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

[Zaruthustran]

Here's something I don't like about 4e - gp costs and weight for equipment. I'd prefer a more abstract wealth system as opposed to keeping track of every last gold piece. Likewise I regard the encumbrance system as a waste of time.

Agree wholeheartedly. If 4e keeps the 3e encumbrance system, that'll be the first thing I've heard about 4e that I don't like.

They should look to the inventory system used in most PC RPGs. You have your typical paperdoll "slots" for equipped gear, plus a fixed amount of space for storage (assumed to be your backpack and various pouches).

A set of spare armor or a spare shield would take up a very large portion of that space. It's silly that in 3E, a high-str character can lug around multiple sets of full plate.

 

[Obscure]

I hope there is a LOT more to it (or around it) like powers that have a special use when characters crit, feats that make crits better, magic, etc.
A high level rogue using a dagger with a damage like 1d4+20, dealing 24 pts of damage on a critical hit instead of the average 22.5 is not very exciting...

The argument could be made that a sneak-attacking rogue is already scoring a critical...it's a deliberate critical or called shot, as opposed to hitting a vital area with a lucky hit (natural 20).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

That's certainly a clever solution with the math.

But ... I like rolling dice! Rolling dice is more fun than automatic numbers.

 

[hargert]

I think that the real reason is to try to speed up play and avoid crits turning into instant kills. I for one like the rule as it seems to make more sense and should let players get in more combats and still have the fun of getting a big lucky hit in but stop them from getting crazy. Anything that speeds up play is good by me.

 

[JoelF]

I'm not thrilled that a crit with a regular weapon seems to be the same as some normal hits (i.e. if you roll the 8 on the d8 anyway.) Instead they could have had a crit add half of the maximum damage of the dice - so instead of 1d8 you'd do 1d8+4.

I'm also not thrilled about the needing a 20 to hit situations resulting in all hits being crits. I've yet to see the system where you can't find a build that results in that fairly often.

 

[hargert]

If you dont like that if you need a 20 to hit results in crits (so all hits are crits) you can always house rule it that if you cant hit it then you can roll again to "confirm" the crit and go from there. As long as the base system works well you can tweak it at the table to make it what you want. I have always done so and so have most people know play that way as well.

 

[The Little Raven]

But if characters deal more damage on average because they got a lot of +damages from powers and ability scores, then crits really don't make all that difference when they show up in combat because +damages are not doubled or anything.

Well, that depends on how exactly weapon damage is dealt with. As suggested earlier, since there is a "d8" listed instead of "1d8," damage dice from basic weaponry could increase by level/class (instead of the flat level-based damage adds from SWSE). If that's the case, then crits are incredibly effective, since the more dice you have, the less of a chance you have of rolling maximized damage.

If instead, characters deal more damage on average because they get more damage dice from powers and feats, crits would make some big difference, but it would be against the philosophy of diminishing the amount of dice rolled to make the game faster, so it would not make any sense.

3e was the peak of this problem, where you had your attack roll, confirmation roll, initial damage roll, critical damage roll (depending on the modifier, you could range from rolling one additional die to a handful), and the chance to throw in 1d10 from certain magical effects. 4e seems to be scaling that back, while still making crits important and meaningful, since you have attack roll and bonus damage dice, and that's it on a crit. You are rolling less dice as well as making less total rolls.

3e critical system:
1. Attack (threat if this comes up a certain number/range) - 1 roll
2. Confirmation (crit if this comes up a certain range) - 1 roll
3. Initial Damage (happens whether crit is confirmed or not) - 1 roll
4. Critical Damage (just the modifier on the critical) - 1 roll
5. Additional Critical Damage (from a flaming burst sword, for example) - 1 roll (OPTIONAL)

At least four distinct rolling components in the 3e critical system, with an optional one thrown in. Whether or not you successfully crit, you will be rolling at least three (attack, confirmation, damage). On a crit, you will be rolling at least four (attack, confirmation, damage, critical damage).

4e critical system:
1. Attack roll (crit if it's a 20) - 1 roll
2. Initial Damage (only rolled when on normal attacks) - 1 roll (OPTIONAL)
3. Critical Damage (only rolled when you qualify, by weapon or power) - 1 roll (OPTIONAL)

If you get a regular hit, you roll two of these (attack and initial damage). If you get a crit, you roll two of these (attack and critical damage), only if you have the bonus dice, otherwise you're making a single roll to deal maximized damage.

That's a HUGE difference in the amount of dice rolled, and the amount of rolls made.

 

[Nikosandros]

Agree wholeheartedly. If 4e keeps the 3e encumbrance system, that'll be the first thing I've heard about 4e that I don't like.

I also want to get rid of detailed encumbrance rules.

They seem to be antithetic to the whole philosophy behind the new edition.

Edit: On the other hand, I can see an explicit weight listed for the war pick in the article...

 

[Voss]

A set of spare armor or a spare shield would take up a very large portion of that space. It's silly that in 3E, a high-str character can lug around multiple sets of full plate.

Sillier than making a paper-doll for your character? Thats a crpg-ism that the game doesn't need. An encumbrance system can have its numbers tweaked to a realistic level. There's very little that can be done with arbitrarily declaring you can wear one of X,Y and Z, and everything takes up backpack slots.


@Mourn- this system isn't exactly simple though. I think its better, and it may involve less die rolls, but consider this:

4th level paladin, 14 Str, 14 charisma. wields a +1 frost war pick.
Crits with a safeguard smite. (x2 weapon damage, + charisma bonus)

So... [8 (maxed damage die)+2(str)+1 (magic bonus)+2(1/2 level)]x2 +2 (charisma) +d6 (frost critical) +d8 (high crit property, may be d6 or something else)
=13x2+2+d6+d8 = 28+3.5+4.5 =36 damage

That isn't exactly elegant and simple

 

[HeinorNY]

What I understood from the article is that they are trying to avoid lots of dice when you roll, and also the confirmation roll of course.

Well, that depends on how exactly weapon damage is dealt with. As suggested earlier, since there is a "d8" listed instead of "1d8," damage dice from basic weaponry could increase by level/class (instead of the flat level-based damage adds from SWSE). If that's the case, then crits are incredibly effective, since the more dice you have, the less of a chance you have of rolling maximized damage.

Indeed.
If characters gain extra dice for damage, they don't have to roll a ton of dice when they crit, that's fine, they also need less rolls to resolve critical hits as you showed, but they have to roll more dice everytime they roll for damage on regular hits, 95% of the time. I though that was exactly what the designers are trying to avoid, maybe I'm wrong.