I have to say, a brief analysis of it leaves me of two minds.
On the one hand, I do like how the change leaves critical hits feeling less swingy, and as such lends itself to a more gritty playstyle - you can't go into a big encounter and hope for crit-fishing to pay off.
On the other hand, I have seen some of the best moments in d&d come from a natural 20 with a big combo - one character dealing a ludicrously powerful finishing blow by leaping off a cliff and rolling a nat-20 on the attack after falling 300ft, using homebrew rules for fall damage. The effect would have been spoiled if the smite and fall damage in the attack hadn't been doubled.
I suppose it depends on whether you want a grittier game, or a more heroic game. Do you celebrate the critical hits, or do you feel like they make the game turn too quickly?
I consider that perhaps the critical hit can be too big of an event - it should be good, but sometimes in games, the encounters feel like people are just waiting for a nat 20 to happen.
I think it needs to be emphasized that nerfing player critical hits isn't a way to balance anything, since they happen so infrequency that their numberical impact is minimal. There's a reason theorycrafters hate the champion subclass.
Critical hits, and especially crit-fisher builds, have always been a fun thing rather than an optimal thing.
I like the change because it opens the room for additional options on a crit, and it means I don't have to worry about forgetting inspiration exists for the 100th time.
Again, it is not a proper spell castor (who other than warlock mainly use saving throws anyways), rogue or paladin nerf, unless you consider making them 5% less fun to play a nerf.
Also, off-topic from the rest of my post but imagine a reworked Champion as an inspiration focused subclass.
Edit: I can kind of see the argument that rogue/paladin crits are too swingy, but I feel like they should still get something to compensate. Especially since there are other far better ways to burst down an enemy than crit-fishing. Stuff like a fighter's action surge is probably on average more impactful and swingier than a rogue crit (esp since it can crit), and if you want to pull the resource argument, paladins use spell slots for their crits.
The fact that anyone who plays D&D would want to play in a world where rolling a Nat 20 is just a hit is depressing.
You mean like original, Basic/Expert/etc, AD&D, and AD&D 2nd? I don't think it was even a guaranteed hit in most/all of them, but it's been a long, long time. I'm not saying I want to play any of them, but lack of crits isn't one of the reasons why.
The way it used to work is that weapons would have critical threat and damage ranges such as 20=x4, 19-20=x3, 18-20=x2, with, in 3e, feats like improved critical to double the threat ranges, and weapon improvements such as mercurial for the longswords & greatswords etc. which I think increased the damage multiplier by one step; and the most vaunted magical weapon ability of all - Vorpal.
When you roll within the critical threat range of your weapon, you only threaten a critical hit. You had to roll again to confirm whether or not you actually crited. If you crit again on the confirmation roll, or your successful crit deals "massive damage" i.e. I think it was over 50HP in one hit?; you are then threatening an instant kill. You have to roll a third time to confirm whether or not it was an instant kill.
A Vorpal weapon allowed you to bypass the confirmation roll for an instant kill and have any successful critical hit automatically be an instant kill. You did still have to confirm the crit first though I think. I don't remember if there was a way to bypass the confirmation roll for the innitial critical hit, but I think 3.5/p1 had more critical feats on the tree to further increase the threat range of a weapon, i.e. I think I once had the ability to threaten double damage on a rapier with a range of 12-20; so about 2 critical threats per every 5 hits with at least one of those often being successful. At higher levels this translated to my being able to do about one crit every other round. I don't think I ever had Vorpal, but imagine if I did: every other round, I would be able to outright slay 1 enemy.
That IMHO is wonderful.
What challenged you as a player then when you could delete a chosen enemy from combat every other round?
Bad mechanics IMO.
You usually couldn't. They are misrepresenting a few things. You could improve your crit range, but only once. It never stacked.
Crit Ranges were 20, 19-20, and 18-20. At best, 15-20 range with the improved Crit Range ability and weapon, which tended to be the less damaging ones, (1d6 or 1d4 piercing types). The Crit Range was seperate from Crit Multiplier, and almost all 19-20 or 18-20 weapons had a x2 damage. Note these were intrinsic to the weapon, not the character. All Longswords had a 1d8, 19-20 x2 trait. Changing the crit range was sort of common, by level 5-10ish, (Feat, class feature, magic property, etc). But could only be done once. Changing the multiplier was very rare, (class festures mostly) and usually only happened in specific circumstances.
Vorpal was a very expensive magic weapon property for 16ish level play. It only worked on a Nat 20, and only worked if decapitation would actually kill you, meaning most Undead, Constructs, Plants, etc... were immune.
For the 15-20 Crit Range on a rapier, it was a 1d6+ becoming a 2d6+. However, only the Nat 20 was an auto hit. If you rolled a 19, and that failed to beat AC, no crit, and no hit. If you rolled a Nat 20, then failed to confirm, it was an auto hit for normal (subpar) damage.
The potential to crit improved, but it didn't translate to more crits, per se on a 1:1 basis. It was more like it allowed more attacks that hit a 50% chance of being a crit, but didn't help those attacks to actually hit.
A gentle reminder that the rules are meant to support as many players and DMs as possible. Arguing over our individual styles and preferences is missing the forest for the trees, I think. If these rules only work for, say, killer DMs, then they've failed. Likewise, if they only work for people who believe death should only occur when it's narratively powerful, then they've failed. They should work for just about everybody, with little modification needed -- of course those of us with more niche preferences will need to tweak more of the rules.
A gentle reminder that the rules are meant to support as many players and DMs as possible. Arguing over our individual styles and preferences is missing the forest for the trees, I think. If these rules only work for, say, killer DMs, then they've failed. Likewise, if they only work for people who believe death should only occur when it's narratively powerful, then they've failed. They should work for just about everybody, with little modification needed -- of course those of us with more niche preferences will need to tweak more of the rules.
I agree whole heartedly with this.
I also doubt that we will see this change to the Crit rules make it through testing. Even JC seemed to doubt that they would be well received by enough of the community to make it through. But only time will tell.
If you do have strong feelings about it one way or the other, be sure to say as much on the survey, that is where your opinion will actually be heard.
The way it used to work is that weapons would have critical threat and damage ranges such as 20=x4, 19-20=x3, 18-20=x2, with, in 3e, feats like improved critical to double the threat ranges, and weapon improvements such as mercurial for the longswords & greatswords etc. which I think increased the damage multiplier by one step; and the most vaunted magical weapon ability of all - Vorpal.
I find it amusing that "the way it used to work" is referring to 3e. "The way it used to work" is that critical hits didn't exist outside of third party publications (there were ridiculous tables for critical hits back as far as the Arduin Grimoire in 1977).
The way it used to work is that weapons would have critical threat and damage ranges such as 20=x4, 19-20=x3, 18-20=x2, with, in 3e, feats like improved critical to double the threat ranges, and weapon improvements such as mercurial for the longswords & greatswords etc. which I think increased the damage multiplier by one step; and the most vaunted magical weapon ability of all - Vorpal.
I find it amusing that "the way it used to work" is referring to 3e. "The way it used to work" is that critical hits didn't exist outside of third party publications (there were ridiculous tables for critical hits back as far as the Arduin Grimoire in 1977).
Enjoy as much amusement as you can, for the march of time will feel nothing as it tramples us all into dust. 3.5 released just over 19 years ago. : )
The way it used to work is that weapons would have critical threat and damage ranges such as 20=x4, 19-20=x3, 18-20=x2, with, in 3e, feats like improved critical to double the threat ranges, and weapon improvements such as mercurial for the longswords & greatswords etc. which I think increased the damage multiplier by one step; and the most vaunted magical weapon ability of all - Vorpal.
I find it amusing that "the way it used to work" is referring to 3e. "The way it used to work" is that critical hits didn't exist outside of third party publications (there were ridiculous tables for critical hits back as far as the Arduin Grimoire in 1977).
Enjoy as much amusement as you can, for the march of time will feel nothing as it tramples us all into dust. 3.5 released just over 19 years ago. : )
That's false though, for one thing if they recharge in the same they do now you need to roll for a d6 to see if they regain the ability then actually use the ability which will probably have a roll or two as a part of it. That's far more moving parts then just 5 percent of the time roll a few more dice.
The way it used to work is that weapons would have critical threat and damage ranges such as 20=x4, 19-20=x3, 18-20=x2, with, in 3e, feats like improved critical to double the threat ranges, and weapon improvements such as mercurial for the longswords & greatswords etc. which I think increased the damage multiplier by one step; and the most vaunted magical weapon ability of all - Vorpal.
I find it amusing that "the way it used to work" is referring to 3e. "The way it used to work" is that critical hits didn't exist outside of third party publications (there were ridiculous tables for critical hits back as far as the Arduin Grimoire in 1977).
There were wonderful, very much loved tables for crits. The demand for something special to happen at extremes has always been there and has always been popular.
I'd actually like crit tables back, simple 'a bit of extra damage' is kinda boring, but the crit tables I remember were hilariously excessive.
A few reflections. I usually run games for new and, young players.
1. No Crits for spells. Nope. This is terrible. The most memorable, exciting and party strengthening moments in almost every game have been the times a player gets a crit.
The cheering and the bonding that occurs when the whole table celebrates a crit is such a strengthing part of the game, to allow it only for a certain type of PC is wrong.
Spell casters, and those wanting to play more magic/ less martial PCs should also get that moment to celebrate.
Yes the new rules have 20 = inspiration, but to be honest that’s a really weak replacement. It’s has kot got the instant gratification and celebration that a crit gives.
I can’t see any strong justification for this change.
A) Whilst I get the desire to reduce early tpk situations, and as a dm I hate rolling Crits against players …. Knowing an encounter with a monster could be deadly creates a certain sense of tension and caution that is essential for early parties. The stakes are high and this creates the drama and tension that can keep an early game going, and provide something for a pc to aim for. Without it, player will always be more powerful than the world …… to me that actually drives the game further and further in the direction of PCs seeking combat heavy, instead of rethinking automatic combat and opting for other pillars of play.
B) Also, narratively - if a player can do something, why could not an equally powerful NPC/ monster? It breaks the continuity of the game and elevates the players to a height that is almost outside of the world, rather than just as affected and able to affect the world as any other being.
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.
Dropping a player to 0HP isn't dead. This is the fundamental issue with your entire example. It absolutely puts the party in a hazardous state of affairs where they are forced to think outside the box and shift traditional cookie cutter tactics, but that's the GAME part of role-playing GAMES. 5e is already mockingly forgiving on the PC side of the equation outside of DM fiat to just about every other D&D equivalent game on the market. If anything, 5.5e should be looking for ways to make combat more exciting in less time than to make it more sanitized and drawn out even longer than it already is.
Dropping a player to 0HP isn't dead. This is the fundamental issue with your entire example. It absolutely puts the party in a hazardous state of affairs where they are forced to think outside the box and shift traditional cookie cutter tactics, but that's the GAME part of role-playing GAMES. 5e is already mockingly forgiving on the PC side of the equation outside of DM fiat to just about every other D&D equivalent game on the market. If anything, 5.5e should be looking for ways to make combat more exciting in less time than to make it more sanitized and drawn out even longer than it already is.
* nods furiously *
When a PC hits 0, there are multiple chances/guardrails to prevent permadeath. When an NPC or monster hits 0, they're gone. Finito. Bye bye. (Assuming you're using the RAW in terms of monsters reaching 0 hit points.)
While it's true that having a PC hit 0 (and presumably having the unconscious condition) does contain some very real peril for the PC, it's often in the monster's best interest to move its focus to a living, upright target rather than continue to inflict damage on a foe who's been knocked down. Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule (Molly's death in Campaign 2 of Critical Role is a standout example of such an exception) but generally, hitting 0 isn't some kind of autodeath for characters, even low level characters. 1st level characters (especially wizards and sorcerers) are disproportionately susceptible to being permakilled due to overwhelming damage from a critical hit...but even then, it's not common and can be mitigated or incorporated in a number of ways.
I think the new crit rules are fine. I still prefer the old crit rules, but I think the new crit rules should be preserved as alternative options, just like spell points and alternative resting rules. I rather have more RAW options than fewer, even if I might not use all of those options.
They are terrible. We need to go back to more realistic rules, and things like dying at 0hp. It is virtually impossible to accidentally kill a pc these days, excepting a crit against a level 1 character. Between multiple death saving throws, healing spells, spare the dying, healers kits etc. A dm has to deliberately try to kill a player for it to happen.
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.
Dropping a player to 0HP isn't dead. This is the fundamental issue with your entire example. It absolutely puts the party in a hazardous state of affairs where they are forced to think outside the box and shift traditional cookie cutter tactics, but that's the GAME part of role-playing GAMES. 5e is already mockingly forgiving on the PC side of the equation outside of DM fiat to just about every other D&D equivalent game on the market. If anything, 5.5e should be looking for ways to make combat more exciting in less time than to make it more sanitized and drawn out even longer than it already is.
Well, depending on how much damage is dealt, if it meets a certain threshold it *can* instantly kill a PC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have to say, a brief analysis of it leaves me of two minds.
On the one hand, I do like how the change leaves critical hits feeling less swingy, and as such lends itself to a more gritty playstyle - you can't go into a big encounter and hope for crit-fishing to pay off.
On the other hand, I have seen some of the best moments in d&d come from a natural 20 with a big combo - one character dealing a ludicrously powerful finishing blow by leaping off a cliff and rolling a nat-20 on the attack after falling 300ft, using homebrew rules for fall damage. The effect would have been spoiled if the smite and fall damage in the attack hadn't been doubled.
I suppose it depends on whether you want a grittier game, or a more heroic game. Do you celebrate the critical hits, or do you feel like they make the game turn too quickly?
I consider that perhaps the critical hit can be too big of an event - it should be good, but sometimes in games, the encounters feel like people are just waiting for a nat 20 to happen.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I think it needs to be emphasized that nerfing player critical hits isn't a way to balance anything, since they happen so infrequency that their numberical impact is minimal. There's a reason theorycrafters hate the champion subclass.
Critical hits, and especially crit-fisher builds, have always been a fun thing rather than an optimal thing.
I like the change because it opens the room for additional options on a crit, and it means I don't have to worry about forgetting inspiration exists for the 100th time.
Again, it is not a proper spell castor (who other than warlock mainly use saving throws anyways), rogue or paladin nerf, unless you consider making them 5% less fun to play a nerf.
Also, off-topic from the rest of my post but imagine a reworked Champion as an inspiration focused subclass.
Edit: I can kind of see the argument that rogue/paladin crits are too swingy, but I feel like they should still get something to compensate. Especially since there are other far better ways to burst down an enemy than crit-fishing. Stuff like a fighter's action surge is probably on average more impactful and swingier than a rogue crit (esp since it can crit), and if you want to pull the resource argument, paladins use spell slots for their crits.
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.
You usually couldn't. They are misrepresenting a few things. You could improve your crit range, but only once. It never stacked.
Crit Ranges were 20, 19-20, and 18-20. At best, 15-20 range with the improved Crit Range ability and weapon, which tended to be the less damaging ones, (1d6 or 1d4 piercing types). The Crit Range was seperate from Crit Multiplier, and almost all 19-20 or 18-20 weapons had a x2 damage. Note these were intrinsic to the weapon, not the character. All Longswords had a 1d8, 19-20 x2 trait. Changing the crit range was sort of common, by level 5-10ish, (Feat, class feature, magic property, etc). But could only be done once. Changing the multiplier was very rare, (class festures mostly) and usually only happened in specific circumstances.
Vorpal was a very expensive magic weapon property for 16ish level play. It only worked on a Nat 20, and only worked if decapitation would actually kill you, meaning most Undead, Constructs, Plants, etc... were immune.
For the 15-20 Crit Range on a rapier, it was a 1d6+ becoming a 2d6+. However, only the Nat 20 was an auto hit. If you rolled a 19, and that failed to beat AC, no crit, and no hit. If you rolled a Nat 20, then failed to confirm, it was an auto hit for normal (subpar) damage.
The potential to crit improved, but it didn't translate to more crits, per se on a 1:1 basis. It was more like it allowed more attacks that hit a 50% chance of being a crit, but didn't help those attacks to actually hit.
A gentle reminder that the rules are meant to support as many players and DMs as possible. Arguing over our individual styles and preferences is missing the forest for the trees, I think. If these rules only work for, say, killer DMs, then they've failed. Likewise, if they only work for people who believe death should only occur when it's narratively powerful, then they've failed. They should work for just about everybody, with little modification needed -- of course those of us with more niche preferences will need to tweak more of the rules.
I agree whole heartedly with this.
I also doubt that we will see this change to the Crit rules make it through testing. Even JC seemed to doubt that they would be well received by enough of the community to make it through. But only time will tell.
If you do have strong feelings about it one way or the other, be sure to say as much on the survey, that is where your opinion will actually be heard.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
ANYthing that means the DM has less to roll and keep track of is A-OK with me, because I'm a tired DM. ;p
I find it amusing that "the way it used to work" is referring to 3e. "The way it used to work" is that critical hits didn't exist outside of third party publications (there were ridiculous tables for critical hits back as far as the Arduin Grimoire in 1977).
Enjoy as much amusement as you can, for the march of time will feel nothing as it tramples us all into dust. 3.5 released just over 19 years ago. : )
💩!! I’m old.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Then you should probably be against this, as it seems they're gonna add a lot more recharging abilities on monsters.
Which I don't have to roll for, just use in combat when I choose. So easy.
That's false though, for one thing if they recharge in the same they do now you need to roll for a d6 to see if they regain the ability then actually use the ability which will probably have a roll or two as a part of it. That's far more moving parts then just 5 percent of the time roll a few more dice.
I'd actually like crit tables back, simple 'a bit of extra damage' is kinda boring, but the crit tables I remember were hilariously excessive.
A few reflections. I usually run games for new and, young players.
1. No Crits for spells.
Nope. This is terrible.
The most memorable, exciting and party strengthening moments in almost every game have been the times a player gets a crit.
The cheering and the bonding that occurs when the whole table celebrates a crit is such a strengthing part of the game, to allow it only for a certain type of PC is wrong.
Spell casters, and those wanting to play more magic/ less martial PCs should also get that moment to celebrate.
Yes the new rules have 20 = inspiration, but to be honest that’s a really weak replacement. It’s has kot got the instant gratification and celebration that a crit gives.
I can’t see any strong justification for this change.
2. No Crits for Monsters/ NPCs
A) Whilst I get the desire to reduce early tpk situations, and as a dm I hate rolling Crits against players …. Knowing an encounter with a monster could be deadly creates a certain sense of tension and caution that is essential for early parties. The stakes are high and this creates the drama and tension that can keep an early game going, and provide something for a pc to aim for.
Without it, player will always be more powerful than the world …… to me that actually drives the game further and further in the direction of PCs seeking combat heavy, instead of rethinking automatic combat and opting for other pillars of play.
B) Also, narratively - if a player can do something, why could not an equally powerful NPC/ monster? It breaks the continuity of the game and elevates the players to a height that is almost outside of the world, rather than just as affected and able to affect the world as any other being.
Dropping a player to 0HP isn't dead. This is the fundamental issue with your entire example. It absolutely puts the party in a hazardous state of affairs where they are forced to think outside the box and shift traditional cookie cutter tactics, but that's the GAME part of role-playing GAMES. 5e is already mockingly forgiving on the PC side of the equation outside of DM fiat to just about every other D&D equivalent game on the market. If anything, 5.5e should be looking for ways to make combat more exciting in less time than to make it more sanitized and drawn out even longer than it already is.
* nods furiously *
When a PC hits 0, there are multiple chances/guardrails to prevent permadeath. When an NPC or monster hits 0, they're gone. Finito. Bye bye. (Assuming you're using the RAW in terms of monsters reaching 0 hit points.)
While it's true that having a PC hit 0 (and presumably having the unconscious condition) does contain some very real peril for the PC, it's often in the monster's best interest to move its focus to a living, upright target rather than continue to inflict damage on a foe who's been knocked down. Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule (Molly's death in Campaign 2 of Critical Role is a standout example of such an exception) but generally, hitting 0 isn't some kind of autodeath for characters, even low level characters. 1st level characters (especially wizards and sorcerers) are disproportionately susceptible to being permakilled due to overwhelming damage from a critical hit...but even then, it's not common and can be mitigated or incorporated in a number of ways.
I think the new crit rules are fine. I still prefer the old crit rules, but I think the new crit rules should be preserved as alternative options, just like spell points and alternative resting rules. I rather have more RAW options than fewer, even if I might not use all of those options.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
They are terrible. We need to go back to more realistic rules, and things like dying at 0hp. It is virtually impossible to accidentally kill a pc these days, excepting a crit against a level 1 character. Between multiple death saving throws, healing spells, spare the dying, healers kits etc. A dm has to deliberately try to kill a player for it to happen.
Well, depending on how much damage is dealt, if it meets a certain threshold it *can* instantly kill a PC.