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

[BryonD]

Not to mention, half the time a crit is confirmed, the rolled damage dice will only exceed a normal max damage hit 1/2 the time (for a x2 multiplier). So, unless there's alot of static bonuses which get doubled (normally only true for the fighter), a confirmed crit often isn't anything to write home about either.

Since 3E came out I've seen like 2 times that a crit didn't score more than the normal maximum. I've seen countless times that it scored over 50% higher then the normal maximum.

 

[Gantros]

Variants like this require two things:

1) That the player knows the AC of the thing he's fighting, and that is often not the case. Further, even if the dm allows it, he then has to tell you the AC of the creature, and you have to remember it. Sounds so simple, but oh how often players and dms alike forget these simple numbers.

2) You then have to calculate the difference between your attack roll and damage roll, then mentally add that to your damage for that roll. Again, sounds so simple, most people can do it. But some people still have problems with it.

Well the way I envision this happening is something like:

<Player> I roll... a 20! With my +7 bonuses, that's a 27!
<DM> That's a critical hit for [subtracts opponent's AC] up to +12 damage.
<Player> Okay, so I maxed out my crit bonus at +9 [this is written on their character sheet next to their weapon damage], now let me roll for the rest of the damage...

So the Player doesn't have to know or remember their opponent's AC, just the DM. The math is no more difficult than adding one extra modifier, or adding up a bunch of dice. The player could figure the AC out easily enough if they really wanted to based on what the DM tells them, but I've never considered an opponent's AC to be a big secret... after an attack or two, you should be able to get a decent sense of how hard they to hit anyway.

1) People crit at the same rate even if one has a +20 to attack and the other a -20!! True, but they likely don't do the same damage. If we take the assumption that powers add extra dice in the mix (which is a reasonable assumption though certainly not a proven one), then higher level character do bigger damage on crits.

If they do make damage scale strongly with level and/or combat skill, then I agree it's less of an issue. In fact, combined with the removal of crit immunities from most creatures (which I was never a fan of anyway, especially for undead), this would allow the concept of a critical hit to be redefined. Rather than signifying a blow to a vital area, it would instead mean that sheer luck has created a particularly advantageous opening for the attacker, with the subsequent damage roll determining the extent to which they were able to exploit that opening to cause harm.

 

[Khaim]

That brings up an interesting point: How will 4e handle the relation between weapn dice damage and static damage bonuses?

This is total speculation, but I think that a lot of the +damage we had in 3e will turn into +dice in 4e. So instead of 1d8+24, you'll have 4d8+11, or something similar. The probabilities tend more towards the average when you're rolling more dice, so the randomness factor is still small.

 

[Stalker0]

Well the way I envision this happening is something like:

<Player> I roll... a 20! With my +7 bonuses, that's a 27!
<DM> That's a critical hit for [subtracts opponent's AC] up to +12 damage.
<Player> Okay, so I maxed out my crit bonus at +9 [this is written on their character sheet next to their weapon damage], now let me roll for the rest of the damage...

Which is even worse because now the dm has to do the math

Dming is a hard job on the brain. I know when I'm a player, I can remember almost every rule in the book without a problem. When I'm a dm, I forget all kinds of things, because I have 20 more things going on in my mind then a player has to worry about.


I think what Wotc is doing is decreasing the complexity of executing manuevers while increasing the complexity of choosing them. So a player might have more to think about as far as what power or attack to use (which for most people, is the fun choice) and less time actually figuring out how much damage it does. For the dm its the same. You want to make resolution as absolutely painless as possible, so that dms and players alike can spend their time thinking of what cool thing their character will do next.

 

[Stalker0]

My last post made me realize something that hasn't been mentioned yet.

What is the point of critical hits?

Thinking back through the years of dnd, critical hits serve two major functions:

1) Provide extra randomness within the combat. Basically increase the chance that a weaker character can score a big hit, or that a big character utterly dominates another with a single swing.

2) Grants fighters an excitement factor. For melee types, damage is what they eat and breathe. Casters get all of the fancy stuff, meleers just do damage. So crits are their way of making a big splash, and getting the spotlight for awhile.

Both of these factors are been negated in 4e. 4e's philosophy is that wide mechanical randomness isn't fun. Instead, fun is generated by players choices in combat and even social combat. While some may disagree with this philosophy, its hard to argue that its not a core part of 4e. So point 1 for crits is negated.

Second, through powers, fighters will likely have much more to do than before. Powers may allow stuns, bull rushes, quick leaping strikes, ability damage, etc. In this way, fighters are getting that spotlight excitement through other means, they no longer need crits to satisfy that.

So thinking along those lines, it makes sense that crits are becoming lower key to the game. While they are still there because people enjoy them, they are not the big deal they used to be, because the game has evolved mechanics to replace it.

 

[Jayouzts]

Dumbing it down

After reading through this thread, I see both some pros and some cons to this change in the crit rules.

Pros:
- Getting rid of confirmation rolls and extra damage dice speeds up combat
- Keeps max crit damage under control, and favors PCs over monsters by reducing randomness
- Natural 20 almost always provides some benefit to the attacker
- Simple math

Cons:
- Attackers that require natural 20s to hit are just as likely to crit as attackers that hit on a 2 or better
- Natural 20 doesn't always provide a benefit to the attacker, regardless of skill (since they can roll "pseudo-crits" on any successful attack)
- Crits are less exciting because the attacker doesn't get to roll any damage dice

However, this inspired me to think of a potential solution that could maintain all the pros while eliminating the cons...

On a natural 20, the attacker automatically hits, and gets a damage bonus equal to the amount by which they exceeded the required score to hit, or equal to half the maximum of their damage dice, whichever is lower.

I like it, but it wont fly. It requires math, and apparently WOTC is marketing to people who have a problem doing math

EDIT: When I say I "have a problem" I meant that they dislike doing math - not necessarily that they cannot.

 

[Wormwood]

I like it, but it wont fly. It requires math, and apparently WOTC is marketing to people who have a problem doing math

I can do math---but I don't do it for fun.

And you are coming off as insulting.

 

[am181d]

Since 3E came out I've seen like 2 times that a crit didn't score more than the normal maximum. I've seen countless times that it scored over 50% higher then the normal maximum.

The math suggests you're misremembering. If you roll 2d6, you have 36 possible results. Of these, 10 results are 5 or less (less than max. damage) and 10 results are 9 or more (50% more than max. damage). Of course, almost half the time you're rolling max. damage or slightly better.

I agree that this does take some of the fun out of rolling a crit, but let's remember that streamlining one part of the game opens up space for NEW fun in other places. If WotC can remove things that are "mostly fun but occasionally problematic" and replace them with things that are "all fun", that's a win.

 

[Jeph]

The math suggests you're misremembering. If you roll 2d6, you have 36 possible results. Of these, 10 results are 5 or less (less than max. damage) and 10 results are 9 or more (50% more than max. damage). Of course, almost half the time you're rolling max. damage or slightly better.

I agree that this does take some of the fun out of rolling a crit, but let's remember that streamlining one part of the game opens up space for NEW fun in other places. If WotC can remove things that are "mostly fun but occasionally problematic" and replace them with things that are "all fun", that's a win.

Except you're rarely rolling the damage dice straight. Take you're 2d6 attack--a greatsword, probably. Put it in the hands of a Barbarian who's raged his Strength up to 20, and make it +1. Now it's 2d6+8. 10-20 on a normal hit, 20-40 on a critical. Suddenly, minimum crit damage equals max normal damage, and you'll never roll less than max normal damage with a critical hit.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The math suggests you're misremembering. If you roll 2d6, you have 36 possible results. Of these, 10 results are 5 or less (less than max. damage) and 10 results are 9 or more (50% more than max. damage). Of course, almost half the time you're rolling max. damage or slightly better.

Except that you double everything when you crit. So if you do 2d6+17 with your greatsword then on a crit you are doing 4d6+34. Even if you roll 4 1s on your dice, you are doing more than your max damage of 29.