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

[The Little Raven]

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.

I thought I showed this to be wrong, but let me delve further. I'll compare the 3e "pick, heavy" (there is no war pick) against the 4e "war pick." I'll list the number of dice used for a successful crit with either weapon as well as on a regular hit, and break down why you roll each die.

3e - Heavy Pick (1d6 damage, x4 modifier)
[Regular Attack - 2 dice]
1d20 (attack)
1d6 (damage)

[Critical Hit - 6 dice]
2d20 (attack, confirmation)
4d6 (damage, crit damage, crit damage, crit damage)

4e - Heavy Pick (d8 damage, let's say a bonus d8 on crit for it's "high crit" property)
[Regular Attack - 2 dice]
1d20 (attack)
1d8 (damage)

[Critical Hit - 2 dice]
1d20 (attack/crit)
1d8 (bonus damage, since the d8 from basic damage is automatically maximized)

----

Even with the "gain damage dice as you gain levels" concept (which may or may not be true), 4e will pretty much always have less rolls than 3e especially considering iterative attacks would often multiple the amount of dice rolls by the number of attacks, something that is conspicuously absent in 4e. So, while a high-level fighter would be rolling 24 dice (6 per crit, 4 attacks) in 3e, in 4e it would still be far less than that because you're not making additional attack/confirmation rolls, just adding in additional damage dice.

 

[FireLance]

Since iterative attacks are gone, I could imagine the number of dice might increase with character level.

I would like that. In fact, I was toying with such a system just before 4e was announced. In addition to size and character level, class abilities, feats and magic might also influence the number of damage dice.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I was really hoping they would get rid of the "roll a 20 to crit" mechanic. To me, it makes alot more sense that you would crit by your attack roll exceeding your opponents AC by 10 or more. Crits should be tied to skill, not just luck IMHO.

 

[FireLance]

Wild hypothesis: Magic weapons add their + bonus to hit, but not to damage. So a +1 magic sword is +1 to hit, and also deals an extra d6 of damage on a crit because it's magical. If that sword is also flaming, frost, or lightning, it's conceivable the damage counts as that type for purposes of creature vulnerability.

Actually, I think a to hit bonus messes with the math more than a damage bonus. I think it's more likely that a +1 weapon adds to damage, but not to hit.

 

[Abstraction]

Back to encumbrance, I wanted a system that detailed every item as one, one-tenth, or one-hundredth "encumbrance point". The number of encumbrance points would be based directly off your Strength bonus. Thus, you can reference all the relevant bits without looking at a chart in the book. Exceptional stuff could be assigned encumbrance on the fly, easier to thumbnail than assigning weight on the fly.

The 6 pound weight for the pick looks bad indeed from this perpective...no other number to assign encumbrance other than weight. Let's hope they change that part before finishing off the rules.

EDIT: I think we might need to start separate threads on all these topics.

 

[JohnSnow]

Actually, I think a to hit bonus messes with the math more than a damage bonus. I think it's more likely that a +1 weapon adds to damage, but not to hit.

I disagree.

+1 armor precisely offsets your +1 weapon. So it doesn't really mess with the relative math for characters of equal level.

If both top out at Level 30 at +6, which sounds about right (given that +2 seems to be proper around Level 10), that's not a mathematically insurmountable difference, even if you lack a magic weapon. It might be the difference between how often you hit, but at those values, it doesn't outstrip the math.

Even if you assume that a Level 30 monster is designed assuming the character's bonuses are maxed, it's not bad if they're not. When you're getting +15 from level, +6 (or more) from your attack ability, and, oh, +5 or so from feats, that +6 from the weapon is far from indispensable. Sure, it's useful. But your non-magical attack bonus is still like +26. Assuming you were supposed to hit half the time with your magic sword (+32 total), you're after AC 42. So you need a 16 or better. Not great, but not impossible. Heck, that's close enough that your old +3 (or even +2) sword would still make a difference.

 

[Jhulae]

I think it'll work nicely.

Honestly, I've had enough criticals in 3.x that, even though they were criticals, ended up being less than I could have rolled without the critical. It's highly annoying to end up finally confirming a crit and still not having it do as much as a regular strike.

 

[HeinorNY]

Even with the "gain damage dice as you gain levels" concept (which may or may not be true), 4e will pretty much always have less rolls than 3e

Even if you consider all those regular hits, 95% of the hits, where characters will need to roll all those extra damage dice?

 

[Gundark]

by in large I'm in favour of this new system. Sounds great.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm wondering why magic works differently in the hands of a PC than it does an NPC.

On the other hand, I like no confirm roll for crits. I used to use a variant from Blood and Steel where you still had to hit by 5 or more with the nat 20 before it was a crit.

Be curious to see how this works with weapons that used to have higher critical multipliers or lower critical hit thresholds.