It's all about balance. I read lots of comments about attacks, but how about the defences of the spellcasters? They have lower AC because they are limited in armour type
Mage Armor only costs one spell slot and basically gives you +1 Studded Leather Armor for an hour. Shield is a 1st level reaction spell that increases your armor class by 5 until the start of your next turn. Bladesinger Wizards can have higher armor class than practically anyone else in the game. Most mages help/attack at ranged, too, which makes them way less likely to be attacked by powerful attacks. And plenty of spellcasters don't have very many restrictions on armor (Clerics, Druids, Hexblade Warlocks).
, have limitations for using a shield and have fewer Hit Points because they use lower Hit Dice.
So, just a few less hit points per level compared to martials. That's a tiny difference that doesn't nearly make up for Spellcasters getting Reshape the Entire World spells at high level and Fighters getting "I get one more attack" at high levels.
That is where the balance is. So taking away their crit does not feel fair.
The "balance" doesn't work. It's been a problem for literally decades, and is even worse in 5e than it was in the first couple editions (Wizards used to have d4 hit dice and no cantrips). "Fair" would be giving Fighters abilities to chop off the tops of mountains, jump halfway across the world in a single turn, and punching castles into dust. This is reducing their damage by less than 50% about 5% of the time they make an attack-based spell (which are rare compared to saving throw spells).
If the Wizard wants to crit, they can pick up a weapon and cast Tenser's Transformation. Then they can do everything the Fighter can, deal more damage per attack, and still have spell slots after the spell ends.
I'm not sure how to deal with it, though. I'm loathe to nerf casters because, let's face it, those big powers are fun. On the other hand, martials...yeah. I've not played high level campaigns yet (I'm homebrewing one at the moment, but it's early stages yet), but I see where you're coming from. Maybe martials can muster armies or something, or there sources of power that casters can't use but martials can...I'm not sure what to do about it.
Back in the day, fighters became Lords at level 10 and acquired a castle and followers. Rangers acquired animal followers, rogues became leader of their own thieves guild with several members. Can’t remember what paladins got as we didn’t have them often enough. But that often presented a lot of non combat opportunities and rp options.
A slightly odd thought but....what about referring back to 3e and changing how the weapons crit instead of changing whio can crit with an attack?
Give those with access to martial weapons access to weapons like the scimitar which crit on a 18-20 fo x2 damage or the Scythe which crits on a natual 20 but does x4 damage.
I'm not sure how to deal with it, though. I'm loathe to nerf casters because, let's face it, those big powers are fun. On the other hand, martials...yeah. I've not played high level campaigns yet (I'm homebrewing one at the moment, but it's early stages yet), but I see where you're coming from. Maybe martials can muster armies or something, or there sources of power that casters can't use but martials can...I'm not sure what to do about it.
Fun is subjective, and in this case, fun comes at the expense of other player options. Magic needs to be reigned in, and reigned in a lot. Don't know what the board rules are for discussing other games here, but Shadow of the Demon Lord is similar to 5e in a lot of ways while it basically fixes the entire issue here by having the players choose, "Learn new Magic Tradition or Learn new spell from known tradition," when they level up, which means the more schools of magic you know (and the more flexible your potential repertoire of spells becomes), the less physical spells your character actually has access to. Normally I wouldn't bring up another game when discussing D&D, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking One D&D is anything but alpha testing 6e and fishing for ideas straight from the community.
If the Wizard wants to crit, they can pick up a weapon and cast Tenser's Transformation. Then they can do everything the Fighter can, deal more damage per attack, and still have spell slots after the spell ends.
Thus the problem lies not in the fact that spellcasters can crit, but some spells are overpowered and need to be reviewed, imho.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Semper in faecibus sumus, solum profundum variat" playing since 1986
I'm not sure how to deal with it, though. I'm loathe to nerf casters because, let's face it, those big powers are fun. On the other hand, martials...yeah. I've not played high level campaigns yet (I'm homebrewing one at the moment, but it's early stages yet), but I see where you're coming from. Maybe martials can muster armies or something, or there sources of power that casters can't use but martials can...I'm not sure what to do about it.
Back in the day, fighters became Lords at level 10 and acquired a castle and followers. Rangers acquired animal followers, rogues became leader of their own thieves guild with several members. Can’t remember what paladins got as we didn’t have them often enough. But that often presented a lot of non combat opportunities and rp options.
See, I was thinking to go back to the 1e method of wizards needing much more xp to level. Slow their progression, and it helps them feel not as overpowered. Of course, that would mean a rewrite of the whole multiclass rules, so it probably won’t happen.
Spellcaster are in desperate need of nerfing, so yes. The game is borderline impossible to lose on the player's side past lvl5 (assuming DM's don't just deus ex in "threats"), so any notion of buffing anyone is kind of a ridiculous ask. We are literally at a point where casters just need to get cut off at their knees to restore any semblance of balance to the game.
If casters need to "get cut off at their knees," then crits aren't the way to do it. Natural 20's happen only 5% percent out of the time, and coupled with the special things they provide, especially in combat, which makes them a rare but super awesome instance. I mean, who wouldn't jump for joy after a natural 20?
As I said, if spellcasters need to be more balanced, this is not the way to do it. They can change the class, or make martials more powerful which would work a lot better, and help level the playing field. Either way, crits are rare, and yet they're massive when they occur. But removing a super fun elements of the game from one group of classes, but not from others, is simply put, not fun at all.
There are so many ways to do this that do not involve removing arguably the funnest element of the game from spells. And many of these ways would actually work a lot better, so why this? Yes, it may not be the only thing they do to balance spellcasters with martials better if WotC feels they need that balancing them is neccessary, but overall, even if it is done along with other things balancing acts, removing one sides fun is not the way to help the other group enjoy the game better.
Crits are awesome because they're rare and memerable. Yes, inspiration is cool but in many people's opinions, it's not even a well-designed mechanic. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but what is an undeniable fact is that in this UA, inspiration is not nearly as big a deal as it is in 5e. It is almost nothing compared to double damage.
And that double damage is one of the best feelings and in my opinion at least, the greatest moment of the game. But I address everyone here with this, how would you feel if you didn't get that awesome moment of a crit while all the martials did, just because you already have good things about your class, should one of the funnest thing about the game be removed for you?
If rolling a 20 is the, "funnest part of the game," for you, then I really don't know what to say.
I've used Command F and searched through every part of this thread, and I've never actually said that. The closest thing I can find is the one in that quote where I said crits are "one of the funnest thing['s] about the game." If you don't like crits, you don't have to play with them. But other people can still enjoy them and find that to be awesome.
Spellcaster are in desperate need of nerfing, so yes. The game is borderline impossible to lose on the player's side past lvl5 (assuming DM's don't just deus ex in "threats"), so any notion of buffing anyone is kind of a ridiculous ask. We are literally at a point where casters just need to get cut off at their knees to restore any semblance of balance to the game.
If casters need to "get cut off at their knees," then crits aren't the way to do it. Natural 20's happen only 5% percent out of the time, and coupled with the special things they provide, especially in combat, which makes them a rare but super awesome instance. I mean, who wouldn't jump for joy after a natural 20?
As I said, if spellcasters need to be more balanced, this is not the way to do it. They can change the class, or make martials more powerful which would work a lot better, and help level the playing field. Either way, crits are rare, and yet they're massive when they occur. But removing a super fun elements of the game from one group of classes, but not from others, is simply put, not fun at all.
There are so many ways to do this that do not involve removing arguably the funnest element of the game from spells. And many of these ways would actually work a lot better, so why this? Yes, it may not be the only thing they do to balance spellcasters with martials better if WotC feels they need that balancing them is neccessary, but overall, even if it is done along with other things balancing acts, removing one sides fun is not the way to help the other group enjoy the game better.
Crits are awesome because they're rare and memerable. Yes, inspiration is cool but in many people's opinions, it's not even a well-designed mechanic. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but what is an undeniable fact is that in this UA, inspiration is not nearly as big a deal as it is in 5e. It is almost nothing compared to double damage.
And that double damage is one of the best feelings and in my opinion at least, the greatest moment of the game. But I address everyone here with this, how would you feel if you didn't get that awesome moment of a crit while all the martials did, just because you already have good things about your class, should one of the funnest thing about the game be removed for you?
The, "NAT EFFIN 20!" stuff is cringy as hell to me, and this whole discussion just seems like sour grapes over nothing.
You can find it to be cringy, but I like natural 20's and just because you don't think they're awesome doesn't mean we can't enjoy them and want them for spellcasters. Just because you don't like it or find it cringy doesn't mean no one else can. (Also, no one on this thread said the word "EFFIN" along with nat 20's aside from you.)
This isn't "nothing," this is a possible change that could be coming for the next edition. What's wrong with not liking a potential rule's change and saying that you enjoy the current version better.
Spellcaster are in desperate need of nerfing, so yes. The game is borderline impossible to lose on the player's side past lvl5 (assuming DM's don't just deus ex in "threats"), so any notion of buffing anyone is kind of a ridiculous ask. We are literally at a point where casters just need to get cut off at their knees to restore any semblance of balance to the game.
If casters need to "get cut off at their knees," then crits aren't the way to do it. Natural 20's happen only 5% percent out of the time, and coupled with the special things they provide, especially in combat, which makes them a rare but super awesome instance. I mean, who wouldn't jump for joy after a natural 20?
As I said, if spellcasters need to be more balanced, this is not the way to do it. They can change the class, or make martials more powerful which would work a lot better, and help level the playing field. Either way, crits are rare, and yet they're massive when they occur. But removing a super fun elements of the game from one group of classes, but not from others, is simply put, not fun at all.
There are so many ways to do this that do not involve removing arguably the funnest element of the game from spells. And many of these ways would actually work a lot better, so why this? Yes, it may not be the only thing they do to balance spellcasters with martials better if WotC feels they need that balancing them is neccessary, but overall, even if it is done along with other things balancing acts, removing one sides fun is not the way to help the other group enjoy the game better.
Crits are awesome because they're rare and memerable. Yes, inspiration is cool but in many people's opinions, it's not even a well-designed mechanic. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but what is an undeniable fact is that in this UA, inspiration is not nearly as big a deal as it is in 5e. It is almost nothing compared to double damage.
And that double damage is one of the best feelings and in my opinion at least, the greatest moment of the game. But I address everyone here with this, how would you feel if you didn't get that awesome moment of a crit while all the martials did, just because you already have good things about your class, should one of the funnest thing about the game be removed for you?
You already get free inspiration and auto success for hitting a nat20, all casters are missing are a bonus damage dice. Seems like a good trade off when caster consistently get an additional 50 spells per splatbook at no additional cost through every edition to ever exist.
I've addressed everything that you've said here several times, such as in this post and others. Everybody get's inspiration, and it's not a big deal in these changes with the fequency that's it's given at to humans & more.
The amount of spells a caster get's varies by class, so 50 spells is only true for wizard, and even that is a bit of a stretch. Also, the new edition can balance these changes as I've also addressed several times, along with other things, in the post you literally just quoted. This is not the only way, and by no means is it the best. It certainly isn't the route that I and many other's think WotC should be taking.
My opinion about spellcasters not being able to crit is that it seems like a band-aid on the gaping hole of a problem that is an imbalance in the contributions of caster vs. a non-spell caster. Most of the spellcasters spells (indeed some of their best) require saving throws which already mean that the caster won't be critting. Part of what makes casters amazing compared to martials also isn't the damage they do it's the utility in and out of battle they offer and those abilities often already had not crit system involved.
The problem of choosing this band-aid to fix a gaping hole is made worse by the fact that the fix takes away what often feels like a cool moment rather than boosting martials up to the casters level.
With a good DM who knows how to craft really good encounters and good puzzles, traps and social situations, a DM that knows how to help martials build their characters backstory to get the most out of roleplay the divide between casters and martials isn't an issue. That being aid I am not on that level of a quality DM and so for me it is a struggle for me to watch my players feel the imbalance and then I'm not sure how to fix it in a way that is appealing to all involved. This is something I'm going to keep working on myself regardless but I love that in the meantime Wizards is trying things.
I think that taking away crits had the right basic philosophy that whatever fix they give martials should hopefully be simple but effective, I just think here that while it is simple it is not the most effective and it treats martials issues as just combat issues as well.
Part of me wonders if the fundamental problem is that martials schtick is hitting/combat. A caster's schtick is magic. Hitting stuff/combat just isn't as broad of a thing as magic. Magic can hit stuff and do combat but it can also grow a tree, or make a mansion, or change someone's memory.
Also if people are worried about things being impossible to lose on the players side, I have always felt that if a DM wanted to kill us, they could. Even as a DM, I in looking over my players character sheets could see ways in which I could set someone or the group up to die. There are abilities that you can use to target common group weaknesses and make it really dangerous. I as a player have appreciated it narratively when the stakes of combat are that one character could die not that the whole party could die. If you're group likes the chance that everyone could die in an encounter that's totally fine. I feel like it's true that 5e isn't calibrated to always have a chance to kill the entire party or always be deadly, but I feel like that may not be what a lot of people want. If you have issues with that I think you should absolutely make some changes your self, I'm just not sure that as a general philosophical direction for the base game, you want something designed to be played over the course of months or even years to end with everyone dies. The point of this is to live out the fantastical adventures of your dreams, not the darkest parts of reality where death could happen at any moment. If your group wants that great, but I don't think wizards should be making the modus operandi of new editions, new rules, or as with this, edits to current editions/rules.
Thank you everyone for putting your thoughts here. It's very insightful for me to read as my friend group and I consider the playtest stuff. We have some spicy opinions too so it's fun to see that mirror here.
One thing I really didn't see the point of that I'm curious if anyone could explain t me: What's the reasoning for removing crits for monsters? I think the internet gets at least the reasoning for removing spellcasting hits regardless of whether that's a good method or not, but I haven't seen the reasoning for monsters.
The point of reducing crits for monsters is to make their damage more consistent for easier balancing. Easier to make a monster that is threatening but won't suddenly crit and unexpectedly down or kill a character.
Whether removing this risk factor is worth it or not will vary depending on whether your table enjoys the enemy being able to get lucky and deal a lot more damage than expected or not.
Based on the interview with Jeremy Crawford that Wizards posted on Youtube about the playtest material, I get the impression that they're planning to rewrite spells so they don't involve attack rolls and instead rely on saving throws to determine damage. In his explanation for why they're saying spells can't crit, he says that we already have a game mechanic for dealing with spell damage via saving throws.
So my suggestion is everyone just slow your roll here. Certainly it's appropriate to share on the feedback page that spells that require attack rolls should be able to crit. But be prepared for the answer to be that spells don't roll attack rolls.
In the video JC mentions that one thing that monsters get (well some) that are kind of crit adjacent (if you stretch it a bit) are recharge abilities. They tend to be powerful and totally a DM decision to use against a party. So they can ramp up the tension and fear if they choose. Unlike crits, which are completely random and out of the DM’s control. So if the party is getting their butts kicked the DM can decide not to use a recharge power but cannot control the dice and the possibility of a crit.
Now if they redesign it so more monsters have recharge powers (not sure the percentage of monsters that have them currently) it might be ok for monsters to not have crits. Let the DM control the encounter better. And there is still some randomness in it with the recharge.
All I have to say is a critical hit that doesn't do critical damage isn't a critical hit at all. I can already see the majority of people ignoring this rule. It is already underwhelming when a critical hit does less damage than a normal strike but it is worse for one do to have no possibility to any extra damage at all. People already homebrew the current 5e crit rule. It will most definitely be homebrewed here if this version goes live.
Based on the interview with Jeremy Crawford that Wizards posted on Youtube about the playtest material, I get the impression that they're planning to rewrite spells so they don't involve attack rolls and instead rely on saving throws to determine damage. In his explanation for why they're saying spells can't crit, he says that we already have a game mechanic for dealing with spell damage via saving throws.
So my suggestion is everyone just slow your roll here. Certainly it's appropriate to share on the feedback page that spells that require attack rolls should be able to crit. But be prepared for the answer to be that spells don't roll attack rolls.
Even if they go that way its a lame choice, if anything they should expanding attack rolls for spell casters.Rolling is fun, people generally prefer to roll than say dex save dc 15. Mechanically even if they somehow balance it to be identical math its taking the result out of the players hands which sucks if that is for every spell and attack you do.
What they need to do is sure nerf some broken spells, every spell level there is a couple spells that stand head and shoulders above the rest, go tone those down, add saves to wall of force and forcecage, give a save every round for hypnotic pattern, whatever. But more importantly instead of nerfs that have almost 0 mechanical impact like this poorly thought out crit change but instead just steal fun, they need to substantively buff martials give them maneuvers that are appropriate for high level play.
I'd also say, reduce the saves to 3 saves again but have 2 stats feed into them so a Fortitude save you can either use charisma or con whichever is higher etc. The more saves available to target the more power you give to classes that target saves as its generally not hard to figure out their weak save. I'd generally suggest the 2 stats be a choice of one mental and one physical, it would increase the odds of saves scaling at a similar rate as AC.
Quick thought from an older player that has a fair amount of time on both spell slinging and weapon swinging characters...this is a pretty solid discussion thread and both sides make some solid points. I'm new to the DDB community and pretty impressed.
I'm very open to pretty much everything the design team is rolling out to at least try but I'm pretty leery of the currently floated crit changes. Good points on mathematical balance or different relevant advantages but I'm just approaching it from a little different angle.
Beyond the mechanics being discussed there is a pretty basic "fun factor" type subjective appeal to rolling a crit and that applies to both casters and martials. I generally agree that inspiration doesn't quite cut it and there should be something weightier for what I think was referred to as a spectacular sucess in the roll out video. That said, I think going through the spell list to see what significant outliers for spells need to be adjusted that would help a bit as well. Perhaps adjusting some additional spells to attack roles versus saves might help a little as well.
Overall...crit successes and crit fails can add some awesome moments to an encounter and even if the rules change for crits I hope we find a way of adjusting them so everyone gets a shot at them. I just like spice they add... even when monsters role them (sometimes!).
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.
Given how casters can obliterate entire battlefields, control enemies, support allies, and have the keys to most situations, while martials have to exist in a realistic universe, there's no way to balance it but nerf spellcasters.
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.
Given how casters can obliterate entire battlefields, control enemies, support allies, and have the keys to most situations, while martials have to exist in a realistic universe, there's no way to balance it but nerf spellcasters.
I don't see why. They have the one attack roll a turn so they won't crit as often as a martial class. The more powerful spells already use spell saves so it is not like those powerful spells can crit. So why nerf them further?
I've been essentially playing at a table with the new crit rules for a year. In the DMs version on a natural 20 he would add the maximum weapon die to the damage. So a shortsword with a d6 adds 6 damage. This is because critical hitting and rolling two 1's on the die just feels wrong.
Due to party comp and play style I end up casting attack spells more often than I think anyone else who has been at the table long term and something has been bothering me for a while regarding how much damage I'm doing. This UA has made it clear to me that I need to not deal double dice on a natural 20, so effective immediately I am applying that to myself. My goal is to increase the fun for all the players at the table, and this disparity just does not align itself with that philosophy.
The disparity between martials and spell casters, the disparity between attack roll spells and save spells, these are all things that should be addressed and some care needs to be given to the Warlock and Artificer (alchemist and artillerist) classes to make sure their reliance on attack roll cantrips isn't going to be a problem. But I, after seeing some inkling of this change on a long enough timeline, believe it is 100% for the best.
That does not mean I'm deaf to the concerns of others. I'd say as an Optional Rule having a Spell attack roll of a natural 20 or a spell save of a natural 1 maximize the damage of the spell might be a good middle road. The average of that and double dice should be about the same and the potential of rolling 3 6's on a level 1 guiding bolt exists regardless of whether a 20 was rolled or not, so there is no reason to believe that the result is unbalanced in any way. By applying to both ends of the spectrum you also remove the disparity of attack vs save spells.
I've been essentially playing at a table with the new crit rules for a year. In the DMs version on a natural 20 he would add the maximum weapon die to the damage. So a shortsword with a d6 adds 6 damage. This is because critical hitting and rolling two 1's on the die just feels wrong.
Due to party comp and play style I end up casting attack spells more often than I think anyone else who has been at the table long term and something has been bothering me for a while regarding how much damage I'm doing. This UA has made it clear to me that I need to not deal double dice on a natural 20, so effective immediately I am applying that to myself. My goal is to increase the fun for all the players at the table, and this disparity just does not align itself with that philosophy.
The disparity between martials and spell casters, the disparity between attack roll spells and save spells, these are all things that should be addressed and some care needs to be given to the Warlock and Artificer (alchemist and artillerist) classes to make sure their reliance on attack roll cantrips isn't going to be a problem. But I, after seeing some inkling of this change on a long enough timeline, believe it is 100% for the best.
That does not mean I'm deaf to the concerns of others. I'd say as an Optional Rule having a Spell attack roll of a natural 20 or a spell save of a natural 1 maximize the damage of the spell might be a good middle road. The average of that and double dice should be about the same and the potential of rolling 3 6's on a level 1 guiding bolt exists regardless of whether a 20 was rolled or not, so there is no reason to believe that the result is unbalanced in any way. By applying to both ends of the spectrum you also remove the disparity of attack vs save spells.
You can play however you want at your table, but in my opinion at least, this is not the main/best way for Wizards to solve the problem. This new edition has the chance to balance the classes instead of removing double-damage on crits away from spellcasters.
As I've said in earlier posts on this thread, there are so many better ways for "One D&D" to balance this. To be honest, this path serves to take away more fun from people than it actually helps solves the issues you mentioned. Nat 20's are the rare but awesome superhero moments, and since they're so rare, getting rid of them from spellcasters doesn't actually help massively fix that balance issue that you presented.
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.
I mean the Paladin and Rogue still get crit damage, and still get to do the extra damage it just isn't doubled. Thats still a lot of damage and, if the Rogue rolls a nat 20 they then get an auto advantage on an attack the next round meaning they don't have to think clever about how to get sneak attack then.
In the playtest combat I have run with some of my players the Rogue made use of this by attacking enemies they would not have traditionally got sneak attack on meaning they could help control the battlefield a bit better rather then just going round stealing other peoples kills :).
I've been essentially playing at a table with the new crit rules for a year. In the DMs version on a natural 20 he would add the maximum weapon die to the damage. So a shortsword with a d6 adds 6 damage. This is because critical hitting and rolling two 1's on the die just feels wrong.
Due to party comp and play style I end up casting attack spells more often than I think anyone else who has been at the table long term and something has been bothering me for a while regarding how much damage I'm doing. This UA has made it clear to me that I need to not deal double dice on a natural 20, so effective immediately I am applying that to myself. My goal is to increase the fun for all the players at the table, and this disparity just does not align itself with that philosophy.
The disparity between martials and spell casters, the disparity between attack roll spells and save spells, these are all things that should be addressed and some care needs to be given to the Warlock and Artificer (alchemist and artillerist) classes to make sure their reliance on attack roll cantrips isn't going to be a problem. But I, after seeing some inkling of this change on a long enough timeline, believe it is 100% for the best.
That does not mean I'm deaf to the concerns of others. I'd say as an Optional Rule having a Spell attack roll of a natural 20 or a spell save of a natural 1 maximize the damage of the spell might be a good middle road. The average of that and double dice should be about the same and the potential of rolling 3 6's on a level 1 guiding bolt exists regardless of whether a 20 was rolled or not, so there is no reason to believe that the result is unbalanced in any way. By applying to both ends of the spectrum you also remove the disparity of attack vs save spells.
Hey if it makes you and your table happy thats cool, but mechanically you did as close to nothing to address the power difference as possible without actually being zero. Whether you as a wizard crit or not on your spells just does not impact balance. Sometimes that works out 4e was mechanically much more solid than 5e but overall people had less fun with it. This though seems weird if someones fun is determined by whether or not another player gets to have fun by criting, I'm not sure anything will really fix it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Mage Armor only costs one spell slot and basically gives you +1 Studded Leather Armor for an hour. Shield is a 1st level reaction spell that increases your armor class by 5 until the start of your next turn. Bladesinger Wizards can have higher armor class than practically anyone else in the game. Most mages help/attack at ranged, too, which makes them way less likely to be attacked by powerful attacks. And plenty of spellcasters don't have very many restrictions on armor (Clerics, Druids, Hexblade Warlocks).
So, just a few less hit points per level compared to martials. That's a tiny difference that doesn't nearly make up for Spellcasters getting Reshape the Entire World spells at high level and Fighters getting "I get one more attack" at high levels.
The "balance" doesn't work. It's been a problem for literally decades, and is even worse in 5e than it was in the first couple editions (Wizards used to have d4 hit dice and no cantrips). "Fair" would be giving Fighters abilities to chop off the tops of mountains, jump halfway across the world in a single turn, and punching castles into dust. This is reducing their damage by less than 50% about 5% of the time they make an attack-based spell (which are rare compared to saving throw spells).
If the Wizard wants to crit, they can pick up a weapon and cast Tenser's Transformation. Then they can do everything the Fighter can, deal more damage per attack, and still have spell slots after the spell ends.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Back in the day, fighters became Lords at level 10 and acquired a castle and followers. Rangers acquired animal followers, rogues became leader of their own thieves guild with several members. Can’t remember what paladins got as we didn’t have them often enough. But that often presented a lot of non combat opportunities and rp options.
A slightly odd thought but....what about referring back to 3e and changing how the weapons crit instead of changing whio can crit with an attack?
Give those with access to martial weapons access to weapons like the scimitar which crit on a 18-20 fo x2 damage or the Scythe which crits on a natual 20 but does x4 damage.
Fun is subjective, and in this case, fun comes at the expense of other player options. Magic needs to be reigned in, and reigned in a lot. Don't know what the board rules are for discussing other games here, but Shadow of the Demon Lord is similar to 5e in a lot of ways while it basically fixes the entire issue here by having the players choose, "Learn new Magic Tradition or Learn new spell from known tradition," when they level up, which means the more schools of magic you know (and the more flexible your potential repertoire of spells becomes), the less physical spells your character actually has access to. Normally I wouldn't bring up another game when discussing D&D, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking One D&D is anything but alpha testing 6e and fishing for ideas straight from the community.
Thus the problem lies not in the fact that spellcasters can crit, but some spells are overpowered and need to be reviewed, imho.
playing since 1986
See, I was thinking to go back to the 1e method of wizards needing much more xp to level. Slow their progression, and it helps them feel not as overpowered.
Of course, that would mean a rewrite of the whole multiclass rules, so it probably won’t happen.
I've used Command F and searched through every part of this thread, and I've never actually said that. The closest thing I can find is the one in that quote where I said crits are "one of the funnest thing['s] about the game." If you don't like crits, you don't have to play with them. But other people can still enjoy them and find that to be awesome.
You can find it to be cringy, but I like natural 20's and just because you don't think they're awesome doesn't mean we can't enjoy them and want them for spellcasters. Just because you don't like it or find it cringy doesn't mean no one else can. (Also, no one on this thread said the word "EFFIN" along with nat 20's aside from you.)
This isn't "nothing," this is a possible change that could be coming for the next edition. What's wrong with not liking a potential rule's change and saying that you enjoy the current version better.
I've addressed everything that you've said here several times, such as in this post and others. Everybody get's inspiration, and it's not a big deal in these changes with the fequency that's it's given at to humans & more.
The amount of spells a caster get's varies by class, so 50 spells is only true for wizard, and even that is a bit of a stretch. Also, the new edition can balance these changes as I've also addressed several times, along with other things, in the post you literally just quoted. This is not the only way, and by no means is it the best. It certainly isn't the route that I and many other's think WotC should be taking.
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.My opinion about spellcasters not being able to crit is that it seems like a band-aid on the gaping hole of a problem that is an imbalance in the contributions of caster vs. a non-spell caster. Most of the spellcasters spells (indeed some of their best) require saving throws which already mean that the caster won't be critting. Part of what makes casters amazing compared to martials also isn't the damage they do it's the utility in and out of battle they offer and those abilities often already had not crit system involved.
The problem of choosing this band-aid to fix a gaping hole is made worse by the fact that the fix takes away what often feels like a cool moment rather than boosting martials up to the casters level.
With a good DM who knows how to craft really good encounters and good puzzles, traps and social situations, a DM that knows how to help martials build their characters backstory to get the most out of roleplay the divide between casters and martials isn't an issue. That being aid I am not on that level of a quality DM and so for me it is a struggle for me to watch my players feel the imbalance and then I'm not sure how to fix it in a way that is appealing to all involved. This is something I'm going to keep working on myself regardless but I love that in the meantime Wizards is trying things.
I think that taking away crits had the right basic philosophy that whatever fix they give martials should hopefully be simple but effective, I just think here that while it is simple it is not the most effective and it treats martials issues as just combat issues as well.
Part of me wonders if the fundamental problem is that martials schtick is hitting/combat. A caster's schtick is magic. Hitting stuff/combat just isn't as broad of a thing as magic. Magic can hit stuff and do combat but it can also grow a tree, or make a mansion, or change someone's memory.
Also if people are worried about things being impossible to lose on the players side, I have always felt that if a DM wanted to kill us, they could. Even as a DM, I in looking over my players character sheets could see ways in which I could set someone or the group up to die. There are abilities that you can use to target common group weaknesses and make it really dangerous. I as a player have appreciated it narratively when the stakes of combat are that one character could die not that the whole party could die. If you're group likes the chance that everyone could die in an encounter that's totally fine. I feel like it's true that 5e isn't calibrated to always have a chance to kill the entire party or always be deadly, but I feel like that may not be what a lot of people want. If you have issues with that I think you should absolutely make some changes your self, I'm just not sure that as a general philosophical direction for the base game, you want something designed to be played over the course of months or even years to end with everyone dies. The point of this is to live out the fantastical adventures of your dreams, not the darkest parts of reality where death could happen at any moment. If your group wants that great, but I don't think wizards should be making the modus operandi of new editions, new rules, or as with this, edits to current editions/rules.
Thank you everyone for putting your thoughts here. It's very insightful for me to read as my friend group and I consider the playtest stuff. We have some spicy opinions too so it's fun to see that mirror here.
One thing I really didn't see the point of that I'm curious if anyone could explain t me: What's the reasoning for removing crits for monsters? I think the internet gets at least the reasoning for removing spellcasting hits regardless of whether that's a good method or not, but I haven't seen the reasoning for monsters.
The point of reducing crits for monsters is to make their damage more consistent for easier balancing. Easier to make a monster that is threatening but won't suddenly crit and unexpectedly down or kill a character.
Whether removing this risk factor is worth it or not will vary depending on whether your table enjoys the enemy being able to get lucky and deal a lot more damage than expected or not.
Based on the interview with Jeremy Crawford that Wizards posted on Youtube about the playtest material, I get the impression that they're planning to rewrite spells so they don't involve attack rolls and instead rely on saving throws to determine damage. In his explanation for why they're saying spells can't crit, he says that we already have a game mechanic for dealing with spell damage via saving throws.
So my suggestion is everyone just slow your roll here. Certainly it's appropriate to share on the feedback page that spells that require attack rolls should be able to crit. But be prepared for the answer to be that spells don't roll attack rolls.
In the video JC mentions that one thing that monsters get (well some) that are kind of crit adjacent (if you stretch it a bit) are recharge abilities. They tend to be powerful and totally a DM decision to use against a party. So they can ramp up the tension and fear if they choose. Unlike crits, which are completely random and out of the DM’s control. So if the party is getting their butts kicked the DM can decide not to use a recharge power but cannot control the dice and the possibility of a crit.
Now if they redesign it so more monsters have recharge powers (not sure the percentage of monsters that have them currently) it might be ok for monsters to not have crits. Let the DM control the encounter better. And there is still some randomness in it with the recharge.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
All I have to say is a critical hit that doesn't do critical damage isn't a critical hit at all. I can already see the majority of people ignoring this rule. It is already underwhelming when a critical hit does less damage than a normal strike but it is worse for one do to have no possibility to any extra damage at all. People already homebrew the current 5e crit rule. It will most definitely be homebrewed here if this version goes live.
Even if they go that way its a lame choice, if anything they should expanding attack rolls for spell casters.Rolling is fun, people generally prefer to roll than say dex save dc 15. Mechanically even if they somehow balance it to be identical math its taking the result out of the players hands which sucks if that is for every spell and attack you do.
What they need to do is sure nerf some broken spells, every spell level there is a couple spells that stand head and shoulders above the rest, go tone those down, add saves to wall of force and forcecage, give a save every round for hypnotic pattern, whatever. But more importantly instead of nerfs that have almost 0 mechanical impact like this poorly thought out crit change but instead just steal fun, they need to substantively buff martials give them maneuvers that are appropriate for high level play.
I'd also say, reduce the saves to 3 saves again but have 2 stats feed into them so a Fortitude save you can either use charisma or con whichever is higher etc. The more saves available to target the more power you give to classes that target saves as its generally not hard to figure out their weak save. I'd generally suggest the 2 stats be a choice of one mental and one physical, it would increase the odds of saves scaling at a similar rate as AC.
Quick thought from an older player that has a fair amount of time on both spell slinging and weapon swinging characters...this is a pretty solid discussion thread and both sides make some solid points. I'm new to the DDB community and pretty impressed.
I'm very open to pretty much everything the design team is rolling out to at least try but I'm pretty leery of the currently floated crit changes. Good points on mathematical balance or different relevant advantages but I'm just approaching it from a little different angle.
Beyond the mechanics being discussed there is a pretty basic "fun factor" type subjective appeal to rolling a crit and that applies to both casters and martials. I generally agree that inspiration doesn't quite cut it and there should be something weightier for what I think was referred to as a spectacular sucess in the roll out video. That said, I think going through the spell list to see what significant outliers for spells need to be adjusted that would help a bit as well. Perhaps adjusting some additional spells to attack roles versus saves might help a little as well.
Overall...crit successes and crit fails can add some awesome moments to an encounter and even if the rules change for crits I hope we find a way of adjusting them so everyone gets a shot at them. I just like spice they add... even when monsters role them (sometimes!).
Given how casters can obliterate entire battlefields, control enemies, support allies, and have the keys to most situations, while martials have to exist in a realistic universe, there's no way to balance it but nerf spellcasters.
I don't see why. They have the one attack roll a turn so they won't crit as often as a martial class. The more powerful spells already use spell saves so it is not like those powerful spells can crit. So why nerf them further?
Hi BoringBard.
I've been essentially playing at a table with the new crit rules for a year. In the DMs version on a natural 20 he would add the maximum weapon die to the damage. So a shortsword with a d6 adds 6 damage. This is because critical hitting and rolling two 1's on the die just feels wrong.
Due to party comp and play style I end up casting attack spells more often than I think anyone else who has been at the table long term and something has been bothering me for a while regarding how much damage I'm doing. This UA has made it clear to me that I need to not deal double dice on a natural 20, so effective immediately I am applying that to myself. My goal is to increase the fun for all the players at the table, and this disparity just does not align itself with that philosophy.
The disparity between martials and spell casters, the disparity between attack roll spells and save spells, these are all things that should be addressed and some care needs to be given to the Warlock and Artificer (alchemist and artillerist) classes to make sure their reliance on attack roll cantrips isn't going to be a problem. But I, after seeing some inkling of this change on a long enough timeline, believe it is 100% for the best.
That does not mean I'm deaf to the concerns of others. I'd say as an Optional Rule having a Spell attack roll of a natural 20 or a spell save of a natural 1 maximize the damage of the spell might be a good middle road. The average of that and double dice should be about the same and the potential of rolling 3 6's on a level 1 guiding bolt exists regardless of whether a 20 was rolled or not, so there is no reason to believe that the result is unbalanced in any way. By applying to both ends of the spectrum you also remove the disparity of attack vs save spells.
You can play however you want at your table, but in my opinion at least, this is not the main/best way for Wizards to solve the problem. This new edition has the chance to balance the classes instead of removing double-damage on crits away from spellcasters.
As I've said in earlier posts on this thread, there are so many better ways for "One D&D" to balance this. To be honest, this path serves to take away more fun from people than it actually helps solves the issues you mentioned. Nat 20's are the rare but awesome superhero moments, and since they're so rare, getting rid of them from spellcasters doesn't actually help massively fix that balance issue that you presented.
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 mean the Paladin and Rogue still get crit damage, and still get to do the extra damage it just isn't doubled. Thats still a lot of damage and, if the Rogue rolls a nat 20 they then get an auto advantage on an attack the next round meaning they don't have to think clever about how to get sneak attack then.
In the playtest combat I have run with some of my players the Rogue made use of this by attacking enemies they would not have traditionally got sneak attack on meaning they could help control the battlefield a bit better rather then just going round stealing other peoples kills :).
Hey if it makes you and your table happy thats cool, but mechanically you did as close to nothing to address the power difference as possible without actually being zero. Whether you as a wizard crit or not on your spells just does not impact balance. Sometimes that works out 4e was mechanically much more solid than 5e but overall people had less fun with it. This though seems weird if someones fun is determined by whether or not another player gets to have fun by criting, I'm not sure anything will really fix it.