Yeah, it feels a bit strange occasionally for sure.

I've never played with any type of homebrew rule for crits, but the one's I've heard that made some sense were:

1. Crits just do max damage, no extra rolls.
2. Crits do max damage on the first set of rolls, then rolls the dice for the bonus. My intuition is this severely favors rolling a lot of little dice (Rogues, Paladins) and could easily get really out of control.

Overall, I don't really have a strong opinion.

I am aware of the issue with nova builds like paladins and warlocks with their smites, and homebrew crit rules.  If I homebrew anything, it will just be your option 1, which is to max the damage die (no rolling a second die, or doubling anything).  That keeps the damage within what was possible anyway, and doesn't mess with the bounded accuracy philosophy of 5e.

At least this way you don't end up with the extreme probability of, "Hey you CRIT, for 2 damage..."

I'm fine either way

Beegred's recent critical got an extra 11 for 2d6, so anything to fix really bad damage rolls should also take away the really good ones.

If you want to make the additional critical do average-plus for the additional rolls (4 for 1d6, 7 for 2d6, etc.), that makes things simpler.

Quote from Quasimodal >>

Beegred's recent critical got an extra 11 for 2d6, so anything to fix really bad damage rolls should also take away the really good ones.

I don't understand this.  The most 2d6 can do is 12 dmg, so how are you getting an extra 11?  The most you can get 'extra' on a second d6 is 6, and only if the first die is also a 6.

Either way, it appears I'm really the only one triggered by this.  It will stay as is.

His short sword does 1d6, and Hunter’s Mark adds 1d6.

The critical hit added another 2d6 (5+6=11) on top of the original 2d6.

I understand wanting to vent about a streak of  abnormally low rolls (especially damage), which is why I suggested the fixed “average” value, if you dislike the extreme roll results.

I'm not venting.  This has nothing to do about this game. 

It's just me not getting the game design.  We're 'taught' to hope for a 20 on a d20.  But it's not so special when the damage you do is less or the same than another not-critical attack.

It definitely is not about me as the DM not getting to hit your characters harder...

In any case, I started this campaign promising to stick to RAW as much as possible, with only a few allowances for the nature of PbP.  It is clear we're not on the same page, so status quo.

A fun way to address this is to make magic items that do bonus stuff on crits. That’s my 2 cents anyway.

It balances out in the end. And rolling on the forum doesn't have nearly enough of the coolness effect of rolling a 20 as it does in real life.

I have lost a character to  a DM rolled crit myself - bugbear crit on my full HP wizard at level 3 or something and took it directly to permadeath. 

Quote from Winenose >>

It balances out in the end. And rolling on the forum doesn't have nearly enough of the coolness effect of rolling a 20 as it does in real life.

I have lost a character to  a DM rolled crit myself - bugbear crit on my full HP wizard at level 3 or something and took it directly to permadeath. 

 I’ve been there. Tomb of annihilation. Surprised by a dinosaur in the jungle. Crit, and instant death. I hadn’t even cast a single spell with him yet.

Oh, was that me as a DM at that one? :) 

Oh my gosh, duh. I’m so dumb sometimes 😂 yes, that was the one you took over for. I forgot 

Quote from Kerrec >>

I'm not venting.  This has nothing to do about this game. 

It's just me not getting the game design.

 I think the basic answer is: simplicity. Part of the reason for 5E popularity (compared to earlier versions) that it can be grasped by a wider audience.
(I grumble about some of the design choices too. Over-simplifying can take some of the fun out. But I can appreciate what they were trying to do.)

A critical hit is an opportunity to do more damage than an average hit, not a guarantee. The current system is friendlier for people who enjoy the feeling of more dice being rolled (an underrated perk), or find basic math a chore. 

I still have Rolemaster rule books somewhere. The combat system is probably closer to what you have in mind: the damage depends on the attack roll. A roll that barely hits does minimum damage, while a much higher roll does more damage, and increasing critical severity.

The problem is, that system is hideously complex. There is a table for *every* type of possible weapon, and each table has different columns vs. armor types. It uses open-ended percentage dice, with both attacker and defender being able to choose how much of a bonus/malus to apply to the attack roll. Criticals A-E, which depend if the damage is piercing/slashing/magic fire/magic lightning/etc./etc./etc...  The ideal is great, but in reality it makes combat a lot longer and more confusing. (I do like their spell system, with spell points instead of slots.) It works for hard-core gamers and numbers junkies, but would be tedious for the average player.

(All of my comments are based on gaming at a table, with paper sheets and physical dice. It would be easy to create a different combat system that is more aesthetically pleasing, but at the cost of making it computer-dependent and harder to grasp.)

I understand simplicity.  But a critical hit is not critical if you roll 1's on the damage die.  If we want to talk simplicity, then what is more simple than:

"On a critical hit, you do maximum damage for all dice rolled to determine damage."

No math.  No probability to swing either way.  Just a simple "I do XX damage!".

Quote from Kerrec >>

I understand simplicity.  But a critical hit is not critical if you roll 1's on the damage die.  If we want to talk simplicity, then what is more simple than:

"On a critical hit, you do maximum damage for all dice rolled to determine damage."

No math.  No probability to swing either way.  Just a simple "I do XX damage!".

Trouble with that is, when someone gets hit by a heavy-damage monster, and are outright *dead* from the critical instead of merely unconscious (with an unlikely chance of death depending on the rolls).

I prefer "more" instead of "maximum", but that is a matter of taste, I guess.

The whole crit automatically does max double damage was a nice and simple rule - until you were on the receiving end of it.
Skameros crits - automatically 29 points of damamge vs bad guy
Front Giant crits - automatically 42 point of damage vs you

no bueno

no no.  Not max DOUBLE damage.  JUST max damage.

I'll take my chances with all dice roll twice then

Argh... This discussion distracted me from my turn in combat. I'll take care of that now.

Quote from Quasimodal >>

Beegred sees Rodolfo's magic missiles hit the reformed G2, so he re-applies Hunter's Mark to that creature, and attacks it with the magic sword. "Maybe the second time will keep it down."

• Attack1: 20 Damage: 17
• Attack2: 22 Damage: 15

(OOC: Thank goodness for being Lucky, and those damage rolls.)

First attack kills the possessed gargoyle (again).  Am I ok in assuming you will take a 5 foot step to hit the other gargoyle with the 2nd attack?