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

[fuindordm]

I think the mechanics here are more important than the disappointment factor. The 3e crit system is extraordinarily breakable and abusable.

As for the skill factor, there is a lot of design space for fighters to have powers or feats that center around criticals and other 'weapon mastery' effects. And as long as they keep it reasonable, it can be good. (There doesn't need to be a giant pile of dice coming from feats, powers, item, magic properties, because that could get just as bad as '20s crit and everyone gets a x3 multiplier')

I agree with the second point--they do have plenty of wiggle room to make crits more interesting/frequent for skilled characters. Just as they say they're doing with AoOs. So I am still hopeful on that score.

As for the first point... it doesn't make sense to me. If you look at average damage per round (the only measure that makes sense, since crits are rare), then crits just don't make a big difference. Even in corner cases such as the keen lightning burst rapier, they add just enough damage for a PC to keep up with other fighter-types. If there was anything abusable about crits, it came around long after the core system with exotic powers, supplements, and options.

They did, however, add a moderately complicated layer to PC design and combat. I guess, like the AoOs again, they are making the complications PC options activated by feat/power choice.

Ben

 

[delericho]

I don't see how this "critical hit" system is an improvement. Rolling damage dice is FUN. Rolling more dice on a special occasion is even more fun. Now, in 4e, a critical hit means you roll no damage dice at all (or fewer). It seems like a real step backward in fun, to me.

If it really bothers you, you can simply rule that instead of maximising the dice, you roll double the dice (but only add modifiers once). Mathematically, there's really not much in it.

However, I don't like this new critical hit system, and vastly preferred the old. Oh, well.

 

[Greg K]

I understand the desire to get rid of the confirmation roll, but this system is utter garbage unless there is more to it. (I'd be much cruder, but I am adhering to the Eric's Grandma rule). 2e PO: Combat and Tactics managed to invoke the attacker's skill without the need of a confirmation check by requriing an attack roll that was a natural 18-20 and struck by five or more.

Hopefuly, 4e will look better when we see the full rules, but I find the desgin team's choices more disappointing with nearly every mechanical change they reveal.

 

[Mortellan]

The crit spikes the article talks about came from allowing extra modifiers to be doubled and not to mention the broken Power Attack feat. 1d8x2 vs 1d8 maximized or 1d10x2 vs 1d10 maximized is the same then in that regard with averages. But I can live with max damage crits. What troubles me is the tendency for wanting to speed play up in this edition. So far we have no confirmation rolls for crits and saving throws are static. What else have I missed? Looking ahead, with the new crit system and its speed of play we theoretically don't need to roll for damage either. If crits are static we could take a static average result from each die as well since rolling a 1 is no fun after the thrill of hitting a high AC monster. Chance be damned!

 

[FireLance]

A 5% chance to use one of your precious, precious powers in a round? That... isn't good. I'd much rather have ones I choose to use. And can crit with

On the other hand, I can see the potential for a power that can be activated to deal extra damage on a normal hit, and even more damage on a critical hit. So, every time a character with such a power hits, he has to decide whether to activate it immediately, or take a chance on making a critical and getting a bigger payoff.

 

[med stud]

As for the first point... it doesn't make sense to me. If you look at average damage per round (the only measure that makes sense, since crits are rare), then crits just don't make a big difference. Even in corner cases such as the keen lightning burst rapier, they add just enough damage for a PC to keep up with other fighter-types. If there was anything abusable about crits, it came around long after the core system with exotic powers, supplements, and options.

Average damage is not the only measure that makes sense.

Consider a creature in 3.5 that has AB -100 but it deals 70 damage per attack. It's average damage against anyone would be 3,5 since it can only hit on a 20.

Now take a construct that can cast one magic missile dealing average 3,5 damage per round at 100% success rate.

Both of those creatures have HP 6 and AC 15.

The average damage of the creatures is the same but still you can't compare them. This is the kind of effect WotC wants to get rid off.

 

[Wormwood]

Looking ahead, with the new crit system and its speed of play we theoretically don't need to roll for damage either.

I don't roll for damage in most of the the other RPGs I play.

Don't miss it much, either.

 

[The Little Raven]

I understand the desire to get rid of the confirmation roll, but this system is utter garbage unless there is more to it.

Confirmation rolls are utter garbage.

Player 1: <rolls d20> Natural 20!
Player 2: Awesome!
Player 1: <rolls d20 again> No, not awesome. Worthless. 3 damage. Your turn.

 

[Wormwood]

Player 1: <rolls d20> Natural 20!
Player 2: Awesome!
Player 1: <rolls d20 again> No, not awesome. Worthless. 3 damage. Your turn.

But don't you see, that disappointed player will feel *even better* when (if) he eventually succeeds in confirming a crit.

Maybe next week or something.

 

[Dausuul]

Or it could be a penalty if you are not proficient, by the way.

Which would be much more sensible than a bonus for proficiency. 90% of the time, characters will be proficient with the weapons they're using, so that should be the "no modifier" default.