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

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't really mean giving them exactly the same, but IMO there should be something, especially for higher CR foes.

For example. In our house-rules, a nat 20 with a bludgeoning weapon can stun the target if they fail a STR save. Well, we were were facing Hill Giants, not only did the DM have them deal maximum damage (instead of rolling) of 29 points, but we had to make a DC 16 STR save or be stunned until the end of our next turn. All I will say is "OUCH!". Most of are party was not proficient in STR saves, like my PC with--oh--a STR 8! At the time that was about half her HP IIRC as well.

So, while I am all for making critical hits "cooler" and "more unique", sometimes those things (or similar ones) will hit the PCs... and then you have to ask, "Is this really more fun for the players?" Some will say "Yes, I love it!" while others will not.

All that being said, class features that improve critical hits are different from general rules (such as our "critical = possible stun"). I agree, class features don't need to be represented in NPCs any more than every NPC feature has to be represented in a class somewhere.

That makes sense, for sure. I just wouldn't apply that sort of thinking to mooks, unless that moment really called for it, whereas for PCs, I'd make crits special unless the moment called for just getting on with it, if that makes sense. A matter of priority and...default behavior vs special circumstance behavior?

 

[Dausuul]

My preference: leave the nat-20/crit mechanic the way it is written. If I were to add anything to an "advanced" version of 5th Edition, I would add a critical fail mechanic...you drop your weapon, you fall prone, the spell fizzles, etc.

The problem with that, in my experience, is that fights turn into comic slapstick, which is fine if that's what you're after but isn't real satisfying for players who want to feel heroic and cool. And the higher level you are, the stupider you look: Higher level = more attacks = more chances to roll a 1. Tier 3-4 fights turn into the Three Stooges.

 

[CleverNickName]

The problem with that, in my experience, is that fights turn into comic slapstick, which is fine if that's what you're after but isn't real satisfying for players who want to feel heroic and cool. And the higher level you are, the stupider you look: Higher level = more attacks = more chances to roll a 1. Tier 3-4 fights turn into the Three Stooges.

Fair point about slapstick, but that rests on the shoulders of the DM and the players to narrate the effects of a critical failure. It has nothing to do with the dice mechanic and everything to do with storytelling style.

But consider my point, that rolling a nat-1 shouldn't "feel heroic and cool."

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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 success is possible. If you try to pick up a mountain, success is not a possibility, so you don't roll.

A crit happens whenever your attack exceeds the targets defense by at least your crit threshold, which starts at 10.
Now the champion fighter feature just reduces the threshold to 9 and 8 at the respective levels.
Similarly the Assassin rogue's auto-crit feature makes more sense now that crits are truly divorced from the die roll. "When attacking a surprised target your crit threshold is 0."

This also opens up design space for more unique weapons and features (reduce/increase crit threshold).

I think the biggest problem with this is that some creatures are designed "to be hit" fairly easily but have a large number of HP to soak up the damage and keep them fighting. Similarly if you are using the rules for damaging items (like hacking through a door) you could argue that if your to-hit is automatic that you should be able to crit every time, which essentially halves the HP resilience of the item.

I think a Crit Threshold is a pretty good idea overall, but I think you would have to go back through all the creatures and adding in a "Crit Threshold Modifier" on the monster entry as well.

 

[Dausuul]

Fair point about slapstick, but that rests on the shoulders of the DM and the players to narrate the effects of a critical failure. It has nothing to do with the dice mechanic and everything to do with storytelling style.

It has a lot to do with the mechanic when the mechanic is "You fall prone" or "You drop your weapon" or "You hurt yourself." There are ways to narrate that that don't sound silly. But when it happens over and over and over again, it's real hard to keep the narration from devolving into slapstick.

That's a lot of extra work you are putting on the DM and players (to come up with non-silly ways to narrate these events), and the benefit is... what?

But consider my point, that rolling a nat-1 shouldn't "feel heroic and cool."

Currently, a natural 1 is an automatic miss. There's nothing cool about missing. It's fine as is.

 

[CleverNickName]

It has a lot to do with the mechanic when the mechanic is "You fall prone" or "You drop your weapon" or "You hurt yourself." There are ways to narrate that that don't sound silly. But when it happens over and over and over again, it's real hard to keep the narration from devolving into slapstick.

That's a lot of extra work you are putting on the DM and players (to come up with non-silly ways to narrate these events), and the benefit is... what?

Currently, a natural 1 is an automatic miss. There's nothing cool about missing. It's fine as is.

Yes, it's "fine." But there's plenty of room for something more interesting than just "you miss." Half your rolls are going to be misses; why not make that 5% of the time that you roll a nat-1 into something a little more interesting?

It's the converse of a critical hit. A nat-20 is already an automatic hit; why wasn't that "fine as is"?

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes, it's "fine." But there's plenty of room for something more interesting than just "you miss." Half your rolls are going to be misses; why not make that 5% of the time that you roll a nat-1 into something a little more interesting?

It's the converse of a critical hit. A nat-20 is already an automatic hit; why wasn't that "fine as is"?

The automatic hit on a 20 was important in the past because it was trivial for a nonmartial class to be incapable of hitting on anything but if the fighter had a chance of missing. Add to that the fact that extra attacks were at -5/-10/etc & it had the potential to make a big difference Without either of those in place it's not really a significant factor under bounded accuracy because a 20 is probably certain to hit. That -5/-10/etc also made a huge difference with debuffs because even a small debuff could make it nearly certain that the target's damage capabilities will be dramatically reduced.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yes, it's "fine." But there's plenty of room for something more interesting than just "you miss." Half your rolls are going to be misses; why not make that 5% of the time that you roll a nat-1 into something a little more interesting?

It's the converse of a critical hit. A nat-20 is already an automatic hit; why wasn't that "fine as is"?

Consider this....

Who is more likely to critical fumble in any given combat....in a narrative sense? A newly minted recruit (1st level fighter) or a paragon of warriors (20th level fighter)?

Who is more likely to critical fumble in any given combat...in a mathematical sense? A newly minted recruit (who has a single 5% chance to fumble each round) or a paragon of warriors (Who has four 5% chances to fumble each round)?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Consider this....

Who is more likely to critical fumble in any given combat....in a narrative sense? A newly minted recruit (1st level fighter) or a paragon of warriors (20th level fighter)?

Who is more likely to critical fumble in any given combat...in a mathematical sense? A newly minted recruit (who has a single 5% chance to fumble each round) or a paragon of warriors (Who has four 5% chances to fumble each round)?

Well, if you have the proper rule, the newly minted recruit....

The problem is with critical fumbles, most tables don't have the proper rule.

 

[UberAffe]

Consider this....

Who is more likely to critical fumble in any given combat....in a narrative sense? A newly minted recruit (1st level fighter) or a paragon of warriors (20th level fighter)?

Who is more likely to critical fumble in any given combat...in a mathematical sense? A newly minted recruit (who has a single 5% chance to fumble each round) or a paragon of warriors (Who has four 5% chances to fumble each round)?

that is the reason I dislike fumbles