D&D 5E Criticals

[Melkor]

So the rules for the extra damage on criticals for characters/monsters with class levels on pp.16-17 of the playtest packet....

Do they seem just kind of random and tacked on to anyone else?

Just trying to figure out what the point is if max damage is already a benefit of a critical (including bonus dice for things like Sneak Attack).

 

[kerleth]

Some people thought that getting max damage wasn't enough. This seems to be an alternative to the commonly proposed double damage or double max damage on a crit. It seems a little fiddly to me too. Myself, I would be happy with max damage on a crit, with an option for "deadly crits" that do more damage or have a special effect.

 

[Hautamaki]

Agreed with Kerleth.

In my homebrew system I solve the problem of criticals at the same time I solve the problem with trip attacks, stunning attacks, and disarm/sunder attacks.

Criticals normally do double weapon damage; taking an Improved Critical feat allows you to add a rider to the critical attack: you can have a good chance to knock the enemy down (trip attack) or into an adjacent square, or you can have a good chance of stunning the enemy, or you can have a chance to disarm the enemy/sunder his weapon. If none of those options appeals (or the monster is immune to them for whatever reason) you can also just add an extra die of weapon damage instead.

 

[kerleth]

I'm afraid I must disagree with you agreeing with me . I'm glad to have moved away from double damage on a crit.

1)It's too swingy, but I realize mileage may vary on this. In 3rd edition there were rules about how sneak attack and similar abilities didn't get multiplied for precisely this reason, and I found it annoying. I realize this is very much a personal tast thing though.
2) Rolling a 20 followed by rolling minimum damage was always a huge let down.

I definitely like the idea of having some sort of stunt system slash wounds placed on the target as an optional rule for crits though. As long as things like trip and disarm aren't limited to only being available on crits.

 

[Hautamaki]

If you don't limit trips/disarms/sunders/wounds/etc to crits, what's the limiting factor? On paper it sounds cool for your character to have an attack that attempts to stun the opponent. In practice, it slows the game down to roll that check/save every single time you attack, it's lame when it fails and your character does nothing but it ruins balance if your character can do it often, and it's also kind of lame to visualize: 'oh that's Trippington Von Stunlock the fighter, he just goes around tripping and stunning everything we meet all the time, that's his thing'.

I find that critical hits are a great limiting factor. In 'reality' if it were possible to just trip a guy you were fighting anytime you wanted to, that's all you would do; but it's not possible--most of the time you just do normal punches and kicks; you have to wait for your chance to take down your opponent, set it up a little, and accurately execute the right technique at just the right time--iow a critical hit.

At the same time I don't mind too much about the swinginess of damage. Fights are dangerous, swingy affairs. Sometimes you get an 8 second KO; sometimes you go 15 or 25 minutes. You never know what's gonna happen in a fight; that's what makes it so exciting.

 

[Grimmjow]

i like the idea of max damage plus rolling dice. While this gives the chance of rolling 1s on all the bonus dice, it still puts the crit damage in my hands and makes me feel like i have a say over how much i crit for

 

[CAFRedblade]

Kinda like max base weapon damage, plus a roll of normal damage in addition.

What about another option of max damage, plus the difference of the AC vs. roll result? A bit of math involved. If the target's AC is 15, the difference is already 5 hp, plus the attack bonus you use, say +5 (class bonus, plus ability mod), for a total of Max Weapon Damage +10, and then any other attack effect damage.

Perhaps a more direct reflection of the character's skill?

 

[kerleth]

I don't like the crit only option you are refering to Hautamaki because I like my characters to have more control and to use those sorts of manuevers tactically in a fight. This is speaking as a player and from the DM side. Making them available only on crits makes their occurence purely random. A maneuver like that shouldn't be auto-succesful, just like an attack isn't auto-damage. Also, a mechanic where the opponent gets advantage to resist or something similar when you try to use the same stunt/trick/manuever multiple times in one fight against them would help alleviate that. If your system is working great for you, then great. I just know that it would be insufficient for me.
While I love a good discussion as much as anyone, I don't want to derail the OP's thread any further, so I'll leave it at that.

Cafredblade, I've tried the whole bonus to damage based on how many points you are above their ac thing in a homebrew system, and it seemed to be a pain. Granted, it applied it every attack. Though that gives me an idea. Perhaps allow any attack that exceeds the targets AC by 10 or more to also be a crit? That could be fun.

 

[Stalker0]

To me the system looks like a great one.

It removes the wide swing of 3e crits in favor of the consistent 4e style, but it ensures that a characters always gets more bang for their buck than they could do with a standard attack (which was the big critique with 4e's crits)

I think its a good compromise. Now they might have to tweak the numbers (perhaps reduce the 2d6 at 1st to 1d6, or make the damage scale per 3 levels instead of 2....or even increase the scale) but I thin think the core concept looks good.

 

[Uller]

Could it be that this is the result of magic items no longer inferring extra damage on crits (and the rules no longer assuming PCs have magic items)?