Search results

I hard disagree with this. If a design choice in a game about having fun with friends, increases the enjoyment of the people playing the game, then it is a good thing. There could still be room for improvement, but at it's base it certainly isn't bad design.

That necessitates doing something more than just the nat 1 though. Whether it is a table lookup, math, or another die roll.

that is the reason I dislike fumbles

I made use of a pathfinder crit deck for my game because each card had options for what happens based on the damage type. I think that that would be too much for an A5e, but something in that direction would be a good change to make crits more interesting.

That is a fair point, but it seems more like an argument against having crits in general than about not changing them, because people still get that same intuition when they have a really big to-hit against someone with low ac. Or an argument to make crits do something more interesting than...

I'm being a little pedantic here but, the to-hit math is identical, though there is still more math involved in the attack overall. "I rolled a 13 + 5 (str) + 4 (pb), for 22 total." (standard roll) "Their defense is 14, hit." (standard confirmation) "Not a crit then, I need 14+10, or 24 for a...

It would actually make important fights more difficult, because it would mean most people can't crit against the big bad, while fights that are supposed to be a breeze for the players actually are, because they have a more consistent high damage output. Also one of the most common complaints I...

I think it would be nice if Nat 20's were divorced from the critical hit effect and it also would help clear up the language around using the d20. A natural 20 on a d20 is an auto-success regardless of if you are making a skill check, save, or attack, with the caveat that you only roll when...