Level Up (A5E) Changes to Crit and auto-success

[Dausuul]

Crits add complexity to the system without adding depth (since the player has no control over when they happen). The only reason for them to exist at all is to satisfy the intuition that you should get something special for a natural 20. Making it so you don't need a 20 defeats the point.

 

[UberAffe]

No, thank you. This just makes to-hit math more complicated and slows the game down for no real benefit in my opinion. I also think changing crit rules would go against the goal of complete 5e compatibility. If you like this as a house rule, by all means use it in your games, but I don’t think it would be a good choice for A5e.

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 crit." (new math)
"I do 7 (2d6) +5 (str), for 12 damage" (standard damage)

Personally, that seems like a minor enough addition to the math load that players would hardly notice the extra effort. And for that added effort you get:

• to cleanup the language around crits and nat 20's being the same across all roll types
• add more definition to weapons so that there are fewer that have the same stats
• open up design space for new feats, class features, spells, or even racial traits

As far as compatibility goes, it doesn't break any existing things, it just rewords them.

 

[UberAffe]

Crits add complexity to the system without adding depth (since the player has no control over when they happen). The only reason for them to exist at all is to satisfy the intuition that you should get something special for a natural 20. Making it so you don't need a 20 defeats the point.

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 just more damage, which I'm on board for.

 

[UberAffe]

I fond most crit/crit fail tables to be pretty lame in play, largely due to the tables themselves I think... Interesting status effects based on damage type perhaps? I think part of why crits don't really feel like a big deal in 5e is because it lacks the crit multiplier/high crit weapon properties of past editions & without weapons that improve the crit chance beyond 20 you don't really see the kind of reliable crit fishing builds operating like you used to even if you count the level 15 champion almost nobody actually plays.

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.

 

[cmad1977]

I find a critical hit to be frequently disappointing as it just confers extra damage rather than shifting the balance of the encounter in some interesting way.

In the final battle of my last campaign one of the PCs had been banished back to their original plane and then later in the same round another PC landed a critical hit on the BBEG. Of course whenever a creature maintaining concentration takes damage they need to make a saving throw, but this creature had very high constitution so the chance of it failing was low. But because the PC had landed a critical hit I decided that the NPC should make it at disadvantage because of the severity of the blow. The save failed and the other PC was returned to the battle and huzzahs all around.

So, I would argue that a critical hit should also impose either some advantage for the attackers or disadvantage for the receivers in the current round to make it have more interesting weight. This would be alongside the critical hit damage of course.

So... at times we treat crits more like “triumphs” in the FFG Star Wars game.

I don’t really have anything codified but sometimes in addition to or in lieu of extra damage the CRIT does.... something to change the landscape of the encounter.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The only reason for them to exist at all is to satisfy the intuition that you should get something special for a natural 20.

Which is funny since hitting or missing is otherwise binary. IIRC it was in a Dragon or Dungeon magazine or something when the concept of the critical hit was offered since in 1E it wasn't part of the game.

Personally, I hate critical hits. They have long been either double damage or double dice. Then, because people got upset when they rolled 1's, people started making it max damage and a roll. We've long used simply max damage (no rolling) if you want, or double dice. I prefer just max damage, if anything.

But, I'd rather not have them. It is one thing if you want a nat 20 to always succeed and a nat 1 to always fail for attacks, ability checks, and/or saves. But critical hits also open up people to critical fumbles, critical saves and ability checks, etc.

Personally, that seems like a minor enough addition to the math load that players would hardly notice the extra effort.

Granted, it isn't a lot, but IMO it is just an extra step, which makes combat take even longer because you have to do the mental work on every attack (as minimal as it might be for many people).

Now, I don't think it is a bad idea really, just not for our group. On the upside of things, more critical hits means more damage, which could in some ways make combat a bit quicker. But you realize this really favors PCs IME. A PC can get a better AC than most of the foes they go up against, which means PCs will more likely roll criticals than monsters against them.

The nat 20 is fair because it gives even chances to work both ways.

Or an argument to make crits do something more interesting than just more damage, which I'm on board for.

We added Skewer, Stun, and Wound properties to piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing attacks. If you roll a 20, the target has to make a save or suffer effects:

Skewer: DEX save. DC = 8 + attack modifier. Failure means target is skewered on weapon and has speed 0 until the end of its next turn.
Stun: STR save. DC = 8 + attack modifier. Failure means target is stunned until the start of its next turn.
Wound: CON save. DC = 8 + attack modifier. Failure means the target is bleeding and automatically takes the same damage again at the start of its next turn.

We've thought about options as well for knocking prone, frightening, etc. A lot of the conditions could work well IMO for critical hit riders instead of just damage all the time.

 

[Umbran]

So, perhaps to remove the cognitive burden of having to do addition and two comparisons on a single roll...

On a hit, roll two dice - one is just telling you if you hit. The other tells you if your hit is a critical success. Rather than:
1) is my die over the AC, and
2) Add X to AC, is my roll over that.

You have:
1) is my to-hit die over the AC
2) is my crit die over my (generally fixed) crit threshold.

You'd have to tweak crit thresholds (or die size) to suit, but you can probably have the odds of having a critical hit largely the same.

This could open the critical space desgn possibilities - there can be to-hit advantage and critical advantage. You can represent greater threat by reducing the die type (if max on the die is a crit - the lower the die size, the more likely you are to score a crit) and so on.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

I was thinking more in addition to double the damage

• Slashing: imposes bleed# condition for Y rounds
• Bludgeoning: Imposes stunned condition for 1 round
• Piercing: Imposes shakened condition
• Fire: imposes...
• etc.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You have:
1) is my to-hit die over the AC
2) is my crit die over my (generally fixed) crit threshold.

I think this is pretty elegant actually.

Since I am not a fan as much of critical hits, I could make it also if the crit die is above the to-hit die, it is a critical hit.

 

[robus]

So... at times we treat crits more like “triumphs” in the FFG Star Wars game.

I don’t really have anything codified but sometimes in addition to or in lieu of extra damage the CRIT does.... something to change the landscape of the encounter.

Yep me too, nat 1: despair, nat 20 triumph. It adds a bit more drama which I like.