D&D 5E Should Crits be x2 Damage? (And Champion Sucks)

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Mutual ignore (aka Block) is a good idea IMO. It prevents idiots from reading things into your words that clearly aren't there.

I know I have no desire for my posts to be read (and occasionally replied) to by people who clearly don't understand them. Snobbish of me, yes, but there it is.

I guess I just don't see how your worry that someone will have an opinion you don't like isn't fully answered by you not seeing their posts, so I don't get what it is that is gained from them not seeing your posts - though I do see something which can be lost for the community reading through threads if someone is posting their opinions and has everyone that disagrees with them on their ignore list so none of them see that opinion and thus can't post a differing opinion, making the opinion of anyone that happens to be ignore-happy look more widely accepted while also reducing how many different opinions someone looking for ideas has available to them.

Maybe in a perfect world where the ignore feature couldn't be used just because someone has different ideas, and actually only applied to people that can't participate in a discussion without being disruptive, it would make some sense - but then, it would be entirely better for the community to still not have the style of ignore-and-hide function currently implemented and just answer disruptive behavior with removal.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I guess I just don't see how your worry that someone will have an opinion you don't like isn't fully answered by you not seeing their posts, so I don't get what it is that is gained from them not seeing your posts - though I do see something which can be lost for the community reading through threads if someone is posting their opinions and has everyone that disagrees with them on their ignore list so none of them see that opinion and thus can't post a differing opinion, making the opinion of anyone that happens to be ignore-happy look more widely accepted while also reducing how many different opinions someone looking for ideas has available to them.

You misunderstand.

I don't mind if someone has an opinion that I don't like. I do care when people misunderstand, misquote, or misconstrue my words in public, especially if they do it in such a way that to leave the post unanswered may give other people the impression that the misquote is in fact my real opinion. I would much rather not give such people the option of hurting themselves or others with my words. It's better if I just don't exist, from their perspective.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You misunderstand.

I don't mind if someone has an opinion that I don't like. I do care when people misunderstand, misquote, or misconstrue my words in public, especially if they do it in such a way that to leave the post unanswered may give other people the impression that the misquote is in fact my real opinion. I would much rather not give such people the option of hurting themselves or others with my words. It's better if I just don't exist, from their perspective.

That sounds like a thing which should be solved by banning the genuinely disruptive users.

I see how the hiding feature of the ignore function band-aids the situation, though - but I still don't think that is a net gain to the community as a whole.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Critical hits should not deal double damage. Critical hits shouldn't even be in the game, if you ask me.

Gygax would approve. I'm serious, he was famously dead-set against critical hits when developing AD&D. Crits were a very common variant, though.

Critical hits favor the monsters and NPCs heavily, and have done so in every iteration of critical hit rules ever implemented in D&D, because the monsters are intended to typically be temporary participants in the game-play, frequently have more chances to critical because they make more attack rolls per turn, and often have greater damage both in dice and flat modifiers.

Well said. (OK, not /every/ iteration, quite - at high level, 4e PCs got increased threat ranges and lots of extra crit damage from weapons, feats, and, especially, magical weapons, while monsters rarely got extra crit damage, and minions, ones that'd be making lots of attacks because there were so many of them, thus more likely to crit, typically got no benefit from a crit whatsoever. And, in 3e, you could build a character to exploit crits to the fullest.) But in general, sure, and in 5e, it certainly holds.

Yet, players seem dead-set (pun intended) on the inclusion of critical hit rules

Excitement value, I guess. You have to make attacks exciting, somehow. Spells are highly varied and there's considerable tactics/strategy in their management & use, while attacks (weapon or cantrip) are just belted out every round. If crits deliver that excitement, without even favoring the PCs, great...

And my personal experience DMing for, and playing as, a champion fighter is that you are looking to solve a problem that isn't actually there.

At least you're consistent.

But you do have a point, the purpose of the Champion is a simple, but still fun/exciting option for a player who doesn't want a lot of options, nor to have to analyze them. The target audience of the Champion isn't about to run DPR numbers, nor even put much weight on them when they're spelled out.

If you do anything to crits it should be Champion specific. I wouldn't mind allowing them to double their ability modifier damage on a crit.

Keeping it Champion-specific sounds like a good notion. An exception allowing doubling bonuses could work (and could be problematic, just like multiple attacks are). Alternately, you could add extra dice. Instead of rolling 2d10 when you crit, roll 3d10. Or 2d10 on that crit on a natural 19 and 3d10 on a natural 20 - or the other way-round, whatever seems most thrilling.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Excitement value, I guess.

I get where you are coming from with that, and I guess maybe crits do seem necessary to make attack rolls seem exciting enough for some people... but I watch my players closely during our sessions, especially taking note of anything that happened during the session that seemed to reduce their interest in playing or spoil their mood, and it is the player most strongly negatively affected by his character being critically hit by monsters that confuses me because if his character takes more than one critical hit in a session he is visibly upset and less active within the game, but he insists that he wants to keep critical hits in the game.

I guess maybe the thought of one day eventually having an awesome critical hit of his own outweighs even those nights where a few criticals landing on his character has him agitated enough to yell at his dice when they roll low, but from my point of view it really seems like he's just into self-punishment by proxy of his character.

At least you're consistent.

Consistent in believing that the champion does what the champion is meant to do, and does it well? Yes. Consistent in telling people a problem they have expressed doesn't exist? No, as the champion is the only time I can recall having actually done that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I get where you are coming from with that, and I guess maybe crits do seem necessary to make attack rolls seem exciting enough for some people...

Nod. I'm not one of 'em, either. I'd much rather have a dependable ability than a random one in the name of 'excitement' (was deeply disappointed in the 13A fighter for that reason),

but I watch my players closely during our sessions, especially taking note of anything that happened during the session that seemed to reduce their interest in playing or spoil their mood, and it is the player most strongly negatively affected by his character being critically hit by monsters that confuses me because if his character takes more than one critical hit in a session he is visibly upset and less active within the game, but he insists that he wants to keep critical hits in the game.

I guess the emotional upside is more than the downside - or maybe the contrast between the low of getting crit'd and the high of scoring one yourself is part of the draw?

I just have to note that a lot of player seem to /really/ like the way crits spice up combat. There could be other ways to spice it up, of course... I'd like to see some more 'player agency' enhancing ways, myself, from the player's perspective, that is.

... but from my point of view it really seems like he's just into self-punishment by proxy of his character.

Heh. I could see that, too.

Consistent in believing that the champion does what the champion is meant to do, and does it well? Yes.

Not just in the case of the Champion, but yes. I get the impression you can be counted on to stand up for the game, in general.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That sounds like a thing which should be solved by banning the genuinely disruptive users.

Look, Aaron. Just because someone repeatedly misunderstands my point doesn't make them a bad person or bad for the community per se. I could potentially solve this myself by rephrasing things into language they understand, or explaining things over and over until they finally get it. But I don't care to spend my days that way.

In short, I disagree with your suggestion of banning people. That's too strong a medicine for the actual ailment. Stupidity isn't a crime, it's just tiresome.

And... that's my last post on this topic in this thread.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I get the impression you can be counted on to stand up for the game, in general.

This reads like you are trying to assign people to teams. Please don't reduce my opinions in such a way that they fit in a convenient box.

Look, Aaron. Just because someone repeatedly misunderstands my point doesn't make them a bad person or bad for the community per se. I could potentially solve this myself by rephrasing things into language they understand, or explaining things over and over until they finally get it. But I don't care to spend my days that way.

In short, I disagree with your suggestion of banning people. That's too strong a medicine for the actual ailment. Stupidity isn't a crime, it's just tiresome.

Pardon my misunderstanding, I thought you were taking about people deliberately being tiresome, not the extreme case of you arbitrating certain forum users as too stupid to be allowed to see your posts because you don't want to answer whatever questions they might have.

Because I never suggested banning anyone for anything but breaking the rules and being disruptive.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This reads like you are trying to assign people to teams.

We're all on the same team - we're all fans of the same game. We just like to play different positions.