I haven't seen any video or Playtest that says the new Critical rules were changed. Just a couple that said that they were only using the 2014 rule in that particular Playtest
It doesn't matter because I think Critical are boring. The benefit is already there for a natural 20, which means you can hit any AC no matter how obscene. Saying you should get some extra benefit just because you roll a 20 and don't need it doesn't make sense. I mean you might as well make a roll of 1 means you dropped your weapon or a fouled up your own spell. 🙄
I forget which video it was, but I do recall them mentioning that the revised crit rules were controversial so they wouldn't move forward. I also want to say Crawford said the same thing about critical successes/failures on checks, but it has been a while...
Yeah. Sorry for not updating the og post earlier to clarify this. I've done so now.
I also forget the exact video, but I think it's probably the first - and maybe 2nd - one about playtest data where they mention it. I'll try and find a source tomorrow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
I haven't seen any video or Playtest that says they were changed. A couple (three?) of the Playtests that followed only mentioned in their notes that that particular Playtest was using the 2014 rule. Not that Playtest critical rule was ditched. If Crawford said they tossed in some social media post, then someone should post it, otherwise Critical stays changed as far as I am concerned. At least until the official rule book comes out that shows otherwise.
They say in all of the later ones that the new rules glossary supersedes previous UA's. In the first few they explicitly say anything not covered defaults back to 2014, but after a bit they seem to just consider it implied by the context. If you want it word-for-word:
In this Unearthed Arcana series, the rules glossary of each articlesupersedes the glossary of any previous article.
Crits were addressed in the rules glossary when they were toying with changes, ergo if you don't see something for them in the current one, then it defaults back to 2014 as the prior changes have essentially been deleted.
I forget which video it was, but I do recall them mentioning that the revised crit rules were controversial so they wouldn't move forward. I also want to say Crawford said the same thing about critical successes/failures on checks, but it has been a while...
Yeah. Sorry for not updating the og post earlier to clarify this. I've done so now.
I also forget the exact video, but I think it's probably the first - and maybe 2nd - one about playtest data where they mention it. I'll try and find a source tomorrow.
The 2nd playtest packet "Expert Classes" already backpedaled crits to 2014 and said nothing about nat 1's and 20's affecting rolls besides attacks- just that you gained Inspiration on a nat 1, and with the "new rules glossary deletes the old one" clause, it seems pretty clear they concluded the backlash was strong enough to scrap the concept outright.
I haven't seen any video or Playtest that says they were changed. A couple (three?) of the Playtests that followed only mentioned in their notes that that particular Playtest was using the 2014 rule. Not that Playtest critical rule was ditched. If Crawford said they tossed in some social media post, then someone should post it, otherwise Critical stays changed as far as I am concerned. At least until the official rule book comes out that shows otherwise.
They say in all of the later ones that the new rules glossary supersedes previous UA's. In the first few they explicitly say anything not covered defaults back to 2014, but after a bit they seem to just consider it implied by the context. If you want it word-for-word:
In this Unearthed Arcana series, the rules glossary of each articlesupersedes the glossary of any previous article.
Crits were addressed in the rules glossary when they were toying with changes, ergo if you don't see something for them in the current one, then it defaults back to 2014 as the prior changes have essentially been deleted.
Nothing shows it was superseded. Anyway, it doesn't matter. We will all find out in the next 8 months, more or less. Let's all just stop making blanket comments until the final product.
I forget which video it was, but I do recall them mentioning that the revised crit rules were controversial so they wouldn't move forward. I also want to say Crawford said the same thing about critical successes/failures on checks, but it has been a while...
I haven't seen any video or Playtest that says they were changed. A couple (three?) of the Playtests that followed only mentioned in their notes that that particular Playtest was using the 2014 rule. Not that Playtest critical rule was ditched. If Crawford said they tossed in some social media post, then someone should post it, otherwise Critical stays changed as far as I am concerned. At least until the official rule book comes out that shows otherwise.
They say in all of the later ones that the new rules glossary supersedes previous UA's. In the first few they explicitly say anything not covered defaults back to 2014, but after a bit they seem to just consider it implied by the context. If you want it word-for-word:
In this Unearthed Arcana series, the rules glossary of each articlesupersedes the glossary of any previous article.
Crits were addressed in the rules glossary when they were toying with changes, ergo if you don't see something for them in the current one, then it defaults back to 2014 as the prior changes have essentially been deleted.
Nothing shows it was superseded. Anyway, it doesn't matter. We will all find out in the next 8 months, more or less. Let's all just stop making blanket comments until the final product.
It. Literally. Says. That. All. Previous. Glossary. Entries. Are. Superseded.
I haven't seen any video or Playtest that says they were changed. A couple (three?) of the Playtests that followed only mentioned in their notes that that particular Playtest was using the 2014 rule. Not that Playtest critical rule was ditched. If Crawford said they tossed in some social media post, then someone should post it, otherwise Critical stays changed as far as I am concerned. At least until the official rule book comes out that shows otherwise.
They say in all of the later ones that the new rules glossary supersedes previous UA's. In the first few they explicitly say anything not covered defaults back to 2014, but after a bit they seem to just consider it implied by the context. If you want it word-for-word:
In this Unearthed Arcana series, the rules glossary of each articlesupersedes the glossary of any previous article.
Crits were addressed in the rules glossary when they were toying with changes, ergo if you don't see something for them in the current one, then it defaults back to 2014 as the prior changes have essentially been deleted.
Nothing shows it was superseded. Anyway, it doesn't matter. We will all find out in the next 8 months, more or less. Let's all just stop making blanket comments until the final product.
It. Literally. Says. That. All. Previous. Glossary. Entries. Are. Superseded.
It's really odd, with the power of two human eyes I can find it, not sure what MPA is on. It's right there, in the attack roll section, just the power of two human eyes, maybe MPA, maybe MPA means Million partially-sighted Ants.
I haven't seen any video or Playtest that says they were changed. A couple (three?) of the Playtests that followed only mentioned in their notes that that particular Playtest was using the 2014 rule. Not that Playtest critical rule was ditched. If Crawford said they tossed in some social media post, then someone should post it, otherwise Critical stays changed as far as I am concerned. At least until the official rule book comes out that shows otherwise.
They say in all of the later ones that the new rules glossary supersedes previous UA's. In the first few they explicitly say anything not covered defaults back to 2014, but after a bit they seem to just consider it implied by the context. If you want it word-for-word:
In this Unearthed Arcana series, the rules glossary of each articlesupersedes the glossary of any previous article.
Crits were addressed in the rules glossary when they were toying with changes, ergo if you don't see something for them in the current one, then it defaults back to 2014 as the prior changes have essentially been deleted.
Nothing shows it was superseded. Anyway, it doesn't matter. We will all find out in the next 8 months, more or less. Let's all just stop making blanket comments until the final product.
It. Literally. Says. That. All. Previous. Glossary. Entries. Are. Superseded.
It's really odd, with the power of two human eyes I can find it, not sure what MPA is on. It's right there, in the attack roll section, just the power of two human eyes, maybe MPA, maybe MPA means Million partially-sighted Ants.
MPA: UA 1 had crits only for players and only weapons and unarmed strikes. UA 2 says crits work as the PHB 2014.
So R3sistance and Ace are both correct that it is superseded.
R3sistance: No need to poke fun. We all miss things from time to time.
I forget which video it was, but I do recall them mentioning that the revised crit rules were controversial so they wouldn't move forward. I also want to say Crawford said the same thing about critical successes/failures on checks, but it has been a while...
Yeah. Sorry for not updating the og post earlier to clarify this. I've done so now.
I also forget the exact video, but I think it's probably the first - and maybe 2nd - one about playtest data where they mention it. I'll try and find a source tomorrow.
It's been way over a day but I finally found something on this lol (way after you guys did though):
"Before we'd even delved into the feedback for the first one, we presented a different version of the d20 test rule. And I am expecting once the survey closes for the expert classes UA, that we'll see a very different score for the d20 test. So, again, the d20 test score being in the 60s: Not a surprise." - Jeremy Crawford in THIS video (the timestamp is 8:37)
Since the second playtest where they said they removed this rule, there's been nothing to indicate the abysmal crit rules have been brought back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
Player crits being limited, spell crits being absent, and DM crits being replaced with Recharge abilities was one of the coolest ideas they proposed in the entire One D&D cycle. Those rules would have done wonders for making combat math easier for Wizards to figure out behind the scenes while also making combat more dynamic, tactical, tense, and just plain fun with flashy, thematic, and interesting limited-use abilities rather than "Whoops! This CR 1/8 goblin accidentally did 482 damage with the exact same crappy basic attack that did 5 damage last turn even though that makes no damn sense! Sorry Brad, your wizard's red mist now, and so are his ancestors for the last nine generations. Gonna have to reroll the whole family tree."
Frankly, smart DMs will homebrew those changes right back into One D&D. "bUt mY rAnDoM dAmAgE sWiNgs!" is solved by the fact that damaging attacks and spells have damage dice, frequently many of them, that randomize per-hit damage perfectly fine. Random mooks never needed to be able to crit, and haven't been able to crit in our home games for a long time. We've never felt combat was 'stale' because a mook can't suddenly deal two hundred times its normal damage and ultrasupermegainstagib a PC for free.
Crits are annoying, not 'cool'. Let martials have critical weapon strikes as a trait unique to being a weapon waver rather than a finger waggler, and otherwise get that crap out of the game. A thematic and interesting limited use power is ALWAYS - one hundred percent of the time - better than completely random critical strikes.
Player crits being limited, spell crits being absent, and DM crits being replaced with Recharge abilities was one of the coolest ideas they proposed in the entire One D&D cycle. Those rules would have done wonders for making combat math easier for Wizards to figure out behind the scenes while also making combat more dynamic, tactical, tense, and just plain fun with flashy, thematic, and interesting limited-use abilities.
Making monster writeups more interesting by giving them recharge abilities is pretty much unrelated to critical hits. The reality of critical hits is that you can safely ignore them when doing combat math, at least after first level.
You know, this kind of ludicrous hyperbole is why it’s difficult to take your posts seriously sometimes; any creature making a basic weapon attack is going to have approximately the same performance as a player; they’re not going to suddenly nova by two orders of magnitude, particularly not at the cannon fodder tier. And there’s so few spells that use attack rolls that the potential to crit helps balance out the fact that unlike most saves on damage they do absolutely zilch on a miss. Monster crits add a small element of spontaneity to combat, and it’s not like a DM can’t choose to ignore them on the rare instance they’d be truly detrimental to the game. If you don’t like it you’re free to leave it out of your table, but that’s all your argument actually seems to be: “I don’t like this”.
Here's an argument that doesn't rely on 'gamefeel', since apparently gamefeel is invalid: everybody *****es and complains about Challenge Rating being inaccurate and lame, ne? Do you think players and monsters both being able to wildly spike their damage with random, unpredictable, un-dealwithable one-in-twenty crits helps or hinders attempts to make CR less of a crap shoot beyond fifth level? The whole "you can ignore crits for damage math past first level" thing is factually untrue. When a monster is throwing a single attack that deals 6d10+25 damage and that attack instead becomes 12d10+25+whatever-dumbass-bonus-the-DM-gives-it-because-everybody-gets-wet-for-crits, that one crit CAN and WILL swing fights. To say nothing of when the DM runs a paladin-esque enemy, or when a PC paladin decides that instead of dealing 2d8+5 damage with their longsword they're suddenly instead going to deal 30d8+5 because they got a random crit and decided to pump four different forms of Smite into it.
You cannot have those sorts of outlandish wild swings and also a reliable, predictable, always-accurate-forever CR system. Pick one.
Considering CR has never been nor ever can be as reliable as all that unless they tear the entire system down and rebuild it from scratch on something like the model of an MMO, there's no choice to begin with.
Here's an argument that doesn't rely on 'gamefeel', since apparently gamefeel is invalid: everybody *****es and complains about Challenge Rating being inaccurate and lame, ne? Do you think players and monsters both being able to wildly spike their damage with random, unpredictable, un-dealwithable one-in-twenty crits helps or hinders attempts to make CR less of a crap shoot beyond fifth level? The whole "you can ignore crits for damage math past first level" thing is factually untrue. When a monster is throwing a single attack that deals 6d10+25 damage and that attack instead becomes 12d10+25+whatever-dumbass-bonus-the-DM-gives-it-because-everybody-gets-wet-for-crits, that one crit CAN and WILL swing fights. To say nothing of when the DM runs a paladin-esque enemy, or when a PC paladin decides that instead of dealing 2d8+5 damage with their longsword they're suddenly instead going to deal 30d8+5 because they got a random crit and decided to pump four different forms of Smite into it.
You cannot have those sorts of outlandish wild swings and also a reliable, predictable, always-accurate-forever CR system. Pick one.
Gee, none of those things you mention have anything to do with crits? Critical hits are way down the list of causes for swingy combats in 5e, behind at least
Initiative Rolls
Save or Suck Abilities
Abilities with recharge rolls
Attack Rolls
Damage Rolls
And for CR: the vast majority of monsters that cause severe CR problems do so for reasons unrelated to their damage (it's usually potent save or suck abilities that make monsters tougher than their CR, mobility issues that make them weaker).
I really didn't have a problem with the initial changes, if they followed through with monster recharge abilities. Not every monster needed them, but more than currently would.
Here's an argument that doesn't rely on 'gamefeel', since apparently gamefeel is invalid: everybody *****es and complains about Challenge Rating being inaccurate and lame, ne? Do you think players and monsters both being able to wildly spike their damage with random, unpredictable, un-dealwithable one-in-twenty crits helps or hinders attempts to make CR less of a crap shoot beyond fifth level?
I'm definitely not a fan of running most monsters with critical hits, as a critical hit from a monster can so often result in downed players out of nowhere; downing players is fine if it's coming from the overall challenge, but when you're downed not through any fault of your but just because of a 1 in 20 chance, that doesn't feel great. For this reason I prefer to just run monsters with average damage, plus it cuts down on rolling, and I'd much rather do something else with critical hits.
For players I think a critical hit is less of a problem because monsters can usually handle it (until you start trying to run some of the weirdly easy to kill high CR monsters), the problem is the novas where the player has a bunch of stuff they can add on that also gets doubled on the critical hit, which is where the mechanic just goes wonky. In the case of spells this can be even worse because they roll fewer attacks, but a bunch more damage, so when it triggers it's way swingier than doubling 1 in 20 regular weapon attacks. For that reason I was kind of in favour of the "no critical hits on spells" proposal, but the problem is that it was too simplistic as there are both high damage "all-or-nothing" spells and multi-attack spells where the damage per bolt/ray/whatever isn't so bad when the dice are doubled.
But honestly I'm just not a fan of "double the dice" as the critical hit effect as it's swingy and not as interesting to me. I'd much rather come up with a nice set of "critical effects" and replace the double dice with a choice from that. It's basically what I do with monsters anyway; if they score a critical hit then it might trigger an auto-fail for the target on any rider effect such as grappling/knocking prone etc., if that's already automatic they'll get some bonus effect (grappled gains restrained or such), or if they have no rider they'll get something added that makes sense in the moment.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It just irritates me because pretty much none of the people who scream and wail about how crits are AWESOMEand AMAZING and LITERALLY THE BEST PART OF D&D have...never actually even tried playing a game with reduced or eliminated crits. They have no basis for comparison, they just know they get a little dopamine spike whenever they see that 20 and feel like that's all that's required to make something The Single Greatest Mechanic in All of Gaming Forever. Never mind that crits leave no room for doing something else cool on natural 20s, and never mind that the existence of monster crits SEVERELY constrains the things you're asllowed to do with much more useful, awesome, impactful, and memorable Recharge-style abilities because the whole system has to accomodate any single given monster randomly dealing catastrophically more damage than it's supposed to.
Just...the cooler, better shit we could have if people were willing to just let go of their tiny, meaningless dopamine spikes and try a better designed system? It makes me sad we'll never really get to see it.
It just irritates me because pretty much none of the people who scream and wail about how crits are AWESOMEand AMAZING and LITERALLY THE BEST PART OF D&D have...never actually even tried playing a game with reduced or eliminated crits.
Honestly, I'm not particularly fond of crits; I consider them boring and vastly overrated by people who can't do math, which is why we wind up with trash-tier features like brutal critical. However, by the same logic, people who complain about crits also can't do math. Crits are ignorable, the game would be fine without them, but there's absolutely no reason to do it part way. If you don't like them... remove them from everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I haven't seen any video or Playtest that says the new Critical rules were changed. Just a couple that said that they were only using the 2014 rule in that particular Playtest
It doesn't matter because I think Critical are boring. The benefit is already there for a natural 20, which means you can hit any AC no matter how obscene. Saying you should get some extra benefit just because you roll a 20 and don't need it doesn't make sense. I mean you might as well make a roll of 1 means you dropped your weapon or a fouled up your own spell. 🙄
Yeah. Sorry for not updating the og post earlier to clarify this. I've done so now.
I also forget the exact video, but I think it's probably the first - and maybe 2nd - one about playtest data where they mention it. I'll try and find a source tomorrow.
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.They say in all of the later ones that the new rules glossary supersedes previous UA's. In the first few they explicitly say anything not covered defaults back to 2014, but after a bit they seem to just consider it implied by the context. If you want it word-for-word:
Crits were addressed in the rules glossary when they were toying with changes, ergo if you don't see something for them in the current one, then it defaults back to 2014 as the prior changes have essentially been deleted.
The 2nd playtest packet "Expert Classes" already backpedaled crits to 2014 and said nothing about nat 1's and 20's affecting rolls besides attacks- just that you gained Inspiration on a nat 1, and with the "new rules glossary deletes the old one" clause, it seems pretty clear they concluded the backlash was strong enough to scrap the concept outright.
Nothing shows it was superseded. Anyway, it doesn't matter. We will all find out in the next 8 months, more or less. Let's all just stop making blanket comments until the final product.
I remember also seeing that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It. Literally. Says. That. All. Previous. Glossary. Entries. Are. Superseded.
It's really odd, with the power of two human eyes I can find it, not sure what MPA is on. It's right there, in the attack roll section, just the power of two human eyes, maybe MPA, maybe MPA means Million partially-sighted Ants.
MPA: UA 1 had crits only for players and only weapons and unarmed strikes. UA 2 says crits work as the PHB 2014.
So R3sistance and Ace are both correct that it is superseded.
R3sistance: No need to poke fun. We all miss things from time to time.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It's been way over a day but I finally found something on this lol (way after you guys did though):
Since the second playtest where they said they removed this rule, there's been nothing to indicate the abysmal crit rules have been brought back.
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.Player crits being limited, spell crits being absent, and DM crits being replaced with Recharge abilities was one of the coolest ideas they proposed in the entire One D&D cycle. Those rules would have done wonders for making combat math easier for Wizards to figure out behind the scenes while also making combat more dynamic, tactical, tense, and just plain fun with flashy, thematic, and interesting limited-use abilities rather than "Whoops! This CR 1/8 goblin accidentally did 482 damage with the exact same crappy basic attack that did 5 damage last turn even though that makes no damn sense! Sorry Brad, your wizard's red mist now, and so are his ancestors for the last nine generations. Gonna have to reroll the whole family tree."
Frankly, smart DMs will homebrew those changes right back into One D&D. "bUt mY rAnDoM dAmAgE sWiNgs!" is solved by the fact that damaging attacks and spells have damage dice, frequently many of them, that randomize per-hit damage perfectly fine. Random mooks never needed to be able to crit, and haven't been able to crit in our home games for a long time. We've never felt combat was 'stale' because a mook can't suddenly deal two hundred times its normal damage and ultrasupermegainstagib a PC for free.
Crits are annoying, not 'cool'. Let martials have critical weapon strikes as a trait unique to being a weapon waver rather than a finger waggler, and otherwise get that crap out of the game. A thematic and interesting limited use power is ALWAYS - one hundred percent of the time - better than completely random critical strikes.
Please do not contact or message me.
Making monster writeups more interesting by giving them recharge abilities is pretty much unrelated to critical hits. The reality of critical hits is that you can safely ignore them when doing combat math, at least after first level.
You know, this kind of ludicrous hyperbole is why it’s difficult to take your posts seriously sometimes; any creature making a basic weapon attack is going to have approximately the same performance as a player; they’re not going to suddenly nova by two orders of magnitude, particularly not at the cannon fodder tier. And there’s so few spells that use attack rolls that the potential to crit helps balance out the fact that unlike most saves on damage they do absolutely zilch on a miss. Monster crits add a small element of spontaneity to combat, and it’s not like a DM can’t choose to ignore them on the rare instance they’d be truly detrimental to the game. If you don’t like it you’re free to leave it out of your table, but that’s all your argument actually seems to be: “I don’t like this”.
Here's an argument that doesn't rely on 'gamefeel', since apparently gamefeel is invalid: everybody *****es and complains about Challenge Rating being inaccurate and lame, ne? Do you think players and monsters both being able to wildly spike their damage with random, unpredictable, un-dealwithable one-in-twenty crits helps or hinders attempts to make CR less of a crap shoot beyond fifth level? The whole "you can ignore crits for damage math past first level" thing is factually untrue. When a monster is throwing a single attack that deals 6d10+25 damage and that attack instead becomes 12d10+25+whatever-dumbass-bonus-the-DM-gives-it-because-everybody-gets-wet-for-crits, that one crit CAN and WILL swing fights. To say nothing of when the DM runs a paladin-esque enemy, or when a PC paladin decides that instead of dealing 2d8+5 damage with their longsword they're suddenly instead going to deal 30d8+5 because they got a random crit and decided to pump four different forms of Smite into it.
You cannot have those sorts of outlandish wild swings and also a reliable, predictable, always-accurate-forever CR system. Pick one.
Please do not contact or message me.
Considering CR has never been nor ever can be as reliable as all that unless they tear the entire system down and rebuild it from scratch on something like the model of an MMO, there's no choice to begin with.
Gee, none of those things you mention have anything to do with crits? Critical hits are way down the list of causes for swingy combats in 5e, behind at least
And for CR: the vast majority of monsters that cause severe CR problems do so for reasons unrelated to their damage (it's usually potent save or suck abilities that make monsters tougher than their CR, mobility issues that make them weaker).
I really didn't have a problem with the initial changes, if they followed through with monster recharge abilities. Not every monster needed them, but more than currently would.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I'm definitely not a fan of running most monsters with critical hits, as a critical hit from a monster can so often result in downed players out of nowhere; downing players is fine if it's coming from the overall challenge, but when you're downed not through any fault of your but just because of a 1 in 20 chance, that doesn't feel great. For this reason I prefer to just run monsters with average damage, plus it cuts down on rolling, and I'd much rather do something else with critical hits.
For players I think a critical hit is less of a problem because monsters can usually handle it (until you start trying to run some of the weirdly easy to kill high CR monsters), the problem is the novas where the player has a bunch of stuff they can add on that also gets doubled on the critical hit, which is where the mechanic just goes wonky. In the case of spells this can be even worse because they roll fewer attacks, but a bunch more damage, so when it triggers it's way swingier than doubling 1 in 20 regular weapon attacks. For that reason I was kind of in favour of the "no critical hits on spells" proposal, but the problem is that it was too simplistic as there are both high damage "all-or-nothing" spells and multi-attack spells where the damage per bolt/ray/whatever isn't so bad when the dice are doubled.
But honestly I'm just not a fan of "double the dice" as the critical hit effect as it's swingy and not as interesting to me. I'd much rather come up with a nice set of "critical effects" and replace the double dice with a choice from that. It's basically what I do with monsters anyway; if they score a critical hit then it might trigger an auto-fail for the target on any rider effect such as grappling/knocking prone etc., if that's already automatic they'll get some bonus effect (grappled gains restrained or such), or if they have no rider they'll get something added that makes sense in the moment.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It just irritates me because pretty much none of the people who scream and wail about how crits are AWESOME and AMAZING and LITERALLY THE BEST PART OF D&D have...never actually even tried playing a game with reduced or eliminated crits. They have no basis for comparison, they just know they get a little dopamine spike whenever they see that 20 and feel like that's all that's required to make something The Single Greatest Mechanic in All of Gaming Forever. Never mind that crits leave no room for doing something else cool on natural 20s, and never mind that the existence of monster crits SEVERELY constrains the things you're asllowed to do with much more useful, awesome, impactful, and memorable Recharge-style abilities because the whole system has to accomodate any single given monster randomly dealing catastrophically more damage than it's supposed to.
Just...the cooler, better shit we could have if people were willing to just let go of their tiny, meaningless dopamine spikes and try a better designed system? It makes me sad we'll never really get to see it.
Please do not contact or message me.
Honestly, I'm not particularly fond of crits; I consider them boring and vastly overrated by people who can't do math, which is why we wind up with trash-tier features like brutal critical. However, by the same logic, people who complain about crits also can't do math. Crits are ignorable, the game would be fine without them, but there's absolutely no reason to do it part way. If you don't like them... remove them from everyone.