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

[Wolfspider]

A devastating blow is one that deals a lot of damage. Whether it's a crit is pretty irrelevant. In 3.X, if a rogue pokes at an CR 20 enemy with his flimsy dagger held by his weak girly arms for 2d4-2, that's not a devastating blow, regardless of the fact that he critted. If a barbarian swings a barstool at the same monster for 1d6+200 damage, that's a devastating blow, despite the fact that he didn't. It has everything to do with damage, and getting rid of the multiplier actually eliminates the phenomenon of a farmer with a scythe-crit being able to out-damage a 20th level fighter with a longsword every once in a blue moon.

As Plane Sailing already went through, you're making a false assumption.

If someone with a dagger "criticals" under the new system and does a whopping 4 points of damage, according to your definition above, this is not a devastating blow. But it is a critical. There seems to be a disconnect here. Why even have criticals if they're going to be meaningless? Why not just have more skillfull opponents do more damage (as I've heard they do in SW Saga) and leave it at that?

Why have criticals that aren't?

What's my false assumption, by the way?

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm with you. It is dumbing down. And 3X crits don't remotely qualify as "doing math" to me.

Can we have a discussion where someone does not try to redefine a common term like math?

Any addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division of numbers, no matter how many variables are involved, is math. 1 + 1 = 2... that's math. 1d8+3... that's math.

And yet people say it is insulting to them to suggest that it isn't hard.

People aren't saying the 3e crit system is hard. They're saying it ISN'T FUN.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I guess it depends on how they define a critical. If it's just a random, lucky blow, than fine. Everyone has the same chance of getting lucky. If a successful critical is suppsed to involve the precise ability to strike at a vital spot, then the new critical system doesn't seem conceptually sound to me.

It seems that precise attacks to vital spots is the domain of Rogue sneak attacks, martial powers, and bonuses to damage from increasing in level, so I would say that in 4E, critical hits really are "random, lucky blows".

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

If someone with a dagger "criticals" under the new system and does a whopping 4 points of damage, according to your definition above, this is not a devastating blow. But it is a critical. There seems to be a disconnect here.

I don't see a disconnect. Criticals have always been the best that a character can do at a moment in time. Before, we had an arbitrary multiplier representing this. Now we're reining in the power levels of the damage spikes to make the output a bit more consistent. We had this same thing before -- you could get a critical hit and have all of the damage negated by damage reduction. Or you could deal nonlethal damage with a critical hit. There's nothing in 3.X that inherently makes criticals "devastating," unless you're willing to accept "an attack that deals no damage" as sometimes being described as "a devastating blow." I'm not.

Why even have criticals if they're going to be meaningless? Why not just have more skillfull opponents do more damage (as I've heard they do in SW Saga) and leave it at that? Why have criticals that aren't?

We have every reason to believe that more skillful combatants deal more damage, between ToB and SW Saga. I suspect that crits have stayed with us simply because people like yelling "Nat 20!" and, as has already been covered by others, automatically hitting on a 20 isn't any kind of a prize 99% of the time.

What's my false assumption, by the way?

The problem is your phrasing. You are implicitly defining "critical hit == devastating blow".

 

[The Little Raven]

Why even have criticals if they're going to be meaningless?

They're not meaningless, they just operate differently because if different base assumptions about the system.

Why not just have more skillfull opponents do more damage (as I've heard they do in SW Saga) and leave it at that?

We suspect that may be the case, as the war pick is listed as "d8," so characters may gain more dice with their weapons as they increase in level. Thus, that dagger rogue might not be rolling a measly 1d4 at high levels, but rather 5d4. A maximized damage critical system works well with a damage-die scaling system.

 

[TwinBahamut]

If someone with a dagger "criticals" under the new system and does a whopping 4 points of damage, according to your definition above, this is not a devastating blow. But it is a critical. There seems to be a disconnect here. Why even have criticals if they're going to be meaningless? Why not just have more skillfull opponents do more damage (as I've heard they do in SW Saga) and leave it at that?

Why have criticals that aren't?

I imagine that the critical hits are not going to be so important for normal attacks (where you just roll one or two dice), but for powers that make you roll large numbers of dice. Even Paladin smites, in which you do only double base weapon damage, will benefit a lot from critical hits. Powerful moves from Striker classes, which most likely involve a lot of dice, will probably benefit a lot from a critical hit.

Getting max damage on 1d6+4 probably isn't very important, but getting max damage on 10d6+40 is quite important.

 

[FireLance]

In the CircvsMaximvs thread, delericho pointed out that the 2e DMG suggested that groups wanting a crit system might house rule an extra free attack on a natural 20 (in addition to the auto-hit), which is much the same as the 3e system for x2 weapons.

That's quite an interesting way to look at it, and I think it would go some way to solving the "letdown problem" when a player fails to make the confirmation roll. By defining the effect of a critical as the chance to make an additional attack roll, the player immediately feels that he has gained something from a natural 20, whereas by defining the effect of a critical as double damage (as was inadvertently done in 3e), the player feels disappointed if he fails the confirmation roll. However, this line of thought would only work if all weapons dealt double damage on a critical. The presence of x3 and x4 weapons in 3e may have been one of the reasons why it was not adopted.

Based on the article, it seems that it will not be the way that criticals are commonly handled in 4e, either. However, Races and Classes mentioned something called "follow-up attacks" for rogues, which can be tacked on to successful attacks. So it is possible that this interpretation of criticals may return as an ability that only triggers on a critical for some classes, but which rogues can spend a power to activate on any successful hit.

 

[Jayouzts]

Not fun?

Can we have a discussion where someone does not try to redefine a common term like math?

Any addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division of numbers, no matter how many variables are involved, is math. 1 + 1 = 2... that's math. 1d8+3... that's math.



People aren't saying the 3e crit system is hard. They're saying it ISN'T FUN.

Not fun? I can understanding preferring the 4E approach over the 3E approach. Thats a matter of taste. But did you really believe - prior to the publication of the WOTC design notes on the 4E critical system - that the system was actually not fun?

I am just saying that it was never an issue for me, and I cannot imagine it was so much a problem for anyone else that changing it makes them more inclined to switch.

 

[Wolfspider]

Not fun? I can understanding preferring the 4E approach over the 3E approach. Thats a matter of taste. But did you really believe - prior to the publication of the WOTC design notes on the 4E critical system - that the system was actually not fun?

I am just saying that it was never an issue for me, and I cannot imagine it was so much a problem for anyone else that changing it makes them more inclined to switch.

"Not fun" has been the description of v3.5 ever since 4e was announced. It's amazing how a game that we all have played for years with our friends has suddenly become unfun in so many ways. I'm wondering why we've been spending so much time and money on such a dreadful hobby.

 

[The Little Raven]

Not fun? I can understanding preferring the 4E approach over the 3E approach. Thats a matter of taste. But did you really believe - prior to the publication of the WOTC design notes on the 4E critical system - that the system was actually not fun?

Enough so that by early 2002, I removed confirmation rolls entirely, lowered the modifier of all weapons by one (to minimum of x2), lowered the crit range by one (minimum of 20).