A simple Crit House Rule

[Xeviat]

While playing some 5E, which is well liked by 3 of my 4 current players, we had "the worst thing ever" happen. The Barbarian rolled a crit with their great axe, and rolled minimum damage; two 1s. We brushed it off, kept going, but the effect was still pretty disheartening. This happened before in 3E, but at least that edition doubled modifiers too (didn't help for the str 10 TWFing weapon finesse Ranger, though). A 5 damage crit with a great axe is just sad.

So, I am thinking of suggesting to the group to do max damage crits instead (not maxing dice that are added on a crit). This would slightly reduce average damage on crits (2d12+3 is 16, while max is 15), but I think the regularity of it would be better. I feel like we tend to remember the bad things more than the good things. While you'll never get a 27 damage max crit, you'll also never get a 5 damage crit in this situation; all crits would be 16 for 1d12+3.

What are your thoughts? Would you like the regularity, or would you rather have the excitement of rolling double dice?

 

[jodyjohnson]

Either way. Or something different.

But I expect most players like to roll the dice. If you roll the dice you need to live with the consequences.

(I'd tend toward max as a DM - less likely to randomly kill a character.)

Max plus a die was on the table for a while. That was probably the best option if you want crits to matter more.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I house rule that rolling the critical results in max damage. But I also have my players confirm the critical. If they do, they deal double max damage.

 

[Bupp]

In my game crits are max damage, plus Advantage on the next roll.

 

[dave2008]

I use max on the first die and roll the 2nd die. Higher average (21) and you can still get the max possible (27). That way a crit is always significant, which I feel it should be.

 

[Illithidbix]

I preferred the Critical Hit rules from the playtest, not sure why the changed it in the final version.

Critical Hits
When you score a critical hit against a target, the attack deals its maximum damage to it. This means you don’t roll the attack’s damage dice; you instead take the highest rolls that each of those dice could produce and then apply any modifiers.

In addition, the target takes extra damage. Roll one of the attack’s damage dice, and add it to the damage.
If the attack has different damage dice, you choose which die to roll. For example, if the attack deals 1d6 piercing damage and 1d8 bludgeoning damage, you can roll one extra d6 or d8.

So maximum damage on dice + roll the highest damage dice again.
(Unless you wanted to roll a small damage dice because you prefer the damage type...)

Which sorta exists with the Half Orc's "Savage Attacks" and Barbarian's "Brutal Critical"

Consequences:

Crits will do a comparatively reliable amount of damage.

Low level monsters/characters with a single damage dice will do slightly more damage with a critical hit. This eventually drops off as the number of dice increase.

Greataxes become better when they crit than Greatswords... which I personally rather like.

Despite first glance at the horror of maximising a Sneak Attack or Divine Smite, on average I think they'll actually do slightly less damage.
Unless I've got my maths very wrong!

Maths testing
Level 1 Fighter with Longsword. 1d8+3 (str) = average of 7.5 damage
Current 5E Rules as Written: Crit does 2d8 + 3 damage = average of 12 damage, minimum of 5, maximum of 19
Suggested crit rules: Crit does 8 + 3 + d8 = average of 15.5 damage, minimum of 12, maximum of 19


Level 9 Rogue with Rapier = 1d8 + 5d6 (sneak attack) + 5 (DEX) = Average of 27 damage
Current 5E Rules as Written: Crit does 2d8+10d6 +5 damage = average of 49 damage. Minimum of 17 if you were astonishingly unlucky, maximum of 81 if you were insanely lucky.
Suggested Crit rules = 8+30+5+d8 damage = average of 47.5 damage, but you can't get less than 44 or more than 51

 

[dave2008]

So maximum damage on dice + roll the highest damage dice again.

Maths testing
Level 1 Fighter with Longsword. 1d8+3 (str) = average of 7.5 damage
Current 5E Rules as Written: Crit does 2d8 + 3 damage = average of 12 damage, minimum of 5, maximum of 19
Suggested crit rules: Crit does 8 + 3 + d8 = average of 15.5 damage, minimum of 12, maximum of 19


Level 9 Rogue with Rapier = 1d8 + 5d6 (sneak attack) + 5 (DEX) = Average of 27 damage
Current 5E Rules as Written: Crit does 2d8+10d6 +5 damage = average of 49 damage. Minimum of 17 if you were astonishingly unlucky, maximum of 81 if you were insanely lucky.
Suggested Crit rules = 8+30+5+d8 damage = average of 47.5 damage, but you can't get less than 44 or more than 51

That's how we play, but I didn't realize it was such a nerf to sneak attack. I might have to rethink that if someone wants to be a rogue. Though, now that I think about it I would probably allow: 8 + 30 +5 + d8 + 5d6 = average of 65 damage, maximum of 81. That seems better to me.

 

[Illithidbix]

That's how we play, but I didn't realize it was such a nerf to sneak attack. I might have to rethink that if someone wants to be a rogue. Though, now that I think about it I would probably allow: 8 + 30 +5 + d8 + 5d6 = average of 65 damage, maximum of 81. That seems better to me.

It doesn't seem very much of a nerf at all, just 1.5 average damage difference, and ensures you don't get a sucky roll.
If I had the choice I'd go for that myself.

 

[dave2008]

It doesn't seem very much of a nerf at all, just 1.5 average damage difference, and ensures you don't get a sucky roll.
If I had the choice I'd go for that myself.

Its a big nerf to the top end, which I realize is unlikely; however, we also play that 5d6 means 5xd6, so it is more likely than RAW.

 

[the Jester]

What are your thoughts? Would you like the regularity, or would you rather have the excitement of rolling double dice?

I love the dice. Even though, as a player, the dice usually treat me like dirt, I'd rather roll.