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.
I am aware. The change for the playtest only changes the final part of the PHB example. Doubling the damage dice remains unchanged.
My response was in reply to the claim that crits before the playtest did "double total damage," which it never did. This has been a common misconception, and is one of the most common homebrews that people use, not understanding that it is indeed "homebrew".
Monsters being unable to crit, I agree that this is a good change for tier 1 play, since a crit can easily 1 shot a player with no real workaround. However, at later levels when a crit only does like half your health rather than all of it, well as a player I really enjoy the challenge of planning around and improving when plans go wrong, and crits is one of the more common ways it happens.
I think if they do go all in on important enemies having recharge abilities, and perhaps those abilities might be telegraphed or do unique effects other than damage, then I'd agree that it'd be a good change. However, there is no current reason that I know of to expect this kind of change, but I'll definitely be asking for it in the survey when that comes out.
In terms of player crits, it sucks that now rogues have the absolute opposite problem that their crits just don't exist anymore. I think it's far more fun for rogues to have above average crits than nonexistent crits, and that rogues were never that unbalanced before anyways (since crits happen too infrequently to be useful unless assassin 3 which is not good or quickened hold person which is a sorcerer not rogue). Paladins will always feel good as far as I'm concerned though, so I'm not worried about them.
Although I might be biased since most of my table's homebrew that modifiers are doubled as well as dice (partly lazyness, partly so rolling all 1s feels less bad), which already fixes the issue of rogues critting better than everyone else due to relying on dice over modifiers for damage cause now everyone doubles their full damage rather than only rogues. So, the rogue crit issue was never an issue to begin with in most of my tables.
This might still be a good change though as they can just specific > general it and say sneak attack doubles on crit, as that'd keep the experience while granting more control over mechanics.
Edit: In general, if this rule goes through, I think a martials primary form of damage should always have a specific rule stating that it can double on a crit if it doesn't already. For paladins I'm fine with either way since smite is more of a secondary source of damage on top of their normal damage.
As for spellcasters? Honestly, 50/50. Damage spells have always been kind of lackluster compared to control spells, and crits helped make up for that, but also, I don't know why but crits just don't seem as relevant for casters for some reason even though you'd expect them to be since they have the rogue problem of mainly damage dice no modifiers.
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.
The player in question had the expectation that they would be able to play in the one-shot I was running as a system test. The reality the dice tried to foist off on me was that he was eliminated before he could possibly have made a single meaningful decision to avoid it. Me allowing him to return to combat after a couple of rounds was not bad DMing, or Failing to Manage Expectations. it was me adapting on the fly like a DM should and deciding that letting the dice have their say was not as important as letting a friend actually enjoy his night's D&D.
You can kindly stop casting aspersions on me now, if you would?
Also can we wait to see whether Smites and Sneak Attacks can crit or not? I think it's a tad premature to assume they can't.
Not really. The rule that allows them to crit in 5e is the rule that is being changed for playtesting and that updated rule is pretty clear.
It's entirely possible that class reduxes we'll see later on reinstate crits for specific abilities. I don't expect dingdong Smites to be able to crit, but I would not at all be surprised to see an ability for Sneak Attack to crit, or at least land improved damage in some way. Remember - this isn't the entire picture, or even really much of the picture at all. Grain of salt the whole document.
Character death wouldn't be a big deal if it didn't mean you're relegated to being a passive observer for the remainder of the session.
I've been thinking about ways to fix this that don't involve just bringing a backup character. I don't have anything set in stone, but I think there's value in exploring it. Something like letting the player play a ghost could be fun. Having a fully fleshed out plan for the afterlife would maybe be even better. Imagine if your character's soul went on trial during combat, or you had to help fend off devils in the abyss or something.
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.
It was their first game, Becc. That's the point you're missing here. You can't expect people trying something for the first time to be experts at it.
Also can we wait to see whether Smites and Sneak Attacks can crit or not? I think it's a tad premature to assume they can't.
Not really. The rule that allows them to crit in 5e is the rule that is being changed for playtesting and that updated rule is pretty clear.
It's entirely possible that class reduxes we'll see later on reinstate crits for specific abilities. I don't expect dingdong Smites to be able to crit, but I would not at all be surprised to see an ability for Sneak Attack to crit, or at least land improved damage in some way. Remember - this isn't the entire picture, or even really much of the picture at all. Grain of salt the whole document.
It isn't the whole picture, but you can't reasonably playtest a partial feature. In order for it to be tested we must use the rules strictly as presented.
It's also expected to be cross-compatible with previous 5E materials, which includes the normal, no-special-crit-message rogue. Again, it could be errataed in or something, or maybe old classes use the old rules still, but either way I'm putting it on the survey unless we get further news on that.
I suppose we'll find out when class playtests start coming out. I think it wold be interesting if that were a function of how spellcasting between different classes worked: each one gets a different buff based on the class they chose, like X class being able to crit on spells, Y class getting a different buff, etc.
Pure speculation on my part, but it could be neat.
I feel removing the ability to Crit from Monster/NPC will weaken them and make them less threatening if they are not redesigned to be more deadly in their damage output. But if they are, i'm ok with that.
I suppose we'll find out when class playtests start coming out. I think it wold be interesting if that were a function of how spellcasting between different classes worked: each one gets a different buff based on the class they chose, like X class being able to crit on spells, Y class getting a different buff, etc.
Pure speculation on my part, but it could be neat.
That would be cool. However it is not a good idea to fill out the survey about criticals based on what may or may not appear in a document that no one has seen. We must go with what we actually know and that is the fact that as written, only weapon dice are doubled.
That would be cool. However it is not a good idea to fill out the survey about criticals based on what may or may not appear in a document that no one has seen. We must go with what we actually know and that is the fact that as written, only weapon dice are doubled.
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.
It was their first game, Becc. That's the point you're missing here. You can't expect people trying something for the first time to be experts at it.
Never mentioned they had to be experts. I'm not missing anything. This was a niche case. How often do you think a situation like the one mentioned actually happens? First attack in the first combat of the first encounter of the first session for a first time player.
@Yurei, aspertions? No, this is all hypothetical. I'm not telling you, specifically, that you messed up and should have done something different. Only that a problem situation, such as the one you mentioned, can be anticipated and potentially mitigated. Sort of like a lessons-learned thing.
Never mentioned they had to be experts. I'm not missing anything. This was a niche case. How often do you think a situation like the one mentioned actually happens? First attack in the first combat of the first encounter of the first session for a first time player.
Enough times that it's been singled out as a problem, apparently, considering how squishy first-level characters are considered. As for myself, I went pretty softball on my players when I first started out, but I did score crits on them pretty early on, and they probably would have ended a lot different if I hadn't been leveling my players at ludicrousspeed.
Never mentioned they had to be experts. I'm not missing anything. This was a niche case. How often do you think a situation like the one mentioned actually happens? First attack in the first combat of the first encounter of the first session for a first time player.
Enough times that it's been singled out as a problem, apparently, considering how squishy first-level characters are considered. As for myself, I went pretty softball on my players when I first started out, but I did score crits on them pretty early on, and they probably would have ended a lot different if I hadn't been leveling my players at ludicrousspeed.
So... you're saying it's a problem that can be anticipated and potentially mitigated?
I am aware. The change for the playtest only changes the final part of the PHB example. Doubling the damage dice remains unchanged.
My response was in reply to the claim that crits before the playtest did "double total damage," which it never did. This has been a common misconception, and is one of the most common homebrews that people use, not understanding that it is indeed "homebrew".
My personal opinion on the topic:
Monsters being unable to crit, I agree that this is a good change for tier 1 play, since a crit can easily 1 shot a player with no real workaround. However, at later levels when a crit only does like half your health rather than all of it, well as a player I really enjoy the challenge of planning around and improving when plans go wrong, and crits is one of the more common ways it happens.
I think if they do go all in on important enemies having recharge abilities, and perhaps those abilities might be telegraphed or do unique effects other than damage, then I'd agree that it'd be a good change. However, there is no current reason that I know of to expect this kind of change, but I'll definitely be asking for it in the survey when that comes out.
In terms of player crits, it sucks that now rogues have the absolute opposite problem that their crits just don't exist anymore. I think it's far more fun for rogues to have above average crits than nonexistent crits, and that rogues were never that unbalanced before anyways (since crits happen too infrequently to be useful unless assassin 3 which is not good or quickened hold person which is a sorcerer not rogue). Paladins will always feel good as far as I'm concerned though, so I'm not worried about them.
Although I might be biased since most of my table's homebrew that modifiers are doubled as well as dice (partly lazyness, partly so rolling all 1s feels less bad), which already fixes the issue of rogues critting better than everyone else due to relying on dice over modifiers for damage cause now everyone doubles their full damage rather than only rogues. So, the rogue crit issue was never an issue to begin with in most of my tables.
This might still be a good change though as they can just specific > general it and say sneak attack doubles on crit, as that'd keep the experience while granting more control over mechanics.
Edit: In general, if this rule goes through, I think a martials primary form of damage should always have a specific rule stating that it can double on a crit if it doesn't already. For paladins I'm fine with either way since smite is more of a secondary source of damage on top of their normal damage.
As for spellcasters? Honestly, 50/50. Damage spells have always been kind of lackluster compared to control spells, and crits helped make up for that, but also, I don't know why but crits just don't seem as relevant for casters for some reason even though you'd expect them to be since they have the rogue problem of mainly damage dice no modifiers.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Yurei, can you name all my NPC's for me?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Also can we wait to see whether Smites and Sneak Attacks can crit or not? I think it's a tad premature to assume they can't.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The player in question had the expectation that they would be able to play in the one-shot I was running as a system test. The reality the dice tried to foist off on me was that he was eliminated before he could possibly have made a single meaningful decision to avoid it. Me allowing him to return to combat after a couple of rounds was not bad DMing, or Failing to Manage Expectations. it was me adapting on the fly like a DM should and deciding that letting the dice have their say was not as important as letting a friend actually enjoy his night's D&D.
You can kindly stop casting aspersions on me now, if you would?
Please do not contact or message me.
Not really. The rule that allows them to crit in 5e is the rule that is being changed for playtesting and that updated rule is pretty clear.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's entirely possible that class reduxes we'll see later on reinstate crits for specific abilities. I don't expect dingdong Smites to be able to crit, but I would not at all be surprised to see an ability for Sneak Attack to crit, or at least land improved damage in some way. Remember - this isn't the entire picture, or even really much of the picture at all. Grain of salt the whole document.
Please do not contact or message me.
Character death wouldn't be a big deal if it didn't mean you're relegated to being a passive observer for the remainder of the session.
I've been thinking about ways to fix this that don't involve just bringing a backup character. I don't have anything set in stone, but I think there's value in exploring it. Something like letting the player play a ghost could be fun. Having a fully fleshed out plan for the afterlife would maybe be even better. Imagine if your character's soul went on trial during combat, or you had to help fend off devils in the abyss or something.
And do you know how Smites and Sneak Attacks are going to work in the Class UA?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Nope. But in order to playtest the rules, we have to go with how they work now. Other wise the playtest is pointless.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It was their first game, Becc. That's the point you're missing here. You can't expect people trying something for the first time to be experts at it.
It isn't the whole picture, but you can't reasonably playtest a partial feature. In order for it to be tested we must use the rules strictly as presented.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's also expected to be cross-compatible with previous 5E materials, which includes the normal, no-special-crit-message rogue. Again, it could be errataed in or something, or maybe old classes use the old rules still, but either way I'm putting it on the survey unless we get further news on that.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I suppose we'll find out when class playtests start coming out. I think it wold be interesting if that were a function of how spellcasting between different classes worked: each one gets a different buff based on the class they chose, like X class being able to crit on spells, Y class getting a different buff, etc.
Pure speculation on my part, but it could be neat.
I feel removing the ability to Crit from Monster/NPC will weaken them and make them less threatening if they are not redesigned to be more deadly in their damage output. But if they are, i'm ok with that.
That would be cool. However it is not a good idea to fill out the survey about criticals based on what may or may not appear in a document that no one has seen. We must go with what we actually know and that is the fact that as written, only weapon dice are doubled.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Oh, for sure.
Never mentioned they had to be experts. I'm not missing anything. This was a niche case. How often do you think a situation like the one mentioned actually happens? First attack in the first combat of the first encounter of the first session for a first time player.
@Yurei, aspertions? No, this is all hypothetical. I'm not telling you, specifically, that you messed up and should have done something different. Only that a problem situation, such as the one you mentioned, can be anticipated and potentially mitigated. Sort of like a lessons-learned thing.
Enough times that it's been singled out as a problem, apparently, considering how squishy first-level characters are considered. As for myself, I went pretty softball on my players when I first started out, but I did score crits on them pretty early on, and they probably would have ended a lot different if I hadn't been leveling my players at ludicrousspeed.
So... you're saying it's a problem that can be anticipated and potentially mitigated?