D&D 5E A Calculated Critical (Unbalanced... probably)

[Reynard]

Exploding dice would be great, I'm seriously considering using that rule

As a big fan of Savage Worlds I approve this message.

One of the things I like about SW over 5E is in SW ever attack and damage roll feels consequential because the system is inherently designed to be swingy. That uncertainty increases tension and IMO makes combat both more fun and feel like a fail state (in a good way). In vanilla 5E, by 3rd or 4th level everything feels so predictable the first few rounds of combat are rote, with almost no option for the unexpected to emerge naturally from the system.

 

[Rabulias]

FWIW, when you have advantage your chances of scoring a critical hit are already increased from 5% to 9.75%

But, getting 18 or higher on BOTH dice is only 2.25%, worse than the default 5% for a natural 20.

Thanks for the numbers. I figured you might be one to have them handy. So what if you needed both to be 17+, 16+, and 15+?

Somehow I had in mind that the OP was looking to decrease the frequency if crits.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Somehow I had in mind that the OP was looking to decrease the frequency if crits.

I thought from the OP the idea was to increase them, but I could be wrong?

If you want it to be 17 or higher, it would be 20% (17,18,19,20) for a single die. Since both dice have to roll that high, you multiply 0.2 x 0.2 for 0.04 or 4%, less than the original 5% of a natural 20 crit.

Double 16's or higher would be 0.25 x 0.25 or 0.0625 (6.25%) and double 15's or better would be 0.3 x 0.3 or 0.09 (9%).

Now, all this changes if the rule is:

You score a critical hit if either die roll is 20, or if both dice are 17 or higher.

I am not certain from the OP if they still want to crit on 20 as well (on either 20), or just on the both dice having to be X or higher???

 

[ElPsyCongroo]

I thought from the OP the idea was to increase them, but I could be wrong?

If you want it to be 17 or higher, it would be 20% (17,18,19,20) for a single die. Since both dice have to roll that high, you multiply 0.2 x 0.2 for 0.04 or 4%, less than the original 5% of a natural 20 crit.

Double 16's or higher would be 0.25 x 0.25 or 0.0625 (6.25%) and double 15's or better would be 0.3 x 0.3 or 0.09 (9%).

Now, all this changes if the rule is:

You score a critical hit if either die roll is 20, or if both dice are 17 or higher.

I am not certain from the OP if they still want to crit on 20 as well (on either 20), or just on the both dice having to be X or higher???

I meant more along the lines of setting up situations for critical damage as opposed to just as a chance. But I do see it being too powerful and much prefer the idea of exploding dice, as it adds variation, low value die are more likely to explode for instance. A dagger having a 25% chance to basically "crit" does make the weapon more appealing.

 

[Flamestrike]

What if Advantage conferred a Crit? An attack that has Advantage is that much more likely to bring you down, HP being the abstract thing that it is, this could be translated as being that much harder to avoid a decapitating strike whilst restrained by entangling vines, or being that much harder to avoid a stab to the jugular when you can't see.

Rogues love this. So do Wolf Barbarians.

And everyone that hangs out with Wolf Barbarians.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I meant more along the lines of setting up situations for critical damage as opposed to just as a chance. But I do see it being too powerful and much prefer the idea of exploding dice, as it adds variation, low value die are more likely to explode for instance. A dagger having a 25% chance to basically "crit" does make the weapon more appealing.

Gotcha!

Ok, the cool thing about exploding dice is a non-exploding d6 (avg 3.5) has better average damage than a exploding d4 (avg. 3.33). So, while critical damage (i.e. exploding damage) will make smaller weapons more appealing, larger weapons still deal better damage on average.

I'll tell you a funny story in our current game. My PC was attacking an ooze IIRC with a torch (improvised as a club for 1d4) and I rolled something like a 4, 4, 4, 4, 2 + 3 (STR) for a total of 21 bludgeoning damage (I know that was the total damage).

 

[ElPsyCongroo]

Gotcha!

Ok, the cool thing about exploding dice is a non-exploding d6 (avg 3.5) has better average damage than a exploding d4 (avg. 3.33). So, while critical damage (i.e. exploding damage) will make smaller weapons more appealing, larger weapons still deal better damage on average.

I'll tell you a funny story in our current game. My PC was attacking an ooze IIRC with a torch (improvised as a club for 1d4) and I rolled something like a 4, 4, 4, 4, 2 + 3 (STR) for a total of 21 bludgeoning damage (I know that was the total damage).

Pity it was an Ooze otherwise that would of been some ludicrous damage with an improv weapon

 

[DND_Reborn]

Pity it was an Ooze otherwise that would of been some ludicrous damage with an improv weapon

What does the ooze part matter? It still was ludicrous damage with an improvised weapon. I'm just lucky it was torch made from wood so it didn't corrode.

 

[ElPsyCongroo]

What does the ooze part matter? It still was ludicrous damage with an improvised weapon. I'm just lucky it was torch made from wood so it didn't corrode.

For some reason I just assumed damage resistance because Ooze but that might not be the case, definitely was still some incredible luck!