D&D 5E Removing the Critical Hit, Using Exploding Dice

[DND_Reborn]

While the concept is interesting, this just isn't something that can be easily ported into 5E. Characters that roll lots of damage dice, such as the Rogue and Paladin, will massively benefit from this, while the Champion loses it's primary benefit.

They benefit slightly more than others, but not as much as you might think, since these classes already benefit from rolling a crit on a 20 anyway and have the potential for HUGE damage then.

As I mentioned in the OP, I would have to modify the Champion's feature to make changes of course. They won't lose their benefit, but it will be altered.

 

[RSIxidor]

You could make it so that smaller dice could only explode once, in case a group doesn't like the closing gap.
So like, d4 once, d6 twice, d8 thrice, d10 four times, d12 5 times. 2d6 weapons would only let their d6 explode twice but that's not so bad.

 

[Oofta]

In previous editions we used the Nat 20, roll again to confirm additional damage, keep rolling if you roll a 20. In some ways I liked it because if you're like my ranger that hated giants and you got really, really lucky (we were playing in person, rolling dice in the open) you could take out multiple giants in one turn.

It was okay, not sure it was worth the extra overhead. Personally I wouldn't use exploding dice for anything else, it would just tilt the power in the direction of the PCs since I use average damage for monsters.

 

[Blue]

I have a few concerns.

You are reversing the "two-handed weapons do more damage" - this shrinks the difference between core with crits vs. modified by a lot.

There's the corner case of great sword vs. every other two handed weapon at will need to be addressed.

How does this look with monster damage?

The "20 is still a crit even if you need a 20 to hit" mathematically comes up so little (a few times a campaign?) that while it's a valid gripe, it has neat zero weight in terms of balance.

It seems like you want to replace a fast rule with a slower one. More comparisons, more varied comparisons, more frequent rolls, need to compare the rerolls, and more math. At what is already the most mechanical slow part of the game - combat. For that, you need for it to be a drastic improvement.

I know you like to fiddle, but I don't see a single upside to the rule over the existing one. It's significantly slower and it messes up balance between one and two handed weapons.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have a few concerns.

You are reversing the "two-handed weapons do more damage" - this shrinks the difference between core with crits vs. modified by a lot.

There's the corner case of great sword vs. every other two handed weapon at will need to be addressed.

How does this look with monster damage?

The "20 is still a crit even if you need a 20 to hit" mathematically comes up so little (a few times a campaign?) that while it's a valid gripe, it has neat zero weight in terms of balance.

It seems like you want to replace a fast rule with a slower one. More comparisons, more varied comparisons, more frequent rolls, need to compare the rerolls, and more math. At what is already the most mechanical slow part of the game - combat. For that, you need for it to be a drastic improvement.

I know you like to fiddle, but I don't see a single upside to the rule over the existing one. It's significantly slower and it messes up balance between one and two handed weapons.

Excellent points. Knowing our table, I can see the appeal of exploding dice, but I really don't know if it will be worth the additional work/math/etc.

I was mostly curious if any one was using exploding dice in their games (in any manner), but so far no responses on that other than the exploding nat 20.

 

[Blue]

Excellent points. Knowing our table, I can see the appeal of exploding dice, but I really don't know if it will be worth the additional work/math/etc.

I was mostly curious if any one was using exploding dice in their games (in any manner), but so far no responses on that other than the exploding nat 20.

I love tinkering as well, and even when one doesn't pan out I like reading your posts on them.

 

[jasper]

Glues Sapphire dices to 3 M80s throws at op. BOO BOOO.
Only if the monsters get this.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I love tinkering as well, and even when one doesn't pan out I like reading your posts on them.

LOL thanks! It's the mathematician in me. First I was curious how close the exploding die mechanic would measure up to the natural 20 one. Second, will the more common occurrence of the exploding die make it more enjoyable than the natural 20? Third, when it occurs, is the math more problematical than rolling double dice?

Anyway, next installment: a 10-level collapsed version of the classes without ASI/feats!

Glues Sapphire dices to 3 M80s throws at op. BOO BOOO.
Only if the monsters get this.

Yes. If implemented anything we do at our table applies equally to monsters as well as PCs.

 

[Big J Money]

Don't heed the undeserved skepticism. You will want to tweak, but it's not a big deal really; in fact it has some nice effects and can become a useful kit in your toolbox if you want to rework the game's damage values.

D4s are now now scrappier but not by enough to make them ever better than a d6. A d4's average damage goes up by about 0.63 damage per roll, while a d6 only goes up by 0.58. That's only a 0.05 damage relative increase, and the gap between then was already 1 full average damage.

However, 2d4 was already better than 1d8; but now it's quite better at an average of 6.26 damage -- that's close to d12 level of damage. So you will want to reserve multi rolls to things you want to do lots of damage. Spells become even deadlier; as does sneak attack -- these are not inherently bad.

Here, I'll take some of the heat off your post by explaining how I run crits in my game For every 5 higher an attacker rolls than the target's AC, the attacker gains 1 stack of crit damage in addition to regular damage. Crit damage is the attack's maximum damage by the dice.

So a fighter dual-wielding a longsword who normally does 1d10+3 damage and scores 2 stacks of crit damage would do 1d10+23 damage. Low vs high level matchups are absurdly lethal, and this was my intent.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Don't heed the undeserved skepticism. You will want to tweak, but it's not a big deal really; in fact it has some nice effects and can become a useful kit in your toolbox if you want to rework the game's damage values.

D4s are now now scrappier but not by enough to make them ever better than a d6. A d4's average damage goes up by about 0.63 damage per roll, while a d6 only goes up by 0.58. That's only a 0.05 damage relative increase, and the gap between then was already 1 full average damage.

However, 2d4 was already better than 1d8; but now it's quite better at an average of 6.26 damage -- that's close to d12 level of damage. So you will want to reserve multi rolls to things you want to do lots of damage. Spells become even deadlier; as does sneak attack -- these are not inherently bad.

Here, I'll take some of the heat off your post by explaining how I run crits in my game For every 5 higher an attacker rolls than the target's AC, the attacker gains 1 stack of crit damage in addition to regular damage. Crit damage is the attack's maximum damage by the dice.

So a fighter dual-wielding a longsword who normally does 1d10+3 damage and scores 2 stacks of crit damage would do 1d10+23 damage. Low vs high level matchups are absurdly lethal, and this was my intent.

Thanks for the input! I don't mind the criticism, I receive enough kudos from my posts to know at least some people like the ideas, even if they don't plan to use them.

I've done something similar to the 5 greater thing in 1E/2E, but rolled extra dice, not adding maximum weapon. Since that works for you, that is cool. My only concern with such a rule is that a lot of tough creatures are "beefy" (aka lots of hp) but easy to hit, which sort of defeats them having lots of hp...

For the exploding dice idea, I like some of the results with making weaker weapons slightly stronger since it would increase the chances of players actually picking them! Spell damage and sneak attack, and such, as you point out, would be more affected... but, I agree, not necessarily a bad thing.