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

[HeinorNY]

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.

That makes no sense.
Real heroes always have 5% chance of critically hit any enemy, no matter how big, how small, how well protected or how invisible he is.

 

[The Little Raven]

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

Overall, yes. 3e's increased threat ranges makes rolling confirmations happen more often, which results in more dice-rolling, and modifiers heap on more and more dice. Even without crits, in 3e, you'd be rolling tons of dice at high levels because you're making up to 4 (or more, depending on spec) attacks in 1 turn (4 successful normal attacks with a greatsword is rolling 12 dice in one round, 4 for the attacks, 8 for all the d6s you roll). I don't see 4e rolling more dice than that.

 

[Ahglock]

Don't like it at all.

1. It doesn't take into account skill at all. I liked the aforementioned PO: Combat and tactics method or someone said remove the need a 20 part and just beat the AC by 10.

2. When you do crit is boring as heck. Whoopee I did damage I frequently do anyways look out world. If you usually can't do more damage than you normally can do a crit is really boring.

They may have taken out the boo-hoo moment but they also took out the fun.

This is a lose, lose rule for me.

 

[Rechan]

I for one approve of the no-confirmation rolls.

I'm indifferent about max damage instead of multiple dice rolls.

 

[The Little Raven]

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

What exactly are you talking about?

I see nothing in relation to this specific article about NPCs working different than PCs, in terms of crits, unless you're nitpicking the part where it says "PCs also have some extra tricks up their sleeves to make their criticals better," to mean "NPCs don't get anything special about their criticals."

 

[TwinBahamut]

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

Where is this implied? It states that monsters don't benefit from magic items, but this is more of a case of characters who use weapons vs. characters who don't use weapons, rather than PC vs. NPC.

I like the new critical hit system, myself. I hated confirmation rolls, and having crits maximize damage and initiate other perks is a very nice way of handling it.

I don't think that crits work well if you try to have them be determined by both luck and skill. If you want crits to be determined by luck, base them on rolling a natural 20 and nothing else. If you want crits to be determined by character skill, make it so a character will crit only if they beat the enemy's AC by some set value (like ten), regardless of what you roll on the dice. Either system is much easier to use and more elegant that the clunky confirmation system.

 

[The Little Raven]

1. It doesn't take into account skill at all. I liked the aforementioned PO: Combat and tactics method or someone said remove the need a 20 part and just beat the AC by 10.

Well, as the PO:C&T system mentioned earlier only functions on a natural roll of 18, 19, or 20, it's still more reliant on the luck of the roll than the numbers on your character sheet. In fact, it's even more limited because you can meet one qualifier (18, 19, or 20) without meeting the other (total attack bonus higher than AC) and vice versa, thus making it very much like confirmation rolls.

 

[JoeGKushner]

What exactly are you talking about?

I see nothing in relation to this specific article about NPCs working different than PCs, in terms of crits, unless you're nitpicking the part where it says "PCs also have some extra tricks up their sleeves to make their criticals better," to mean "NPCs don't get anything special about their criticals."

Just the way I read it I suppose.

PCs also have some extra tricks up their sleeves to make their criticals better. Magic weapons (and implements for magical attacks) add extra damage on crits. So your +1 frost warhammer deals an extra 1d6 damage on a critical hit (so your crit's now up to 14+1d6 damage in the example above). Monsters don't get this benefit, so PC crits outclass monster crits most of the time.

Now if that's just monsters and not NPCs, then please, let's get the writing clear from the start.

 

[The Little Raven]

Now if that's just monsters and not NPCs, then please, let's get the writing clear from the start.

Magic weapons add extra critical dice.

This could either mean that "monsters wielding magic items do not gain this bonus" or "we don't assume that monsters are wielding magic items."

 

[Ahglock]

Well, as the PO:C&T system mentioned earlier only functions on a natural roll of 18, 19, or 20, it's still more reliant on the luck of the roll than the numbers on your character sheet. In fact, it's even more limited because you can meet one qualifier (18, 19, or 20) without meeting the other (total attack bonus higher than AC) and vice versa, thus making it very much like confirmation rolls.

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.

I get a bigger roll my eyes no fun moment when someone who can barely hit a target crits whether its a PC or NPC doing the criting than someone missing a confirmation roll or needing to beat the AC by 5 or whatever. When a comparatively weak 1/4HD kobold crits the 10th level fighter, its just as unfun as when the fighter misses his confirmation roll. Its just max damage now, but that just means for everyone the high of a crit is fairly low.