DM's no longer getting crits on PC's

[Gorck]

One thing that keeps bugging me in this thread is people continue to say that the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage doesn't get doubled on a critical hit. Sneak Attack is addition weapon damage and the 1DD playtest packet says, "If a player character rolls a 20 for an attack roll with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike, the attack is also a Critical Hit, which means it deals extra damage to the target; you roll the damage dice of the Weapon or Unarmed Strike a second time and add the second roll as extra damage to the target." I'm not seeing where critting wouldn't include the Sneak Attack damage as well. Am i missing something?

I get that it wouldn't include the Paladin's Divine Smite because you spend a spell slot to use that featutre and the description says it deals radiant damage in addition to the weapon's damage, which would imply that it's magical (and spells no longer crit).

 

[tetrasodium]

One thing that keeps bugging me in this thread is people continue to say that the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage doesn't get doubled on a critical hit. Sneak Attack is addition weapon damage and the 1DD playtest packet says, "If a player character rolls a 20 for an attack roll with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike, the attack is also a Critical Hit, which means it deals extra damage to the target; you roll the damage dice of the Weapon or Unarmed Strike a second time and add the second roll as extra damage to the target." I'm not seeing where critting wouldn't include the Sneak Attack damage as well. Am i missing something?

I get that it wouldn't include the Paladin's Divine Smite because you spend a spell slot to use that featutre and the description says it deals radiant damage in addition to the weapon's damage, which would imply that it's magical (and spells no longer crit).

This is where bonus types being shed hurts clarity & complicates things. Sneak attack damage used to be something like "precision based damage" or just precision damage. Weapon damage or weapon dice are obviously not part of sneak attack or the rogue could give his cheap off the shelf starting rapier to a fighter who gets to deal sneak attack damage/dice with it.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah I mean, the Rogue says:

Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

But it doesn't say or specify what sort of damage that is.

If you look at the Paladin's Smite, the only difference in the language is "in addition to the weapon's damage". It could be that this matters, and Rogues can still get their extra damage on a critical hit....but until someone at WotC clarifies the intent it's up in the air.

On the other hand, Enlarge says: "While these Weapons are enlarged, the target's Attack with them deal 1d4 extra damage." So maybe that d4 is doubled (not terribly exciting even if so...)?

 

[Clint_L]

@Clint_L keep in mind that the new CritHit rules aren't a nerf to everyone. Barbarians, Fighters and Monks see no difference with the new rules. They also gain inspiration from a Crit, which is a power bump.

For most other classes the benefit of inspiration outweighs what they are losing from Crits. Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Bards, for example, only have a couple of spells each that can benefit from the old crit rules. Artificers, Sorcerers, and Wizards lose a bit (especially from cantrips) but also gain by being able to hit more reliably with spell slots that require an attack roll by using inspiration.

Warlocks will see a reduction in Eldritch Blast (0.25 per attack), but again, get the benefit of Inspiration. And that's assuming that they don't get an exception to the general rule in a new class feature.

Rogues are trickier, as you have to weigh the lost sneak attack damage against the ability to gain sneak attack without using a bonus action. In play, I've seen our Rogue twice in two sessions use inspiration after disengaging from an enemy to get sneak attack on them, thus getting the 'lost' damage from the initial crit back on the second attack. And again, we don't know if there will be an exception written into the new Rogue Sneak Attack feature that will allow them to either double that damage on a crit, or give them some other bonus. I'm guessing they will.

As for Paladins, they definitely got their Nova damage nerfed (some may say that's a good thing) but hitting more reliably allows them to smite more often. And keep in mind that every smite not used because it's being saved for a crit is lost damage equal to a crit.

And finally for Monsters, the new approach is to have a wider damage range be the driver of randomness in combat rather than relying on Crits to provide those swings. Take a MM CR3 Bugbear Chief. Each of it's hits can do between 5 and 19 damage (spiking to 35 on a crit). The Spelljammer CR3 Astral Elf Warrior, on the other hand, does between 5 and 29 damage on each hit. By building damage spikes into the regular attack, instead of relying on Crits to get those spikes, each hit by an enemy has the potential for a scary swing in momentum, not just the ones that happen after a Crit.

Everyone gets a nerf because everyone can and does sometimes do more than just weapon damage depending upon things like sub-class, spell effects, items, etc. That includes fighters, monks, and barbarians, especially at higher levels. It's possible that the addition of inspiration balances it out for those few classes, but I doubt it. Rangers use hunter's mark as a staple, which would be nerfed. Etc.

Rogues aren't trickier. It's just huge nerf. Rogues don't need a bonus action to get sneak attack every round, they just need to engage an opponent who is also engaged with an ally. Not even that for swashbucklers. Rogues assume that they will be doing sneak attack damage on at least one attack per round and if they aren't, there are unusual circumstances or they don't know how to rogue.

Paladin nova damage is fun and class-defining. Hitting more reliably rather than seeing them occasionally light someone up makes for a more boring session, IMO. And the potential for nova damage is what makes them different from and helps them keep pace with barbarians and fighters, who already hit harder and more reliably.

It's not the average damage loss to Warlocks, which is minimal, it's the loss of the potential for a huge hit. In other words, the loss of potential fun. Rolling a 20 on your Eldritch Blast is a good time. Arguments amount the difference in average damage totally miss the point of what is fun about critical hits.

For monsters, a critting on a 20 makes it an event. Again, it's fun at the table, and raises the stakes. I'm not interested in Spelljammer monsters who won't see most tabletops, I'm interested in the Monster Manual and, to a lesser extent, Monsters of the Multiverse. This update needs to be backwards compatible, so even if wider damage variants might add more random threat to new monsters, it doesn't do anything for the vast majority that players will actually face: ogres, orcs, owlbears, etc. But I also don't think it's nearly as fun. And 5e is already a game where players can too easily mitigate risk, so it needs the chance of an unpredictable damage spike to keep at least some semblance of risk. Stories need stakes.

The current system works. A natural 20 on an attack is an event, and everyone gets it. That's fun. Something interesting happens. Natural 1s and natural 20s generate story. I am not interested in anything that makes combat, already the most boring part of the game, even more predictable.

 

[Clint_L]

Building on my last point, I think a lot of the discussion about critical hits is focused on math. That's a mistake. The beauty of building randomness into the game is that it moves the story in unexpected directions. It forces the players and DM to react and improvise. Right now, natural 1s and 20s are instant events in the story. I will have a hard time supporting any change that reduces opportunities for them to happen.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Everyone gets a nerf because everyone can and does sometimes do more than just weapon damage depending upon things like sub-class, spell effects, items, etc. That includes fighters, monks, and barbarians, especially at higher levels. It's possible that the addition of inspiration balances it out for those few classes, but I doubt it. Rangers use hunter's mark as a staple, which would be nerfed. Etc.

Rogues aren't trickier. It's just huge nerf. Rogues don't need a bonus action to get sneak attack every round, they just need to engage an opponent who is also engaged with an ally. Not even that for swashbucklers. Rogues assume that they will be doing sneak attack damage on at least one attack per round and if they aren't, there are unusual circumstances or they don't know how to rogue.

Paladin nova damage is fun and class-defining. Hitting more reliably rather than seeing them occasionally light someone up makes for a more boring session, IMO. And the potential for nova damage is what makes them different from and helps them keep pace with barbarians and fighters, who already hit harder and more reliably.

It's not the average damage loss to Warlocks, which is minimal, it's the loss of the potential for a huge hit. In other words, the loss of potential fun. Rolling a 20 on your Eldritch Blast is a good time. Arguments amount the difference in average damage totally miss the point of what is fun about critical hits.

For monsters, a critting on a 20 makes it an event. Again, it's fun at the table, and raises the stakes. I'm not interested in Spelljammer monsters who won't see most tabletops, I'm interested in the Monster Manual and, to a lesser extent, Monsters of the Multiverse. This update needs to be backwards compatible, so even if wider damage variants might add more random threat to new monsters, it doesn't do anything for the vast majority that players will actually face: ogres, orcs, owlbears, etc. But I also don't think it's nearly as fun. And 5e is already a game where players can too easily mitigate risk, so it needs the chance of an unpredictable damage spike to keep at least some semblance of risk. Stories need stakes.

The current system works. A natural 20 on an attack is an event, and everyone gets it. That's fun. Something interesting happens. Natural 1s and natural 20s generate story. I am not interested in anything that makes combat, already the most boring part of the game, even more predictable.

I have to admit, while I'm interested in trying out these new rules for the sake of giving them a shot, when I think of them - your post describes the things I worry about.

It DOES sound as if we are "fixing" a minorly disappointing event (the death of a PC from a random crit) by patching in a majorly disappointing event (rolling a "crit" and having it do nothing/very little).

Or more correctly, another minorly disappointing event that will happen far more often.

(In addition, I would argue that the sudden death of a character is only potentially disappointing - it can also be thrilling, depending on how it's taken.)

It may very well be a net-fun-negative. On top of that, it's an unnecessary change (something I think we really need to avoid). Unlike, say, fixing the Ranger and Sorcerer and removing cultural tropes from Races, there wasn't a lot of community clamor for "change how crits work!".

The more I think on it, the more I'm against it.

 

[Clint_L]

I agree - I think changes in general need to be either basically consensus things (monks, rangers, sorcerers get a boost) or new additions. WotC needs to avoid the perception of nerfs. Nobody likes nerfs. And I really, really think they need to think twice about nerfing the most universal event in the game, the natural 20. The most popular D&D show is called Critical Role for a reason.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah I mean, the Rogue says:

Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

But it doesn't say or specify what sort of damage that is.

If you look at the Paladin's Smite, the only difference in the language is "in addition to the weapon's damage". It could be that this matters, and Rogues can still get their extra damage on a critical hit....but until someone at WotC clarifies the intent it's up in the air.

On the other hand, Enlarge says: "While these Weapons are enlarged, the target's Attack with them deal 1d4 extra damage." So maybe that d4 is doubled (not terribly exciting even if so...)?

it doesn't say what it is either. In that situation either unspecified is always its own thing or the gm gets forced into an unsavory position of needing to be the one deciding if bob gets to do something or not & taking all of the blame for player frustration or imbalance either way.

 

[Lanefan]

Take a MM CR3 Bugbear Chief. Each of it's hits can do between 5 and 19 damage (spiking to 35 on a crit). The Spelljammer CR3 Astral Elf Warrior, on the other hand, does between 5 and 29 damage on each hit.

A 5-19 range is 2d8+3 but what combination of dice-and-plus gives a range of 5-29? 3d9+2 and 4d7+1 both work but that seems odd in that they haven't otherwise been using non-standard die sizes for anything.

 

[OB1]

A 5-19 range is 2d8+3 but what combination of dice-and-plus gives a range of 5-29? 3d9+2 and 4d7+1 both work but that seems odd in that they haven't otherwise been using non-standard die sizes for anything.

1d10+1 weapon plus 3d6 radiant. I’ve noticed the secondary damage effect on MotM and later monsters has been going up.

 

[Nikosandros]

A 5-19 range is 2d8+3 but what combination of dice-and-plus gives a range of 5-29? 3d9+2 and 4d7+1 both work but that seems odd in that they haven't otherwise been using non-standard die sizes for anything.

It's 1d10+1 (versatile longsword, +1 str) +3d6 radiant damage.

 

[Lanefan]

Ah - I hadn't even thought about multiple dice-and-plus combinations.

 

[cbwjm]

Ah - I hadn't even thought about multiple dice-and-plus combinations.

I was the same, couldn't figure it out when you asked, spent some time wondering how, then thought that I should probably scroll down because someone has likely answered it.

 

[OB1]

Everyone gets a nerf because everyone can and does sometimes do more than just weapon damage depending upon things like sub-class, spell effects, items, etc. That includes fighters, monks, and barbarians, especially at higher levels. It's possible that the addition of inspiration balances it out for those few classes, but I doubt it. Rangers use hunter's mark as a staple, which would be nerfed. Etc.

Rogues aren't trickier. It's just huge nerf. Rogues don't need a bonus action to get sneak attack every round, they just need to engage an opponent who is also engaged with an ally. Not even that for swashbucklers. Rogues assume that they will be doing sneak attack damage on at least one attack per round and if they aren't, there are unusual circumstances or they don't know how to rogue.

Paladin nova damage is fun and class-defining. Hitting more reliably rather than seeing them occasionally light someone up makes for a more boring session, IMO. And the potential for nova damage is what makes them different from and helps them keep pace with barbarians and fighters, who already hit harder and more reliably.

It's not the average damage loss to Warlocks, which is minimal, it's the loss of the potential for a huge hit. In other words, the loss of potential fun. Rolling a 20 on your Eldritch Blast is a good time. Arguments amount the difference in average damage totally miss the point of what is fun about critical hits.

For monsters, a critting on a 20 makes it an event. Again, it's fun at the table, and raises the stakes. I'm not interested in Spelljammer monsters who won't see most tabletops, I'm interested in the Monster Manual and, to a lesser extent, Monsters of the Multiverse. This update needs to be backwards compatible, so even if wider damage variants might add more random threat to new monsters, it doesn't do anything for the vast majority that players will actually face: ogres, orcs, owlbears, etc. But I also don't think it's nearly as fun. And 5e is already a game where players can too easily mitigate risk, so it needs the chance of an unpredictable damage spike to keep at least some semblance of risk. Stories need stakes.

The current system works. A natural 20 on an attack is an event, and everyone gets it. That's fun. Something interesting happens. Natural 1s and natural 20s generate story. I am not interested in anything that makes combat, already the most boring part of the game, even more predictable.

You're right, rogues don't need it every round, but it sure is nice to have when you need it. In the playtest with my group, the Rogue used Inspiration twice in 2 sessions to get a sneak attack he wouldn't have otherwise, thereby transferring the crit damage lost in the moment to another moment. How many times in your sessions does the Rogue end up going first, but can't get sneak attack because no allies are in place? With inspiration from a Nat20, they now can.

Warlocks losing the potential of a huge hit? An additional 1d10 damage every 20 attacks? Ranger even more so, an additional 1d6 every 20 attacks? What's so huge about those numbers?

Again, regarding the Paladin, if you're holding back smites waiting for a crit, and take a long rest with even 1 slot left because of it, you've left all that damage on the table by not smiting on a regular attack. The exact same damage you would have added with a crit.

I agree that monsters Criting is an event. If the new ruleset doesn't add some type of inspiration feature (or recharge feature) for monsters, I'll likely add it myself. I think an Adult Red Dragon recharging it's breath weapon when it nat20's on a legendary action is far more terrifying to the party than getting a couple extra die of damage. And while I used something from Spelljammer to illustrate the point, I could pick any number of monsters from MotM that have the same type of adjustment from the 2014 MM. And of course, we'll be getting a new MM in 2024 that will also be in the new style.

The Paladin and Rogue in my group did not like the rules when they heard them. After playing with them, they loved them so much that we've decided to permanently adopt them. It feels fun. Every Nat20 (not just the attacks) are an event now. The party is spending inspiration more freely, and combining it with their class features for maximum effect. Monsters are having big damage swings from round to round because of the new damage ranges, making every attack as scary as a crit is with MM monsters.

 

[pantsorama]

keep in mind that the new CritHit rules aren't a nerf to everyone. Barbarians, Fighters and Monks see no difference with the new rules. They also gain inspiration from a Crit, which is a power bump.

For most other classes the benefit of inspiration outweighs what they are losing from Crits. Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Bards, for example, only have a couple of spells each that can benefit from the old crit rules. Artificers, Sorcerers, and Wizards lose a bit (especially from cantrips) but also gain by being able to hit more reliably with spell slots that require an attack roll by using inspiration.

Right. 100%!

Just to add to what you have said. The idea that Crits were nerfed is just a flat out misnomer. They, in fact, added a ribbon when you roll a 20 - Inspiration. And, yes, they did also reduce the (frankly boring) ribbon that "doubled" ALL your dice damage - In favor of making melee characters better.

So you still get the elation of rolling a 20 - just now you get a flexible (interesting) benefit. Choice on when and where to expend Inspiration is better than double damage any day of the week, IMO. Making melee characters fun again and cutting out the ability of archers to own combat without risk is also a good thing.

Heck, if you want that extra damage AS WELL from your crits, then get up on the front line, buddy. (Not you - OB1 - those who say they love doing a crit)

Just thinking about how it would make my Barbarian play so differently from round to round makes me interested in finding a GM that isn't so hidebound.

EDIT: Mea Culpa - I have no idea where I got the idea that only melee weapons did and extra die of damage.

 

[Mephista]

Paladins deciding to smite or not after they see a 20 always felt cheesy to me. I'd rather just reword smite so the spell slot isn't consumed on a miss, but you can't Crit fish like you can now.

That said, part of the fun of a crit is picking up a bunch of extra dice and rolling it.

On the other hand, rerolling a bunch of spell dice on disintegrate is a bit too much.

So, I'm just assuming the intent is non-spell damage dice and let Smite, etc work.

 

[shadowoflameth]

3e had rules for different crit values with different weapons. i.e greataxe was x3 and Lance was x4 when mounted. The language implies that only the weapon damage not sneak attack is included. Perhaps with the thousands of words spent on this the language will be clarified if this is part of the final rules.

My feeling is that WOTC is trying to fix the wrong problems. I've played and DM'd hundreds of sessions and players are not complaining about level 1 character death or that crits don't work. They complain that there are feat, spell and subclass options that are valuless. Maybe feats having prerequisites will give someone a reason to take weaponmaster because as is, they don't. Maybe a re-write will inspire someone to play a Way of the 4 Elements Monk, because the subclass options are less playable than what the level monk already has. Maybe Find Traps will actually find traps. I could go on but you get the idea. They spend time and money backpedaling away from some Hadozee lore, but they don't even do an errata or a playtest on content that millions have complained about for years and that I mention here. If they are serious about backward compatibility, then playtest one should have been 'Here are existing elements that we've heard you on for years and proposed revisions. Playtest a Way of the 4 Elements Monk that we think will work well. We know you like Alert but try this version of Weaponmaster. Look what we've done to make True Strike and Find Traps work more as intended. That would boost sales in 2024.

 

[Maxperson]

3e had rules for different crit values with different weapons. i.e greataxe was x3 and Lance was x4 when mounted. The language implies that only the weapon damage not sneak attack is included. Perhaps with the thousands of words spent on this the language will be clarified if this is part of the final rules.

My feeling is that WOTC is trying to fix the wrong problems. I've played and DM'd hundreds of sessions and players are not complaining about level 1 character death or that crits don't work. They complain that there are feat, spell and subclass options that are valuless. Maybe feats having prerequisites will give someone a reason to take weaponmaster because as is, they don't. Maybe a re-write will inspire someone to play a Way of the 4 Elements Monk, because the subclass options are less playable than what the level monk already has. Maybe Find Traps will actually find traps. I could go on but you get the idea. They spend time and money backpedaling away from some Hadozee lore, but they don't even do an errata or a playtest on content that millions have complained about for years and that I mention here. If they are serious about backward compatibility, then playtest one should have been 'Here are existing elements that we've heard you on for years and proposed revisions. Playtest a Way of the 4 Elements Monk that we think will work well. We know you like Alert but try this version of Weaponmaster. Look what we've done to make True Strike and Find Traps work more as intended. That would boost sales in 2024.

Find Traps should be removed as a spell. It worked and found traps in 2e, but then it worked better than the rogue. 3e and 5e want to keep the spell, but had to weaken it to uselessness to keep it from treading on one of the primary functions of another class. There isn't a way that I can see to make the spell useful and not tread on the rogue, so they should just remove it from the game.

 

[Illithidbix]

In principle I'm not opposed to this change.
I think player/monster symmetry is by far over valued am I am very happy we're far from the rabbit hole that 3E ended up in.

Likewise I personally prefer Critical Hit = Maximum damage that could have been rolled rather than rolling double damage dice.

This meshes the best in my mind,
1) I prevents the saddening situation of a poor roll on a Crit that ends up being worse than an average roll of a normal hit.
2) Avoids any niggly rules about some things not taking critical hits for whatever dubious justification I don't care about because there is already

BUT
I might just be being a bit of a killjoy and there is a significant number of players and GMs who very much embrace the memorable moments caused by wild swings of the dice.

Likewise 5E most certainly doesn't have a reputation for lethality (aside perhaps at the very lowest levels) and many monsters at mid to high level could do with all the help they can get.

 

[Reynard]

Find Traps should be removed as a spell. It worked and found traps in 2e, but then it worked better than the rogue. 3e and 5e want to keep the spell, but had to weaken it to uselessness to keep it from treading on one of the primary functions of another class. There isn't a way that I can see to make the spell useful and not tread on the rogue, so they should just remove it from the game.

What if there's no rogue in the party?