit and cover

[Chris_Nightwing]

If you want simplicity and impact, make crits do maximum damage plus an additional maximum weapon dice (ie: twice maximum weapon damage plus modifiers).

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

My point is just that these two examples seem to break the simplicity / smoothness of the game that flows through nearly every other rule. I sense a pattern and I sense it was broken, and I disagree with the decision to break it.

Specifically regarding the critical rules, I also disagree that max damage is an easier rule. If for nothing else, because of resonance. It's not 1974 anymore, and a lot of the new players coming to D&D from sources such as WoW and other video-games will expect critical hits to deal more damage than a normal attack would be able to do. We're much better giving those people what they expect.

Also, I cannot see how "it's a critical hit, roll double dice" lacks in simplicity when compared to "it's a critical hit, do max damage". While I don't agree with your cover option either, I see how it favors simplicity, but I don't think this is the case here.

 

[Tush Hog]

I don't like max damage crits. I want my crits to be special. I like doing over 20 points with a great axe!

 

[Thaumaturge]

If cover grants disadvantage, then fighting from around a corner is the same as, and doesn't stack with, being blind.

That doesn't work for me.

If it works for you, cool.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Xodis]

I dont think these things slow down game play too much personally. Roll d20, get a 20 AUTOHIT! (no need to confirm either), roll damage twice (or take max damage which is pretty balanced and something you can probably expect to see in the DMG) and boom turn over. Big improvement in speed.

Cover isn't too bad and like posted earlier cant be easily negated by gaining advantage. Everything else is so easy and streamlined it doesn't bother me to take a few extra moments to calculate.

 

[Abstruse]

Before you guys go fiddling with the crit rules ramping them up, remember that the PCs on average are probably going to be taking more crits than they deal out. Especially if you're the type that likes hordes.

 

[wedgeski]

Don't agree with OP on crits, do agree on cover, at least for the basic rules.

 

[jadrax]

I always remember the rules for cover as its the equivalent of getting a shield.

 

[Li Shenron]

Cover: Similarly, here's a great rule for cover: cover means anyone attacking you has disadvantage. DONE. No multiple levels with various static numbers to remember and add/subtract, none of the clunkiness. I have no idea why they didn't do this; the current cover rules are needlessly complex and add exactly zero to the game. If you want more complex cover rules, put them in an advanced tactics module.

Because:

1) it's too easy to get some cover, it could turn out as a repetitive tactic to negate attacker's advantage
2) armor is D&D works as cover (rather than damage reduction), thus cover works as armor

As for critical hits, there's pros and cons to both ways. I don't know why they ultimated chose this one over max damage.

 

[LFK]

Cover: Similarly, here's a great rule for cover: cover means anyone attacking you has disadvantage. DONE. No multiple levels with various static numbers to remember and add/subtract, none of the clunkiness. I have no idea why they didn't do this; the current cover rules are needlessly complex and add exactly zero to the game. If you want more complex cover rules, put them in an advanced tactics module.

Funny, I was just looking at these rules, thinking the same thing.

The elegance of Advantage/Disadvantage makes the "+2 for half, +5 for three-quarters" really stand out as an oddity.

Cut cover to a yes/no with only three states. No cover: normal. Cover: advantage on Dex saves, attackers have disadvantage. Full Cover: out of line of sight, cannot be targeted by attacks. Fast, minimal arbitration (god help the table trying to decide if that tree counts as 1/2 or 3/4s...), and frankly not much is lost. Yes, it basically makes almost all cover as powerful as 3/4s, but so what? Standing in front of your allies doing nothing is rarely the best option, and, hey, at least defenders can provide meaningful defence with their positioning. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander, encouraging a more dynamic battlefield as teams move to get good line of sight and cover each other. 1/2 cover isn't enough of an incentive to generally care about, it's in that zone of "things you just accept".