If the issue with nat20 is the damage, maybe the critical could be just mechanically different.
For instance, instead of only 2x damage, each weapon could have it's own critical effect, like, knocking someone prone, stunning, disarming, pushing, etc.
That could also allow for each spell damage type to do a different thing on critical, like fire would do extra1d6 damage on the next turns, lightning damage could stun, poison could actually poison (no save at first), etc.
some weapons could have 2x or 3x damage, as a magic trait or martial.
That would harken back to 3.5, pretty sure different weapons had different crit ranges and and critical amounts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
If the issue with nat20 is the damage, maybe the critical could be just mechanically different.
For instance, instead of only 2x damage, each weapon could have it's own critical effect, like, knocking someone prone, stunning, disarming, pushing, etc.
That could also allow for each spell damage type to do a different thing on critical, like fire would do extra1d6 damage on the next turns, lightning damage could stun, poison could actually poison (no save at first), etc.
some weapons could have 2x or 3x damage, as a magic trait or martial.
I like this in general but would need to see how it was presented.
One issue people had with another game that did this was since each spell had a different crit people felt a bit put out that they had to look it up all the time. This could be taken care of by having that info on their sheet. In general, I do not have an issue with looking at info if I am lucky enough to roll a nat 20.
I think there is an easier way to make critical hits more predictable than either 5E or one D&D. one D&D still has the snake eyes issue of 5E where critical hits can actually do less damage than normal hits, so how is it "critical?"
First off I wouldn't remove crits from spells
Second off I'd make it so that all weapon die are maximized (note spells are not weapons tho in some cases might include a weapon attack, I.E. Green-Flame Blade)
- so a D12 greataxe is assumed as a 12 roll.
- something like flame bolt is still rolled for damage as a D10
Third off I'd add static damage based on all damage dice, so that.
d4 & d6 add +1 damage
d8 and d10 add +2 damage
d12 adds +3 damage
This would still give crits their sting and reduce the snake eyes effect, doubling the amount of dice was always a problem. In my opinion crits need to be strong enough that they create those "moments" but not too strong that you do get those literally one shot the BBEG; which I have certainly seen in 5E.
One dungeon we accidentally ran into the BBEG first and while I was playing paladin, near one shot the BBEG and finished them with the extra attack. we didn't know that was the BBEG so was running around the rest of the dungeon looking for the BBEG only to find out they went out too quickly due to a nat 20, a smite fueled by a 4th level spell slot and I think I might have bonus action cast a smite spell or hex... it was a double digit number of damage die and was I believe in the low 90s for damage.
I would totally be down for something that made different weapons more distinct. I feel like this is one aspect of the game where more crunch is needed, and unique crit effects on weapons would be just the right bow to put on top to make them really stand out from each other.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing weapons with different crit ranges and varying crit multiplier making a return. Like scythes in 3.5E had a crit multiplier of 4x, so crits with them really hurt; meanwhile some other weapons had expanded crit ranges. If we end up keeping crits to martials and having it only affect weapon damage, it may be nice to double down on it and explore this aspect of the game again. It would be nice to have a bit more variance between different weapons and not have cases like Halberds and Glaives being mechanically the same.
Obviously a 1 to 1 port probably would not work as the math in 3.5E is very different to the math in 5E, but it is something that I think should be explored.
Agreed each type of weapon could have an effect, my biggest bug is that say a longsword and strength mod +3 a normal hit is 1d8 +3. The 4th ed rules had a much better idea, where the first die on a critical is automatically maxed. A critical would be 2d8 +3, yet how many times have you rolled double 1 or a 2 and a 1. You can do more damage on a normal hit, than you just rolled. A critical is meant to be a big powerful hit but rolling bad, feels like meh! what was the point of doing a crit. If the first die is maxed out you know you are doing a bigger hit and getting 8 + d8 +3, this feels more like a critical hit. If you are using a greatsword weapon that has 2d6 and another 2d6 on a critical, then you should have 12 +2d6 +3, then you are getting excited by the roll. Yet if you roll of 4 d6 and get 4 or 5 or 4d6, that is just a big disappointment. Meh. If a rogue with backstab gets a crit, then you could say halve the back stab dice round down are also maxed out and weapon damage is maxed, before rolling the extra dice.
I don't mind the idea of the second damage roll of the crit just being maxed as you described. Makes it feel a bit more consistently awesome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I apologize that this is a duplicate, my original post may been posted in the wrong forum, so I hope this is a better forum for this...
We have adopted the maxed second roll concept and it has proven to be quite nice and exciting. Admittedly, it can be over the top, especially when a high level Rogue includes their Sneak Attack! Of course the Monsters are allowed the same amenity, so the PCs will shiver too as they await the outcome of the damage rolls. I think this is a variation that should be explored and looked at for ONE DND.
Having read the EXPERT CLASS play test material, they make mention of critical hits using the PHB rules, was that a typo? Or did WotC acquiesce and rolled back their decision, this needs clarification.
Assuming WotC is moving forward with altering critical hits I thought about it this way...
Any creature(PC, NPC, monster) with an Intelligence score of 10 or higher knows what will cause severe damage to an opponent, generally, when using a weapon or unarmed attack. And as far as unarmed attacks go, this would include the creature's natural weaponry, IE - hands, feet, teeth, hooves, claws, tail, horns, etc. Now, for those creatures whose Intelligence is below 10, they should still be allowed that lucky chance that did some real damage, so when they roll a natural 20, they then roll the percentile dice and are given a 1% ( just an example) chance they actually caused critical damage! The game is based on random outcomes of dice so why not a random chance? Think about real life... random things happen.
Not sure that damage type should be a consideration or not, but just want to state it.
Spells... maybe spells that require attack rolls fall under the percentile idea...but given the Intelligence of the caster, they get an improved percentage?
I apologize that this is a duplicate, my original post may been posted in the wrong forum, so I hope this is a better forum for this...
We have adopted the maxed second roll concept and it has proven to be quite nice and exciting. Admittedly, it can be over the top, especially when a high level Rogue includes their Sneak Attack! Of course the Monsters are allowed the same amenity, so the PCs will shiver too as they await the outcome of the damage rolls. I think this is a variation that should be explored and looked at for ONE DND.
Having read the EXPERT CLASS play test material, they make mention of critical hits using the PHB rules, was that a typo? Or did WotC acquiesce and rolled back their decision, this needs clarification.
Assuming WotC is moving forward with altering critical hits I thought about it this way...
Any creature(PC, NPC, monster) with an Intelligence score of 10 or higher knows what will cause severe damage to an opponent, generally, when using a weapon or unarmed attack. And as far as unarmed attacks go, this would include the creature's natural weaponry, IE - hands, feet, teeth, hooves, claws, tail, horns, etc. Now, for those creatures whose Intelligence is below 10, they should still be allowed that lucky chance that did some real damage, so when they roll a natural 20, they then roll the percentile dice and are given a 1% ( just an example) chance they actually caused critical damage! The game is based on random outcomes of dice so why not a random chance? Think about real life... random things happen.
Not sure that damage type should be a consideration or not, but just want to state it.
Spells... maybe spells that require attack rolls fall under the percentile idea...but given the Intelligence of the caster, they get an improved percentage?
Well, thanks again for listening.
WotC said they had a few ideas for each mechanic and want to try different ones with each UA. That's the official explanation for walking crit rules back in the Experts document. It's not a typo. They did mention it in the video as being intentional. Whether it was actually planned or not we'll probably never know.
I'm not sure I understand your idea for crits tied to Intelligence. A lot of classes that depend on crits also dump that stat. You see a lot martials with an Intelligence of 9 or lower. That would remove a big part of their power. Even some animals hunt primarily by what we would consider a crit. A Jaguar is basically a DnD rogue. It sneaks up on its prey and makes a very gruesome attack to a very specific location with clear intent. It knows how to use its natural weapons most effectively, even if it's all instinctual.
He's kinda going around something that is already taken care of by the die. I don't agree with the reasoning that non-Intelligent creatures aren't instinctually able to deal crits.
My out loud thinking was assuming that Monsters were not going to be allowed to critical hit. So, if the critical hit rules are rolling back, then my idea is moot.
Bob World Builder has a video series exploring this idea. Bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing weapons each have their own effect on a crit. It's worth watching for ideas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[REDACTED]
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If the issue with nat20 is the damage, maybe the critical could be just mechanically different.
For instance, instead of only 2x damage, each weapon could have it's own critical effect, like, knocking someone prone, stunning, disarming, pushing, etc.
That could also allow for each spell damage type to do a different thing on critical, like fire would do extra1d6 damage on the next turns, lightning damage could stun, poison could actually poison (no save at first), etc.
some weapons could have 2x or 3x damage, as a magic trait or martial.
That would harken back to 3.5, pretty sure different weapons had different crit ranges and and critical amounts.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I like this in general but would need to see how it was presented.
One issue people had with another game that did this was since each spell had a different crit people felt a bit put out that they had to look it up all the time. This could be taken care of by having that info on their sheet. In general, I do not have an issue with looking at info if I am lucky enough to roll a nat 20.
I think there is an easier way to make critical hits more predictable than either 5E or one D&D. one D&D still has the snake eyes issue of 5E where critical hits can actually do less damage than normal hits, so how is it "critical?"
First off I wouldn't remove crits from spells
Second off I'd make it so that all weapon die are maximized (note spells are not weapons tho in some cases might include a weapon attack, I.E. Green-Flame Blade)
- so a D12 greataxe is assumed as a 12 roll.
- something like flame bolt is still rolled for damage as a D10
Third off I'd add static damage based on all damage dice, so that.
d4 & d6 add +1 damage
d8 and d10 add +2 damage
d12 adds +3 damage
This would still give crits their sting and reduce the snake eyes effect, doubling the amount of dice was always a problem. In my opinion crits need to be strong enough that they create those "moments" but not too strong that you do get those literally one shot the BBEG; which I have certainly seen in 5E.
One dungeon we accidentally ran into the BBEG first and while I was playing paladin, near one shot the BBEG and finished them with the extra attack. we didn't know that was the BBEG so was running around the rest of the dungeon looking for the BBEG only to find out they went out too quickly due to a nat 20, a smite fueled by a 4th level spell slot and I think I might have bonus action cast a smite spell or hex... it was a double digit number of damage die and was I believe in the low 90s for damage.
I would totally be down for something that made different weapons more distinct. I feel like this is one aspect of the game where more crunch is needed, and unique crit effects on weapons would be just the right bow to put on top to make them really stand out from each other.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing weapons with different crit ranges and varying crit multiplier making a return. Like scythes in 3.5E had a crit multiplier of 4x, so crits with them really hurt; meanwhile some other weapons had expanded crit ranges. If we end up keeping crits to martials and having it only affect weapon damage, it may be nice to double down on it and explore this aspect of the game again. It would be nice to have a bit more variance between different weapons and not have cases like Halberds and Glaives being mechanically the same.
Obviously a 1 to 1 port probably would not work as the math in 3.5E is very different to the math in 5E, but it is something that I think should be explored.
Agreed each type of weapon could have an effect, my biggest bug is that say a longsword and strength mod +3 a normal hit is 1d8 +3. The 4th ed rules had a much better idea, where the first die on a critical is automatically maxed. A critical would be 2d8 +3, yet how many times have you rolled double 1 or a 2 and a 1. You can do more damage on a normal hit, than you just rolled. A critical is meant to be a big powerful hit but rolling bad, feels like meh! what was the point of doing a crit. If the first die is maxed out you know you are doing a bigger hit and getting 8 + d8 +3, this feels more like a critical hit. If you are using a greatsword weapon that has 2d6 and another 2d6 on a critical, then you should have 12 +2d6 +3, then you are getting excited by the roll. Yet if you roll of 4 d6 and get 4 or 5 or 4d6, that is just a big disappointment. Meh. If a rogue with backstab gets a crit, then you could say halve the back stab dice round down are also maxed out and weapon damage is maxed, before rolling the extra dice.
I don't mind the idea of the second damage roll of the crit just being maxed as you described. Makes it feel a bit more consistently awesome.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Waiting for the CLASS UA to see if class abilities can crit.
I apologize that this is a duplicate, my original post may been posted in the wrong forum, so I hope this is a better forum for this...
We have adopted the maxed second roll concept and it has proven to be quite nice and exciting. Admittedly, it can be over the top, especially when a high level Rogue includes their Sneak Attack! Of course the Monsters are allowed the same amenity, so the PCs will shiver too as they await the outcome of the damage rolls. I think this is a variation that should be explored and looked at for ONE DND.
Having read the EXPERT CLASS play test material, they make mention of critical hits using the PHB rules, was that a typo? Or did WotC acquiesce and rolled back their decision, this needs clarification.
Assuming WotC is moving forward with altering critical hits I thought about it this way...
Any creature(PC, NPC, monster) with an Intelligence score of 10 or higher knows what will cause severe damage to an opponent, generally, when using a weapon or unarmed attack. And as far as unarmed attacks go, this would include the creature's natural weaponry, IE - hands, feet, teeth, hooves, claws, tail, horns, etc. Now, for those creatures whose Intelligence is below 10, they should still be allowed that lucky chance that did some real damage, so when they roll a natural 20, they then roll the percentile dice and are given a 1% ( just an example) chance they actually caused critical damage! The game is based on random outcomes of dice so why not a random chance? Think about real life... random things happen.
Not sure that damage type should be a consideration or not, but just want to state it.
Spells... maybe spells that require attack rolls fall under the percentile idea...but given the Intelligence of the caster, they get an improved percentage?
Well, thanks again for listening.
WotC said they had a few ideas for each mechanic and want to try different ones with each UA. That's the official explanation for walking crit rules back in the Experts document. It's not a typo. They did mention it in the video as being intentional. Whether it was actually planned or not we'll probably never know.
I'm not sure I understand your idea for crits tied to Intelligence. A lot of classes that depend on crits also dump that stat. You see a lot martials with an Intelligence of 9 or lower. That would remove a big part of their power. Even some animals hunt primarily by what we would consider a crit. A Jaguar is basically a DnD rogue. It sneaks up on its prey and makes a very gruesome attack to a very specific location with clear intent. It knows how to use its natural weapons most effectively, even if it's all instinctual.
He's kinda going around something that is already taken care of by the die. I don't agree with the reasoning that non-Intelligent creatures aren't instinctually able to deal crits.
My out loud thinking was assuming that Monsters were not going to be allowed to critical hit. So, if the critical hit rules are rolling back, then my idea is moot.
Bob World Builder has a video series exploring this idea. Bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing weapons each have their own effect on a crit. It's worth watching for ideas.
[REDACTED]