Thing is with Recharge is people are thinking of it how it works NOW, in the current mechanics.
Given that this "npc's can no longer crit" may become a mechanic, the recharge ability of monsters can also change. Right now, monsters get attacks, sometimes multiple, OR they can use their recharge ability.
Going forward, a monster can make their attacks, sometimes multiple, AND they MAY use their recharge ability, if it's available.
When the DM makes a melee attack and rolls their recharge every round, there will be more pucker factor for the players.
So, most monsters don't have a recharge feature at all, currently. It sounds like they're gonna make some, but as it stands, the rule is just subtractive. So it makes sense that it feels like a loss, because it literally is.
I think I like recharge features? Honestly I've played with so few of them, I'm not even sure.
Most monsters don't need a recharge feature. Nobody cares that rent-a-goon banditos can't deliver deadly devastating player-ending critical hits. The bandit leader gaining a Recharge 6 Brutal Blow ability that allows him to automatically crit on his next attack, dealing triple damage dice rather than double? That's why he's the leader. The DM can decide when to use his Brutal Blow and against which player, and if/when Brutal Blow recharges the DM can telegraph it and play it up. As a DM, I would much rather have crits be something more under my control like that than have it be a random happenstance of the dice.
Hell, I could simply add the "Brutal Blow" trait to anything I wanted to be particularly punchy and give myself back crits, just in a way and at times that make sense for the game I want to run instead of letting an uppity d20 decide it's Crash's turn to die with absolutely no warning or build-up and there's dick-all he can do about it.
Hell, I could simply add the "Brutal Blow" trait to anything I wanted to be particularly punchy and give myself back crits, just in a way and at times that make sense for the game I want to run instead of letting an uppity d20 decide it's Crash's turn to die with absolutely no warning or build-up and there's dick-all he can do about it.
Oooooooh, that would be really cool! I would love if the upcoming DMG had a series of abilities that cold be slotted into a stat block to make X monster in a given encounter more dangerous!
(I mean, that pretty much is what I do right now, but it'd be super nifty if something like that were codified)
I like when crits double damage rather than simply add a second roll of the damage die. I got a crit once in the first chapter of the hoard of the dragon queen campaign, and it only added one more point worth of damage to my end result. That removes the feeling of awesomeness that crits normally hold.
I also disagree that monsters lasting longer is a good thing. I prefer for combats to end more quickly rather than not. For me combat is a distraction/interruption from the narrative and I wish to get it over with so I can get back to the story or other aspects of gameplay such as exploration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I'm in the camp of "If the players can do it, so can the enemies they fight". If the PCs can counterspell they shouldn't go all surprised Pikachu face when they get counterspelled.
While I appreciate the thoughtfulness in posts here and being able to clearly understand where most of y'all are coming from....I just can't behind this. I think there are some fundamental issues at play here, especially around what constitutes "fun" and what the game "should" (or "should not") be.
We're not gonna agree. We should get that out of the way first, because our goal here should be understanding each other (and ultimately reflecting on our own ideas), rather than winning an argument or changing each other's mind.
I'm thinking a lot about post from Yurie1453 above:
1.) "Monster Crits are too swingy, especially in tier 1 play" Effectively, this is when a DM inadvertently murders a PC with a single critical hit. This has happened to me, in one of my very first forays as a DM - I attacked the level 2 monk in my party with a thug's heavy crossbow during the first round of initiative, before any player had gotten to act, rolled a critical hit, and nearly maxed the damage. The monk went from fresh and ready to fight to 0HP and out of the combat in a single blow. Did I love that moment? Was I smiling and exulting at my great good fortune and filled with glee at my superior DMing? No. I hated it. This was a playtest game to help a mostly-new batch of players shake down character ideas and help me get a better grip on GMing, and before Rize had even gotten to do a single goddamn thing he was down and out of the fight. It was awful. I later ruled that the character came to with one hit point due to a heroic effort of will so that my buddy could play in the playtest. Yes, I fudged. I fudged openly, and with my players' full knowledge, because that crit was bullshit. Was it an overtuned encounter I learned a lot from regardless? Sure thing - but what stuck in my mind most of all was how terrible monster crits are in low-level play.
Reading this, there are just some huge differences in how I view the game and what it should entail.
First a quick note: I do not use the RAW for critical hits. At our table, damage for a critical hit = maximum possible damage allowed by the dice + modifiers + another roll of any damage dice.
Example: a fighter with 18 STR scores a critical hit using a greatsword. Damage = 12 + 4 + d12.
Adventuring is risky, perilous business. No character should be undertaking it who isn't able to accept the very real possibility of death. If they don't want risks, or want very controlled environments, they should be a baker or wheelwright or blacksmith. Hunting giants or taking down war parties of gnolls is savage, dangerous work. And a lot of what makes D&D fun - at least in my opinion - is the understand risk that death is a very possible result of engaging in combat (by design or by surprise). It's these continuous high stakes that help make the game fun. Low level characters aren't heroes yet - they're newbies, many times entering a line of work without real training or guidance, and doing so when taking on foes are very willing and able to end that career quickly and permanently.
As pointed out in a post in a separate thread, sudden, violent deaths of low level characters can, actually, be fun and memorable and something that the table bonds over. It's not something to feel anguish over or view as some kind broken problem in the game.
Kendrick and Crawford - and folks here - talk about cinematic moments in D&D: actions, results, choices that are inherently epic, almost paint themselves in your mind's eye, and so forth. And yes, it's very cinematic when the paladin cleaves that raging flind in half! It's awesome! It's also cinematic when the gnoll hunter pierces one of its PC foes in the eye with an arrow and takes them down with that shot!
I absolutely do NOT take glee in killing characters - especially not in the sense of ever purposefully designing encounters or creatures to inflict certain (or extremely likely) death. I DO take a lot of glee in challenging encounters and combat, and all the random chaos that ensues on both sides of the screen. I love it when the players roll a critical hit! I love it when I do, too!
(Note: I've been running a homebrew campaign in 5E since late 2017. There has been exactly two character deaths in that entire time. Both were reversed - but both deaths also underscored the danger inherent in the world, and one death [and the subsequent side quest to get the material components for the raise dead spell] provided opportunity for good role playing, worldbuilding, and unexpected adventures.)
But a lot of what I'm reading seems to, in effect, protect characters, especially but not only, low level ones, from the danger of actual death. This seems to be a view of the game that it can only be fun if I KNOW my character will most likely (or almost certainly) live through every encounter. Which, to me, seems antithetical to any session or campaign that features combat as a focus of the action. Crawford, in the video, talks about monster's recharge ability basically being the equivalent of a guaranteed critical hit, which is spurious on multiple levels. And folks here talk about "accidental" or "unintended" deaths of low level characters. Maybe it's my 1E background showing, but that just feels off to me. Hunting a band of marauding ogres is dangerous, deadly work. Just like the ranger of the group might get an amazing shot off and sink an arrow up an ogre's nose into its brain, an ogre might get a particularly good swing at the ranger, where the angle and aim do more damage than a glancing blow might have.
I think the arguments made here are flawed (IMNSHO, of course - ultimately we're all gonna play how we like) because it seems to view PC deaths, especially low level PCs, as some kind of aberration or flaw in the game, rather than being a baked-in element.
This just panders to that certain subset of out community that think they can do or say anything they want without any consequences. Saying that monsters cannot get a critical hit simply turns d&d into a game for babies that cry when they lose. It’s ridiculous.
Oh please. This is utterly ridiculous. You can say you hate the changes if you like, but nonsense like this utterly devalues the conversation at hand.
It's not about knowing you'll live through an encounter. It's about the idea that one single attack from some nameless nobody mook shouldn't be all it takes to knock you dead on the spot. One thug shooting one single crossbow bolt once should not be killing a PC. If you don't live through the fight because you bit off more than you could chew and things took a turn for the worst? Oh well. Them is, as they say, the breaks. But if you die, it shouldn't be because the Fates decided to award one single janky die roll to the uncaring winds. It should be because you got unlucky several times in a row, or because you screwed up. You should, generally, see it coming. Even if only a round or three in advance. If a monster can fresh-to-dead you in one go, i.e. my beloved dullahan, the PCs should know that going in.
I have no issue with character death. What I have issue with is this brick wall, sheer-cliff "NOPE you're dead now go home and we'll call you if you're invited back" nonsense. I don't particularly care for meaningless, senseless, completely unavoidable Instant Murders. They don't really make for good stories, even with tables that can cope with character death.
This just panders to that certain subset of out community that think they can do or say anything they want without any consequences. Saying that monsters cannot get a critical hit simply turns d&d into a game for babies that cry when they lose. It’s ridiculous.
Removing critical hits in no way prevents you from killing PCs. It just makes it far less likely to do so by accident, as opposed to the PCs doing something dumb and reaping the rewards of their stupidity.
"One thug shooting one single crossbow bolt once should not be killing a PC."
According to what?
"What I have issue with is this brick wall, sheer-cliff "NOPE you're dead now go home and we'll call you if you're invited back" nonsense."
Sure. But how does a single character death due to a (un)lucky crit stop the rest of the party from finishing the encounter and reviving their teammate? Unless the PC is solo, of course. This seems less an issue with NPC crits and more a DM attitude issue.
I like when crits double damage rather than simply add a second roll of the damage die. I got a crit once in the first chapter of the hoard of the dragon queen campaign, and it only added one more point worth of damage to my end result. That removes the feeling of awesomeness that crits normally hold.
I also disagree that monsters lasting longer is a good thing. I prefer for combats to end more quickly rather than not. For me combat is a distraction/interruption from the narrative and I wish to get it over with so I can get back to the story or other aspects of gameplay such as exploration.
Crits never doubled damage. Crits have always doubled the damage dice, before modifiers. From the PHB:
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once.
For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue’s Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well.
The idea of a crit doubling the total damage is wide spread "common law" homebrew. It is right up there with "bonus action to drink a potion."
The whole point of that anecdote, Beccareth, was that it was that group's very first turn in their very first encounter in their very first game that was being played to see if they liked the system, and it did not leave a good impression.
Crits never doubled damage. Crits have always doubled the damage dice, before modifiers. From the PHB:
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once.
For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue’s Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well.
The idea of a crit doubling the total damage is wide spread "common law" homebrew. It is right up there with "bonus action to drink a potion."
The playtest rules remove the doubling the dice from other sources and just doubles the dice of the weapon. So no doubling up on Sneak Attack dice as used in the PHB example.
The whole point of that anecdote, Beccareth, was that it was that group's very first turn in their very first encounter in their very first game that was being played to see if they liked the system, and it did not leave a good impression.
Ok. So, expectation management is also a potential issue.
I mean, yeah. You step in for the very first time, and the first thing that happens is a 1 in 20 outcome that instantly removes you? I imagine that would have a *very* big impact on expectations...
I mean, yeah. You step in for the very first time, and the first thing that happens is a 1 in 20 outcome that instantly removes you? I imagine that would have a *very* big impact on expectations...
I'm talking about prior to the first combat, like session 0 or something. Were the players unaware of what a critical hit is? If so, who's fault is that? If the player knows that they can crit when they roll a 20 on an attack why would they assume it couldn't also happen to them? That's where communication comes in.
I personally like the complete reduction in PC damage too. No more Critical Smites, Sneak Attacks, Hunters Marks, Battle Master Maneuvers, Hexes, and everything else that boosts PC Damage rolls. Monsters will last longer now that PC Criticals are basically one extra die of damage.
I'm gonna hard disagree on Sneak Attack. Of any class, rogues should be the ones that do devastating damage when they hit just the right spot. It's kind of their whole thing, and it's a nice, on-brand boost for a martial class that mostly hangs out below the baseline of a fighter or barbarian in combat. This would also cement "rapier superiority" because if you only get one lousy extra die of damage, it might as well be a d8. As long as we're making changes, I want a system that encourages daggers for rogues rather than the opposite. It's their freaking icon.
All this being said, I don't think this is the full martial package here. I expect that the updated Sneak Attack may have a crit stipulation, or some other rogue feature that addresses crits, and I'm not going to start frothing at the mouth before we see the new system in its entirety.
As for the change to monsters, I couldn't be more thrilled and I feel a bit dumb for not thinking of it myself. It's not "monster's can't hit hard," it's "this monster is guaranteed to hit hard at least once, and its regular hits are scarier too." I'm not sure if people are aware of the fact that the possibility of a crit means that every regular hit needs to be weaker for a given CR. It's built deep into monster design and can really only be changed with a full redesign of the Monster Manual.
When I kill PCs, I want it to be the consequence of their choices and decisions rather than just a dumb lucky rolling streak. There's still plenty of rolling - and thus unpredictability - involved in combat, it's just not quite as swingy. I think if you're a tactical DM and especially if you like to make your own monsters, this is a pretty exciting paradigm shift.
Thing is with Recharge is people are thinking of it how it works NOW, in the current mechanics.
Given that this "npc's can no longer crit" may become a mechanic, the recharge ability of monsters can also change. Right now, monsters get attacks, sometimes multiple, OR they can use their recharge ability.
Going forward, a monster can make their attacks, sometimes multiple, AND they MAY use their recharge ability, if it's available.
When the DM makes a melee attack and rolls their recharge every round, there will be more pucker factor for the players.
Most monsters don't need a recharge feature. Nobody cares that rent-a-goon banditos can't deliver deadly devastating player-ending critical hits. The bandit leader gaining a Recharge 6 Brutal Blow ability that allows him to automatically crit on his next attack, dealing triple damage dice rather than double? That's why he's the leader. The DM can decide when to use his Brutal Blow and against which player, and if/when Brutal Blow recharges the DM can telegraph it and play it up. As a DM, I would much rather have crits be something more under my control like that than have it be a random happenstance of the dice.
Hell, I could simply add the "Brutal Blow" trait to anything I wanted to be particularly punchy and give myself back crits, just in a way and at times that make sense for the game I want to run instead of letting an uppity d20 decide it's Crash's turn to die with absolutely no warning or build-up and there's dick-all he can do about it.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'd be a bit tempted by changing critical hits from 'double damage dice' to 'max damage'. Still dangerous, but no more pathetic or super crits.
I think that would be a fair change. I like the over all lower damage, but a crit that only deals 1 extra point of damage is not fun.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Oooooooh, that would be really cool! I would love if the upcoming DMG had a series of abilities that cold be slotted into a stat block to make X monster in a given encounter more dangerous!
(I mean, that pretty much is what I do right now, but it'd be super nifty if something like that were codified)
I like when crits double damage rather than simply add a second roll of the damage die. I got a crit once in the first chapter of the hoard of the dragon queen campaign, and it only added one more point worth of damage to my end result. That removes the feeling of awesomeness that crits normally hold.
I also disagree that monsters lasting longer is a good thing. I prefer for combats to end more quickly rather than not. For me combat is a distraction/interruption from the narrative and I wish to get it over with so I can get back to the story or other aspects of gameplay such as exploration.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I'm in the camp of "If the players can do it, so can the enemies they fight". If the PCs can counterspell they shouldn't go all surprised Pikachu face when they get counterspelled.
While I appreciate the thoughtfulness in posts here and being able to clearly understand where most of y'all are coming from....I just can't behind this. I think there are some fundamental issues at play here, especially around what constitutes "fun" and what the game "should" (or "should not") be.
We're not gonna agree. We should get that out of the way first, because our goal here should be understanding each other (and ultimately reflecting on our own ideas), rather than winning an argument or changing each other's mind.
I'm thinking a lot about post from Yurie1453 above:
Reading this, there are just some huge differences in how I view the game and what it should entail.
First a quick note: I do not use the RAW for critical hits. At our table, damage for a critical hit = maximum possible damage allowed by the dice + modifiers + another roll of any damage dice.
Example: a fighter with 18 STR scores a critical hit using a greatsword. Damage = 12 + 4 + d12.
Adventuring is risky, perilous business. No character should be undertaking it who isn't able to accept the very real possibility of death. If they don't want risks, or want very controlled environments, they should be a baker or wheelwright or blacksmith. Hunting giants or taking down war parties of gnolls is savage, dangerous work. And a lot of what makes D&D fun - at least in my opinion - is the understand risk that death is a very possible result of engaging in combat (by design or by surprise). It's these continuous high stakes that help make the game fun. Low level characters aren't heroes yet - they're newbies, many times entering a line of work without real training or guidance, and doing so when taking on foes are very willing and able to end that career quickly and permanently.
As pointed out in a post in a separate thread, sudden, violent deaths of low level characters can, actually, be fun and memorable and something that the table bonds over. It's not something to feel anguish over or view as some kind broken problem in the game.
Kendrick and Crawford - and folks here - talk about cinematic moments in D&D: actions, results, choices that are inherently epic, almost paint themselves in your mind's eye, and so forth. And yes, it's very cinematic when the paladin cleaves that raging flind in half! It's awesome! It's also cinematic when the gnoll hunter pierces one of its PC foes in the eye with an arrow and takes them down with that shot!
I absolutely do NOT take glee in killing characters - especially not in the sense of ever purposefully designing encounters or creatures to inflict certain (or extremely likely) death. I DO take a lot of glee in challenging encounters and combat, and all the random chaos that ensues on both sides of the screen. I love it when the players roll a critical hit! I love it when I do, too!
(Note: I've been running a homebrew campaign in 5E since late 2017. There has been exactly two character deaths in that entire time. Both were reversed - but both deaths also underscored the danger inherent in the world, and one death [and the subsequent side quest to get the material components for the raise dead spell] provided opportunity for good role playing, worldbuilding, and unexpected adventures.)
But a lot of what I'm reading seems to, in effect, protect characters, especially but not only, low level ones, from the danger of actual death. This seems to be a view of the game that it can only be fun if I KNOW my character will most likely (or almost certainly) live through every encounter. Which, to me, seems antithetical to any session or campaign that features combat as a focus of the action. Crawford, in the video, talks about monster's recharge ability basically being the equivalent of a guaranteed critical hit, which is spurious on multiple levels. And folks here talk about "accidental" or "unintended" deaths of low level characters. Maybe it's my 1E background showing, but that just feels off to me. Hunting a band of marauding ogres is dangerous, deadly work. Just like the ranger of the group might get an amazing shot off and sink an arrow up an ogre's nose into its brain, an ogre might get a particularly good swing at the ranger, where the angle and aim do more damage than a glancing blow might have.
I think the arguments made here are flawed (IMNSHO, of course - ultimately we're all gonna play how we like) because it seems to view PC deaths, especially low level PCs, as some kind of aberration or flaw in the game, rather than being a baked-in element.
Oh please. This is utterly ridiculous. You can say you hate the changes if you like, but nonsense like this utterly devalues the conversation at hand.
It's not about knowing you'll live through an encounter. It's about the idea that one single attack from some nameless nobody mook shouldn't be all it takes to knock you dead on the spot. One thug shooting one single crossbow bolt once should not be killing a PC. If you don't live through the fight because you bit off more than you could chew and things took a turn for the worst? Oh well. Them is, as they say, the breaks. But if you die, it shouldn't be because the Fates decided to award one single janky die roll to the uncaring winds. It should be because you got unlucky several times in a row, or because you screwed up. You should, generally, see it coming. Even if only a round or three in advance. If a monster can fresh-to-dead you in one go, i.e. my beloved dullahan, the PCs should know that going in.
I have no issue with character death. What I have issue with is this brick wall, sheer-cliff "NOPE you're dead now go home and we'll call you if you're invited back" nonsense. I don't particularly care for meaningless, senseless, completely unavoidable Instant Murders. They don't really make for good stories, even with tables that can cope with character death.
Please do not contact or message me.
Removing critical hits in no way prevents you from killing PCs. It just makes it far less likely to do so by accident, as opposed to the PCs doing something dumb and reaping the rewards of their stupidity.
Agree with OP.
"One thug shooting one single crossbow bolt once should not be killing a PC."
According to what?
"What I have issue with is this brick wall, sheer-cliff "NOPE you're dead now go home and we'll call you if you're invited back" nonsense."
Sure. But how does a single character death due to a (un)lucky crit stop the rest of the party from finishing the encounter and reviving their teammate? Unless the PC is solo, of course. This seems less an issue with NPC crits and more a DM attitude issue.
Crits never doubled damage. Crits have always doubled the damage dice, before modifiers. From the PHB:
The idea of a crit doubling the total damage is wide spread "common law" homebrew. It is right up there with "bonus action to drink a potion."
The whole point of that anecdote, Beccareth, was that it was that group's very first turn in their very first encounter in their very first game that was being played to see if they liked the system, and it did not leave a good impression.
The playtest rules remove the doubling the dice from other sources and just doubles the dice of the weapon. So no doubling up on Sneak Attack dice as used in the PHB example.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ok. So, expectation management is also a potential issue.
I mean, yeah. You step in for the very first time, and the first thing that happens is a 1 in 20 outcome that instantly removes you? I imagine that would have a *very* big impact on expectations...
I'm talking about prior to the first combat, like session 0 or something. Were the players unaware of what a critical hit is? If so, who's fault is that? If the player knows that they can crit when they roll a 20 on an attack why would they assume it couldn't also happen to them? That's where communication comes in.
I'm gonna hard disagree on Sneak Attack. Of any class, rogues should be the ones that do devastating damage when they hit just the right spot. It's kind of their whole thing, and it's a nice, on-brand boost for a martial class that mostly hangs out below the baseline of a fighter or barbarian in combat. This would also cement "rapier superiority" because if you only get one lousy extra die of damage, it might as well be a d8. As long as we're making changes, I want a system that encourages daggers for rogues rather than the opposite. It's their freaking icon.
All this being said, I don't think this is the full martial package here. I expect that the updated Sneak Attack may have a crit stipulation, or some other rogue feature that addresses crits, and I'm not going to start frothing at the mouth before we see the new system in its entirety.
As for the change to monsters, I couldn't be more thrilled and I feel a bit dumb for not thinking of it myself. It's not "monster's can't hit hard," it's "this monster is guaranteed to hit hard at least once, and its regular hits are scarier too." I'm not sure if people are aware of the fact that the possibility of a crit means that every regular hit needs to be weaker for a given CR. It's built deep into monster design and can really only be changed with a full redesign of the Monster Manual.
When I kill PCs, I want it to be the consequence of their choices and decisions rather than just a dumb lucky rolling streak. There's still plenty of rolling - and thus unpredictability - involved in combat, it's just not quite as swingy. I think if you're a tactical DM and especially if you like to make your own monsters, this is a pretty exciting paradigm shift.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm