I don't think anything you can decide to use after rolling should be able to crit, which prevents a lot of damage riders (smite, sneak attack, most battle master maneuvers) but does allow in things that are every attack like hunter's mark. I don't really have an issue with spells critting, most spells that have attack rolls are kinda bad anyway.
Thanks for this perspective. Initially, I felt this was an effort to boost martial classes by… nerfing everything else… but with the whole early game being the most dangerous, I can understand now how we are actually getting something good that’s not so obvious on first glance.
The opposite, in terms of crit damage. Nerfing crit damage makes martials worse in comparison to casters, because most spells can't crit and all weapons except the blowgun and basic unarmed strikes can crit. It has an out-of-band impact on martials who were leaning into criticals for their build, like champions (who suck anyway), samurai, almost all rogues, etc. It has no impact at all on any build that casts spells that don't roll to hit.
noone is forced to anything they are saying (guiding, advising, ruling).
Well yeah. These rules aren't invading anybody's tables uninvited.
so you cant say no? so you are forced? so there were never ever any other ruling?
I don't understand the question.
maybe i didnt understand your sentence. did you wanna say you are happy about the changes/new rulings? if so, my bad. But w/e, my point stands, no need to care that much about rulings or advises, keep your own game in the way you want it to be.
The opposite, in terms of crit damage. Nerfing crit damage makes martials worse in comparison to casters, because most spells can't crit and all weapons except the blowgun and basic unarmed strikes can crit. It has an out-of-band impact on martials who were leaning into criticals for their build, like champions (who suck anyway), samurai, almost all rogues, etc. It has no impact at all on any build that casts spells that don't roll to hit.
Champions and samurai aren't affected at all, as they don't have any extra dice -- all the weapon dice crit anyway. It does slightly affect rogues, but not dramatically; it's rarely more than a couple percent (criticals are vastly overrated; they give showy spikes but are rarely a major component of damage).
I think the new crit rules are worse than the current 5e crit rule. The majority of players already homebrew the 5e crit rules so it is going to be more heavily homebrewed for this next version. I don't mind some of the changes but taking away crits on sneak attacks, smite, and spells and giving them inspiration just seems underwhelming since those classes except for paladins already don't crit as often as other classes that get extra attack. They would have to do something more profound just to make it appealing for the majority of players currently as is other than just giving them inspiration.
The opposite, in terms of crit damage. Nerfing crit damage makes martials worse in comparison to casters, because most spells can't crit and all weapons except the blowgun and basic unarmed strikes can crit. It has an out-of-band impact on martials who were leaning into criticals for their build, like champions (who suck anyway), samurai, almost all rogues, etc. It has no impact at all on any build that casts spells that don't roll to hit.
Champions and samurai aren't affected at all, as they don't have any extra dice -- all the weapon dice crit anyway. It does slightly affect rogues, but not dramatically; it's rarely more than a couple percent (criticals are vastly overrated; they give showy spikes but are rarely a major component of damage).
Actually they are as they will be able to crit fish more often than not compared to other classes as for rogues it will put them further behind in damage to martial classes than they currently are.
I haven't yet read through the new playtesting rules, and I'm a slow adopter of new things (I will probably stick with 5e for a while), but I think this approach is good for play and the monsters don't crit actually aligns with a house rule I use when DMing. Players can have critical hits but monsters can't.
I haven't yet read through the new playtesting rules, and I'm a slow adopter of new things (I will probably stick with 5e for a while), but I think this approach is good for play and the monsters don't crit actually aligns with a house rule I use when DMing. Players can have critical hits but monsters can't.
I haven't yet read through the new playtesting rules, and I'm a slow adopter of new things (I will probably stick with 5e for a while), but I think this approach is good for play and the monsters don't crit actually aligns with a house rule I use when DMing. Players can have critical hits but monsters can't.
Even if some players can't crit?
Well, I'd mull that one over a bit more -- since I lean into the storytelling and character aspects of the game, I'm already adjusting in favor of the players by eliminating monster crits, so I might stick with current 5e rules otherwise on crits.
Fully agreed. I once started playing as a cleric in the Death House scenario before Strahd IIRC. The second encounter was with a ghost. The first thing it did was crit me with a withering ability that kills if it gets you to 0 hp. Instant kill on the spot before I could do anything. GG.
I like the idea of critical damage only applying to weapons. I do not however agree with them removing it from enemy attacks (even if they do intend to add it back into certain stat blocks).
The bottom line for me as a DM has always been: everything that is available to the players is available to the bad guys, and vice versa.
In other words, I balance encounters knowing that there will be critical hit potential on both sides. I have never found a problem with this. And if a DM is worried about having low-level monsters with multiple attacks, then either lessen the number of monsters you're using in such an encounter, or use a different monster. Or, hell, homebrew the monster you want but with less attacks. D&D Beyond makes creating Homebrew anything a breeze. Balancing the game is the creators responsibility. Balancing and encounter is the responsibility of a DM, and it is a learned art. Some people are naturally great at it and others will struggle. But the bottom line is that it is part of our job as the arbitrator of the game.
Personally, even if they removed crits from the attacks of monsters in general, I would still be using the current rules regardless.
But this is what the playtest is all about: getting our feedback. I just wanted to put my voice out there as a proponent of crits for everyone. 😁
In regards to combat being swingy: in my opinion, this is the way it is supposed to be. Combat is meant to be a threat not just an obstacle. I'm not saying every combat should be life or death, but every combat should at least make players think twice about getting involved in it. I think of trivial combats in the same way as I think of DMs making players roll for a DC 5 check--it's a pointless check. No one is going to fail it. And by RAW (and even under the unearthed arcana changes) you wouldn't even have someone roll. About the only reason there should be a trivial combat is if it serves some sort of narrative purpose. Otherwise combat should feel like a broken hinge, one you are never sure which way it's going to swing. Players feel way better about beating those combats than they do about the combats they walk all over. And also those battles that swing on that hinge--those are going to be the ones the players build memories around. Camaraderie with helping one another out of the bad situation, or even coming to grips with the limits of their characters' abilities. It doesn't need to be a boss fight to hold meaning, but if there is no true danger and engaging in a battle, then there is no value in defeating it. Other than of course XP and gold. And while those things are great and useful to the characters, the players themselves are going to remember epic wins more than they remember their gold total.
Fully agreed. I once started playing as a cleric in the Death House scenario before Strahd IIRC. The second encounter was with a ghost. The first thing it did was crit me with a withering ability that kills if it gets you to 0 hp. Instant kill on the spot before I could do anything. GG.
There's a save to avoid the max hit point reduction from a specter, but with 3d6 base damage it doesn't even need that, it won't have that much doing double hp with a crit.
The bottom line for me as a DM has always been: everything that is available to the players is available to the bad guys, and vice versa.
This isn't strictly true though. Enemies don't get to do death saving throws and potentially pop back up at 1 hp. Players don't get lair actions, legendary actions or legendary resistances. The playing field has never been perfectly symmetrical, nor do I think it should be.
As far as combat being dangerous, this can also be accomplished by upping enemy damage to compensate for not being able to crit, enough to be a threat but without the 'well the enemy got an unexpected crit so you're dead now' etc. Combat can still go in unexpected ways without crits as well.
So having tried it out a few times now my takeaway is this.
The Crit rules (regarding damage) work as intended at mid to high level, I found it easier to create encounters of varying levels for characters of level 5+ and could fairly accurately estimate the total damage output of the party, and the monsters to help balance and prepare.
The issue I found was lower down the scale now low CR monsters who only have a simple attack action of some description have been nerfed. So Wizards needs to review revisit and update these monsters (as I imagine they will). I do have some concerns with MMM which, while intended to be backwards compatible many of the monsters in it are now less of a threat.
Now the issue with the new system.
Inspiration and this more generally applies to all rolls of a nat 20, but focusing on combat. There are already plenty of ways for players to get advantage on attacks, maybe some parties don't think this way but mine is always seeking flanking (even if it puts them at risk themselves), they are finding ways to get the help action (find familiar etc), rogue is busy either hiding before attacking or steadying aim and then there is magic. Inspiration, while I agree with the concept of doing something regarding inspiration I do feel that Wizards need to look at just how often now a player can get advantage, it is almost impossible to give disadvantage on anything now.
Are Grave Clerics the only ones that have an ability that is triggered by a Critical? What aspects of this change are there that we are not talking or thinking about?
I haven't read the entire thread in detail, but it's important to note that because only PCs can crit, PC minions can't - this reduces the damage output of Beastmasters, Drakewardens, Battlesmiths, Wildfire Druids, Shepherd Druids if played the way they're intended, etc etc.
I think we have to take the rule as it is in isolation, but, mention in the survey that these subclasses need to be considered, if Wizards wants to make it backwards compatible there is going to have to be a set of FAQ's and hot fixes made to most of the 5th ed material to bring things like this in line.
The opposite, in terms of crit damage. Nerfing crit damage makes martials worse in comparison to casters, because most spells can't crit and all weapons except the blowgun and basic unarmed strikes can crit. It has an out-of-band impact on martials who were leaning into criticals for their build, like champions (who suck anyway), samurai, almost all rogues, etc. It has no impact at all on any build that casts spells that don't roll to hit.
Champions and samurai aren't affected at all, as they don't have any extra dice -- all the weapon dice crit anyway. It does slightly affect rogues, but not dramatically; it's rarely more than a couple percent (criticals are vastly overrated; they give showy spikes but are rarely a major component of damage).
I have also found from experience of being the DM that Rogue Critical Sneak Attack Damage can be massive overkill many times, the rogue is generally attacking an enemy already in combat in order to get sneak attack. The number of times I have seen a rogue crit, smile as they use all there sneak attack dice while I know the monster only has 5 HP's left anyway.
The bottom line for me as a DM has always been: everything that is available to the players is available to the bad guys, and vice versa.
This isn't strictly true though. Enemies don't get to do death saving throws and potentially pop back up at 1 hp. Players don't get lair actions, legendary actions or legendary resistances. The playing field has never been perfectly symmetrical, nor do I think it should be.
As far as combat being dangerous, this can also be accomplished by upping enemy damage to compensate for not being able to crit, enough to be a threat but without the 'well the enemy got an unexpected crit so you're dead now' etc. Combat can still go in unexpected ways without crits as well.
Yeah, you're right about those things in regards to lair actions and death saves. For the record though, I actually dislike both of those mechanics. I use them because they are built into the game and removing them would alter the balance that the devs were going for, but I really do hate those two mechanics. And legendary actions also. And for exactly the reasons we're talking about: I like the players and bad guys to be on a level playing field. In general. I'm not saying that every battle has to be dead even, but the options should all be there for both sides. But again though, this is just my opinion. I'm not one of those people who will say that my way is the right way. My way is just my way LOL and so far, 36 years of DMing mostly long-term campaigns of 2 to 4 years or more, my groups and myself are generally having fun to a large degree, so I plan on sticking with my style. I am hoping that means I can stick with D&D, but there are a crap load of other systems out there. Who knows? Maybe I'll switch up systems after my current campaigns are wrapped up.
Anyway, thank you for the intelligent conversation. Not everyone takes the time to do that, and it is appreciated.
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."
~Me~
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think anything you can decide to use after rolling should be able to crit, which prevents a lot of damage riders (smite, sneak attack, most battle master maneuvers) but does allow in things that are every attack like hunter's mark. I don't really have an issue with spells critting, most spells that have attack rolls are kinda bad anyway.
Well yeah. These rules aren't invading anybody's tables uninvited.
so you cant say no? so you are forced? so there were never ever any other ruling?
I don't understand the question.
The opposite, in terms of crit damage. Nerfing crit damage makes martials worse in comparison to casters, because most spells can't crit and all weapons except the blowgun and basic unarmed strikes can crit. It has an out-of-band impact on martials who were leaning into criticals for their build, like champions (who suck anyway), samurai, almost all rogues, etc. It has no impact at all on any build that casts spells that don't roll to hit.
maybe i didnt understand your sentence. did you wanna say you are happy about the changes/new rulings? if so, my bad. But w/e, my point stands, no need to care that much about rulings or advises, keep your own game in the way you want it to be.
Champions and samurai aren't affected at all, as they don't have any extra dice -- all the weapon dice crit anyway. It does slightly affect rogues, but not dramatically; it's rarely more than a couple percent (criticals are vastly overrated; they give showy spikes but are rarely a major component of damage).
I think the new crit rules are worse than the current 5e crit rule. The majority of players already homebrew the 5e crit rules so it is going to be more heavily homebrewed for this next version. I don't mind some of the changes but taking away crits on sneak attacks, smite, and spells and giving them inspiration just seems underwhelming since those classes except for paladins already don't crit as often as other classes that get extra attack. They would have to do something more profound just to make it appealing for the majority of players currently as is other than just giving them inspiration.
Actually they are as they will be able to crit fish more often than not compared to other classes as for rogues it will put them further behind in damage to martial classes than they currently are.
I haven't yet read through the new playtesting rules, and I'm a slow adopter of new things (I will probably stick with 5e for a while), but I think this approach is good for play and the monsters don't crit actually aligns with a house rule I use when DMing. Players can have critical hits but monsters can't.
Even if some players can't crit?
Well, I'd mull that one over a bit more -- since I lean into the storytelling and character aspects of the game, I'm already adjusting in favor of the players by eliminating monster crits, so I might stick with current 5e rules otherwise on crits.
Fully agreed. I once started playing as a cleric in the Death House scenario before Strahd IIRC. The second encounter was with a ghost. The first thing it did was crit me with a withering ability that kills if it gets you to 0 hp. Instant kill on the spot before I could do anything. GG.
I like the idea of critical damage only applying to weapons. I do not however agree with them removing it from enemy attacks (even if they do intend to add it back into certain stat blocks).
The bottom line for me as a DM has always been: everything that is available to the players is available to the bad guys, and vice versa.
In other words, I balance encounters knowing that there will be critical hit potential on both sides. I have never found a problem with this. And if a DM is worried about having low-level monsters with multiple attacks, then either lessen the number of monsters you're using in such an encounter, or use a different monster. Or, hell, homebrew the monster you want but with less attacks. D&D Beyond makes creating Homebrew anything a breeze. Balancing the game is the creators responsibility. Balancing and encounter is the responsibility of a DM, and it is a learned art. Some people are naturally great at it and others will struggle. But the bottom line is that it is part of our job as the arbitrator of the game.
Personally, even if they removed crits from the attacks of monsters in general, I would still be using the current rules regardless.
But this is what the playtest is all about: getting our feedback. I just wanted to put my voice out there as a proponent of crits for everyone. 😁
In regards to combat being swingy: in my opinion, this is the way it is supposed to be. Combat is meant to be a threat not just an obstacle. I'm not saying every combat should be life or death, but every combat should at least make players think twice about getting involved in it. I think of trivial combats in the same way as I think of DMs making players roll for a DC 5 check--it's a pointless check. No one is going to fail it. And by RAW (and even under the unearthed arcana changes) you wouldn't even have someone roll. About the only reason there should be a trivial combat is if it serves some sort of narrative purpose. Otherwise combat should feel like a broken hinge, one you are never sure which way it's going to swing. Players feel way better about beating those combats than they do about the combats they walk all over. And also those battles that swing on that hinge--those are going to be the ones the players build memories around. Camaraderie with helping one another out of the bad situation, or even coming to grips with the limits of their characters' abilities. It doesn't need to be a boss fight to hold meaning, but if there is no true danger and engaging in a battle, then there is no value in defeating it. Other than of course XP and gold. And while those things are great and useful to the characters, the players themselves are going to remember epic wins more than they remember their gold total.
Shawn D. Robertson
"Deride not the differing views of others, for it is in thoughtful and considerate conversation we find our greatest friends."
~Me~
There's a save to avoid the max hit point reduction from a specter, but with 3d6 base damage it doesn't even need that, it won't have that much doing double hp with a crit.
This isn't strictly true though. Enemies don't get to do death saving throws and potentially pop back up at 1 hp. Players don't get lair actions, legendary actions or legendary resistances. The playing field has never been perfectly symmetrical, nor do I think it should be.
As far as combat being dangerous, this can also be accomplished by upping enemy damage to compensate for not being able to crit, enough to be a threat but without the 'well the enemy got an unexpected crit so you're dead now' etc. Combat can still go in unexpected ways without crits as well.
So having tried it out a few times now my takeaway is this.
The Crit rules (regarding damage) work as intended at mid to high level, I found it easier to create encounters of varying levels for characters of level 5+ and could fairly accurately estimate the total damage output of the party, and the monsters to help balance and prepare.
The issue I found was lower down the scale now low CR monsters who only have a simple attack action of some description have been nerfed. So Wizards needs to review revisit and update these monsters (as I imagine they will). I do have some concerns with MMM which, while intended to be backwards compatible many of the monsters in it are now less of a threat.
Now the issue with the new system.
Inspiration and this more generally applies to all rolls of a nat 20, but focusing on combat. There are already plenty of ways for players to get advantage on attacks, maybe some parties don't think this way but mine is always seeking flanking (even if it puts them at risk themselves), they are finding ways to get the help action (find familiar etc), rogue is busy either hiding before attacking or steadying aim and then there is magic. Inspiration, while I agree with the concept of doing something regarding inspiration I do feel that Wizards need to look at just how often now a player can get advantage, it is almost impossible to give disadvantage on anything now.
I think we have to take the rule as it is in isolation, but, mention in the survey that these subclasses need to be considered, if Wizards wants to make it backwards compatible there is going to have to be a set of FAQ's and hot fixes made to most of the 5th ed material to bring things like this in line.
I have also found from experience of being the DM that Rogue Critical Sneak Attack Damage can be massive overkill many times, the rogue is generally attacking an enemy already in combat in order to get sneak attack. The number of times I have seen a rogue crit, smile as they use all there sneak attack dice while I know the monster only has 5 HP's left anyway.
Yeah, you're right about those things in regards to lair actions and death saves. For the record though, I actually dislike both of those mechanics. I use them because they are built into the game and removing them would alter the balance that the devs were going for, but I really do hate those two mechanics. And legendary actions also. And for exactly the reasons we're talking about: I like the players and bad guys to be on a level playing field. In general. I'm not saying that every battle has to be dead even, but the options should all be there for both sides. But again though, this is just my opinion. I'm not one of those people who will say that my way is the right way. My way is just my way LOL and so far, 36 years of DMing mostly long-term campaigns of 2 to 4 years or more, my groups and myself are generally having fun to a large degree, so I plan on sticking with my style. I am hoping that means I can stick with D&D, but there are a crap load of other systems out there. Who knows? Maybe I'll switch up systems after my current campaigns are wrapped up.
Anyway, thank you for the intelligent conversation. Not everyone takes the time to do that, and it is appreciated.
Shawn D. Robertson
"Deride not the differing views of others, for it is in thoughtful and considerate conversation we find our greatest friends."
~Me~