D&D 5E Critical Hits Appears to be Next in D&D Archive

[The Little Raven]

Yes which to me is better than a guy needing to hit on a 20 and getting a crit on a 20, or heck needing a 19 0r 20 to hit and criting on a 20.

So, basically, combat-focused characters should pretty much always crit, and everyone else should never crit?

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Sounds good to me. More crits, less random in effect, and most importantly, no slowdown of combat with critical threats. I found it ironic that critical threats were often anti-exciting for my group because they slowed everything down so much for the extra rolls to hit and damage. I much prefer the idea of NAT 20 - BAM! MAX DAMAGE! -- next in initiative...

I can respect the view of those who prefer more dice or the prospect of double 1s, etc. I for one like this, however. Also, to make a broader swath of gamers happy I like the idea (which I assume will be implemented) that you can take feats or talents that do give you extra dice or other funky effects with crits. If that means that some characters some of the time make crits take longer, that's okay because it's only for them and they pay a price to earn the privilege of taking a bit more time to show off their ability to get busy with the critness.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

P.S. In principle I'd like a way to keep lowlifes from critting on every hit due to needing a nat 20 in the first place. In practice, I think that it's not too big a deal because if it's only max damage and not double, then something so wimpy that it needs a 20 to hit you may likely not get that impressive a damage boost between average and max relative to your hit points given its level and your level. If a kobold with a dagger does max damage on every hit (i.e. 5% of attacks) and it does 4 pts instead of the average 2.5 when you're a paragon adventurer, who really cares that the little buggers do 1.5 more points than their normal average against you at that stage of your career? At most it means you can't *completely* ignore their attacks.

 

[The Little Raven]

Also, to make a broader swath of gamers happy I like the idea (which I assume will be implemented) that you can take feats or talents that do give you extra dice or other funky effects with crits. If that means that some characters some of the time make crits take longer, that's okay because it's only for them and they pay a price to earn the privilege of taking a bit more time to show off their ability to get busy with the critness.

The potential this brings makes me extremely happy, because now a crit-build character isn't just trying to get the biggest possible range or a higher modifier (which is what 3e crit-builds went for). In addition to things like bonus dice, I could see abilities that allow you to use another ability on a successful crit (for example, you have a special ability that allows you to use a knock-down effect ability on a successful crit, as a free action, once per encounter... normally, it takes a standard action to use it).

This really gets the creative (in terms of mechanics, anyhow) juices flowing.

 

[Ahglock]

So, basically, combat-focused characters should pretty much always crit, and everyone else should never crit?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. :\

You want to disagree on what is more fun for me go right ahead.

 

[frankthedm]

Normally I'm a 4e booster, but this column bugs me.

"Because we, like so many players, had rolled crits only to have the confirmation roll miss. And we didn't like it... It keeps the excitement of the 20, and ditches the disappointment of the failure to confirm."

well, I kinda think that is their "cover story" for why they changed crits. The real reason was some player builds did too much damage. Wotc is putting a good deal of effort to calculate how much damage a player should deal at every given level and to have foes ready for that damaage. Barbarians with keen falchions and keen scythes are not going to get to screw up those numbers.

To avoid revolts, Wotc's tone has to be "We are protecting you" when in reality it is "We are nerfing you".

 

[The Little Raven]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. :\

Just clarifying, so I could be sure of the stance you were taking.

You want to disagree on what is more fun for me go right ahead.

I don't care what is more fun for you, honestly. I'm concerned about what is more fun for me and my group. So, you'll never see me "disagreeing" on what is fun for you, because that's your business, not mine.

 

[The Little Raven]

To avoid revolts, Wotc's tone has to be "We are protecting you" when in reality it is "We are nerfing you".

People could pay attention to the sweeping changes made to the basic math of the game, as demonstrated by the difference in hit points and attack/defense progressions, and understand that other elements of that system need to be changed to mesh smoothly, instead of screaming "nerf" because the numbers provided by 3e in it's complete and published form are higher than the numbers provided by a preview article of a couple hundred words and few real details.

Screaming "nerf!" without full context reminds me of all the WoW kiddies that scream the same thing when a rumored change makes it's way to the forums.

 

[Rechan]

Given that we know 1st level characters are on par, ass kicking wise, as 4th level 3e characters, I would assume that "They nerfed our damage man " isn't going to happen.

Everything we've seen so far has suggested that PCs are going to be tearing monsters up, not plinking them to death.

 

[Voss]

This is a nerf. However... its a good nerf.

The confirmation roll is nice, but the big element is ditching the exploding damage rolls. (as long as they don't put in too many things that add extra damage dice onto the critical effect).