Just scrap it all. It is obviously too easy.... and when it isn't, it is clearly too hard. Then publish not one, but two new editions.
One has a lot of prose, examples and really easy to manage rules with the punchline in a book to be published 10 years later, the ultimate rule: "The party wins."
The other with a lot of prose, examples and really elaborate, harsh, 'realistic,' very challenging to manage rules with the punchline in a book to be published 10 years later, the ultimate rule: "The party loses."
Clearly the best solution for all concerned.
I get that you’re being sarcastic but I’m not sure I get the joke…
Getting rid of NPC crits to make the game safer for PC's with one hand, removing backgrounds with the other because some of them make harsh, killer 'survival' play too easy.
Making the game easier or harder in different ways is not necessarily contradictory.
Also it seems like the backgrounds being changed to make survival easier is conjecture? Or is there a quote to back that up? Because that changes to backgrounds to me don't really seem on their own like this is the idea. If it were we'd also see things like nixxing the Goodberry spell etc.
But even if that is the intent, trying to make combat damage from enemies less swingy with sudden crits to make damage balancing smoother and removing ways to trivialize survival mechanics would not e contradictory goals anyway.
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
Are you overlooking or blatantly ignoring the part were they took away the ability to crit with sneak attacks, smites, and attack spells. Not just monsters. I don't think people mind taking away crits from monsters but the backlash is coming from the the other part where some players just won't feel like they actually crit. But they do gain inspiration some may say...yeah like that helps. It is already underwhelming when a critical hit does less damage than a normal hit but not having the ability to do critical damage on some of your class features...well you just can't call it a critical hit at all. Something more profound would have to be done for the affected classes to make taking away the ability to crit more appealing than just giving them inspiration as martial classes will be able to do the same but with critical damage to go along with it as well.
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
Are you overlooking or blatantly ignoring the part were they took away the ability to crit with sneak attacks, smites, and attack spells. Not just monsters. I don't think people mind taking away crits from monsters but the backlash is coming from the the other part where some players just won't feel like they actually crit. But they do gain inspiration some may say...yeah like that helps. It is already underwhelming when a critical hit does less damage than a normal hit but not having the ability to do critical damage on some of your class features...well you just can't call it a critical hit at all. Something more profound would have to be done for the affected classes to make taking away the ability to crit more appealing than just giving them inspiration as martial classes will be able to do the same but with critical damage to go along with it as well.
I suggest you give it a try, we have done on my table and the players actually din't have the issues with it they thought they would do. The Rogue, getting inspiration so much, was able to be more selective in who they shot at and not rely on trying to hit enemies already with allies next to them, after the combat we worked out that across the encounter the rogue probably did about the same amount of total damage as they would have done with the old rules, it was just more spread out across the combat, largely because they where able to guarantee sneak attack more often with the guaranteed advantage Inspiration gave them. In reality rogues tend to do a lot of overkill damage when they crit, you're relying largely on attacking an enemy already in combat, so already having taken damage. You get the crit hit and kill it wasting the over damage. Or tactically the rogue chooses to attack an enemy already under attack so they get the sneak attack.
Really sit down and do the statistical analysis rather then just blanket saying Rogues are nerfed.
I will also say that Rogues, as a class are one of the more powerful classes with all they can do. Taking away double damage on sneak attack does not significantly impact them.
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
Are you overlooking or blatantly ignoring the part were they took away the ability to crit with sneak attacks, smites, and attack spells. Not just monsters. I don't think people mind taking away crits from monsters but the backlash is coming from the the other part where some players just won't feel like they actually crit. But they do gain inspiration some may say...yeah like that helps. It is already underwhelming when a critical hit does less damage than a normal hit but not having the ability to do critical damage on some of your class features...well you just can't call it a critical hit at all. Something more profound would have to be done for the affected classes to make taking away the ability to crit more appealing than just giving them inspiration as martial classes will be able to do the same but with critical damage to go along with it as well.
I suggest you give it a try, we have done on my table and the players actually din't have the issues with it they thought they would do. The Rogue, getting inspiration so much, was able to be more selective in who they shot at and not rely on trying to hit enemies already with allies next to them, after the combat we worked out that across the encounter the rogue probably did about the same amount of total damage as they would have done with the old rules, it was just more spread out across the combat, largely because they where able to guarantee sneak attack more often with the guaranteed advantage Inspiration gave them. In reality rogues tend to do a lot of overkill damage when they crit, you're relying largely on attacking an enemy already in combat, so already having taken damage. You get the crit hit and kill it wasting the over damage. Or tactically the rogue chooses to attack an enemy already under attack so they get the sneak attack.
Really sit down and do the statistical analysis rather then just blanket saying Rogues are nerfed.
I will also say that Rogues, as a class are one of the more powerful classes with all they can do. Taking away double damage on sneak attack does not significantly impact them.
I knew there was a variable I was missing when it came to rogues.
I'm still mad about SMITE though, because that's kind of Paladin's whole schtick
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
Are you overlooking or blatantly ignoring the part were they took away the ability to crit with sneak attacks, smites, and attack spells. Not just monsters. I don't think people mind taking away crits from monsters but the backlash is coming from the the other part where some players just won't feel like they actually crit. But they do gain inspiration some may say...yeah like that helps. It is already underwhelming when a critical hit does less damage than a normal hit but not having the ability to do critical damage on some of your class features...well you just can't call it a critical hit at all. Something more profound would have to be done for the affected classes to make taking away the ability to crit more appealing than just giving them inspiration as martial classes will be able to do the same but with critical damage to go along with it as well.
I suggest you give it a try, we have done on my table and the players actually din't have the issues with it they thought they would do. The Rogue, getting inspiration so much, was able to be more selective in who they shot at and not rely on trying to hit enemies already with allies next to them, after the combat we worked out that across the encounter the rogue probably did about the same amount of total damage as they would have done with the old rules, it was just more spread out across the combat, largely because they where able to guarantee sneak attack more often with the guaranteed advantage Inspiration gave them. In reality rogues tend to do a lot of overkill damage when they crit, you're relying largely on attacking an enemy already in combat, so already having taken damage. You get the crit hit and kill it wasting the over damage. Or tactically the rogue chooses to attack an enemy already under attack so they get the sneak attack.
Really sit down and do the statistical analysis rather then just blanket saying Rogues are nerfed.
I will also say that Rogues, as a class are one of the more powerful classes with all they can do. Taking away double damage on sneak attack does not significantly impact them.
I knew there was a variable I was missing when it came to rogues.
I'm still mad about SMITE though, because that's kind of Paladin's whole schtick
Steady aim usually gets around that 'reliance on allies engaging. "Probably did" also sounds far more anecdotal than actually studied and inspiration does not help on damage, so again, not sure how it is compensating that much. Also double teaming enemies usually takes them down faster. If you are flanking, then both on that target get the benefit, not merely one, if they crit.
Like I said this was an evening of playing so would need to play it far more to be sure but by the end of the session the Rogue didn't feel they had lost out significantly and they made a couple of crit hits through the session (we did a ton of combat to see how it all felt). Yes they have steady aim but they also like to move about the battlefield to try and cut off routes of access from NPC's to the back line and not just stand and shoot statically. Plus I make the battlefield more dynamic as a DM and try and stop the players being able to just settle in
We ran combat at different levels against different monster types and I will say overall talking as the DM they felt a lot more balanced, I didn't feel I should have buffed HP or AC just to make the combat last long enough to be enjoyable. I am playing with a party of 7 so action economy and party tactics are very different to a typical party of 4, we did break out and have some smaller combat sessions as 2 parties of 4 just to see how it all played out. The monsters Critted about as normal and it did help combat run smoother, I could just roll multiple D20's and damage dice without having to worry about "doubling up" the damage. The spikes all got smoothed out as well.
There where a couple of things we noticed. Eldritch Blast, Fireball etc, cantrips like these probably wouldn't hurt from being allowed to crit, the Warlock was trying to use shillelagh more then E blast, which caused issues because they are set up as a ranged combatant.
Rangers surprisingly got a nice buff from this because they seemed the least impacted, weapon dice being doubled means that ignoring Hunters Mark or Zephyr Strike they don't really get impacted by the new ruling and gaining the inspiration allowed them a better chance to hit with Sharpshooter on the next attack.
We did have a conversation about what the new rule means for the Artificers and the steel defender, does it get the inspiration or does the artificer, does it get to crit on the attack as it is an un armoured melee attack. Will be giving this feedback to Wizards once it all opens up.
My one criticism was that the amount of inspiration floating around
Just scrap it all. It is obviously too easy.... and when it isn't, it is clearly too hard. Then publish not one, but two new editions.
One has a lot of prose, examples and really easy to manage rules with the punchline in a book to be published 10 years later, the ultimate rule: "The party wins."
The other with a lot of prose, examples and really elaborate, harsh, 'realistic,' very challenging to manage rules with the punchline in a book to be published 10 years later, the ultimate rule: "The party loses."
Clearly the best solution for all concerned.
I get that you’re being sarcastic but I’m not sure I get the joke…
Getting rid of NPC crits to make the game safer for PC's with one hand, removing backgrounds with the other because some of them make harsh, killer 'survival' play too easy.
These are 2 different things though.
Harsh Killer Survival play is a choice of DM and Players and the risk can be managed and controlled in a way to make it challenging and deadly only if the players do the wrong thing. Making it more rewarding when they do that great thing and survive.
Crits, especially at low levels, kill off players without aim or intention. It isn't about making it safer, I can still create just as dangerous encounters for my players, in fact I can now create more dangerous ones up front because I don't have to worry about a string of lucky monster dice rolls wiping out half the party making what was meant to be a fun encounter suddenly a TPK. I can decide on the level of challenge and not have to second guess and prepare for a potential monster crit, or a wizard/rogue/paladin crit that makes the encounter less fun in the other direction.
1) Oh, sorry. Apparently it was CPTBrando that was taking the proposed change to the crit rules personally. Not you. My mistake. However, you did decide to support them and try to do a "No U" argument, which is what I was referring to. People getting angry at WotC for proposing a change to crit rules are overreacting.
2) They're separating race and culture. You asked how it was a strawman to say that the races are becoming more bland because of removed subraces. My response to that is a) the Dwarf and Halfling subraces were already bland, so removing them gets rid of blandness in the game and b) the main reason they're removing some features from races is to separate race and culture, because they're very different things that shouldn't be covered by the same game mechanic.
If you were genuine in your questions and just asking for clarification, apologies. I assumed you were acting in bad faith due to hearing those exact same questions from trolls multiple times in discussions like these.
Dwarfs and Halflings losing subraces doesn't really impact much. As long as the prose in the book explains about the different cultures and types of these races you don't need to take up book space with what are effectively mechanically the same thing.
Floating ASI's means that you don't need sub races mechanically doesn't stop the PHB discussing dwarfs halflings etc of the different planes and how they are all different, instead of having 2 options and making a new player feel they have to pigeon hole into one of those you present them a Dwarf and then let them go and make up whatever background they want.
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
Are you overlooking or blatantly ignoring the part were they took away the ability to crit with sneak attacks, smites, and attack spells. Not just monsters. I don't think people mind taking away crits from monsters but the backlash is coming from the the other part where some players just won't feel like they actually crit. But they do gain inspiration some may say...yeah like that helps. It is already underwhelming when a critical hit does less damage than a normal hit but not having the ability to do critical damage on some of your class features...well you just can't call it a critical hit at all. Something more profound would have to be done for the affected classes to make taking away the ability to crit more appealing than just giving them inspiration as martial classes will be able to do the same but with critical damage to go along with it as well.
I suggest you give it a try, we have done on my table and the players actually din't have the issues with it they thought they would do. The Rogue, getting inspiration so much, was able to be more selective in who they shot at and not rely on trying to hit enemies already with allies next to them, after the combat we worked out that across the encounter the rogue probably did about the same amount of total damage as they would have done with the old rules, it was just more spread out across the combat, largely because they where able to guarantee sneak attack more often with the guaranteed advantage Inspiration gave them. In reality rogues tend to do a lot of overkill damage when they crit, you're relying largely on attacking an enemy already in combat, so already having taken damage. You get the crit hit and kill it wasting the over damage. Or tactically the rogue chooses to attack an enemy already under attack so they get the sneak attack.
Really sit down and do the statistical analysis rather then just blanket saying Rogues are nerfed.
I will also say that Rogues, as a class are one of the more powerful classes with all they can do. Taking away double damage on sneak attack does not significantly impact them.
I've been through many of sessions where the rogue in our group hasn't crit much at all and two campaigns where a rogue hasn't crit at all on their attack rolls. There wouldn't have been much inspiration going around in those situations so I don't really see a point for taking crit damage away. There is already a poll going around and it doesn't seem like this new rule is popular. It will just be homebrewed and the new rule shelved to not be use by the majority of players. The reason you didn't see much of a difference in damage is because they don't crit as often. They also can just use bonus action steady aim or flank rule to gain advantage so from inspiration won't come up as often.
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
Are you overlooking or blatantly ignoring the part were they took away the ability to crit with sneak attacks, smites, and attack spells. Not just monsters. I don't think people mind taking away crits from monsters but the backlash is coming from the the other part where some players just won't feel like they actually crit. But they do gain inspiration some may say...yeah like that helps. It is already underwhelming when a critical hit does less damage than a normal hit but not having the ability to do critical damage on some of your class features...well you just can't call it a critical hit at all. Something more profound would have to be done for the affected classes to make taking away the ability to crit more appealing than just giving them inspiration as martial classes will be able to do the same but with critical damage to go along with it as well.
I suggest you give it a try, we have done on my table and the players actually din't have the issues with it they thought they would do. The Rogue, getting inspiration so much, was able to be more selective in who they shot at and not rely on trying to hit enemies already with allies next to them, after the combat we worked out that across the encounter the rogue probably did about the same amount of total damage as they would have done with the old rules, it was just more spread out across the combat, largely because they where able to guarantee sneak attack more often with the guaranteed advantage Inspiration gave them. In reality rogues tend to do a lot of overkill damage when they crit, you're relying largely on attacking an enemy already in combat, so already having taken damage. You get the crit hit and kill it wasting the over damage. Or tactically the rogue chooses to attack an enemy already under attack so they get the sneak attack.
Really sit down and do the statistical analysis rather then just blanket saying Rogues are nerfed.
I will also say that Rogues, as a class are one of the more powerful classes with all they can do. Taking away double damage on sneak attack does not significantly impact them.
I've been through many of sessions where the rogue in our group hasn't crit much at all and two campaigns where a rogue hasn't crit at all on their attack rolls. There wouldn't have been much inspiration going around in those situations so I don't really see a point for taking crit damage away. There is already a poll going around and it doesn't seem like this new rule is popular. It will just be homebrewed and the new rule shelved to not be use by the majority of players. The reason you didn't see much of a difference in damage is because they don't crit as often. They also can just use bonus action steady aim or flank rule to gain advantage so from inspiration won't come up as often.
I mean we haven't seen the changes to Class yet so I think lets wait and see what the result is, if it was put in I wouldn't be standing here saying this is horrible, but, it does give Rogues the ability to then do far more damage with a crit then most other classes, which would then make rogue multiclassing the go to.
I feel with things like this we need to stand back and look at the party as a whole and everything each class brings rather then focus on a thing that was removed from one class and seems to make them worse. For me, without getting double damage on a crit Rogues still play a multitude of roles within the party that makes them a strong class to pick.
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.
This and only this should be what we judge the changes to Critical Hits on. This is what was presented to us to playtest. We should not assume that there will be class changes, updates to monsters, or any other future Critical Hit mechanics beyond this text. When you fill out the survey in the next couple weeks, I hope that you look a this text and decide if this is or isn't what you want for the future of the game based on this and not some hypothetical concept you created yourself or heard from some one else that isn't a creator working on this project.
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.
This and only this should be what we judge the changes to Critical Hits on. This is what was presented to us to playtest. We should not assume that there will be class changes, updates to monsters, or any other future Critical Hit mechanics beyond this text. When you fill out the survey in the next couple weeks, I hope that you look a this text and decide if this is or isn't what you want for the future of the game based on this and not some hypothetical concept you created yourself or heard from some one else that isn't a creator working on this project.
That is what I am basing it on, from my side it is a good change, that balances combats out and makes it easier to predict the damage output of the party round to round when planning encounters. I don't have to plan for a massive spike in damage on my BBEG, and I don't have to worry about my monsters getting critical hits and pitch the encounter accordingly. But some of the monsters now do hit lighter, I set up a deadly encounter with a set of monsters with nothing other then hitting abilities (no special rules) and, with no crit hits the players didn't really feel that pressured by it.
So I think we do have to consider the round when giving feedback, so my feedback will state that I feel monsters need to be buffed to account for the lower damage output round to round, but assuming that happens then this is a change I am happy with. I will also indicate that the Rogue at my table wasn't overly concerned about losing the crit hit on sneak attack but there was a sense that players are now getting advantage far far too much in the game, flanking, the help action, supporting ability checks and now inspiration from nat 20's. All of that needs to be looked at in relation to these new crit rules.
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.
This and only this should be what we judge the changes to Critical Hits on. This is what was presented to us to playtest. We should not assume that there will be class changes, updates to monsters, or any other future Critical Hit mechanics beyond this text. When you fill out the survey in the next couple weeks, I hope that you look a this text and decide if this is or isn't what you want for the future of the game based on this and not some hypothetical concept you created yourself or heard from some one else that isn't a creator working on this project.
That is what I am basing it on, from my side it is a good change, that balances combats out and makes it easier to predict the damage output of the party round to round when planning encounters. I don't have to plan for a massive spike in damage on my BBEG, and I don't have to worry about my monsters getting critical hits and pitch the encounter accordingly. But some of the monsters now do hit lighter, I set up a deadly encounter with a set of monsters with nothing other then hitting abilities (no special rules) and, with no crit hits the players didn't really feel that pressured by it.
So I think we do have to consider the round when giving feedback, so my feedback will state that I feel monsters need to be buffed to account for the lower damage output round to round, but assuming that happens then this is a change I am happy with. I will also indicate that the Rogue at my table wasn't overly concerned about losing the crit hit on sneak attack but there was a sense that players are now getting advantage far far too much in the game, flanking, the help action, supporting ability checks and now inspiration from nat 20's. All of that needs to be looked at in relation to these new crit rules.
This has been pretty much my take on the change as well.
The only reason I keep reminding people to look at the UA as it is written, is due to the number of people that throw out the idea that there could be class changes or added monster abilities so we should wait to judge the Critical Hit changes, but we can't wait, we will have to answer the Survey with nothing but what has been provided so far.
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
Are you overlooking or blatantly ignoring the part were they took away the ability to crit with sneak attacks, smites, and attack spells. Not just monsters. I don't think people mind taking away crits from monsters but the backlash is coming from the the other part where some players just won't feel like they actually crit. But they do gain inspiration some may say...yeah like that helps. It is already underwhelming when a critical hit does less damage than a normal hit but not having the ability to do critical damage on some of your class features...well you just can't call it a critical hit at all. Something more profound would have to be done for the affected classes to make taking away the ability to crit more appealing than just giving them inspiration as martial classes will be able to do the same but with critical damage to go along with it as well.
I suggest you give it a try, we have done on my table and the players actually din't have the issues with it they thought they would do. The Rogue, getting inspiration so much, was able to be more selective in who they shot at and not rely on trying to hit enemies already with allies next to them, after the combat we worked out that across the encounter the rogue probably did about the same amount of total damage as they would have done with the old rules, it was just more spread out across the combat, largely because they where able to guarantee sneak attack more often with the guaranteed advantage Inspiration gave them. In reality rogues tend to do a lot of overkill damage when they crit, you're relying largely on attacking an enemy already in combat, so already having taken damage. You get the crit hit and kill it wasting the over damage. Or tactically the rogue chooses to attack an enemy already under attack so they get the sneak attack.
Really sit down and do the statistical analysis rather then just blanket saying Rogues are nerfed.
I will also say that Rogues, as a class are one of the more powerful classes with all they can do. Taking away double damage on sneak attack does not significantly impact them.
I've been through many of sessions where the rogue in our group hasn't crit much at all and two campaigns where a rogue hasn't crit at all on their attack rolls. There wouldn't have been much inspiration going around in those situations so I don't really see a point for taking crit damage away. There is already a poll going around and it doesn't seem like this new rule is popular. It will just be homebrewed and the new rule shelved to not be use by the majority of players. The reason you didn't see much of a difference in damage is because they don't crit as often. They also can just use bonus action steady aim or flank rule to gain advantage so from inspiration won't come up as often.
I mean we haven't seen the changes to Class yet so I think lets wait and see what the result is, if it was put in I wouldn't be standing here saying this is horrible, but, it does give Rogues the ability to then do far more damage with a crit then most other classes, which would then make rogue multiclassing the go to.
If it was then a rogue multiclass would already be a got to thing to do but it is not. They already lag behind in damage compared to fighters, barbarian, and paladins. Sneak attacks is just there to keep up with those other classes.
I don't think they're taking all cool ribbon abilities away, but to be fair I have used my 2014 Background Ribbon Ability in a very significant way. As a Noble I was able to swing a lot of clout in our Waterdeep based game. This was a lot due to the DM, and with DM cooperation the new Noble could do the same thing, but still it is an example. Sorry to rain on your example!
As for everything else, you're right, I do see people panicking about stuff before even reading it carefully.
Agreed on all counts. Although I do think the original poster of this thread was really just blowing off steam. And there are some things I think the original poster is wrong about the intention of. I don't really want to get into it, because I don't want to start some sort of flame war, which happens all too often on here and everywhere else on the internet.
But in regards to the use of the Background abilities: our rogue has already used his ability to significant effect in one of the two current campaigns that I created. His use of it ended up in acquiring information that directly altered the course of play in a huge way. And we had a wizard in the other of the two campaigns I'm running whose Background ability of researcher (Sage) led the party to a book which then put them on to a much larger quest, which turned out to be one possible avenue to the grand campaign story arc.
Anyone who isn't using their background abilities is missing out. Either that or the DM isn't giving them opportunities, which is part of our job.
Truthfully though, I don't mind how they are looking to alter backgrounds. But I do think they should keep the original background abilities in addition to those they are tacking on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Shawn D. Robertson
"Deride not the differing views of others, for it is in thoughtful and considerate conversation we find our greatest friends."
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.
This and only this should be what we judge the changes to Critical Hits on. This is what was presented to us to playtest. We should not assume that there will be class changes, updates to monsters, or any other future Critical Hit mechanics beyond this text. When you fill out the survey in the next couple weeks, I hope that you look a this text and decide if this is or isn't what you want for the future of the game based on this and not some hypothetical concept you created yourself or heard from some one else that isn't a creator working on this project.
That is what I am basing it on, from my side it is a good change, that balances combats out and makes it easier to predict the damage output of the party round to round when planning encounters. I don't have to plan for a massive spike in damage on my BBEG, and I don't have to worry about my monsters getting critical hits and pitch the encounter accordingly. But some of the monsters now do hit lighter, I set up a deadly encounter with a set of monsters with nothing other then hitting abilities (no special rules) and, with no crit hits the players didn't really feel that pressured by it.
So I think we do have to consider the round when giving feedback, so my feedback will state that I feel monsters need to be buffed to account for the lower damage output round to round, but assuming that happens then this is a change I am happy with. I will also indicate that the Rogue at my table wasn't overly concerned about losing the crit hit on sneak attack but there was a sense that players are now getting advantage far far too much in the game, flanking, the help action, supporting ability checks and now inspiration from nat 20's. All of that needs to be looked at in relation to these new crit rules.
This has been pretty much my take on the change as well.
The only reason I keep reminding people to look at the UA as it is written, is due to the number of people that throw out the idea that there could be class changes or added monster abilities so we should wait to judge the Critical Hit changes, but we can't wait, we will have to answer the Survey with nothing but what has been provided so far.
I would keep an open mind they would have included class changes along with it just to see if they did anything to compensate the loss of crit damage. So far it just seems more underwhelming than the current rules. I don't mind damage being more predictable on the DM side but I want my players to actually feel like they did critical damage. The 5e rules already get homebrewed so this iteration will most likely get ignored.
So when are we allowed to say we don't like something. If we want things to change in playtest we need to speak up. Otherwise they will think it is all good. For the most part my only complaint is the half-races. I think it needs more refinement. For instance the half-elf cleric that is my rogues half-sister would be a very different character. Half of her would just be cosmetic. Why I suggest changing it to be more that you select a trait or two from each race. I think they need more than what is presented so far.
So when are we allowed to say we don't like something. If we want things to change in playtest we need to speak up. Otherwise they will think it is all good. For the most part my only complaint is the half-races. I think it needs more refinement. For instance the half-elf cleric that is my rogues half-sister would be a very different character. Half of her would just be cosmetic. Why I suggest changing it to be more that you select a trait or two from each race. I think they need more than what is presented so far.
You are free to complain or praise anything you like about the UA here on the forums, but the best way to get your voice heard by WotC is to fill out the Survey coming at the beginning of September.
So when are we allowed to say we don't like something. If we want things to change in playtest we need to speak up. Otherwise they will think it is all good. For the most part my only complaint is the half-races. I think it needs more refinement. For instance the half-elf cleric that is my rogues half-sister would be a very different character. Half of her would just be cosmetic. Why I suggest changing it to be more that you select a trait or two from each race. I think they need more than what is presented so far.
You are free to complain or praise anything you like about the UA here on the forums, but the best way to get your voice heard by WotC is to fill out the Survey coming at the beginning of September.
I am talking about all the people who seem to think it is perfect now and no one should complain.
So when are we allowed to say we don't like something. If we want things to change in playtest we need to speak up. Otherwise they will think it is all good. For the most part my only complaint is the half-races. I think it needs more refinement. For instance the half-elf cleric that is my rogues half-sister would be a very different character. Half of her would just be cosmetic. Why I suggest changing it to be more that you select a trait or two from each race. I think they need more than what is presented so far.
You are free to complain or praise anything you like about the UA here on the forums, but the best way to get your voice heard by WotC is to fill out the Survey coming at the beginning of September.
I am talking about all the people who seem to think it is perfect now and no one should complain.
This is a forum on the internet. No one can stop you unless you violate the rules as set by DnDBeyond, just don't expect that others will remain silent on the subject as well.
Thanks.
Making the game easier or harder in different ways is not necessarily contradictory.
Also it seems like the backgrounds being changed to make survival easier is conjecture? Or is there a quote to back that up? Because that changes to backgrounds to me don't really seem on their own like this is the idea. If it were we'd also see things like nixxing the Goodberry spell etc.
But even if that is the intent, trying to make combat damage from enemies less swingy with sudden crits to make damage balancing smoother and removing ways to trivialize survival mechanics would not e contradictory goals anyway.
Are you overlooking or blatantly ignoring the part were they took away the ability to crit with sneak attacks, smites, and attack spells. Not just monsters. I don't think people mind taking away crits from monsters but the backlash is coming from the the other part where some players just won't feel like they actually crit. But they do gain inspiration some may say...yeah like that helps. It is already underwhelming when a critical hit does less damage than a normal hit but not having the ability to do critical damage on some of your class features...well you just can't call it a critical hit at all. Something more profound would have to be done for the affected classes to make taking away the ability to crit more appealing than just giving them inspiration as martial classes will be able to do the same but with critical damage to go along with it as well.
I suggest you give it a try, we have done on my table and the players actually din't have the issues with it they thought they would do. The Rogue, getting inspiration so much, was able to be more selective in who they shot at and not rely on trying to hit enemies already with allies next to them, after the combat we worked out that across the encounter the rogue probably did about the same amount of total damage as they would have done with the old rules, it was just more spread out across the combat, largely because they where able to guarantee sneak attack more often with the guaranteed advantage Inspiration gave them. In reality rogues tend to do a lot of overkill damage when they crit, you're relying largely on attacking an enemy already in combat, so already having taken damage. You get the crit hit and kill it wasting the over damage. Or tactically the rogue chooses to attack an enemy already under attack so they get the sneak attack.
Really sit down and do the statistical analysis rather then just blanket saying Rogues are nerfed.
I will also say that Rogues, as a class are one of the more powerful classes with all they can do. Taking away double damage on sneak attack does not significantly impact them.
I knew there was a variable I was missing when it came to rogues.
I'm still mad about SMITE though, because that's kind of Paladin's whole schtick
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Like I said this was an evening of playing so would need to play it far more to be sure but by the end of the session the Rogue didn't feel they had lost out significantly and they made a couple of crit hits through the session (we did a ton of combat to see how it all felt). Yes they have steady aim but they also like to move about the battlefield to try and cut off routes of access from NPC's to the back line and not just stand and shoot statically. Plus I make the battlefield more dynamic as a DM and try and stop the players being able to just settle in
We ran combat at different levels against different monster types and I will say overall talking as the DM they felt a lot more balanced, I didn't feel I should have buffed HP or AC just to make the combat last long enough to be enjoyable. I am playing with a party of 7 so action economy and party tactics are very different to a typical party of 4, we did break out and have some smaller combat sessions as 2 parties of 4 just to see how it all played out. The monsters Critted about as normal and it did help combat run smoother, I could just roll multiple D20's and damage dice without having to worry about "doubling up" the damage. The spikes all got smoothed out as well.
There where a couple of things we noticed. Eldritch Blast, Fireball etc, cantrips like these probably wouldn't hurt from being allowed to crit, the Warlock was trying to use shillelagh more then E blast, which caused issues because they are set up as a ranged combatant.
Rangers surprisingly got a nice buff from this because they seemed the least impacted, weapon dice being doubled means that ignoring Hunters Mark or Zephyr Strike they don't really get impacted by the new ruling and gaining the inspiration allowed them a better chance to hit with Sharpshooter on the next attack.
We did have a conversation about what the new rule means for the Artificers and the steel defender, does it get the inspiration or does the artificer, does it get to crit on the attack as it is an un armoured melee attack. Will be giving this feedback to Wizards once it all opens up.
My one criticism was that the amount of inspiration floating around
These are 2 different things though.
Harsh Killer Survival play is a choice of DM and Players and the risk can be managed and controlled in a way to make it challenging and deadly only if the players do the wrong thing. Making it more rewarding when they do that great thing and survive.
Crits, especially at low levels, kill off players without aim or intention. It isn't about making it safer, I can still create just as dangerous encounters for my players, in fact I can now create more dangerous ones up front because I don't have to worry about a string of lucky monster dice rolls wiping out half the party making what was meant to be a fun encounter suddenly a TPK. I can decide on the level of challenge and not have to second guess and prepare for a potential monster crit, or a wizard/rogue/paladin crit that makes the encounter less fun in the other direction.
Dwarfs and Halflings losing subraces doesn't really impact much. As long as the prose in the book explains about the different cultures and types of these races you don't need to take up book space with what are effectively mechanically the same thing.
Floating ASI's means that you don't need sub races mechanically doesn't stop the PHB discussing dwarfs halflings etc of the different planes and how they are all different, instead of having 2 options and making a new player feel they have to pigeon hole into one of those you present them a Dwarf and then let them go and make up whatever background they want.
I've been through many of sessions where the rogue in our group hasn't crit much at all and two campaigns where a rogue hasn't crit at all on their attack rolls. There wouldn't have been much inspiration going around in those situations so I don't really see a point for taking crit damage away. There is already a poll going around and it doesn't seem like this new rule is popular. It will just be homebrewed and the new rule shelved to not be use by the majority of players. The reason you didn't see much of a difference in damage is because they don't crit as often. They also can just use bonus action steady aim or flank rule to gain advantage so from inspiration won't come up as often.
I mean we haven't seen the changes to Class yet so I think lets wait and see what the result is, if it was put in I wouldn't be standing here saying this is horrible, but, it does give Rogues the ability to then do far more damage with a crit then most other classes, which would then make rogue multiclassing the go to.
I feel with things like this we need to stand back and look at the party as a whole and everything each class brings rather then focus on a thing that was removed from one class and seems to make them worse. For me, without getting double damage on a crit Rogues still play a multitude of roles within the party that makes them a strong class to pick.
This and only this should be what we judge the changes to Critical Hits on. This is what was presented to us to playtest. We should not assume that there will be class changes, updates to monsters, or any other future Critical Hit mechanics beyond this text. When you fill out the survey in the next couple weeks, I hope that you look a this text and decide if this is or isn't what you want for the future of the game based on this and not some hypothetical concept you created yourself or heard from some one else that isn't a creator working on this project.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That is what I am basing it on, from my side it is a good change, that balances combats out and makes it easier to predict the damage output of the party round to round when planning encounters. I don't have to plan for a massive spike in damage on my BBEG, and I don't have to worry about my monsters getting critical hits and pitch the encounter accordingly. But some of the monsters now do hit lighter, I set up a deadly encounter with a set of monsters with nothing other then hitting abilities (no special rules) and, with no crit hits the players didn't really feel that pressured by it.
So I think we do have to consider the round when giving feedback, so my feedback will state that I feel monsters need to be buffed to account for the lower damage output round to round, but assuming that happens then this is a change I am happy with. I will also indicate that the Rogue at my table wasn't overly concerned about losing the crit hit on sneak attack but there was a sense that players are now getting advantage far far too much in the game, flanking, the help action, supporting ability checks and now inspiration from nat 20's. All of that needs to be looked at in relation to these new crit rules.
This has been pretty much my take on the change as well.
The only reason I keep reminding people to look at the UA as it is written, is due to the number of people that throw out the idea that there could be class changes or added monster abilities so we should wait to judge the Critical Hit changes, but we can't wait, we will have to answer the Survey with nothing but what has been provided so far.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If it was then a rogue multiclass would already be a got to thing to do but it is not. They already lag behind in damage compared to fighters, barbarian, and paladins. Sneak attacks is just there to keep up with those other classes.
Agreed on all counts. Although I do think the original poster of this thread was really just blowing off steam. And there are some things I think the original poster is wrong about the intention of. I don't really want to get into it, because I don't want to start some sort of flame war, which happens all too often on here and everywhere else on the internet.
But in regards to the use of the Background abilities: our rogue has already used his ability to significant effect in one of the two current campaigns that I created. His use of it ended up in acquiring information that directly altered the course of play in a huge way. And we had a wizard in the other of the two campaigns I'm running whose Background ability of researcher (Sage) led the party to a book which then put them on to a much larger quest, which turned out to be one possible avenue to the grand campaign story arc.
Anyone who isn't using their background abilities is missing out. Either that or the DM isn't giving them opportunities, which is part of our job.
Truthfully though, I don't mind how they are looking to alter backgrounds. But I do think they should keep the original background abilities in addition to those they are tacking on.
Shawn D. Robertson
"Deride not the differing views of others, for it is in thoughtful and considerate conversation we find our greatest friends."
~Me~
I would keep an open mind they would have included class changes along with it just to see if they did anything to compensate the loss of crit damage. So far it just seems more underwhelming than the current rules. I don't mind damage being more predictable on the DM side but I want my players to actually feel like they did critical damage. The 5e rules already get homebrewed so this iteration will most likely get ignored.
So when are we allowed to say we don't like something. If we want things to change in playtest we need to speak up.
Otherwise they will think it is all good.
For the most part my only complaint is the half-races. I think it needs more refinement. For instance the half-elf cleric that is my rogues half-sister would be a very different character. Half of her would just be cosmetic. Why I suggest changing it to be more that you select a trait or two from each race. I think they need more than what is presented so far.
You are free to complain or praise anything you like about the UA here on the forums, but the best way to get your voice heard by WotC is to fill out the Survey coming at the beginning of September.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I am talking about all the people who seem to think it is perfect now and no one should complain.
This is a forum on the internet. No one can stop you unless you violate the rules as set by DnDBeyond, just don't expect that others will remain silent on the subject as well.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master