D&D (2024) Just make critical do double damage. Period.

[Lanefan]

Critical hits should always be an event, and few things suck worse than getting a critical and then rolling one extra point of damage. Plus, the current rule is needlessly complicated. Just double all the damage from the attack, including bonuses. The math on it is complicated because there are a ton of variables, but in general we are only talking about a 2-3% DPR increase to classes that make a lot of attack rolls, so there actually won't be a huge impact on overall balance, and I think the fun factor plus design elegance make the change worth it.

Thoughts?

Criticals should be just that - critical. As in, combat-changing.

Given that, they should also be fairly rare. Having them happen on average once per 20 attacks is IMO much too common.

The answer is to add in a confirm roll, with that second roll giving results on a sliding scale ranging from "nothing extra" on a low-to-mid roll to "fasten your seat belts" on a second 20.

And we can then argue all day about what goes where on that confirm-roll sliding scale .

(and at the other end, fumbles should also work the same way)

 

[Lanefan]

My players insisted on critical failures, so I made a chart of fairly minor effects like a penalty on your next attack, provoking an opportunity attack, stuff like that. The effects were apparently so minor that the players hated tracking them when they fumbled (apparently "-2 on your next attack" was too much to remember, lol)

Yeah, it's simpler if these effects (both fumble and critical) either resolve right now or are obvious enough that they can't be forgotten. An example of the latter would be disarming yourself on a fumble - you're not likely to forget that your weapon is now lying on the floor.

I guess they had visions of enemies stabbing themselves to death and thought this would be a massive nerf? I couldn't say.

We've had fumbles since forever, though less frequent than 1/20 as we have a confirm roll attached; and the results on a d% table range from the relatively trivial and common (e.g. d4 damage to yourself or someone/thing nearby) through the interesting and less common (e.g. open self up to free attack from foe, or drop/throw weapon, or damage weapon, etc.) to the truly dangerous and rare (e.g. critical hit on someone/thing you didn't want to hit).

Fumbles, oddly enough, are one of the few elements of the game we kitbashed in very early (maybe 1982?) and then pretty much didn't change since.

 

[Andvari]

An idea I like is having no critical hits, but instead having "procs" on magic weapons that make them do something extra when rolling high enough. A lightning sword might do extra electric damage on normal hits, but on a nat 20 the lightning jumps to additional targets.

 

[James Gasik]

Check out Rolemaster.

Checks for crit on an unarmed strike attack. Get a 66. "Hm, instantly kill opponent, make another attack. Man who needs weapons?"

 

[Lanefan]

An idea I like is having no critical hits, but instead having "procs" on magic weapons that make them do something extra when rolling high enough. A lightning sword might do extra electric damage on normal hits, but on a nat 20 the lightning jumps to additional targets.

A variant on that could be that the sword does mundane damage on a normal hit, adds in some electric damage if the to-hit roll passes a threshold (say, either of 5 more than needed or a nat. 18+), and further adds the jumps-to-others damage on a nat. 20.

 

[James Gasik]

Where did critical hits in D&D even come from? The earliest version I'm familiar with is in Dragon #39. I remember a sidebar in the 2e DMG about it as an optional rule.

I'm just curious about how this all got started, and why so much mythology built up around natural 1's and 20's, why people started to feel they should be "extra special" beyond always succeed/always fail.

 

[Jahydin]

Where did critical hits in D&D even come from?

Not from Gary, I'll tell you that. He HATED them:

"Combat is the most frequently abused area, for here many would-be game inventors feel they have sufficient expertise to design a better system. Perhaps someone will eventually do so, but the examples to date are somewhat less than inspiring of confidence. The "critical hit" or "double damage" on a "to hit" die roll of 20 is particularly offensive to the precepts of D&D as well."

I'm guessing it's the same reason why I can't take them out of my game: players LOVE them. The moment of rolling a 20 just feels so incredible, it just makes sense to have something extra on top for a max dopamine dump.

That's one of the reasons the "confirm crit" from 3e was dropped. Statistically, it made all the sense in the world for game balance, but it killed that awesome moment for players, especially if it failed, so was cut.

 

[James Gasik]

Not from Gary, I'll tell you that. He HATED them:


I'm guessing it's the same reason why I can't take them out of my game: players LOVE them. The moment of rolling a 20 just feels so incredible, it just makes sense to have something extra on top for a max dopamine dump.

That's one of the reasons the "confirm crit" from 3e was dropped. Statistically, it made all the sense in the world for game balance, but it killed that awesome moment for players, especially if it failed, so was cut.

Man, that is some serious hate- Gary usually reserved that kind of venom for people who wanted to rip off his ideas or dirty, dirty, player characters!

Honestly, my problem with confirming crits was more that it took an extra die roll and slowed things down, so I had a simple house rule; if you could hit the enemy on a 11 or better, you could crit them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I also think that critical failures should be hard-coded into the game.

This one always bugs me when I play at a table with it or listen to an actual play that uses any form of it.

Particularly skilled people don’t fail spectacularly 1 out of 20 time they do the thing they’re good at. It’s…slapstick, IME, and usually much more punitive than crit success is rewarding.

I think the d20 is just too swingy for crit fails.

What I think would scratch the same itch, is a success ladder, with total failure offering a bargain. You can make something good from the failure, like setting up an ally or getting to a good position on the field, by taking a trauma/level of exhaustion or a complication.

Even without the bargain, having “you can always fail, but most failure is partial or mitigated by an opportunity, and most success is only partial as well” does the trick.

 

[Parmandur]

Critical hits should always be an event, and few things suck worse than getting a critical and then rolling one extra point of damage. Plus, the current rule is needlessly complicated. Just double all the damage from the attack, including bonuses. The math on it is complicated because there are a ton of variables, but in general we are only talking about a 2-3% DPR increase to classes that make a lot of attack rolls, so there actually won't be a huge impact on overall balance, and I think the fun factor plus design elegance make the change worth it.

Thoughts?

Rolling more dice is more better and more funner. Science fact.