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

[Shazman]

That's a pretty big 'if' there, sport.

However, I'm in favour of 'Crit = Special effect' (such as trip/disarm/whatever based on weapon) rather than 'Crit = more damage'

Consider a greatsword wielder that does 2d6 +4 points of damage on a regular hit (average 11 points) verses a crit that does 16 points of damage, which is the same as if he rolled two sixes anyway. That is lame. It should be called a nearly critical, almost critical, or moderate hit. It's not "critical" at all.

 

[Jhulae]

If someone with a dagger "criticals" under the new system and does a whopping 4 points of damage, according to your definition above, this is not a devastating blow. But it is a critical. There seems to be a disconnect here. Why even have criticals if they're going to be meaningless? Why not just have more skillfull opponents do more damage (as I've heard they do in SW Saga) and leave it at that?

Why have criticals that aren't?

What's my false assumption, by the way?

I've had many critical hits (when the confirmation roll has been good enough) with a dagger that have come up as 1+1 on the dice. My critical hit doesn't excceed what I can roll on 1 die. What's the point of confriming a crit and rolling what you can already roll without critting?

At least with the new system, you *are* doing the maximum damage you can do, so that right there is an improvement. Plus, as has been pointed out, some weapons (magical or whatnot) are going to get some bonuses on a crit.

The current critical hit system is *too* random, because it requires not only a confirmation roll. It also allows for weapon damage rolls that definitely don't feel worth the extra time taken.

 

[Grog]

Consider a greatsword wielder that does 2d6 +4 points of damage on a regular hit (average 11 points) verses a crit that does 16 points of damage, which is the same as if he rolled two sixes anyway. That is lame.

Consider a greatsword wielder who rolls a natural 20, then fails his confirmation roll, getting no extra damage at all. That's lame, too.

 

[Jhulae]

IMO: the game system should intrude as little as possible in my game play.

QFT.

I really want a game system that is as 'transparent' as possible.

It's *highly* annoying to be in the middle of a tense combat and have the mood disrupted with "Possible crit... not a crit." "Oh, wait.. did you add in the Bard's Song? Don't you have a feat that provides another bonus to your crit roll? What about flanking? Did you add that in yet?"

I'm all in favor for taking out absolutely as many extraneous die rolls and modifiers as possible to streamline things. While this crit change may not take out *all* extra die rolls or other modifiers, it is cutting out a bunch of them, and it's looking good.

 

[DM_Blake]

Here's the problem I see.

If you're so good at defending yourself that your opponent can barely hit you, then why is it that all of your opponent's hits always land in your critical locations?

Example:
Currently, in 3.5, if a small army of orcs (or pick your favorite mook) is attacking a group of PCs (who are way out of their leage with high enough ACs that the orcs need natural 20s to hit), then when an orc rolls a natural 20, it represents an orc landing a lucky blow against his superior opponent.

This army of orcs will be slicing nothing but air most of the time, and when they land a lucky 20, they will almost certainly roll normal damage (19 times out of 20) because that confirmation roll will keep them from scoring critical hits with almost all of their natural 20s.

But on those rare occasions when an orc rolls a natural 20 on the attack and another natural 20 on the confirmation, now, finally, he caught his superior opponent off guard, landed a telling blow, and managed to land it in a critical location.

1 out of 20 attacks is a lucky hit.

1 out of 400 attacks is a critical hit.

But, fast forward to the 4e version of the same fight:

Still 1 out 20 attacks is a lucky hit, but now so lucky that they are all critical hits, too. In fact, in this scenario, those well-armored defenders will never suffer a glancing blow, never suffer a minor wound, never even suffer a hard hit.

Nope, those defenders will only be hit by disembowling, spleen-cleaving, lung-piercing, kidney-rupturing critical hits.

For some reason, the orcs cannot even manage to hit them unless they hit them in a ctirical location.

So the first fight looks like: 19 wiffs, followed by a little hit, repeat 18 times (for a total of 380 attacks so far, resulting in 19 ordinary hits), then 19 more whiffs, and finally a critical hit (finally one guy who gets his spleen ripped out).

But the second fight looks like: 19 wiffs, someone loses a spleen, 19 whiffs, someone loses a spleen, 19 whiffs, someone loses a spleen...

That's the part I don't like.

Disclaimers: yes, I know that D&D critical hits don't specify organ-rending damage, and yes, I know that 1 in 400 chance doesn't mean the critical hit would be the 400th roll or even occur exactly once.

 

[DM_Blake]

Possible solution: No crits if you need a 20 to hit.

Yep, that's one solution. Think it will be in the book?

 

[DM_Blake]

Yeah, I know. I couldn't resist making this point.

I've thought about it ever since my self-imposed (and very brief) exile, and what bothers me is the use of the word "critical" to describe what happens when a 20 is rolled in 4e.

The word "critical" means, among other things:

"of decisive importance with respect to the outcome"

and

"Fraught with danger or risk; perilous"

If a "critical" strike is not really a "devastating blow," as Plane Sailing has rightly pointed out, then why use a misleading term? Wouldn't it better to just say that a 20 causes maximum damage without calling it a "critical"?

Now, if rolling a 20 had additional effects, like causing the foe struck to lose a turn or become dazed or have to roll a Saving Throw to avoid going unconscious or dying or having a limb disabled or whatnot, then that could be called a "critical" strike. You have all very well shown that a farmer, even when he rolls a 20, is no threat to a hero. Why call such a blow "critical," then, when it is anything but?

It's just a max damage attack. Nothing critical about it, unless, of course, it reduces someone to negative hit points, as glass pointed out.

I am going to also freely admit, before someone thinks I'm being a grognard or whatnot, that this is a problem with all editions of D&D that used criticals that merely caused an increase in hit point damage, instead of some special, truly dire effect.

This is well and true. Maybe the whole point is tied up in defining "critical".

Maybe it's not too late for 4e to remove the term "critical hit" and replace it with "max hit"? That way, when the player rolls a 20 he says "Oooh, a 20! Max hit! I do 18 damage." That would be much better than "Oooh, a 20! Critical hit! I do 18 damage."

That way, when the big old stone giant drops from 100 HP to 82 HP and suffers no impairment at all from suffering a "critical hit", at least the "Max hit" description will describe what actually happened.

It would be really tragic to put all this work into a game, then after it's published, have to put out "Well, what we really meant was..." articles to explain and justify the abrasive parts of the game.

Of course, it's been done before...

 

[TwinBahamut]

Consider a greatsword wielder that does 2d6 +4 points of damage on a regular hit (average 11 points) verses a crit that does 16 points of damage, which is the same as if he rolled two sixes anyway. That is lame. It should be called a nearly critical, almost critical, or moderate hit. It's not "critical" at all.

Like many people in this thread, you are forgetting one very important thing: you don't just score critical hits with normal attacks anymore.

In 4E, it seems that nearly every attack spell a Wizard can cast and every fancy maneuver a Fighter can use has a chance of causing a critical hit. What is more, with the ability to use many of these maneuvers as per-encounter abilities or even at will, individual normal attacks are less important, and will be used far less often by PCs than they were in 3E.

Rather than balance critical hits for normal attacks, and have them only work sporadically with special abilities, as was the case in 3E, they have decided to integrate them with almost every attack, and balance them appropriately.

Arguing about the fun of doubling versus maximizing small numbers like 1d6 is only half of the discussion. The debate about whether maximizing or doubling is better for large numbers like 10d6 or 15d6 is equally relevant. As a whole, I think maximizing is clearly better than doubling for very large numbers for the sake of balance, game speed, and fun, and that this is more than enough of a reason to change it for low numbers as well.

 

[Wolfspider]

I've had many critical hits (when the confirmation roll has been good enough) with a dagger that have come up as 1+1 on the dice. My critical hit doesn't excceed what I can roll on 1 die. What's the point of confriming a crit and rolling what you can already roll without critting?

At least with the new system, you *are* doing the maximum damage you can do, so that right there is an improvement. Plus, as has been pointed out, some weapons (magical or whatnot) are going to get some bonuses on a crit.

The current critical hit system is *too* random, because it requires not only a confirmation roll. It also allows for weapon damage rolls that definitely don't feel worth the extra time taken.

I've already conceded this well-made point.

 

[Jhulae]

Yep, that's one solution. Think it will be in the book?

Even if it's not, I'm sure it'll be in the House Rules book.

Our group has been doing something similar currently anyway, where basically, if the only way you *can* hit is with a natural 20, then there's no confirmation roll because you can't score a crit. You were lucky enough to find that weakness in your opponent's defense. Take your damage and be happy.