As it stands now there seems to be a concern that Sneak attack dmg no longer stacks with a critical hit as it is not considered weapon dmg. The same is being felt about dread ambusher. It was clear previously that any dmg dice was doubled as per the old definition and explanation:
"Critical Hits
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once.
For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."
But the new play test definition no longer has that included. It is now as follows.
CRITICAL HITS Weapons and Unarmed Strikes* have a special feature for player characters: Critical Hits. 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. For example, a Mace deals Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you score a Critical Hit with the Mace, it instead deals 2d6 + your Strength modifier.
If your Weapon or Unarmed Strike has no damage dice, it deals no extra damage on a Critical Hit.
It is not clear if Sneak attack or Dread Ambusher dmg is actually weapon dmg dice, though at least dread ambusher mentions weapon dmg "type". Here is the definition.
Sneak Attack
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.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.
The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.
Dread Ambusher
At 3rd level, you master the art of the ambush. You can give yourself a bonus to your initiative rolls equal to your Wisdom modifier.
At the start of your first turn of each combat, your walking speed increases by 10 feet, which lasts until the end of that turn. If you take the Attack action on that turn, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of that action. If that attack hits, the target takes an extra 1d8 damage of the weapon’s damage type.
This also brings up the feats piercer and slasher, which when you crit would also normally double. Is this a serious nerf or do you still run the game as normal? What about spell additions like Hunters mark or poison? did you double those before on a critical? Would you double them now?
The old rules have crits double attack damage dice. The playtest rules have you double weapon damage dice. That's incredibly straightforward for almost all weapons (magic weapons like a flametongue sword may be more complex): it's just the damage in the weapons table in the PHB, nothing else.
As I understand it and the way it is worded. Sneak Attack damage would not be doubled on a critical hit, the way Dread Ambusher is worded with it being the damage of the weapon type, it would be doubled on a critical hit.
I am ok with the changes, tables can rule it how they see fit, but officially it would make it less deadly for lower level players. This would mostly be used in Adventurer's League and official "sanctioned" games. I am sure they will add optional rules if they DM and players want to run critical hits the old way. Just as feats are currently optional but with the new playtest they are making them a core ability in character creation, there may be optional rules that remove feats for the tables that do not want to use them.
Personally, I like two different options for critical hits and I let the players decide at the start of the campaign. Either roll the dice one can double the amount on a crit or, take max damage from the normal hit then roll the dice for the crit (ex. Paladin crits on smite with Longsword, he does 8+5(str)+16(smite) =29, then he rolls 1d8(weapon) and 2d8 (smite), the minimum damage he could do on a crit would be 32. *(one note, I never use average damage from the Monster Manual, I roll all monster damage dice).
As I understand it and the way it is worded. Sneak Attack damage would not be doubled on a critical hit, the way Dread Ambusher is worded with it being the damage of the weapon type, it would be doubled on a critical hit.
The 1D&D Playtest has Critical Hit rules that only double weapon damage dice. We haven't seen class features yet so unless some are specifically saying they double on a Crit they won't.
Using D&D 4E which attack were labeled as ""Hit: 1[W] + Strenght modifier" where W referred to the weapon damage dice only, a critical hit on 1D&D would be;
Critical Hit: 2[W] + Strenght modifier + any extra damage, bonus or modifier application
so you do not consider Sneak attack Dmg or Dread Ambusher additional weapon dmg dice then correct?
No, they're extra damage from different source delivered alongside it.
If the sneak attack damage doesn't come from the weapon, what is the source?
The source is sneak attack. If my 5th level swashbuckler stabs someone with a rapier, he's gonna do 1d8(weapon)+4(dex)+3d6(sneak attack), and critical hit doubles that 1d8.
Yeah, that's fine. I see what you both are saying. It's enough of a distinction that it will have to do until we get the classes UA with updated sneak attack wording (if any).
Sure. I was thinking of "source" in terms of what actually delivered the damage in-game, rather than in which class feature the extra damage is defined. That wasn't what you were referring to, so there's the disconnect.
Sure. I was thinking of "source" in terms of what actually delivered the damage in-game, rather than in which class feature the extra damage is defined. That wasn't what you were referring to, so there's the disconnect.
I also feel that in the end, sneak attack is weapon dmg. It comes from the weapon. A rogue, is specialized in using specific weapons and if allowed to hit specific targets, do more dmg. So visualizing sneak attack, my rogue in a situation where he has advantage, or sneak attack option for whatever reason, can specifically target a critical point on the huminoid body, like under the armpit, or inside the thigh by a major artery, to do more dmg. So it is still the weapon that is doing the dmg, not a foreign source like poison or hunters mark. It also seems like when it needs to be defined, it’s consider the same weapon type dmg (piercing or slashing), which means the source is the weapon. I feel ultimately that is the “intention”. But if the wording is vague, as it is currently with sneak attack, it can not be infered. It didn’t need to be specific before, because it was expressly worded in the crit definition. I hope they fix this. The nerfing is serious. My Assassin/Gloomstalker/Archer is getting killed by this.
Sure. I was thinking of "source" in terms of what actually delivered the damage in-game, rather than in which class feature the extra damage is defined. That wasn't what you were referring to, so there's the disconnect.
I also feel that in the end, sneak attack is weapon dmg. It comes from the weapon. A rogue, is specialized in using specific weapons and if allowed to hit specific targets, do more dmg. So visualizing sneak attack, my rogue in a situation where he has advantage, or sneak attack option for whatever reason, can specifically target a critical point on the huminoid body, like under the armpit, or inside the thigh by a major artery, to do more dmg. So it is still the weapon that is doing the dmg, not a foreign source like poison or hunters mark. It also seems like when it needs to be defined, it’s consider the same weapon type dmg (piercing or slashing), which means the source is the weapon. I feel ultimately that is the “intention”. But if the wording is vague, as it is currently with sneak attack, it can not be infered. It didn’t need to be specific before, because it was expressly worded in the crit definition. I hope they fix this. The nerfing is serious. My Assassin/Gloomstalker/Archer is getting killed by this.
You're never going to get any additional clarification, because the weapon damage problem is as old as the PHB - Lightning Arrow has always required you to know what weapon damage is (worse, what a weapon's "normal" damage is). In fact, something we've never known with certainty and still don't today is whether WOTC intends a Ranger casting Lightning Arrow to add their Dexterity to the roll or not.
However, there's no ambiguity on Sneak Attack, just like there isn't with Hunter's Mark (both work the same way). Neither comes from the weapon, both are added to the weapon by an external effect.
Sure. I was thinking of "source" in terms of what actually delivered the damage in-game, rather than in which class feature the extra damage is defined. That wasn't what you were referring to, so there's the disconnect.
I also feel that in the end, sneak attack is weapon dmg. It comes from the weapon. A rogue, is specialized in using specific weapons and if allowed to hit specific targets, do more dmg. So visualizing sneak attack, my rogue in a situation where he has advantage, or sneak attack option for whatever reason, can specifically target a critical point on the huminoid body, like under the armpit, or inside the thigh by a major artery, to do more dmg. So it is still the weapon that is doing the dmg, not a foreign source like poison or hunters mark. It also seems like when it needs to be defined, it’s consider the same weapon type dmg (piercing or slashing), which means the source is the weapon. I feel ultimately that is the “intention”. But if the wording is vague, as it is currently with sneak attack, it can not be infered. It didn’t need to be specific before, because it was expressly worded in the crit definition. I hope they fix this. The nerfing is serious. My Assassin/Gloomstalker/Archer is getting killed by this.
You're never going to get any additional clarification, because the weapon damage problem is as old as the PHB - Lightning Arrow has always required you to know what weapon damage is (worse, what a weapon's "normal" damage is). In fact, something we've never known with certainty and still don't today is whether WOTC intends a Ranger casting Lightning Arrow to add their Dexterity to the roll or not.
However, there's no ambiguity on Sneak Attack, just like there isn't with Hunter's Mark (both work the same way). Neither comes from the weapon, both are added to the weapon by an external effect.
Well Hunter's mark is a spell, sneak attack is a technique. So it's clear one is external, but the other not so much.
My expectation is that the new PHB will change the assassinate subclass feature into something that's a bit less potent but more consistently useful.
Even then assassinate isn't that potent as it works off the 5e surprise and initiative. If a surprised creature goes before the rogue in intiative then they are no longer surprised so assassinate won't work.
My two cents on this change: If the designers want to reign in the optimizability of martials, toning down crit fishing is one obvious way (the other being adjusting the flat damage feats). In the case that they do want to do that, then this is a fix that allows crits to still exist on martial characters. It is clear from that perspective that only the weapon damage should be affected, no other features.
Obviously this change doesn't work the same on spell casters, since spells get a wide variety of dice and often many more than weapons. But spell casters (while being weaker at damage) are generally regarded as more powerful anyway, due to their increased versatility and the strength of spells.
I think this change is a sign that the devs are interested in balancing the game so an optimized crit-fishing build doesn't just completely overshadow a non-optimized character. Unfortunately, since they didn't give us an entire vertical slice of the game, it's still tough to tell. We don't know what they'll do with the flat damage feats or the bonus action attacks feats or class features to know for sure.
As it stands now there seems to be a concern that Sneak attack dmg no longer stacks with a critical hit as it is not considered weapon dmg. The same is being felt about dread ambusher. It was clear previously that any dmg dice was doubled as per the old definition and explanation:
"Critical Hits
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once.
For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."
But the new play test definition no longer has that included. It is now as follows.
CRITICAL HITS
Weapons and Unarmed Strikes* have a special feature for player characters: Critical Hits. 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. For example, a Mace deals Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you score a Critical Hit with the Mace, it instead deals 2d6 + your Strength modifier.
If your Weapon or Unarmed Strike has no damage dice, it deals no extra damage on a Critical Hit.
It is not clear if Sneak attack or Dread Ambusher dmg is actually weapon dmg dice, though at least dread ambusher mentions weapon dmg "type". Here is the definition.
Sneak Attack
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.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.
The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.
Dread Ambusher
At 3rd level, you master the art of the ambush. You can give yourself a bonus to your initiative rolls equal to your Wisdom modifier.
At the start of your first turn of each combat, your walking speed increases by 10 feet, which lasts until the end of that turn. If you take the Attack action on that turn, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of that action. If that attack hits, the target takes an extra 1d8 damage of the weapon’s damage type.
This also brings up the feats piercer and slasher, which when you crit would also normally double. Is this a serious nerf or do you still run the game as normal? What about spell additions like Hunters mark or poison? did you double those before on a critical? Would you double them now?
The old rules have crits double attack damage dice. The playtest rules have you double weapon damage dice. That's incredibly straightforward for almost all weapons (magic weapons like a flametongue sword may be more complex): it's just the damage in the weapons table in the PHB, nothing else.
As I understand it and the way it is worded. Sneak Attack damage would not be doubled on a critical hit, the way Dread Ambusher is worded with it being the damage of the weapon type, it would be doubled on a critical hit.
I am ok with the changes, tables can rule it how they see fit, but officially it would make it less deadly for lower level players. This would mostly be used in Adventurer's League and official "sanctioned" games. I am sure they will add optional rules if they DM and players want to run critical hits the old way. Just as feats are currently optional but with the new playtest they are making them a core ability in character creation, there may be optional rules that remove feats for the tables that do not want to use them.
Personally, I like two different options for critical hits and I let the players decide at the start of the campaign. Either roll the dice one can double the amount on a crit or, take max damage from the normal hit then roll the dice for the crit (ex. Paladin crits on smite with Longsword, he does 8+5(str)+16(smite) =29, then he rolls 1d8(weapon) and 2d8 (smite), the minimum damage he could do on a crit would be 32. *(one note, I never use average damage from the Monster Manual, I roll all monster damage dice).
It has nothing to do with damage type. It's literally the same rule as the SAC version of the GWF fighting style. It won't apply to Dread Ambusher.
The 1D&D Playtest has Critical Hit rules that only double weapon damage dice. We haven't seen class features yet so unless some are specifically saying they double on a Crit they won't.
so you do not consider Sneak attack Dmg or Dread Ambusher additional weapon dmg dice then correct?
No, they're extra damage from different source delivered alongside it.
Using D&D 4E which attack were labeled as ""Hit: 1[W] + Strenght modifier" where W referred to the weapon damage dice only, a critical hit on 1D&D would be;
Critical Hit: 2[W] + Strenght modifier + any extra damage, bonus or modifier application
My expectation is that the new PHB will change the assassinate subclass feature into something that's a bit less potent but more consistently useful.
If the sneak attack damage doesn't come from the weapon, what is the source?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The source is sneak attack. If my 5th level swashbuckler stabs someone with a rapier, he's gonna do 1d8(weapon)+4(dex)+3d6(sneak attack), and critical hit doubles that 1d8.
Yeah, that's fine. I see what you both are saying. It's enough of a distinction that it will have to do until we get the classes UA with updated sneak attack wording (if any).
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The source of a damage is whatever feature it comes from.
Sure. I was thinking of "source" in terms of what actually delivered the damage in-game, rather than in which class feature the extra damage is defined. That wasn't what you were referring to, so there's the disconnect.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I also feel that in the end, sneak attack is weapon dmg. It comes from the weapon. A rogue, is specialized in using specific weapons and if allowed to hit specific targets, do more dmg. So visualizing sneak attack, my rogue in a situation where he has advantage, or sneak attack option for whatever reason, can specifically target a critical point on the huminoid body, like under the armpit, or inside the thigh by a major artery, to do more dmg. So it is still the weapon that is doing the dmg, not a foreign source like poison or hunters mark. It also seems like when it needs to be defined, it’s consider the same weapon type dmg (piercing or slashing), which means the source is the weapon. I feel ultimately that is the “intention”. But if the wording is vague, as it is currently with sneak attack, it can not be infered. It didn’t need to be specific before, because it was expressly worded in the crit definition. I hope they fix this. The nerfing is serious. My Assassin/Gloomstalker/Archer is getting killed by this.
You're never going to get any additional clarification, because the weapon damage problem is as old as the PHB - Lightning Arrow has always required you to know what weapon damage is (worse, what a weapon's "normal" damage is). In fact, something we've never known with certainty and still don't today is whether WOTC intends a Ranger casting Lightning Arrow to add their Dexterity to the roll or not.
However, there's no ambiguity on Sneak Attack, just like there isn't with Hunter's Mark (both work the same way). Neither comes from the weapon, both are added to the weapon by an external effect.
Well Hunter's mark is a spell, sneak attack is a technique. So it's clear one is external, but the other not so much.
Even then assassinate isn't that potent as it works off the 5e surprise and initiative. If a surprised creature goes before the rogue in intiative then they are no longer surprised so assassinate won't work.
My two cents on this change: If the designers want to reign in the optimizability of martials, toning down crit fishing is one obvious way (the other being adjusting the flat damage feats). In the case that they do want to do that, then this is a fix that allows crits to still exist on martial characters. It is clear from that perspective that only the weapon damage should be affected, no other features.
Obviously this change doesn't work the same on spell casters, since spells get a wide variety of dice and often many more than weapons. But spell casters (while being weaker at damage) are generally regarded as more powerful anyway, due to their increased versatility and the strength of spells.
I think this change is a sign that the devs are interested in balancing the game so an optimized crit-fishing build doesn't just completely overshadow a non-optimized character. Unfortunately, since they didn't give us an entire vertical slice of the game, it's still tough to tell. We don't know what they'll do with the flat damage feats or the bonus action attacks feats or class features to know for sure.
Personally, I would house rule it so that Ranger abilities, Sneak Attack, and Divine Smite also get doubled, but that is just a table rule.