It's amazing to see people try to characterize people who are positive about OneD&D changes as "angry" and "hostile", given that the people who don't like OneD&D changes act like WotC killed their entire family and kicked their cat by not making Monks better than every other martial in literally every single way.
I will say I think monks are fine until level 11. They start to fall off there, but that is because the last offensive feature they got was at level 5 with stunning strike. After that they get an abundance of mobility and defensive features, but if you want more offense at that point I feel like Multi-classing is fine. Just go 7 or 8 levels monk and then multi-class fighter or rogue or ranger or cleric, or druid. If you LIKE the level 9-20 features of monk then I don't know why someone would complain.
I will say I think monks are fine until level 11. They start to fall off there, but that is because the last offensive feature they got was at level 5 with stunning strike.
That's a problem with other martial classes as well -- Barbarians and Rangers (other than Beastmaster) have the same issue (they do have some features, but they're inadequate to keep up with the power curve).
I will say I think monks are fine until level 11. They start to fall off there, but that is because the last offensive feature they got was at level 5 with stunning strike.
That's a problem with other martial classes as well -- Barbarians and Rangers (other than Beastmaster) have the same issue (they do have some features, but they're inadequate to keep up with the power curve).
Precisely, Barbarian is a prime example of another class that goes about 8 levels and then multi-class and people are ok with it. I think the reason why is it is less restrictive in multi-classing because it can wear armor. But I find it MORE restrictive in stats to me because strength is needed and strength doesn't do much outside of combat, while dex and wisdom both open up MANY pathways. It is unfortunate that higher level features aren't better than they are, but it is what it is.
Since a younger, dumber, more naive, more hopeful Yurei started this thread a year ago, The D&D Community has made it plain that every last single change in every last single One D&D document - and every proposed change, every theoretical change, and even every instance of simply cleaning up wording and clarifying intent - is Literally The Worst Thing Ever Done By Anyone Anywhere, Wizards of the Coast is BEYOND EVIL for even so much as considering Changing Stuff, and the only acceptable outcome is to scrap the entire One D&D initiative whilst sending a 2e Vet Squad to the house of every single player who had anything positive to say about even one thing in any of the surveys to beat that player to death with a 2014 DMG wrapped in barbed wire and strawberry-flavored dental floss.
The current wiser, more cynical, and deeply disillusioned Yurei knows better than to think we're ever going to get the wonderful and amazing tune-up and refresh we were promised. "The Community" stole that refresh from the people who were excited and eager for it, at the behest of angry bitter grognards who hate everyone and everything and can only be happy when everyone else around them is miserable. That cynical, disillusioned Yurei has been largely absent from the forums because she's hit the end of her patience and can no longer cope with the horrible, intolerable awfulness that is "The Community's" staunch, unshakable, utter and complete rejection of the very fundamental idea of fixing Fifth Edition.
The crit rules were better than y'all thought they were. But they're gone now. As is the Origin system, improved character species blocks/rules, improvements to the ranger, sorcerer, and monk, ancillary improvements to everybody else...frankly, I'm still waiting for J-Craw to announce that horrendous community backlash has led to the cancellation of the entire project.
Well I already read the original post, and can argue against the new Critical.
At 1st seems interesting, but soon I noticed it has many flaws:
- Makes attack cantrips worse than ST ones, as the last ones ignores cover, and at higher level the AC increases, while with ST you have the chance to hit a non-proficient saving. So the attack cantrips only have the chance of critical as advantage.
- Monsters without critical? D&D is a system terribly attached to plain maths, what we last need is to be even more plain maths, without surprises, unexpected, improvising, because I have X life and the monster deal Y damage, I have to worry about nothing. The only cons to the monsters critical is when fighting against multiple minions, because you can have the greater AC, be hyper-protected by whatever you want, statistically they will roll 20 and you cannot do anything but taking considerable damage. But this is a system itself problem, based only on the simplification of rolling 20, instead something like an open-ended roll and compare with your defense. What about if using open-ended roll (if roll 20, roll again until not 20 and add), subtract 10, then if greater (or equal?) than your AC is a critical, and a normal hit if not. And if want to be more friendly to players, with the chance to miss even if the (original) sum (before -10) is lower than your AC for monsters, as usually will not be the case of the big bosses but for minions and minors.
- In the case of spells (instead cantrips) and others effects like Sneak Attack and Smites probably would require some deeper revision. Indeed is easy with these to inflict excessive damage, but it should be allowed in some situations, like when the target is totally helpless.
Well I already read the original post, and can argue against the new Critical.
At 1st seems interesting, but soon I noticed it has many flaws:
- Makes attack cantrips worse than ST ones, as the last ones ignores cover, and at higher level the AC increases, while with ST you have the chance to hit a non-proficient saving. So the attack cantrips only have the chance of critical as advantage.
- Monsters without critical? D&D is a system terribly attached to plain maths, what we last need is to be even more plain maths, without surprises, unexpected, improvising, because I have X life and the monster deal Y damage, I have to worry about nothing. The only cons to the monsters critical is when fighting against multiple minions, because you can have the greater AC, be hyper-protected by whatever you want, statistically they will roll 20 and you cannot do anything but taking considerable damage. But this is a system itself problem, based only on the simplification of rolling 20, instead something like an open-ended roll and compare with your defense. What about if using open-ended roll (if roll 20, roll again until not 20 and add), subtract 10, then if greater (or equal?) than your AC is a critical, and a normal hit if not. And if want to be more friendly to players, with the chance to miss even if the (original) sum (before -10) is lower than your AC for monsters, as usually will not be the case of the big bosses but for minions and minors.
- In the case of spells (instead cantrips) and others effects like Sneak Attack and Smites probably would require some deeper revision. Indeed is easy with these to inflict excessive damage, but it should be allowed in some situations, like when the target is totally helpless.
For Monster criticals, my interpretation of what WotC was saying was that more monsters (not all), mainly some higher tier and boss-type monsters, would get added recharge features that they considered to be “the monsters critical hit” giving more control to the DM when to apply pressure and when to ease up. Instead of at the whim of the dice.
I wasn’t completely against the change. And I found it funny where some of the people who complained about the martial vs caster divide then complained that their wizard, sorcerer, etc couldn’t crit. You can’t have it both ways.
Did you notice that is exactly what I said about even more expected and plain maths? “Recharge” for “giving control” to “when to apply”…terrible design. Not everything must be under so much control so is reduced to if A + B = C.
Did you notice that is exactly what I said about even more expected and plain maths? “Recharge” for “giving control” to “when to apply”…terrible design. Not everything must be under so much control so is reduced to if A + B = C.
And recharges are based on a die roll (d6) so there is some randomness. And not everything needs to be random or unpredictable. Too much randomness is also terrible design.
In general the issue with monster criticals is that, as a DM, you don't want monsters to actually play by the same rules as PCs -- that's a nightmare to track and tends to result in bad games -- but you want to give the impression that they are, and having them able to crit accomplishes some of that.
It monsters being able to crit had big game-distorting effects it would be reasonable to remove those crits, but really, after something like level 2, they don't. Save-or-suck spells and abilities are a much bigger contributor to swinginess than criticals.
In D&D “everything random or unpredictable” is very far from how it is, so removing the few it has doesn’t sound very good.
Y'wanna know what simulates the ups and downs of 'swingy', random, unpredictable combat?
Rolling for damage.
When a monster throws, say, as an average CR1 damage roll...18d12? The enormous damage variance of that roll does a much better job of representing particularly gruesome hits, or hits that land but not as heavily as they could have, than "Whoops! I rolled a natty 20! Sorry Alice, that nameless goblin mook's 18d12 rusty dagger attack is now 180d12. lemme go get my dice bag, I'm gonna need to just upend it and spend the next ten minutes counting damage while you roll up your next, ohh...call it fifteen characters? because this one hit's gonna kill at least ten of them."
Monsters damage are usually balanced for their CR. What people usually bypass are the temporary HP, with feats like Inspiring Leader, Aid spell, and other options. And removing crits will bypass even more, because if monster can deal X damage and my HP > X then nothing to worry about. At the end D&D will be heading to focusing in a few things then match stats vs stats like pure linear numbers.
In general the issue with monster criticals is that, as a DM, you don't want monsters to actually play by the same rules as PCs -- that's a nightmare to track and tends to result in bad games -- but you want to give the impression that they are, and having them able to crit accomplishes some of that.
It monsters being able to crit had big game-distorting effects it would be reasonable to remove those crits, but really, after something like level 2, they don't. Save-or-suck spells and abilities are a much bigger contributor to swinginess than criticals.
Yes that's the main issue, because in D&D the first lower levels are ridiculous, with less than 10HP and etc. How in few time a character can double or triple its amount of HP. Currently what I do is not apply instant death until level 3, and in the case of combat failure (all players down) trying to be more flexible. It is not easy sometimes but as said the lowest levels in D&D are not the best.
I will say I think monks are fine until level 11. They start to fall off there, but that is because the last offensive feature they got was at level 5 with stunning strike. After that they get an abundance of mobility and defensive features, but if you want more offense at that point I feel like Multi-classing is fine. Just go 7 or 8 levels monk and then multi-class fighter or rogue or ranger or cleric, or druid. If you LIKE the level 9-20 features of monk then I don't know why someone would complain.
That's a problem with other martial classes as well -- Barbarians and Rangers (other than Beastmaster) have the same issue (they do have some features, but they're inadequate to keep up with the power curve).
Precisely, Barbarian is a prime example of another class that goes about 8 levels and then multi-class and people are ok with it. I think the reason why is it is less restrictive in multi-classing because it can wear armor. But I find it MORE restrictive in stats to me because strength is needed and strength doesn't do much outside of combat, while dex and wisdom both open up MANY pathways. It is unfortunate that higher level features aren't better than they are, but it is what it is.
Does any of this really matter anymore?
Since a younger, dumber, more naive, more hopeful Yurei started this thread a year ago, The D&D Community has made it plain that every last single change in every last single One D&D document - and every proposed change, every theoretical change, and even every instance of simply cleaning up wording and clarifying intent - is Literally The Worst Thing Ever Done By Anyone Anywhere, Wizards of the Coast is BEYOND EVIL for even so much as considering Changing Stuff, and the only acceptable outcome is to scrap the entire One D&D initiative whilst sending a 2e Vet Squad to the house of every single player who had anything positive to say about even one thing in any of the surveys to beat that player to death with a 2014 DMG wrapped in barbed wire and strawberry-flavored dental floss.
The current wiser, more cynical, and deeply disillusioned Yurei knows better than to think we're ever going to get the wonderful and amazing tune-up and refresh we were promised. "The Community" stole that refresh from the people who were excited and eager for it, at the behest of angry bitter grognards who hate everyone and everything and can only be happy when everyone else around them is miserable. That cynical, disillusioned Yurei has been largely absent from the forums because she's hit the end of her patience and can no longer cope with the horrible, intolerable awfulness that is "The Community's" staunch, unshakable, utter and complete rejection of the very fundamental idea of fixing Fifth Edition.
The crit rules were better than y'all thought they were. But they're gone now. As is the Origin system, improved character species blocks/rules, improvements to the ranger, sorcerer, and monk, ancillary improvements to everybody else...frankly, I'm still waiting for J-Craw to announce that horrendous community backlash has led to the cancellation of the entire project.
That would be just my luck.
Please do not contact or message me.
So I hope people now understand what was meant by Yurei isn't boring.
Well I already read the original post, and can argue against the new Critical.
At 1st seems interesting, but soon I noticed it has many flaws:
- Makes attack cantrips worse than ST ones, as the last ones ignores cover, and at higher level the AC increases, while with ST you have the chance to hit a non-proficient saving. So the attack cantrips only have the chance of critical as advantage.
- Monsters without critical? D&D is a system terribly attached to plain maths, what we last need is to be even more plain maths, without surprises, unexpected, improvising, because I have X life and the monster deal Y damage, I have to worry about nothing. The only cons to the monsters critical is when fighting against multiple minions, because you can have the greater AC, be hyper-protected by whatever you want, statistically they will roll 20 and you cannot do anything but taking considerable damage. But this is a system itself problem, based only on the simplification of rolling 20, instead something like an open-ended roll and compare with your defense. What about if using open-ended roll (if roll 20, roll again until not 20 and add), subtract 10, then if greater (or equal?) than your AC is a critical, and a normal hit if not. And if want to be more friendly to players, with the chance to miss even if the (original) sum (before -10) is lower than your AC for monsters, as usually will not be the case of the big bosses but for minions and minors.
- In the case of spells (instead cantrips) and others effects like Sneak Attack and Smites probably would require some deeper revision. Indeed is easy with these to inflict excessive damage, but it should be allowed in some situations, like when the target is totally helpless.
For Monster criticals, my interpretation of what WotC was saying was that more monsters (not all), mainly some higher tier and boss-type monsters, would get added recharge features that they considered to be “the monsters critical hit” giving more control to the DM when to apply pressure and when to ease up. Instead of at the whim of the dice.
I wasn’t completely against the change. And I found it funny where some of the people who complained about the martial vs caster divide then complained that their wizard, sorcerer, etc couldn’t crit. You can’t have it both ways.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Did you notice that is exactly what I said about even more expected and plain maths? “Recharge” for “giving control” to “when to apply”…terrible design. Not everything must be under so much control so is reduced to if A + B = C.
And recharges are based on a die roll (d6) so there is some randomness. And not everything needs to be random or unpredictable. Too much randomness is also terrible design.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
In D&D “everything random or unpredictable” is very far from how it is, so removing the few it has doesn’t sound very good.
In general the issue with monster criticals is that, as a DM, you don't want monsters to actually play by the same rules as PCs -- that's a nightmare to track and tends to result in bad games -- but you want to give the impression that they are, and having them able to crit accomplishes some of that.
It monsters being able to crit had big game-distorting effects it would be reasonable to remove those crits, but really, after something like level 2, they don't. Save-or-suck spells and abilities are a much bigger contributor to swinginess than criticals.
Y'wanna know what simulates the ups and downs of 'swingy', random, unpredictable combat?
Rolling for damage.
When a monster throws, say, as an average CR1 damage roll...18d12? The enormous damage variance of that roll does a much better job of representing particularly gruesome hits, or hits that land but not as heavily as they could have, than "Whoops! I rolled a natty 20! Sorry Alice, that nameless goblin mook's 18d12 rusty dagger attack is now 180d12. lemme go get my dice bag, I'm gonna need to just upend it and spend the next ten minutes counting damage while you roll up your next, ohh...call it fifteen characters? because this one hit's gonna kill at least ten of them."
Please do not contact or message me.
Monsters damage are usually balanced for their CR. What people usually bypass are the temporary HP, with feats like Inspiring Leader, Aid spell, and other options. And removing crits will bypass even more, because if monster can deal X damage and my HP > X then nothing to worry about. At the end D&D will be heading to focusing in a few things then match stats vs stats like pure linear numbers.
Yes that's the main issue, because in D&D the first lower levels are ridiculous, with less than 10HP and etc. How in few time a character can double or triple its amount of HP. Currently what I do is not apply instant death until level 3, and in the case of combat failure (all players down) trying to be more flexible. It is not easy sometimes but as said the lowest levels in D&D are not the best.