SUPER IMPORTANT EDIT: This thread's outdated because this change was removed a while ago. Sorry for forgetting to update this post: I didn't expect this thread to get revived.
EDIT: This post was more angry than level headed because I was incredibly frustrated about these changes, if you want something more logical and less emotional, check out this post of mine. That being said, if you want to see how frustrated I am about these new changes, then this post helps demonstrate that.
With the new UA, we're seeing a lot of things that might be going into the rules for 5.5e. Among them, I noticed the rules for critical hits and natural 20's. These rules go as follows:
Only weapon attacks or unarmed strikes can crit on an attack roll.
No monster can crit on an attack roll.
A natural 20 automatically succeeds on any possible ability check regardless of modifiers.
A natural 20 gives you inspiration.
I'm not here to talk about monster's critting, I'm here to talk about that first thing on the bulleted list, the fact that spells can't crit. RANT WARNING!
Meaning, whenever a wizard or spellcaster casts a spell with an attack roll in combat, and rolls a natural 20, it doesn't matter. Who cares that you got the best possible roll? Who cares that you got something everyone else at the table would be incredibly envious of? You're a spellcaster, you have other stuff going for you, too bad, too sad.
These new rules mean, that classes that rely on spells, people who play them don't get the thrill of rolling a natural 20, they might as well have rolled a 15, a 16, or maybe even a roll lower than those two depending on the monsters AC.
While all the people making weapon attacks get to crit, and deal double damage, and celebrate, since you're the spellcaster, you don't have any of that. A natural 20 is supposed to be a reward, supposed to be something everyone at the table is excited to see, but with spells, it's just like any other hit. You get nothing extra, nothing special for a special roll, you might as well not roll against monsters with really low AC, you'll hit them anyways unless you get a one.
Yes - wizards and other spellcasters have their own thing, spellcasting. And while spellcasting is cool, it's a lot less cool to not have any natural 20 matter to you while it does to almost everyone else. Just because you have spellcasting doesn't mean you should not be able to crit in it. Natural one's still have effects against you, with saving throw spells you get double damage even if it fails. But whenever you cast a spell with an attack roll, there are only two possibilities: hit or miss.
A crit is not a crit for you, it's just another hit with nothing special about it. It's unfair for everyone fighting with weapons to be able to enjoy getting a natural 20 and doing something awesome because of it. Your awesome roll is not your awesome roll, because based off the type of class you play, you can't have rolls like it.
If half the players at the table can crit, you should be able to crit too. "But you get inspiration!" While yes, you get inspiration, but everybody else gets that as well, and they also get double damage. Especially at high level's, that double damage can be huge, it's certainly a lot bigger than one free advantage to use.
I guess there's a tiny bit of fun for spellcasters rolling natural 20's, but not much. This UA seems to give out a lot of inspiration, and you may already have any. If you do, then that natural 20 is absolutely nothing. If you do, it's nice, but not great, because while everybody else get's both a massive benefit and a small benefit from it, meanwhile, you get only the small one.
A natural 20 should be something every player should be able to enjoy, but with these new rules, you can't if you're a spellcaster. Simply because you're a spellcaster casting a spell.
There should be other ways to balance spellcasters and melee combatants then giving the latter natural 20's in combat and completely removing it from the former. But why give out natural 20's at all if half the players have to stare at the die sadly, remembering what it used to mean in years past or when they played a different class, while the other players get to cheer and scream every time?
Everyone at the table should be able to share in the thrill and delight of rolling their very own natural 20. Everyone at the table should be able to super spiderman laser beam there enemies and have lots of fun from natural 20's. Everyone at the table should be able to scream "NATURAL 20!"and jump for joy. But with the new rules, they cant, because of the class they chose with the playing style they enjoyed, they're punished for it.
These new rules mean, that classes that rely on spells, people who play them don't get the thrill of rolling a natural 20, they might as well have rolled a 15, a 16, or maybe even a roll lower than those two depending on the monsters AC.
Incorrect. A natural 20 still occurred. It still provided you a bonus. Automatic hit and Inspiration.
While all the people making weapon attacks get to crit, and deal double damage, and celebrate, since you're the spellcaster, you don't have any of that. A natural 20 is supposed to be a reward, supposed to be something everyone at the table is excited to see, but with spells, it's just like any other hit. You get nothing extra, nothing special for a special roll, you might as well not roll against monsters with really low AC, you'll hit them anyways unless you get a one.
They deal an additional weapon die. Not double. They also automatically hit and gain inspiration. You as a spellcaster get two of those 3 things. As for the point about not rolling against low AC monsters that is also a separate rule introduced in the document. Not rolling for targets below 5 or above 30.
A crit is not a crit for you, it's just another hit with nothing special about it. It's unfair for everyone fighting with weapons to be able to enjoy getting a natural 20 and doing something awesome because of it. Your awesome roll is not your awesome roll, because based off the type of class you play, you can't have rolls like it.
Correct for the bold, incorrect for the rest. You still gain an auto hit and advantage. What is unfair is you dealing 3x the die roll of a longsword with a first level spell, and having a 5% chance to destroy a low level encounter before a fighter can get to it.
I could continue, but it just seems to me that you want to have unrivaled control capability, unrivaled movement capability, the answer to most obstacles, and immeasurably better damage that also can deal double immeasurably better damage. Let the damn martials have their SINGLE ADDITIONAL DIE ROLL. You don't need it.
These new rules mean, that classes that rely on spells, people who play them don't get the thrill of rolling a natural 20, they might as well have rolled a 15, a 16, or maybe even a roll lower than those two depending on the monsters AC.
Incorrect. A natural 20 still occurred. It still provided you a bonus. Automatic hit and Inspiration.
Yes, perhaps saying a crit on spells does nothing is a bit exaggerated, but inspiration certainly doesn't provide much, as I talked about in the part of my post that were chopped off from the quotes.
While all the people making weapon attacks get to crit, and deal double damage, and celebrate, since you're the spellcaster, you don't have any of that. A natural 20 is supposed to be a reward, supposed to be something everyone at the table is excited to see, but with spells, it's just like any other hit. You get nothing extra, nothing special for a special roll, you might as well not roll against monsters with really low AC, you'll hit them anyways unless you get a one.
They deal an additional weapon die. Not double. They also automatically hit and gain inspiration. You as a spellcaster get two of those 3 things. As for the point about not rolling against low AC monsters that is also a separate rule introduced in the document. Not rolling for targets below 5 or above 30.
A crit is not a crit for you, it's just another hit with nothing special about it. It's unfair for everyone fighting with weapons to be able to enjoy getting a natural 20 and doing something awesome because of it. Your awesome roll is not your awesome roll, because based off the type of class you play, you can't have rolls like it.
Correct for the bold, incorrect for the rest. You still gain an auto hit and advantage. What is unfair is you dealing 3x the die roll of a longsword with a first level spell, and having a 5% chance to destroy a low level encounter before a fighter can get to it.
I could continue, but it just seems to me that you want to have unrivaled control capability, unrivaled movement capability, the answer to most obstacles, and immeasurably better damage that also can deal double immeasurably better damage. Let the damn martials have their SINGLE ADDITIONAL DIE ROLL. You don't need it.
It doesn't deal one additional damage die, it deals all the initial damage dice in the first attack, which can be multiple dice, all over again. This is very similar to double damage and is often referred to as that in short.
I'm not saying that martials can't have there extra damage, I'm saying that spellcasters should be able to have it too. After all, there is a difference between saying "I would like this too," and "You can't have it."
These are rule tests for a new edition, spells don't have to deal three times the damage of a longsword. Also, spells cast resources, a longsword doesn't and you can just use it on repeat.
I guess I understand taking away crits from some spells, as they can deal a heck of a lot of damage. But why cant cantrips crit? I've always looked at spells like eldrich blast and fire bolt to be essentially a casters class weapon strike similar to a bow. Should a bow not be able to crit because it's a ranged attack? Martial classes also get multiple attacks on their turn. They can still crit on each of those attacks. A spell caster now cannot, and only attacks the one time.
Because casters are already stronger than martials?
Is that how it should be balanced for the next edition? Spellcasters and martials both have strengths and weaknesses, so it's hard to conclusively and objectively say which is better.
However, is removing natural 20's from spells the way to fix any power level difference between archetypal class types? The new edition, which these rules are being tested for, can work to balance the classes in so many other ways. But in the UA, they've tried this.
These are rule tests for a new edition, spells don't have to deal three times the damage of a longsword. Also, spells cast resources, a longsword doesn't and you can just use it on repeat.
This is fair. My response is speculation based in the understanding of spell mechanics as they are currently. So a grain of salt is encouraged.
Spells may consume resources, but they are also far easier to use. Having played a dwarf fighter for a few campaigns there were HUNDREDs of fights I never even reached an enemy for. Using each round of an entire combat to move ineffectually across the battlefield doesn't feel good.
I even sympathize for your desire to have what someone else has, but martials have wanted better damage, better mobility, better control, and everything you are taking for granted for the entire existence of D&D.
Casters are not balanced. Not between different caster types, and certainly not against martials. This moves in the direction of balance in my opinion.
Because casters are already stronger than martials?
Is that how it should be balanced for the next edition? Spellcasters and martials both have strengths and weaknesses, so it's hard to conclusively and objectively say which is better.
However, is removing natural 20's from spells the way to fix any power level difference between archetypal class types? The new edition, which these rules are being tested for, can work to balance the classes in so many other ways. But in the UA, they've tried this.
Is it how they should balance it? I don't know. I'm not WOTC.
Sometimes things get buffed and sometimes they get nerfed. It's usually the easiest (read: cheapest) way to attempt balance in something so of course WOTC is going to try it.
Cantrips (i.e. the things casters always crit with) do not cost resources. They're also much better at critting than a martial weapon is. A martial crit deals, at most, 2d12+[X] damage. A spellcaster's cantrip crit can deal 8d10 inherently magical damage, for no more resource cost than it took the martial to swing their measly pissant 2d12+[X].
Spellcasters don't need crits. Spells are already powerful enough. Is it nice when a low-level spellcaster crits with a basic spell attack? Sure. But hey - spellcasters also get unlimited free ammo for their spells, inherently magical damage, and the ability to effortlessly and freely switch 'weapon types' (i.e. combat cantrips) without having to juggle what's in their hands. They have plenty of edges already. It's not a big deal for them to lose crits.
These new rules mean, that classes that rely on spells, people who play them don't get the thrill of rolling a natural 20, they might as well have rolled a 15, a 16, or maybe even a roll lower than those two depending on the monsters AC.
Incorrect. A natural 20 still occurred. It still provided you a bonus. Automatic hit and Inspiration.
Yes, perhaps saying a crit on spells does nothing is a bit exaggerated, but inspiration certainly doesn't provide much, as I talked about in the part of my post that were chopped off from the quotes.
While all the people making weapon attacks get to crit, and deal double damage, and celebrate, since you're the spellcaster, you don't have any of that. A natural 20 is supposed to be a reward, supposed to be something everyone at the table is excited to see, but with spells, it's just like any other hit. You get nothing extra, nothing special for a special roll, you might as well not roll against monsters with really low AC, you'll hit them anyways unless you get a one.
They deal an additional weapon die. Not double. They also automatically hit and gain inspiration. You as a spellcaster get two of those 3 things. As for the point about not rolling against low AC monsters that is also a separate rule introduced in the document. Not rolling for targets below 5 or above 30.
A crit is not a crit for you, it's just another hit with nothing special about it. It's unfair for everyone fighting with weapons to be able to enjoy getting a natural 20 and doing something awesome because of it. Your awesome roll is not your awesome roll, because based off the type of class you play, you can't have rolls like it.
Correct for the bold, incorrect for the rest. You still gain an auto hit and advantage. What is unfair is you dealing 3x the die roll of a longsword with a first level spell, and having a 5% chance to destroy a low level encounter before a fighter can get to it.
I could continue, but it just seems to me that you want to have unrivaled control capability, unrivaled movement capability, the answer to most obstacles, and immeasurably better damage that also can deal double immeasurably better damage. Let the damn martials have their SINGLE ADDITIONAL DIE ROLL. You don't need it.
It doesn't deal one additional damage die, it deals all the initial damage dice in the first attack, which can be multiple dice, all over again. This is very similar to double damage and is often referred to as that in short.
I'm not saying that martials can't have there extra damage, I'm saying that spellcasters should be able to have it too. After all, there is a difference between saying "I would like this too," and "You can't have it."
These are rule tests for a new edition, spells don't have to deal three times the damage of a longsword. Also, spells cast resources, a longsword doesn't and you can just use it on repeat.
Keep in mind we don’t know how much damage spells or weapons will do. Could be they change one or the other. Could be spells damage is boosted to make up for not critting, like letting everyone add their casting modifier to cantrips. Could be spells get some other effect added on a Nat 20 instead of damage. Could be they are getting rid of spell attacks and making everything save based, because new players have a heck of a time figuring out the mechanics for each spell individually, so they want a more unified approach.
We’ve only seen the tip of a very big iceberg here. An iceberg that is still under construction. Extrapolating the impacts of one small change on how fun the game is going to be overall is a big stretch.
Because casters are already stronger than martials?
Is that how it should be balanced for the next edition? Spellcasters and martials both have strengths and weaknesses, so it's hard to conclusively and objectively say which is better.
That's up to the community to decide. Which is the purpose of this playtest document.
Spellcasters have one weakness (lower hit dice) and martials have dozens (less/no spell access, linear scaling while wizards scale quadratically, range restriction).
However, is removing natural 20's from spells the way to fix any power level difference between archetypal class types? The new edition, which these rules are being tested for, can work to balance the classes in so many other ways. But in the UA, they've tried this.
Who says this is the only change WotC will do to try and fix the balance between martials and spellcasters? This could just be one of many changes to rebalance them. However, dismissing this change out of hand due to an emotional response and "this change alone won't be enough to fix the Martial-Caster disparity, so it might as well not exist" is a myopic reaction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells may consume resources, but they are also far easier to use. Having played a dwarf fighter for a few campaigns there were HUNDREDs of fights I never even reached an enemy for. Using each round of an entire combat to move ineffectually across the battlefield doesn't feel good.
This is a problem with ranged v melee than martial v caster. I'm also confused how this happened hundreds of times in a few campaigns. We've done a L1-13 campaign plus a L1-5 one with a sword based martial and a caster as a party, and we've never had the fight be over before the martial got a few good blows in - although granted, once the vast bulk of the fighting had been dealth with by a single well cast Fireball. It sounds like a DM problem of providing enemies that are far away and low HP.
I even sympathize for your desire to have what someone else has, but martials have wanted better damage, better mobility, better control, and everything you are taking for granted for the entire existence of D&D.
So you're happy that rather than buffing martials, they nerf spellcasters?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It doesn't deal one additional damage die, it deals all the initial damage dice in the first attack, which can be multiple dice, all over again. This is very similar to double damage and is often referred to as that in short.
Play test rules have different crit rules. It's just weapon dice now, not any additional damage dice.
"CRITICAL HITS Weapons and Unarmed Strikes* have a special feature for player characters: Critical Hits. If a player character rolls a 20 for an attack roll with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike, the attack is also a Critical Hit, which means it deals extra damage to the target; you roll the damage dice of the Weapon or Unarmed Strike a second time and add the second roll as extra damage to the target. For example, a Mace deals Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you score a Critical Hit with the Mace, it instead deals 2d6 + your Strength modifier. If your Weapon or Unarmed Strike has no damage dice, it deals no extra damage on a Critical Hit."
While all the people making weapon attacks get to crit, and deal double damage, and celebrate
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 change for the playtest only changes the final part of the PHB example. Doubling weapon or unarmed strike damage dice remains unchanged.
The claim that crits before the playtest did "double total damage," is a common misconception, and is one of the most common homebrews that people use, not understanding that it is indeed "homebrew".
Spells may consume resources, but they are also far easier to use. Having played a dwarf fighter for a few campaigns there were HUNDREDs of fights I never even reached an enemy for. Using each round of an entire combat to move ineffectually across the battlefield doesn't feel good.
This is a problem with ranged v melee than martial v caster. I'm also confused how this happened hundreds of times in a few campaigns. We've done a L1-13 campaign plus a L1-5 one with a sword based martial and a caster as a party, and we've never had the fight be over before the martial got a few good blows in - although granted, once the vast bulk of the fighting had been dealth with by a single well cast Fireball. It sounds like a DM problem of providing enemies that are far away and low HP.
I even sympathize for your desire to have what someone else has, but martials have wanted better damage, better mobility, better control, and everything you are taking for granted for the entire existence of D&D.
So you're happy that rather than buffing martials, they nerf spellcasters?
Without writing out the entire scenario I can sum this up to "Look at the range on Javelins", "think how terrain might impact movement", and "think how infinite 120ft range spells and being able to teleport and fly would outclass the previous two statements." Then add that as a dwarf I would've had less movement than the other characters.
As for being happy they nerfed spellcasters, yes. Yes I am happy. They are too strong. And years of buffing things that are weak have us in this rampant power creep that bloated 3.5e and WotC has struggled for years to move away from. They are bringing EVERYTHING down in some manner and I support this. Better to all come down varying degrees than keep ballooning out of control.
The biggest issue with this new "Crit" rule is that it's not a crit anymore for anyone that is playing a spellcaster, rogue, or paladin. Rangers, Fighters, and Barbarians are now the main source of damage in every group. Monk is the only class that this new crit system buffs. If you want to play another class then you will be weaker on damage and only useful if you choose some type of support, buff, de-buff, healing, etc. spells/abilities. It slows down combat which is already very slow and will force new players to play classes that they might not want to play especially if your group doesn't have a martial class that the new "Crit" system works for. Inspiration mechanic is just a BS attempt to make us feel better about the fisting that they gave most of the classes. I would be happier if you said that crits don't mean anything anymore rather than adding a single damage die for certain classes. That entire section needs to be discarded and redone. I wouldn't run a game with these rules, because it is stupid to nerf the entire crit system just to make 3 martial classes top on damage and make monk playable.
Cantrips (i.e. the things casters always crit with) do not cost resources. They're also much better at critting than a martial weapon is. A martial crit deals, at most, 2d12+[X] damage. A spellcaster's cantrip crit can deal 8d10 inherently magical damage, for no more resource cost than it took the martial to swing their measly pissant 2d12+[X].
Feel free to correct me here to a more powerful cantrip, but Fire Bolt does 4d10 at L20. It also gets (in 5e) 1 in 20 chance of doing critting. That's an average of 22.275 damage. Compare that to a Fighter with a Longsword who, using an Action (and no abilities, to keep things fair), gets to attack four times and gets to add their ability modifier damage as well, which, at L20 is going to be 5, is 20 damage alone. Add on the damage of the sword, that's 42 damage. Plus four attempts at critting, so that's 43.1 damage. Most martials get at least 2 attacks, so that's still 21.55 - it's hardly getting slaughtered by cantrips. Which isn't to say that cantrips should be boosted at all or that martials shouldn't be buffed, but it's not like cantrips of all things are wiping the floor with martials.
Which leads to another point - if there is a discrepancy between martials and casters (and I'm not contesting this), 1/20th of an attack isn't really the hill to die on with this. You need something a lot more beefy than double damage dice on a crit to balance it, if it's worth balancing. All I see this doing is taking away some of the excitement that comes from actually getting a crit as a caster. Crits are more significant emotionally than mathematically.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I feel that there is a huge caster / martial disparity, and thus I think it's only good that spells can't crit in the UA.
I also hope for things along these lines, which is to be considered my, probably, very unpopular opinion:
Spells that make travelling and resting trivial should either be removed or become higher level spells. Tiny Hut for instance, remove it or bump it to be a level 5 spell, and don't let it be a ritual - Or make it Ranger specific or some such.
I hope for a variant rule where full casters can't get spells higher than level 5 without it being a boon or some such. They should be able to continue to level for features and spell slots. They should still get spells level 1 → 5 in the class level range 1 → 9.
In general, spells shouldn't be able to solve as many non-combat problems as they do today, I want a bigger emphasis on the skills and the skill checks.
It doesn't deal one additional damage die, it deals all the initial damage dice in the first attack, which can be multiple dice, all over again. This is very similar to double damage and is often referred to as that in short.
I'm not saying that martials can't have there extra damage, I'm saying that spellcasters should be able to have it too. After all, there is a difference between saying "I would like this too," and "You can't have it."
These are rule tests for a new edition, spells don't have to deal three times the damage of a longsword. Also, spells cast resources, a longsword doesn't and you can just use it on repeat.
And the whole "spell slots are a limited resource" thing very rarely comes into play. Fact is that full casters usually have a spell slot or two for each encounter, and when they don't, then they still have awesome cantrips, which rival martial options as well on their own.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
SUPER IMPORTANT EDIT: This thread's outdated because this change was removed a while ago. Sorry for forgetting to update this post: I didn't expect this thread to get revived.
EDIT: This post was more angry than level headed because I was incredibly frustrated about these changes, if you want something more logical and less emotional, check out this post of mine. That being said, if you want to see how frustrated I am about these new changes, then this post helps demonstrate that.
With the new UA, we're seeing a lot of things that might be going into the rules for 5.5e. Among them, I noticed the rules for critical hits and natural 20's. These rules go as follows:
I'm not here to talk about monster's critting, I'm here to talk about that first thing on the bulleted list, the fact that spells can't crit. RANT WARNING!
Meaning, whenever a wizard or spellcaster casts a spell with an attack roll in combat, and rolls a natural 20, it doesn't matter. Who cares that you got the best possible roll? Who cares that you got something everyone else at the table would be incredibly envious of? You're a spellcaster, you have other stuff going for you, too bad, too sad.
These new rules mean, that classes that rely on spells, people who play them don't get the thrill of rolling a natural 20, they might as well have rolled a 15, a 16, or maybe even a roll lower than those two depending on the monsters AC.
While all the people making weapon attacks get to crit, and deal double damage, and celebrate, since you're the spellcaster, you don't have any of that. A natural 20 is supposed to be a reward, supposed to be something everyone at the table is excited to see, but with spells, it's just like any other hit. You get nothing extra, nothing special for a special roll, you might as well not roll against monsters with really low AC, you'll hit them anyways unless you get a one.
Yes - wizards and other spellcasters have their own thing, spellcasting. And while spellcasting is cool, it's a lot less cool to not have any natural 20 matter to you while it does to almost everyone else. Just because you have spellcasting doesn't mean you should not be able to crit in it. Natural one's still have effects against you, with saving throw spells you get double damage even if it fails. But whenever you cast a spell with an attack roll, there are only two possibilities: hit or miss.
A crit is not a crit for you, it's just another hit with nothing special about it. It's unfair for everyone fighting with weapons to be able to enjoy getting a natural 20 and doing something awesome because of it. Your awesome roll is not your awesome roll, because based off the type of class you play, you can't have rolls like it.
If half the players at the table can crit, you should be able to crit too. "But you get inspiration!" While yes, you get inspiration, but everybody else gets that as well, and they also get double damage. Especially at high level's, that double damage can be huge, it's certainly a lot bigger than one free advantage to use.
I guess there's a tiny bit of fun for spellcasters rolling natural 20's, but not much. This UA seems to give out a lot of inspiration, and you may already have any. If you do, then that natural 20 is absolutely nothing. If you do, it's nice, but not great, because while everybody else get's both a massive benefit and a small benefit from it, meanwhile, you get only the small one.
A natural 20 should be something every player should be able to enjoy, but with these new rules, you can't if you're a spellcaster. Simply because you're a spellcaster casting a spell.
There should be other ways to balance spellcasters and melee combatants then giving the latter natural 20's in combat and completely removing it from the former. But why give out natural 20's at all if half the players have to stare at the die sadly, remembering what it used to mean in years past or when they played a different class, while the other players get to cheer and scream every time?
Everyone at the table should be able to share in the thrill and delight of rolling their very own natural 20. Everyone at the table should be able to super spiderman laser beam there enemies and have lots of fun from natural 20's. Everyone at the table should be able to scream "NATURAL 20!"and jump for joy. But with the new rules, they cant, because of the class they chose with the playing style they enjoyed, they're punished for it.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Oops, I wrote "Thi" instead of think on the poll. Annoying, still not a big deal though.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Incorrect. You still automatically hit. You still gain inspiration.
Incorrect. A natural 20 still occurred. It still provided you a bonus. Automatic hit and Inspiration.
They deal an additional weapon die. Not double. They also automatically hit and gain inspiration. You as a spellcaster get two of those 3 things. As for the point about not rolling against low AC monsters that is also a separate rule introduced in the document. Not rolling for targets below 5 or above 30.
Correct for the bold, incorrect for the rest. You still gain an auto hit and advantage. What is unfair is you dealing 3x the die roll of a longsword with a first level spell, and having a 5% chance to destroy a low level encounter before a fighter can get to it.
I could continue, but it just seems to me that you want to have unrivaled control capability, unrivaled movement capability, the answer to most obstacles, and immeasurably better damage that also can deal double immeasurably better damage. Let the damn martials have their SINGLE ADDITIONAL DIE ROLL. You don't need it.
Because casters are already stronger than martials?
Yes, perhaps saying a crit on spells does nothing is a bit exaggerated, but inspiration certainly doesn't provide much, as I talked about in the part of my post that were chopped off from the quotes.
It doesn't deal one additional damage die, it deals all the initial damage dice in the first attack, which can be multiple dice, all over again. This is very similar to double damage and is often referred to as that in short.
I'm not saying that martials can't have there extra damage, I'm saying that spellcasters should be able to have it too. After all, there is a difference between saying "I would like this too," and "You can't have it."
These are rule tests for a new edition, spells don't have to deal three times the damage of a longsword. Also, spells cast resources, a longsword doesn't and you can just use it on repeat.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I guess I understand taking away crits from some spells, as they can deal a heck of a lot of damage. But why cant cantrips crit? I've always looked at spells like eldrich blast and fire bolt to be essentially a casters class weapon strike similar to a bow. Should a bow not be able to crit because it's a ranged attack? Martial classes also get multiple attacks on their turn. They can still crit on each of those attacks. A spell caster now cannot, and only attacks the one time.
Is that how it should be balanced for the next edition? Spellcasters and martials both have strengths and weaknesses, so it's hard to conclusively and objectively say which is better.
However, is removing natural 20's from spells the way to fix any power level difference between archetypal class types? The new edition, which these rules are being tested for, can work to balance the classes in so many other ways. But in the UA, they've tried this.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.This is fair. My response is speculation based in the understanding of spell mechanics as they are currently. So a grain of salt is encouraged.
Spells may consume resources, but they are also far easier to use. Having played a dwarf fighter for a few campaigns there were HUNDREDs of fights I never even reached an enemy for. Using each round of an entire combat to move ineffectually across the battlefield doesn't feel good.
I even sympathize for your desire to have what someone else has, but martials have wanted better damage, better mobility, better control, and everything you are taking for granted for the entire existence of D&D.
Casters are not balanced. Not between different caster types, and certainly not against martials. This moves in the direction of balance in my opinion.
I suppose we will agree to disagree.
Is it how they should balance it? I don't know. I'm not WOTC.
Sometimes things get buffed and sometimes they get nerfed. It's usually the easiest (read: cheapest) way to attempt balance in something so of course WOTC is going to try it.
Cantrips (i.e. the things casters always crit with) do not cost resources. They're also much better at critting than a martial weapon is. A martial crit deals, at most, 2d12+[X] damage. A spellcaster's cantrip crit can deal 8d10 inherently magical damage, for no more resource cost than it took the martial to swing their measly pissant 2d12+[X].
Spellcasters don't need crits. Spells are already powerful enough. Is it nice when a low-level spellcaster crits with a basic spell attack? Sure. But hey - spellcasters also get unlimited free ammo for their spells, inherently magical damage, and the ability to effortlessly and freely switch 'weapon types' (i.e. combat cantrips) without having to juggle what's in their hands. They have plenty of edges already. It's not a big deal for them to lose crits.
Please do not contact or message me.
Keep in mind we don’t know how much damage spells or weapons will do. Could be they change one or the other. Could be spells damage is boosted to make up for not critting, like letting everyone add their casting modifier to cantrips. Could be spells get some other effect added on a Nat 20 instead of damage. Could be they are getting rid of spell attacks and making everything save based, because new players have a heck of a time figuring out the mechanics for each spell individually, so they want a more unified approach.
We’ve only seen the tip of a very big iceberg here. An iceberg that is still under construction. Extrapolating the impacts of one small change on how fun the game is going to be overall is a big stretch.
That's up to the community to decide. Which is the purpose of this playtest document.
Spellcasters have one weakness (lower hit dice) and martials have dozens (less/no spell access, linear scaling while wizards scale quadratically, range restriction).
Who says this is the only change WotC will do to try and fix the balance between martials and spellcasters? This could just be one of many changes to rebalance them. However, dismissing this change out of hand due to an emotional response and "this change alone won't be enough to fix the Martial-Caster disparity, so it might as well not exist" is a myopic reaction.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This is a problem with ranged v melee than martial v caster. I'm also confused how this happened hundreds of times in a few campaigns. We've done a L1-13 campaign plus a L1-5 one with a sword based martial and a caster as a party, and we've never had the fight be over before the martial got a few good blows in - although granted, once the vast bulk of the fighting had been dealth with by a single well cast Fireball. It sounds like a DM problem of providing enemies that are far away and low HP.
So you're happy that rather than buffing martials, they nerf spellcasters?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Play test rules have different crit rules. It's just weapon dice now, not any additional damage dice.
"CRITICAL HITS Weapons and Unarmed Strikes* have a special feature for player characters: Critical Hits. If a player character rolls a 20 for an attack roll with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike, the attack is also a Critical Hit, which means it deals extra damage to the target; you roll the damage dice of the Weapon or Unarmed Strike a second time and add the second roll as extra damage to the target. For example, a Mace deals Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you score a Critical Hit with the Mace, it instead deals 2d6 + your Strength modifier. If your Weapon or Unarmed Strike has no damage dice, it deals no extra damage on a Critical Hit."
Crits never "doubled damage." Crits have always doubled the damage dice, before modifiers. From the PHB:
The change for the playtest only changes the final part of the PHB example. Doubling weapon or unarmed strike damage dice remains unchanged.
The claim that crits before the playtest did "double total damage," is a common misconception, and is one of the most common homebrews that people use, not understanding that it is indeed "homebrew".
Without writing out the entire scenario I can sum this up to "Look at the range on Javelins", "think how terrain might impact movement", and "think how infinite 120ft range spells and being able to teleport and fly would outclass the previous two statements." Then add that as a dwarf I would've had less movement than the other characters.
As for being happy they nerfed spellcasters, yes. Yes I am happy. They are too strong. And years of buffing things that are weak have us in this rampant power creep that bloated 3.5e and WotC has struggled for years to move away from. They are bringing EVERYTHING down in some manner and I support this. Better to all come down varying degrees than keep ballooning out of control.
The biggest issue with this new "Crit" rule is that it's not a crit anymore for anyone that is playing a spellcaster, rogue, or paladin. Rangers, Fighters, and Barbarians are now the main source of damage in every group. Monk is the only class that this new crit system buffs. If you want to play another class then you will be weaker on damage and only useful if you choose some type of support, buff, de-buff, healing, etc. spells/abilities. It slows down combat which is already very slow and will force new players to play classes that they might not want to play especially if your group doesn't have a martial class that the new "Crit" system works for. Inspiration mechanic is just a BS attempt to make us feel better about the fisting that they gave most of the classes. I would be happier if you said that crits don't mean anything anymore rather than adding a single damage die for certain classes. That entire section needs to be discarded and redone. I wouldn't run a game with these rules, because it is stupid to nerf the entire crit system just to make 3 martial classes top on damage and make monk playable.
Feel free to correct me here to a more powerful cantrip, but Fire Bolt does 4d10 at L20. It also gets (in 5e) 1 in 20 chance of doing critting. That's an average of 22.275 damage. Compare that to a Fighter with a Longsword who, using an Action (and no abilities, to keep things fair), gets to attack four times and gets to add their ability modifier damage as well, which, at L20 is going to be 5, is 20 damage alone. Add on the damage of the sword, that's 42 damage. Plus four attempts at critting, so that's 43.1 damage. Most martials get at least 2 attacks, so that's still 21.55 - it's hardly getting slaughtered by cantrips. Which isn't to say that cantrips should be boosted at all or that martials shouldn't be buffed, but it's not like cantrips of all things are wiping the floor with martials.
Which leads to another point - if there is a discrepancy between martials and casters (and I'm not contesting this), 1/20th of an attack isn't really the hill to die on with this. You need something a lot more beefy than double damage dice on a crit to balance it, if it's worth balancing. All I see this doing is taking away some of the excitement that comes from actually getting a crit as a caster. Crits are more significant emotionally than mathematically.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I feel that there is a huge caster / martial disparity, and thus I think it's only good that spells can't crit in the UA.
I also hope for things along these lines, which is to be considered my, probably, very unpopular opinion:
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
And the whole "spell slots are a limited resource" thing very rarely comes into play. Fact is that full casters usually have a spell slot or two for each encounter, and when they don't, then they still have awesome cantrips, which rival martial options as well on their own.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter