What problem does the default 5E critical hit rule solve?
D&D 5E House Rule: Accuracy-Based Critical Hit Damage
- Thread starter Riley37
- Start date
What problem does the default 5E critical hit rule solve?
GMMichael
Guide of Modos
Oh, sorry:
DMMike said:
I believe the OP says you're using 5e, which has basic rules that don't support location-specific hits, nor a definition for damage (beyond "it reduces your hit points"). So there's no reason why a coma-inducing eye-hit and a bone-shattering shoulder hit can't do the same amount of damage.
If you're looking for "hard evidence," you're probably in the wrong hobby.
If you're not interested in details such as how different kinds of weapons work, then why are you bringing up the assertion that blunt weapons don't really depend on accuracy? How is that helpful?
If you don't care, then don't bring up the topic; if you do care, then bring up differentiations which are based on facts, or based on genre tropes, or based on... well, anything other than random specious assertions.
Not to be contentious, but seeing as how you're the one who's introducing a revision to an accepted rule, it's on you to explain your purpose.
Explain my purpose, sure. The idea that every rule exists *to fix a problem*, however, is Dausuul's assumption; and therefore, his topic to address, not mine. Does the 5E standard crit-hit rule exist to fix a problem? does my experimental variant exist to fix a problem? do the size categories exist to fix a problem? do classes and levels exist to fix a problem? That might be an interesting question, but it's not the question I raised in the OP.
I like the idea that the more precisely one hits, the more extra damage one can do. Hitting a target in the ten-ring should generally be more effective than hitting the target in the outer rings.
Another poster suggested that critical hits be determined, not by natural 20s, but by attack roll outcomes which are 10 over the target's actual AC. I kinda like that rule too, and might try it. As another poster observed, that variant reduces the "higher percentage of hits are criticals" effect. "Hit by 10+ is critical" could make critical hits increasingly common against low-AC targets. This might enable heroes to quickly mow down "scrub" or "mook" opponents with single-hit kills, which is OK with me.
On a 20, in standard play, (or 18-20 for Champions, etc.) the player doubles the weapon damage die/dice, which is usually a d6, d8 or d10. Assuming the player has already rolled normal damage die/dice along with the d20 to hit, then a critical hit involves one more roll. Accuracy-based damage might have about the same general ratio of normal-hit damage to critical-hit damage, but I'm curious to see how it works out in play; the Ranger at my table occasionally makes attacks that would hit AC 25+, and sometimes that's around 10-15 more than needed. I was pondering N extra HP of damage, or 1dN. The former makes critical hits much more effective. The extra damage could be several times the base damage of the attack.
For me, subtracting the target's AC from (20+attack bonus) takes under a second, and rolling an appropriate dN doesn't take notably longer than just rolling another of the base weapon die. For others, YMMV.
Slightly faster method than standard crit-damage: "place" the damage dice, rather than doubling them; that is, to place them with the largest number on top. Or skip actually touching the dice, and just pretend the weapon die/dice came up on its highest number. This is almost exactly equal to the average result of doubled damage die/dice.
Similar Threads
