Our DM likes for crits to be meaningful, and we fully agree. It's super deflating after the excitement of critting to roll poorly and do very little damage. As such, instead of rolling all the dice twice, we award max damage for 1 set of dice rolls, and you roll the others naturally. Random example, if my damage rolls are 1d8+5 (weapon) and 1d6 (Hex), then I would get 8 and 6 automatically, then I would roll the 1d8+5 and the 1d6 and add whatever those rolls are.
Not a major difference in terms of pure damage output. Average damage RAW: 21, Average damage our way: 27. (Yes, I'm casually referring to a 30% increase and not a major difference lol) But it makes the crit celebrations pretty awesome. As far as crit fails...we reroll the d20 and have different penalties for 1-2 and 3-4, otherwise it's just a miss. These rules apply to the bad guys as well. Hmmm, remind me never to point out to our DM that a crit hit is always good, and a crit fail is only sometimes bad :D
Anyway, what other wonderful Crit mechanics do y'all employ?
So my group will amplify the weapon damage, but not any extra modifiers. To the point that some made for classes like rogues, hexlocks who can smite, paladins, or spells, it just gets too big too fast. The person going in for that longsword swing honestly deserves that 8+1d8+modifier instead of 2d8+modifier. If you had hex up? Roll your 2d6, you don't get a free six in there. Sure, you're spending a resource but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and weapon damage honestly seems to be the right step.
Mainly because while its great for the players, it takes the sails out of a potential encounter. Having a level 1 chromatic orb just nuke someone for 24 + 3d8 would be silly. A crit scorching ray getting 12 + 2d6 plus what the other rays do is nuts, and that gets worse if multiple rays crit. It changes game balance too because now ALL you do is crit fish, even in character builds.
We don't do fumble rules because for that player who is rolling like trash, further penalizing a player is just kicking them while down. Same thing with Nat 20s. You might get a Matt Mercer "How do you want to do this" or some flair like previously described, but nothing mechanical in bonuses other than the crit itself.
My table does do crit fails/successes for saving throws though. Just because you have a +11 con doesn't mean you always save on 4 damage. You still took damage, which could be enough to jostle you. Its not going to happen the VAST majority of the time, but it might. Applies to enemies as well.
And that is the thing. As long as everyone knows and is fine with the rules, you're good, whatever you do.
Some of the D&D streams use house rules I would never like as a player (or DM), but their group is fine with them, so it's all good. (Also, some of the house rules are clearly there to help keep the show engaging for the audience, which again, is fine, since everyone knows that going in.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I have a DM that says Crit = max damage for the "normal" roll, then roll the dice for the "crit portion".
I was playing a high level Hexblade (no MC'ing). I told him up front that such a char was going to shake up his game using that House Rule. But he and the others thought it was great. The DM was not thinking it so great when I rolled a 20, then proceeded to burn a 5th level spell slot to max out Eldritch Smite , then to save time merely added the expected value for ES (totally 75 HP) , plus did the same with Spirit Shroud (another 37, when rounded down), plus did the same with the Hex weapon (only a d8, so another 13), plus tack on all the bonuses from being a Hexblade with (another 16 when you factor in Lifedrinker, which I had). He thought it was even less fun when I told him such a thing could also happen on a 19.
When I am swinging for in excess of 140 HP damage, on my FIRST attack, the equation of the encounter changes very very quickly.
Paladins and Hexblades love House Rules for Crits. DM's and other players should not. House Rules for Crits are a bad idea, as the DM eventually has to amp up the HP and power of the monsters. Why bother? Just play with the existing rules, and it is less headaches for the DM.
And that is the thing. As long as everyone knows and is fine with the rules, you're good, whatever you do.
Some of the D&D streams use house rules I would never like as a player (or DM), but their group is fine with them, so it's all good. (Also, some of the house rules are clearly there to help keep the show engaging for the audience, which again, is fine, since everyone knows that going in.)
I've not seen that many streams, are there any house rules in particular you're thinking about?
Our DM likes for crits to be meaningful, and we fully agree. It's super deflating after the excitement of critting to roll poorly and do very little damage. As such, instead of rolling all the dice twice, we award max damage for 1 set of dice rolls, and you roll the others naturally. Random example, if my damage rolls are 1d8+5 (weapon) and 1d6 (Hex), then I would get 8 and 6 automatically, then I would roll the 1d8+5 and the 1d6 and add whatever those rolls are.
Not a major difference in terms of pure damage output. Average damage RAW: 21, Average damage our way: 27. (Yes, I'm casually referring to a 30% increase and not a major difference lol) But it makes the crit celebrations pretty awesome. As far as crit fails...we reroll the d20 and have different penalties for 1-2 and 3-4, otherwise it's just a miss. These rules apply to the bad guys as well. Hmmm, remind me never to point out to our DM that a crit hit is always good, and a crit fail is only sometimes bad :D
Anyway, what other wonderful Crit mechanics do y'all employ?
So my group will amplify the weapon damage, but not any extra modifiers. To the point that some made for classes like rogues, hexlocks who can smite, paladins, or spells, it just gets too big too fast. The person going in for that longsword swing honestly deserves that 8+1d8+modifier instead of 2d8+modifier. If you had hex up? Roll your 2d6, you don't get a free six in there. Sure, you're spending a resource but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and weapon damage honestly seems to be the right step.
Mainly because while its great for the players, it takes the sails out of a potential encounter. Having a level 1 chromatic orb just nuke someone for 24 + 3d8 would be silly. A crit scorching ray getting 12 + 2d6 plus what the other rays do is nuts, and that gets worse if multiple rays crit. It changes game balance too because now ALL you do is crit fish, even in character builds.
We don't do fumble rules because for that player who is rolling like trash, further penalizing a player is just kicking them while down. Same thing with Nat 20s. You might get a Matt Mercer "How do you want to do this" or some flair like previously described, but nothing mechanical in bonuses other than the crit itself.
My table does do crit fails/successes for saving throws though. Just because you have a +11 con doesn't mean you always save on 4 damage. You still took damage, which could be enough to jostle you. Its not going to happen the VAST majority of the time, but it might. Applies to enemies as well.
That's the third edition approach. And yes, if people are going to be (respectfully :p) monkeying around with crits in order to guarantee higher than normal damage I'd wholeheartedly suggest they consider this approach as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Paladins and Hexblades love House Rules for Crits. DM's and other players should not.
I would actually argue that any player should hate rules for the same reason DMs hate them. A player who likes something that everyone at the table including them knows is unbalancing would seem to be trapped in the "win/lose, us-vs-the-GM" mindset. Players and GMs need to avoid that trap. The DM shouldn't hate stuff players do that is effective, as long as that stuff is not unbalanced or overpowered. And players should not be gleeful over having overpowered or unbalanced abilities. I mean... one may as well just cheat at die rolls or lie about your to-hit bonuses if one is going to be doing that.
Players also shouldn't be trying to make their character more powerful or more of a focus or have more of the spotlight or get more "finishing blows" than other characters in the group. The game works best when everyone's PC gets an equal amount of spotlight, an equal ability to shine. This whole "me me me/mine mine mine" attitude that some players seem to exhibit (thankfully no one in my current group does this) is ultimately self-destructive. It will destroy table unity. It will make some of the other players want to stop playing. And it will make the DM's job harder, or maybe even impossible. As a player, one should not be engaging in behaviors like this.
D&D is a cooperative game. Players who are trying to be OP relative to the rest of the table, or relative to the way the book expects them to be, are not being cooperative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Paladins and Hexblades love House Rules for Crits. DM's and other players should not.
I would actually argue that any player should hate rules for the same reason DMs hate them. A player who likes something that everyone at the table including them knows is unbalancing would seem to be trapped in the "win/lose, us-vs-the-GM" mindset. Players and GMs need to avoid that trap. The DM shouldn't hate stuff players do that is effective, as long as that stuff is not unbalanced or overpowered. And players should not be gleeful over having overpowered or unbalanced abilities. I mean... one may as well just cheat at die rolls or lie about your to-hit bonuses if one is going to be doing that.
Players also shouldn't be trying to make their character more powerful or more of a focus or have more of the spotlight or get more "finishing blows" than other characters in the group. The game works best when everyone's PC gets an equal amount of spotlight, an equal ability to shine. This whole "me me me/mine mine mine" attitude that some players seem to exhibit (thankfully no one in my current group does this) is ultimately self-destructive. It will destroy table unity. It will make some of the other players want to stop playing. And it will make the DM's job harder, or maybe even impossible. As a player, one should not be engaging in behaviors like this.
D&D is a cooperative game. Players who are trying to be OP relative to the rest of the table, or relative to the way the book expects them to be, are not being cooperative.
Yeah, fair enough.
My inner power-gamer slipped out, since I know that any class with an "at will" Smite can load up on a crit and well, you know. As you detailed, any player that wants advantages that make their char unbalanced is long term an potential problem player There is no reason to provide players/ chars options aka House Rules to exacerbate any potential unbalanced char features.
And for the record, (I have mentioned this before) I am in one campaign on hiatus due to Covid (I think there are 3), where I play a Half-Elf 9th level Oath of the Ancients Paladin. I managed to get the DM to arbitrarily lower all players stats (he had originally allowed the 4d6 nonsense) when I showed him my char sheet and described all the pluses to all my Saves, including the +5 to all other players within range. Paladins in general are an OP class.
I have a DM that says Crit = max damage for the "normal" roll, then roll the dice for the "crit portion".
I was playing a high level Hexblade (no MC'ing). I told him up front that such a char was going to shake up his game using that House Rule. But he and the others thought it was great. The DM was not thinking it so great when I rolled a 20, then proceeded to burn a 5th level spell slot to max out Eldritch Smite , then to save time merely added the expected value for ES (totally 75 HP) , plus did the same with Spirit Shroud (another 37, when rounded down), plus did the same with the Hex weapon (only a d8, so another 13), plus tack on all the bonuses from being a Hexblade with (another 16 when you factor in Lifedrinker, which I had). He thought it was even less fun when I told him such a thing could also happen on a 19.
When I am swinging for in excess of 140 HP damage, on my FIRST attack, the equation of the encounter changes very very quickly.
Paladins and Hexblades love House Rules for Crits. DM's and other players should not. House Rules for Crits are a bad idea, as the DM eventually has to amp up the HP and power of the monsters. Why bother? Just play with the existing rules, and it is less headaches for the DM.
If you think pally and Hexblades are bad, Rogue would like to speak with you :).
I have a DM that says Crit = max damage for the "normal" roll, then roll the dice for the "crit portion".
I was playing a high level Hexblade (no MC'ing). I told him up front that such a char was going to shake up his game using that House Rule. But he and the others thought it was great. The DM was not thinking it so great when I rolled a 20, then proceeded to burn a 5th level spell slot to max out Eldritch Smite , then to save time merely added the expected value for ES (totally 75 HP) , plus did the same with Spirit Shroud (another 37, when rounded down), plus did the same with the Hex weapon (only a d8, so another 13), plus tack on all the bonuses from being a Hexblade with (another 16 when you factor in Lifedrinker, which I had). He thought it was even less fun when I told him such a thing could also happen on a 19.
When I am swinging for in excess of 140 HP damage, on my FIRST attack, the equation of the encounter changes very very quickly.
Paladins and Hexblades love House Rules for Crits. DM's and other players should not. House Rules for Crits are a bad idea, as the DM eventually has to amp up the HP and power of the monsters. Why bother? Just play with the existing rules, and it is less headaches for the DM.
If you think pally and Hexblades are bad, Rogue would like to speak with you :).
Well, let's see. Say we have a 12th level Rogue, so 6d6 Sneak Attack. Under the set of House Rules I laid out, that would be 36 + 21 = 57 for the Crit'ed Sneak Attack, plus say 13 for a Rapier, and a +5 from Dex....for a total of 75. An Arcane Trickster at that level, with Booming Blade, or Shadow Blade, different story.
Doing max the normal and then rolling the crit only pumps up the average damage. It doesn't take the damage any higher than a lucky roll would. It also prevents crit damage being lower than an average roll.
I have seen minimal crit rolls far too often and players get really deflated when it happens.
Don't want your SBEG getting one shot? Give him adamantine armor or a healing pot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Whilst I'm 100% for the story of dnd and not one for powergaming, I can see that if you are given the opportunity to do exceedingly high damage, you do it! In the case above with the smite & hexblade all adding to it, the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max, but the thing is that there was always a chance of dealing that much damage anyway! If a character is capable of unloading a monumental opening move like that, then let them!
And if that was the very first move, and was going to one-shot the BBEG, then that might be the time to quickly give the BBEG a talisman that allows them to teleport, and have them do so as their reaction and disappear just as the attack connected. Then have them return later with a life-changing injury (missing an arm, for example) seeking revenge against that character.
Doing max the normal and then rolling the crit only pumps up the average damage. It doesn't take the damage any higher than a lucky roll would. It also prevents crit damage being lower than an average roll.
I have seen minimal crit rolls far too often and players get really deflated when it happens.
Don't want your SBEG getting one shot? Give him adamantine armor or a healing pot.
This is an issue. When a player rolls a crit, they and the entire group generally celebrate. However, if the player then rolls low on the damage, it's really disheartening. I do consider it to be a flaw in 5e from a human behaviour perspective, and wish that it had been done (and balanced) differently to avoid disappointment. I can completely understand why house rules come in after a few crits have done way less damage than non-crits in the same round.
Whilst I'm 100% for the story of dnd and not one for powergaming, I can see that if you are given the opportunity to do exceedingly high damage, you do it! In the case above with the smite & hexblade all adding to it, the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max, but the thing is that there was always a chance of dealing that much damage anyway! If a character is capable of unloading a monumental opening move like that, then let them!
And if that was the very first move, and was going to one-shot the BBEG, then that might be the time to quickly give the BBEG a talisman that allows them to teleport, and have them do so as their reaction and disappear just as the attack connected. Then have them return later with a life-changing injury (missing an arm, for example) seeking revenge against that character.
As a player, I would feel that this is a worse solution than rolling a crappy roll on my crit. Being told "no, you are too good, so you are not allowed to use your full potential" is just mean to the player. The same goes for giving the BBE a sudden teleportation amulet. It's as close to DM cheating as I can think of.
I'd rather roll crap on my crit than basically being told "yeah, nothing you did mattered anyway because I as a DM can just negate it at will" which is not a style of DMing that I am particularily fond of. It's a type of DM vs player mentality that is never good.
Whilst I'm 100% for the story of dnd and not one for powergaming, I can see that if you are given the opportunity to do exceedingly high damage, you do it! In the case above with the smite & hexblade all adding to it, the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max, but the thing is that there was always a chance of dealing that much damage anyway! If a character is capable of unloading a monumental opening move like that, then let them!
And if that was the very first move, and was going to one-shot the BBEG, then that might be the time to quickly give the BBEG a talisman that allows them to teleport, and have them do so as their reaction and disappear just as the attack connected. Then have them return later with a life-changing injury (missing an arm, for example) seeking revenge against that character.
As a player, I would feel that this is a worse solution than rolling a crappy roll on my crit. Being told "no, you are too good, so you are not allowed to use your full potential" is just mean to the player. The same goes for giving the BBE a sudden teleportation amulet. It's as close to DM cheating as I can think of.
I'd rather roll crap on my crit than basically being told "yeah, nothing you did mattered anyway because I as a DM can just negate it at will" which is not a style of DMing that I am particularily fond of. It's a type of DM vs player mentality that is never good.
I suppose it could be seen like that. My thought were that this constituted "winning" but gave potential for the BBEG to come back seeking revenge later. I guess I considered it a cooler solution to say:
"The BBEG's eyes widen and your attack slips past his defenses. He reaches for an amulet on his chest, but his arm moves slower than your blade. His terrified eyes, and the rest of him, flicker out of existence as you feel your blade connect. An arm flops to the floor, leaking blood, but the BBEG has disappeared."
than:
"Your first attack connects, and the battle we've all been waiting for is over, please collect your XP and loot-bags at the exit on your way out."
Their attack has some serious merit - they chopped his freaking arm off in one swing - and you can continue the story by having the party chase him down - his plot is thwarted, but he has to die to make the world safe.
Whilst I'm 100% for the story of dnd and not one for powergaming, I can see that if you are given the opportunity to do exceedingly high damage, you do it! In the case above with the smite & hexblade all adding to it, the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max, but the thing is that there was always a chance of dealing that much damage anyway! If a character is capable of unloading a monumental opening move like that, then let them!
And if that was the very first move, and was going to one-shot the BBEG, then that might be the time to quickly give the BBEG a talisman that allows them to teleport, and have them do so as their reaction and disappear just as the attack connected. Then have them return later with a life-changing injury (missing an arm, for example) seeking revenge against that character.
As a player, I would feel that this is a worse solution than rolling a crappy roll on my crit. Being told "no, you are too good, so you are not allowed to use your full potential" is just mean to the player. The same goes for giving the BBE a sudden teleportation amulet. It's as close to DM cheating as I can think of.
I'd rather roll crap on my crit than basically being told "yeah, nothing you did mattered anyway because I as a DM can just negate it at will" which is not a style of DMing that I am particularily fond of. It's a type of DM vs player mentality that is never good.
I suppose it could be seen like that. My thought were that this constituted "winning" but gave potential for the BBEG to come back seeking revenge later. I guess I considered it a cooler solution to say:
"The BBEG's eyes widen and your attack slips past his defenses. He reaches for an amulet on his chest, but his arm moves slower than your blade. His terrified eyes, and the rest of him, flicker out of existence as you feel your blade connect. An arm flops to the floor, leaking blood, but the BBEG has disappeared."
than:
"Your first attack connects, and the battle we've all been waiting for is over, please collect your XP and loot-bags at the exit on your way out."
The first is just the second with a bit more flourish. If you expect that the BBE might be taken out too easy they should have an escape plan to begin with rather than just making one up to nerf the player's action.
Their attack has some serious merit - they chopped his freaking arm off in one swing - and you can continue the story by having the party chase him down - his plot is thwarted, but he has to die to make the world safe.
Taking someone's arm of in a world with healing spells and magical artificial limbs doesn't really mean much.
And just to clarify to avoid misunderstandings, the main things I commented on ("Being told "no, you are too good, so you are not allowed to use your full potential"") was your suggestion that "the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max". Playing a game with a set of rules that allows for a lot of damage but then, when you suddenly have the possibility to do a lot of damage you are told "no, that's too much" isn't nice to the player.
Whilst I'm 100% for the story of dnd and not one for powergaming, I can see that if you are given the opportunity to do exceedingly high damage, you do it! In the case above with the smite & hexblade all adding to it, the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max, but the thing is that there was always a chance of dealing that much damage anyway! If a character is capable of unloading a monumental opening move like that, then let them!
And if that was the very first move, and was going to one-shot the BBEG, then that might be the time to quickly give the BBEG a talisman that allows them to teleport, and have them do so as their reaction and disappear just as the attack connected. Then have them return later with a life-changing injury (missing an arm, for example) seeking revenge against that character.
As a player, I would feel that this is a worse solution than rolling a crappy roll on my crit. Being told "no, you are too good, so you are not allowed to use your full potential" is just mean to the player. The same goes for giving the BBE a sudden teleportation amulet. It's as close to DM cheating as I can think of.
I'd rather roll crap on my crit than basically being told "yeah, nothing you did mattered anyway because I as a DM can just negate it at will" which is not a style of DMing that I am particularily fond of. It's a type of DM vs player mentality that is never good.
I suppose it could be seen like that. My thought were that this constituted "winning" but gave potential for the BBEG to come back seeking revenge later. I guess I considered it a cooler solution to say:
"The BBEG's eyes widen and your attack slips past his defenses. He reaches for an amulet on his chest, but his arm moves slower than your blade. His terrified eyes, and the rest of him, flicker out of existence as you feel your blade connect. An arm flops to the floor, leaking blood, but the BBEG has disappeared."
than:
"Your first attack connects, and the battle we've all been waiting for is over, please collect your XP and loot-bags at the exit on your way out."
The first is just the second with a bit more flourish. If you expect that the BBE might be taken out too easy they should have an escape plan to begin with rather than just making one up to nerf the player's action.
Their attack has some serious merit - they chopped his freaking arm off in one swing - and you can continue the story by having the party chase him down - his plot is thwarted, but he has to die to make the world safe.
Taking someone's arm of in a world with healing spells and magical artificial limbs doesn't really mean much.
And just to clarify to avoid misunderstandings, the main things I commented on ("Being told "no, you are too good, so you are not allowed to use your full potential"") was your suggestion that "the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max". Playing a game with a set of rules that allows for a lot of damage but then, when you suddenly have the possibility to do a lot of damage you are told "no, that's too much" isn't nice to the player.
Ah, ok. I see that, but then I also play with the simple premise with all homebrew - that I, the DM, can change it on the fly if I think it's affecting things.
Now if a player does a set of things specifically to use a houserule to gain an effect, then it's wrong to stop them after the event - let it happen and change it immediately after the session or encounter. They tailored their play to achieve this, so denying them the payoff is a bad thing. But if it's a random thing (EG rolling a critical hit) and they then try to use the rules that have been homebrewed in to gain maximum damage for a load of extras, just saying "no, you'll have to roll the extras, only the weapon's normal damage is maxed out" isn't a massive shut-down. They didn't decide to roll a 20, it just happened by chance, so it's not cancelling player agency to amend the rule on the fly.
As for making up the escape plan on the fly, that's not cheating - the DM cannot cheat, it's literally impossible for them to do so - because the DM isn't there to win. Whether or not I had planned the amulet of teleporting beforehand is irrelevant, because the players won't know either way. All they know is what you tell them - that they used magic to escape, but did so too late for their arm.
The general premise of the thing was that the warlock did an obscene amount of damage in one swing, which was not expected. You cannot account for the possibility that they will one-shot the BBEG in every fight, but you can try to salvage a situation which might otherwise have been successful but extremely boring.
I would probably have the "teleport away" backup stashed for whoever needed it. It would be floating there, ready for if a BBEG is hit exceedingly hard in the opening of the fight, or is attacked when they aren't "supposed" to be. It might float there for many sessions and many BBEGs, to be ready when one finally needs it to keep the story interesting. I'd certainly not use it if the players had put a lot of effort and resource into killing them - but letting them kill the BBEG in one lucky swing is bad for the story.
I usually ask my players to roll, as usual, then just double everything including modifier to the damage, or additional dice from features such as the half-orc racial feature (or is it a feat, I don't remember).
Whilst I'm 100% for the story of dnd and not one for powergaming, I can see that if you are given the opportunity to do exceedingly high damage, you do it! In the case above with the smite & hexblade all adding to it, the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max, but the thing is that there was always a chance of dealing that much damage anyway! If a character is capable of unloading a monumental opening move like that, then let them!
And if that was the very first move, and was going to one-shot the BBEG, then that might be the time to quickly give the BBEG a talisman that allows them to teleport, and have them do so as their reaction and disappear just as the attack connected. Then have them return later with a life-changing injury (missing an arm, for example) seeking revenge against that character.
As a player, I would feel that this is a worse solution than rolling a crappy roll on my crit. Being told "no, you are too good, so you are not allowed to use your full potential" is just mean to the player. The same goes for giving the BBE a sudden teleportation amulet. It's as close to DM cheating as I can think of.
I'd rather roll crap on my crit than basically being told "yeah, nothing you did mattered anyway because I as a DM can just negate it at will" which is not a style of DMing that I am particularily fond of. It's a type of DM vs player mentality that is never good.
I suppose it could be seen like that. My thought were that this constituted "winning" but gave potential for the BBEG to come back seeking revenge later. I guess I considered it a cooler solution to say:
"The BBEG's eyes widen and your attack slips past his defenses. He reaches for an amulet on his chest, but his arm moves slower than your blade. His terrified eyes, and the rest of him, flicker out of existence as you feel your blade connect. An arm flops to the floor, leaking blood, but the BBEG has disappeared."
than:
"Your first attack connects, and the battle we've all been waiting for is over, please collect your XP and loot-bags at the exit on your way out."
The first is just the second with a bit more flourish. If you expect that the BBE might be taken out too easy they should have an escape plan to begin with rather than just making one up to nerf the player's action.
Their attack has some serious merit - they chopped his freaking arm off in one swing - and you can continue the story by having the party chase him down - his plot is thwarted, but he has to die to make the world safe.
Taking someone's arm of in a world with healing spells and magical artificial limbs doesn't really mean much.
And just to clarify to avoid misunderstandings, the main things I commented on ("Being told "no, you are too good, so you are not allowed to use your full potential"") was your suggestion that "the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max". Playing a game with a set of rules that allows for a lot of damage but then, when you suddenly have the possibility to do a lot of damage you are told "no, that's too much" isn't nice to the player.
Ah, ok. I see that, but then I also play with the simple premise with all homebrew - that I, the DM, can change it on the fly if I think it's affecting things.
Now if a player does a set of things specifically to use a houserule to gain an effect, then it's wrong to stop them after the event - let it happen and change it immediately after the session or encounter. They tailored their play to achieve this, so denying them the payoff is a bad thing. But if it's a random thing (EG rolling a critical hit) and they then try to use the rules that have been homebrewed in to gain maximum damage for a load of extras, just saying "no, you'll have to roll the extras, only the weapon's normal damage is maxed out" isn't a massive shut-down. They didn't decide to roll a 20, it just happened by chance, so it's not cancelling player agency to amend the rule on the fly.
Well, it is, or at least can be. If a player makes a build designed for, for example, crit fishing or for maximum payout when critting, you are still being mean to them. And you don't have to "cancel player agency" to be mean to your player. As in this case, arbitrarily changing the rules because they do "too much" damage is a bit of a dick move. Since the player also can't foresee when the DM will just changes the rules and why (in this case, rolling to well? Come on!), it will come of as just being mean.
As for making up the escape plan on the fly, that's not cheating - the DM cannot cheat, it's literally impossible for them to do so - because the DM isn't there to win. Whether or not I had planned the amulet of teleporting beforehand is irrelevant, because the players won't know either way. All they know is what you tell them - that they used magic to escape, but did so too late for their arm.
Please read what I wrote. I said it was "as close to DM cheating as I can think of". Sure, you can go by the whole "the DM can do whatever they want" but if it's not cheating then at least it's a crappy thing to do to the players.
The general premise of the thing was that the warlock did an obscene amount of damage in one swing, which was not expected. You cannot account for the possibility that they will one-shot the BBEG in every fight, but you can try to salvage a situation which might otherwise have been successful but extremely boring.
Of course you can. The DM surely knows the rules of the game and what character each player plays, right?
I would probably have the "teleport away" backup stashed for whoever needed it. It would be floating there, ready for if a BBEG is hit exceedingly hard in the opening of the fight, or is attacked when they aren't "supposed" to be.
This is actually taking away player agency, if that's something you want to talk about. "Sorry, it doesn't matter what you do, the BBE will just teleport away! Lul!" Also, you are now moving the goalposts. The premise you present now is not the one I originally commented on.
It might float there for many sessions and many BBEGs, to be ready when one finally needs it to keep the story interesting. I'd certainly not use it if the players had put a lot of effort and resource into killing them - but letting them kill the BBEG in one lucky swing is bad for the story.
If it's a good story, it doesn't have to be. But what makes a good story or not is off topic from he point I was making. Which was that arbitrarily negating the player's action is quite often not a nice thing to do.
Quote from Lostwhilefishing>> >Snipped for space, and quotes are impossible to manipulate nicely in here<
Point 1: you can't say that you're punishing them for rolling too well if they are being given maximum damage for everything by the homebrew crit rules. they aren't rolling - they rolled one hit dice that got a 20, and then the subsequent damage was insane because of the houserule.
I agree that a DM should have anticipated this possibility and then, in all likelihood, not ruled this way. But assuming they are human, there's a good chance they hadn't anticipated this interaction and were surprised at how much damage they kicked out. Fixing it on the fly to stop them from just one-shotting the BBEG isn't losing player agency - it's balancing the game. They still get the crit, but they have to roll their dice. They might still roll high enough to kill them, because they're dumping so much into it. They aren't being "punished for a good roll", they are "highlighting how wrong a houserule was and prompting a response from the DM to keep the game in check".
Point 2: fair enough, you did say that. I don't think that preventing the players from doing an ungodly amount of damage in one hit through a broken houserule having unexpected consequences is a dick move. But then there's a bigger story to be had here - did they build for crit fishing purely to exploit this? was the houserule agreed by everyone or suggested by the DM? was it put that these things can change? Whether or not it's a crappy thing to do is dependent on whether it was unexpected. If I say "we'll play this rule but if it breaks the game I'll change it", and then a player uses the rule to break the game, it's not crappy to follow through on your promise to change it.
Point 3: I expect the DM didn't anticipate their houserule to make critical hits a bit less likely to roll badly would result in a player doing over 140 damage in one hit. Een if it was expected, you have 2 options: a 1/20 chance of the BBEG getting 1-shotted, or having a BBEG that's so powerful that they have no chance of killing it unless someone gets a critical hit. Their non-critical hits become trivial, and "bad luck" (here being the likely event of not getting a crit, so not really bad luck) means TPK. You can't win if you expect a normal hit to average 14 damage and a crit to do 140.
Point 4: I didn't say they would "just teleport away". The premise would be that if the party were going to just one-shot them, it's not a climactic final battle. It would be an anticlimax. Better to pull the story out a little more for a decent payoff than just letting their one broken attack end the game.
Point 5: Arbitrarily negating the players action would be saying their crit isn't actually a crit, or they were attacking an illusion so did nothing. Saying either A: "You won but they got away, injured", or B: "you have to roll your extra dice instead because the homebrew crit rule is not working properly and this attack broke the balance sorry" is not taking away their agency. It might have slight feel-bad when you tell the player to roll their masses of dice instead of getting a flat massive bonus, but then it'll improve the game in the long run.
So my group will amplify the weapon damage, but not any extra modifiers. To the point that some made for classes like rogues, hexlocks who can smite, paladins, or spells, it just gets too big too fast. The person going in for that longsword swing honestly deserves that 8+1d8+modifier instead of 2d8+modifier. If you had hex up? Roll your 2d6, you don't get a free six in there. Sure, you're spending a resource but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and weapon damage honestly seems to be the right step.
Mainly because while its great for the players, it takes the sails out of a potential encounter. Having a level 1 chromatic orb just nuke someone for 24 + 3d8 would be silly. A crit scorching ray getting 12 + 2d6 plus what the other rays do is nuts, and that gets worse if multiple rays crit. It changes game balance too because now ALL you do is crit fish, even in character builds.
We don't do fumble rules because for that player who is rolling like trash, further penalizing a player is just kicking them while down. Same thing with Nat 20s. You might get a Matt Mercer "How do you want to do this" or some flair like previously described, but nothing mechanical in bonuses other than the crit itself.
My table does do crit fails/successes for saving throws though. Just because you have a +11 con doesn't mean you always save on 4 damage. You still took damage, which could be enough to jostle you. Its not going to happen the VAST majority of the time, but it might. Applies to enemies as well.
I use average damage for enemies, so I double the average damage. My players all know these rules going in though.
And that is the thing. As long as everyone knows and is fine with the rules, you're good, whatever you do.
Some of the D&D streams use house rules I would never like as a player (or DM), but their group is fine with them, so it's all good. (Also, some of the house rules are clearly there to help keep the show engaging for the audience, which again, is fine, since everyone knows that going in.)
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I have a DM that says Crit = max damage for the "normal" roll, then roll the dice for the "crit portion".
I was playing a high level Hexblade (no MC'ing). I told him up front that such a char was going to shake up his game using that House Rule. But he and the others thought it was great. The DM was not thinking it so great when I rolled a 20, then proceeded to burn a 5th level spell slot to max out Eldritch Smite , then to save time merely added the expected value for ES (totally 75 HP) , plus did the same with Spirit Shroud (another 37, when rounded down), plus did the same with the Hex weapon (only a d8, so another 13), plus tack on all the bonuses from being a Hexblade with (another 16 when you factor in Lifedrinker, which I had). He thought it was even less fun when I told him such a thing could also happen on a 19.
When I am swinging for in excess of 140 HP damage, on my FIRST attack, the equation of the encounter changes very very quickly.
Paladins and Hexblades love House Rules for Crits. DM's and other players should not. House Rules for Crits are a bad idea, as the DM eventually has to amp up the HP and power of the monsters. Why bother? Just play with the existing rules, and it is less headaches for the DM.
I've not seen that many streams, are there any house rules in particular you're thinking about?
That's the third edition approach. And yes, if people are going to be (respectfully :p) monkeying around with crits in order to guarantee higher than normal damage I'd wholeheartedly suggest they consider this approach as well.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would actually argue that any player should hate rules for the same reason DMs hate them. A player who likes something that everyone at the table including them knows is unbalancing would seem to be trapped in the "win/lose, us-vs-the-GM" mindset. Players and GMs need to avoid that trap. The DM shouldn't hate stuff players do that is effective, as long as that stuff is not unbalanced or overpowered. And players should not be gleeful over having overpowered or unbalanced abilities. I mean... one may as well just cheat at die rolls or lie about your to-hit bonuses if one is going to be doing that.
Players also shouldn't be trying to make their character more powerful or more of a focus or have more of the spotlight or get more "finishing blows" than other characters in the group. The game works best when everyone's PC gets an equal amount of spotlight, an equal ability to shine. This whole "me me me/mine mine mine" attitude that some players seem to exhibit (thankfully no one in my current group does this) is ultimately self-destructive. It will destroy table unity. It will make some of the other players want to stop playing. And it will make the DM's job harder, or maybe even impossible. As a player, one should not be engaging in behaviors like this.
D&D is a cooperative game. Players who are trying to be OP relative to the rest of the table, or relative to the way the book expects them to be, are not being cooperative.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yeah, fair enough.
My inner power-gamer slipped out, since I know that any class with an "at will" Smite can load up on a crit and well, you know. As you detailed, any player that wants advantages that make their char unbalanced is long term an potential problem player There is no reason to provide players/ chars options aka House Rules to exacerbate any potential unbalanced char features.
And for the record, (I have mentioned this before) I am in one campaign on hiatus due to Covid (I think there are 3), where I play a Half-Elf 9th level Oath of the Ancients Paladin. I managed to get the DM to arbitrarily lower all players stats (he had originally allowed the 4d6 nonsense) when I showed him my char sheet and described all the pluses to all my Saves, including the +5 to all other players within range. Paladins in general are an OP class.
If you think pally and Hexblades are bad, Rogue would like to speak with you :).
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
Well, let's see. Say we have a 12th level Rogue, so 6d6 Sneak Attack. Under the set of House Rules I laid out, that would be 36 + 21 = 57 for the Crit'ed Sneak Attack, plus say 13 for a Rapier, and a +5 from Dex....for a total of 75. An Arcane Trickster at that level, with Booming Blade, or Shadow Blade, different story.
Doing max the normal and then rolling the crit only pumps up the average damage. It doesn't take the damage any higher than a lucky roll would. It also prevents crit damage being lower than an average roll.
I have seen minimal crit rolls far too often and players get really deflated when it happens.
Don't want your SBEG getting one shot? Give him adamantine armor or a healing pot.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Whilst I'm 100% for the story of dnd and not one for powergaming, I can see that if you are given the opportunity to do exceedingly high damage, you do it! In the case above with the smite & hexblade all adding to it, the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max, but the thing is that there was always a chance of dealing that much damage anyway! If a character is capable of unloading a monumental opening move like that, then let them!
And if that was the very first move, and was going to one-shot the BBEG, then that might be the time to quickly give the BBEG a talisman that allows them to teleport, and have them do so as their reaction and disappear just as the attack connected. Then have them return later with a life-changing injury (missing an arm, for example) seeking revenge against that character.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
This is an issue. When a player rolls a crit, they and the entire group generally celebrate. However, if the player then rolls low on the damage, it's really disheartening. I do consider it to be a flaw in 5e from a human behaviour perspective, and wish that it had been done (and balanced) differently to avoid disappointment. I can completely understand why house rules come in after a few crits have done way less damage than non-crits in the same round.
As a player, I would feel that this is a worse solution than rolling a crappy roll on my crit. Being told "no, you are too good, so you are not allowed to use your full potential" is just mean to the player. The same goes for giving the BBE a sudden teleportation amulet. It's as close to DM cheating as I can think of.
I'd rather roll crap on my crit than basically being told "yeah, nothing you did mattered anyway because I as a DM can just negate it at will" which is not a style of DMing that I am particularily fond of. It's a type of DM vs player mentality that is never good.
I suppose it could be seen like that. My thought were that this constituted "winning" but gave potential for the BBEG to come back seeking revenge later. I guess I considered it a cooler solution to say:
"The BBEG's eyes widen and your attack slips past his defenses. He reaches for an amulet on his chest, but his arm moves slower than your blade. His terrified eyes, and the rest of him, flicker out of existence as you feel your blade connect. An arm flops to the floor, leaking blood, but the BBEG has disappeared."
than:
"Your first attack connects, and the battle we've all been waiting for is over, please collect your XP and loot-bags at the exit on your way out."
Their attack has some serious merit - they chopped his freaking arm off in one swing - and you can continue the story by having the party chase him down - his plot is thwarted, but he has to die to make the world safe.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
The first is just the second with a bit more flourish. If you expect that the BBE might be taken out too easy they should have an escape plan to begin with rather than just making one up to nerf the player's action.
Taking someone's arm of in a world with healing spells and magical artificial limbs doesn't really mean much.
And just to clarify to avoid misunderstandings, the main things I commented on ("Being told "no, you are too good, so you are not allowed to use your full potential"") was your suggestion that "the DM might have been better to step in and tell you to roll for the damage instead of taking max". Playing a game with a set of rules that allows for a lot of damage but then, when you suddenly have the possibility to do a lot of damage you are told "no, that's too much" isn't nice to the player.
Ah, ok. I see that, but then I also play with the simple premise with all homebrew - that I, the DM, can change it on the fly if I think it's affecting things.
Now if a player does a set of things specifically to use a houserule to gain an effect, then it's wrong to stop them after the event - let it happen and change it immediately after the session or encounter. They tailored their play to achieve this, so denying them the payoff is a bad thing. But if it's a random thing (EG rolling a critical hit) and they then try to use the rules that have been homebrewed in to gain maximum damage for a load of extras, just saying "no, you'll have to roll the extras, only the weapon's normal damage is maxed out" isn't a massive shut-down. They didn't decide to roll a 20, it just happened by chance, so it's not cancelling player agency to amend the rule on the fly.
As for making up the escape plan on the fly, that's not cheating - the DM cannot cheat, it's literally impossible for them to do so - because the DM isn't there to win. Whether or not I had planned the amulet of teleporting beforehand is irrelevant, because the players won't know either way. All they know is what you tell them - that they used magic to escape, but did so too late for their arm.
The general premise of the thing was that the warlock did an obscene amount of damage in one swing, which was not expected. You cannot account for the possibility that they will one-shot the BBEG in every fight, but you can try to salvage a situation which might otherwise have been successful but extremely boring.
I would probably have the "teleport away" backup stashed for whoever needed it. It would be floating there, ready for if a BBEG is hit exceedingly hard in the opening of the fight, or is attacked when they aren't "supposed" to be. It might float there for many sessions and many BBEGs, to be ready when one finally needs it to keep the story interesting. I'd certainly not use it if the players had put a lot of effort and resource into killing them - but letting them kill the BBEG in one lucky swing is bad for the story.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I usually ask my players to roll, as usual, then just double everything including modifier to the damage, or additional dice from features such as the half-orc racial feature (or is it a feat, I don't remember).
Feel free to check out my hombrew: Magic Items, Spells, Monsters, Species, Feats, Subclassses, and Backgrounds. More detail in my Homebrew Compendium.
If you have any comments, suggestions, or ways to improve my homebrew, tell me, I'm always looking to improve!
Map commission Here.
Well, it is, or at least can be. If a player makes a build designed for, for example, crit fishing or for maximum payout when critting, you are still being mean to them. And you don't have to "cancel player agency" to be mean to your player. As in this case, arbitrarily changing the rules because they do "too much" damage is a bit of a dick move. Since the player also can't foresee when the DM will just changes the rules and why (in this case, rolling to well? Come on!), it will come of as just being mean.
Please read what I wrote. I said it was "as close to DM cheating as I can think of". Sure, you can go by the whole "the DM can do whatever they want" but if it's not cheating then at least it's a crappy thing to do to the players.
Of course you can. The DM surely knows the rules of the game and what character each player plays, right?
This is actually taking away player agency, if that's something you want to talk about. "Sorry, it doesn't matter what you do, the BBE will just teleport away! Lul!" Also, you are now moving the goalposts. The premise you present now is not the one I originally commented on.
If it's a good story, it doesn't have to be. But what makes a good story or not is off topic from he point I was making. Which was that arbitrarily negating the player's action is quite often not a nice thing to do.
Point 1: you can't say that you're punishing them for rolling too well if they are being given maximum damage for everything by the homebrew crit rules. they aren't rolling - they rolled one hit dice that got a 20, and then the subsequent damage was insane because of the houserule.
I agree that a DM should have anticipated this possibility and then, in all likelihood, not ruled this way. But assuming they are human, there's a good chance they hadn't anticipated this interaction and were surprised at how much damage they kicked out. Fixing it on the fly to stop them from just one-shotting the BBEG isn't losing player agency - it's balancing the game. They still get the crit, but they have to roll their dice. They might still roll high enough to kill them, because they're dumping so much into it. They aren't being "punished for a good roll", they are "highlighting how wrong a houserule was and prompting a response from the DM to keep the game in check".
Point 2: fair enough, you did say that. I don't think that preventing the players from doing an ungodly amount of damage in one hit through a broken houserule having unexpected consequences is a dick move. But then there's a bigger story to be had here - did they build for crit fishing purely to exploit this? was the houserule agreed by everyone or suggested by the DM? was it put that these things can change? Whether or not it's a crappy thing to do is dependent on whether it was unexpected. If I say "we'll play this rule but if it breaks the game I'll change it", and then a player uses the rule to break the game, it's not crappy to follow through on your promise to change it.
Point 3: I expect the DM didn't anticipate their houserule to make critical hits a bit less likely to roll badly would result in a player doing over 140 damage in one hit. Een if it was expected, you have 2 options: a 1/20 chance of the BBEG getting 1-shotted, or having a BBEG that's so powerful that they have no chance of killing it unless someone gets a critical hit. Their non-critical hits become trivial, and "bad luck" (here being the likely event of not getting a crit, so not really bad luck) means TPK. You can't win if you expect a normal hit to average 14 damage and a crit to do 140.
Point 4: I didn't say they would "just teleport away". The premise would be that if the party were going to just one-shot them, it's not a climactic final battle. It would be an anticlimax. Better to pull the story out a little more for a decent payoff than just letting their one broken attack end the game.
Point 5: Arbitrarily negating the players action would be saying their crit isn't actually a crit, or they were attacking an illusion so did nothing. Saying either A: "You won but they got away, injured", or B: "you have to roll your extra dice instead because the homebrew crit rule is not working properly and this attack broke the balance sorry" is not taking away their agency. It might have slight feel-bad when you tell the player to roll their masses of dice instead of getting a flat massive bonus, but then it'll improve the game in the long run.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!