D&D (2024) 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.