I entirely agree with you, BoringBard. What most people who are arguing against you don't seem to realize (when they're saying casters are more powerful than martials and so on) is that caster's use spell slots, martials don't. And caster's have fewer hit points on average. And are more lightly armored. And smartly played enemies will toast a caster ASAP in a fight. Yeah, sure, fine, cantrips don't use spell slots, but every other spell does, so once a caster is out of slots, they are essentially down to only cantrips. Once this happens, they are on the same playing field as a martial character, but with less hit points, a crappier AC, and a HUGE target on their heads.
The rest of the forum can keep arguing it, but a base game mechanic should apply to ALL players, not just the ones who chose a martial class. It isn't a CLASS ability. It's a BASE GAME MECHANIC.
And yes, it's a game, guys and girls, but DMs use common sense all the time to arbitrate the game. In what world does it make sense for a sword strike to the skull to do bonus damage but a Acid Arrow to the skull does ... "meh, what'ev's?"
Kudos to BoringBard for braving the flames and posting on a most-definitely controversial topic.
Good on you, man. I just wish you didn't have to endure the ridiculous backlash.
That is kinda a flawed analysis there, pure casters isn't just sorcerers and wizards, it's also clerics, druids and warlocks and there are just some subclasses this isn't true for.
Warlocks already are very different and their whole thing is a cantrip + 1 concentration spell, normally. (let's not even get started on Hexblade+pact of the blade)
Bladesingers are also casters which can use a lot of cantrips, bladeward is a cantrip they can use with their extra attack feature while also getting a bonus to AC equal to INT. So they aren't really beholden to their spell slots either.
Clerics have medium armor and while a D8 is less than any martial their AC is usually highly comparative. War clerics actually can do two attacks from level 1, albeit using a resource
Circle of the Moon druids also are technically casters, altho unlike the other three mentioned, they are pretty unlikely to actually use spells at all, preferring their wildshapes which gives them so much HP and other utility that they can often out tank barbarians.
(Stuff)
Warlocks also have two or three spellslots. As for the subclasses you mentioned, many of them are some of the most powerful/broken subclasses in the game. They are outliers, not the norm, and they deserve to be treated as such.
Yes, different spellcasting classes may have some non-spellcasting features, but overall, those different classes have cons and negative aspects that help balance them out with other spellcasting classes.
Yes, Warlock have few spellslots, because spellslots aren't their thing, it's Eldritch Blast + concentration spell, most of the time. They still get access to most the spells I mentioned, even with those limited spell slots, warlock also is used as the baseline for calculating how good DPR is, given how average their eldritch blast damage output is.
And yes, some subclasses are entirely broken for casters and non-casters. The stuff you cut out is the most important bit tho, that spellcasters are considered to be stronger than martials because spellcasters have too many methods to shutdown martials while martials have none to shutdown spell casters; even if it's resource based for casters, if you take either class from long rest then you'd normally expect the spellcaster to win.
But as far as those subclasses mentioned go, they all have one thing in common, they are casters which aren't really squishy, war cleric, blade dancer, moon druid & hexblade. Squishiness is the real counter-balance but that also gets countered harder the higher levels get...
They are the baseline with hex, so with one of their spells out of 2 for most levels and their concentration warlocks create a baseline which any DPR build will exceed.
I entirely agree with you, BoringBard. What most people who are arguing against you don't seem to realize (when they're saying casters are more powerful than martials and so on) is that caster's use spell slots, martials don't. And caster's have fewer hit points on average. And are more lightly armored. And smartly played enemies will toast a caster ASAP in a fight. Yeah, sure, fine, cantrips don't use spell slots, but every other spell does, so once a caster is out of slots, they are essentially down to only cantrips. Once this happens, they are on the same playing field as a martial character, but with less hit points, a crappier AC, and a HUGE target on their heads.
The rest of the forum can keep arguing it, but a base game mechanic should apply to ALL players, not just the ones who chose a martial class. It isn't a CLASS ability. It's a BASE GAME MECHANIC.
And yes, it's a game, guys and girls, but DMs use common sense all the time to arbitrate the game. In what world does it make sense for a sword strike to the skull to do bonus damage but a Acid Arrow to the skull does ... "meh, what'ev's?"
Kudos to BoringBard for braving the flames and posting on a most-definitely controversial topic.
Good on you, man. I just wish you didn't have to endure the ridiculous backlash.
That is kinda a flawed analysis there, pure casters isn't just sorcerers and wizards, it's also clerics, druids and warlocks and there are just some subclasses this isn't true for.
Warlocks already are very different and their whole thing is a cantrip + 1 concentration spell, normally. (let's not even get started on Hexblade+pact of the blade)
Bladesingers are also casters which can use a lot of cantrips, bladeward is a cantrip they can use with their extra attack feature while also getting a bonus to AC equal to INT. So they aren't really beholden to their spell slots either.
Clerics have medium armor and while a D8 is less than any martial their AC is usually highly comparative. War clerics actually can do two attacks from level 1, albeit using a resource
Circle of the Moon druids also are technically casters, altho unlike the other three mentioned, they are pretty unlikely to actually use spells at all, preferring their wildshapes which gives them so much HP and other utility that they can often out tank barbarians.
(Stuff)
Warlocks also have two or three spellslots. As for the subclasses you mentioned, many of them are some of the most powerful/broken subclasses in the game. They are outliers, not the norm, and they deserve to be treated as such.
Yes, different spellcasting classes may have some non-spellcasting features, but overall, those different classes have cons and negative aspects that help balance them out with other spellcasting classes.
Yes, Warlock have few spellslots, because spellslots aren't their thing, it's Eldritch Blast + concentration spell, most of the time. They still get access to most the spells I mentioned, even with those limited spell slots, warlock also is used as the baseline for calculating how good DPR is, given how average their eldritch blast damage output is.
And yes, some subclasses are entirely broken for casters and non-casters. The stuff you cut out is the most important bit tho, that spellcasters are considered to be stronger than martials because spellcasters have too many methods to shutdown martials while martials have none to shutdown spell casters; even if it's resource based for casters, if you take either class from long rest then you'd normally expect the spellcaster to win.
But as far as those subclasses mentioned go, they all have one thing in common, they are casters which aren't really squishy, war cleric, blade dancer, moon druid & hexblade. Squishiness is the real counter-balance but that also gets countered harder the higher levels get...
Yeah, I get what you mean. But either way, as I've said earlier, removing crits from spellcasters doesn't really help balance any of that.
I think losing moments like that would reduce the quality of the game, and there are other stories of other characters having pulled of something insane (fighter doing 98 damage to a young green dragon at level 7 due to bless, advantage, a hand crossbow, action surge and crossbow expert comes to mind as the absurd) from same campaign.
I entirely agree with you, BoringBard. What most people who are arguing against you don't seem to realize (when they're saying casters are more powerful than martials and so on) is that caster's use spell slots, martials don't. And caster's have fewer hit points on average. And are more lightly armored. And smartly played enemies will toast a caster ASAP in a fight. Yeah, sure, fine, cantrips don't use spell slots, but every other spell does, so once a caster is out of slots, they are essentially down to only cantrips. Once this happens, they are on the same playing field as a martial character, but with less hit points, a crappier AC, and a HUGE target on their heads.
The rest of the forum can keep arguing it, but a base game mechanic should apply to ALL players, not just the ones who chose a martial class. It isn't a CLASS ability. It's a BASE GAME MECHANIC.
And yes, it's a game, guys and girls, but DMs use common sense all the time to arbitrate the game. In what world does it make sense for a sword strike to the skull to do bonus damage but a Acid Arrow to the skull does ... "meh, what'ev's?"
Kudos to BoringBard for braving the flames and posting on a most-definitely controversial topic.
Good on you, man. I just wish you didn't have to endure the ridiculous backlash.
That is kinda a flawed analysis there, pure casters isn't just sorcerers and wizards, it's also clerics, druids and warlocks and there are just some subclasses this isn't true for.
Warlocks already are very different and their whole thing is a cantrip + 1 concentration spell, normally. (let's not even get started on Hexblade+pact of the blade)
Bladesingers are also casters which can use a lot of cantrips, bladeward is a cantrip they can use with their extra attack feature while also getting a bonus to AC equal to INT. So they aren't really beholden to their spell slots either.
Clerics have medium armor and while a D8 is less than any martial their AC is usually highly comparative. War clerics actually can do two attacks from level 1, albeit using a resource
Circle of the Moon druids also are technically casters, altho unlike the other three mentioned, they are pretty unlikely to actually use spells at all, preferring their wildshapes which gives them so much HP and other utility that they can often out tank barbarians.
(Stuff)
Warlocks also have two or three spellslots. As for the subclasses you mentioned, many of them are some of the most powerful/broken subclasses in the game. They are outliers, not the norm, and they deserve to be treated as such.
Yes, different spellcasting classes may have some non-spellcasting features, but overall, those different classes have cons and negative aspects that help balance them out with other spellcasting classes.
Yes, Warlock have few spellslots, because spellslots aren't their thing, it's Eldritch Blast + concentration spell, most of the time. They still get access to most the spells I mentioned, even with those limited spell slots, warlock also is used as the baseline for calculating how good DPR is, given how average their eldritch blast damage output is.
And yes, some subclasses are entirely broken for casters and non-casters. The stuff you cut out is the most important bit tho, that spellcasters are considered to be stronger than martials because spellcasters have too many methods to shutdown martials while martials have none to shutdown spell casters; even if it's resource based for casters, if you take either class from long rest then you'd normally expect the spellcaster to win.
But as far as those subclasses mentioned go, they all have one thing in common, they are casters which aren't really squishy, war cleric, blade dancer, moon druid & hexblade. Squishiness is the real counter-balance but that also gets countered harder the higher levels get...
Yeah, I get what you mean. But either way, as I've said earlier, removing crits from spellcasters doesn't really help balance any of that.
Removing crits from spells never had anything to do with Balance, IMO, it's all to do with consistency, which was broken by crit fishing, esp. by Paladin and Rogue. Most spells don't even have attack rolls, the majority that do are lower level, so it mainly impacts Warlock than any other caster past level 5, which from a balance perspective would make it dumb since Warlock is slightly under powered.
Yup, which is why I said it didn't even do anything for balance when it got mentioned.
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 get the logic here, that it's not fair to spellcasters that weapon classes have access to a cool thing that they don't. I don't think that that accounts for the 300 other things spellcasters can do that fighters can't. Fighters being better at combat than spellcasters should be the reality, because fighters don't get the option to use their resources to teleport thousands of feet in six seconds. I think this edition at least makes spells consistent, since the other half of damaging spells (spells with saves) already can't crit. Now you're just bringing the spells that could in line with those.
You said in your post that cantrips are worse than one attack action from a fighter or rogue. That is, and should always, be true, because fighters can't instead use their action to cast fireball. Fighters should just straight up have significantly more consistent damage than spellcasters. That's the thing they do that spellcasters can't. If cantrips were on average as good as an attack action, then fighters would get action surge, second wind, and indomitable, and spellcasters would get dominate person, counterspell, and delayed blast fireball. Fighters have three attacks at 11th level. If we pretend they have, say, a +2 longsword and, say, 20 strength, that's (if all 3 hit) 3d8+21 damage, for an average of 34.5. If the party sorcerer has chill touch at 11th level, that's 3d8 damage, for a total of 13.5 (plus they can't regain hit points until their next turn). "Oh no!", you (the sorcerer) say. "The fighter's hitting for two and a half times as much damage as me! This is not fair!"
You forget, of course, that you have a 6th-level spell slot with which to cast, oh I don't know, disintegrate, for 10d6+40 (average 75) damage, and 2 5th-level spell slots with which to then the next turn cast cone of cold on three targets for 8d6 (average 28, times 3 = 84) damage, and two 4th-level spell slots with which to then the following turn cast dimension door and teleport you and the rogue off the entire map.
Spellcasters have a utility that is completely inaccessible to weapon classes: spells. They can teleport, turn invisible, shapeshift, summon minions, give or have expertise, manipulate terrain, control minds, alter memories, see across the world, and so much more. To be able to do all that and also even so much as keep pace with the damage of a martial class for the opportunity cost of (functionally) -2 to Con, Action Surge, Indomitable, and Second Wind would be insanely busted.
I don't think that crits are a "small benefit from a big roll". The difference between critting and not critting on a swing with a longsword is 1d8 or 1d10 damage. The difference between critting on a steel wind strike and not critting is 8d6 damage. Crits on spells can completely swing a fight in unfun ways, on both sides of the DM screen. You mention that natural 20's on spells would take them from being "Woohoo!" moments to "Well, I got inspiration at least" moments, and I contend that, because you're still hitting with a (presumably) powerful spell. When the level 11 fighter crits on their attack, they get to do ~20% extra damage. That doesn't stop those crits from being "Woohoo!" moments, unless you're one of those people who spends all their time complaining about how things used to be more powerful in previous editions, and getting free advantage on any roll for free when you cast your spell will still be a "Woohoo!" moment for most players.
Personally, and maybe I'm crazy for this, I think it's okay that martial classes get to do something significantly better than spellcasters - that theres a "woohoo" moment they can have that spellcasters can't easily have as well. I think there are problems with this system - martial clerics are even less viable, and rogues have seen their worst nerf in the entire edition, for example - but frankly, I really don't care that spellcasters feel less 'special' to play. Fighters should have more than one single thing they get to do better than the other classes.
This rule seems both reasonable and warranted. Cantrips are spells. They shouldn't have different rules than other spells, especially since some cantrips use saves instead of attack rolls. Spells should generally operate under the same rules. I don't think this is an acceptable nerf to spellcasters - as a rule, I think that the only way to make spellcasters and martial classes on roughly even footing would be to give fighters significantly more out-of-combat utility - and I don't think it's good or warranted because it nerfs spellcasters. I just think the only cons of the rule that matter are those that nerf martial clerics and rogues, because spellcasters lose like one kind of cool moment (one completely out of their control) a campaign in exchange for consistent rules for spells and weapon attacks which make the game much easier to understand.
Personally, I think that moments other than Good Rolls should be considered 'the greatest moments of the game' - moments of catharsis, memorable character moments, absurd shenanigans - and since this rule doesn't impede on any of those, I really don't think it's going to affect people's enjoyment of the game.
You will probably miss critting your blight, and I will too, but I think in the vast and wonderful world of D&D, you'll find enough great moments to get over it.
Simply Put: Doubling damage on a 1d4-1d12 is a lot less damage than doubling damage on a 40d6
Martial classes get their damage equivalency due to multiple attacks and actions, each requiring a separate hit check.
A basic attack from a fighter at lvl 11 using a Great Sword is a 1d10 (6) they get 3 attacks, assuming they all average out to 6, that's 18 damage (though 3 rolls of 1d10 is actually 17 avg). If they crit, they would do 24 damage total. A spell caster can use Firebolt at level 11, 3d10 averages out to 17. While less, crit would yield 34 damage.
that's 10 more damage. Additionally: The fighter would have to perform 3 separate hit checks. While this does increase the chance of at least one being a critical, it also increases the chance of at least one being a miss. There is no guarantee the crit would be on the higher of the 3 damages.
That is a large difference. I used basic melee and cantrip since those are analogous. I left out Action Surge since it would be a limited use option, similar to spells, and if I included spells......casters would take an even larger lead. (Meteor Swarm does 140 dmg average, double that, 280, action surge won't pull that off)
Anyone else getting deja vu? I'm sure a lot of similar arguements happened at the end of 3e/3.5e......
EDIT: just ruminating on posts here and elsewhere and maybe it would be better for WOTC (and the wider DM/content creating community) to come out with some low to zero magic campaign settings to give the non-spellcasting classes a place to shine.
I get the logic here, that it's not fair to spellcasters that weapon classes have access to a cool thing that they don't. I don't think that that accounts for the 300 other things spellcasters can do that fighters can't. Fighters being better at combat than spellcasters should be the reality, because fighters don't get the option to use their resources to teleport thousands of feet in six seconds. I think this edition at least makes spells consistent, since the other half of damaging spells (spells with saves) already can't crit. Now you're just bringing the spells that could in line with those.
You said in your post that cantrips are worse than one attack action from a fighter or rogue. That is, and should always, be true, because fighters can't instead use their action to cast fireball. Fighters should just straight up have significantly more consistent damage than spellcasters. That's the thing they do that spellcasters can't. If cantrips were on average as good as an attack action, then fighters would get action surge, second wind, and indomitable, and spellcasters would get dominate person, counterspell, and delayed blast fireball. Fighters have three attacks at 11th level. If we pretend they have, say, a +2 longsword and, say, 20 strength, that's (if all 3 hit) 3d8+21 damage, for an average of 34.5. If the party sorcerer has chill touch at 11th level, that's 3d8 damage, for a total of 13.5 (plus they can't regain hit points until their next turn). "Oh no!", you (the sorcerer) say. "The fighter's hitting for two and a half times as much damage as me! This is not fair!"
You forget, of course, that you have a 6th-level spell slot with which to cast, oh I don't know, disintegrate, for 10d6+40 (average 75) damage, and 2 5th-level spell slots with which to then the next turn cast cone of cold on three targets for 8d6 (average 28, times 3 = 84) damage, and two 4th-level spell slots with which to then the following turn cast dimension door and teleport you and the rogue off the entire map.
Spellcasters have a utility that is completely inaccessible to weapon classes: spells. They can teleport, turn invisible, shapeshift, summon minions, give or have expertise, manipulate terrain, control minds, alter memories, see across the world, and so much more. To be able to do all that and also even so much as keep pace with the damage of a martial class for the opportunity cost of (functionally) -2 to Con, Action Surge, Indomitable, and Second Wind would be insanely busted.
I don't think that crits are a "small benefit from a big roll". The difference between critting and not critting on a swing with a longsword is 1d8 or 1d10 damage. The difference between critting on a steel wind strike and not critting is 8d6 damage. Crits on spells can completely swing a fight in unfun ways, on both sides of the DM screen. You mention that natural 20's on spells would take them from being "Woohoo!" moments to "Well, I got inspiration at least" moments, and I contend that, because you're still hitting with a (presumably) powerful spell. When the level 11 fighter crits on their attack, they get to do ~20% extra damage. That doesn't stop those crits from being "Woohoo!" moments, unless you're one of those people who spends all their time complaining about how things used to be more powerful in previous editions, and getting free advantage on any roll for free when you cast your spell will still be a "Woohoo!" moment for most players.
Personally, and maybe I'm crazy for this, I think it's okay that martial classes get to do something significantly better than spellcasters - that theres a "woohoo" moment they can have that spellcasters can't easily have as well. I think there are problems with this system - martial clerics are even less viable, and rogues have seen their worst nerf in the entire edition, for example - but frankly, I really don't care that spellcasters feel less 'special' to play. Fighters should have more than one single thing they get to do better than the other classes.
This rule seems both reasonable and warranted. Cantrips are spells. They shouldn't have different rules than other spells, especially since some cantrips use saves instead of attack rolls. Spells should generally operate under the same rules. I don't think this is an acceptable nerf to spellcasters - as a rule, I think that the only way to make spellcasters and martial classes on roughly even footing would be to give fighters significantly more out-of-combat utility - and I don't think it's good or warranted because it nerfs spellcasters. I just think the only cons of the rule that matter are those that nerf martial clerics and rogues, because spellcasters lose like one kind of cool moment (one completely out of their control) a campaign in exchange for consistent rules for spells and weapon attacks which make the game much easier to understand.
Personally, I think that moments other than Good Rolls should be considered 'the greatest moments of the game' - moments of catharsis, memorable character moments, absurd shenanigans - and since this rule doesn't impede on any of those, I really don't think it's going to affect people's enjoyment of the game.
You will probably miss critting your blight, and I will too, but I think in the vast and wonderful world of D&D, you'll find enough great moments to get over it.
An individual crit for a spellcaster is usually quite rare, especially on spells that don't have multiple attack rolls, which is almost every spell. But martials like fighters can make four attacks in one turn. At 17th level, champion fighter will crit on almost every turn. And barbarians can reckless and get advantage, which nearly doubles (nearly not completely) their chance to crit. But also, barbarians have a truckload of HP. While spellcasters may often have bigger crits, fighters will crit more.
Anyways, at least allow spellcasters to crit on cantrips. Those don't make a huge difference in game.
You can enjoy other moments in the game aside from critting, that's fine. But other people like me love crits, and will severely affect people like me's "enjoyment of the game." Just because you personally don't find crits to be the one of the greatest moments, and removing them wont take much of your fun in the game away, doesn't mean it wont do that to others, as evidenced by the dozens of people on this thread who said removing crits from spellcasters would remove some of the fun from there game.
Taking away something rom one class is not a good way to help another class. There are so many viable alternatives to this, such as making martials more powerful, that don't involve removing crits too. This way may sort-of do something if you're taking about balance, and to you it may even be warranted, but one thing that's unwarranted about it is the fact that it is certainly not the best way to accomplish this. Again, helping martials is.
This serves to remove more fun from the game more then it does to help solve those problems.
I get the logic here, that it's not fair to spellcasters that weapon classes have access to a cool thing that they don't. I don't think that that accounts for the 300 other things spellcasters can do that fighters can't. Fighters being better at combat than spellcasters should be the reality, because fighters don't get the option to use their resources to teleport thousands of feet in six seconds. I think this edition at least makes spells consistent, since the other half of damaging spells (spells with saves) ..
If you look up a few posts you'll see why even Cantrips crit'ing would be way too powerful. TLDR: at level 11 a spell caster crit would be 10 more damage (34 to fighter's 24) Also, allowing ONLY Cantrips to crit but not spells would incentivse using cantrips over spell slots, beyond simply saving a spell slot. If we take 3rd lvl spell (not even top tier for level 11 wizard) Fireball, avg damage is 28. If we look at a crit for 11th level firebolt (base avg 17) it would be 34. So a Wizard would have no need to cast Fireball since it would do less damage than a cantrip, and save a spell slot. You'd have to cast fireball, up cast to a 5th level slot just to match that crit.
Spell casters have much more options to deal more damage beyond the basic attack (cantrip) than martial classes do. Most martial classes simply use abilities to augment their martial attacks. Spell casters can use a wide variety and since they aren't as limited as martial classes they have more opportunities to do extra damage. i.e. 40d6 Meteor Swarm isn't the type of damage a martial class can do. Even a Crit Barbarian could do 10d6 (Greatsword) at level 17 averaging 35 damage which is when a wizard could use Meteor Swarm. While a barbarian could crit multiple times in a fight, they could also crit none, they also have no control over the damage total like a wizard who can choose when to cast meteor swarm. Additionally, Meteor Swarm targets an area while Barbarian is single target.
Some martial classes have been impacted by this, namely Rogues, who, some have allowed to use full crit doubling on sneak attack which is just insane imo. Currently an Assassin Rogue would have the potential damage of. 39 for sneak attack (using Short Sword), then doubled using lvl 17 assassin, Deathstrike, 78, doubled again if critical 156. Since they have advantage on creatures that haven't attacked yet they could potentially start every fight hitting the boss for that amount of damage.
With new crit rules the total damage potential (avg) would increase by only another 1d6 from the 39 to 42 then doubling to 84.
If we take 3rd lvl spell (not even top tier for level 11 wizard) Fireball, avg damage is 28. If we look at a crit for 11th level firebolt (base avg 17) it would be 34. So a Wizard would have no need to cast Fireball since it would do less damage than a cantrip, and save a spell slot. You'd have to cast fireball, up cast to a 5th level slot just to match that crit.
so don’t use your 3rd level slot because you might get a crit on firebolt (5%) and hit only one target because wasting that slot to do that damage to multiple targets at once doesn’t make sense? I don’t think so. If you are a wizard casting fireball on one target that’s a waste. Better to use firebolt or other single target spell. Use firebolt on one target when you have 8 enemies clustered together because you might crit on that one? Also a waste. You use your spell slots or cantrips as the situation dictates not because you have a 5% chance to crit.
I agree, even if you were angry. Crits are fun. But it's not double damage with the new rule. It's an extra weapon dice of damage, not sneak attack, smite, etc. This smells like a solution looking for a problem.
Part of the difficulty in going through these rules changes is trying to figure out what problem are they trying to solve. Problem-solving is an actual process and we aren't in on it. I'm not convinced, yet, the designers are either. If it's monsters killing, and I mean killing, low level PCs the rule that's causing the problem is the instant death/massive damage rule. GMs doing math can mitigate this, but removing that rule probably fixes the problem they may be seeing. If it's a larger balance issue I'm not seeing it yet. But other solutions are in HP, resistance, Advantage/Disadvantage, action economy, and encounter building.
In the end the ability to celebrate a critical hit in combat is the kind of fun everyone at the table should get to experience. The rule is fine as it is in 5e.
I agree, even if you were angry. Crits are fun. But it's not double damage with the new rule. It's an extra weapon dice of damage, not sneak attack, smite, etc. This smells like a solution looking for a problem.
Part of the difficulty in going through these rules changes is trying to figure out what problem are they trying to solve. Problem-solving is an actual process and we aren't in on it. I'm not convinced, yet, the designers are either. If it's monsters killing, and I mean killing, low level PCs the rule that's causing the problem is the instant death/massive damage rule. GMs doing math can mitigate this, but removing that rule probably fixes the problem they may be seeing. If it's a larger balance issue I'm not seeing it yet. But other solutions are in HP, resistance, Advantage/Disadvantage, action economy, and encounter building.
In the end the ability to celebrate a critical hit in combat is the kind of fun everyone at the table should get to experience. The rule is fine as it is in 5e.
I see quite a problem. If you look at average damage per class, martial classes are left in the dust by spell casters (and Rogues sneak attack) with the old method. Its actually quite rough. Casters get a ton more flexibility and options AND get to out damage others... that isn't really balance.
Are you sure, you don't think the lure of crit would get people to use that option?
Also, casters would out damage martial classes easily if they could crit, in addition to all the flexibility they get with their spell lists.
Let's look at Firebolt v Fireball properly.
A Firebolt at 11th level does 3d10 damage on a hit. That's an average of 16.5.damage. Let's say there's a 65% chance of hitting, so really, it does about 10.7 damage. On a crit,which only happens 1 in 20 turns, it does on average 33 damage.
A Fireball does 8d6 damage, 26 on average for a save. Let's assume the 65% fail on the saves. That means on average 21.4 damage...per target.
Any Wizard that chooses to 10.7 average damage to a single target over doing 21.4 on the hopes that it'll crit and do an average of 33 damage, despite being literally 95% sure it won't and will do 10.7 damage instead... isn't a Wizard you have to worry about being OP.
By the way, even with crits, Fire Bolt does 11.5 damage per round. A Fighter by then is probably doing 8.8 per attack...three times per round, and can do that every round just as easily as the caster can do cantrips.
As discussed earlier in the thread, the problem with martials is not really about combat. It's about what classes can do out of combat, which this rule does nothing for. Even inside of combat, it does very little. Even at L17 and assuming that a caster casts Fire Bolt every other round (alternating with a spell save based spell), that's a grand total of...0.5 damage per round. That isn't going to change anything. With that frequency, the number of rounds required to crit is 40. On average, an encounter lasts 3-4 rounds in my experience. That means you get a crit once in every 10 encounters. Assuming 3 encounters per session, that's every third session, they get one free attack. If removing crits even moves the needle on the discussion about martials v casters...then the difference is so small as to not be worth talking about. Especially when you consider that martials crit far more often (in terms of per session). Heck, a L17 Champion crits on average, every other round.
You're looking at crits in isolation. But crits are quite rare, at least for casters. By the way, the new rules on crits actually punish martials more than casters. Something to consider.
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.
Are you sure, you don't think the lure of crit would get people to use that option?
Also, casters would out damage martial classes easily if they could crit, in addition to all the flexibility they get with their spell lists.
Let's look at Firebolt v Fireball properly.
A Firebolt at 11th level does 3d10 damage on a hit. That's an average of 16.5.damage. Let's say there's a 65% chance of hitting, so really, it does about 10.7 damage. On a crit,which only happens 1 in 20 turns, it does on average 33 damage.
A Fireball does 8d6 damage, 26 on average for a save. Let's assume the 65% fail on the saves. That means on average 21.4 damage...per target.
Any Wizard that chooses to 10.7 average damage to a single target over doing 21.4 on the hopes that it'll crit and do an average of 33 damage, despite being literally 95% sure it won't and will do 10.7 damage instead... isn't a Wizard you have to worry about being OP.
By the way, even with crits, Fire Bolt does 11.5 damage per round. A Fighter by then is probably doing 8.8 per attack...three times per round, and can do that every round just as easily as the caster can do cantrips.
As discussed earlier in the thread, the problem with martials is not really about combat. It's about what classes can do out of combat, which this rule does nothing for. Even inside of combat, it does very little. Even at L17 and assuming that a caster casts Fire Bolt every other round (alternating with a spell save based spell), that's a grand total of...0.5 damage per round. That isn't going to change anything. With that frequency, the number of rounds required to crit is 40. On average, an encounter lasts 3-4 rounds in my experience. That means you get a crit once in every 10 encounters. Assuming 3 encounters per session, that's every third session, they get one free attack. If removing crits even moves the needle on the discussion about martials v casters...then the difference is so small as to not be worth talking about. Especially when you consider that martials crit far more often (in terms of per session). Heck, a L17 Champion crits on average, every other round.
You're looking at crits in isolation. But crits are quite rare, at least for casters. By the way, the new rules on crits actually punish martials more than casters. Something to consider.
you're comparing a cantrip to a levelled spell. Wouldn't scorching ray at 3rd level be a better comparison? altho I can't say I have fully followed the conversation here.
Scorching Ray using a 3rd level slot (to match fireball), would be (at a 65% chance to hit):
4*((2d6*0.6) + (4d6*0.05)) = 4*(4.2+0.7) = 4 * 4.9 = 19.6 avg, DPR. So still favors the old fireball! just seems like a fairer comparison to me.
level 11 Scorching Ray, I think your maths is also off, I'd go with, 3d10 * .6 + 6d10 * .05 = 9.9 + 1.65 = 11.55 avg dpr
Basically no surprise, average DPR is still doubled that of a cantrip. Which is to still say that you're right. On the most part AoE spells generally do the best damage and they are all saves.
Are you sure, you don't think the lure of crit would get people to use that option?
Also, casters would out damage martial classes easily if they could crit, in addition to all the flexibility they get with their spell lists.
Let's look at Firebolt v Fireball properly.
A Firebolt at 11th level does 3d10 damage on a hit. That's an average of 16.5.damage. Let's say there's a 65% chance of hitting, so really, it does about 10.7 damage. On a crit,which only happens 1 in 20 turns, it does on average 33 damage.
A Fireball does 8d6 damage, 26 on average for a save. Let's assume the 65% fail on the saves. That means on average 21.4 damage...per target.
Any Wizard that chooses to 10.7 average damage to a single target over doing 21.4 on the hopes that it'll crit and do an average of 33 damage, despite being literally 95% sure it won't and will do 10.7 damage instead... isn't a Wizard you have to worry about being OP.
By the way, even with crits, Fire Bolt does 11.5 damage per round. A Fighter by then is probably doing 8.8 per attack...three times per round, and can do that every round just as easily as the caster can do cantrips.
As discussed earlier in the thread, the problem with martials is not really about combat. It's about what classes can do out of combat, which this rule does nothing for. Even inside of combat, it does very little. Even at L17 and assuming that a caster casts Fire Bolt every other round (alternating with a spell save based spell), that's a grand total of...0.5 damage per round. That isn't going to change anything. With that frequency, the number of rounds required to crit is 40. On average, an encounter lasts 3-4 rounds in my experience. That means you get a crit once in every 10 encounters. Assuming 3 encounters per session, that's every third session, they get one free attack. If removing crits even moves the needle on the discussion about martials v casters...then the difference is so small as to not be worth talking about. Especially when you consider that martials crit far more often (in terms of per session). Heck, a L17 Champion crits on average, every other round.
You're looking at crits in isolation. But crits are quite rare, at least for casters. By the way, the new rules on crits actually punish martials more than casters. Something to consider.
you're comparing a cantrip to a levelled spell. Wouldn't scorching ray at 3rd level be a better comparison? altho I can't say I have fully followed the conversation here.
Scorching Ray using a 3rd level slot (to match fireball), would be (at a 65% chance to hit):
4*((2d6*0.6) + (4d6*0.05)) = 4*(4.2+0.7) = 4 * 4.9 = 19.6 avg, DPR. So still favors the old fireball! just seems like a fairer comparison to me.
level 11 Scorching Ray, I think your maths is also off, I'd go with, 3d10 * .6 + 6d10 * .05 = 9.9 + 1.65 = 11.55 avg dpr
Basically no surprise, average DPR is still doubled that of a cantrip. Which is to still say that you're right. On the most part AoE spells generally do the best damage and they are all saves.
Why are players crying about not getting any critical options on even cantrips then?
I don't really get your math for scorching ray. it should just be 2d6 for damage per ray. which is an average of 7. Average is just =SUM(( ( sides on dice + 1) / 2 )*number of dice)
Also, I feel my point has gotten off track. Casters should not have crit options period. I'm just explaining one potential reason why "only cantrips" wouldn't be some easy solution. Casters, with exception of Eldritch Blast, typically have single hits on their cantrips and the scaling involves more damage. That means rolling the damage a second time for a cantrip means doubling the entire thing, where marital classes still only double their weapon. You'd have to succeed in all 3 attacks as a fighter, dual wielding longswords and crit twice to beat out the damage of a single crit firebolt. (level 11).
Casters are not pure damage dealers. They amount of flexibility is beyond what martial classes have. It seems people want them to compete when it comes to damage with martial classes while still having the ability to do everything else.
Are you sure, you don't think the lure of crit would get people to use that option?
Also, casters would out damage martial classes easily if they could crit, in addition to all the flexibility they get with their spell lists.
Let's look at Firebolt v Fireball properly.
A Firebolt at 11th level does 3d10 damage on a hit. That's an average of 16.5.damage. Let's say there's a 65% chance of hitting, so really, it does about 10.7 damage. On a crit,which only happens 1 in 20 turns, it does on average 33 damage.
A Fireball does 8d6 damage, 26 on average for a save. Let's assume the 65% fail on the saves. That means on average 21.4 damage...per target.
Any Wizard that chooses to 10.7 average damage to a single target over doing 21.4 on the hopes that it'll crit and do an average of 33 damage, despite being literally 95% sure it won't and will do 10.7 damage instead... isn't a Wizard you have to worry about being OP.
By the way, even with crits, Fire Bolt does 11.5 damage per round. A Fighter by then is probably doing 8.8 per attack...three times per round, and can do that every round just as easily as the caster can do cantrips.
As discussed earlier in the thread, the problem with martials is not really about combat. It's about what classes can do out of combat, which this rule does nothing for. Even inside of combat, it does very little. Even at L17 and assuming that a caster casts Fire Bolt every other round (alternating with a spell save based spell), that's a grand total of...0.5 damage per round. That isn't going to change anything. With that frequency, the number of rounds required to crit is 40. On average, an encounter lasts 3-4 rounds in my experience. That means you get a crit once in every 10 encounters. Assuming 3 encounters per session, that's every third session, they get one free attack. If removing crits even moves the needle on the discussion about martials v casters...then the difference is so small as to not be worth talking about. Especially when you consider that martials crit far more often (in terms of per session). Heck, a L17 Champion crits on average, every other round.
You're looking at crits in isolation. But crits are quite rare, at least for casters. By the way, the new rules on crits actually punish martials more than casters. Something to consider.
you're comparing a cantrip to a levelled spell. Wouldn't scorching ray at 3rd level be a better comparison? altho I can't say I have fully followed the conversation here.
The complaint was that if you allow cantrips to crit, then Fire Bolt should be chosen over Fireball...which is wrong. Even to a single target, Fireball does more damage. Where the mistake came from was they were comparing Fireball to the crit of a Fire Bolt. Except that's not how it works at all, and crits are rare enough that they don't really factor in at all (at L11 they contribute around 0.8 per round when the base average is 10.7). Anyone who picks a Fire Bolt over a Fireball based the amount of damage given, crit or no crit, is making a bad choice (of course there are other factors, in the decision, but that wasn't the claim). That's why I wasn't using Scorching Ray or other targeted spell.
Are you sure, you don't think the lure of crit would get people to use that option?
Also, casters would out damage martial classes easily if they could crit, in addition to all the flexibility they get with their spell lists.
Let's look at Firebolt v Fireball properly.
A Firebolt at 11th level does 3d10 damage on a hit. That's an average of 16.5.damage. Let's say there's a 65% chance of hitting, so really, it does about 10.7 damage. On a crit,which only happens 1 in 20 turns, it does on average 33 damage.
A Fireball does 8d6 damage, 26 on average for a save. Let's assume the 65% fail on the saves. That means on average 21.4 damage...per target.
Any Wizard that chooses to 10.7 average damage to a single target over doing 21.4 on the hopes that it'll crit and do an average of 33 damage, despite being literally 95% sure it won't and will do 10.7 damage instead... isn't a Wizard you have to worry about being OP.
By the way, even with crits, Fire Bolt does 11.5 damage per round. A Fighter by then is probably doing 8.8 per attack...three times per round, and can do that every round just as easily as the caster can do cantrips.
As discussed earlier in the thread, the problem with martials is not really about combat. It's about what classes can do out of combat, which this rule does nothing for. Even inside of combat, it does very little. Even at L17 and assuming that a caster casts Fire Bolt every other round (alternating with a spell save based spell), that's a grand total of...0.5 damage per round. That isn't going to change anything. With that frequency, the number of rounds required to crit is 40. On average, an encounter lasts 3-4 rounds in my experience. That means you get a crit once in every 10 encounters. Assuming 3 encounters per session, that's every third session, they get one free attack. If removing crits even moves the needle on the discussion about martials v casters...then the difference is so small as to not be worth talking about. Especially when you consider that martials crit far more often (in terms of per session). Heck, a L17 Champion crits on average, every other round.
You're looking at crits in isolation. But crits are quite rare, at least for casters. By the way, the new rules on crits actually punish martials more than casters. Something to consider.
you're comparing a cantrip to a levelled spell. Wouldn't scorching ray at 3rd level be a better comparison? altho I can't say I have fully followed the conversation here.
Scorching Ray using a 3rd level slot (to match fireball), would be (at a 65% chance to hit):
4*((2d6*0.6) + (4d6*0.05)) = 4*(4.2+0.7) = 4 * 4.9 = 19.6 avg, DPR. So still favors the old fireball! just seems like a fairer comparison to me.
level 11 Scorching Ray, I think your maths is also off, I'd go with, 3d10 * .6 + 6d10 * .05 = 9.9 + 1.65 = 11.55 avg dpr
Basically no surprise, average DPR is still doubled that of a cantrip. Which is to still say that you're right. On the most part AoE spells generally do the best damage and they are all saves.
Why are players crying about not getting any critical options on even cantrips then?
Because they've done the maths and realised that crits on cantrips are negligible and so do nothing for balance. In fact, the only classes where crits start to play a factor are martials, particularly Fighters, because they do so many attacks per round (and sometimes expand the crit range). For casters though? They happen once every two or three sessions. However, the reason for crits for most classes isn't to make you more powerful, but because it's a nice psychological effect to be able to pick up more dice every now and again for a great roll - removing something that makes the character more fun without screwing balance is just being spiteful. This has been the main point that has been repeated multiple times throughout the thread.
Also, I feel my point has gotten off track. Casters should not have crit options period. I'm just explaining one potential reason why "only cantrips" wouldn't be some easy solution.
We can only respond to the points you make.
Casters, with exception of Eldritch Blast, typically have single hits on their cantrips and the scaling involves more damage.
Overall, it doesn't. At L11, the caster gets 3d10 (v1d10 at L1) with a single shot at a crit. A Fighter gets (with a 2 handed longsword for ease of comparison) 3d10+(3*Str) (v1d10+Str at L1) with 3 chances to crit. He gets his Str contribution trebled plus two more shots at critting.
That means rolling the damage a second time for a cantrip means doubling the entire thing, where marital classes still only double their weapon. You'd have to succeed in all 3 attacks as a fighter, dual wielding longswords and crit twice to beat out the damage of a single crit firebolt. (level 11).
But you also get treble the opportunities to crit, and the martial is attempting to crit far more often. You also seem to be comparing the best rules for spellcaster (old rules) with the worst for the martial (new rules), which no one but no one is advocating for. You should also note at this point that the martial's DPR suffers more from the new crit rules than casters do, thanks to their increased frequency of attempts at getting them (not to mention the true victims to a decreased DPR). Anyone who advocates the new rules because they feel casters are more powerful than martials are, well, saying that they're cutting their nose to spite their face is understating it.
Casters are not pure damage dealers. They amount of flexibility is beyond what martial classes have. It seems people want them to compete when it comes to damage with martial classes while still having the ability to do everything else.
No. We just recognise that it's a game that's about fun, and making certain classes less fun by adjusting damage by a small fraction is just daft. We also recognise, as Scatter laid out earlier, that the problem isn't DPR. The problem is that casters because awesome demigods when playing tiers 4-5, while martials get to swing their sword faster and harder. If you want to address the issue, see what you can do to alter that dynamic - preferably by buffing what martials can do a d making them more fun rather than spiting casters and making them less fun.
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.
Yes more chances to crit but each crit would be less than if a firebolt would crit. Marital classes also get treble.... chances to miss as well. the chance to crit is offset by that.
Again, if casters get to crit then martial classes should be able to put enemies to sleep and charm person / hold person. Cure their own wounds and heal others. open up portals to other dimensions, create a permanent copy of themselves. Become invisible. Fly, Create a fortress from nothing, etc.
Again, you're saying "This class can do something better than mine and it isn't fair." Ignoring how much more the casters can do that martials can't.
I might as well go Fighter and pick up the Magic Initiate (or Spell Sniper) trait. Extra attack only says attack, not melee / ranged. so a magic attack would still apply. "Make a ranged spell attack against the target" Subclass as a Champion so you crit at 18 or higher Cast Firebolt 4 times (8 with Action Surge) Doing anywhere from (88)16d10 to (176) 32d10 on a turn. Although with that action surge it could go all the way to (352) 64d10. Roll with advantage you'd be looking at near 100% chance of getting at least 1 critical. Imagine the insanity of max possible damage of 640. Plus you have armor and more hit points.
I know a lot of people argue that spells aren't attacks BUUUUT. current rules say the D20 critical is on attack rolls, nothing about magic rolls so that means extra attack also applies to cantrips, at least magic attack roll type cantrips. Thus my build would be valid and fun, which is what matters.
I know a lot of people argue that spells aren't attacks BUUUUT. current rules say the D20 critical is on attack rolls, nothing about magic rolls so that means extra attack also applies to cantrips, at least magic attack roll type cantrips. Thus my build would be valid and fun, which is what matters.
Yes more chances to crit but each crit would be less than if a firebolt would crit. Marital classes also get treble.... chances to miss as well. the chance to crit is offset by that.
Good grief! This is the first time I've ever heard that having extra attacks in a round being sold as a bad thing! If a L20 Fighter misses...assuming that they're not duel wielding, their DPR reduces by 25%. If a L20 Wizard misses, their DPR is zero and the if it's na 3 round encounter, their DPR reduces by 33% over the entire encounter. Having crits benefit martials more than casters. Which is why this move is bad for martials - the lesser reduction influences their output much more than casters. Again, spiting your nose and hurting your face. Also, the logic you've presented here - that crits compensate for Nat1s - actually argues that casters should have more powerful crits because their Nat1s are worse. A Fighter loses one of their many attacks. Casters effectively lose their turn.
Again, if casters get to crit then martial classes should be able to put enemies to sleep and charm person / hold person. Cure their own wounds and heal others. open up portals to other dimensions, create a permanent copy of themselves. Become invisible. Fly, Create a fortress from nothing, etc.
No. It makes no sense for martials to do that. As I said, come up with something interesting for martials. Don't look at casters and say "I want that", instead look at the martials and see what you can do to make them interesting. Have them gain followers as the progress until you get an army. Or you can own kingdoms. I don't know. Something other than "I want to be a caster with half a dozen attacks per round".
Again, you're saying "This class can do something better than mine and it isn't fair." Ignoring how much more the casters can do that martials can't.
No, I'm saying your making casters less fun to play for no benefit, and making martials even worse to do it. I have no problem that martials can have higher AC, more attacks, better resource-free attacks, or that they get better health, that they don't have spend half their time running away. That their Hit Dice are larger and more reliable. I don't want to meld the classes together, and I'm happy that martials get stuff casters don't. I would just never demand that another class lose its abilities that have marginal effects on balance...especially if it worsened the balance overall because it effects a struggling one even more. Martials arguing for this change is like a kid in a glass house throwing a rock through their glass window at next door's gnome. It makes no sense.
I might as well go Fighter and pick up the Magic Initiate (or Spell Sniper) trait. Extra attack only says attack, not melee / ranged. so a magic attack would still apply. "Make a ranged spell attack against the target" Subclass as a Champion so you crit at 18 or higher Cast Firebolt 4 times (8 with Action Surge) Doing anywhere from (88)16d10 to (176) 32d10 on a turn. Although with that action surge it could go all the way to (352) 64d10. Roll with advantage you'd be looking at near 100% chance of getting at least 1 critical. Imagine the insanity of max possible damage of 640. Plus you have armor and more hit points.
I know a lot of people argue that spells aren't attacks BUUUUT. current rules say the D20 critical is on attack rolls, nothing about magic rolls so that means extra attack also applies to cantrips, at least magic attack roll type cantrips. Thus my build would be valid and fun, which is what matters.
If you really want and you can convince your DM that's how it works. I mean, you're splitting systems here, so it can't work, but whatever. Also you've just shown how a martial can be massively OP, but again, whatever.
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.
Yes more chances to crit but each crit would be less than if a firebolt would crit. Marital classes also get treble.... chances to miss as well. the chance to crit is offset by that.
Again, if casters get to crit then martial classes should be able to put enemies to sleep and charm person / hold person. Cure their own wounds and heal others. open up portals to other dimensions, create a permanent copy of themselves. Become invisible. Fly, Create a fortress from nothing, etc.
Again, you're saying "This class can do something better than mine and it isn't fair." Ignoring how much more the casters can do that martials can't.
I might as well go Fighter and pick up the Magic Initiate (or Spell Sniper) trait. Extra attack only says attack, not melee / ranged. so a magic attack would still apply. "Make a ranged spell attack against the target" Subclass as a Champion so you crit at 18 or higher Cast Firebolt 4 times (8 with Action Surge) Doing anywhere from (88)16d10 to (176) 32d10 on a turn. Although with that action surge it could go all the way to (352) 64d10. Roll with advantage you'd be looking at near 100% chance of getting at least 1 critical. Imagine the insanity of max possible damage of 640. Plus you have armor and more hit points.
I know a lot of people argue that spells aren't attacks BUUUUT. current rules say the D20 critical is on attack rolls, nothing about magic rolls so that means extra attack also applies to cantrips, at least magic attack roll type cantrips. Thus my build would be valid and fun, which is what matters.
what did I just read? Champion critical threat/range increases specifies "your weapon attack", the only spells where the caster performs a weapon attack are Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade, the threat increase would be applicable to nothing else.
Extra attack specifies the attack action must be taken, spells require the cast-a-spell action be taken, while there are a couple of small exceptions like a bladesinger's extra attack allowing one of the attacks to be replaced with a cantrip, generally speaking it would not allow you to swap attacks with spells... the only ways to cast two spells is to cast both a bonus action spell and main action spell, where the main action spell must be a cantrip or to use a fighter's action surge to get a 2nd action.
I think I said it before, but crits could have been reduced to 1 die per source, that'd have hit the dumb 10+ damage die criticals that some spells, paladins and rogues can hit, without entirely nerfing it all into the ground. It'd leave Eldritch blast basically untouched (since each ray is it's own attack roll). Your long sword divine smite would get an additional 1d8 weapon damage and 1d8 smite, and a 3rd 1d8 for Improve Divine Smite at level 11. Rogues could get an additional feature around level 11 to allow them to crit on a 19 and get an additional damage die on critical, but we haven't seen the class reworks yet... I'd still keep weapons different tho, I'd change it that the additional damage die for the damage caused by a weapon is maximized, so a shortsword just gets a straight +6, while a greatclub gets a straight +12, means you can't get critical hits that do less damage than the majority of normal hits with a weapon.
I would not allow a crit on any spells, because spellcasters already has more dangerous spells, which can disable enemies from far away even out of combat... and fighters and other classes has not similar options without multiclassing. Also spells basically has high dmg dicepools, even if they are cantrip (which is infinite) or not. Double that dmg is simply not ok and not fair against other classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They are the baseline with hex, so with one of their spells out of 2 for most levels and their concentration warlocks create a baseline which any DPR build will exceed.
Agreed.
Yup, which is why I said it didn't even do anything for balance when it got mentioned.
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 get the logic here, that it's not fair to spellcasters that weapon classes have access to a cool thing that they don't. I don't think that that accounts for the 300 other things spellcasters can do that fighters can't. Fighters being better at combat than spellcasters should be the reality, because fighters don't get the option to use their resources to teleport thousands of feet in six seconds. I think this edition at least makes spells consistent, since the other half of damaging spells (spells with saves) already can't crit. Now you're just bringing the spells that could in line with those.
You said in your post that cantrips are worse than one attack action from a fighter or rogue. That is, and should always, be true, because fighters can't instead use their action to cast fireball. Fighters should just straight up have significantly more consistent damage than spellcasters. That's the thing they do that spellcasters can't. If cantrips were on average as good as an attack action, then fighters would get action surge, second wind, and indomitable, and spellcasters would get dominate person, counterspell, and delayed blast fireball. Fighters have three attacks at 11th level. If we pretend they have, say, a +2 longsword and, say, 20 strength, that's (if all 3 hit) 3d8+21 damage, for an average of 34.5. If the party sorcerer has chill touch at 11th level, that's 3d8 damage, for a total of 13.5 (plus they can't regain hit points until their next turn). "Oh no!", you (the sorcerer) say. "The fighter's hitting for two and a half times as much damage as me! This is not fair!"
You forget, of course, that you have a 6th-level spell slot with which to cast, oh I don't know, disintegrate, for 10d6+40 (average 75) damage, and 2 5th-level spell slots with which to then the next turn cast cone of cold on three targets for 8d6 (average 28, times 3 = 84) damage, and two 4th-level spell slots with which to then the following turn cast dimension door and teleport you and the rogue off the entire map.
Spellcasters have a utility that is completely inaccessible to weapon classes: spells. They can teleport, turn invisible, shapeshift, summon minions, give or have expertise, manipulate terrain, control minds, alter memories, see across the world, and so much more. To be able to do all that and also even so much as keep pace with the damage of a martial class for the opportunity cost of (functionally) -2 to Con, Action Surge, Indomitable, and Second Wind would be insanely busted.
I don't think that crits are a "small benefit from a big roll". The difference between critting and not critting on a swing with a longsword is 1d8 or 1d10 damage. The difference between critting on a steel wind strike and not critting is 8d6 damage. Crits on spells can completely swing a fight in unfun ways, on both sides of the DM screen. You mention that natural 20's on spells would take them from being "Woohoo!" moments to "Well, I got inspiration at least" moments, and I contend that, because you're still hitting with a (presumably) powerful spell. When the level 11 fighter crits on their attack, they get to do ~20% extra damage. That doesn't stop those crits from being "Woohoo!" moments, unless you're one of those people who spends all their time complaining about how things used to be more powerful in previous editions, and getting free advantage on any roll for free when you cast your spell will still be a "Woohoo!" moment for most players.
Personally, and maybe I'm crazy for this, I think it's okay that martial classes get to do something significantly better than spellcasters - that theres a "woohoo" moment they can have that spellcasters can't easily have as well. I think there are problems with this system - martial clerics are even less viable, and rogues have seen their worst nerf in the entire edition, for example - but frankly, I really don't care that spellcasters feel less 'special' to play. Fighters should have more than one single thing they get to do better than the other classes.
This rule seems both reasonable and warranted. Cantrips are spells. They shouldn't have different rules than other spells, especially since some cantrips use saves instead of attack rolls. Spells should generally operate under the same rules. I don't think this is an acceptable nerf to spellcasters - as a rule, I think that the only way to make spellcasters and martial classes on roughly even footing would be to give fighters significantly more out-of-combat utility - and I don't think it's good or warranted because it nerfs spellcasters. I just think the only cons of the rule that matter are those that nerf martial clerics and rogues, because spellcasters lose like one kind of cool moment (one completely out of their control) a campaign in exchange for consistent rules for spells and weapon attacks which make the game much easier to understand.
Personally, I think that moments other than Good Rolls should be considered 'the greatest moments of the game' - moments of catharsis, memorable character moments, absurd shenanigans - and since this rule doesn't impede on any of those, I really don't think it's going to affect people's enjoyment of the game.
You will probably miss critting your blight, and I will too, but I think in the vast and wonderful world of D&D, you'll find enough great moments to get over it.
Simply Put:
Doubling damage on a 1d4-1d12 is a lot less damage than doubling damage on a 40d6
Martial classes get their damage equivalency due to multiple attacks and actions, each requiring a separate hit check.
A basic attack from a fighter at lvl 11 using a Great Sword is a 1d10 (6) they get 3 attacks, assuming they all average out to 6, that's 18 damage (though 3 rolls of 1d10 is actually 17 avg). If they crit, they would do 24 damage total.
A spell caster can use Firebolt at level 11, 3d10 averages out to 17. While less, crit would yield 34 damage.
that's 10 more damage.
Additionally:
The fighter would have to perform 3 separate hit checks. While this does increase the chance of at least one being a critical, it also increases the chance of at least one being a miss.
There is no guarantee the crit would be on the higher of the 3 damages.
That is a large difference.
I used basic melee and cantrip since those are analogous. I left out Action Surge since it would be a limited use option, similar to spells, and if I included spells......casters would take an even larger lead. (Meteor Swarm does 140 dmg average, double that, 280, action surge won't pull that off)
Anyone else getting deja vu? I'm sure a lot of similar arguements happened at the end of 3e/3.5e......
EDIT: just ruminating on posts here and elsewhere and maybe it would be better for WOTC (and the wider DM/content creating community) to come out with some low to zero magic campaign settings to give the non-spellcasting classes a place to shine.
An individual crit for a spellcaster is usually quite rare, especially on spells that don't have multiple attack rolls, which is almost every spell. But martials like fighters can make four attacks in one turn. At 17th level, champion fighter will crit on almost every turn. And barbarians can reckless and get advantage, which nearly doubles (nearly not completely) their chance to crit. But also, barbarians have a truckload of HP. While spellcasters may often have bigger crits, fighters will crit more.
Anyways, at least allow spellcasters to crit on cantrips. Those don't make a huge difference in game.
You can enjoy other moments in the game aside from critting, that's fine. But other people like me love crits, and will severely affect people like me's "enjoyment of the game." Just because you personally don't find crits to be the one of the greatest moments, and removing them wont take much of your fun in the game away, doesn't mean it wont do that to others, as evidenced by the dozens of people on this thread who said removing crits from spellcasters would remove some of the fun from there game.
Taking away something rom one class is not a good way to help another class. There are so many viable alternatives to this, such as making martials more powerful, that don't involve removing crits too. This way may sort-of do something if you're taking about balance, and to you it may even be warranted, but one thing that's unwarranted about it is the fact that it is certainly not the best way to accomplish this. Again, helping martials is.
This serves to remove more fun from the game more then it does to help solve those problems.
PS-You can't crit on blight anyway.
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.If you look up a few posts you'll see why even Cantrips crit'ing would be way too powerful. TLDR: at level 11 a spell caster crit would be 10 more damage (34 to fighter's 24)
Also, allowing ONLY Cantrips to crit but not spells would incentivse using cantrips over spell slots, beyond simply saving a spell slot.
If we take 3rd lvl spell (not even top tier for level 11 wizard) Fireball, avg damage is 28. If we look at a crit for 11th level firebolt (base avg 17) it would be 34. So a Wizard would have no need to cast Fireball since it would do less damage than a cantrip, and save a spell slot. You'd have to cast fireball, up cast to a 5th level slot just to match that crit.
Spell casters have much more options to deal more damage beyond the basic attack (cantrip) than martial classes do. Most martial classes simply use abilities to augment their martial attacks. Spell casters can use a wide variety and since they aren't as limited as martial classes they have more opportunities to do extra damage. i.e. 40d6 Meteor Swarm isn't the type of damage a martial class can do. Even a Crit Barbarian could do 10d6 (Greatsword) at level 17 averaging 35 damage which is when a wizard could use Meteor Swarm. While a barbarian could crit multiple times in a fight, they could also crit none, they also have no control over the damage total like a wizard who can choose when to cast meteor swarm. Additionally, Meteor Swarm targets an area while Barbarian is single target.
Some martial classes have been impacted by this, namely Rogues, who, some have allowed to use full crit doubling on sneak attack which is just insane imo. Currently an Assassin Rogue would have the potential damage of. 39 for sneak attack (using Short Sword), then doubled using lvl 17 assassin, Deathstrike, 78, doubled again if critical 156. Since they have advantage on creatures that haven't attacked yet they could potentially start every fight hitting the boss for that amount of damage.
With new crit rules the total damage potential (avg) would increase by only another 1d6 from the 39 to 42 then doubling to 84.
so don’t use your 3rd level slot because you might get a crit on firebolt (5%) and hit only one target because wasting that slot to do that damage to multiple targets at once doesn’t make sense? I don’t think so. If you are a wizard casting fireball on one target that’s a waste. Better to use firebolt or other single target spell. Use firebolt on one target when you have 8 enemies clustered together because you might crit on that one? Also a waste. You use your spell slots or cantrips as the situation dictates not because you have a 5% chance to crit.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I agree, even if you were angry. Crits are fun. But it's not double damage with the new rule. It's an extra weapon dice of damage, not sneak attack, smite, etc. This smells like a solution looking for a problem.
Part of the difficulty in going through these rules changes is trying to figure out what problem are they trying to solve. Problem-solving is an actual process and we aren't in on it. I'm not convinced, yet, the designers are either. If it's monsters killing, and I mean killing, low level PCs the rule that's causing the problem is the instant death/massive damage rule. GMs doing math can mitigate this, but removing that rule probably fixes the problem they may be seeing. If it's a larger balance issue I'm not seeing it yet. But other solutions are in HP, resistance, Advantage/Disadvantage, action economy, and encounter building.
In the end the ability to celebrate a critical hit in combat is the kind of fun everyone at the table should get to experience. The rule is fine as it is in 5e.
Are you sure, you don't think the lure of crit would get people to use that option?
Also, casters would out damage martial classes easily if they could crit, in addition to all the flexibility they get with their spell lists.
I see quite a problem. If you look at average damage per class, martial classes are left in the dust by spell casters (and Rogues sneak attack) with the old method. Its actually quite rough. Casters get a ton more flexibility and options AND get to out damage others... that isn't really balance.
Let's look at Firebolt v Fireball properly.
A Firebolt at 11th level does 3d10 damage on a hit. That's an average of 16.5.damage. Let's say there's a 65% chance of hitting, so really, it does about 10.7 damage. On a crit,which only happens 1 in 20 turns, it does on average 33 damage.
A Fireball does 8d6 damage, 26 on average for a save. Let's assume the 65% fail on the saves. That means on average 21.4 damage...per target.
Any Wizard that chooses to 10.7 average damage to a single target over doing 21.4 on the hopes that it'll crit and do an average of 33 damage, despite being literally 95% sure it won't and will do 10.7 damage instead... isn't a Wizard you have to worry about being OP.
By the way, even with crits, Fire Bolt does 11.5 damage per round. A Fighter by then is probably doing 8.8 per attack...three times per round, and can do that every round just as easily as the caster can do cantrips.
As discussed earlier in the thread, the problem with martials is not really about combat. It's about what classes can do out of combat, which this rule does nothing for. Even inside of combat, it does very little. Even at L17 and assuming that a caster casts Fire Bolt every other round (alternating with a spell save based spell), that's a grand total of...0.5 damage per round. That isn't going to change anything. With that frequency, the number of rounds required to crit is 40. On average, an encounter lasts 3-4 rounds in my experience. That means you get a crit once in every 10 encounters. Assuming 3 encounters per session, that's every third session, they get one free attack. If removing crits even moves the needle on the discussion about martials v casters...then the difference is so small as to not be worth talking about. Especially when you consider that martials crit far more often (in terms of per session). Heck, a L17 Champion crits on average, every other round.
You're looking at crits in isolation. But crits are quite rare, at least for casters. By the way, the new rules on crits actually punish martials more than casters. Something to consider.
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.
you're comparing a cantrip to a levelled spell. Wouldn't scorching ray at 3rd level be a better comparison? altho I can't say I have fully followed the conversation here.
Scorching Ray using a 3rd level slot (to match fireball), would be (at a 65% chance to hit):
4*((2d6*0.6) + (4d6*0.05)) = 4*(4.2+0.7) = 4 * 4.9 = 19.6 avg, DPR. So still favors the old fireball! just seems like a fairer comparison to me.
Also fireball damage should be...
( 8d6 * .65 ) + (( 8d6 / 2 ) * .35) = (28 * .65) + (14 * .35) = (18.2) + (4.9) = 23.1 avg dpr.
level 11 Scorching Ray, I think your maths is also off, I'd go with, 3d10 * .6 + 6d10 * .05 = 9.9 + 1.65 = 11.55 avg dpr
Basically no surprise, average DPR is still doubled that of a cantrip. Which is to still say that you're right. On the most part AoE spells generally do the best damage and they are all saves.
Why are players crying about not getting any critical options on even cantrips then?
I don't really get your math for scorching ray. it should just be 2d6 for damage per ray. which is an average of 7. Average is just =SUM(( ( sides on dice + 1) / 2 )*number of dice)
Also, I feel my point has gotten off track. Casters should not have crit options period. I'm just explaining one potential reason why "only cantrips" wouldn't be some easy solution.
Casters, with exception of Eldritch Blast, typically have single hits on their cantrips and the scaling involves more damage. That means rolling the damage a second time for a cantrip means doubling the entire thing, where marital classes still only double their weapon. You'd have to succeed in all 3 attacks as a fighter, dual wielding longswords and crit twice to beat out the damage of a single crit firebolt. (level 11).
Casters are not pure damage dealers. They amount of flexibility is beyond what martial classes have. It seems people want them to compete when it comes to damage with martial classes while still having the ability to do everything else.
The complaint was that if you allow cantrips to crit, then Fire Bolt should be chosen over Fireball...which is wrong. Even to a single target, Fireball does more damage. Where the mistake came from was they were comparing Fireball to the crit of a Fire Bolt. Except that's not how it works at all, and crits are rare enough that they don't really factor in at all (at L11 they contribute around 0.8 per round when the base average is 10.7). Anyone who picks a Fire Bolt over a Fireball based the amount of damage given, crit or no crit, is making a bad choice (of course there are other factors, in the decision, but that wasn't the claim). That's why I wasn't using Scorching Ray or other targeted spell.
I made a mistake and averaged 8d6 to be 26 rather than 28.
I was separating out the crits, for reasons made clear in the analysis. I then just used rounded figures since we're not in a maths exam.
Because they've done the maths and realised that crits on cantrips are negligible and so do nothing for balance. In fact, the only classes where crits start to play a factor are martials, particularly Fighters, because they do so many attacks per round (and sometimes expand the crit range). For casters though? They happen once every two or three sessions. However, the reason for crits for most classes isn't to make you more powerful, but because it's a nice psychological effect to be able to pick up more dice every now and again for a great roll - removing something that makes the character more fun without screwing balance is just being spiteful. This has been the main point that has been repeated multiple times throughout the thread.
We can only respond to the points you make.
Overall, it doesn't. At L11, the caster gets 3d10 (v1d10 at L1) with a single shot at a crit. A Fighter gets (with a 2 handed longsword for ease of comparison) 3d10+(3*Str) (v1d10+Str at L1) with 3 chances to crit. He gets his Str contribution trebled plus two more shots at critting.
But you also get treble the opportunities to crit, and the martial is attempting to crit far more often. You also seem to be comparing the best rules for spellcaster (old rules) with the worst for the martial (new rules), which no one but no one is advocating for. You should also note at this point that the martial's DPR suffers more from the new crit rules than casters do, thanks to their increased frequency of attempts at getting them (not to mention the true victims to a decreased DPR). Anyone who advocates the new rules because they feel casters are more powerful than martials are, well, saying that they're cutting their nose to spite their face is understating it.
No. We just recognise that it's a game that's about fun, and making certain classes less fun by adjusting damage by a small fraction is just daft. We also recognise, as Scatter laid out earlier, that the problem isn't DPR. The problem is that casters because awesome demigods when playing tiers 4-5, while martials get to swing their sword faster and harder. If you want to address the issue, see what you can do to alter that dynamic - preferably by buffing what martials can do a d making them more fun rather than spiting casters and making them less fun.
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.
Yes more chances to crit but each crit would be less than if a firebolt would crit.
Marital classes also get treble.... chances to miss as well. the chance to crit is offset by that.
Again, if casters get to crit then martial classes should be able to put enemies to sleep and charm person / hold person. Cure their own wounds and heal others. open up portals to other dimensions, create a permanent copy of themselves. Become invisible. Fly, Create a fortress from nothing, etc.
Again, you're saying "This class can do something better than mine and it isn't fair." Ignoring how much more the casters can do that martials can't.
I might as well go Fighter and pick up the Magic Initiate (or Spell Sniper) trait. Extra attack only says attack, not melee / ranged. so a magic attack would still apply. "Make a ranged spell attack against the target"
Subclass as a Champion so you crit at 18 or higher
Cast Firebolt 4 times (8 with Action Surge) Doing anywhere from (88)16d10 to (176) 32d10 on a turn. Although with that action surge it could go all the way to (352) 64d10. Roll with advantage you'd be looking at near 100% chance of getting at least 1 critical. Imagine the insanity of max possible damage of 640.
Plus you have armor and more hit points.
I know a lot of people argue that spells aren't attacks BUUUUT. current rules say the D20 critical is on attack rolls, nothing about magic rolls so that means extra attack also applies to cantrips, at least magic attack roll type cantrips. Thus my build would be valid and fun, which is what matters.
This is not accurate.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/664951062298652672?s=20&t=PdCzHVQ1cmPX7LNEws30Gg
Good grief! This is the first time I've ever heard that having extra attacks in a round being sold as a bad thing! If a L20 Fighter misses...assuming that they're not duel wielding, their DPR reduces by 25%. If a L20 Wizard misses, their DPR is zero and the if it's na 3 round encounter, their DPR reduces by 33% over the entire encounter. Having crits benefit martials more than casters. Which is why this move is bad for martials - the lesser reduction influences their output much more than casters. Again, spiting your nose and hurting your face. Also, the logic you've presented here - that crits compensate for Nat1s - actually argues that casters should have more powerful crits because their Nat1s are worse. A Fighter loses one of their many attacks. Casters effectively lose their turn.
No. It makes no sense for martials to do that. As I said, come up with something interesting for martials. Don't look at casters and say "I want that", instead look at the martials and see what you can do to make them interesting. Have them gain followers as the progress until you get an army. Or you can own kingdoms. I don't know. Something other than "I want to be a caster with half a dozen attacks per round".
Again, you're saying "This class can do something better than mine and it isn't fair." Ignoring how much more the casters can do that martials can't.
No, I'm saying your making casters less fun to play for no benefit, and making martials even worse to do it. I have no problem that martials can have higher AC, more attacks, better resource-free attacks, or that they get better health, that they don't have spend half their time running away. That their Hit Dice are larger and more reliable. I don't want to meld the classes together, and I'm happy that martials get stuff casters don't. I would just never demand that another class lose its abilities that have marginal effects on balance...especially if it worsened the balance overall because it effects a struggling one even more. Martials arguing for this change is like a kid in a glass house throwing a rock through their glass window at next door's gnome. It makes no sense.
If you really want and you can convince your DM that's how it works. I mean, you're splitting systems here, so it can't work, but whatever. Also you've just shown how a martial can be massively OP, but again, whatever.
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.
what did I just read? Champion critical threat/range increases specifies "your weapon attack", the only spells where the caster performs a weapon attack are Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade, the threat increase would be applicable to nothing else.
Extra attack specifies the attack action must be taken, spells require the cast-a-spell action be taken, while there are a couple of small exceptions like a bladesinger's extra attack allowing one of the attacks to be replaced with a cantrip, generally speaking it would not allow you to swap attacks with spells... the only ways to cast two spells is to cast both a bonus action spell and main action spell, where the main action spell must be a cantrip or to use a fighter's action surge to get a 2nd action.
I think I said it before, but crits could have been reduced to 1 die per source, that'd have hit the dumb 10+ damage die criticals that some spells, paladins and rogues can hit, without entirely nerfing it all into the ground. It'd leave Eldritch blast basically untouched (since each ray is it's own attack roll). Your long sword divine smite would get an additional 1d8 weapon damage and 1d8 smite, and a 3rd 1d8 for Improve Divine Smite at level 11. Rogues could get an additional feature around level 11 to allow them to crit on a 19 and get an additional damage die on critical, but we haven't seen the class reworks yet... I'd still keep weapons different tho, I'd change it that the additional damage die for the damage caused by a weapon is maximized, so a shortsword just gets a straight +6, while a greatclub gets a straight +12, means you can't get critical hits that do less damage than the majority of normal hits with a weapon.
I would not allow a crit on any spells, because spellcasters already has more dangerous spells, which can disable enemies from far away even out of combat... and fighters and other classes has not similar options without multiclassing.
Also spells basically has high dmg dicepools, even if they are cantrip (which is infinite) or not. Double that dmg is simply not ok and not fair against other classes.