D&D 5E clunky crit and cover

[evilbob]

I have to say: I'm loving the new ruleset. I really like the streamlined simplicity of it all. Which is why when I see something clunky, it sticks out even more so. It's confusing: like, if I can tell how silly this is, why didn't they? Here are two examples:

Crits: You know what's easier to remember, much faster in play, and pretty much statistically identical to the current crit rule? "Crits do max damage." DONE. Why make it take longer than that? Many players are already used to this rule anyway.

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.

Those are just two tiny nitpicks (and instant house-rules) but in all honesty, the rules seem very streamlined so far. Very cool.

 

[Nagol]

I see the sense n the second one.

Because disadvantage doesn't stack, if you have cover applying disadvantage then anyone who is already disadvantaged is taking no further penalty from attacking the person in cover.
Because disadvantage is canceled by advantage, characters would seek any form of advantage before dealing with the opponent with cover.

 

[Umbran]

Crits: You know what's easier to remember, much faster in play, and pretty much statistically identical to the current crit rule? "Crits do max damage." DONE. Why make it take longer than that? Many players are already used to this rule anyway.

Why make it take longer? Two reasons: 1) Many players like rolling dice. It is fun, and adds makes the player more active in their success. 2) Rolling the dice twice makes it possible for the crit to exceed what a normal hit might do, which max damage doesn't do.

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;

Because there was some desire for more than a simple two-state covered/not covered? Because taking a peek through an arrow slit really should be better than standing behind a low wall?

 

[Nagol]

Why make it take longer? Two reasons: 1) Many players like rolling dice. It is fun, and adds makes the player more active in their success. 2) Rolling the dice twice makes it possible for the crit to exceed what a normal hit might do, which max damage doesn't do.

<snip>

Rolling dice twice actually will generally exceed the maximum on the one roll -- the expected result is minimum + maximum after all. It is just in most cases, the expected is only 1 more than maximum.

 

[evilbob]

Why make it take longer? Two reasons: 1) Many players like rolling dice. It is fun, and adds makes the player more active in their success. 2) Rolling the dice twice makes it possible for the crit to exceed what a normal hit might do, which max damage doesn't do.

Because there was some desire for more than a simple two-state covered/not covered? Because taking a peek through an arrow slit really should be better than standing behind a low wall?

I hear you; I understand these arguments. In my opinion, "players like rolling dice" is just not nearly as important as "rules should be simple" and "resolving play should take the least amount of time possible." If they really wanted players to roll more dice, then saves against spells should be reversed: players should roll attacks vs. monsters' static defenses, instead of the other way around. That doesn't seem to be their primary goal.

As for making it possible to exceed max damage, it also means you can crit and get a total of 2. That's such a negative outcome that I would happily trade a guaranteed good success for the chance at an even better success to avoid the bad success. A crit should - in my opinion - always be rewarded. Even though "max damage" is a fraction smaller on average than "roll twice," randomness tends to work against players (as opposed to non-random results). Static crits are more rewarding.

As for the cover arguments, I still think that's something that belongs more in a tactical module. If you're looking for realism, there are too many counter-examples to list.

I guess it comes down to priorities, and what I am interpreting as the core goals of 5.0. "Speed of play" and "easy to remember" seem to be the main principles and are reflected everywhere else; it just seems curious that these two rules break that system and are more clunky for seemingly little payoff. That's why they stand out so much to me.

 

[evilbob]

Because disadvantage doesn't stack, if you have cover applying disadvantage then anyone who is already disadvantaged is taking no further penalty from attacking the person in cover.

The flip side is that cover is one of the few rules that introduces "extra penalties," which makes it an exception for really no obvious reason. Instead of the super-streamlined advantage/disadvantage system, you also have to remember two sets of penalties that may or may not apply depending on the exact type of cover provided. That's just way too much detail when you need to roll the dice and go. It's also more exceptions to remember, especially - again - when there's not any obvious reason that this exact thing should be an exception and anything else isn't. In other words: if blind + prone doesn't stack, why would blind + cover? (That may be a bad example but it's the gist of what I'm saying.)

 

[jodyjohnson]

The rules seem fine. They just don't always match my preferences.

As they finish up the DMG (they aren't even done with the MM yet), I'm hoping most of the areas where a proportion dislike something that it will get a short discussion.

Things like how crits generally will be worse for the party than benefiting the party. Given the default hasn't always been to have 20 cause a crit, I can see variance here.

I do expect crits to remain somewhat mandatory, mostly because they are a bedrock ability of the Basic fighter.

1. Max damage, done.
2. Roll extra dice, not bonuses (1e,2e)
3. Max + dice, playtest (sort of 4e)
4. Extra dice and multiply bonuses (3e)
5. Some sort of exploding dice or where roll again with double crit equal instadeath.

A couple of these have been around for 35+ years.

 

[Umbran]

I hear you; I understand these arguments. In my opinion, "players like rolling dice" is just not nearly as important as "rules should be simple" and "resolving play should take the least amount of time possible." If they really wanted players to roll more dice, then saves against spells should be reversed: players should roll attacks vs. monsters' static defenses, instead of the other way around. That doesn't seem to be their primary goal.

Yes, and by that logic, they should remove all dice and randomization from the game, because it isn't the "primary goal". Fact is, there are several goals in action at any given time, and not all of them are primary, but are considered nontheless. Yes, simplification is good. But yes also rolling dice is good. So, more often than not we have simplified, but in a few places we have extra dice.

As for making it possible to exceed max damage, it also means you can crit and get a total of 2. That's such a negative outcome that I would happily trade a guaranteed good success for the chance at an even better success to avoid the bad success.

"*I* would happily trade," is not a good argument for a core rules change. You are one person.

A crit should - in my opinion - always be rewarded. Even though "max damage" is a fraction smaller on average than "roll twice," randomness tends to work against players (as opposed to non-random results). Static crits are more rewarding.

Then use them. Done.

As for the cover arguments, I still think that's something that belongs more in a tactical module.

Yes, well, it isn't like you want to remove *all* tactical considerations from Basic, right? You want to leave a few in there. And ducking for cover is so darned basic an idea - at a house con this past weekend, as I walked past the 5e session that was doing their first combat of the game, someone was diving for cover already - that I think it isn't a bad choice.

 

[evilbob]

Yes, and by that logic, they should remove all dice and randomization from the game, because it isn't the "primary goal".

"*I* would happily trade," is not a good argument for a core rules change. You are one person.

Then use them. Done.

Wow, man, it's ok. I know that I'm speaking for me and my opinion only. I said that repeatedly in my posts and was sure to include those words specifically. And yeah, I will houserule it.

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.

You don't. Awesome! So we disagree. No biggie.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

"*I* would happily trade," is not a good argument for a core rules change. You are one person.

This. To me, for instance, a critical hit is all about the possibility of dealing more damage with an attack that would be possible otherwise. Thankfully, this is the kind of thing that's easy to change.