# DM's no longer getting crits on PC's



## dumdragon

How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's? 
I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.


----------



## Maxperson

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



I will absolutely be ignoring that rule.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I am VERY divided.  I think if there are rules where some legendary or special NPC/Monsters can crit I am Okay with these orks and goblins can't... I also will (if they do what I hope) say the idea of having recharge/encounter powers to make the combat more dynamic is more important to me.

I already start at 3rd level to avoid the "opps I crit you and killed you out right" problem


----------



## Reynard

I like swingy effects in combat so on first blush I am not on board. But it has been suggested there are compensatory recharge abilities so maybe it's okay.


----------



## payn

I don’t like it. But I’m willing to see how this recharge deal works. You add them back in at your own risk math might not support it.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am VERY divided.  I think if there are rules where some legendary or special NPC/Monsters can crit I am Okay with these orks and goblins can't... I also will (if they do what I hope) say the idea of having recharge/encounter powers to make the combat more dynamic is more important to me.
> 
> I already start at 3rd level to avoid the "opps I crit you and killed you out right" problem



We start at 3rd level because we like to start with all of our 1st level abilities that they split into 3 levels, and have our subclasses from day 1.  A side benefit is avoiding the crit kills.


----------



## edosan

I guess I’m curious to see what they bring out in monster construction as an alternative but I won’t be getting rid of my decks of critical hit cards any time soon.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> I like swingy effects in combat so on first blush I am not on board. But it has been suggested there are compensatory recharge abilities so maybe it's okay.



Hmm.  Extra recharge abilities AND crits?! Monsters might start really hitting at their CR for a change.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> We start at 3rd level because we like to start with all of our 1st level abilities that they split into 3 levels, and have our subclasses from day 1.  A side benefit is avoiding the crit kills.



yeah... I mean the crit isn't the ONLY benefit.


----------



## Jacob Lewis

I like it. I didn't think I would, but after giving it some thought, it makes sense. Why should the rank and file need a moment to shine when they're only appearing for one scene in the heroes story? 

Crits are never about character choices or skill anyway. Its just a dice roll. Dice don't play the game.


----------



## el-remmen

I don't like it. Not a fan of re-charge abilities either and usually just make them work automatically if it has been more than two rounds since it was last used.


----------



## cbwjm

I'll be keeping crits for monsters, just doubling damage, nothing else.


----------



## James Gasik

It looks like they want to get rid of big swings on both sides, since it appears that Rogues and Paladins won't get huge crits anymore.

And since monsters are not designed anything like players, their crits hurt more.  My go to example is the giant ape's 7d6 rock throw.  My Sorcerer polymorphed himself into one once, and the DM was gobsmacked when I rolled a 20 to hit.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Weak sauce


----------



## billd91

James Gasik said:


> And since monsters are not designed anything like players, their crits hurt more.  My go to example is the giant ape's 7d6 rock throw.  My Sorcerer polymorphed himself into one once, and the DM was gobsmacked when I rolled a 20 to hit.



Yeah, I think this is partly where it’s coming from. Killing the monster crit allows the base damage to be ramped up so they provide a more consistent experience in a combat encounter without big spikes that undermine the math for the CR ratings. 
I did quite a number on a PC with a wraith crit (8d6) that, thanks to missing the save, also took the same amount off his max hit points. It was kind of exciting.


----------



## MGibster

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



Crits are fun.  They're fun when the PCs score them and it's fun when the bad guys score them.  Is there some movement to get rid of crits against PCs?  5th edition is already very survivable, next thing you know creatures and NPCs will be armed with nerf weapons.  Enemy wizards will yell, "Fireball!  Fireball!  Fireball!" and throw tennis balls wrapped in colorful socks at the PCs.  Weak sauce indeed.


----------



## Reynard

MGibster said:


> Crits are fun.  They're fun when the PCs score them and it's fun when the bad guys score them.  Is there some movement to get rid of crits against PCs?  5th edition is already very survivable, next thing you know creatures and NPCs will be armed with nerf weapons.  Enemy wizards will yell, "Fireball!  Fireball!  Fireball!" and throw tennis balls wrapped in colorful socks at the PCs.  Weak sauce indeed.



I don't think it is about "easy" so much as it is about "predictable" from the GMs perspective.


----------



## James Gasik

It's not just monster crits, spell crits too.


----------



## D1Tremere

Crits from the monsters interfere with cooperative story telling. If a player overcomes great adversity to achieve their story arc, the last thing they generally want is to die to a few lucky/unlucky rolls. This is especially true when you consider that monsters often outnumber the PCs, allowing them not only more actions but more crit chances. This often leads to DMs having to fudge damage or hit results.
To me this means that the default rules should be more on the controlled side, knowing that experienced players will use whatever rule they prefer at that point and for their group.


----------



## billd91

James Gasik said:


> It's not just monster crits, spell crits too.



As much fun as I’ve had critting with the occasional scorching ray or fire bolt, I’m not too fussed about losing spell crits. If they stay in the realm of actual weapons, not attack-rolling spells, that’s one way to give martial characters something spellcasters don’t get as often (barring them using an actual weapon).


----------



## SakanaSensei

I like it, personally, with the caveat that it depends on these controllable burst, recharge abilities and their design. My table focuses a lot on the players’ stories, and while we’re mostly fine with PCs dying, death shouldn’t feel cheap or random in our opinion.


----------



## South by Southwest

Maxperson said:


> I will absolutely be ignoring that rule.



Ditto, and same for 1s and 20s auto-failing or auto-succeeding on abilities, _etc_. We use those for and only for combat to-hits and will continue to do so.


----------



## Reynard

D1Tremere said:


> Crits from the monsters interfere with cooperative story telling.



If you don't like interference with cooperative storytelling,  D&D is probably not your game. I would direct you toward PbtA and FitD games, but even then you are going to have to accept the results of die rolls.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

D1Tremere said:


> Crits from the monsters interfere with cooperative story telling. If a player overcomes great adversity to achieve their story arc, the last thing they generally want is to die to a few lucky/unlucky rolls. This is especially true when you consider that monsters often outnumber the PCs, allowing them not only more actions but more crit chances. This often leads to DMs having to fudge damage or hit results.
> To me this means that the default rules should be more on the controlled side, knowing that experienced players will use whatever rule they prefer at that point and for their group.



That’s understandable if that is what you are into.

A lot of just play.  We have guiding principles and personalities but the dice and the game are bigger than us.  Maybe they serve us and maybe they hurt us.

We don’t have story arcs a priori.  The happenings happen.


----------



## RobJN

D1Tremere said:


> Crits from the monsters interfere with cooperative story telling. If a player overcomes great adversity to achieve their story arc, the last thing they generally want is to die to a few lucky/unlucky rolls. This is especially true when you consider that monsters often outnumber the PCs, allowing them not only more actions but more crit chances. This often leads to DMs having to fudge damage or hit results.
> To me this means that the default rules should be more on the controlled side, knowing that experienced players will use whatever rule they prefer at that point and for their group.



If the PCs don't want to potentially get splatted by monsters, maybe they shouldn't be fighting the monsters.


----------



## Reynard

RobJN said:


> If the PCs don't want to potentially get splatted by monsters, maybe they shouldn't be fighting the monsters.



^^^This. Adventuring is dangerous business.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Reynard said:


> I like swingy effects in combat so on first blush I am not on board. But it has been suggested there are compensatory recharge abilities so maybe it's okay.



I’ll just use both lol

Like, oh hey this bugbear can do explosive damage and then disappear (recharge 6), sweet. Y’all better hope he don’t crit. 

My table uses the somewhat popular “max normal damage and then roll damage dice again” houserule for crits, so…these crit changes are dead opposite how we roll.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

RobJN said:


> If the PCs don't want to potentially get splatted by monsters, maybe they shouldn't be fighting the monsters.



Nah. Folks should play how they want.


----------



## dave2008

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



It depends. If they make monsters stronger to compensate for the reduction in damage, I'm all for it. But I don't really think that will happen.

Generally, I don't think it is a bad idea. Crits don't make sense to my simulationist side and my gamist side, as a DM, doesn't find them very fun.  So, wouldn't be sad to see them go.  They are really only fun for players IMO, so I am fine if they stay on that side.

However, crits are a crucial part of our houserules, so for my own game I can't give them up.


----------



## dave2008

RobJN said:


> If the PCs don't want to potentially get splatted by monsters, maybe they shouldn't be fighting the monsters.



It is great if PCs get splatted by monsters. Less so, IMO as a DM, if it is a random die roll.


----------



## Reynard

dave2008 said:


> It is great if PCs get splatted by monsters. Less so, IMO as a DM, if it is a random die roll.



My attitude is if you don't want an uncertain result, don't roll dice. It is totally legal to have monster "taken 10" while attacking and do average damage if they hit.


----------



## Lidgar

Our table loves critical hits both ways - we will almost certainly ignore.


----------



## RobJN

dave2008 said:


> It is great if PCs get splatted by monsters. Less so, IMO as a DM, if it is a random die roll.



Random die rolls are sort of why the dice are _there_.


----------



## Stormonu

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nah. Folks should play how they want.



Then let me play with critting monsters.  Don't force-take them from me as the game's default.


----------



## Charlaquin

It’s a smart design decision that will make the game easier to balance… and has a 0% chance of making it past the first round of feedback.


----------



## James Gasik

Stormonu said:


> Then let me play with critting monsters.  Don't force-take them from me as the game's default.



Is there really a difference between "the default rules say no monster crits" and you play with them anyways, and "everyone can crit" and you play without monster crits?


----------



## Stormonu

James Gasik said:


> Is there really a difference between "the default rules say no monster crits" and you play with them anyways, and "everyone can crit" and you play without monster crits?



Not really, but it sounded like a good counter argument.


----------



## James Gasik

Stormonu said:


> Not really, but it sounded like a good counter argument.



That's perfectly fair!  The only thing I could think of is "whiny players demand DM plays by rules" but...if players love crits so much, they would have no reason to.


----------



## Charlaquin

James Gasik said:


> Is there really a difference between "the default rules say no monster crits" and you play with them anyways, and "everyone can crit" and you play without monster crits?



Yes, one appeals directly to what I want and makes everyone who doesn’t like it have to house rule. The other makes me have to house rule. So obviously from an objective, unbiased perspective, the former is inherently better.


----------



## payn

Charlaquin said:


> It’s a smart design decision that will make the game easier to balance… and has a 0% chance of making it past the first round of feedback.



Folks are A-ok making sacrifices on the altar of balance in the name of fun.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Stormonu said:


> Then let me play with critting monsters.  Don't force-take them from me as the game's default.



I mean, go ahead? 

I’m not gonna change how I run crits, but I will adopt nat20 passing saving throws and see how it plays.


----------



## James Gasik

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, go ahead?
> 
> I’m not gonna change how I run crits, but I will adopt nat20 passing saving throws and see how it plays.



I've been asking for nat 20 auto succeed on saves ever since I realized it's possible to have save DC's that are impossible to succeed against.  That's just bad design, IMO.  

I'm less thrilled about it for standard ability checks, but gamers seem to already believe natural 20's and 1's have mystical powers.


----------



## Charlaquin

payn said:


> Folks are A-ok making sacrifices on the altar of balance in the name of fun.



That implies a dichotomy between balance and fun, which I personally think is false. But it doesn’t really matter. People like symmetrical crits, so it doesn’t matter what design utility this change brings; it’s undoubtedly going to get torn apart in the survey.


----------



## Charlaquin

@James Gasik you did get that I was joking, right?


----------



## payn

Charlaquin said:


> That implies a dichotomy between balance and fun, which I personally think is false. But it doesn’t really matter. People like symmetrical crits, so it doesn’t matter what design utility this change brings; it’s undoubtedly going to get torn apart in the survey.



No not really, balance absolutely matters, right up until it interferes with fun.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> It’s a smart design decision that will make the game easier to balance… and has a 0% chance of making it past the first round of feedback.



I don't think people want balance. They want to complain about lack of balance.


----------



## payn

Reynard said:


> I don't think people want balance. They want to complain about lack of balance.



Balance in some things, but not all things.


----------



## James Gasik

Charlaquin said:


> @James Gasik you did get that I was joking, right?



I did, yes, lol.  Although I know some posters who would say that unironically!


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> Balance in some things, but not all things.



Mostly I want balance in things that might hurt me but not so much in things that might benefit me.


----------



## James Gasik

Hm.  Might have a point there, Reynard.  4e attempted to balance classes against each other, and despite years of listening to people bitch about the horrible balance of 3e, once they got balance, a lot of people were like "but not like *this*!"


----------



## Charlaquin

payn said:


> No not really, balance absolutely matters, right up until it interferes with fun.



Fun is not a very useful term. I believe that this change would lead to a more enjoyable gameplay experience overall. But that won’t matter, because the way in which it could improve design is not obvious, and the way in which critical hits are enjoyable is obvious.


----------



## payn

Charlaquin said:


> Fun is not a very useful term. I believe that this change would lead to a more enjoyable gameplay experience overall. But that won’t matter, because the way in which it could improve design is not obvious, and the way in which critical hits are enjoyable is obvious.



In these situations obvious always wins. You can balance around crits, it’s not tight or solidly predictable, but can be done.


----------



## MGibster

D1Tremere said:


> Crits from the monsters interfere with cooperative story telling. If a player overcomes great adversity to achieve their story arc, the last thing they generally want is to die to a few lucky/unlucky rolls. This is especially true when you consider that monsters often outnumber the PCs, allowing them not only more actions but more crit chances. This often leads to DMs having to fudge damage or hit results.



It would seem to follow that randomness interferes with cooperative story telling.  Even without crits, a player can roll poorly and see their heroic wizard bumble about ineffectively throughout an entire encounter.  Also, I think knowing death is always a possibility is part of overcoming great adversity.  There's no real sense of accomplishment for me knowing the deck is stacked in my favor to the point where death is but a distant possibility.  And is D&D a storyteller game?  This isn't a hill I'm going to die on, but if D&D is abotu cooperative story telling then they _really_ need to work on the classes that have little in the way of skills or abilities outside of combat encounters.


----------



## Charlaquin

payn said:


> In these situations obvious always wins.



Yep. This is unfortunate in my opinion, but undeniably true.


payn said:


> You can balance around crust, it’s not tight or solidly predictable, but can be done.



I like my crust loose and flaky


----------



## James Gasik

*Some *randomness is perfectly fine, or we'd all be playing Amber.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

James Gasik said:


> I've been asking for nat 20 auto succeed on saves ever since I realized it's possible to have save DC's that are impossible to succeed against.  That's just bad design, IMO.



Like I said I’m gonna try it, but…I disagree that it’s bad design. IMO it’s elegant design.  There should be effects that you cannot avoid or escape without help because you aren’t especially strong against them, at very high level. And it really is only a thing at very high level. 

But yeah, Orcus should have abilities that a character who has trained their mind and body to resist that sort of attack has a chance of fighting off, but the character who hasn’t just cannot fight off without help. 


James Gasik said:


> I'm less thrilled about it for standard ability checks, but gamers seem to already believe natural 20's and 1's have mystical powers.



I mean…they have in the past, basically. A lot of folks find it very satisfying, even when it is detrimental to them.


----------



## Reynard

James Gasik said:


> *Some *randomness is perfectly fine, or we'd all be playing Amber.



Amber is awesome.   But you have to buy in.


----------



## payn

Charlaquin said:


> I like my crust loose and flaky



Sounds like you like it tight and solid. (Stupid autocorrect)


----------



## MGibster

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean…they have in the past, basically. A lot of folks find it very satisfying, even when it is detrimental to them.



I have some particularly fond memories of various characters of mine dying because of a critical hit.  My favorite is when my rogue snuck up on a hillbilly ogre for a sneak attack and then received a hook to the face killing him instantly.  Good times.


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> Sounds like you like it tight and solid. (Stupid autocorrect)



Is it hot in here or is it me...


----------



## James Gasik

Reynard said:


> Amber is awesome.   But you have to buy in.



And have a GM you really trust.  I had...mixed experiences, sadly.


----------



## payn

Reynard said:


> Is it hot in here or is it me...



Just keep your clothes on…


----------



## James Gasik

doctorbadwolf said:


> Like I said I’m gonna try it, but…I disagree that it’s bad design. IMO it’s elegant design.  There should be effects that you cannot avoid or escape without help because you aren’t especially strong against them, at very high level. And it really is only a thing at very high level.
> 
> But yeah, Orcus should have abilities that a character who has trained their mind and body to resist that sort of attack has a chance of fighting off, but the character who hasn’t just cannot fight off without help.
> 
> I mean…they have in the past, basically. A lot of folks find it very satisfying, even when it is detrimental to them.



I guess I was just used to always having a chance.  Given how bounded accuracy makes it possible to face monsters much higher or lower in level than you, coming across a scenario where a monster can't save against a spell or a player can't save against a monster ability will come up (especially with those DC improving magic items out there).  I had personal experience with this during Storm King's Thunder, when we had to fight a Blue Dragon with a very high challenge rating, and I couldn't save against it's fear even with advantage.

That got me thinking about how you only get 2 good saves by default, and how a high level party could get ended by a single spell if no one has a good save against it (like in, say, an all martial party).


----------



## payn

James Gasik said:


> I guess I was just used to always having a chance.  Given how bounded accuracy makes it possible to face monsters much higher or lower in level than you, coming across a scenario where a monster can't save against a spell or a player can't save against a monster ability will come up (especially with those DC improving magic items out there).  I had personal experience with this during Storm King's Thunder, when we had to fight a Blue Dragon with a very high challenge rating, and I couldn't save against it's fear even with advantage.
> 
> That got me thinking about how you only get 2 good saves by default, and how a high level party could get ended by a single spell if no one has a good save against it (like in, say, an all martial



That’s so difficult to balance for an all X party. Some wil undoubtedly say it’s worth it, but I’m not among them.


----------



## Dausuul

I'm entirely in favor of the change. For a player, a crit is a moment of excitement, a happy gift from the dice gods. For me as DM, it is at best a nuisance where I have to roll damage dice instead of using the flat damage option; and at worst an unexpected PC death.


----------



## James Gasik

Dausuul said:


> I'm entirely in favor of the change. For a player, a crit is a moment of excitement, a happy gift from the dice gods. For me as DM, it is at best a nuisance where I have to roll damage dice instead of using the flat damage option; and at worst an unexpected PC death.



Yeah a death you aren't prepared for, like halfway through a time sensitive, 5 encounter adventure when the Cleric dies to a mighty critical...I've had that happen and it sucks!

I wouldn't mind really if, again, crits were balanced, but for the most part, a Fighter gets another die of damage, and a monster can get several dice...

Sure, spells, Paladins, and Rogues, but it seems like those are suddenly being seen as proud nails at WotC HQ!


----------



## FireLance

If double damage is too swingy, I wouldn't mind criticals imposing special effects, for example: 

*Greatclub. *_Melee Weapon Attack:_ +8 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. _Hit: _18 (3d8 + 5) bludgeoning damage. _Crit:_ 18 (3d8 + 5) bludgeoning damage and if the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 16 Constitution saving throw or be stunned for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.


----------



## TheSword

I will probably allow a monster crit to trigger some effect from a list of DM options.


Move a player in combat with it 5’
Move a monster 5’
Knock a player prone
Move the monsters to the next place up the initiative order
Monster makes a free disengage

Probably some others. Monsters could be much more interesting.


----------



## John R Davis

Indeed..This is what Ive said elsewhere. 
If a monster rolls a 20 it should do normal damage and something cool.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

James Gasik said:


> That got me thinking about how you only get 2 good saves by default, and how a high level party could get ended by a single spell if no one has a good save against it (like in, say, an all martial party).



I've never liked the Save DC vs Save modifier progression in 5e. Your _good _saves keep up with level appropriate DCs as long as you also increase the related attribute whenever you can. Every other save will fall further and further behind as you level up. Only paladins with high CHA ever get to be good at saving throws.

In 2e a high level fighter was very resistant to most magical effects because of his good saving throws, but in 5e that same fighter will easily be shut down by any effect targeting anything other than STR or CON.


----------



## clearstream

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



Based on observation of player reactions to being critted when I am GM, I think players enjoy it. It adds to the tension.

So for me it would be a step backwards to remove crits. The hit point pillow is already a bit too much in 5e - one of the oft-remarked weaknesses of the design. In research on difficulty in games (in 2016 or so) it was found that players engage more strongly with a game that they struggle to immediately master... provided they can see how to do better next time. That chimes with the observations and intuitions of game designers.

The better approach might be to offer crit-protection at the cost of some dimension of efficacy. A 2nd-level spell slot, perhaps, or a feature of armor that reduces speed.


----------



## not-so-newguy

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.




I understand that this idea has merit for different play styles.
Here's my opinion on using this idea...


Spoiler


----------



## Andvari

I generally prefer combatants play by the same rules. If it's to rebalance damage input due to other abilities, I would prefer they rebalance the monsters otherwise or drop those special abilities.

Pathfinder 2nd edition manages to give monsters interesting abilities without needing to crit proof PCs.

If the change is to make PCs feel special, I think Inspiration already accomplishes this better.


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> I don't think it is about "easy" so much as it is about "predictable" from the GMs perspective.



And from either the DM's or players' perspective, "predictable" almost always equals "boring".


----------



## cbwjm

Andvari said:


> I generally prefer combatants play by the same rules. If it's to rebalance damage input due to other abilities, I would prefer they rebalance the monsters otherwise or drop those special abilities.
> 
> Pathfinder 2nd edition manages to give monsters interesting abilities without needing to crit proof PCs.
> 
> If the change is to make PCs feel special, I think Inspiration already accomplishes this better.



While I like to also use the same rules for crits and such, it should be noted the PF2e has a different system for crits, you need to roll 10 above the target number for something to be a crit so in some cases, a crit simply won't be able to happen.


----------



## cbwjm

Lanefan said:


> And from either the DM's or players' perspective, "predictable" almost always equals "boring".



Yep, fully agree with this. I used the static damage numbers for monsters in my first game of 5e and players preferred that damage be rolled instead. I think they liked the idea that a hit against them could be minor due to a low roll, or major due to a high roll. Even when I'm playing I like it. Getting hit by a crit and almost dropping (or hitting 0 hit points) certainly makes for a more entertaining night.


----------



## Li Shenron

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



For my preferences, it is necessary to have a basis of consistency on how the world works for everyone whether they are controlled by players or not, and "only PCs crit" is an idea that breaks that basis too much for me.

Besides, *Ogres* are one of my top favourite and most used low-level monsters, and they have no special ability other than a scary critical hit damage, representing the fact that they are big dumb brutes swinging their arms wildly, and occasionally landing a lucky hit that can be deadly. How to deal with a foe like that is one of the first tactics beginners have to think about.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Totally depends, how it is handled for monsters instead.
What I liked about monster crits was that it inflicted two failed death saves and brought tension if you could not get a fallen comrade up immediately.
But we also have not seen unconsciousness rules. I bet we will get an upgrade there too, to reduce the whack-a-mole talks.


----------



## dave2008

Reynard said:


> My attitude is if you don't want an uncertain result, don't roll dice. It is totally legal to have monster "taken 10" while attacking and do average damage if they hit.



A hit or miss is uncertain. A crit is something different. It isn't based on the monsters ability or anything, it is just luck.  Which is kinda of silly if you think about it. Now, if crits were like PF2, that would be a different story.


----------



## dave2008

RobJN said:


> Random die rolls are sort of why the dice are _there_.



That is what the hit or miss roll is for.  However, that hit or miss is also based on skill (the to hit bonus of the monster). There is some logic to it.  Crits are just luck. Does it really make sense that 5% of your attacks deal extra damage, no mater what? No, it really breaks a certain sense of verisimilitude (or at least it does to me if I think about it). Now that is OK because it is a game, but that makes it also OK to be a player only resource where you get the most fun out it.  Now, if crits were like PF2, also based on skill, that would be a different story.


----------



## dave2008

TheSword said:


> I will probably allow a monster crit to trigger some effect from a list of DM options.
> 
> 
> Move a player in combat with it 5’
> Move a monster 5’
> Knock a player prone
> Move the monsters to the next place up the initiative order
> Monster makes a free disengage
> 
> Probably some others. Monsters could be much more interesting.



Someone in another thread said they did this for PCs too. IT sounded really fun.


----------



## dave2008

Andvari said:


> Pathfinder 2nd edition manages to give monsters interesting abilities without needing to crit proof PCs.



Crits function very differently in PF2 (+10  on the hit roll, not a 20). And if you read the PF2 forums here you will see that it doesn't crit proof PCs. The major reason PF2 monsters are so deadly at +3 level and above is because they crit so much more often.  That wouldn't happen in D&D because the crit chance is the same (5%) no matter the skill of the monster.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



It's necessary given other changes to crits.

Specifically:

A) Making only weapons crit, rather than spells, which means you'd have to carefully check every monster stat block for spell keywords on attacks.

B) Only doubling weapon damage dice, not smites, sneak attacks, etc. Many monsters have a ton of baked-in damage which is basically to cover that or is literally that (pretty sure there's an antipaladin in MotM with perma-smite for example, baked in to the damage). Monsters would get a pretty huge unfair advantage here if they could still crit on all dice.

So anyone who is casually saying "I'll ignore it!" needs to drop those two changes as well.


----------



## CapnZapp

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.


----------



## CapnZapp

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's necessary given other changes to crits.
> 
> 
> 
> So anyone who is casually saying "I'll ignore it!" needs to drop those two changes as well.



Why not instead ignore those two changes?


----------



## CapnZapp

dave2008 said:


> Crits function very differently in PF2 (+10  on the hit roll, not a 20). And if you read the PF2 forums here you will see that it doesn't crit proof PCs. The major reason PF2 monsters are so deadly at +3 level and above is because the crit so much more often.  That wouldn't happen in D&D because the crit chance is the same (5%) no matter the skill of the monster.



PF2 crits are an essential part of keeping PF2 combat exciting and tense.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

CapnZapp said:


> Why not instead ignore those two changes?



Uhhhh isn't that what I said?


----------



## jgsugden

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



I think they need to establish a line and allow monsters 'above the line' to crit, and those 'below the line' to not crit.  As PCs advance, more and more monsters could be able to crit.  

The low level PC being killed by a high damage crit can be very frustrating for a player that put a lot of effort into their PC.  I'm fine if a PC makes a mistake and it costs their PC their life ... but not so fine when a player does everything right, but the dice just kill the PC.  This rule will cut back on those 'unfair' deaths a lot.  

As an add in while 5E crits work, I'd rather they came up with a better mechanic than doubling the dice.  It gets flat, fast.  I used to have a rule that you crit if you rolled a natural 20 or you hit by 7.  In those crits, you rolled on a table to determine what went down, and you added the amount by which your attack hit to the d20 roll to determine the result.  It had extra damage, applying limitations on the target, and even on a 30 - instant death (with a save to negate).  It wasn't perfect, but it worked well.


----------



## Galandris

dave2008 said:


> It depends. If they make monsters stronger to compensate for the reduction in damage, I'm all for it. But I don't really think that will happen.




To make a crit->recharge ability work, they'd need to redesign most monsters to actually give them recharge ability. I am, by no mean, an expert, but I think there aren't a lot of them that have them. In fact, I didn't play a lot of 4e, but I vaguely remember the mechanic being used more often at this time (I could be wrong), so I saw them in 5e as a "leftover mechanic". I can see this redesign happening, but at the price of the "compatibility" they tout.

In the spirit of compatibility, I'll explain the monsters critting by Darwin's natural selection. "The original bulettes critted and the minuscule added damage made them live longer and able to reproduce more than the the compatible bulettes who couldn't, so nowadays, there is no compatible bulettes anymore, all the bulettes left are able to crit."

TBH, I fully expect them to redesign the monsters in order to sell new monsters manuals.


----------



## akr71

I don't like it, but I would like to know more about the monster recharge mechanic they mentioned. So few monsters have that at the moment.

I get what they are trying to do - avoid crit kills at low level - but maybe that is better served as an optional rule in the new DMG.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

CapnZapp said:


> PF2 crits are an essential part of keeping PF2 combat exciting and tense.



You can design a game around that. Or you can achieve tension differently.


----------



## jasper

YOU WILL TAKE MY CRITS FROM YOUR DEAD PCS HANDS. I will ignore the rule. The recharge range will have to change. Currently it is GENERALLY 1 out 6.  It would have to default to 3 out 6. Or more monsters get legendary actions and more Legendary Actions.


----------



## Galandris

I am... uncertain about the balancing through recharge abilities. I am looking forward to seeing what they'll put forth, but I feel it will change the balance.

Mechanically, monster crits are a 5% change doing doing double damage, each attack roll. In my experience, fights hardly last more than 3-4 rounds, so that's, say 8 attacks per monster, assuming they have two attacks each. Let's say, roughly, that you'd expect a critical each fight when you face three of these monsers (I know it's not how the maths work and you'd get roughly 1 in 3 chance of having a fight without crit), but the please bear with me, the order of magnitude is the important thing here).

Recharge happen on a 6 or on a 5-6 each round. Also, monsters start with the power charged. So, against a fight of 3 monsters for 4 rounds, you'll expect 3 recharge power (the initial use) and, over 12 rolls, 2 or 4 recharged use (insert math disclaimer). That makes recharge power happening 5-7 times over the course of a single fight. That means the recharge power isn't a huge thing, since it must be balanced with "double damage" happening less often. It would be:

Regular attack: 2d8 damage
Mighty blow (recharge 5-6): 2d10 damage.

Not as exciting as a a crit IMO, high risk, low chance (and in fact I wouldn't bother with the recharge rolls if this was the case...), that you need to prepare for. "I fear to kill my players" "OK, then tell them that attacking a vicious-looking murderer with a big, pointy metal stick in his hand is DANGEROUS and you'd better enter the fight with a healing potion." With the death rolls, if you ignore sudden death by massive damage, lethality is already at an all time low and the borderline case where it happens can be prepared for by any careful character.


As a side note, I try to narrate fights but, being totally lazy, there are many times when narrating the 24th sword swing of bugbear #3 is... a _very concise narration_. However, I'll take time to narrate a crit against a player. It helps make the higher damage memorable, I think.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

Both my monsters and spells will be able to crit, it's not like monsters are too strong now, and my table like crits - it's one of the few things that break fighting tedium.


----------



## Weiley31

I think Nick Fury has the correct opinion about this whole "monsters can't do crit hits" fiasco.


----------



## DND_Reborn

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



Definitely not. It would be better to bring back critical threats and confirmation rolls.

Then low CR creatures would be less likely to crit.


----------



## MGibster

dave2008 said:


> That is what the hit or miss roll is for. However, that hit or miss is also based on skill (the to hit bonus of the monster). There is some logic to it. Crits are just luck. Does it really make sense that 5% of your attacks deal extra damage, no mater what? No, it really breaks a certain sense of verisimilitude (or at least it does to me if I think about it).



The sound of versimilitude being broken is typically drowned out by the sound of how awesome rolling a crit is.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Also, you can just remove critical hits from the game. They were never part of the original design anyway.

Get more excited about when you roll maximum damage.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I can't get myself worked about this proposal (either positively or negatively) because I have no idea what the Monster Manual revisions are going to be.

Sure I could huff and puff right now... but for all I know in four months time when we get a monster UA packet it will include a whole host of changes to monsters that more than adequately keep them exceedingly dangerous with additional abilities and such without needing them to use the 'Nat 20 is a critical hit' rule.

@Charlaquin has the inside track I think, when they said they were in favor of the rule but that it had 0% of making it through the feedback.  Without knowing right now what monster changes would be coming along instead of the "monsters can't crit" rule... mostly everyone will reflexively write in "No" on the survey.  The question of course being whether WotC acknowledges it, and if that changes their design or timetable in revealing the alternatives?


----------



## tetrasodium

SakanaSensei said:


> I like it, personally, with the caveat that it depends on these controllable burst, recharge abilities and their design. My table focuses a lot on the players’ stories, and while we’re mostly fine with PCs dying, death shouldn’t feel cheap or random in our opinion.



This is the key.  We have half the change without even a single example monster.

We also have no idea if the "poorly working proof of concept" level absorb shield death saves atop basically no cost yoyo healing will remain in place or get fixed.


----------



## Andvari

cbwjm said:


> While I like to also use the same rules for crits and such, it should be noted the PF2e has a different system for crits, you need to roll 10 above the target number for something to be a crit so in some cases, a crit simply won't be able to happen.



A natural 20 still increases the success factor by one step, so it will almost always be a critical hit even if not 10 above the target number. For example, if the AC is 25, you have +8 to hit and roll 20, your result is only 28, but it still critically hits as the natural 20 increases the degree of success from success to critical success.

In gameplay, the "10 above mechanic" mostly means crits happen more frequently, as you can  often crit without needing a 20.

But if the AC was 29, you are correct that it would not be possible to critically hit the target with only a +8 to hit. Though I imagine that scenario is one the players are not intended to fight anyway.


----------



## Galandris

tetrasodium said:


> This is the key.  We have half the change without even a single example monster.
> 
> We also have no idea if the "poorly working proof of concept" level absorb shield death saves atop basically no cost yoyo healing will remain in place or get fixed.



I fully expect the "restore all your abilities and HP on hitting the rest button" to stay. Generations have been raised with this expectation through videogames.


----------



## Retreater

I wonder if the designers actually heard feedback or experienced themselves that 5e encounters were too dangerous? After 3rd level, I'd say they're not challenging at all, and you can pretty much play on auto pilot. 
Now, if they're going to pair no crits for monsters with better encounter design math and recharge abilities, maybe I'll take a look at it. But everything I've seen thus far has been about making the PCs more powerful. 
I think the better solution that would keep up with the overall design of 5e would be to give a buffer of extra HP to 1st level characters to reduce the possibility of being one-shotted by a Crit, or maybe change the massive damage rule (that only matters at 1st level anyway).


----------



## Jacob Lewis

You know you still get to roll dice for damage, right? So there's still the "thrill" of rolling really good or really bad in the department that really counts: damage dealt. 

What do crits do anyway, except force more math on people? "Double these numbers, but not those!" This is supposed to be a fun game, not calculus!

But if that's still not good enough to get your geek-heart pumping, try exploding damage dice. For those who don't know what that is: Whenever a damage die rolls its maximum value (a 4 on a d4, an 8 on a d8, etc.), you roll an extra die and add that. And who doesn't love rolling more dice, especially if that is what makes the game actually fun? Choices don't matter when you can just roll 20s all day.


----------



## tetrasodium

Galandris said:


> I fully expect the "restore all your abilities and HP on hitting the rest button" to stay. Generations have been raised with this expectation through videogames.



I wouldn't be so quick to assume .  Look at the changed long rest rules.  One per 24 hours and any combat interrupts.  Anyone can take the first level healer feat letting someone burn a hit die when you use a healers kit... Hit dice have built-in limits


----------



## payn

Jacob Lewis said:


> You know you still get to roll dice for damage, right? So there's still the "thrill" of rolling really good or really bad in the department that really counts: damage dealt.
> 
> What do crits do anyway, except force more math on people? "Double these numbers, but not those!" This is supposed to be a fun game, not calculus!
> 
> But if that's still not good enough to get your geek-heart pumping, try exploding damage dice. For those who don't know what that is: Whenever a damage die rolls its maximum value (a 4 on a d4, an 8 on a d8, etc.), you roll an extra die and add that. And who doesn't love rolling more dice, especially if that is what makes the game actually fun? Choices don't matter when you can just roll 20s all day.



I like the cut of you rjib. I'd love to get me back those damage multipliers from 3E/PF1!


----------



## Reynard

I suspect fights will be more fun with the current crit rules but I am willing to test it the other way for a while. That's what were supposed to be doing here, right? Testing the rules instead of just debating with our minds already made up?


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Reynard said:


> I suspect fights will be more fun with the current crit rules but I am willing to test it the other way for a while. That's what were supposed to be doing here, right? Testing the rules instead of just debating with our minds already made up?



This is a good take.  The whole point is to see if you like it not a priori say it sucks.

I have to say there are several things in game I thought I would not like but have ended up preferring…

That said we had big fun with some big crits last night—-that led to cheers…so I am very skeptical but nothing wrong with an open mind.


----------



## South by Southwest

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's necessary given other changes to crits.
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> A) Making only weapons crit, rather than spells, which means you'd have to carefully check every monster stat block for spell keywords on attacks.
> 
> B) Only doubling weapon damage dice, not smites, sneak attacks, etc. Many monsters have a ton of baked-in damage which is basically to cover that or is literally that (pretty sure there's an antipaladin in MotM with perma-smite for example, baked in to the damage). Monsters would get a pretty huge unfair advantage here if they could still crit on all dice.



That's a very good point; I'll have to be careful about that.


----------



## d24454_modern

I feel like they’re making the gameplay too static. We’re getting to the point where we might as well not have dice.


----------



## dave2008

Galandris said:


> TBH, I fully expect them to redesign the monsters in order to sell new monsters manuals.



They have already started, see the MotM.  However, I hope they go a bit further than that book did.


----------



## dave2008

d24454_modern said:


> I feel like they’re making the gameplay too static. We’re getting to the point where we might as well not have dice.



That is not a reasonable ready of the changes, IMO.


----------



## dave2008

MGibster said:


> The sound of versimilitude being broken is typically drowned out by the sound of how awesome rolling a crit is.



It is awesome for players, as a DM I don't find it awesome (and neither do my players).

Edit: And I also already explained I don't mind breaking verisimilitude  for fun. But DM crits, IME, are not fun.


----------



## DND_Reborn

FWIW, as DM most of the time, I love crits. It reminds players this game can be scary!


----------



## South by Southwest

DND_Reborn said:


> FWIW, as DM most of the time, I love crits. It reminds players this game can be scary!



Unpredictability is one of the big things tempering humans' inclination to fight IRL. Whatever else I decide, I don't expect I'll ever eliminate crits.


----------



## dave2008

DND_Reborn said:


> FWIW, as DM most of the time, I love crits. It reminds players this game can be scary!



I have no problem making the game scary. I just prefer it to be intentional. That being said, crits are well a critical part of our house rules so we use them and will for some time.  

However, this discussion has made think of a better way to do crits in our game. I think crits (extra damage) will be based on getting +10 (or some number) over the need to hit.  This is reward for a high roll and good skill (to hit bonus). A natural 20 will instead give access to fun extra abilities (like shoves, trips, stuns, disarms, etc.). So #20 are still exciting and more understandable as luck (to me).


----------



## Warpiglet-7

d24454_modern said:


> I feel like they’re making the gameplay too static. We’re getting to the point where we might as well not have dice.



I don’t think we are there—-but unchecked and unconsidered we could.

There is both tragedy and triumph with dice.

I had an old 1e barbarian.  I had 7 straight 12s for hit points.  (We were doing max at level one back then so only six of them rolled in a row) but after the good natured groans and complaining of friends who did not roll that well, it became an event for the group when I rolled hit points, everyone wanted to watch.

What seems clear to me is WOTC sees players as more risk averse than perhaps is good at times.

But I think this is the the whole “did your character get enough spotlight?  Did they get to complete their story arc?”

And our group is more like “we survived!  That monster (well in 5e those monsters, plural we know how quickly single bosses die) kicked out ass!”

And you can’t guarantee a story arc without more control…

It reminds me of Crawford talking about “telling your story.”  Can’t do that is you get crit’d to death I guess.  We don’t play with that expectation.  We play, events unfold and death is possible.

I will be interested to see what feedback this crit stuff gets!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jacob Lewis said:


> I like it. I didn't think I would, but after giving it some thought, it makes sense. Why should the rank and file need a moment to shine when they're only appearing for one scene in the heroes story?
> 
> Crits are never about character choices or skill anyway. Its just a dice roll. Dice don't play the game.



The reason you like it is the reason I don't.  I don't judge a creature's combat ability based on their narrative role in D&D.  That is a different kind of game.


----------



## DND_Reborn

*Concerning Critical Hits:*

For example, an Ogre deals 2d8+4, for a potential of 20 points. The PCs fighting an ogre know such damage is possible and the risk involved.

But a critical that is for 4d8+4 and a potential 36, that is the sort of hit that leads to downing a PC unexpectedly. (I suppose ruining the fun for some...)

*The simple solution is to just make criticals maximum damage instead of rolling double dice.* A lot of people do use this option. The result is barely less than the average of doubling the dice, after all.

In the above example, double dice averages 22 points, while maximum is 20, so just two points shy.


----------



## Micah Sweet

James Gasik said:


> Is there really a difference between "the default rules say no monster crits" and you play with them anyways, and "everyone can crit" and you play without monster crits?



The usual difference - if you want something that isn't the game's default, you likely have a fight on your hands with the players.


----------



## robus

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



I also won’t be doing that but I’ve also changed critical hits from players so that they have some impact to the fight beyond just doing damage, for example if an NPC is using concentration to some effect against the PCs then a critical hit from a player would force that NPC to drop concentration.  Basically the critical hit gives some momentary beneficial effect whatever makes sense in the fiction.

It makes for much more impactful moments IMHO.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I've never liked the Save DC vs Save modifier progression in 5e. Your _good _saves keep up with level appropriate DCs as long as you also increase the related attribute whenever you can. Every other save will fall further and further behind as you level up. Only paladins with high CHA ever get to be good at saving throws.
> 
> In 2e a high level fighter was very resistant to most magical effects because of his good saving throws, but in 5e that same fighter will easily be shut down by any effect targeting anything other than STR or CON.



You could fix that by just having fighters be proficient in all saves by an early level.  Why should monks have all the fun?


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I'm going hard the other direction on this one. I generally played crits by RAW, but if RAW is no longer going to make sense for me and I'm houseruling things anyway, I'm just going to make crits double all damage (ie: the simplest possible crit rule), rather than having to explain how to calculate it properly to at least one person in every group I ever play with every time they roll a crit.

I don't subscribe to the theory that the designers don't play the game, but I would theorize based on this needlessly convoluted scheme for something that already commonly caused confusion (generally over whether to double dice, or double dice results) that they don't play it very often with a typical range of players.


----------



## Jacob Lewis

Micah Sweet said:


> The reason you like it is the reason I don't.  I don't judge a creature's combat ability based on their narrative role in D&D.  That is a different kind of game.



You're right. That is a very different kind of game. But D&D has always been a different game to different people, so this isn't surprising. It's just strange to me.

So what exactly are you judging, if not their abilities? Their dice skills? Their ability to produce more 20s than other creatures? If the excitement of the game hinges only on the potential of rolling a random die result, which no player or creature has any consistent influence or control over, then what does that say about the game when is operating under "normal" parameters?

Does anyone ever really think to themselves, "I hope I get to see some 20s during tonight's game, otherwise it's just going to be boring!" (According to a few posters, I believe some actually do!)


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jacob Lewis said:


> You know you still get to roll dice for damage, right? So there's still the "thrill" of rolling really good or really bad in the department that really counts: damage dealt.
> 
> What do crits do anyway, except force more math on people? "Double these numbers, but not those!" This is supposed to be a fun game, not calculus!
> 
> But if that's still not good enough to get your geek-heart pumping, try exploding damage dice. For those who don't know what that is: Whenever a damage die rolls its maximum value (a 4 on a d4, an 8 on a d8, etc.), you roll an extra die and add that. And who doesn't love rolling more dice, especially if that is what makes the game actually fun? Choices don't matter when you can just roll 20s all day.



Doubling numbers is actually basic arithmetic, not calculus.  I think most folks can handle that.


----------



## tetrasodium

Micah Sweet said:


> The usual difference - if you want something that isn't the game's default, you likely have a fight on your hands with the players.



yes but in this case it requires no buyin from the players if a GM wants to say all monsters can crit or _this_ monster can crit


----------



## Jacob Lewis

Micah Sweet said:


> Doubling numbers is actually basic arithmetic, not calculus.  I think most folks can handle that.



Maybe, but some definitely have difficulty with sarcasm and jokes.


----------



## MGibster

This thread is literally the first time I’ve ever heard anyone complain about the existence of crits in D&D. Those of you who want them removed have made good arguments, I understand your point, but I can’t help but cock my head to one side and say, “What?  This is a problem?”  

If the problem is that some random mook might end a character’s narrative, maybe the problem is really all the meaningless fights in D&D.  It does seem like the newer batch of players are more risk averse, which I say with no disdain, I’d argue my generation was more risk adverse than the gaming generation that came before mine.  I certainly have no interest in some of the meat grinders that classic adventures of the past were.  

More and more I keep thinking D&D isn’t for me anymore.  And that’s okay, things change and the audience today is different from what it was in 1992.  But this just feels like another nail in the coffin for me.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MGibster said:


> This thread is literally the first time I’ve ever heard anyone complain about the existence of crits in D&D. Those of you who want them removed have made good arguments, I understand your point, but I can’t help but cock my head to one side and say, “What?  This is a problem?”
> 
> If the problem is that some random mook might end a character’s narrative, maybe the problem is really all the meaningless fights in D&D.  It does seem like the newer batch of players are more risk averse, which I say with no disdain, I’d argue my generation was more risk adverse than the gaming generation that came before mine.  I certainly have no interest in some of the meat grinders that classic adventures of the past were.
> 
> More and more I keep thinking D&D isn’t for me anymore.  And that’s okay, things change and the audience today is different from what it was in 1992.  But this just feels like another nail in the coffin for me.



I mean, this is quite a lot of chat, but as I explained earlier, the reason they're removing crits from monsters is pretty clearly because of the two _other_ rules they're adding to crits (weapons only, and base weapon damage only) and how they don't apply well to monsters.

I don't think this basic-ass balancing measure is the generation-gap madness you seem to think it is lol. (To be clear I get that you're not condemning it, just shaking your head, but dude, this is about making monsters balanced, not about "lets get rid of crits for Gen Z!". If they weren't suggesting the other changes, I don't think they'd be suggesting this.)


----------



## Maxperson

RobJN said:


> If the PCs don't want to potentially get splatted by monsters, maybe they shouldn't be fighting the monsters.



I've long maintained that high wisdom and adventuring are mutually exclusive.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

robus said:


> I also won’t be doing that but I’ve also changed critical hits from players so that they have some impact to the fight beyond just doing damage, for example if an NPC is using concentration to some effect against the PCs then a critical hit from a player would force that NPC to drop concentration.  Basically the critical hit gives some momentary beneficial effect whatever makes sense in the fiction.
> 
> It makes for much more impactful moments IMHO.



Yeah I have more people have trouble with NOT multiplying modfire then anything else...

I wish they would go with a 4e style crit is max damage and some class features/magic items (but not all magic weapons like 4e) give you dice to roll on a crit


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> I've long maintained that high wisdom and adventuring are mutually exclusive.



I can not imagine a sane well reasoned adult saying "I just made 10 years worth of if I was a craftsman working... and I tthink I should go risk my life for MORE money" instead of "Okay that was my 1 and done and I am buying a farm, a shop, a bar ext."..


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Is there really a difference between "the default rules say no monster crits" and you play with them anyways, and "everyone can crit" and you play without monster crits?



There is! It's harder to get optional rules introduced.  If the default is crits, then there will be some tables that have crits when some or even a majority of players want there not to be crits.  And vice versa.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> I can not imagine a sane well reasoned adult saying "I just made 10 years worth of if I was a craftsman working... and I tthink I should go risk my life for MORE money" instead of "Okay that was my 1 and done and I am buying a farm, a shop, a bar ext."..



Yeah. Or a high wisdom person setting out to save his homeland from being destroyed, save his family, or whatever one shot would get such a person to go.  Adventuring is not the reason, though.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wish they would go with a 4e style crit is max damage and some class features/magic items (but not all magic weapons like 4e) give you dice to roll on a crit



Right? It was so simple. Just rolling the base damage dice a second time means than an awful lot of crits (like, what, close to 50%?) do either max damage or LESS than max damage! Which honestly feels terrible. "Oh I crit for... lol... six damage!" Next round "Oh I normal-hit for sixteen damage!" (extreme example but one I saw IRL - well in Zoom - a few weeks ago!).


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, go ahead?
> 
> I’m not gonna change how I run crits, but I will adopt nat20 passing saving throws and see how it plays.



It plays fine as I've been doing that for a few years now.  It's pretty rare for DCs to be unattainable without a 20 already.  Bounded accuracy sees to that. Those few other times it's a hail mary that comes through.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> Right? It was so simple. Just rolling the base damage dice a second time means than an awful lot of crits (like, what, close to 50%?) do either max damage or LESS than max damage! Which honestly feels terrible. "Oh I crit for... lol... six damage!" Next round "Oh I normal-hit for sixteen damage!" (extreme example but one I saw IRL - well in Zoom - a few weeks ago!).



and it can fix the "I take average for monsters" because you can list 7(1d8+3) crit 11


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> I've been asking for nat 20 auto succeed on saves ever since I realized it's possible to have save DC's that are impossible to succeed against.  That's just bad design, IMO.
> 
> I'm less thrilled about it for standard ability checks, but gamers seem to already believe natural 20's and 1's have mystical powers.



It's longstanding tradition(1e or before).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

James Gasik said:


> I've been asking for nat 20 auto succeed on saves ever since I realized it's possible to have save DC's that are impossible to succeed against.



in our epic+ campaign my warlock got up to a Save DC of 25. We had a fight against epic guards... but they only had +2 or 3 wis save and I hit him (after some damage) with power word stun... so auto stun then save ends... but he could NEVER make the save. 

 so we spent the rest of the campaign (and the brief after wards) talking about how her legend was about turning a soldier into a sleeping cursed shadow of himself... able to see and hear, but not act... having to be feed by his family and cleaned as well.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Just another example of catering to casuals by dumbing down the game and making it impossible for anybody to die.  They should just give everybody participation trophies and Holy Avengers.  Kids these days.  I blame video games and Twitter.  And don't get me started about the government telling me I can't cut the tags off my mattress!

Just kidding.  I'm fine with the change.  Recharge abilities are way more fun and flavorful, anyway.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Like I said I’m gonna try it, but…I disagree that it’s bad design. IMO it’s elegant design.  There should be effects that you cannot avoid or escape without help because you aren’t especially strong against them, at very high level. And it really is only a thing at very high level.
> 
> But yeah, Orcus should have abilities that a character who has trained their mind and body to resist that sort of attack has a chance of fighting off, but the character who hasn’t just cannot fight off without help.



As you say, it only really happens at high level. It's so rare, that those few times that it comes up it will be unlikely that the 20 is dropped anyway, but the excitement and tension those rolls engender are fantastic.

The DM says you need a 20 to make the save.  You're facing a big, bad evil thing from beyond the universe. If you fail, really bad or icky stuff will happen.  You slowly reach for your d20 and as you do, everyone at the table leans forward to see what the roll will be. If the 20 lands, cheers will go up from around the table.  Moments like that stick in memory.  They're tales still told 10 or 20 years later in some groups.

Even Orcus really doesn't have any.  The Wand of Orcus has a save DC of 18.  His personal spell DC is Cha 23, but when we look at his spells we see chill touch, detect magic, create undead, dispel magic and time stop, none of which have saves.  SHOULD Orcus have some over 20 saves?  I think so, but apparently WotC didn't.


----------



## OB1

Play tested the new Nat20/CRit rules in the first session of my groups Spelljammer campaign last night (lvl 5 Fighter, Rogue, Palladin, and Ranger). Rules played better than I expected, everyone agreed after the session to keep them for the campaign. Rogue used his inspiration from a nat20 attack to get a sneak attack he wouldn’t have otherwise been able to. Paladin actually uses her bonus action smites instead of hoarding them for divine smite Crits.

Highly recommend playing a session with the rules before deciding on them. I was skeptical at first, totally on board for the change now.


----------



## Maxperson

DND_Reborn said:


> *Concerning Critical Hits:*
> 
> For example, an Ogre deals 2d8+4, for a potential of 20 points. The PCs fighting an ogre know such damage is possible and the risk involved.
> 
> But a critical that is for 4d8+4 and a potential 36, that is the sort of hit that leads to downing a PC unexpectedly. (I suppose ruining the fun for some...)



I don't see how a crit could be unexpected.  The players know the rules and know I roll to hit for monsters. It's not likely on any given attack, but it happens so they expect it to be possible.


DND_Reborn said:


> *The simple solution is to just make criticals maximum damage instead of rolling double dice.* A lot of people do use this option. The result is barely less than the average of doubling the dice, after all.
> 
> In the above example, double dice averages 22 points, while maximum is 20, so just two points shy.



This does not work for me at all.  Max damage is possible without a crit, so simply maxing damage is not a critical hit of any kind.  A critical hit is superior to a normal hit. That's why we maximize normal damage and then only roll the crit dice. Nothing is worse than rolling a crit and doing worse than you could have on a normal hit.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Maxperson said:


> This does not work for me at all.



Different strokes for different folks...


----------



## Galandris

GMforPowergamers said:


> I can not imagine a sane well reasoned adult saying "I just made 10 years worth of if I was a craftsman working... and I tthink I should go risk my life for MORE money" instead of "Okay that was my 1 and done and I am buying a farm, a shop, a bar ext."..




The retired adventurer owning an inn is a trope. Where they fail is when they don't picture the hero as a 19 years-old retiree.


----------



## Maxperson

Galandris said:


> The retired adventurer owning an inn is a trope. Where they fail is when they don't picture the hero as a 19 years-old retiree.



Yeah. Our campaigns go to high teens to 20+ level(3e for higher than 20), but we always seem to get there in our late teens or early 20's.  Experience happens really fast to adventurers.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> There is! It's harder to get optional rules introduced.  If the default is crits, then there will be some tables that have crits when some or even a majority of players want there not to be crits.  And vice versa.



If your players find monster critical hits "exciting" then they won't mind the houserule.

If they don't, and they do mind the houserule, then maybe it's not a good houserule for your group?


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> If your players find monster critical hits "exciting" then they won't mind the houserule.
> 
> If they don't, and they do mind the houserule, then maybe it's not a good houserule for your group?



Well, optional rule, not house rule.  If they don't at the very least provide crits/no crits(whichever way they ultimately go) for the DM in the options section of the DMG, I'm going to be very disappointed. It's too big a thing to just drop and leave at that.

As for my group, I haven't asked them but I can guarantee you that to a man they will want to keep crits on the DM side of things intact.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bill Zebub said:


> Just another example of catering to casuals by dumbing down the game and making it impossible for anybody to die.  They should just give everybody participation trophies and Holy Avengers.  Kids these days.  I blame video games and Twitter.  And don't get me started about the government telling me I can't cut the tags off my mattress!
> 
> Just kidding.  I'm fine with the change.  Recharge abilities are way more fun and flavorful, anyway.



you had me for a moment... I was already to hit reply and get angry... lol


----------



## beancounter

I like BOTH recharge and crits, and will use them both.

_Cue evil laughter

Three double IPAs today. Please excuse my grammar_


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Galandris said:


> The retired adventurer owning an inn is a trope. Where they fail is when they don't picture the hero as a 19 years-old retiree.



I promise you even with all the dumb things I did between 17 and 25, I can guarantee if I made 'adventurer money' I would have retired in a second.


----------



## Reynard

MGibster said:


> If the problem is that some random mook might end a character’s narrative, maybe the problem is really all the meaningless fights in D&D.



Alternatively the problem might be expecting a particular narrative for your character in a game where random die rolls control outcomes. I mean, even if you took out crits and even if you had fewer fights, you can still have some random mook end your narrative.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> It plays fine as I've been doing that for a few years now.  It's pretty rare for DCs to be unattainable without a 20 already.  Bounded accuracy sees to that. Those few other times it's a hail mary that comes through.



Okay. 

I’m not taking anyones word for it, when we experience the game so differently. We will see how it plays for us.


----------



## Aldarc

I think that this makes the game easier to run from a DM perspective. I can roll the basic damage quickly or use flat damage and then move back to the PCs, which is where the focus should be.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I kinda love it. I did not think I would, but if they give me more interesting powers in exchange of a 5% chance of adding some extra damage die, I'm a-ok with this. 

No crit on spell and damage ridder is also pretty cool, if the class that used to big damage spikes are compensated (assassin, mainly. Paladin can go suck an egg, they're still top even if they cant wait for a crit to spam all their damned slots in a single nova of 1 billion damage!)

I even start to like flat damage, with the addition that I get to choose if my epic BBEG use the maximum damage instead of the average!

Auto-success/fail on nat 20/1 is also pretty cool, given that I decide when my players roll or not. So its not like there's a chance that it will break that modicum of verisimilitude remaining in my games. 

In exchange of all that, the game runs smoother and I dont have to come with a convoluted story to justify bringing a new character in play mid-dungeon because a random skeleton crit-ed a weakened character between two short-rests. I'm winning on all fronts.


----------



## Shiroiken

Absolutely terrible IMO, unless they significantly ramp up the damage for monsters. 



Jacob Lewis said:


> Crits are never about character choices or skill anyway. Its just a dice roll. Dice don't play the game.



Without dice it's no longer a game. It becomes a bunch of people sitting around telling a story, making it just an RP.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> Well, optional rule, not house rule.  If they don't at the very least provide crits/no crits(whichever way they ultimately go) for the DM in the options section of the DMG, I'm going to be very disappointed. It's too big a thing to just drop and leave at that.
> 
> As for my group, I haven't asked them but I can guarantee you that to a man they will want to keep crits on the DM side of things intact.



Which means it doesn't matter what the rulebooks say, now does it?


----------



## FrozenNorth

cbwjm said:


> While I like to also use the same rules for crits and such, it should be noted the PF2e has a different system for crits, you need to roll 10 above the target number for something to be a crit so in some cases, a crit simply won't be able to happen.



That is not a very accurate representation of PF2’s system.

If you roll 10 above the DC, the hit is a crit, AND a roll of 20 counts as one degree of success better than than the roll, so the only way a 20 is not a crit is if a roll of 20 would be a miss (which is highly unlikely).

This is compounded by the fact that crits in PF2 double total damage, not just dice.

The net effect is that crits are more frequent, not less.  If the party is fighting a lone monster, that monster is often critting on 15% of their attacks, and even more against less armored characters.


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Which means it doesn't matter what the rulebooks say, now does it?



I'm looking at this from a broader viewpoint.  The game really should have both in there, even if one is optional in the DMG rather than the PHB.


----------



## jgsugden

Under the playtest rules we have, what will you do when a monster attacks a paralyzed creature?  

For example: A cleric casts hold person on a PC and the PC fails the save, then a soldier fighting with the cleric rolls a hit with an attack on the paralyzed target ... double die roll or not?


----------



## Charlaquin

Jacob Lewis said:


> You know you still get to roll dice for damage, right? So there's still the "thrill" of rolling really good or really bad in the department that really counts: damage dealt.
> 
> What do crits do anyway, except force more math on people? "Double these numbers, but not those!" This is supposed to be a fun game, not calculus!



You don’t double any numbers on a crit in 5e. You roll all the damage dice a second time.


----------



## Lanefan

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, this is quite a lot of chat, but as I explained earlier, the reason they're removing crits from monsters is pretty clearly because of the two _other_ rules they're adding to crits (weapons only, and base weapon damage only) and how they don't apply well to monsters.



Why wouldn't they apply well to monsters?

A claw or a fist or a big set of teeth are weapons, aren't they?


----------



## Smackpixi

The players always “win“ in the end.  This is kind of the default D&D way.  Game is about finding out how they finish the adventure, and truly, death is but an minor obstacle in their path to victory.  So I’m way on board with surprise crit’s from monsters.  It’s a bitch, but since we all know victory of some sort is inevitable, let’s make the setbacks along the way exciting.


----------



## Lanefan

beancounter said:


> _Three double IPAs today. Please excuse my grammar_



Not a bad start to the day. 

(your post's timestamp is 11:02 a.m. local to me....)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Lanefan said:


> Why wouldn't they apply well to monsters?
> 
> A claw or a fist or a big set of teeth are weapons, aren't they?



Have you read MotM? You know loads and loads of things have spell attacks, right? But not all magical beams and the like are "spell" keyword, so theoretically some should be able to crit and some shouldn't. It's just dumb.

More importantly, monsters don't have stuff like smite divided out in most cases, it's just part of their damage, so they're getting to multiply stuff PCs don't, which frankly, is awful.


----------



## Tonguez

Crits and status effects!


----------



## Lanefan

Ruin Explorer said:


> Have you read MotM? You know loads and loads of things have spell attacks, right? But not all magical beams and the like are "spell" keyword, so theoretically some should be able to crit and some shouldn't. It's just dumb.
> 
> More importantly, monsters don't have stuff like smite divided out in most cases, it's just part of their damage, so they're getting to multiply stuff PCs don't, which frankly, is awful.



Ah.

I don't have crits apply to spells or anything else other than physical attacks, so in this way 5.5 is just catching up with me. 

De-critting spells but leaving them for physical attacks also serves to beef up the martials a bit in comparison to the casters.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Yeah. Our campaigns go to high teens to 20+ level(3e for higher than 20), but we always seem to get there in our late teens or early 20's.  Experience happens really fast to adventurers.



This is part of why I put *at least* several months of downtime between adventures.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Lanefan said:


> De-critting spells but leaving them for physical attacks also serves to beef up the martials a bit in comparison to the casters.



Well kinda, I feel like it actually leaves them even further behind because it they made it so it doesn't double any dice except the base weapon damage dice, so Rogues, Paladins, and just anyone with a damage-add that got multipled? They're going to do less damage and have less heroic moments and so on.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Ruin Explorer said:


> Well kinda, I feel like it actually leaves them even further behind because it they made it so it doesn't double any dice except the base weapon damage dice, so Rogues, Paladins, and just anyone with a damage-add that got multipled? They're going to do less damage and have less heroic moments and so on.



I dunno. You get inspiration when you crit, which there is incentive for you to use ASAP, so you can roll another attack with advantage, which has a not-insignificant chance of giving you another crit, which would give you inspiration...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FitzTheRuke said:


> I dunno. You get inspiration when you crit, which there is incentive for you to use ASAP, so you can roll another attack with advantage, which has a not-insignificant chance of giving you another crit, which would give you inspiration...



Yeah I get that they think that's going to happen, but realistically I don't see it happening because players don't like to spend Inspiration that way. It's the sort of thing that would happen in a videogame, for sure, but won't happen on tabletop.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah I get that they think that's going to happen, but realistically I don't see it happening because players don't like to spend Inspiration that way. It's the sort of thing that would happen in a videogame, for sure, but won't happen on tabletop.



You're not wrong that it's been that way so far. We'll have to see if their attempts to make Inspiration more of a thing work. I understand (and agree with) your doubts.


----------



## ReshiIRE

It's so difficult to tell. I want ot say I am against it because I've seen crits be used well in other games and I think it is a positive thing in the game at levels beyond one and two However, this is not a full playtest document, it's only outlining some changes. We _need_ to see moonsters and what replacements they have for cirts before ultimately seeing if it's better or not.

Ultimately I think so much of this is down to table convention. While I haven't GM'd yet, my ideology is not to fudge rolls unless it would be supremely naughty word and a waste of time _not to_, or there are new players involved.

One of those cases is level 1 and 2 of 5e as I can see, from what others have said, why crits could be problematic at those levels: it's very likely to knock a PC down. In some absurd cases, it might kill them outright! I feel if I'm starting at those levels, especially wth new players, I might feel getting crits that could absolutely swing the combat against the party through no fault of their own _might_ just be a little bit naughty word to let through.

But that's not universal. It might be worth giving advice to GMs that really low level play could be lethal due to unexpected crits in a way that level 3 might not be... but that also depends on other changes. Perhaps they're going to make level 1 much easier to run (by, say, giving everyone their sublcass at level 1, meaning you aren't twiddling your thumbs until level 3, etc.), and then the no crits for monsters will be even weirder.


----------



## James Gasik

I mean, even "monsters" that replicate normal people, like the Gladiator, get things like "Brute: add an additional die of damage to weapon attacks".  Most enemies, I honestly can't tell why they do a particular amount of damage at all, it sometimes seems like a truly random and arbitrary amount of dice.  Going back to the Giant Ape, we see it's attacks are:

*Multiattack*: The ape makes two fist attacks.

*Fist*: Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 22 (3d10 + 6) bludgeoning damage.

*Rock*: Ranged Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, range 50/100 ft., one target. Hit: 30 (7d6 + 6) bludgeoning damage.

Ok so, it gets 3 dice of fist damage because it's huge, but why does it's fist do a d10?  Reasons?

And how did one decide a rock it picks up does 7d6 damage?  I mean, it's not like it even says how big said rock has to be, or if it has to take an action to pick it up or anything!  Did they go "well, it's 15 HD so a level 15 Rogue has 7d6 Sneak Attack"?  Or was it "well it's CR 7, so uh, 7d6?"  Who knows!

And then when one of these monsters throws a crit, it's going to be way more bonus damage than a level 7 martial character is going to get, which seems fairly disproportionate.  Yeah level 7 Fighter crits for another d12 with a greataxe for an extra 6.5 damage.  Level 7 Ape crits for another 3d10 (16.5) or 7d6 (24.5) damage.  

To compare the two, a player crit is pretty much weaksauce, save for Paladins and Rogues and, I don't know, Half Orc Barbarians at higher levels?

Or the occasional attack roll spell, which is one of those "when the stars align just so" moments.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> More importantly, monsters don't have stuff like smite divided out in most cases, it's just part of their damage, so they're getting to multiply stuff PCs don't, which frankly, is awful.



Why wouldn't PC's get to double smite damage dice?

"If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."


----------



## Benjamin Olson

ReshiIRE said:


> One of those cases is level 1 and 2 of 5e as I can see, from what others have said, why crits could be problematic at those levels: it's very likely to knock a PC down. In some absurd cases, it might kill them outright! I feel if I'm starting at those levels, especially wth new players, I might feel getting crits that could absolutely swing the combat against the party through no fault of their own _might_ just be a little bit naughty word to let through.




I think the better solution here, if you don't want a deadly low level game, is to eliminate the kill outright rule, which primarily functions to kill low level characters unexpectedly and causes too much confusion about negative hit points for the very little it effectively adds to the game.

Also start every character with a healing potion.

Personally I like having the occasional early death (or, much better, early near death) in the party to keep everyone on their toes, but I tend to favor starting characters as pretty rough sketches personality and backstory-wise, and filling them out as they develop over the first few sessions. If it was a group where everyone wrote multi-page backstories for their characters I might well introduce precautions to keep death completely off the table for the first session or two.


----------



## Horwath

If there is no crits on roll of 20, then there should be option to increase damage on how much attack roll beats AC.

I.E. for every point over targets AC, damage is increased by 1.


----------



## Jacob Lewis

Charlaquin said:


> You don’t double any numbers on a crit in 5e. You roll all the damage dice a second time.



Thanks for clarifying. I'll need to update my jokes. 

Personally, I liked how 4e did it (like so many other things it did). You score maximum damage on your damage dice, and then rolled extra dice. Some items even had special crit effects or crit dice. 

At least I think that's how it works... need to double-check later...

That does bring up another point. This may not affect new players who've never played any other version of the game, but some of us have been playing since the first editions and/or the original versions. It is really hard, especially for some of us old-timers to keep these changes straight. Some of us would like to stay relevant. 

However, those like me who have issues with keeping thoughts straight in their head, just get fed up and drop out, sticking to the older systems and games we're most comfortable with.


----------



## mewidner

By removing the monster crits it feels like the change it about never having the characters feel like they are going to die. There needs to be tension in the game or I can go play a video game on 'not-so-hard mode' and just respawn at the camp fire. 

My take on crits on weapon attacks (melee/ranged/unarmed) is they hit the tender spots like the eye, bridge of the nose, exposed side by the spleen, etc. Magic damage doesn't really target a specific spot as I consider it "all over the person" damage so it doesn't magically double in impact like a sling stone to the forehead example. I am all for changing what attacks are valid for the crit doubling as it makes the folks with improved crit ratings shine a little bit more. I champion fighter that crits gets 2d10+str where a 5th cantrip wielding wizard gets 3d10 on a firebolt. 

I think the change is potentially a good one so that everyone doesn't take 1 level of wizard and at 11th just use the cantrip instead of the +2 long sword because the firebolt still does more damage than the improved crit hit fighter would do.


----------



## Umbran

mewidner said:


> By removing the monster crits it feels like the change it about never having the characters feel like they are going to die.




So, as GMs, we are basically relying on the chance of a crit to carry the fear of death for us?  Shouldn't we own that possibility instead?

With adversaries less swingy, it means that character death will be less by chance, and more _by design_.  I think that may be a good thing.  It effectively gives the GM more control over how deadly their encounters will be.


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> So, as GMs, we are basically relying on the chance of a crit to carry the fear of death for us?  Shouldn't we own that possibility instead?
> 
> With adversaries less swingy, it means that character death will be less by chance, and more _by design_.  I think that may be a good thing.  It effectively gives the GM more control over how deadly their encounters will be.



Yeah, relying on pure chance to "scare" players seems like wasted opportunity. Don't get me wrong, I like the uncertainty that swingy rolls bring, but if I want to scare the players I put near certain death in front of them.


----------



## Maxperson

mewidner said:


> My take on crits on weapon attacks (melee/ranged/unarmed) is they hit the tender spots like the eye, bridge of the nose, exposed side by the spleen, etc. Magic damage doesn't really target a specific spot as I consider it "all over the person" damage so it doesn't magically double in impact like a sling stone to the forehead example. I am all for changing what attacks are valid for the crit doubling as it makes the folks with improved crit ratings shine a little bit more. I champion fighter that crits gets 2d10+str where a 5th cantrip wielding wizard gets 3d10 on a firebolt.



The problem with this view is how hit points work in 5e.  There is no such thing as a serious hit unless it reduces the victim to 0 AND kills that victim.  Anything short of that is minor and heals to full with a night's rest.  Crits are just general double damage for some reason.  Under the 5e view of hit points, there's no reason why a firebolt shouldn't be able to crit like a sword.


----------



## payn

Umbran said:


> So, as GMs, we are basically relying on the chance of a crit to carry the fear of death for us?  Shouldn't we own that possibility instead?
> 
> With adversaries less swingy, it means that character death will be less by chance, and more _by design_.  I think that may be a good thing.  It effectively gives the GM more control over how deadly their encounters will be.



I think thats always been the case, although, with no crits it takes away more room for error and surprise. I can see a value in that if you are worried about it.


----------



## nevin

nope


----------



## Umbran

payn said:


> I can see a value in that if you are worried about it.




It isn't about being "worried about it", to my mind.

A notable problem with playtest feedback like this is that it doesn't demonstrate synergies in the whole design very well.  We are forced to think about how a given change would work _all else being the same_.  But, the rest does not have to be the same.

Consider something we always complain about - encounter design.  Many of us gripe about how the current encounter design is often a bit soft, for lack of a better term.  It seems to me that the chance of crit goes hand-in-hand with encounter design.  The swingier the mechanics, the more one is likely to softball the overall encounter design to accommodate that.

Removing the chance of crits from encounter design means that they can more reliably build tougher encounters that won't randomly paste the party outright! 

Isn't that something many GMs want?


----------



## payn

Umbran said:


> A notable problem with playtest feedback like this is that it doesn't demonstrate synergies in the whole design very well.  We are forced to think about how a given change would work _all else being the same_.  But, the rest does not have to be the same.
> 
> Consider something we always complain about - encounter design.  Many of us gripe about how the current encounter design is often a bit soft, for lack of a better term.  It seems to me that the chance of crit goes hand-in-hand with encounter design.  The swingier the encounter, the more one is likely to softball the overall encounter design to accommodate that.
> 
> Removing the chance of crits from encounter design means that they can more reliably build tougher encounters that won't paste the party outright.
> 
> Isn't that something many GMs want?



Maybe, I just know that PF2 tightened the math up on encounter design. Its not a perfect comparison because that system has crits, but that tight math and expected encounter design becomes predictable, and thus not terribly exciting. It's true, many GMs do want that level of control, but I'm not one of them. Im not saying I want everything chucked into the wind, but I like it looser and little less controlled when it comes to combat. It is a taste thing. 

I am willing to wait and see how these recharge abilities work. That is really the key to this discussion. Its not simply doing away with criticals, its a new system that doesn't seem to work with them.


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> A notable problem with playtest feedback like this is that it doesn't demonstrate synergies in the whole design very well.  We are forced to think about how a given change would work _all else being the same_.  But, the rest does not have to be the same.



This is a good point. The no monster crits is intended to be coupled with special recharge abilities for monsters that do something similar or at least numerically equivalent. Without that, can we properly test and judge the crit rules?

One possibility for the interim: give monsters a recharge 6 crit ability.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> Yeah, relying on pure chance to "scare" players seems like wasted opportunity. Don't get me wrong, I like the uncertainty that swingy rolls bring, but if I want to scare the players I put near certain death in front of them.



Yeah. It's not that as DMs we rely on the chance of a crit to scare players. It's just one tool in that tool chest. And one that I don't intend to remove from the box.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Umbran said:


> So, as GMs, we are basically relying on the chance of a crit to carry the fear of death for us?  Shouldn't we own that possibility instead?
> 
> With adversaries less swingy, it means that character death will be less by chance, and more _by design_.  I think that may be a good thing.  It effectively gives the GM more control over how deadly their encounters will be.



At the potential cost of making combat less surprising, and thus less fun, for the DM (and the players).


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> This is a good point. The no monster crits is intended to be coupled with special recharge abilities for monsters that do something similar or at least numerically equivalent. Without that, can we properly test and judge the crit rules?
> 
> One possibility for the interim: give monsters a recharge 6 crit ability.



But how much do crits really impact any given fight? I doubt I roll 20 attacks in most fights, so on average I'm doing less than 1 crit a fight.  Do some fights occasionally have more than one? Sure, but those are few and far between. The increase in damage to any given fight from crits is pretty minimal when you average it out. If they are accounting for that by softening encounters, then they really shouldn't be softening them up very much, which means that encounters won't get all that much harder if they remove crits.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> But how much do crits really impact any given fight? I doubt I roll 20 attacks in most fights, so on average I'm doing less than 1 crit a fight.  Do some fights occasionally have more than one? Sure, but those are few and far between. The increase in damage to any given fight from crits is pretty minimal when you average it out. If they are accounting for that by softening encounters, then they really shouldn't be softening them up very much, which means that encounters won't get all that much harder if they remove crits.



Again, I think the intent is to increase certainty. it doesn't have anything to do with difficulty, except maybe by increasing it (after all, whatever the special recharge abilities are certain to begin with). So, if you gave all enemies a recharge 6 crit (again -- no one has said this exactly is what they are doing) they would "crit" once for sure and pretty probably at least one more time ina  3 or 4 round combat. That is a tougher fight, not an easier or softer one.


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> At the potential cost of making combat less surprising, and thus less fun, for the DM (and the players).




We can, and probably should, surprise the players with things other than randomly timed wads of damage.

The players surprise me with their choices often enough that those randomly timed wads of damage aren't really the major thrill of my game.

I am okay with that asymmetry - I can surprise them with things, they can surprise me with things, and not so much is going on that surprises both of us at the same time.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Umbran said:


> We can, and probably should, surprise the players with things other than randomly timed wads of damage.
> 
> The players surprise me with their choices often enough that those randomly timed wads of damage aren't really the major thrill of my game.
> 
> I am okay with that asymmetry - I can surprise them with things, they can surprise me with things, and not so much is going on that surprises both of us at the same time.



Fair enough.  I prefer DM side crits, and will be keeping them.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Umbran said:


> We can, and probably should, surprise the players with things other than randomly timed wads of damage.
> 
> The players surprise me with their choices often enough that those randomly timed wads of damage aren't really the major thrill of my game.
> 
> I am okay with that asymmetry - I can surprise them with things, they can surprise me with things, and not so much is going on that surprises both of us at the same time.




I totally agree, _and_ I hope that somewhere in WotC's One roadmap there is a plan for more interesting monster abilities, including recharge abilities.


----------



## Retreater

Umbran said:


> It isn't about being "worried about it", to my mind.
> 
> A notable problem with playtest feedback like this is that it doesn't demonstrate synergies in the whole design very well.  We are forced to think about how a given change would work _all else being the same_.  But, the rest does not have to be the same.
> 
> Consider something we always complain about - encounter design.  Many of us gripe about how the current encounter design is often a bit soft, for lack of a better term.  It seems to me that the chance of crit goes hand-in-hand with encounter design.  The swingier the mechanics, the more one is likely to softball the overall encounter design to accommodate that.
> 
> Removing the chance of crits from encounter design means that they can more reliably build tougher encounters that won't randomly paste the party outright!
> 
> Isn't that something many GMs want?



A sudden jolt of damage is one of the few things that make combats interesting in 5e. Otherwise, it's slogs through bags of hit points, fighting creatures that rarely hit against heroes that hit nearly all the time. The monsters don't do enough damage to threaten a party. (I think there are CR 7 monsters that do something like 15 damage a hit - please!) 
Moreover, it's thrilling. I don't know why WotC can't get that. It's part of the communal experience around a table to see a DM roll a Natural 20 on a monster's attack and all the players gasp. Just like they cheer when a Hero rolls a Natural 20, there has to be balance.
Like what are we going to have now?
I rolled an average number on a die and now you take an average amount of damage from your average amount of hit points during this completely predictable battle?


----------



## payn

Retreater said:


> A sudden jolt of damage is one of the few things that make combats interesting in 5e. Otherwise, it's slogs through bags of hit points, fighting creatures that rarely hit against heroes that hit nearly all the time. The monsters don't do enough damage to threaten a party. (I think there are CR 7 monsters that do something like 15 damage a hit - please!)
> Moreover, it's thrilling. I don't know why WotC can't get that. It's part of the communal experience around a table to see a DM roll a Natural 20 on a monster's attack and all the players gasp. Just like they cheer when a Hero rolls a Natural 20, there has to be balance.
> Like what are we going to have now?
> I rolled an average number on a die and now you take an average amount of damage from your average amount of hit points during this completely predictable battle?



Well, lets see the recharge mechanics they got planned before burning the house down.


----------



## Retreater

payn said:


> Well, lets see the recharge mechanics they got planned before burning the house down.



I prefer a little bit of randomness. Monsters in Forbidden Lands have randomized attacks, and I love that. 
I can see me getting accused as a DM of storing up recharge abilities to use at the most tactically advantageous time or "picking on" specific players. 
When everyone has an equal chance of getting hit by a critical it levels the playing field.


----------



## Micah Sweet

payn said:


> Well, lets see the recharge mechanics they got planned before burning the house down.



If you're going to include one rule in your playtest but not include another intended to balance it, then it's a poor playtest.


----------



## Umbran

Retreater said:


> A sudden jolt of damage is one of the few things that make combats interesting in 5e.




I find it unfortunate you've had that experience.  It hasn't been mine.  

There's a stack of techniques (both in encounter design and in runtime) that one can use to keep it from being so, but this isn't the thread to discuss them.


----------



## payn

Retreater said:


> I prefer a little bit of randomness. Monsters in Forbidden Lands have randomized attacks, and I love that.
> I can see me getting accused as a DM of storing up recharge abilities to use at the most tactically advantageous time or "picking on" specific players.
> When everyone has an equal chance of getting hit by a critical it levels the playing field.



See, schmee. Still got it rock it before you can knock it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.




I am not particularly attentive to present editions of D&D, but for me this would be something I wouldn't like. I like crits functioning for PCs, NPCs, monsters, etc. It adds a key piece of excitement to the game.  I'm probably outside their age demographic though.


----------



## Bupp

I don't think we can judge this until we see what the monsters _do_ get.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Bupp said:


> I don't think we can judge this until we see what the monsters _do_ get.




That's so true.  Which means we better get our doomsday hysteria out now.


----------



## SkidAce

I was going to say, no point in giving npcs Vorpal or Life Stealing weapons, but upon research, it appears you dont need a "crit", you "roll a 20".
So no change there.


----------



## ReshiIRE

Bupp said:


> I don't think we can judge this until we see what the monsters _do_ get.




Yeah; this is why the playtest frustrates me right now. It feels a bit too much that things are being released piecemeal to generate hype and discussion but not to get the exact feedback required to create a better game, as we're getitng horizontal and not vertical slices. I'm worried that they might have a genuinely cooler replacement for crits for monsters that they haven't shown off yet, but it might be killed because they decided to drop this rule in an early playtest document when we might not receive the monster playtest document until a few playtests down the line.


----------



## CleverNickName

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



Eh, it's easy enough to ignore.  I've been ignoring their "no fumbles" rule for years; this won't be any different.


----------



## Retreater

ReshiIRE said:


> Yeah; this is why the playtest frustrates me right now. It feels a bit too much that things are being released piecemeal to generate hype and discussion but not to get the exact feedback required to create a better game, as we're getitng horizontal and not vertical slices



They think they have the (almost) perfect edition of D&D.


----------



## payn

It's going to be a long couple of years, buckle up folks.


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> It's going to be a long couple of years, buckle up folks.



I am excited. I mean, they can tell us exactly how close to 5E it is going to be (they did, in fact, and gave us an example of it) and people are STILL arguing about that part. Every step is going to be a slog through flaming pitch.


----------



## p_johnston

I absolutely love this change and am kinda sad I didn't think of it myself earlier. I don't like killing PC's because I happened to get lucky with my roles that night and rolled 5 20's over 10 attacks (That was a bad night to be at my table). I want to kill them because they made stupid, stupid decisions. 

My actual hope is that they add back in crit's as a special ability for certain monsters. "when the hydra rolls a 20 on it's attack roll add +15 to it's damage" because that would A) allow them more flexibility in making crits for bosses that aren't necessarily just double damage so they can fine tune it and B) Let them add in fun abilities to replace it  "when the Huffalump rolls a 20 on it's attack roll the target becomes afraid of it until the end of their next turn."

As for the player side I'm still actually a fan but hope this isn't their last change. Crits have always been really weird to me because mostly they ended up being really cool if your a paladin/rouge/(some dice stacking build) and often underwhelming for everyone else. Can't count the number of double one criticals I've seen over the years. I'd much rather have it so that a 20 means cool things for everyone during combat rather then being massive boosts for only two or three classes.


----------



## the Jester

dumdragon said:


> How do you all feel about the proposed change to crits affecting the PC's?
> I know my players and I will not be following that bit of advice but I was curious about how everyone else feels about this.



I am not down with crits for pcs only. Equity or nothing.


----------



## Zaukrie

Umbran said:


> We can, and probably should, surprise the players with things other than randomly timed wads of damage.
> 
> The players surprise me with their choices often enough that those randomly timed wads of damage aren't really the major thrill of my game.
> 
> I am okay with that asymmetry - I can surprise them with things, they can surprise me with things, and not so much is going on that surprises both of us at the same time.



Then they need to give monsters more than claw, claw, bite ... Here's hoping.


----------



## Older Beholder

Coincidentally for my first campaign in 5E I didn’t use monster crits or crits for spells. (mostly due to misunderstanding the rules) It really didn’t effect things that much, although that campaign did end in a TPK.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Suddenly, every PC equipped with Adamantine Armor (a magic item by the way) cried out in indignation and rage at the same time.


----------



## James Gasik

Sacrosanct said:


> Suddenly, every PC equipped with Adamantine Armor (a magic item by the way) cried out in indignation and rage at the same time.



I wonder how many of those there are out there.  I've only seen one, and that's because the DM let them start with a magic item.


----------



## Sacrosanct

James Gasik said:


> I wonder how many of those there are out there.  I've only seen one, and that's because the DM let them start with a magic item.



Suddenly, _*one *_PC equipped with Adamantine Armor cried out in indignation and rage


----------



## James Gasik

Sacrosanct said:


> Suddenly, _*one *_PC equipped with Adamantine Armor cried out in indignation and rage



Well that's fair, lol.  Although I have noted something odd over the years, and I'm curious if it's just me.  If a player is hit by an attack by another player (due to mind control or whatever), the chance for it to be a critical hit shoots way up for some reason.


----------



## cbwjm

While I do think I need to see the full rules on monsters to get a good understanding of monsters and crits, if it's just to recharge an ability and it still requires a 20 to be rolled, then that might as well just be a single use ability. Natural 20s aren't so common that you'd be seeing a lot of recharges.


----------



## tetrasodium

.


cbwjm said:


> While I do think I need to see the full rules on monsters to get a good understanding of monsters and crits, if it's just to recharge an ability and it still requires a 20 to be rolled, then that might as well just be a single use ability. Natural 20s aren't so common that you'd be seeing a lot of recharges.



It's also possible that monsters "crit" their recharge on a wider range of rolls like 12 or 15 to 20  since it's a recharge mechanic.  Sure you might not want the big bad dragon to recharge powerful abilities frequently but mook & minion type monsters regularly recharging an ability that gives them some _meaningful_ value  at a given niche even while not being especially dangerous is a different story


----------



## CubicsRube

I've been using fixed damage and no crits for a while with a caveat.

I have 4 types on enemies typically. A mook who has average HP and average damage, a tough who has max HP and average damage, and an elite who has average HP and max damage, and a boss who has max ho and max damage. It's enough variety so i can throw in enough mixes to keep people on their toes.

I don't do this for all foes, but for mundane ones like orcs it can add enough variety to keep things interesting.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Sacrosanct said:


> Suddenly, _*one *_PC equipped with Adamantine Armor cried out in indignation and rage




“Yup, my armor works. I’ve never been hit by a crit. In fact, it seems to protect my friends, too.”


----------



## SakanaSensei

CubicsRube said:


> I've been using fixed damage and no crits for a while with a caveat.
> 
> I have 4 types on enemies typically. A mook who has average HP and average damage, a tough who has max HP and average damage, and an elite who has average HP and max damage, and a boss who has max ho and max damage. It's enough variety so i can throw in enough mixes to keep people on their toes.
> 
> I don't do this for all foes, but for mundane ones like orcs it can add enough variety to keep things interesting.



That's a great way to stretch a statblock!


----------



## Lanefan

tetrasodium said:


> It's also possible that monsters "crit" their recharge on a wider range of rolls like 12 or 15 to 20  since it's a recharge mechanic.  Sure you might not want the big bad dragon to recharge powerful abilities frequently but mook & minion type monsters regularly recharging an ability that gives them some _meaningful_ value  at a given niche even while not being especially dangerous is a different story



The drawback here is that while it's easy to track the ability's on-off status for big single monsters, tracking it independently for each of a whole bunch of mooks could quickly become a pain.  It's bad enough when a bunch of mooks each have a non-recharging one-shot ability (e.g. they're each carrying a little grenade to throw) and you have to track which ones have used it and which haven't.

And gods forbid they ever give mooks multiple recharging abilities.


----------



## tetrasodium

Lanefan said:


> The drawback here is that while it's easy to track the ability's on-off status for big single monsters, tracking it independently for each of a whole bunch of mooks could quickly become a pain.  It's bad enough when a bunch of mooks each have a non-recharging one-shot ability (e.g. they're each carrying a little grenade to throw) and you have to track which ones have used it and which haven't.
> 
> And gods forbid they ever give mooks multiple recharging abilities.



It could be, but there are plenty of games that provide the GM with a pool to avoid that problem, some of them* even have a GM pool that any of the GM's monsters & NPCs can draw from.  Wotc seems to be enamored with mmo style raidboss phase monsters & more than a few MMO monsters have powers that are triggered by mooks or powers that impact their mooks.  It wouldn't matter if the mooks had a whole chapter of recharging abilities for the GM to draw on if those abilities were powered from a pool & the gm just had to track how big or how small their pool is.    Having a GM pool any monster can draw from even adds meaning to filler encounters between the front door  to the dungeon _(or whatever)_ & the BBEG.  It need not be a bookkeeping nightmare if designed well


* IIRC some versions of fate at least.


----------



## CapnZapp

Umbran said:


> So, as GMs, we are basically relying on the chance of a crit to carry the fear of death for us? Shouldn't we own that possibility instead?
> 
> With adversaries less swingy, it means that character death will be less by chance, and more _by design_. I think that may be a good thing. It effectively gives the GM more control over how deadly their encounters will be.



Don't forget plausible denial.

A game where the only way the heroes ever feel truly threatened is when it is obvious the DM went out of his or her way to put them in harm's way is not a good game.

Many players like, nay absolutely require, the feeling of verisimilitude where you're punished for making stupid enough mistakes by THE GAME, not by the DM.

Meaning it shouldn't require a conscious decision from the DM to exceed all recommendations for danger level just to make combat meaningful.

Where I define "meaningful" as "not a foregone conclusion".

Combats where you're all but assured victory does have its place but should not be the default. You only have so much playing time; let's not waste that on fights you win easily, let's instead focus on combats that present a modicum of interesting challenge.

A game sucks if the DM can't hide behind the rules for purposes of making the PCs retreat or feel the fear of death. At least I don't want the adversarial playing style where I must obviously break the guidelines in order to truly challenge my players (characters).


----------



## Bill Zebub

CapnZapp said:


> Don't forget plausible denial.
> 
> A game where the only way the heroes ever feel truly threatened is when it is obvious the DM went out of his or her way to put them in harm's way is not a good game.
> 
> Many players like, nay absolutely require, the feeling of verisimilitude where you're punished for making stupid enough mistakes by THE GAME, not by the DM.
> 
> Meaning it shouldn't require a conscious decision from the DM to exceed all recommendations for danger level just to make combat meaningful.
> 
> Where I define "meaningful" as "not a foregone conclusion".
> 
> Combats where you're all but assured victory does have its place but should not be the default. You only have so much playing time; let's not waste that on fights you win easily, let's instead focus on combats that present a modicum of interesting challenge.
> 
> A game sucks if the DM can't hide behind the rules for purposes of making the PCs retreat or feel the fear of death. At least I don't want the adversarial playing style where I must obviously break the guidelines in order to truly challenge my players (characters).



Are you referring to fudging during combat, or to throwing supposedly “Deadly” encounters at the party?


----------



## Umbran

CapnZapp said:


> A game where the only way the heroes ever feel truly threatened is when it is obvious the DM went out of his or her way to put them in harm's way is not a good game.




...for you, perhaps.  Not a good game _for you_.

I have liked games where the only way for a character to die was for the player to choose it (Sentinels Comics RPG, for instance).  I have liked games where the only way for a character to die was if the GM specifically chooses it (Fate).  And all sorts in between.

So, for you, only certain kinds of games will do.  That's okay, but it doesn't generalize to everyone else.  But even then....



CapnZapp said:


> Combats where you're all but assured victory does have its place but should not be the default. You only have so much playing time; let's not waste that on fights you win easily, let's instead focus on combats that present a modicum of interesting challenge.




Before you go off on this tear, let us remember that critical hits were not a part of core AD&D rules until 3e!  In 1e and 2e, you had to dig around in magazines and mimeographed fanzines to find critical hit tables if you wanted to use them.

Ergo, critical hits, in and of themselves, are not what make combat an interesting challenge. 



CapnZapp said:


> A game sucks if the DM can't hide behind the rules for purposes of making the PCs retreat or feel the fear of death. At least I don't want the adversarial playing style where I must obviously break the guidelines in order to truly challenge my players (characters).




So, the thing you seem to miss... or hyperbolically elide over, at least, is that critical hits are not the only randomness in the game!  It is not like by removing critical hits, suddenly challenges become foregone conclusion

Because, dude, we still use dice.  Random numbers are still in play.  Characters and parties were killed off by bad luck for decades before critical hits became the usual thing.  This merely puts a cap on how large an effect one particular die roll by the GM can have.

Beyond that... honestly, if the GM _requires_ the rules as a shield from adversarial positioning, that's an issue of table interpersonal dynamics, not game design.  If you cannot make it clear that the table is friends who are interested in good times, not in being adversarial, the rules won't save you.


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> Before you go off on this tear, let us remember that critical hits were not a part of core AD&D rules until 3e!  In 1e and 2e, you had to dig around in magazines and mimeographed fanzines to find critical hit tables if you wanted to use them.



This is a good point. In fact, if we recall how crits worked in 3E, it seems pretty clear they were included to inject some uncertainty back into the game after the power level was increased. they were weaponized by players, for sure, but where they really shined was the crit by the power attacking ogre that could one-stroke eliminate even the toughest (level appropriate) barbarian. TSR editions did not really need crits because the power level was generally lower.


----------



## tetrasodium

Umbran said:


> ...for you, perhaps.  Not a good game _for you_.
> 
> I have liked games where the only way for a character to die was for the player to choose it (Sentinels Comics RPG, for instance).  I have liked *games where the only way for a character to die was if the GM specifically chooses it (Fate). * And all sorts in between.
> 
> So, for you, only certain kinds of games will do.  That's okay, but it doesn't generalize to everyone else.  But even then....
> 
> 
> 
> Before you go off on this tear, let us remember that critical hits were not a part of core AD&D rules until 3e!  In 1e and 2e, you had to dig around in magazines and mimeographed fanzines to find critical hit tables if you wanted to use them.
> 
> Ergo, critical hits, in and of themselves, are not what make combat an interesting challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the thing you seem to miss... or hyperbolically elide over, at least, is that critical hits are not the only randomness in the game!  It is not like by removing critical hits, suddenly challenges become foregone conclusion
> 
> Because, dude, we still use dice.  Random numbers are still in play.  Characters and parties were killed off by bad luck for decades before critical hits became the usual thing.  This merely puts a cap on how large an effect one particular die roll by the GM can have.
> 
> Beyond that... honestly, if the GM _requires_ the rules as a shield from adversarial positioning, that's an issue of table interpersonal dynamics, not game design.  If you cannot make it clear that the table is friends who are interested in good times, not in being adversarial, the rules won't save you.



That's not quite accurate in terms of risk in Fate & there are a few mechanics being skipped over.  Yes a character _(or monster/npc)_ who is "taken out" can just simply be executed by their opponent as you say, but that happens after a  player has failed to concede and been forced to expend their stress track plus possible consequences.  Combat in fate can be a rocket sled death spiral that trivially makes DCC funnels look positively fair because of how long consequences take to clear but a player can attempt to conceed victory to the other side where they negotiate the terms of their loss in exchange for being able to get away.  The stress track springs back fast but  consequences can quickly make a PC unplayable with broken bones amputations ICU requirements & so on but  clearing higher consequences requires doing things in the game while operating under them.  That brutal knife edge makes it so concede early & often gets used by both sides to ensure that it's unlikely the gm ever needs to be in a position where "and he kills you" is said without it being due to an inability to come to agreement on a concession that left everyone knowing it was a fight to the death


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> This is a good point. In fact, if we recall how crits worked in 3E, it seems pretty clear they were included to inject some uncertainty back into the game after the power level was increased. they were weaponized by players, for sure, but where they really shined was the crit by the power attacking ogre that could one-stroke eliminate even the toughest (level appropriate) barbarian. TSR editions did not really need crits because the power level was generally lower.



That's true, but I still believe in the principle of CapnZapp's post, for my game.  _I _personally don't find a game fun if the PCs aren't being threatened, whether I'm the DM or not.


----------



## Umbran

tetrasodium said:


> That's not quite accurate in terms of risk in Fate




This thread is not about the details of Fate, so I didn't go into them.  The major point being - death is only a consequence in Fate if someone _actively chooses it_.  It cannot happen as a random event at all.  The _rules_ of Fate will never kill a character - only specific choices will do that.

Death is, by far, not the only possible consequence in Fate, but the D&D core rules don't have (and historically haven't had) analogs for other things Fate uses as meaningful consequences.  And this discussion is about critical hits - so damage - whose basic D&D consequence is... death.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> That's true, but I still believe in the principle of CapnZapp's post, for my game.  _I _personally don't find a game fun if the PCs aren't being threatened, whether I'm the DM or not.



Sure. The point I was responding to is that 25 years crits weren't necessary for threat, and still aren't. (Don't get me wrong, I like crits, but it is because I like unpredictability, not necessarily PC death.)


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> TSR editions did not really need crits because the power level was generally lower.




Well, the character power _as compared to their opponents_ was lower.  But that's an issue of encounter and adventure design more than anything else - one can always choose to have the difference in power between character and adversary be different in 5e, so that you stop needing criticals there as well.


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> Well, the character power _as compared to their opponents_ was lower.  But that's an issue of encounter and adventure design more than anything else - one can always choose to have the difference in power between character and adversary be different in 5e, so that you stop needing criticals there as well.



I think we can all agree that 5e is better when we throw out the CR system.


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> (Don't get me wrong, I like crits, but it is because I like unpredictability, not necessarily PC death.)




And that's fine.  And it is super-awesome to recognize this as "because I like..."  That's key.

Now, as we consider game design, that appetite for unpredictability is an interesting point, as we consider edition changes over time - in the sense that all entertainments are products of their times, and the appetites for particular elements is influenced by the world the audience actually lives in.

The appetite for unpredictability has already been driven down by an increase in desire for longer, more personal story beats in RPGs.  Or at least, so it seems to me, looking at the adventure products WotC and Paizo put out, and the kinds of other games that are being produced.

We might add to that in an increasingly unpredictable world, the overall appetite for similar unpredictability in games may be reduced.  Not that players will want to be coddled with no-death games, but players may like games that allow them to _manage risk_ more.   

Like, coming out of years of fear of pandemic disease with a million+ casualties, random incidence of "oh crap, I'm dead!" may not be the best choice in a game design for a broad market for a while, you know what I mean?


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> I think we can all agree that 5e is better when we throw out the CR system.




I find CR and XP budgets useful for creating rough drafts, but I sure as heck don't depend on them for hitting the mark I want.


----------



## OB1

I can't help but wonder if monsters critting isn't the reason monsters feel so weak in 5e.  The designers had to take into account that a monster could crit in any given encounter (or even every given turn in an encounter) and so had to pull back on the throttle.


----------



## tetrasodium

Umbran said:


> This thread is not about the details of Fate, so I didn't go into them.  The major point being - death is only a consequence in Fate if someone _actively chooses it_.  It cannot happen as a random event at all.  The _rules_ of Fate will never kill a character - only specific choices will do that.
> 
> Death is, by far, not the only possible consequence in Fate, but the D&D core rules don't have (and historically haven't had) analogs for other things Fate uses as meaningful consequences.  And this discussion is about critical hits - so damage - whose basic D&D consequence is... death.



That's kind of the point though, in d&d5e  death is the only consequence and crits were one of the big ways for that to _possibly_ be a risk.  @CapnZapp's post you were quoting when fate's death hurdle was was raised talked about the importance of the heroes being able to feel risk The death comparison becomes questionable & maybe even misleading without system knowledge because there are numerous other risks that come into play for the heroes before the possible death.  

I'm neutral on the crit changes because we don't yet know any details on the monster changes they are supposed to make room for.  It could very well be that the other side of this coin turns out to be a great thing but it's a change that objectively does a lot to reduce if not eliminate the mere possibility of a PC being exposed to what is d&d's only real risk  the heroes can face.  That elimination makes the need to have some other forms of risk into more pressing need for many.


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> And that's fine.  And it is super-awesome to recognize this as "because I like..."  That's key.
> 
> Now, as we consider game design, that appetite for unpredictability is an interesting point, as we consider edition changes over time - in the sense that all entertainments are products of their times, and the appetites for particular elements is influenced by the world the audience actually lives in.
> 
> The appetite for unpredictability has already been driven down by an increase in desire for longer, more personal story beats in RPGs.  Or at least, so it seems to me, looking at the adventure products WotC and Paizo put out, and the kinds of other games that are being produced.



I agree with this bit.


Umbran said:


> We might add to that in an increasingly unpredictable world, the overall appetite for similar unpredictability in games may be reduced.  Not that players will want to be coddled with no-death games, but players may like games that allow them to _manage risk_ more.
> 
> Like, coming out of years of fear of pandemic disease with a million+ casualties, random incidence of "oh crap, I'm dead!" may not be the best choice in a game design for a broad market for a while, you know what I mean?



I am more ambivalent about this. I think it is very much a personal thing. Different people respond to stress and stimuli differently and I'm not sure we can draw any strong conclusions yet about how the pandemic might have affected D&D culture aside from making online gaming more palatable.


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> I am more ambivalent about this. I think it is very much a personal thing.




Yes, but if your hope is to sell hundred of thousands or millions of units, you can't think about (and design for) individuals, you have to think about broad trends.  



Reynard said:


> Different people respond to stress and stimuli differently and I'm not sure we can draw any strong conclusions yet about how the pandemic might have affected D&D culture aside from making online gaming more palatable.




The pandemic was only a handy example - it is by no means the only element of looming unpredictability in our world.  Add all of them up...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Umbran said:


> Yes, but if your hope is to sell hundred of thousands or millions of units, you can't think about (and design for) individuals, you have to think about broad trends.
> 
> 
> 
> The pandemic was only a handy example - it is by no means the only element of looming unpredictability in our world.  Add all of them up...



Yeah this why the new D&D of the last few years and moving forward just isn't for me.  I don't agree with the broad trends that WotC care about.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> Before you go off on this tear, let us remember that critical hits were not a part of core AD&D rules until 3e!  In 1e and 2e, you had to dig around in magazines and mimeographed fanzines to find critical hit tables if you wanted to use them.



Even so and notwithstanding, IME back in the day everybody and their little dogs used them in some form.  That's probably why 3e made them official, because they were so commonly in use already.


Umbran said:


> So, the thing you seem to miss... or hyperbolically elide over, at least, is that critical hits are not the only randomness in the game!  It is not like by removing critical hits, suddenly challenges become foregone conclusion



They do, however, become considerably more predictable in not only their outcomes but in how long - as in how many rounds - it will take to arrive at that outcome.

Critical hits represent - or should - a sudden swing in fortune, where what was maybe predictable now isn't.


Umbran said:


> Because, dude, we still use dice.  Random numbers are still in play.  Characters and parties were killed off by bad luck for decades before critical hits became the usual thing.



In systems/editions where death was at 0, there were no death saves, and both characters and their foes had generally far fewer hit points than today, this is likely true.   The main difference now is the much-greater numbers of hit points, which allow more rounds of combat and thus more time for things to pro/regress to the expected mean.  Luck becomes less of a factor, though still existent.


Umbran said:


> Beyond that... honestly, if the GM _requires_ the rules as a shield from adversarial positioning, that's an issue of table interpersonal dynamics, not game design.  If you cannot make it clear that the table is friends who are interested in good times, not in being adversarial, the rules won't save you.



I look at it from the other direction: I don't mind being adversarial to some extent, without being unfair; and want the system to back me up when I am.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> Even so and notwithstanding, IME back in the day everybody and their little dogs used them in some form.  That's probably why 3e made them official, because they were so commonly in use already.




Well, IME, everyone knew about the possibility, but nobody used them.  Personal experience isn't terribly meaningful, and probably isn't a great support for a design choice.



Lanefan said:


> They do, however, become considerably more predictable in not only their outcomes but in how long - as in how many rounds - it will take to arrive at that outcome.




Yep.  I already noted that effect.



Lanefan said:


> In systems/editions where death was at 0, there were no death saves, and both characters and their foes had generally far fewer hit points than today, this is likely true.




And, IME, nobody actually played with death at 0.  They all moved that back to -10 or -Con, because zero was too harsh.   This has much the same impact as death saves - a clock ticking under which others in the party typically try to race some healing to the downed character.


----------



## Vael

I long ago houseruled that as a DM, I don't roll weapon damage, it speeds up the game. So Crits reverted to 4e, I just assumed a maximum roll. A monster that deals 1d8+3 deals 8 damage, 11 on a crit. I like having crits, DMs want to enjoy rolling dice too, but only taking the max, I think makes it a little less swingy.


----------



## Zaukrie

In talking to my adult son, he and I agree.....players love crits. They love the surprise, and the power. They even love it when monsters do it (most of the time). 

I think the point of keeping track of recharges on several monsters is an interesting one I had not considered (as a publisher, it gives me pause on some of my work!).


----------



## CleverNickName

In my upcoming campaign, I'm trying something new on critical hits and fumbles.  (Yes, I use fumbles.)

If a player rolls a natural 20 on an attack roll, I won't force the player to roll extra damage.  Instead of extra damage, they could choose to do regular damage _and perform some kind of stunt_.  Maybe they do regular damage and disarm their foe?  Maybe they do regular damage and knock their opponent prone?  Maybe they want to deal regular damage and disengage for free?  I bet that nine times out of ten, the player chooses the extra damage.  But my hope is that every now and then, when the stars align, something much more memorable happens.

I do the same for critical fumbles.  When a player rolls a 1, they miss.  But I give them the option to turn that miss into a hit, _at a cost_:  maybe they take a point of exhaustion, maybe they fall prone, or maybe their weapon gains the Broken condition at the end of the attack.  Nine times out of ten, I expect the player chooses to just let the attack miss.  But I hope that every now and then, when they _really need _that attack to hit, rolling a nat-1 will feel like an interesting twist of fate.

This house rule will apply to the monsters too, which is why I bring it up in this thread.  If a dragon scores a critical hit, it can choose to do double damage per the rules, or it can choose to do regular damage and recharge its breath weapon automatically at the end of the turn.  Or it can choose to do regular damage and automatically grapple its target.  Or disengage for free.  Or knock its target prone.  I'll be honest, most of the time that dragon is going to want to take the extra damage...but the exceptions could be very interesting indeed.

My issue isn't with the amount of damage; it's the lack of interesting options.  MOAR DAMAMAGE LOLZ!!!1 gets pretty dull after a while.


----------



## Blue

I ran a 4 year campaign using average damage for all normal monsters.  Really, reducing swinginess in combat is not a demon, and especially at the lower levels will help get the results the DM is looking for with their encounter design - including pushing the party harder if that is what is wanted because there's no worry a random crit will make a PC go from up to insta-kill and then having to tone the encounter down to leave more buffer.


----------



## SkidAce

Umbran said:


> ...Before you go off on this tear, let us remember that critical hits were not a part of core AD&D rules until 3e!  In 1e and 2e, you had to dig around in magazines and mimeographed fanzines to find critical hit tables if you wanted to use them.
> 
> Ergo, critical hits, in and of themselves, are not what make combat an interesting challenge...



I would postulate that critical hits in 1e and 2e, as house rules risen spontaneously from varying gaming groups, DID make combat more interesting and a challenge, and therefore were incorporated into 3rd edition because of their popularity.

YMMV.

edit: spellin


----------



## Campbell

I really think it's too early to tell. I'm going to need to see how the rest of the combat model ends up working in practice. That includes combat rules, class design and monster design changes. Instead of a piecemeal approach I would prefer to see a larger document so we could see the possible interactions.


----------



## Turbiales

In my experience (I'm from Spain) Crits were one of the first house rules most groups created in the AD&D era. These and fumbles, but fumbles were not so popular.


----------



## Cadence

Turbiales said:


> In my experience (I'm from Spain) Crits were one of the first house rules most groups created in the AD&D era. These and fumbles, but fumbles were not so popular.



The oldest I think I've seen came out a couple years before I started playing." The Dragon Crown" in 1979 by Judges Guild was one of the first modules I bought, and it had crits (and fumbles iirc):

For the second roll after your natural 20...
1-14=like a normal roll of 20 (not a guaranteed hit)
15=max damage (15+ are guaranteed hits)
16=damage roll x 2
17=max damage x 2
18=damage roll x attackers level/HD
19=max damage x attackers level/HD
20=Instant Death


----------



## James Gasik

Turbiales said:


> In my experience (I'm from Spain) Crits were one of the first house rules most groups created in the AD&D era. These and fumbles, but fumbles were not so popular.



Mainly because fumbles are more punishing to Fighters than anyone else, as you gain the ability to make more attacks.

Though in all honesty, I started to hate them as a DM too, since I made more attack rolls than any of my players, lol.


----------



## Oofta

I skipped most of this (no internet) but how do we know that monsters won't crit? The playtest says PCs crit on a 20, as far as I can tell it's silent on what happens for monsters.

If it's true. I'll ignore it, just like I'll ignore auto failure/success for skill checks.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

South by Southwest said:


> Ditto, and same for 1s and 20s auto-failing or auto-succeeding on abilities, _etc_. We use those for and only for combat to-hits and will continue to do so.



Why, why bother rolling if the outcome can’t change.


----------



## pnewman

Without Crits, how can 200 Commoners with slings be a true challenge to my party of four L7 characters? The 10 per round who roll 20's will still auto-hit but for only 2 points each, not five. Will I need to use 400 Commoners instead? I don't have enough pennies to use as minis for 400 commoners.


----------



## South by Southwest

MonsterEnvy said:


> Why, why bother rolling if the outcome can’t change.



???? Do what, now? Of course the outcome can change: there's success and failure as the options for non-attack rolls.


----------



## the Jester

After a great deal of thought, I have decided that the only way I am okay with removing potential crits from monsters is removing them from the game entirely. I just do not like the pcs getting yet more bennies denied to their foes when they are already pretty darn unlikely to even drop, much less die, in combat.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Blue said:


> , and especially at the lower levels will help get the results the DM is looking for with their encounter design - including pushing the party harder if that is what is wanted because there's no worry a random crit will make a PC go from up to insta-kill and then having to tone the encounter down to leave more buffer.




That’s the main thing that appeals to me. Larger margins of error means I can design harder encounters.  Leave the swinginess and surprises to the players.


----------



## SkidAce

pnewman said:


> Without Crits, how can 200 Commoners with slings be a true challenge to my party of four L7 characters? The 10 per round who roll 20's will still auto-hit but for only 2 points each, not five. Will I need to use 400 Commoners instead? I don't have enough pennies to use as minis for 400 commoners.



dimes as units of 10.


----------



## Reynard

the Jester said:


> After a great deal of thought, I have decided that the only way I am okay with removing potential crits from monsters is removing them from the game entirely. I just do not like the pcs getting yet more bennies denied to their foes when they are already pretty darn unlikely to even drop, much less die, in combat.



If only there was some way to figure out how often -- say, how many times out of 100 or even 20 -- this would matter.


----------



## CleverNickName

the Jester said:


> After a great deal of thought, I have decided that the only way I am okay with removing potential crits from monsters is removing them from the game entirely. I just do not like the pcs getting yet more bennies denied to their foes when they are already pretty darn unlikely to even drop, much less die, in combat.



I agree, this is probably the best solution.  My players would not stand for it, though...they all but worship natural 20s at my table.

I'm not kidding.  One of my players sings hosannas whenever she rolls a nat20, and another will pour out libations.


----------



## the Jester

Reynard said:


> If only there was some way to figure out how often -- say, how many times out of 100 or even 20 -- this would matter.



I'm not sure how this relates to my post- why does it matter?


----------



## James Gasik

Maybe critical hits should do something more interesting than more damage, such as debuffing enemies or indirectly buffing allies.  This might be a good place to put things that normally you need to be a Battlemaster to accomplish.


----------



## Micah Sweet

CleverNickName said:


> I agree, this is probably the best solution.  My players would not stand for it, though...they all but worship natural 20s at my table.



Exactly.  Which is why I prefer them to be retained on both sides.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

South by Southwest said:


> ???? Do what, now? Of course the outcome can change: there's success and failure as the options for non-attack rolls.



You just said you won't allow 1s to be auto fails and 20s to be auto successes other than for attack rolls. So when a character rolls a saving throw that requires a 10 and they have a +9 bonus to it they can't fail. And if a another character tries to recall knowledge about an obscure piece of knowledge that a more knowledgeable character failed at with a DC of 22, this character with only a +1 to their score can't succeed.



James Gasik said:


> Maybe critical hits should do something more interesting than more damage, such as debuffing enemies or indirectly buffing allies.  This might be a good place to put things that normally you need to be a Battlemaster to accomplish.



They give inspiration now.


----------



## CapnZapp

Umbran said:


> ...for you, perhaps.  Not a good game _for you_.



No, Umbran - we're discussing D&D games here. Don't assume WotC has suddenly taking a liking to Fate or whatever, and decided to turn their ship around in a completely new direction. And more in particular - don't use this assumption to make the discussion about me. Please. That old "for you perhaps" angle is never constructive and always confrontative.

In other words, the fact there exists Fate fans where death can never happen unless the players and GM wants it, is not relevant to a discussion about a fundamentally simulationist game such as D&D.

And I get to state my claim as an important aspect of the game we're actually discussing. If you want WotC to turn D&D into Fate, you're free to do so, but it's definitely not a case where I'm the outlier.


----------



## hbarsquared

OB1 said:


> Play tested the new Nat20/CRit rules in the first session of my groups Spelljammer campaign last night (lvl 5 Fighter, Rogue, Palladin, and Ranger). Rules played better than I expected, everyone agreed after the session to keep them for the campaign. Rogue used his inspiration from a nat20 attack to get a sneak attack he wouldn’t have otherwise been able to. Paladin actually uses her bonus action smites instead of hoarding them for divine smite Crits.
> 
> Highly recommend playing a session with the rules before deciding on them. I was skeptical at first, totally on board for the change now.




As much as I love the discussion (and the civility of everyones' posts!), and hearing all these perspectives and really good points....  This is a PLAYtest.  It doesn't matter whether we "like" it or not, or if we think monsters should be equal to PCs, or if we like swinginess or danger or any number of things.

Play it, and see what happens.  The very things you think it's taking away might actually do the exact opposite and improve your game!

Or not.  But see it in play first and make the call second.  That's the feedback WotC wants.


----------



## CapnZapp

Bill Zebub said:


> Are you referring to fudging during combat, or to throwing supposedly “Deadly” encounters at the party?



I guess what I'm thinking of is this:

If the only way to truly threaten your player (characters) is to throw triple-ultra-deadly encounters at them, then it becomes obvious to any player that tries to keep track that the DM is trying much harder than the game itself to "get them".

If monsters are mostly just big bags of hit points who will wear down heroes only by virtue of having so many hit points, but are generally unable to parry/meet/deflect the heroes more limited or specialized attacks, then you lose verisimilitude. It becomes apparent the monsters don't follow the same rules, the same "laws of physics", the heroes need to follow... but at the same time (perhaps paradoxically) the game perpetuates the idea "heroes are just better than others" since the world around them just aren't equipped to handle their abilities.

To be sure, all D&D (and most rpg) has this to some extent. After all, heroes only need to lose one fight and its over. But still, WotC can and should work harder to maintain the illusion of a level playing field.


----------



## South by Southwest

MonsterEnvy said:


> You just said you won't allow 1s to be auto fails and 20s to be auto successes other than for attack rolls. So when a character rolls a saving throw that requires a 10 and they have a +9 bonus to it they can't fail. And if a another character tries to recall knowledge about an obscure piece of knowledge that a more knowledgeable character failed at with a DC of 22, this character with only a +1 to their score can't succeed.



Oh, I see what you mean now. Sure, where the DC is low enough, success is guaranteed and where it's high enough, failure is guaranteed. Players don't know that, though, and it's important to the fog of war and how they handle it to make sure I never let on what the actual DCs are, so I'll still let them roll.


----------



## Aldarc

Oofta said:


> I skipped most of this (no internet) but how do we know that monsters won't crit? The playtest says PCs crit on a 20, as far as I can tell it's silent on what happens for monsters.
> 
> If it's true. I'll ignore it, just like I'll ignore auto failure/success for skill checks.



Jeremy Crawford talks about it in the promo video for the playtest.


----------



## Minigiant

Here's a q

Does this mean that 1DnD will convert to a 4e style where every monster has high base damage or a bursty recharge attack or get superior dice?


So those 2 orcs will use Aggressive to charge then Auto Crit turn 1.

Level 1 feats Monkey claw indeed.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

Unless there is some epic scale system or balance changes, of course my NPCs and monsters will keep on critting.


----------



## James Gasik

MonsterEnvy said:


> You just said you won't allow 1s to be auto fails and 20s to be auto successes other than for attack rolls. So when a character rolls a saving throw that requires a 10 and they have a +9 bonus to it they can't fail. And if a another character tries to recall knowledge about an obscure piece of knowledge that a more knowledgeable character failed at with a DC of 22, this character with only a +1 to their score can't succeed.
> 
> 
> They give inspiration now.



While that is a buff, it's kind of a boring one.


----------



## pantsorama

I like it.  Of course the devil is in the details, but I see no issue with replacing monster crits with abilities unique to the monster.  Those are much more interesting for the player and the DM, IMO, than occasionally doing extra damage.  I do not understand the need for monsters to play like the PCs anyway.

To the extent that these changes are realized as we learn more, I am all for it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

James Gasik said:


> Maybe critical hits should do something more interesting than more damage, such as debuffing enemies or indirectly buffing allies.  This might be a good place to put things that normally you need to be a Battlemaster to accomplish.



I do like mechanics that allow for bonus successes to be used in multiple ways. 

But…when I play D&D I appreciate the (over?)simplification.


----------



## James Gasik

Bill Zebub said:


> I do like mechanics that allow for bonus successes to be used in multiple ways.
> 
> But…when I play D&D I appreciate the (over?)simplification.



Yeah, something similar to Legend of the Five Rings where you can turn success into a variety of advantages would be nice.


----------



## Reynard

James Gasik said:


> Yeah, something similar to Legend of the Five Rings where you can turn success into a variety of advantages would be nice.



I don't think it would be terribly complicated to provide a few simple options.

"On a critical hit you may choose to a) double your damage dice, b) knock your target prone, c) shove your target 5 feet away from you, or d) cause your target to drop an item they are holding." It literally doesn't need to be any longer that that since all of those terms are defined elsewhere.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> I don't think it would be terribly complicated to provide a few simple options.
> 
> "On a critical hit you may choose to a) double your damage dice, b) knock your target prone, c) shove your target 5 feet away from you, or d) cause your target to drop an item they are holding." It literally doesn't need to be any longer that that since all of those terms are defined elsewhere.




I have always thought that monks should be able to choose stunning strike on a crit.  Or maybe some subclass should.


----------



## OB1

James Gasik said:


> Yeah, something similar to Legend of the Five Rings where you can turn success into a variety of advantages would be nice.



That's exactly what the new inspiration mechanic does.  Once gained, the PC now get's to choose when to use it for maximum advantage.  For example, the Rogue in my party used the advantage he gained on a Nat20 hit to get sneak attack on an enemy he wouldn't have been able to otherwise (he needed to use his bonus action to dash into range and there were no allies around the enemy).  Or a wizard might use it in combination with a leveled spell attack to make it more likely that the spell slot won't be wasted on a miss.



Reynard said:


> I don't think it would be terribly complicated to provide a few simple options.
> 
> "On a critical hit you may choose to a) double your damage dice, b) knock your target prone, c) shove your target 5 feet away from you, or d) cause your target to drop an item they are holding." It literally doesn't need to be any longer that that since all of those terms are defined elsewhere.



But the problem here is that Crits are so unreliable as to be useless for strategy.  All of those abilities sound great, but a PC can't count on them happening when they need it to.  With Inspiration, the PC get's to choose when to use it for maximum advantage.  And with it being able to be passed around once one character has advantage, it's much more reliable as a feature.  One character may not Nat20 for a whole session, but could get inspiration several times because another player is rolling lucky.

I (and the rest of my group) were blown away by how well the new rules worked in actual play.


----------



## Reynard

OB1 said:


> But the problem here is that Crits are so unreliable as to be useless for strategy.  All of those abilities sound great, but a PC can't count on them happening when they need it to.



I'm not sure how that is relevant. You can still use your action to do all those other things. The whole point was to make crits more interesting.


----------



## OB1

Reynard said:


> I'm not sure how that is relevant. You can still use your action to do all those other things. The whole point was to make crits more interesting.



My apologies, I misread your post.  That is an interesting idea.  So you are saying the rule should be, when a PC rolls a Nat20 on a weapon or unarmed strike, they gain inspiration and get to choose to double the weapon damage dice, knock the enemy prone, shove them 5 feet, or cause them to drop what they are holding.  

Yeah, I really like that, actually.  Very cinematic.  On the fence as to whether it's a bit too fiddly for the standard rule set, but would be an awesome optional rule in the DMG.


----------



## James Gasik

OB1 said:


> My apologies, I misread your post.  That is an interesting idea.  So you are saying the rule should be, when a PC rolls a Nat20 on a weapon or unarmed strike, they gain inspiration and get to choose to double the weapon damage dice, knock the enemy prone, shove them 5 feet, or cause them to drop what they are holding.
> 
> Yeah, I really like that, actually.  Very cinematic.  On the fence as to whether it's a bit too fiddly for the standard rule set, but would be an awesome optional rule in the DMG.



I'd remove the double damage option.  "Dead is the best status effect" would make a lot of players ignore the other options.


----------



## Umbran

CapnZapp said:


> No, Umbran - we're discussing D&D games here.




The breadth of player desire and possible game style is still a yawning gulf compared to your authority to assert there is OneTrueWay.



CapnZapp said:


> If you want WotC to turn D&D into Fate, you're free to do so, but it's definitely not a case where I'm the outlier.




How about you not engage in the internet standard "restate the opponent's position in a hyperbolic manner" with me?  Because I'm not putting up with that nonsense.


----------



## Reynard

James Gasik said:


> I'd remove the double damage option.  "Dead is the best status effect" would make a lot of players ignore the other options.



Well, I don't think demanding players play like you want them to play is very helpful. If one player wants to always pick the extra damage, so be it. They are allowed to be boring.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> Well, I don't think demanding players play like you want them to play is very helpful. If one player wants to always pick the extra damage, so be it. They are allowed to be boring.



I think the issue is that ALL players would do that, rendering the alternatives meaningless.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> I think the issue is that ALL players would do that, rendering the alternatives meaningless.



Only if all your fights were in featureless voids where positioning doesn't matter.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> Only if all your fights were in featureless voids where positioning doesn't matter.



Terrain doesn't necessarily affect "dead is the best status condition".  Under the vast majority of circumstances, reducing the enemies' hit points faster is a tactical superior move to just about everything.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> Terrain doesn't necessarily affect "dead is the best status condition".  Under the vast majority of circumstances, reducing the enemies' hit points faster is a tactical superior move to just about everything.



Except when choosing to do something different allows more people to reduce its hit points faster. Because of positioning.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> Except when choosing to do something different allows more people to reduce its hit points faster. Because of positioning.



You're counting on a crit to line up that way?


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> You're counting on a crit to line up that way?



No, but when presented with an opportunity you weigh the options you have. In many case one person dropping another prone or pushing them can set that target up for greater damage than just hitting for an extra d8 or whatever.


----------



## tetrasodium

Reynard said:


> Except when choosing to do something different allows more people to reduce its hit points faster. *Because of positioning.*



No.  Just no.  You are asking the GM to insert the rules wotc removed in order to make positioning matter again & hanging everything on the result of a huge uphill battle to carve those rules back into a system designed to obliviate them in nearly every way that it could.  Not only that though,,, Even the most advanced of the 3.x crit fishing builds would have a heck of a time trying to time a _crit_ so it gets rimed when it matters for "positioning" & 3.x actually had rules that would make "positioning" matter,


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> Terrain doesn't necessarily affect "dead is the best status condition".  Under the vast majority of circumstances, reducing the enemies' hit points faster is a tactical superior move to just about everything.



That would suggest that wizards should only cast damaging spells. 

Surely there is some zone in which a well designed alternative to damage could, in some circumstances, be preferable to damage? And isn’t that how we would _want_ it to be: “sometimes, not always”?


----------



## Bill Zebub

tetrasodium said:


> No.  Just no.  You are asking the GM to insert the rules wotc removed in order to make positioning matter again & hanging everything on the result of a huge uphill battle to carve those rules back into a system designed to obliviate them in nearly every way that it could.  Not only that though,,, Even the most advanced of the 3.x crit fishing builds would have a heck of a time trying to time a _crit_ so it gets rimed when it matters for "positioning" & 3.x actually had rules that would make "positioning" matter,



It doesn’t have to mean literal spatial positioning (although that’s probably how the word was used).


----------



## Reynard

tetrasodium said:


> No.  Just no.  You are asking the GM to insert the rules wotc removed in order to make positioning matter again & hanging everything on the result of a huge uphill battle to carve those rules back into a system designed to obliviate them in nearly every way that it could.  Not only that though,,, Even the most advanced of the 3.x crit fishing builds would have a heck of a time trying to time a _crit_ so it gets rimed when it matters for "positioning" & 3.x actually had rules that would make "positioning" matter,



I'm not sure what has gotten you so excited. There is a tactical aspect to D&D, ergo positioning matters. ie You place your dudes where you do for a reason.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> It doesn’t have to mean literal spatial positioning (although that’s probably how the word was used).



I did mean it spatially, but it matters otherwise as well.


----------



## Blue

the Jester said:


> After a great deal of thought, I have decided that the only way I am okay with removing potential crits from monsters is removing them from the game entirely. I just do not like the pcs getting yet more bennies denied to their foes when they are already pretty darn unlikely to even drop, much less die, in combat.



That can be offset by monster math changing.  And by monster math I don't only include stat blocks, but also encounter design math and daily XP budgets.

For example, if I no longer need to worry about errant crits moving a CR 1/4 creature to damage of a CR 2 creature, I can include more creatures.

Remember, the DM has _all the monsters._  Removing a bennie from the monsters does not in any way mean that the monsters won't make it up in numbers or deadliness elsewhere.


----------



## the Jester

Blue said:


> That can be offset by monster math changing.  And by monster math I don't only include stat blocks, but also encounter design math and daily XP budgets.
> 
> For example, if I no longer need to worry about errant crits moving a CR 1/4 creature to damage of a CR 2 creature, I can include more creatures.
> 
> Remember, the DM has _all the monsters._  Removing a bennie from the monsters does not in any way mean that the monsters won't make it up in numbers or deadliness elsewhere.



It sounds like you prefer combats with less risk. I'm the opposite. It doesn't matter if monsters have other abilities that do lots of damage. The pc fighter can Action Surge, the wizard can cast his high level spells. Pcs can do it too. I like my monsters to be able to push the players to use good tactics and strategies. That will never happen if the stand-and-slug-it-out approach is always reliable, and removing crits increases the odds of that working in any given combat.

I'm fine with removing crits from everyone, but this is a player-favoring rule change that I don't care for- because _the players don't need any more favoring. _The game is already set up with them having a major advantage against their foes.


----------



## Blue

the Jester said:


> It sounds like you prefer combats with less risk.



Not in the slightest.  I do however prefer combats with less swinginess.  As I mentioned before I ran a 4 year campaign using average damage for common enemies.  That wasn't less damage, but it reduced swinginess as well as avoided a roll for most foes.

In 5e, I'm worried that if I put 5 orcs vs. 5 low level PCs, because a randomly rolled crit can bring them from d12+3 to 2d12+3 which is pretty easy to bring a character from up to insta-death.  And that's not fun for the player, and no way to avoid what is just a statistical blip.  So I might put out only three orcs so they defeat them quicker.  Less rounds, less attacks per round, less likely for that crit and then a big 2d12 roll.

With 2024, I might put them straight against the 5 orcs.   That's a more deadly combat, you can't say I'm avoiding risk.  But there is much, much less chance for an unavoidable insta-death, and PCs dropping brings levels of tactics in.

I didn't quote a lot of what you wrote - it's based on a misunderstanding that I like less risk in combats.  Plus much of the rest you wrote I agree with.  The one part I didn't was:



the Jester said:


> I like my monsters to be able to push the players to use good tactics and strategies. That will never happen if the stand-and-slug-it-out approach is always reliable, and removing crits increases the odds of that working in any given combat.



I strongly disagree that fights can not use good tactics and strategies if crits only exist on one side.  Tactics and strategies have nothing to do with crits.  Slugfests aren't reliant on crits to break them up.



the Jester said:


> I'm fine with removing crits from everyone, but this is a player-favoring rule change that I don't care for- because _the players don't need any more favoring. _The game is already set up with them having a major advantage against their foes.



Again, this only favors the player _if monster math stays the same._  If encounter budgets increase, or monsters get a corresponding boost in their statblock, then it's part of a collection of changes that may not favor the players.

Yes, it's all we know right now.  But don't assume that no other changes are coming.  Or are possible for you as a DM.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> This is a good point. In fact, if we recall how crits worked in 3E, it seems pretty clear they were included to inject some uncertainty back into the game after the power level was increased. they were weaponized by players, for sure, but where they really shined was the crit by the power attacking ogre that could one-stroke eliminate even the toughest (level appropriate) barbarian. TSR editions did not really need crits because the power level was generally lower.



During 1e and 2e I played with more than a dozen DMs, dozens if you count convention games and I can recall 0 tables that didn't either use the magazine crits mentioned, create their own crit table, or just do something simple like double damage.  3e didn't put crits back into the game, it simply codified what most people were already doing, like they are doing with the success on a 20 rule.


----------



## pantsorama

the Jester said:


> It sounds like you prefer combats with less risk. I'm the opposite. It doesn't matter if monsters have other abilities that do lots of damage. The pc fighter can Action Surge, the wizard can cast his high level spells. Pcs can do it too. I like my monsters to be able to push the players to use good tactics and strategies. That will never happen if the stand-and-slug-it-out approach is always reliable, and removing crits increases the odds of that working in any given combat.
> 
> I'm fine with removing crits from everyone, but this is a player-favoring rule change that I don't care for- because _the players don't need any more favoring. _The game is already set up with them having a major advantage against their foes.



But the monsters operate under a different rubric.  Many PC abilities persist across encounters / a days.  There is a meta game where the players need to decide how much effort to expend on this encounter.  A monster should never have that consideration.  They leave it all on the floor every time.  PC are playing a season, monsters are playing a one-off match.

So crits are a PC ability that fire randomly and are not a depleting resource (with some edge cases - eg Reckless Attack does not deplete, but using it to crit fish has consequence for a depleatable resources - namely HPs).  So lumping them with resources that replenish with short or long rests is flawed, IMO.  They seem fundamentally different from those other PC bennies you mentioned.  

On the other hand, I can see where you say they are a straight up power boost for PCs (if the monsters don't get them)  But if you take them away for the PCs, will you take away the abilities the monsters get to replace crits too?

Besides - they nerfed them for PCs anyway.  And that is a good thing, if you give the crits other knock on effects.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> No, Umbran - we're discussing D&D games here. Don't assume WotC has suddenly taking a liking to Fate or whatever, and decided to turn their ship around in a completely new direction. And more in particular - don't use this assumption to make the discussion about me. Please. That old "for you perhaps" angle is never constructive and always confrontative.
> 
> In other words, the fact there exists Fate fans where death can never happen unless the players and GM wants it, is not relevant to a discussion about a fundamentally simulationist game such as D&D.



@Umbran was also talking about D&D games.  His point with bring up Fate is that players enjoy a wide variety of ways to play games, including D&D.  Some might want to play D&D with death being handled in the manner Fate handles it.  I'm pretty sure I've seen people on these forums say that they handled death that way, though they didn't link it to Fate.  They simply said that death only happens if someone wants(usually the player) it to happen.

D&D is marvelous in its ability to be adapted to a multitude of playstyles, including your, Umbrans and those who want to play death in the Fate manner.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> During 1e and 2e I played with more than a dozen DMs, dozens if you count convention games and I can recall 0 tables that didn't either use the magazine crits mentioned, create their own crit table, or just do something simple like double damage.  3e didn't put crits back into the game, it simply codified what most people were already doing, like they are doing with the success on a 20 rule.



There's no accounting for anecdotes. We never used crits in D&D or AD&D in the 15 years I played before 3E.


----------



## Cadence

Reynard said:


> There's no accounting for anecdotes. We never used crits in D&D or AD&D in the 15 years I played before 3E.



That explains so much!

j/k


----------



## Maxperson

hbarsquared said:


> As much as I love the discussion (and the civility of everyones' posts!), and hearing all these perspectives and really good points....  This is a PLAYtest.  It doesn't matter whether we "like" it or not, or if we think monsters should be equal to PCs, or if we like swinginess or danger or any number of things.
> 
> Play it, and see what happens.  The very things you think it's taking away might actually do the exact opposite and improve your game!
> 
> Or not.  But see it in play first and make the call second.  *That's the feedback WotC wants.*



I think WotC absolutely wants that feedback, but I don't think that the only feedback they want.  The number(and I have no idea how many it actually is) of people who are like me and don't need to test it to know that we are keeping crits and don't like the change, is also valuable feedback.


----------



## Reynard

Cadence said:


> That explains so much!
> 
> j/k



Which part? the fact that I am old AF?


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> Which part? the fact that I am old AF?



A lot of us are.  I'm just get off my lawn bitter that I've been DMing since 1983 and for the first time ever, I decided to use Vecna as the string puller and ultimate BBEG and then Stranger Things happened.


----------



## Cadence

Reynard said:


> Which part? the fact that I am old AF?




If you only had 15 years in before 3e came out, that doesn't count as old, does it?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> Which part? the fact that I am old AF?




Or that you've been playing the same character all these years because without crits the monsters can't kill anything.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> Or that you've been playing the same character all these years because without crits the monsters can't kill anything.



You don't need crits when you have save or die and proper level drain.


----------



## Lanefan

Blue said:


> Not in the slightest.  I do however prefer combats with less swinginess.



Swinginess is by far the greatest source of risk to the PCs in almost any typical combat in any edition.

Thus, preferring less swinginess directly equates to preferring less risk, all other things being equal.  If you (or, in this case, the designers) then want to make the combats tougher overall to put the risk back in, that's different.


----------



## Blue

Lanefan said:


> Swinginess is by far the greatest source of risk to the PCs in almost any typical combat in any edition.
> 
> Thus, preferring less swinginess directly equates to preferring less risk, all other things being equal.  If you (or, in this case, the designers) then want to make the combats tougher overall to put the risk back in, that's different.



Yes, but then please stop ignoring that for two messages I have said "but not everything else is equal" and given examples.  Is 3 orcs that can crit more risky than 5 orcs that can't?  Not in a normal face-off.  It's easy enough to test if you want, could write a quick Monte Carlo and do a few thousand iterations.

Respectfully, you haven't engaged the main point I keep bringing up -- "all else being equal" directly reads as "am am ignoring your points about possible changes elsewhere in monster maths or XP budget" that we just don't have a whole picture on yet.

And less swinginess can mean MORE risk, because a DM can increase the threat without having to leave a buffer for statistical anomalies getting multiplied out of proportion.  PC doing from up to insta-kill from a crit is a heck of a lot less fun then a PC getting dropped and then other PCs having to rush in and take blows and try to heal them to try to avoid them getting hit again.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Blue said:


> Not in the slightest.  I do however prefer combats with less swinginess.  As I mentioned before I ran a 4 year campaign using average damage for common enemies.  That wasn't less damage, but it reduced swinginess as well as avoided a roll for most foes.
> 
> In 5e, I'm worried that if I put 5 orcs vs. 5 low level PCs, because a randomly rolled crit can bring them from d12+3 to 2d12+3 which is pretty easy to bring a character from up to insta-death.  And that's not fun for the player, and no way to avoid what is just a statistical blip.  So I might put out only three orcs so they defeat them quicker.  Less rounds, less attacks per round, less likely for that crit and then a big 2d12 roll.
> 
> With 2024, I might put them straight against the 5 orcs.   That's a more deadly combat, you can't say I'm avoiding risk.  But there is much, much less chance for an unavoidable insta-death, and PCs dropping brings levels of tactics in.
> 
> I didn't quote a lot of what you wrote - it's based on a misunderstanding that I like less risk in combats.  Plus much of the rest you wrote I agree with.  The one part I didn't was:
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree that fights can not use good tactics and strategies if crits only exist on one side.  Tactics and strategies have nothing to do with crits.  Slugfests aren't reliant on crits to break them up.
> 
> 
> Again, this only favors the player _if monster math stays the same._  If encounter budgets increase, or monsters get a corresponding boost in their statblock, then it's part of a collection of changes that may not favor the players.
> 
> Yes, it's all we know right now.  But don't assume that no other changes are coming.  Or are possible for you as a DM.



You can't properly playtest a rule that has knock-on effects with so many other rules.  They should have taken the crit rule out, or included the rest of combat.


----------



## Micah Sweet

pantsorama said:


> But the monsters operate under a different rubric.  Many PC abilities persist across encounters / a days.  There is a meta game where the players need to decide how much effort to expend on this encounter.  A monster should never have that consideration.  They leave it all on the floor every time.  PC are playing a season, monsters are playing a one-off match.
> 
> So crits are a PC ability that fire randomly and are not a depleting resource (with some edge cases - eg Reckless Attack does not deplete, but using it to crit fish has consequence for a depleatable resources - namely HPs).  So lumping them with resources that replenish with short or long rests is flawed, IMO.  They seem fundamentally different from those other PC bennies you mentioned.
> 
> On the other hand, I can see where you say they are a straight up power boost for PCs (if the monsters don't get them)  But if you take them away for the PCs, will you take away the abilities the monsters get to replace crits too?
> 
> Besides - they nerfed them for PCs anyway.  And that is a good thing, if you give the crits other knock on effects.



What monster abilities?  We don't know anything.  This playtest is too incomplete in this area to provide useful data.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Blue said:


> Yes, but then please stop ignoring that for two messages I have said "but not everything else is equal" and given examples.  Is 3 orcs that can crit more risky than 5 orcs that can't?  Not in a normal face-off.  It's easy enough to test if you want, could write a quick Monte Carlo and do a few thousand iterations.
> 
> Respectfully, you haven't engaged the main point I keep bringing up -- "all else being equal" directly reads as "am am ignoring your points about possible changes elsewhere in monster maths or XP budget" that we just don't have a whole picture on yet.
> 
> And less swinginess can mean MORE risk, because a DM can increase the threat without having to leave a buffer for statistical anomalies getting multiplied out of proportion.  PC doing from up to insta-kill from a crit is a heck of a lot less fun then a PC getting dropped and then other PCs having to rush in and take blows and try to heal them to try to avoid them getting hit again.



He is ignoring those points because they don't exist outside of a comment in a marketing video, which means they can't be tested, which means rules associated with them can't be tested properly.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> He is ignoring those points because they don't exist outside of a comment in a marketing video, which means they can't be tested, which means rules associated with them can't be tested properly.



Or perhaps like me those other things just don't matter to him. Crits are going to happen DM side in every game I run. It doesn't matter to me what they change. If the combination becomes too deadly, I will modify their modifications.


----------



## Lanefan

Blue said:


> Yes, but then please stop ignoring that for two messages I have said "but not everything else is equal" and given examples.  Is 3 orcs that can crit more risky than 5 orcs that can't?  Not in a normal face-off.  It's easy enough to test if you want, could write a quick Monte Carlo and do a few thousand iterations.
> 
> Respectfully, you haven't engaged the main point I keep bringing up -- "all else being equal" directly reads as "am am ignoring your points about possible changes elsewhere in monster maths or XP budget" that we just don't have a whole picture on yet.



And because these things are not yet known, unfortunately all things still are equal. 


Blue said:


> And less swinginess can mean MORE risk, because a DM can increase the threat without having to leave a buffer for statistical anomalies getting multiplied out of proportion.



Leave a buffer?  What is this foreign concept of which you speak?


Blue said:


> PC doing from up to insta-kill from a crit is a heck of a lot less fun then a PC getting dropped and then other PCs having to rush in and take blows and try to heal them to try to avoid them getting hit again.



Thing is, if the ablation rate of PC hit points becomes that predictable the players (if they're smart) will start basing their tactics around it, which is about the last thing I want to see.

And sure, the save-the-downed-guy scenario you posit here is fun - and it happens all the time as things stand now.  I'm not sure taking crits away from monsters will make it any more frequent.  It'll make the insta-kills less frequent, probably, but I don't see that as a good thing in a 5e system that's already quite easygoing on the PCs compared to earlier versions of the game.

That, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I-as-DM make it clear to all that adventuring is dangerous business before they even take to the field.  Then, the dice fall where and how they may.


----------



## jerryrice4949

My groups loves crits.  Both when they get a critical hit and when their adversary does.  Fighting monsters and villains is dangerous and should be a little unpredictable.  From a Simulation perspective I think they work too.  To me a critical hit represents a perfect shot, hit, strike or whatever.  It represents when the the dagger lands perfectly between the plates etc.


----------



## Bill Zebub

There’s no change so small that people won’t find a reason to argue that the game will be ruined. Often the same people who already think it’s ruined.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Maxperson said:


> Or perhaps like me those other things just don't matter to him. Crits are going to happen DM side in every game I run. It doesn't matter to me what they change. If the combination becomes too deadly, I will modify their modifications.



See, to me the sad thing about this is that stuff like this, continuing to make combat lean more and more toward the PCs is likely already decided as a design choice, even if the specifics haven't been.  There's no fighting the tide really.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Micah Sweet said:


> See, to me the sad thing about this is that stuff like this, continuing to make combat lean more and more toward the PCs is likely already decided as a design choice, even if the specifics haven't been.  There's no fighting the tide really.



I agree.  I love 5th edition but having played Basic, 1st edition and 2nd edition I can also say this edition is the most difficult to make challenging encounters for the PCs where they routinely feel in danger.  It can be done but requires more effort than ever before.


----------



## SkidAce

Maxperson said:


> A lot of us are.  I'm just get off my lawn bitter that I've been DMing since 1983 and for the first time ever, I decided to use Vecna as the string puller and ultimate BBEG and then Stranger Things happened.



I hear yah, so many things I have planned or developed independently over the years only to hear new players say "Oh you git that idea from..."

No, no I did not.

/raises glass to @Maxperson


----------



## Greg K

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah this why the new D&D of the last few years and moving forward just isn't for me.  I don't agree with the broad trends that WotC care about.



The same for me. This is why, while I am keeping an eye on the playtest, I am also looking  into other systems such as the upcoming revised Fantasy Age revised core book, Fantasy Craft,  Modiphius Conan.


----------



## Branduil

I don't really like this change. I'm certainly not a hardcore "PCs and monsters must use the same rules!!!" person, in fact I'd prefer to go back to 4e-style monsters, but I think completely eliminating crits will make things feel too safe and predictable. If the problem is monster attacks being too deadly when critting, I think the better solution is to just limit the crit damage. Something like 

Hit: 8d6 + 12 damage (Crit: +4d6)

would work fine.


----------



## James Gasik

Going back to 4e crits, where you just deal maximum damage, might be a better approach.  What I'm curious about is why they seem to want to limit player critical damage to just weapon dice in the first place.


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Going back to 4e crits, where you just deal maximum damage, might be a better approach.  What I'm curious about is why they seem to want to limit player critical damage to just weapon dice in the first place.



They may be planning on toning down monster hit points to stop the whole, "Monsters are just big bags of hit points" complaints.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> They may be planning on toning down monster hit points to stop the whole, "Monsters are just big bags of hit points" complaints.



I wonder by how much though.  I mean, you can't really design around "well, they might have a Rogue and she might get a critical hit", can you?


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> They may be planning on toning down monster hit points to stop the whole, "Monsters are just big bags of hit points" complaints.



I don't think that solves the problem. Then monsters are "just medium sized bags of hit points." If you don't give monsters interesting things to do -- either by adding monster abilities, or by widening the selection of meaningful maneuvers and tactics in general -- they just suck for a shorter period of time. Especially if the goal is to reduce combats in favor of story, the combats that are there need to be interesting, dynamic, and tense.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Even with crits, most monsters are currently just bags of hit points (notwithstanding the ability of DMs to do something interesting with them, i.e. “The Monsters Know What They Are Doing.”)

And, let’s face it, in many/most fights the monsters don’t crit. I suppose the fear of crits is worth something, but I’d rather have them do something interesting more reliably. 

If that could be mitigated with new abilities I’d much rather have active abilities than a 5% chance of a crit.


----------



## Azzy

Ambivalent. Waiting to see how the compensate monsters before I form a real opinion.


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> I wonder by how much though.  I mean, you can't really design around "well, they might have a Rogue and she might get a critical hit", can you?



I'm sure they could figure out the average drop in damage.  They'll probably use internal polling, D&D Beyond and other sources to figure out how many rogues, paladins, etc. are in parties on average and drop hit points a little to compensate. Then they could drop HP some more, and either up the damage output of monsters or add in more interesting abilities to compensate as a danger to the PCs.  And if necessary, rules for adding in extra monsters to increase the challenge.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> I don't think that solves the problem. Then monsters are "just medium sized bags of hit points." If you don't give monsters interesting things to do -- either by adding monster abilities, or by widening the selection of meaningful maneuvers and tactics in general -- they just suck for a shorter period of time. Especially if the goal is to reduce combats in favor of story, the combats that are there need to be interesting, dynamic, and tense.



Yep.  As I mentioned in my prior post, they will have to compensate somehow.  What I realized after I hit post reply on that post, though, is that this theoretical change to monsters could also be why monsters aren't critting.  If damage output is increased, including through new interesting abilities, crits would be a lot more deadly.

Another side effect is that by making monsters die quicker, but be more of a challenge in other ways, they can drop or reduce the horrible 6-8 encounter adventuring day.  Fights won't just be about damage vs. hit points any longer.


----------



## Maxperson

Azzy said:


> Ambivalent. Waiting to see how the compensate monsters before I form a real opinion.



Oh yeah! At this point we're all just talking into the wind with our ideas. We have about as much real idea about what is coming as those, "So what do you all think the 2026 setting is going to be?" threads.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> I don't think that solves the problem. Then monsters are "just medium sized bags of hit points." If you don't give monsters interesting things to do -- either by adding monster abilities, or by widening the selection of meaningful maneuvers and tactics in general -- they just suck for a shorter period of time. Especially if the goal is to reduce combats in favor of story, the combats that are there need to be interesting, dynamic, and tense.



Is reducing combats the goal?  Do we have any evidence of this?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Azzy said:


> Ambivalent. Waiting to see how the compensate monsters before I form a real opinion.



You will never have a career in politics with a poor attitude like that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> Even with crits, most monsters are currently just bags of hit points (notwithstanding the ability of DMs to do something interesting with them, i.e. “The Monsters Know What They Are Doing.”)
> 
> And, let’s face it, in many/most fights the monsters don’t crit. I suppose the fear of crits is worth something, but I’d rather have them do something interesting more reliably.
> 
> If that could be mitigated with new abilities I’d much rather have active abilities than a 5% chance of a crit.



Why can't it be both?  Are monsters uninteresting now because they can potentially crit?


----------



## jerryrice4949

Micah Sweet said:


> Why can't it be both?  Are monsters uninteresting now because they can potentially crit?



Exactly.  

For me the play test doesn’t matter.  I have been doing critical hits for players and monsters/adversaries since 1984 and regardless of the design directions will continue to do so.  Honestly my players love the sense of danger and excitement.  A 20 really means something regardless of who roles it.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> Why can't it be both?  Are monsters uninteresting now because they can potentially crit?



Again I think it is about uncertainty -- for the GM. How many times do we see complaints about how a random crit can kill a character and interrupt the "story"? A lot. I think what they are trying to do is put those big hits under the control of the GM rather than the dice -- and hopefully with something more interesting than just bigger damage.

Just to reiterate: I love crits and I love chaos in combat. Uncertainty is a feature, not a bug, to me, but I don't think that is a universal feeling, especially with many new players who see D&D as a narrative experience by coming in by way of streams.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> Again I think it is about uncertainty -- for the GM. How many times do we see complaints about how a random crit can kill a character and interrupt the "story"? A lot. I think what they are trying to do is put those big hits under the control of the GM rather than the dice -- and hopefully with something more interesting than just bigger damage.
> 
> Just to reiterate: I love crits and I love chaos in combat. Uncertainty is a feature, not a bug, to me, but I don't think that is a universal feeling, especially with many new players who see D&D as a narrative experience by coming in by way of streams.



I feel the same.  It's one of many examples of how the gaming community has fallen out of step with me.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> I feel the same.  It's one of many examples of how the gaming community has fallen out of step with me.



They still exist, but many of them have embraced the OSR -- which is a good way to go IMO if what you want is essentially old school style fun. 5e can do it but it takes work.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> They still exist, but many of them have embraced the OSR -- which is a good way to go IMO if what you want is essentially old school style fun. 5e can do it but it takes work.



Oh sure, that's what _I _want.  In order for that to matter, however, you also need group of like-minded players.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> Oh sure, that's what _I _want.  In order for that to matter, however, you also need group of like-minded players.



For sure. I am running Rappan Athuk in 5e because my players -- all GenXers that grew up with AD&D or B/X -- didn't want to do it with old school rules.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> Why can't it be both?  Are monsters uninteresting now because they can potentially crit?



I didn’t think most of them were interesting before. The ability to crit wasn’t, in my opinion, interesting. Too unlikely to happen, identical across all monsters, and other than hoping it didn’t happen did not elicit much thought from players. 

One might argue that it creates an incentive to keep HP above a certain threshold, but in my experience that doesn’t actually happen.


----------



## CubicsRube

Micah Sweet said:


> That's true, but I still believe in the principle of CapnZapp's post, for my game.  _I _personally don't find a game fun if the PCs aren't being threatened, whether I'm the DM or not.



Shadow of the Demon Lord doesn't typically have crits for enemies (if it doss it's spelled out in the monster stat block), and if played by the book, many fights are extremely deadly.

Crits != threat


----------



## CubicsRube

Vael said:


> I long ago houseruled that as a DM, I don't roll weapon damage, it speeds up the game. So Crits reverted to 4e, I just assumed a maximum roll. A monster that deals 1d8+3 deals 8 damage, 11 on a crit. I like having crits, DMs want to enjoy rolling dice too, but only taking the max, I think makes it a little less swingy.



A lot of people overlook the average damage value in the MM. I'm sure it was put there for an option to use.

If I remember right, in acquisitions inc didn't chris perkins typically use the average + a single die roll?

I'm even more blasphemous. I make players roll defense and give the monsters a fixed attack dc. Runs so fast. I can just say "these 3 orcs attack copernicus and these 2 move in and attack barnaby. AR is 15, tell me how many you fail" and then i can tell them the damage. Might not be for everyone, but i love it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

This thing about fights not being deadly without crits is nonsense. It’s a roughly 10% boost to total damage. And usually even a crit isn’t that bad. It’s just that when the crit lands AND the damage dice are improbably high that bad things can happen. It’s so rare and so random that it doesn’t change tactics; it’s just an arbitrary lightning strike.


----------



## CubicsRube

I've been running shadow of the demon lord for a few years and it dossn't have critical hits for most monsters. (It also has crits as a class feature of fighters as a special treat just for them)

I find one advantage is to make planning difficulty for encounters much easier. If I know on average how much a monster can do, i figure out how many hits the weakest and strongest members of the party can take, and this gives me a good general idea of how hard the combat will be.

Even without crits you have 2 main elements of randomness, if a monster will hit, and if they roll high damage or low. In addition you have the PCs rolls determining how long the fight will last.

And thats without conaider special abilities and environmental effects. Even without crits there's still enough randomness in combat to make things unpredictable.


----------



## Bill Zebub

CubicsRube said:


> Even without crits you have 2 main elements of randomness, if a monster will hit, and if they roll high damage or low. In addition you have the PCs rolls determining how long the fight will last.




Yes that’s the other thing some people are ignoring. Damage does not become perfectly predictable; there’s still a lot of  variance.


----------



## tetrasodium

Bill Zebub said:


> Yes that’s the other thing some people are ignoring*. Damage does not become perfectly predictable; *there’s still a lot of  variance.



In a way it is _explicitly_ so when it matters.


When damage reduces you to 0 hit points *and* there is damage remaining, you die *if* the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.
If damage reduces you to 0 hit points *and* fails to kill you, you fall unconscious (see appendix A). This unconsciousness ends if you regain any hit points.
The number of both is reset to zero when you regain *any* hit points or become stable.

any amount of damage that does not equal or exceed your hit point maximum or cause 3 failed death saves before recovering even a single hit point may as well be zero,  It should be no surprise that there is so much focus on how much less dangerous that it makes monsters given the absence of other details. Not only do we not have even a single example of the crit powered recharge mechanics  we have healing word  looking more accessible between races divine spell list _and_ primal spell lists. I don't believe the announcement video included anything so much as hinting that there  would be changes impacting any of the bullet points & survivability even in a possible variant rule change


----------



## SkidAce

Bill Zebub said:


> This thing about fights not being deadly without crits is nonsense. It’s a roughly 10% boost to total damage. And usually even a crit isn’t that bad. It’s just that when the crit lands AND the damage dice are improbably high that bad things can happen. It’s so rare and so random that it doesn’t change tactics; it’s just an arbitrary lightning strike.



I wouldn't want it to change tactics, but I would like it to have the impact of a lightning strike, i.e. a change in the flow of that particular encounter.


----------



## Bill Zebub

tetrasodium said:


> In a way it is _explicitly_ so when it matters.
> 
> 
> When damage reduces you to 0 hit points *and* there is damage remaining, you die *if* the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.
> If damage reduces you to 0 hit points *and* fails to kill you, you fall unconscious (see appendix A). This unconsciousness ends if you regain any hit points.
> The number of both is reset to zero when you regain *any* hit points or become stable.
> 
> any amount of damage that does not equal or exceed your hit point maximum or cause 3 failed death saves before recovering even a single hit point may as well be zero,  It should be no surprise that there is so much focus on how much less dangerous that it makes monsters given the absence of other details. Not only do we not have even a single example of the crit powered recharge mechanics  we have healing word  looking more accessible between races divine spell list _and_ primal spell lists. I don't believe the announcement video included anything so much as hinting that there  would be changes impacting any of the bullet points & survivability even in a possible variant rule change




Ok, I didn’t consider that use. 

And the reason I didn’t is because most of the time, in my regular group, it doesn’t come up. It’s rare (and scary) for adversaries to attack downed characters. 

I could see a variant rule, in the “gritty” chapter of the DMG, that restores something similar.


----------



## tetrasodium

Bill Zebub said:


> Ok, I didn’t consider that use.
> 
> And the reason I didn’t is because most of the time, in my regular group, it doesn’t come up. It’s rare (and scary) for adversaries to attack downed characters.
> 
> I could see a *variant* rule, in the “gritty” chapter of the DMG, that restores something similar.



My average group has 5 or more players & monsters attack downed players _every_ chance they get, frankly it doesn't matter unless it's a monster like hydra or gross suicidal "lets go kill this mage we know is in there while already running on wackamole healing" type fireball->fireball->fireball TPKs(mostly only in AL for those).  There are just too many ways to bring a PC up at no meaningful cost & immediately escaping to the rear is almost guaranteed safe escape with disengage   Even if a PC does escape & get pursued or beat on with ranged they still reset the death save "clock".

Back with death at -10 it was scary to be down _(bleeding out or not)_ because  bob only got healed exactly as much as he got healed & the negative counted against that healing while monsters dealing 10 points of damage was pretty easy without even  needing to attack the downed NPC.  Adding to the fear was that it was a nontrivial problem for the party to get to bob & help with his dirtnap situation without putting others at risk or making sacrifices.

In 5e it's about as scary as a player checking if they made a successful attack roll or not spoiler: They probably did

Edit:also the crit change isn't presented as an optional or "variant" rule, why should a risk injecting compensation be otherwise?  At what point is it reasonable to ask why players even have hit points instead of just defaulting to God mode unless the gm starts clawing back power over player ptotest?


----------



## Gravenhurst48

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’ll just use both lol
> 
> Like, oh hey this bugbear can do explosive damage and then disappear (recharge 6), sweet. Y’all better hope he don’t crit.
> 
> My table uses the somewhat popular “max normal damage and then roll damage dice again” houserule for crits, so…these crit changes are dead opposite how we roll.



This critical recharge sounds like Assassin's Creed Odyssey, where you can hold an attack to charge it for one super attack. But if you are hit while holding the charge you may lose the attack, so concentration or a dex or str roll may be necessary to keep the charge. But I don't care, I am sticking with my own D&D. No more new editions for this DM.


----------



## Gravenhurst48

FireLance said:


> If double damage is too swingy, I wouldn't mind criticals imposing special effects, for example:
> 
> *Greatclub. *_Melee Weapon Attack:_ +8 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. _Hit: _18 (3d8 + 5) bludgeoning damage. _Crit:_ 18 (3d8 + 5) bludgeoning damage and if the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 16 Constitution saving throw or be stunned for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a succes



I do use roleplaying extra moments, and for my giants a crit means the PC gets clobbered either pounded into the pavement eating dirt stunned and prone, or tossed 10 ft possibly taking falling damage, or a longer distance depending on the giants size and strength. You may outsmart or outwit a giant but don't naughty word with one cuz you might end up dead from a random critical hit.


----------



## Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper

I prefer a risk vs reward gaming style.  When I DM, both players and the DM will always be able to crit.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper said:


> I prefer a risk vs reward gaming style.  When I DM, both players and the DM will always be able to crit.



Hmm. That’s fine to prefer monster crits, but what does that have to do with risk vs reward?


----------



## Gravenhurst48

DND_Reborn said:


> *Concerning Critical Hits:*
> 
> For example, an Ogre deals 2d8+4, for a potential of 20 points. The PCs fighting an ogre know such damage is possible and the risk involved.
> 
> But a critical that is for 4d8+4 and a potential 36, that is the sort of hit that leads to downing a PC unexpectedly. (I suppose ruining the fun for some...)
> 
> *The simple solution is to just make criticals maximum damage instead of rolling double dice.* A lot of people do use this option. The result is barely less than the average of doubling the dice, after all.
> 
> In the above example, double dice averages 22 points, while maximum is 20, so just two points shy.



I believe between AD&D 2E and the Players Options edition, a variant was full damage on first 20 roll and a second roll was allowed: If no 20, no second die damage roll; if a 20 is rolled a second time, then a second die of full damage is given. I can see this rule was carried over into 3E/3.5 by adapting the critical range on weapons and monsters natural weapons - threat ranges. If you hit within the threat range you crit, so 18-20 is a crit and the two options for damage was to just allow two damage dice for random amount, or one full die amount, if I recall correctly.


----------



## Gravenhurst48

Lanefan said:


> Why wouldn't they apply well to monsters?
> 
> A claw or a fist or a big set of teeth are weapons, aren't they?



Especially, when their natural weapons are considered magical. Why would claws that are +1 daggers not be able to critical damage a PC?


----------



## Stalker0

Bill Zebub said:


> This thing about fights not being deadly without crits is nonsense. It’s a roughly 10% boost to total damage. And usually even a crit isn’t that bad. It’s just that when the crit lands AND the damage dice are improbably high that bad things can happen. It’s so rare and so random that it doesn’t change tactics; it’s just an arbitrary lightning strike.



It does change perception though, and that's the trick. Critical hits often add a lot of perceived threat, without a lot of actual threat.

Sure the chance that a monsters crits on both attacks and does a crapton of damage is extremely rare....but it could happen, and so it might be on a player's mind. This creates extra threat and challenge without having to up the monster's offensive power. 

The problem of course is that every once in a while that perceived threat becomes real, and under the right circumstance can kill a player "arbitrarily", especially at low levels. Sure the chance that a brand new player with their 1st character takes a big crit and dies in their first combat is probably very low....but if it happens you might have just lost a player permanently. Though of course a veteran DM might realize that this is just one circumstance where maybe its best not to let the die fall where they may and make some mechanical or narrative "mulligan" for the player.


----------



## Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper

Bill Zebub said:


> Hmm. That’s fine to prefer monster crits, but what does that have to do with risk vs reward?




If you play with player only crits, then combat for the players poses less risk as they are not fearful of the DM rolling 20's.  As a player you gain all the benefits of scoring a crit, but have no fear of a crit being scored against you.  No risk, but gain a reward.

I have seen so many video games ruined by developers listening to the whiners that want the game made easier for them (usually a vocal minority).  In my opinion, this is a step in that direction -- however, unlike a video game where the ruleset is static, in roleplaying we have a dynamic ruleset at the option of the DM.  In that line of thought, I would prefer to see crits scrored for both sides as part of the core rules, but then just list as an option for perhaps when playing with younger players, or with players that want to focus more on story, that player only crits might want to be considered.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Stalker0 said:


> It does change perception though, and that's the trick. Critical hits often add a lot of perceived threat, without a lot of actual threat.
> 
> Sure the chance that a monsters crits on both attacks and does a crapton of damage is extremely rare....but it could happen, and so it might be on a player's mind. This creates extra threat and challenge without having to up the monster's offensive power.
> 
> The problem of course is that every once in a while that perceived threat becomes real, and under the right circumstance can kill a player "arbitrarily", especially at low levels. Sure the chance that a brand new player with their 1st character takes a big crit and dies in their first combat is probably very low....but if it happens you might have just lost a player permanently. Though of course a veteran DM might realize that this is just one circumstance where maybe its best not to let the die fall where they may and make some mechanical or narrative "mulligan" for the player.



Well, a lot if that depends on your opinion regarding lethality.  Personally I just don't take a PC that seriously until they have a few levels under their belt.  If they die, they die, and I just pull up another character idea.


----------



## Reynard

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper said:


> If you play with player only crits, then combat for the players poses less risk as they are not fearful of the DM rolling 20's.  As a player you gain all the benefits of scoring a crit, but have no fear of a crit being scored against you.  No risk, but gain a reward.
> 
> I have seen so many video games ruined by developers listening to the whiners that want the game made easier for them (usually a vocal minority).  In my opinion, this is a step in that direction -- however, unlike a video game where the ruleset is static, in roleplaying we have a dynamic ruleset at the option of the DM.  In that line of thought, I would prefer to see crits scrored for both sides as part of the core rules, but then just list as an option for perhaps when playing with younger players, or with players that want to focus more on story, that player only crits might want to be considered.



Crits aren't the only way to impose risk. The mentioned recharge attacks -- whatever they turn out to be -- are another. So are special maneuvers outside of just doing damage. A reduction in uncertainty doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in risk. Now, I like chaos and swing when running D&D so whether i use this rule will depend highly on what they replace it with, but even without crits wel) played monsterswith cool abilities are always a threat to PCs.


----------



## OB1

Stalker0 said:


> It does change perception though, and that's the trick. Critical hits often add a lot of perceived threat, without a lot of actual threat.
> 
> Sure the chance that a monsters crits on both attacks and does a crapton of damage is extremely rare....but it could happen, and so it might be on a player's mind. This creates extra threat and challenge without having to up the monster's offensive power.
> 
> The problem of course is that every once in a while that perceived threat becomes real, and under the right circumstance can kill a player "arbitrarily", especially at low levels. Sure the chance that a brand new player with their 1st character takes a big crit and dies in their first combat is probably very low....but if it happens you might have just lost a player permanently. Though of course a veteran DM might realize that this is just one circumstance where maybe its best not to let the die fall where they may and make some mechanical or narrative "mulligan" for the player.



The rarity and randomness of it is exactly the problem.  Across 100,000 tables every week those rare outcomes are going to occur at some of them. I had it happen in the game I ran last weekend, where in the first round of combat, my monsters had 3 Nat20s on 5 attacks.  

I'd rather monsters up their offensive power in general, providing a more consistent challenge.  Take the Astral Elf Warriors from BAM.  They get two longsword attacks (1d8+1) and add on radiant damage (3d6) on every hit.  With 2 attacks, they're dealing 31 points of damage a round.  If they crit on both attacks in the first round, that's suddenly 60 points of damage caused by nothing but pure dumb luck.  



Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper said:


> If you play with player only crits, then combat for the players poses less risk as they are not fearful of the DM rolling 20's.  As a player you gain all the benefits of scoring a crit, but have no fear of a crit being scored against you.  No risk, but gain a reward.




Two things here.  First, players have been nerfed as well, since only weapon and unarmed strike damage now doubles (no sneak attack, smite, or spell crits).  So really, the balance of the new rule is a slight power bump to martial classes (which many people believe was needed).  

Second, what kind of skillful play can a player use to avoid crits?  They are completely random.  And unlike a video game, there is no save point to go back to if the party is wiped out from a random run of bad luck in the first round of combat before they even get a chance to act.


----------



## Micah Sweet

OB1 said:


> The rarity and randomness of it is exactly the problem.  Across 100,000 tables every week those rare outcomes are going to occur at some of them. I had it happen in the game I ran last weekend, where in the first round of combat, my monsters had 3 Nat20s on 5 attacks.
> 
> I'd rather monsters up their offensive power in general, providing a more consistent challenge.  Take the Astral Elf Warriors from BAM.  They get two longsword attacks (1d8+1) and add on radiant damage (3d6) on every hit.  With 2 attacks, they're dealing 31 points of damage a round.  If they crit on both attacks in the first round, that's suddenly 60 points of damage caused by nothing but pure dumb luck.
> 
> 
> 
> Two things here.  First, players have been nerfed as well, since only weapon and unarmed strike damage now doubles (no sneak attack, smite, or spell crits).  So really, the balance of the new rule is a slight power bump to martial classes (which many people believe was needed).
> 
> Second, what kind of skillful play can a player use to avoid crits?  They are completely random.  And unlike a video game, there is no save point to go back to if the party is wiped out from a random run of bad luck in the first round of combat before they even get a chance to act.



Quite frankly, bad luck is part of the game to me.  If there was no chance of things suddenly turning against me, it would be less fun.


----------



## OB1

Micah Sweet said:


> Quite frankly, bad luck is part of the game to me.  If there was no chance of things suddenly turning against me, it would be less fun.



Oh I agree that bad luck is an important part of the game.  I'm suggesting that the old crit rules are a poor way to implement that.  And I'm only saying that after seeing the new rules in my last few play sessions.


----------



## Micah Sweet

OB1 said:


> Oh I agree that bad luck is an important part of the game.  I'm suggesting that the old crit rules are a poor way to implement that.  And I'm only saying that after seeing the new rules in my last few play sessions.



How would you suggest implementing bad luck working against the PCs?


----------



## OB1

Micah Sweet said:


> How would you suggest implementing bad luck working against the PCs?



Primarily through recharge abilities and increased damage ranges for hits. Keeps any single encounter more swingy than the old crit rules.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> How would you suggest implementing bad luck working against the PCs?



There's a whole 20 sided dice involved in every action.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper said:


> If you play with player only crits, then combat for the players poses less risk as they are not fearful of the DM rolling 20's.  As a player you gain all the benefits of scoring a crit, but have no fear of a crit being scored against you.  No risk, but gain a reward.




Usually the phrase "risk:reward" suggests a choice, in which you voluntarily take on risk in the hope of getting a reward.  The barbarian ability Reckless Attacks is an example of this.  Or the -5/+10 feats.  

I suppose you could say that adventuring itself is the risk, and it's riskier with monster crits.  But, really, is anybody going to opt out of the playing the game, or even opt out of a single encounter, because monsters can crit?

I get what you are saying, but it's a misapplication of the phrase.  In my opinion.

On the other hand, if players could make a conscious choice to leave themselves vulnerable to monster crits, in return for some benefit, then it would be an example of risk:reward.



Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper said:


> I have seen so many video games ruined by developers listening to the whiners that want the game made easier for them (usually a vocal minority).  In my opinion, this is a step in that direction -- however, unlike a video game where the ruleset is static, in roleplaying we have a dynamic ruleset at the option of the DM.  In that line of thought, I would prefer to see crits scrored for both sides as part of the core rules, but then just list as an option for perhaps when playing with younger players, or with players that want to focus more on story, that player only crits might want to be considered.




I find it's pretty typical in these scenarios for the losing side to say that the winning side was a "vocal minority", with zero evidence to support that.  And also that they are kids.  Again, without offering evidence.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> Crits aren't the only way to impose risk. The mentioned recharge attacks -- whatever they turn out to be -- are another. So are special maneuvers outside of just doing damage. A reduction in uncertainty doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in risk. Now, I like chaos and swing when running D&D so whether i use this rule will depend highly on what they replace it with, but even without crits wel) played monsterswith cool abilities are always a threat to PCs.




Yeah, I really hope it's lots of cool recharge abilities.  Something pretty dangerous that can be used once, and then recharges on a crit.  By assuming it's used in the first round the CR can be modeled appropriately, and then after that the players will usually* have a one round forewarning that it could be used again, and can prepare accordingly.

Personally, I think "Holy $%#& we have to neutralize this monster before its next turn!" is way more interesting as a game mechanic than "Let's hope it doesn't roll a 20."

*Unless the monster has multi-attack. But it could be written into the rules that recharge doesn't take effect until the following turn.  In fact, it would have to be written that way if they didn't want a lucky monster to be able to use it multiple times in a turn.

EDIT: Oh, and weaker monsters could be designed to start combat without the recharge ability, so no initial spike.  I mean, it could be as simple as "On a hit, the creature rolls rolls double damage dice. (Recharge)."  It's a crit with foreshadowing.

EDIT 2: Thinking more about this, I really like the idea of this kind of foreshadowing.  It changes the calculus on decision-making, and elevates abilities like Frostbite and Dodge.  And/or, instead of "hit the goblin with the fewest hit points because they are all equal threats" it's "well, should I finish off this one, or see if in one turn I can kill the one who is about to crit?"  It adds variability to monsters in a single stat block.


----------



## OB1

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah, I really hope it's lots of cool recharge abilities.  Something pretty dangerous that can be used once, and then recharges on a crit.  By assuming it's used in the first round the CR can be modeled appropriately, and then after that the players will usually* have a one round forewarning that it could be used again, and can prepare accordingly.
> 
> Personally, I think "Holy $%#& we have to neutralize this monster before its next turn!" is way more interesting as a game mechanic than "Let's hope it doesn't roll a 20."
> 
> *Unless the monster has multi-attack. But it could be written into the rules that recharge doesn't take effect until the following turn.  In fact, it would have to be written that way if they didn't want a lucky monster to be able to use it multiple times in a turn.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and weaker monsters could be designed to start combat without the recharge ability, so no initial spike.  I mean, it could be as simple as "On a hit, the creature rolls rolls double damage dice. (Recharge)."  It's a crit with foreshadowing.
> 
> EDIT 2: Thinking more about this, I really like the idea of this kind of foreshadowing.  It changes the calculus on decision-making, and elevates abilities like Frostbite and Dodge.  And/or, instead of "hit the goblin with the fewest hit points because they are all equal threats" it's "well, should I finish off this one, or see if in one turn I can kill the one who is about to crit?"  It adds variability to monsters in a single stat block.



Love all of this, but I would also keep the traditional recharge that provides a 16-33% base chance each round.  Adding recharge on a Nat20 increases the odds of the recharge happening by 5% each attack it makes (scary with a dragon, with 4 base attacks and 3 potential legendary action attacks each round for a total chance of recharge at 68%).  And I really love the idea of some monsters starting without it's recharge active.  The foreshadowing of recharge abilities makes them a consistently great way to strike fear into players every combat.


----------



## Stalker0

Reynard said:


> There's a whole 20 sided dice involved in every action.



The trick with the d20 is that its binary (at least for an attack roll). I hit or I don't.

Now assuming the damage roll has a reasonable range, there isn't much variability in there. Either I get hit and take some damage, or I don't, but as long as I have a good amount of hitpoints the result doesn't matter all that much in the moment. It certainly might matter for the encounter, but its not going to "shake things up".

Now where things get a little more spicy is with creatures with several attacks (as now we have the chance for 0-4 lets say attacks hitting, that's a big swing in damage), or attacks with a very high damage variance (ie a sneak attacking rogue or a spell with lots of d6s rolled).


However, the real key to why crits work....its the marketing. When a DM says, "I just critted you".....BOOM, instant fear. Everyone stops, conversations end, everyone waits for the damage total. While mechanically crits aren't often that bad, they FEEL really powerful. Their rarity is their strength, and man if you get critted twice in the same round....even if the damage isn't so bad your heart skips a beat.

A d20 roll can't elicit that same response because the results are expected. A hit or a miss....both happen all the time, ho hum, moving on. Crits are special by design, and so they are treated by players and DMs alike as special. There are mechanically other ways to do that, but you aren't going to get the same response by just Widing the range of damage, it simply won't feel the same.

To really provide the marketing of a crit, any new mechanic really needs two things:

1) Rarity: Whatever X is, it can't be too frequent. Scary things happening all the time stop being scary.
2) Build up: One of the reason the crit works is the separation of attack and damage roll. I roll the 20, a crit! Now we wait, the DM rolls the damage, the player waits with anticipation. That build up is a key aspect of the moment. You can't do that with just a damage roll, even if the roll is high, as there is no build up. Sure its surprising when that weapon did monstrous damage, but if there is no "warning" you are about to get wrecked, there's no time to let the fear build up.


Now in theory recharge powers can do this. They can be rare enough (especially if a creature doesn't start with the power recharged). and the recharge roll becomes that moment, the DM announces (Oh, I got my recharge roll!), and now the players have to sit and wait to see how the monster will use it, building that tension.


----------



## Lanefan

Stalker0 said:


> The problem of course is that every once in a while that perceived threat becomes real, and under the right circumstance can kill a player "arbitrarily", especially at low levels. Sure the chance that a brand new player with their 1st character takes a big crit and dies in their first combat is probably very low....but if it happens you might have just lost a player permanently.



If I lost a player permanently due to an early PC death then that was a player I didn't want in the first place.  Especially after they've been warned that the game is hard on the PCs and death is a constant companion.

The players who, on an early death, pick up the dice and with determination in their eyes start rolling up the next one - those are the keepers.


----------



## Lanefan

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, a lot if that depends on your opinion regarding lethality.  Personally I just don't take a PC that seriously until they have a few levels under their belt.  If they die, they die, and I just pull up another character idea.



I'll sometimes take them quite seriously right from day one, but if they die anyway then so be it.  One-hit wonders, we call them. 

If the character somehow became interesting and-or memorable during its brief career then I-as-player have done my job.  On to the next.


----------



## Bill Zebub

OB1 said:


> Love all of this, but I would also keep the traditional recharge that provides a 16-33% base chance each round.  Adding recharge on a Nat20 increases the odds of the recharge happening by 5% each attack it makes (scary with a dragon, with 4 base attacks and 3 potential legendary action attacks each round for a total chance of recharge at 68%).  And I really love the idea of some monsters starting without it's recharge active.  The foreshadowing of recharge abilities makes them a consistently great way to strike fear into players every combat.




If something recharges on a d6 then an additional 1/20 is inconsequential.  I think I would keep the two things separate.  I would only give powerful creatures traditional d6 recharge abilities (like breath weapons), but I'd give a lot more creatures a nat 20 recharge, even if it's just an autocrit next turn.


----------



## Lanefan

OB1 said:


> Two things here.  First, players have been nerfed as well, since only weapon and unarmed strike damage now doubles (no sneak attack, smite, or spell crits).  So really, the balance of the new rule is a slight power bump to martial classes (which many people believe was needed).



I don't mind sneak attack crits if the attack is with a melee weapon, giving on rare occasions a stupendous amount of damage.  Otherwise, IMO those things should never have been crit-able in the first place and the designers are going the right direction in that regard.

And yes, it does serve as a nice, though sutble, boost to the melee warriors.  That said, they should still IMO be subject to possible crits from their foes.


OB1 said:


> Second, what kind of skillful play can a player use to avoid crits?  They are completely random.  And unlike a video game, there is no save point to go back to if the party is wiped out from a random run of bad luck in the first round of combat before they even get a chance to act.



The odds of a whole party getting wiped from crits, even at 1st level, are slim enough that they really shouldn't factor into design.  IME there's always at least one who finds a way to escape or flee or just not get hit, meaning the party's story can continue with said survivor(s) going back to town and recruiting a new group.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> I don't mind sneak attack crits if the attack is with a melee weapon, giving on rare occasions a stupendous amount of damage.  Otherwise, IMO those things should never have been crit-able in the first place and the designers are going the right direction in that regard.




Ok, that's really kinda brilliant. I'm always looking for ways to get rogues to get in there with their daggers or short swords, instead of cheesing the shoot/hide cycle.  Allowing sneak attack damage to count as weapon damage when it's a melee attack would be a great way to do that.  

I could even see making it a rule for daggers only.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah, I really hope it's lots of cool recharge abilities.  Something pretty dangerous that can be used once, and then recharges on a crit.  By assuming it's used in the first round the CR can be modeled appropriately, and then after that the players will usually* have a one round forewarning that it could be used again, and can prepare accordingly.
> 
> Personally, I think "Holy $%#& we have to neutralize this monster before its next turn!" is way more interesting as a game mechanic than "Let's hope it doesn't roll a 20."
> 
> *Unless the monster has multi-attack. But it could be written into the rules that recharge doesn't take effect until the following turn.  In fact, it would have to be written that way if they didn't want a lucky monster to be able to use it multiple times in a turn.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and weaker monsters could be designed to start combat without the recharge ability, so no initial spike.  I mean, it could be as simple as "On a hit, the creature rolls rolls double damage dice. (Recharge)."  It's a crit with foreshadowing.
> 
> EDIT 2: Thinking more about this, I really like the idea of this kind of foreshadowing.  It changes the calculus on decision-making, and elevates abilities like Frostbite and Dodge.  And/or, instead of "hit the goblin with the fewest hit points because they are all equal threats" it's "well, s*hould I finish off this one, or see if in one turn I can kill the one who is about to crit?*"  It adds variability to monsters in a single stat block.



While the ideas here have some merit, the idea of crits being at all predictable just doesn't mesh with the in-fiction ideas of fog-of-war and battlefield chaos.  Never mind the meta aspects this introduces, as per the bolded.

This could still be a cool way of foreshadowing monster powers, though - that it spends a round obviously loading up for something big (obvious example: a dragon sucking in a great big lungful of air in one round before lettin' 'er fly in the next).  But it doesnt need to have anything to do with crits, which IMO should be a random element.


----------



## Fifth Element

Lanefan said:


> This could still be a cool way of foreshadowing monster powers, though - that it spends a round obviously loading up for something big (obvious example: a dragon sucking in a great big lungful of air in one round before lettin' 'er fly in the next).



This is one of those "why have I never thought of something like this before?" moments. Having a "recharge" mechanic which actually represents the monster taking an action in the game world (such as a dragon sucking in breath) is bloody brilliant. You don't need some add-on mechanic to determine whether something recharges - the monster simply has to use the appropriate actions, serving to both recharge the power and inform the PCs about what might be going on.


----------



## OB1

Wow, between action re-charge, d6 and Nat20, you could really lean into some interesting design, and even give legendary monsters several options, making each fight against them different.  For example

*Adult Red Dragon

Fire Breath* (starts charged, action to re-charge)
*Double Multi-attack* - The Dragon can use it's multi-attack twice, instead of once when it takes the multi-attack action(starts un-charged, charges on any Nat20)
*Healing Surge* - Dragon can use a legendary action to gain 100 HP  (starts uncharged, roll a d6 at end of turn, charging on a 6)


----------



## CubicsRube

I really like the idea of monster recharges on a crit, it could make for sone interesting design espdcially in cases where you might have a monster with a devastating recharge ability.

Anything that adds more strategy and/or tactics to d&d is good for me.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I think part of why I'm never going to be onboard with taking away monster crits is that I think it is premised on wanting encounters to be much more fine-tuned, balanced, and balanceable than I approach them. My approach to encounter balance is to eyeball CRs to make sure I'm using creatures in the right league, but otherwise to build encounters based around what makes sense for story or dungeon ecology, and then let players make the decisions to engage, avoid, or run. If it is a major set-piece encounter, or if I am in any way railroading or tricking players into it, or if the danger isn't obvious, I'll also count up the rough number of attacks and other actions each side will get. At very low levels I worry a little more, and may even think of outs for if the players lose the fight. And of course I'm always applying my rough sense of what the particular party (or a comparable party) is capable of.

But I never actually do the official math of how you are supposed to calculate encounters. This no-crit thing (and defenses of it) seems like it is partly about making the official math, which doesn't really work, work out better. I don't feel like monsters will or should be so finely tuned that occasionally doing double dice damage breaks anything.

If WotC actually follows through and gives lots of new abilities to monsters to compensate for the loss of crits, I will appreciate having some cool new monster designs. At my table they will still crit though. And I don't worry in the slightest about that unbalancing anything.


----------



## CubicsRube

I've used foreshadowing fairly often - most notably in dungeonworld which requires it if played correctly - and I've always found it great. 

Even just so the players can get an idea on who the monster is likely to target on their turn adds a lot to combat. If you tell the party the barghest turns it baleful gaze on the wizard to the exclusion of everyone else, it makes the fight more interesting and fun in my experience.

Now that i'm not playing a pbta game i'm having to remind myself to do this, but when i do i usually do it in reaponse to a player action. "In response the ogre readies its club to pound you in to the dirt" "the twisted ent ignores your hacks at it and starts to sing" "the dragon casts its ancient gaze across the battlefield and draws in breath"


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> While the ideas here have some merit, the idea of crits being at all predictable just doesn't mesh with the in-fiction ideas of fog-of-war and battlefield chaos.  Never mind the meta aspects this introduces, as per the bolded.
> 
> This could still be a cool way of foreshadowing monster powers, though - that it spends a round obviously loading up for something big (obvious example: a dragon sucking in a great big lungful of air in one round before lettin' 'er fly in the next).  But it doesnt need to have anything to do with crits, which IMO should be a random element.




Unsurprisingly, I disagree about the need for in-fiction rationale.  I mean, sure, broadcast the breath weapon by the big intake of breath but I'm all for interesting mechanics first, fictional explanations second: if a mechanic leads to interesting decision-making, I'm going to use it.  

If you really need an in-fiction representation, make something up.  Maybe goblin eyes glow just before they land a particularly devastating blow?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> Unsurprisingly, I disagree about the need for in-fiction rationale.  I mean, sure, broadcast the breath weapon by the big intake of breath but I'm all for interesting mechanics first, fictional explanations second: if a mechanic leads to interesting decision-making, I'm going to use it.
> 
> If you really need an in-fiction representation, make something up.  Maybe goblin eyes glow just before they land a particularly devastating blow?



Fictional explanation take precedence with me as often as possible.  Focusing on mechanical outcomes first is the main reason 4th ed turned me off ultimately.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> Fictional explanation take precedence with me as often as possible.  Focusing on mechanical outcomes first is the main reason 4th ed turned me off ultimately.




I believe you're in the camp that believes Fighters should get epic, superhuman abilities, right?  (If I'm remembering that wrong, apologies.). Do you imagine these abilities being of unlimited use, or is it only a certain number of times per rest? If the latter, what's the in-game fiction for such abilities only being used X number of times per day?

In any event, the workaround could be:

Monsters get Inspiration for nat 20s, just like PCs
Instead of getting advantage, monsters have special abilities that are fueled by inspiration.
Solved.


----------



## Reynard

CubicsRube said:


> I really like the idea of monster recharges on a crit, it could make for sone interesting design espdcially in cases where you might have a monster with a devastating recharge ability.
> 
> Anything that adds more strategy and/or tactics to d&d is good for me.



Related: do (general) roll recharge in the open?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> I believe you're in the camp that believes Fighters should get epic, superhuman abilities, right?  (If I'm remembering that wrong, apologies.). Do you imagine these abilities being of unlimited use, or is it only a certain number of times per rest? If the latter, what's the in-game fiction for such abilities only being used X number of times per day?
> 
> In any event, the workaround could be:
> 
> Monsters get Inspiration for nat 20s, just like PCs
> Instead of getting advantage, monsters have special abilities that are fueled by inspiration.
> Solved.



Actually, I like the Level Up fighter (and the marshal), but I would also be fine with a superhuman, "mythic" fighting character as a separate class.

The in-game fiction is that those abilities are either unlimited in use, if that makes sense, or you use some kind of stamina metacurrency which uses points to power abilities (much like Level Up uses for combat maneuvers).


----------



## nevin

payn said:


> Balance in some things, but not all things.



Balance in the stuff I want it balanced in and not the other stuff is what I keep hearing in my games.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Upon yet further reflection, I think the only explanation for the newly proposed system of crit rules is that the designers really wanted to get rid of crits entirely, but decided late in the process that that was a nonstarter, and this crit regime is the dumb compromise they landed on to salvage things.

Crits are one of the things players already seem to most often get confused about (usually in regard to doubling dice rolled versus doubling dice damage). WotC is usually inclined to prioritize accessibility, and yet they have added three new complications to how a core mechanic people already struggled with works by adding an "only certain dice" rule, a "no magic" rule, and a "no monsters" rule. And players now have to master this much more complicated system for the sake of a much less important mechanic. This had me baffled.

But if you look at it from the perspective of them boldly deciding to eliminate crits entirely for the sake of simplicity, balance, etc., designing around that, but _then_ getting cold feet and partially walking back that decision, and just arriving at a messy compromise for how crits work, with simplicity or accessibility entirely out the window, it makes a lot more sense how such terrible rules (in terms of the editions overriding simplicity goals) could make it to playtest.

Meanwhile, in some alternate reality, they went with a more conservative yet elegant initial tweak like "crits just do max damage", designed around that, didn't need to walk it back and make a weird broken compromise system to technically still have crits but make them more complicated and less relevant, and alternate reality me is giving them plaudits for their cleverness rather than thinking they've lost the plot.


----------



## OB1

Conversely, they could be setting up different weapons having different crit values, but wanted to test a more generic version first.  What if the next iteration of the rule stated "When you crit with a weapon or unarmed strike that you are proficient with, in addition to the normal weapon damage, you also roll the Crit dice of that weapon and add it to the total."  And then you get things like

Dagger (crit 1d6)
Club (crit 2d4)
Short Bow (crit 1d4)
Long Bow (crit 1d6)
Rapier (crit 1d4)
Long Sword (crit 1d8)
Great Sword (crit 2d6)
Great Axe (Crit 3d6))

This would further differentiate weapons, is easily marked on a character sheet, and could even be included with monster weapon attacks 

Add on to that monsters recharging on a crit (which also encourages DMs to always use recharge abilities first), and suddenly you've got a much more interesting crit system than before, while not being too complicated.  Players just need to look at their weapon damage to see what they roll when they crit.  DMs just need to mark the recharge for their monster)


----------



## shadowoflameth

The expressed reason to do this is that monsters critical hitting can kill low level characters outright and that this is not fun. Absolutely true, but nerfing monsters is not fun either. Nerfing the paladin or rogue is very not fun. Better to address this with a look at the death system, or by bringing back minons. Minions did static damage in a prior edition and so did not roll crit dice. The critical change is the only item in the playtest material that I outright hated.


----------



## payn

OB1 said:


> Conversely, they could be setting up different weapons having different crit values, but wanted to test a more generic version first.  What if the next iteration of the rule stated "When you crit with a weapon or unarmed strike that you are proficient with, in addition to the normal weapon damage, you also roll the Crit dice of that weapon and add it to the total."  And then you get things like
> 
> Dagger (crit 1d6)
> Club (crit 2d4)
> Short Bow (crit 1d4)
> Long Bow (crit 1d6)
> Rapier (crit 1d4)
> Long Sword (crit 1d8)
> Great Sword (crit 2d6)
> Great Axe (Crit 3d6))
> 
> This would further differentiate weapons, is easily marked on a character sheet, and could even be included with monster weapon attacks
> 
> Add on to that monsters recharging on a crit (which also encourages DMs to always use recharge abilities first), and suddenly you've got a much more interesting crit system than before, while not being too complicated.  Players just need to look at their weapon damage to see what they roll when they crit.  DMs just need to mark the recharge for their monster)



Why ever use a short bow or rapier tho?


----------



## Nikosandros

payn said:


> Why ever use a short bow or rapier tho?



Personally, I dislike the rapier as it is now. With 1d8 damage and finesse it contributes to the imbalance of dexterity vs strength.


----------



## payn

Nikosandros said:


> Personally, I dislike the rapier as it is now. With 1d8 damage and finesse it contributes to the imbalance of dexterity vs strength.



Sure, I was speaking to OB1's crit system, but this highlights some of the weapon issues of the past. Differentiation often lends itself to optimal and suboptimal choices.


----------



## Art Waring

shadowoflameth said:


> The expressed reason to do this is that monsters critical hitting can kill low level characters outright and that this is not fun. Absolutely true, but nerfing monsters is not fun either.



Every GM I know, including myself, almost always fudges crits against 1st level characters made by monsters. It was kind of an unspoken rule that you didn't want your character to die right out of the gate.

I don't like fudging at all, but in this case it is useful.

I get their reasoning, but cutting out crits for monsters across the board leaves out exiting oh s***! moments at higher levels. 

They are trying to make the game friendly to new players, but they can sometimes take it too far.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Art Waring said:


> Every GM I know, including myself, almost always fudges crits against 1st level characters made by monsters. It was kind of an unspoken rule that you didn't want your character to die right out of the gate.
> 
> I don't like fudging at all, but in this case it is useful.
> 
> I get their reasoning, but cutting out crits for monsters across the board leaves out exiting oh s***! moments at higher levels.
> 
> They are trying to make the game friendly to new players, but they can sometimes take it too far.



You know, as much as 5e is my favorite D&D rule set, taking newbie-friendlyness too far is by far my biggest complaint about it.  That philosophy has so many knock-on effects that make the game less engaging for me.


----------



## Reynard

Art Waring said:


> Every GM I know, including myself, almost always fudges crits against 1st level characters made by monsters. It was kind of an unspoken rule that you didn't want your character to die right out of the gate.
> 
> I don't like fudging at all, but in this case it is useful.
> 
> I get their reasoning, but cutting out crits for monsters across the board leaves out exiting oh s***! moments at higher levels.
> 
> They are trying to make the game friendly to new players, but they can sometimes take it too far.



I think it is hardly universal that people are precious about their low level PCs, and that GMs always fudge to protect them.


----------



## Art Waring

Reynard said:


> I think it is hardly universal that people are precious about their low level PCs, and that GMs always fudge to protect them.



I'm of course speaking only from my own personal experience.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I wonder if this is really "newbie" friendliness...after all, separate rules for NPCs and PCs actually adds to complexity...and more that the audience has changed over the decades away from system mastery and skilled play and more toward story telling and roleplaying.  My sense, from my limited sample set of personal experience, is that many players who have joined since 5e, but aren't necessarily "new" anymore, don't get as much thrill from overcoming mechanical challenges as my nerdy friends and I did when we started playing.  They seem to be more into their characters, and thus maybe less interested in a game where they might lose those characters.

I mean, from my point of view somebody who has been playing for 5 years is still "new", but what I'm saying is that I wonder if rules like this are targeted less at first time players, and more at the millions of players of the new generation.


----------



## Reynard

Art Waring said:


> I'm of course speaking only from my own personal experience.



Fair enough. Your first paragraph suggested otherwise.


----------



## Art Waring

Reynard said:


> Fair enough. Your first paragraph suggested otherwise.





Art Waring said:


> Every GM I know, including myself,



That's in the first sentence, in case you missed it. That is a statement from personal experience, how does this statement suggest otherwise?


----------



## OB1

payn said:


> Why ever use a short bow or rapier tho?



This was just off the top of my head (I'm sure someone else could balance it better), but someone might use them because they provide better standard damage than other choices the PC might have, whereas another option might not provide as great standard damage (like the club) but have a great crit bonus.  Also, overall, I wanted melee weapons to have better crits than ranged weapons.


----------



## Reynard

Art Waring said:


> That's in the first sentence, in case you missed it. That is a statement from personal experience, how does this statement suggest otherwise?



I don't want to get in an argument about semantics but "everyone i know" is often code for "this is true." Like i said, I misread you.


----------



## Art Waring

Reynard said:


> I don't want to get in an argument about semantics but "everyone i know" is often code for "this is true." Like i said, I misread you.



It's cool, I don't like to argue either 

yeah i can see how "everyone i know" can be misread, but I really mean it that every GM I know doesn't like killing lv-1 PC's, anything beyond that is just fine to some of course...

Thank you for clearing that up!


----------



## Reynard

Art Waring said:


> It's cool, I don't like to argue either
> 
> yeah i can see how "everyone i know" can be misread, but I really mean it that every GM I know doesn't like killing lv-1 PC's, anything beyond that is just fine to some of course...
> 
> Thank you for clearing that up!



Well, now you "know" one GM who prefers it IF that's what the dice decide.


----------



## OB1

Thinking more and more that monsters should get something similar to PCs on Nat20s.  Let's call it Monstrous Momentum.

*Monstrous Momentum*
When an enemy rolls a Nat 20 on a d20 Test, they gain Monstrous Momentum.  If they already have it, they can share it with another monster within 60 feet who doesn't have it and isn't incapacitated.  Monstrous momentum can be spent in two ways.

Gain advantage on a d20 Test
Choose to succeed on recharging an ability recharge that they failed

With this, monsters without recharge abilities still get a chance to hit or save more often, while those with them recharge more often, And instead of a Nat20 causing an instant moment of fear for the group, it's dragged out as momentum swings in favor of the monsters.


----------



## Art Waring

One option I thought of would be to bring back critical confirmations for monsters:

So monsters still get crits, but they have to roll a second nat20 to confirm the crit. It allows for them to still exist while somewhat reducing their impact.


----------



## tetrasodium

Art Waring said:


> One option I thought of would be to bring back critical confirmations for monsters:
> 
> So monsters still get crits, but they have to roll *a second nat20* to confirm the crit. It allows for them to still exist while somewhat reducing their impact.



That's an infinitesimally small percentage that may as well not exist.  Skipping from percentages to decimal for purposes of illustration:
Rolling a 20 is a 5% chance   & 5% is 1 in 0.05 in decimal
Rolling a _second_ would be 5% of _that_ or 1 in 0.0025 putting it in a realm that's probably worse than the odds of winning _something_ from a scratchoff from the gas station.

Editne in x is backwards but on my phone


----------



## Art Waring

tetrasodium said:


> That's an infinitesimally small percentage that may as well not exist.



Ok, so perhaps increase the threat range to 17 and up, you can increase or decrease the odds by whatever margin you desire.


----------



## Clint_L

Now that I've had more time with One D&D, I'm really not feeling all of the proposals. In particular, the changes to critical hits strike me as very undesirable.

1. Critical hits now just double the weapon damage. This is a nerf to everyone, but a huge nerf to paladins and rogues, in particular. Assassination rogues, especially, become basically useless - their super power would be that on a surprise attack they get to add an extra 4.5 damage, on average (assuming they are using a D8 weapon). Woohoo. That'll definitely "assassinate" their target!

2. Only players can have critical hits. Setting aside that critical hits would now kinda suck...why take them away from monsters and NPCs? The potential for a devastating critical is one of the only things keeping players honest in the, let's face it, ultra forgiving play style of 5e. And unpredictable events are fun for the story and the game. I love when an unexpected critical back foots the party and they have to react.

I don't get where these nerfs to critical hits are coming from. Critical hits are fun! The game works fine with big critical hits, so why the pressing need to nerf them? These proposed changes just seem like the fun police deciding to step in. I sure hope these nerfs don't stick around, but if they do, I ain't implementing them.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I have to admit, my MAIN desire for 50th Anniversary D&D is that they _only_ change things that make the game better, things that are _widely_ considered faults (like improving the ranger and sorcerer and excising the game's built-in racism) and not "change for changes sake". 

I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about how 5e Crits worked (aside from when ya roll low after critting - which this DOESN'T fix.)

So... while I don't mind this change much (I'd have to see monsters with more recharges, though), it doesn't pass my first criteria.


----------



## Micah Sweet

FitzTheRuke said:


> I have to admit, my MAIN desire for 50th Anniversary D&D is that they _only_ change things that make the game better, things that are _widely_ considered faults (like improving the ranger and sorcerer and excising the game's built-in racism) and not "change for changes sake".
> 
> I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about how 5e Crits worked (aside from when ya roll low after critting - which this DOESN'T fix.)
> 
> So... while I don't mind this change much (I'd have to see monsters with more recharges, though), it doesn't pass my first criteria.



Sadly, I don't think edition change has _ ever_ passed that criteria.  The design team inevitably wants to put their own mark on the game.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Micah Sweet said:


> Sadly, I don't think edition change has _ ever_ passed that criteria.  The design team inevitably wants to put their own mark on the game.



No, it never has. I know you have your reservations, but for me, this one feels like it has the most potential to pull that off. (Not perfectly, mind, but more so than at any time in the past).

Honestly, 4e Essentials was the closest (IMO) in the past to pulling it off, and I have friends that insist that "4.5" absolutely "ruined 4e", so YMMV.

We will have to wait and see, in the end.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I’m wondering if rogues should get sneak attack damage on a 20 even if they wouldn’t normally get it (didn’t meet the conditions, or already used it this turn). So no double SA damage, but very occasionally get a bonus one.


----------



## Gorck

I mentioned this in another thread, but I should probably post it here since it pertains to monster crits:

If their main concern was monsters killing level 1 characters, why not just give level 1 characters more HP?  Maybe borrow a little from 4e and have characters add their CON _score _rather than their CON _modifier _at 1st level, but add their CON modifier to their HD when gaining additional levels.

So a 1st level Fighter with a 16 CON (+3) would start with 26 HP instead of 13 HP, but still gain 1d10+3 at additional levels.  Even a 1st level Wizard with a meager 10 CON (+0) would start with 16 HP instead of 6 HP.


----------



## Clint_L

5e is already so _safe_, though. Even at Level 1. You need some risk to keep the dramatic tension high enough so that the story is exciting and fun. Nerfing critical hits takes away one of the last real risk factors.

This just seems like a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## Lanefan

Gorck said:


> I mentioned this in another thread, but I should probably post it here since it pertains to monster crits:
> 
> If their main concern was monsters killing level 1 characters, why not just give level 1 characters more HP?  Maybe borrow a little from 4e and have characters add their CON _score _rather than their CON _modifier _at 1st level, but add their CON modifier to their HD when gaining additional levels.
> 
> So a 1st level Fighter with a 16 CON (+3) would start with 26 HP instead of 13 HP, but still gain 1d10+3 at additional levels.  Even a 1st level Wizard with a meager 10 CON (+0) would start with 16 HP instead of 6 HP.



The knock-on effect here, of course, is to even further widen the already-too-big mechanical gap between a 0th-level (i.e. a commoner) and a 1st-level character; a gap which IMO should be little if any greater than the gap between 1st and 2nd level.

There's no viable solution for this other than some combination of:
--- reduce monster damage and PC hit point values across the board - in other words, rein everything in a bit such that the commoner fits in to the progression again (and as a pleasant side effect this would make commoner hirelings a bit more viable in the field at low level)
--- start play at higher-than-1st level at your table
--- accept as a fact of life that a number - sometimes quite a big number - of low-level characters are going to die in thier attempts to become rich and-or famous.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Lanefan said:


> The knock-on effect here, of course, is to even further widen the already-too-big mechanical gap between a 0th-level (i.e. a commoner) and a 1st-level character; a gap which IMO should be little if any greater than the gap between 1st and 2nd level.
> 
> There's no viable solution for this other than some combination of:
> --- reduce monster damage and PC hit point values across the board - in other words, rein everything in a bit such that the commoner fits in to the progression again (and as a pleasant side effect this would make commoner hirelings a bit more viable in the field at low level)
> --- start play at higher-than-1st level at your table
> --- accept as a fact of life that a number - sometimes quite a big number - of low-level characters are going to die in thier attempts to become rich and-or famous.



Options 1 or 3 sound great to me.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> The knock-on effect here, of course, is to even further widen the already-too-big mechanical gap between a 0th-level (i.e. a commoner) and a 1st-level character; a gap which IMO should be little if any greater than the gap between 1st and 2nd level.
> 
> There's no viable solution for this other than some combination of:
> --- reduce monster damage and PC hit point values across the board - in other words, rein everything in a bit such that the commoner fits in to the progression again (and as a pleasant side effect this would make commoner hirelings a bit more viable in the field at low level)
> --- start play at higher-than-1st level at your table
> --- accept as a fact of life that a number - sometimes quite a big number - of low-level characters are going to die in thier attempts to become rich and-or famous.



Do you even play 5e?


----------



## OB1

@Clint_L keep in mind that the new CritHit rules aren't a nerf to everyone.  Barbarians, Fighters and Monks see no difference with the new rules.  They also gain inspiration from a Crit, which is a power bump.

For most other classes the benefit of inspiration outweighs what they are losing from Crits.  Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Bards, for example, only have a couple of spells each that can benefit from the old crit rules.  Artificers, Sorcerers, and Wizards lose a bit (especially from cantrips) but also gain by being able to hit more reliably with spell slots that require an attack roll by using inspiration.

Warlocks will see a reduction in Eldritch Blast (0.25 per attack), but again, get the benefit of Inspiration.  And that's assuming that they don't get an exception to the general rule in a new class feature.

Rogues are trickier, as you have to weigh the lost sneak attack damage against the ability to gain sneak attack without using a bonus action.  In play, I've seen our Rogue twice in two sessions use inspiration after disengaging from an enemy to get sneak attack on them, thus getting the 'lost' damage from the initial crit back on the second attack.  And again, we don't know if there will be an exception written into the new Rogue Sneak Attack feature that will allow them to either double that damage on a crit, or give them some other bonus.  I'm guessing they will.

As for Paladins, they definitely got their Nova damage nerfed (some may say that's a good thing) but hitting more reliably allows them to smite more often.  And keep in mind that every smite not used because it's being saved for a crit is lost damage equal to a crit. 

And finally for Monsters, the new approach is to have a wider damage range be the driver of randomness in combat rather than relying on Crits to provide those swings.  Take a MM CR3 Bugbear Chief.  Each of it's hits can do between 5 and 19 damage (spiking to 35 on a crit).  The Spelljammer CR3 Astral Elf Warrior, on the other hand, does between 5 and 29 damage on each hit.  By building damage spikes into the regular attack, instead of relying on Crits to get those spikes, each hit by an enemy has the potential for a scary swing in momentum, not just the ones that happen after a Crit.


----------



## Gorck

One thing that keeps bugging me in this thread is people continue to say that the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage doesn't get doubled on a critical hit.  Sneak Attack is addition weapon damage and the 1DD playtest packet says, "If a player character rolls a 20 for an attack roll with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike, the attack is also a Critical Hit, which means it deals extra damage to the target; you roll the damage dice of the Weapon or Unarmed Strike a second time and add the second roll as extra damage to the target."  I'm not seeing where critting wouldn't include the Sneak Attack damage as well.  Am i missing something?

I get that it wouldn't include the Paladin's Divine Smite because you spend a spell slot to use that featutre and the description says it deals radiant damage in addition to the weapon's damage, which would imply that it's magical (and spells no longer crit).


----------



## tetrasodium

Gorck said:


> One thing that keeps bugging me in this thread is people continue to say that the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage doesn't get doubled on a critical hit.  Sneak Attack is addition weapon damage and the 1DD playtest packet says, "If a player character rolls a 20 for an attack roll with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike, the attack is also a Critical Hit, which means it deals extra damage to the target; you roll the damage dice of the Weapon or Unarmed Strike a second time and add the second roll as extra damage to the target."  I'm not seeing where critting wouldn't include the Sneak Attack damage as well.  Am i missing something?
> 
> I get that it wouldn't include the Paladin's Divine Smite because you spend a spell slot to use that featutre and the description says it deals radiant damage in addition to the weapon's damage, which would imply that it's magical (and spells no longer crit).



This is where bonus types being shed hurts clarity & complicates things.  Sneak attack damage used to be something like "precision based damage" or just precision damage.  Weapon damage or weapon dice are obviously not part of sneak attack or the rogue could give his cheap off the shelf starting rapier to a fighter who gets to deal sneak attack damage/dice with it.


----------



## James Gasik

Yeah I mean, the Rogue says:

Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

But it doesn't say or specify what sort of damage that is.  

If you look at the Paladin's Smite, the only difference in the language is "in addition to the weapon's damage".  It could be that this matters, and Rogues can still get their extra damage on a critical hit....but until someone at WotC clarifies the intent it's up in the air.

On the other hand, Enlarge says: "While these Weapons are enlarged, the target's Attack with them deal 1d4 extra damage."  So maybe that d4 is doubled (not terribly exciting even if so...)?


----------



## Clint_L

OB1 said:


> @Clint_L keep in mind that the new CritHit rules aren't a nerf to everyone.  Barbarians, Fighters and Monks see no difference with the new rules.  They also gain inspiration from a Crit, which is a power bump.
> 
> For most other classes the benefit of inspiration outweighs what they are losing from Crits.  Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Bards, for example, only have a couple of spells each that can benefit from the old crit rules.  Artificers, Sorcerers, and Wizards lose a bit (especially from cantrips) but also gain by being able to hit more reliably with spell slots that require an attack roll by using inspiration.
> 
> Warlocks will see a reduction in Eldritch Blast (0.25 per attack), but again, get the benefit of Inspiration.  And that's assuming that they don't get an exception to the general rule in a new class feature.
> 
> Rogues are trickier, as you have to weigh the lost sneak attack damage against the ability to gain sneak attack without using a bonus action.  In play, I've seen our Rogue twice in two sessions use inspiration after disengaging from an enemy to get sneak attack on them, thus getting the 'lost' damage from the initial crit back on the second attack.  And again, we don't know if there will be an exception written into the new Rogue Sneak Attack feature that will allow them to either double that damage on a crit, or give them some other bonus.  I'm guessing they will.
> 
> As for Paladins, they definitely got their Nova damage nerfed (some may say that's a good thing) but hitting more reliably allows them to smite more often.  And keep in mind that every smite not used because it's being saved for a crit is lost damage equal to a crit.
> 
> And finally for Monsters, the new approach is to have a wider damage range be the driver of randomness in combat rather than relying on Crits to provide those swings.  Take a MM CR3 Bugbear Chief.  Each of it's hits can do between 5 and 19 damage (spiking to 35 on a crit).  The Spelljammer CR3 Astral Elf Warrior, on the other hand, does between 5 and 29 damage on each hit.  By building damage spikes into the regular attack, instead of relying on Crits to get those spikes, each hit by an enemy has the potential for a scary swing in momentum, not just the ones that happen after a Crit.



Everyone gets a nerf because everyone can and does sometimes do more than just weapon damage depending upon things like sub-class, spell effects, items, etc. That includes fighters, monks, and barbarians, especially at higher levels. It's possible that the addition of inspiration balances it out for those few classes, but I doubt it. Rangers use hunter's mark as a staple, which would be nerfed. Etc.

Rogues aren't trickier. It's just huge nerf. Rogues don't need a bonus action to get sneak attack every round, they just need to engage an opponent who is also engaged with an ally. Not even that for swashbucklers. Rogues assume that they will be doing sneak attack damage on at least one attack per round and if they aren't, there are unusual circumstances or they don't know how to rogue.

Paladin nova damage is fun and class-defining. Hitting more reliably rather than seeing them occasionally light someone up makes for a more boring session, IMO. And the potential for nova damage is what makes them different from and helps them keep pace with barbarians and fighters, who already hit harder and more reliably.

It's not the average damage loss to Warlocks, which is minimal, it's the loss of the potential for a huge hit. In other words, the loss of potential _fun_. Rolling a 20 on your Eldritch Blast is a good time. Arguments amount the difference in average damage totally miss the point of what is fun about critical hits.

For monsters, a critting on a 20 makes it an event. Again, it's fun at the table, and raises the stakes. I'm not interested in Spelljammer monsters who won't see most tabletops, I'm interested in the Monster Manual and, to a lesser extent, Monsters of the Multiverse. This update needs to be backwards compatible, so even if wider damage variants might add more random threat to new monsters, it doesn't do anything for the vast majority that players will actually face: ogres, orcs, owlbears, etc. But I also don't think it's nearly as fun. And 5e is already a game where players can too easily mitigate risk, so it needs the chance of an unpredictable damage spike to keep at least some semblance of risk. Stories need stakes.

The current system works. A natural 20 on an attack is an _event_, and everyone gets it. That's fun. Something interesting happens. Natural 1s and natural 20s generate story. I am not interested in anything that makes combat, already the most boring part of the game, even more predictable.


----------



## Clint_L

Building on my last point, I think a lot of the discussion about critical hits is focused on math. That's a mistake. The beauty of building randomness into the game is that it moves the story in unexpected directions. It forces the players and DM to react and improvise. Right now, natural 1s and 20s are instant events in the story. I will have a hard time supporting any change that reduces opportunities for them to happen.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Clint_L said:


> Everyone gets a nerf because everyone can and does sometimes do more than just weapon damage depending upon things like sub-class, spell effects, items, etc. That includes fighters, monks, and barbarians, especially at higher levels. It's possible that the addition of inspiration balances it out for those few classes, but I doubt it. Rangers use hunter's mark as a staple, which would be nerfed. Etc.
> 
> Rogues aren't trickier. It's just huge nerf. Rogues don't need a bonus action to get sneak attack every round, they just need to engage an opponent who is also engaged with an ally. Not even that for swashbucklers. Rogues assume that they will be doing sneak attack damage on at least one attack per round and if they aren't, there are unusual circumstances or they don't know how to rogue.
> 
> Paladin nova damage is fun and class-defining. Hitting more reliably rather than seeing them occasionally light someone up makes for a more boring session, IMO. And the potential for nova damage is what makes them different from and helps them keep pace with barbarians and fighters, who already hit harder and more reliably.
> 
> It's not the average damage loss to Warlocks, which is minimal, it's the loss of the potential for a huge hit. In other words, the loss of potential _fun_. Rolling a 20 on your Eldritch Blast is a good time. Arguments amount the difference in average damage totally miss the point of what is fun about critical hits.
> 
> For monsters, a critting on a 20 makes it an event. Again, it's fun at the table, and raises the stakes. I'm not interested in Spelljammer monsters who won't see most tabletops, I'm interested in the Monster Manual and, to a lesser extent, Monsters of the Multiverse. This update needs to be backwards compatible, so even if wider damage variants might add more random threat to new monsters, it doesn't do anything for the vast majority that players will actually face: ogres, orcs, owlbears, etc. But I also don't think it's nearly as fun. And 5e is already a game where players can too easily mitigate risk, so it needs the chance of an unpredictable damage spike to keep at least some semblance of risk. Stories need stakes.
> 
> The current system works. A natural 20 on an attack is an _event_, and everyone gets it. That's fun. Something interesting happens. Natural 1s and natural 20s generate story. I am not interested in anything that makes combat, already the most boring part of the game, even more predictable.



I have to admit, while I'm interested in trying out these new rules for the sake of giving them a shot, when I think of them - your post describes the things I worry about.

It DOES sound as if we are "fixing" a _minorly_ disappointing event (the death of a PC from a random crit) by patching in a _majorly_ disappointing event (rolling a "crit" and having it do nothing/very little).

Or more correctly, another minorly disappointing event that will _happen far more often_.

(In addition, I would argue that the sudden death of a character is only _potentially_ disappointing - it can also be _thrilling_, depending on how it's taken.)

It may very well be a net-fun-negative. On top of that, it's an unnecessary change (something I think we really need to avoid). Unlike, say, fixing the Ranger and Sorcerer and removing cultural tropes from Races, there wasn't a lot of community clamor for "change how crits work!".

The more I think on it, the more I'm against it.


----------



## Clint_L

I agree - I think changes in general need to be either basically consensus things (monks, rangers, sorcerers get a boost) or new additions. WotC needs to avoid the perception of nerfs. Nobody likes nerfs. And I really, really think they need to think twice about nerfing the most universal event in the game, the natural 20. The most popular D&D show is called _Critical Role _for a reason.


----------



## tetrasodium

James Gasik said:


> Yeah I mean, the Rogue says:
> 
> Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
> 
> But it doesn't say or specify what sort of damage that is.
> 
> If you look at the Paladin's Smite, the only difference in the language is "in addition to the weapon's damage".  It could be that this matters, and Rogues can still get their extra damage on a critical hit....but until someone at WotC clarifies the intent it's up in the air.
> 
> On the other hand, Enlarge says: "While these Weapons are enlarged, the target's Attack with them deal 1d4 extra damage."  So maybe that d4 is doubled (not terribly exciting even if so...)?



it doesn't say what it_ is_ either.  In that situation either unspecified is always  its own thing or the gm gets forced into an unsavory position of needing to be the one deciding if bob gets to do something or not & taking all of the blame for player frustration or imbalance either way.


----------



## Lanefan

OB1 said:


> Take a MM CR3 Bugbear Chief.  Each of it's hits can do between 5 and 19 damage (spiking to 35 on a crit).  The Spelljammer CR3 Astral Elf Warrior, on the other hand, does between 5 and 29 damage on each hit.



A 5-19 range is 2d8+3 but what combination of dice-and-plus gives a range of 5-29?  3d9+2 and  4d7+1 both work but that seems odd in that they haven't otherwise been using non-standard die sizes for anything.


----------



## OB1

Lanefan said:


> A 5-19 range is 2d8+3 but what combination of dice-and-plus gives a range of 5-29?  3d9+2 and  4d7+1 both work but that seems odd in that they haven't otherwise been using non-standard die sizes for anything.



1d10+1 weapon plus 3d6 radiant. I’ve noticed the secondary damage effect on MotM and later monsters has been going up.


----------



## Nikosandros

Lanefan said:


> A 5-19 range is 2d8+3 but what combination of dice-and-plus gives a range of 5-29?  3d9+2 and  4d7+1 both work but that seems odd in that they haven't otherwise been using non-standard die sizes for anything.



It's 1d10+1 (versatile longsword, +1 str) +3d6 radiant damage.


----------



## Lanefan

Ah - I hadn't even thought about multiple dice-and-plus combinations.


----------



## cbwjm

Lanefan said:


> Ah - I hadn't even thought about multiple dice-and-plus combinations.



I was the same, couldn't figure it out when you asked, spent some time wondering how, then thought that I should probably scroll down because someone has likely answered it.


----------



## OB1

Clint_L said:


> Everyone gets a nerf because everyone can and does sometimes do more than just weapon damage depending upon things like sub-class, spell effects, items, etc. That includes fighters, monks, and barbarians, especially at higher levels. It's possible that the addition of inspiration balances it out for those few classes, but I doubt it. Rangers use hunter's mark as a staple, which would be nerfed. Etc.
> 
> Rogues aren't trickier. It's just huge nerf. Rogues don't need a bonus action to get sneak attack every round, they just need to engage an opponent who is also engaged with an ally. Not even that for swashbucklers. Rogues assume that they will be doing sneak attack damage on at least one attack per round and if they aren't, there are unusual circumstances or they don't know how to rogue.
> 
> Paladin nova damage is fun and class-defining. Hitting more reliably rather than seeing them occasionally light someone up makes for a more boring session, IMO. And the potential for nova damage is what makes them different from and helps them keep pace with barbarians and fighters, who already hit harder and more reliably.
> 
> It's not the average damage loss to Warlocks, which is minimal, it's the loss of the potential for a huge hit. In other words, the loss of potential _fun_. Rolling a 20 on your Eldritch Blast is a good time. Arguments amount the difference in average damage totally miss the point of what is fun about critical hits.
> 
> For monsters, a critting on a 20 makes it an event. Again, it's fun at the table, and raises the stakes. I'm not interested in Spelljammer monsters who won't see most tabletops, I'm interested in the Monster Manual and, to a lesser extent, Monsters of the Multiverse. This update needs to be backwards compatible, so even if wider damage variants might add more random threat to new monsters, it doesn't do anything for the vast majority that players will actually face: ogres, orcs, owlbears, etc. But I also don't think it's nearly as fun. And 5e is already a game where players can too easily mitigate risk, so it needs the chance of an unpredictable damage spike to keep at least some semblance of risk. Stories need stakes.
> 
> The current system works. A natural 20 on an attack is an _event_, and everyone gets it. That's fun. Something interesting happens. Natural 1s and natural 20s generate story. I am not interested in anything that makes combat, already the most boring part of the game, even more predictable.



You're right, rogues don't need it every round, but it sure is nice to have when you need it.  In the playtest with my group, the Rogue used Inspiration twice in 2 sessions to get a sneak attack he wouldn't have otherwise, thereby transferring the crit damage lost in the moment to another moment.  How many times in your sessions does the Rogue end up going first, but can't get sneak attack because no allies are in place?  With inspiration from a Nat20, they now can.

Warlocks losing the potential of a huge hit?  An additional 1d10 damage every 20 attacks?  Ranger even more so, an additional 1d6 every 20 attacks?  What's so huge about those numbers?

Again, regarding the Paladin, if you're holding back smites waiting for a crit, and take a long rest with even 1 slot left because of it, you've left all that damage on the table by not smiting on a regular attack.  The exact same damage you would have added with a crit.  

I agree that monsters Criting is an event.  If the new ruleset doesn't add some type of inspiration feature (or recharge feature) for monsters, I'll likely add it myself.  I think an Adult Red Dragon recharging it's breath weapon when it nat20's on a legendary action is far more terrifying to the party than getting a couple extra die of damage.  And while I used something from Spelljammer to illustrate the point, I could pick any number of monsters from MotM that have the same type of adjustment from the 2014 MM.  And of course, we'll be getting a new MM in 2024 that will also be in the new style.

The Paladin and Rogue in my group did not like the rules when they heard them.  After playing with them, they loved them so much that we've decided to permanently adopt them.  It feels fun.  Every Nat20 (not just the attacks) are an event now.  The party is spending inspiration more freely, and combining it with their class features for maximum effect.  Monsters are having big damage swings from round to round because of the new damage ranges, making every attack as scary as a crit is with MM monsters.


----------



## pantsorama

OB1 said:


> keep in mind that the new CritHit rules aren't a nerf to everyone.  Barbarians, Fighters and Monks see no difference with the new rules.  They also gain inspiration from a Crit, which is a power bump.
> 
> For most other classes the benefit of inspiration outweighs what they are losing from Crits.  Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Bards, for example, only have a couple of spells each that can benefit from the old crit rules.  Artificers, Sorcerers, and Wizards lose a bit (especially from cantrips) but also gain by being able to hit more reliably with spell slots that require an attack roll by using inspiration.



Right.  100%!

Just to add to what you have said.  The idea that Crits were nerfed is just a flat out misnomer.  They, in fact, added a ribbon when you roll a 20 - Inspiration.  And, yes, they did also reduce the (frankly boring) ribbon that "doubled" ALL your dice damage - In favor of making melee characters better.

So you still get the elation of rolling a 20 - just now you get a flexible (interesting) benefit. Choice on when and where to expend Inspiration is better than double damage any day of the week, IMO.  Making melee characters fun again and cutting out the ability of archers to own combat without risk is also a good thing.

Heck, if you want that extra damage AS WELL from your crits, then get up on the front line, buddy. (Not you - OB1 - those who say they love doing a crit)

Just thinking about how it would make my Barbarian play so differently from round to round makes me interested in finding a GM that isn't so hidebound.

EDIT: Mea Culpa - I have no idea where I got the idea that only melee weapons did and extra die of damage.


----------



## Mephista

Paladins deciding to smite or not after they see a 20 always felt cheesy to me. I'd rather just reword smite so the spell slot isn't consumed on a miss, but you can't Crit fish like you can now. 

 That said, part of the fun of a crit is picking up a bunch of extra dice and rolling it.  

On the other hand, rerolling a bunch of spell dice on disintegrate is a bit too much.

So, I'm just assuming the intent is non-spell damage dice and let Smite, etc work.


----------



## shadowoflameth

3e had rules for different crit values with different weapons. i.e greataxe was x3 and Lance was x4 when mounted. The language implies that only the weapon damage not sneak attack is included. Perhaps with the thousands of words spent on this the language will be clarified if this is part of the final rules. 

My feeling is that WOTC is trying to fix the wrong problems. I've played and DM'd hundreds of sessions and players are not complaining about level 1 character death or that crits don't work. They complain that there are feat, spell and subclass options that are valuless. Maybe feats having prerequisites will give someone a reason to take weaponmaster because as is, they don't. Maybe a re-write will inspire someone to play a Way of the 4 Elements Monk, because the subclass options are less playable than what the level monk already has. Maybe Find Traps will actually find traps. I could go on but you get the idea. They spend time and money backpedaling away from some Hadozee lore, but they don't even do an errata or a playtest on content that millions have complained about for years and that I mention here. If they are serious about backward compatibility, then playtest one should have been 'Here are existing elements that we've heard you on for years and proposed revisions. Playtest a Way of the 4 Elements Monk that we think will work well. We know you like Alert but try this version of Weaponmaster. Look what we've done to make True Strike and Find Traps work more as intended. That would boost sales in 2024.


----------



## Maxperson

shadowoflameth said:


> 3e had rules for different crit values with different weapons. i.e greataxe was x3 and Lance was x4 when mounted. The language implies that only the weapon damage not sneak attack is included. Perhaps with the thousands of words spent on this the language will be clarified if this is part of the final rules.
> 
> My feeling is that WOTC is trying to fix the wrong problems. I've played and DM'd hundreds of sessions and players are not complaining about level 1 character death or that crits don't work. They complain that there are feat, spell and subclass options that are valuless. Maybe feats having prerequisites will give someone a reason to take weaponmaster because as is, they don't. Maybe a re-write will inspire someone to play a Way of the 4 Elements Monk, because the subclass options are less playable than what the level monk already has. Maybe Find Traps will actually find traps. I could go on but you get the idea. They spend time and money backpedaling away from some Hadozee lore, but they don't even do an errata or a playtest on content that millions have complained about for years and that I mention here. If they are serious about backward compatibility, then playtest one should have been 'Here are existing elements that we've heard you on for years and proposed revisions. Playtest a Way of the 4 Elements Monk that we think will work well. We know you like Alert but try this version of Weaponmaster. Look what we've done to make True Strike and Find Traps work more as intended. That would boost sales in 2024.



Find Traps should be removed as a spell.  It worked and found traps in 2e, but then it worked better than the rogue.  3e and 5e want to keep the spell, but had to weaken it to uselessness to keep it from treading on one of the primary functions of another class.  There isn't a way that I can see to make the spell useful and not tread on the rogue, so they should just remove it from the game.


----------



## Illithidbix

In principle I'm not opposed to this change.
I think player/monster symmetry is by far over valued am I am very happy we're far from the rabbit hole that 3E ended up in.

Likewise I personally prefer Critical Hit = Maximum damage that could have been rolled rather than rolling double damage dice. 

This meshes the best in my mind,
1) I prevents the saddening situation of a poor roll on a Crit that ends up being worse than an average roll of a normal hit.
2) Avoids any niggly rules about some things not taking critical hits for whatever dubious justification I don't care about because there is already

BUT
I might just be being a bit of a killjoy and there is a significant number of players and GMs who very much embrace the memorable moments caused by wild swings of the dice.

Likewise 5E most certainly doesn't have a reputation for lethality (aside perhaps at the very lowest levels) and many monsters at mid to high level could do with all the help they can get.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> Find Traps should be removed as a spell.  It worked and found traps in 2e, but then it worked better than the rogue.  3e and 5e want to keep the spell, but had to weaken it to uselessness to keep it from treading on one of the primary functions of another class.  There isn't a way that I can see to make the spell useful and not tread on the rogue, so they should just remove it from the game.



What if there's no rogue in the party?


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> What if there's no rogue in the party?



They can't put in spells that stomp on other classes just in case that class is missing from a party.  If they did you'd have a lot of instances where there is a rogue in the party and the cleric took find traps.

The better design is to not create things that step heavily on the toes of other classes.  Minor toe stomping is fine, but find traps doesn't work as a minor toe stomp.


----------



## tetrasodium

Reynard said:


> What if there's no rogue in the party?



Even then the spell is _literally_ useless.


Spoiler: Find Traps all in one go



You sense the presence of any trap within range that is within line of sight. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was specifically intended as such by its creator. Thus, the spell would sense an area affected by the alarm spell, a glyph of warding, or a mechanical pit trap, but it would not reveal a natural weakness in the floor, an unstable ceiling, or a hidden sinkhole.

This spell merely reveals that a trap is present. You don't learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense.





> You sense the presence of any trap within range that is* within line of sight*



pressure plate under a carpet?  Not in LoS
Pit trap under some leaves?  Mayyybe in LoS depending on source of the leaves.


> . A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, *which was specifically intended as such by its creator.*



Poison immune creature sets up a poison mist trap?... maybe not a trap
Lowest bidder on a catwalk did a poor job on a catwalk that's going to collapse?  Not a trap


> Thus, the spell would sense an area affected by the alarm spell, a glyph of warding,



Not if it was behind a tapestry, inside a chest, or behind a book for example, they wouldn't be in LoS


> or a mechanical pit trap,



Unless it's not in LoS


> but it* would not reveal a natural weaknes*s in the floor, an* unstable ceiling*, or *a hidden sinkhole.*



There's the first devil.   Even slippery muck growing naturally where it was left to grow might not count even if it's likely to zip you into the lava below,  Likewise with mushrooms that emit a poison cloud when disturbed & similar


> This spell merely reveals that a trap is present.* You don't learn the location of each trap, *but you do learn the *genera*l nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense



detect traps:"Yes there is a poison trap."/"yes there is a mechanical trap"
Player:"Where?"
Detect traps: "You don't learn the location of each trap"
Detect traps: "The _general _nature is poison."/"The _general _nature is mechanical."
Player: "um... can I get my spell slot back?  Maybe swap that for something that performs a useful function?"
GM: "Yea to both"

It's not a ritual spell so no caster is ever going to want to burn a L2 slot casting it even with a permissive gm who gives more


Spoiler: this was the 2e find traps



Sphere: Divination
Range: 0 Components: V, S
Duration: 3 turns Casting Time: 5
Area of Effect: 10 ft. × 30 yds. Saving Throw: None
 When a priest casts a find traps spell, all traps—concealed nor-
mally or magically—of magical or mechanical nature become appar-
ent to him. Note that this spell is directional, and the caster must face
the desired direction in order to determine if a trap is laid in that
particular direction.

 A trap is any device or magical ward that meets three criteria: it
can inflict a sudden or unexpected result, the spellcaster would view
the result as undesirable or harmful, and the harmful or undesirable
result was specifically intended as such by the creator. Thus, traps
include alarms, glyphs, and similar spells or devices.

 The caster learns the general nature of the trap (magical or
mechanical) but not its exact effect, nor how to disarm it. Close
examination will, however, enable the caster to sense what
intended actions might trigger it. Note that the caster’s divination is
limited to his knowledge of what might be unexpected and harm-
ful. The spell cannot predict actions of creatures (hence, a con-
cealed murder hole or ambush is not a trap), nor are natural
hazards considered traps (a cavern that floods during a rain, a wall
weakened by age, a naturally poisonous plant, etc.). If the DM is
using specific glyphs or sigils to identify magical wards (see the
3rd-level spell glyph of warding), this spell shows the form of the
glyph or mark. The spell does not detect traps that have been
disarmed or are otherwise inactive.



Even then a caster would rather a rogue do their thing because spell slots were important & resource attrition was a bigger thing.


----------



## Reynard

tetrasodium said:


> Even then the spell is _literally_ useless.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Find Traps all in one go
> 
> 
> 
> You sense the presence of any trap within range that is within line of sight. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was specifically intended as such by its creator. Thus, the spell would sense an area affected by the alarm spell, a glyph of warding, or a mechanical pit trap, but it would not reveal a natural weakness in the floor, an unstable ceiling, or a hidden sinkhole.
> 
> This spell merely reveals that a trap is present. You don't learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense.
> 
> 
> 
> pressure plate under a carpet?  Not in LoS
> Pit trap under some leaves?  Mayyybe in LoS depending on source of the leaves.
> 
> Poison immune creature sets up a poison mist trap?... maybe not a trap
> Lowest bidder on a catwalk did a poor job on a catwalk that's going to collapse?  Not a trap
> 
> Not if it was behind a tapestry, inside a chest, or behind a book for example, they wouldn't be in LoS
> 
> Unless it's not in LoS
> 
> There's the first devil.   Even slippery muck growing naturally where it was left to grow might not count even if it's likely to zip you into the lava below,  Likewise with mushrooms that emit a poison cloud when disturbed & similar
> 
> detect traps:"Yes there is a poison trap."/"yes there is a mechanical trap"
> Player:"Where?"
> Detect traps: "You don't learn the location of each trap"
> Detect traps: "The _general _nature is poison."/"The _general _nature is mechanical."
> Player: "um... can I get my spell slot back?  Maybe swap that for something that performs a useful function?"
> GM: "Yea to both"
> 
> It's not a ritual spell so no caster is ever going to want to burn a L2 slot casting it even with a permissive gm who gives more
> 
> 
> Spoiler: this was the 2e find traps
> 
> 
> 
> Sphere: Divination
> Range: 0 Components: V, S
> Duration: 3 turns Casting Time: 5
> Area of Effect: 10 ft. × 30 yds. Saving Throw: None
> When a priest casts a find traps spell, all traps—concealed nor-
> mally or magically—of magical or mechanical nature become appar-
> ent to him. Note that this spell is directional, and the caster must face
> the desired direction in order to determine if a trap is laid in that
> particular direction.
> 
> A trap is any device or magical ward that meets three criteria: it
> can inflict a sudden or unexpected result, the spellcaster would view
> the result as undesirable or harmful, and the harmful or undesirable
> result was specifically intended as such by the creator. Thus, traps
> include alarms, glyphs, and similar spells or devices.
> 
> The caster learns the general nature of the trap (magical or
> mechanical) but not its exact effect, nor how to disarm it. Close
> examination will, however, enable the caster to sense what
> intended actions might trigger it. Note that the caster’s divination is
> limited to his knowledge of what might be unexpected and harm-
> ful. The spell cannot predict actions of creatures (hence, a con-
> cealed murder hole or ambush is not a trap), nor are natural
> hazards considered traps (a cavern that floods during a rain, a wall
> weakened by age, a naturally poisonous plant, etc.). If the DM is
> using specific glyphs or sigils to identify magical wards (see the
> 3rd-level spell glyph of warding), this spell shows the form of the
> glyph or mark. The spell does not detect traps that have been
> disarmed or are otherwise inactive.
> 
> 
> 
> Even then a caster would rather a rogue do their thing because spell slots were important & resource attrition was a bigger thing.



Oof. Lol.

Tell me you didn't run this past an editor without telling me you didn't run this past an editor.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> They can't put in spells that stomp on other classes just in case that class is missing from a party.  If they did you'd have a lot of instances where there is a rogue in the party and the cleric took find traps.
> 
> The better design is to not create things that step heavily on the toes of other classes.  Minor toe stomping is fine, but find traps doesn't work as a minor toe stomp.



I disagree. The players can work out their own not stepping on toes. It's a team game. Act like a team. If you have a rogue then it is a wasted slot for the cleric to take it.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> I disagree. The players can work out their own not stepping on toes. It's a team game. Act like a team. If you have a rogue then it is a wasted slot for the cleric to take it.



Then we should get the Mystic back and released in an official book.  It didn't make the cut because it stepped on toes.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> Then we should get the Mystic back and released in an official book.  It didn't make the cut because it stepped on toes.



If groups are like 5 players and there are 12 classes there are always going to be missing niches.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> They can't put in spells that stomp on other classes just in case that class is missing from a party.  If they did you'd have a lot of instances where there is a rogue in the party and the cleric took find traps.
> 
> The better design is to not create things that step heavily on the toes of other classes.  Minor toe stomping is fine, but find traps doesn't work as a minor toe stomp.



I tweaked F_ind Traps _such that it only pulls magic traps, e.g. glyphs or symbols or illusion-based traps, that a Rogue likely can't find anyway unless said Rogue somehow has means of detecting magic.

So far, so good.


----------



## James Gasik

It is interesting that 5e has made so many steps towards not protecting class niches, so you can theoretically make a group without traditional parties...and yet, there are some bridges that can't quite be burned.


----------



## shadowoflameth

Illithidbix said:


> In principle I'm not opposed to this change.
> I think player/monster symmetry is by far over valued am I am very happy we're far from the rabbit hole that 3E ended up in.
> 
> Likewise I personally prefer Critical Hit = Maximum damage that could have been rolled rather than rolling double damage dice.
> 
> This meshes the best in my mind,
> 1) I prevents the saddening situation of a poor roll on a Crit that ends up being worse than an average roll of a normal hit.
> 2) Avoids any niggly rules about some things not taking critical hits for whatever dubious justification I don't care about because there is already
> 
> BUT
> I might just be being a bit of a killjoy and there is a significant number of players and GMs who very much embrace the memorable moments caused by wild swings of the dice.
> 
> Likewise 5E most certainly doesn't have a reputation for lethality (aside perhaps at the very lowest levels) and many monsters at mid to high level could do with all the help they can get.



The crit killing weak characters issue could also be addressed by DMs having minions that do predictable amounts of damage. I like the idea of what we used to call 'massive damage' causing death at the end of the victim's next turn, and of only powers that specify instant death actually causing instant death.


----------



## shadowoflameth

Lanefan said:


> I tweaked F_ind Traps _such that it only pulls magic traps, e.g. glyphs or symbols or illusion-based traps, that a Rogue likely can't find anyway unless said Rogue somehow has means of detecting magic.
> 
> So far, so good.



Detect Magic can find Magic Traps and tell you something about them. Maybe have Find Traps give advantage or a bonus to the character actually trying to do so. maybe make a melee strike be the somatic component of casting True Strike, and perhaps with Weaponmaster, give a +1 bonus to one weapon to hit, or just make it a fighting style, Chose one weapon, you gain proficiency and get +1 to hit with one proficient weapon. Worth a feat.


----------



## shadowoflameth

This is the only part of the playtest that I hate. If it is made a rule, it will be ignored and therefore take up book space with useless material. The expressed reason is that crits can unpredictably kill low level characters. This problem is a rare occurrence and does not need a complex nerf bat solution. Crits are fun. Big numbers are fun. They are fun for rogues and fun for wizards. The drama created when a monster does it is usually fun too. The recharge solution is unusable. It would take every single monster or at least every encounter having something like that. No. Keep it simple, bring back minions who in a prior edition did predictable damage and revisit the death mechanic. What we used to call 'Massive Damage' caused death with no saves. Make it a threshold that can occur occasionally like say, half of maximum, but let it cause death at the end of your next turn. I would propose that only deliberately designed instant death effects should cause truly instant death.


----------



## CM

Fine, but I want monsters to have more and better special attacks.


----------



## shadowoflameth

CM said:


> Fine, but I want monsters to have more and better special attacks.



Agree, instant death isn't fun but more monsters having something special attacks or better attacks would make them a more immersive threat than they are now. CRs also need some work. 5E has few templates. I would like to see them return. A little variance in a  pack of orcs or kobolds can make it more interesting.


----------



## shadowoflameth

I can agree that inspiration on a crit would be an interesting benefit. That assumes though that inspiration becomes a mainstream rule as well as the crit change. There's no guarantee that both will happen. I concur that Smite should just be reliable and not be expended on a miss but it it's a critical hit, it makes sense that everything that depended on that hit should be part of the critical effect. Plus, bigger numbers are fun. There's no reason not to make inspiration an optional rule in my book, then all players and DMs could have their big handfuls of dice and the DM could award inspiration as well.


----------



## Nefermandias

MGibster said:


> This thread is literally the first time I’ve ever heard anyone complain about the existence of crits in D&D. Those of you who want them removed have made good arguments, I understand your point, but I can’t help but cock my head to one side and say, “What?  This is a problem?”
> 
> If the problem is that some random mook might end a character’s narrative, maybe the problem is really all the meaningless fights in D&D.  It does seem like the newer batch of players are more risk averse, which I say with no disdain, I’d argue my generation was more risk adverse than the gaming generation that came before mine.  I certainly have no interest in some of the meat grinders that classic adventures of the past were.
> 
> More and more I keep thinking D&D isn’t for me anymore.  And that’s okay, things change and the audience today is different from what it was in 1992.  But this just feels like another nail in the coffin for me.



Adventures now are all about cooking contests and doing homework for magic school. Exciting, heh?


----------



## Reynard

Nefermandias said:


> Adventures now are all about cooking contests and doing homework for magic school. Exciting, heh?



Drama is possible no matter the task as long as there are tools to elevate that task. teh problem is D&D traditionally puts all the tools into combat, so other tasks -- cooking, negotiating, exploring the wilderness -- are boring slogs composed of DM fiat and/or skill checks. D&D is fully capable of creating exciting cooking contests if it embraces tools that are meant to make _anything_ exciting by creating stakes for the players and characters -- like combat does.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> Drama is possible no matter the task as long as there are tools to elevate that task. teh problem is D&D traditionally puts all the tools into combat, so other tasks -- cooking, negotiating, exploring the wilderness -- are boring slogs composed of DM fiat and/or skill checks. D&D is fully capable of creating exciting cooking contests if it embraces tools that are meant to make _anything_ exciting by creating stakes for the players and characters -- like combat does.



To do that with noncombat tasks would seem to me to require narrative mechanics, which are a bridge too far for me.  Would love to be proven wrong here.


----------



## Nefermandias

Reynard said:


> Drama is possible no matter the task as long as there are tools to elevate that task. teh problem is D&D traditionally puts all the tools into combat, so other tasks -- cooking, negotiating, exploring the wilderness -- are boring slogs composed of DM fiat and/or skill checks. D&D is fully capable of creating exciting cooking contests if it embraces tools that are meant to make _anything_ exciting by creating stakes for the players and characters -- like combat does.



Or we could maybe just not make whole modules about going around a big city doing mundane chores. Idk...


----------



## CleverNickName

Nefermandias said:


> Or we could maybe just not make whole modules about going around a big city doing mundane chores. Idk...



That would be almost as bad as having nothing but back-to-back combat scenes, day in and day out.  Almost.

IMO the game needs all three tiers of play,  in equal measure.


----------



## Nefermandias

CleverNickName said:


> That would be almost as bad as having nothing but back-to-back combat scenes, day in and day out.  Almost.
> 
> IMO the game needs all three tiers of play,  in equal measure.



That's right, the game needs all three pillars of play. Meaningful exploration and social interactions are equally important. 
That's not the same as spending a whole adventure dicking around the town, though.


----------



## Reynard

Nefermandias said:


> Or we could maybe just not make whole modules about going around a big city doing mundane chores. Idk...



What module is composed entirely of mundane tasks?


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> To do that with noncombat tasks would seem to me to require narrative mechanics, which are a bridge too far for me.  Would love to be proven wrong here.



I don't think so. You just need systems that create stakes and provide interesting choices no matter the task. For example, if D&D had a stress track, non combat tasks could be made just as consequential as combat.


----------



## Gorck

Nefermandias said:


> Adventures now are all about cooking contests and doing homework for magic school. Exciting, heh?






Nefermandias said:


> Or we could maybe just not make whole modules about going around a big city doing mundane chores. Idk...



You're referring to exactly 1 module.  That's it.  One adventure that illustrated that D&D could be about more than just killing monsters and collecting treasure if that's how you want to play.  Since Strixhaven was released, WOTC has released several adventures (Call of the Netherdeep, Light of Xaryxis, the entirety of Radiant Citadel, to name a few) that have gone back to the "traditional" adventures.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Nefermandias said:


> Or we could maybe just not make whole modules about going around a big city doing mundane chores. Idk...



Oh god yes. Sorry if this is no longer what the cool kids do, but I still love clearing out a dungeon without needing to figure out the DMs complicated backstory in order to do it.


----------



## tetrasodium

Gorck said:


> You're referring to exactly 1 module.  That's it.  One adventure that illustrated that D&D could be about more than just killing monsters and collecting treasure if that's how you want to play.  Since Strixhaven was released, WOTC has released several adventures (Call of the Netherdeep, Light of Xaryxis, the entirety of Radiant Citadel, to name a few) that have gone back to the "traditional" adventures.



It might be a stretch to say that "collecting treasure" is a thing 5e is about.  Sure you can do it but everything that normally grew from doing that was removed or made "optional" in ways that cause problems with growing fruit from that treasure.


----------



## Reynard

tetrasodium said:


> It might be a stretch to say that "collecting treasure" is a thing 5e is about.  Sure you can do it but everything that normally grew from doing that was removed or made "optional" in ways that cause problems with growing fruit from that treasure.



D&D hasn't been "about" collecting treasure for about 40 years, ever since the Hickman Revolution. It has been about solving problems.. But it has always been about solving problems with violence, so there's that.


----------



## Lanefan

Micah Sweet said:


> To do that with noncombat tasks would seem to me to require narrative mechanics,



Not necessarily, provided you and the players can immerse yourselves into what might be intense and dramatic roleplaying through a tense situation.  For example, the PCs are negotiating with the local Baron for release of some (in the PCs' eyes) unjustly-arrested locals.  Violence is not an option unless the PCs are intent on committing suicide-by-guard.

Here you have a non-combat situation with high stakes.  No narrative rules required.  Just play it out. 

The drawback here is, of course, that such situations are much harder to bring about than are combats.


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> What module is composed entirely of mundane tasks?



Any module where there's something bigger going on in town and the PCs/players completely miss it (or worse, actively ignore it) even when repeatedly clubbed upside the head with hints and clues.

Been there, DMed that.


----------



## tetrasodium

Reynard said:


> D&D hasn't been "about" collecting treasure for about 40 years, ever since the Hickman Revolution. It has been about solving problems.. But it has always been about solving problems with violence, so there's that.



No I disagree,  it's both 3.x & 4e had magic item need while 4e had gold for various rituals too.  not simply the collecting treasure so much as collecting treasure to _use_ that treasure in service of other goals such as ones that count as hickman revolution type problem solving.


----------



## Azzy

Nefermandias said:


> Or we could maybe just not make whole modules about going around a big city doing mundane chores. Idk...



Tired hyperbole is tired hyperbole.


----------



## Reynard

tetrasodium said:


> No I disagree,  it's both 3.x & 4e had magic item need while 4e had gold for various rituals too.  not simply the collecting treasure so much as collecting treasure to _use_ that treasure in service of other goals such as ones that count as hickman revolution type problem solving.



That's what I said. I didn't say there wasn't treasure. I said acquiring treasure wasn't what D&D was about since the mid-80s.


----------



## wicked cool

Horrible rule. I would argue a lot I’ve seen so far is bad


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> That's what I said. I didn't say there wasn't treasure. I said acquiring treasure wasn't what D&D was about since the mid-80s.



Treasure lost much of its gamist-mechanical impact in the mid-80s with the slow demise of xp-for-gp, sure; but acquiring, collecting, and spending treasure has otherwise been much of what D&D was about - all the way until 5e where while acquiring treasure is still fun there's far less in the game (as written) to spend it on.


----------



## CapnZapp

5E not offering prices on magic items for you to spend your gold on is one of the edition's biggest flaws.


----------



## Bill Zebub

CapnZapp said:


> 5E not offering prices on magic items for you to spend your gold on is one of the edition's biggest flaws.




That....baffles me.


----------



## James Gasik

Let's examine the traditional reason adventurers go on adventures- to face dangerous challenges and collect fat loot.

Dungeons were presented as multi-level affairs that became more deadly as you descended to the lower floors, but the increased risk granted increased reward.  Actual experience points from monsters were insufficient to level you up save for very slowly, so you actually earned xp for treasures hauled up from the depths (in addition to the occasional sweet magic item to give your character more options and power).

By 3e, however, it was noted that designing monsters around unknown variables like ability scores and magic items was difficult- who could say what a character could have, and when they should have it?

So at this point, treasure was the fuel to let you acquire magical items, which became a separate "xp track" of their own- in addition to what your levels got you, you could funnel gold acquired into purchasing items.  At low levels this was your plate armor and masterwork swords, but eventually this led into utility items, consumables, and eventually bonuses to attack, damage, AC, and saves.

Unfortunately, despite multiple efforts, 3e's attempt to make item creation a fundamental part of the game led to busted and overpriced items.  4e decided to continue with the process of turning treasure into power, but took a more conservative approach to magic items, and removed custom item creation from the equation.

5e decided to make magic items optional, not really assumed in enemy design, and left entirely up to the DM how to implement (but with little guidelines as to how to use them).  They then made magic items a little more robust, though with a catch that you can only ever use so many of them at once.

This has had several notable impacts on game design.

1) the DM is never really sure if giving out magic items will make the game less difficult than it should be, or if not giving out said items makes it harder than it should be.

2) When attempting to design monsters, there's presumably some expectation of magic weapons at some point, but when is unknown.

3) The capacity of magic items to grant new abilities to classes that are less versatile, as was their original intent, is wholly lost, as no one has any expectation of acquiring anything desired.

4) gold is almost completely vestigial beyond level 5, yet the DMG guidelines and WotC adventures continue to hand out great amounts of the stuff.  Treasure is no longer even a real incentive for adventures, which affects the verisimilitude of the game- why even take on dangerous tasks, if the reward is effectively pointless?

Magic magic items available for sale, and giving players some choice in what they acquire isn't the only solution, since some people find "magic item marts" even more reprehensible than the uselessness of gold, but there should be *something *here!

Instead the DM is left to "figure it out" on their own.

(And yes, there are suggested gold piece costs for magic items in the DMG, but they are ludicrous, based on rarity, making a magic potion cost the same as adamantine armor or a cloak of displacement- in fact, using those costs, adamantine full plate is cheaper than actual full plate, lol).


----------



## Nefermandias

James Gasik said:


> Let's examine the traditional reason adventurers go on adventures- to face dangerous challenges and collect fat loot.
> 
> Dungeons were presented as multi-level affairs that became more deadly as you descended to the lower floors, but the increased risk granted increased reward.  Actual experience points from monsters were insufficient to level you up save for very slowly, so you actually earned xp for treasures hauled up from the depths (in addition to the occasional sweet magic item to give your character more options and power).
> 
> By 3e, however, it was noted that designing monsters around unknown variables like ability scores and magic items was difficult- who could say what a character could have, and when they should have it?
> 
> So at this point, treasure was the fuel to let you acquire magical items, which became a separate "xp track" of their own- in addition to what your levels got you, you could funnel gold acquired into purchasing items.  At low levels this was your plate armor and masterwork swords, but eventually this led into utility items, consumables, and eventually bonuses to attack, damage, AC, and saves.
> 
> Unfortunately, despite multiple efforts, 3e's attempt to make item creation a fundamental part of the game led to busted and overpriced items.  4e decided to continue with the process of turning treasure into power, but took a more conservative approach to magic items, and removed custom item creation from the equation.
> 
> 5e decided to make magic items optional, not really assumed in enemy design, and left entirely up to the DM how to implement (but with little guidelines as to how to use them).  They then made magic items a little more robust, though with a catch that you can only ever use so many of them at once.
> 
> This has had several notable impacts on game design.
> 
> 1) the DM is never really sure if giving out magic items will make the game less difficult than it should be, or if not giving out said items makes it harder than it should be.
> 
> 2) When attempting to design monsters, there's presumably some expectation of magic weapons at some point, but when is unknown.
> 
> 3) The capacity of magic items to grant new abilities to classes that are less versatile, as was their original intent, is wholly lost, as no one has any expectation of acquiring anything desired.
> 
> 4) gold is almost completely vestigial beyond level 5, yet the DMG guidelines and WotC adventures continue to hand out great amounts of the stuff.  Treasure is no longer even a real incentive for adventures, which affects the verisimilitude of the game- why even take on dangerous tasks, if the reward is effectively pointless?
> 
> Magic magic items available for sale, and giving players some choice in what they acquire isn't the only solution, since some people find "magic item marts" even more reprehensible than the uselessness of gold, but there should be *something *here!
> 
> Instead the DM is left to "figure it out" on their own.
> 
> (And yes, there are suggested gold piece costs for magic items in the DMG, but they are ludicrous, based on rarity, making a magic potion cost the same as adamantine armor or a cloak of displacement- in fact, using those costs, adamantine full plate is cheaper than actual full plate, lol).



Minor correction, 4e did NOT remove custom magic item creation and in fact, made it more versatile by adding residuum and disenchantment.


----------



## James Gasik

Nefermandias said:


> Minor correction, 4e did NOT remove custom magic item creation and in fact, made it more versatile by adding residuum and disenchantment.



You were allowed to create items, but there was no "I'm going to create a wholly unique item" as there were no guidelines for pricing such things.


----------



## tetrasodium

James Gasik said:


> Let's examine the traditional reason adventurers go on adventures- to face dangerous challenges and collect fat loot.
> 
> Dungeons were presented as multi-level affairs that became more deadly as you descended to the lower floors, but the increased risk granted increased reward.  Actual experience points from monsters were insufficient to level you up save for very slowly, so you actually earned xp for treasures hauled up from the depths (in addition to the occasional sweet magic item to give your character more options and power).
> 
> By 3e, however, it was noted that designing monsters around unknown variables like ability scores and magic items was difficult- who could say what a character could have, and when they should have it?
> 
> So at this point, treasure was the fuel to let you acquire magical items, which became a separate "xp track" of their own- in addition to what your levels got you, you could funnel gold acquired into purchasing items.  At low levels this was your plate armor and masterwork swords, but eventually this led into utility items, consumables, and eventually bonuses to attack, damage, AC, and saves.
> 
> Unfortunately, despite multiple efforts, 3e's attempt to make item creation a fundamental part of the game led to busted and overpriced items.  4e decided to continue with the process of turning treasure into power, but took a more conservative approach to magic items, and removed custom item creation from the equation.
> 
> 5e decided to make magic items optional, not really assumed in enemy design, and left entirely up to the DM how to implement (but with little guidelines as to how to use them).  They then made magic items a little more robust,* though with a catch that you can only ever use so many of them at once.*
> 
> This has had several notable impacts on game design.
> 
> 1) the DM is never really sure if giving out magic items will make the game less difficult than it should be, or if not giving out said items makes it harder than it should be.
> 
> 2) When attempting to design monsters, there's presumably some expectation of magic weapons at some point, but when is unknown.
> 
> 3) The capacity of magic items to grant new abilities to classes that are less versatile, as was their original intent, is wholly lost, as no one has any expectation of acquiring anything desired.
> 
> 4) gold is almost completely vestigial beyond level 5, yet the DMG guidelines and WotC adventures continue to hand out great amounts of the stuff.  Treasure is no longer even a real incentive for adventures, which affects the verisimilitude of the game- why even take on dangerous tasks, if the reward is effectively pointless?
> 
> Magic magic items available for sale, and giving players some choice in what they acquire isn't the only solution, since some people find "magic item marts" even more reprehensible than the uselessness of gold, but there should be *something *here!
> 
> Instead the DM is left to "figure it out" on their own.
> 
> (And yes, there are suggested gold piece costs for magic items in the DMG, but they are ludicrous, based on rarity, making a magic potion cost the same as adamantine armor or a cloak of displacement- in fact, using those costs, adamantine full plate is cheaper than actual full plate, lol).



I'd add that they did not even do that bold bit with how randomly attune is applied.  A player can have +3 platemail +3 shield & multiple +3 weapons without using a single attune slot while a pen* & a loaded/magical die* will use up two of your three attune slots. If anything by dumping body slots 5e makes it easier to use _more_ magic items since they no longer conflict for a slot_(or bonus type)_. Luckily that still leaves that hypothetical PC a free slot to bring their ac from 26 to 27 if they can just find a ring of protection.

* Those two aren't chosen for any reason specifically, they were just the first & most obvious "why the heck is this attune" magic items I was able to find


----------



## James Gasik

tetrasodium said:


> I'd add that they did not even do that bold bit with how randomly attune is applied.  A player can have +3 platemail +3 shield & multiple +3 weapons without using a single attune slot while a pen* & a loaded/magical die* will use up two of your three attune slots. If anything by dumping body slots 5e makes it easier to use _more_ magic items since they no longer conflict for a slot_(or bonus type)_. Luckily that still leaves that hypothetical PC a free slot to bring their ac from 26 to 27 if they can just find a ring of protection.
> 
> * Those two aren't chosen for any reason specifically, they were just the first & most obvious "why the heck is this attune" magic items I was able to find



Oh believe me, I hate attunement with the fury of a thousand exploding stars.  It's not only as arbitrary as the old "body slots" mechanic, it's also nonsensical at times as well.

Like, ok, we accepted that you can only have 2 magic rings for...reasons.  While being allowed to have a small galaxy of _Ioun Stones_ orbiting your head.  But now the only thing stopping me from wearing 2 capes is common sense and the DM, lol!  

I can ride a _Broom of Flying _for unlimited flight, no attunement required, but _Winged Boots _require attunement, only let me fly for 4 hours at a time (and slower!), and (presumably) can't be worn with other magical footware!  Yes, that totally makes sense.

And why do we even have attunement slots, when _getting magic items at all_ is completely up to the DM, let alone worrying about having so many of them that you need some kind of limiting factor on their use?


----------



## Bill Zebub

James Gasik said:


> And why do we even have attunement slots,




Gamist reasons.

Prevent Christmas-tree syndrome
Alleviate arguments over loot
Introduce another interesting decision-making point ("which 3 of these 5 items do I want to be attuned to")
And I'm ok with purely gamist reasons.  A lot of mechanics in D&D (and most/all RPGs) are purely gamist.


----------



## James Gasik

Christmas-tree syndrome can only exist if the DM gives out a significant amount of magic items.

Arguments over loot will exist regardless of the existence of attunement.

The decision-making point will, again, only exist if the DM gives out a significant amount of magic items.


----------



## tetrasodium

James Gasik said:


> Christmas-tree syndrome can only exist if the DM gives out a significant amount of magic items.
> 
> Arguments over loot will exist regardless of the existence of attunement.
> 
> The decision-making point will, again, only exist if the DM gives out a significant amount of magic items.



 Worse the switch from body slots to attune _ only_ instead of _adding_ attune to the other prevents the gm from resisting mechanically meaningful Christmas tree syndrome with slot conflicts.  I was never too concerned if a pc had a bunch of stuff adding slightly to tertiary & edge case stuff compared to if they had a bunch of stuff adding to one laser focused role.


----------



## Bill Zebub

James Gasik said:


> Christmas-tree syndrome can only exist if the DM gives out a significant amount of magic items.




Sure, but finding magic items is _fun_.  To achieve a result roughly equivalent to attunement by limiting how many are found means they'll have to be pretty rare. 



James Gasik said:


> Arguments over loot will exist regardless of the existence of attunement.




I didn't say eliminate I said alleviate.   Still, not my best argument.  I'll cede that point.



James Gasik said:


> The decision-making point will, again, only exist if the DM gives out a significant amount of magic items.




I hope the DM does.  Getting magic items is fun.  Choosing which 3 are the best (at any given time) is fun.


----------



## Bill Zebub

P.S. I'm not trying to persuade anybody to like attunement.  Just explaining why I do.  I like giving out magic items, and my players like getting them.  I _don't_ like christmas tree syndrome.


----------



## Lanefan

You hit the key point quite early on in your post:


James Gasik said:


> Let's examine the traditional reason adventurers go on adventures- to face dangerous challenges and collect fat loot.
> 
> Dungeons were presented as multi-level affairs that became more deadly as you descended to the lower floors, but the increased risk granted increased reward.  Actual experience points from monsters were insufficient to level you up save for very slowly, so you actually earned xp for treasures hauled up from the depths (in addition to the occasional sweet magic item to give your character more options and power).
> 
> By 3e, however, *it was noted that designing monsters around unknown variables like ability scores and magic items was difficult- who could say what a character could have, and when they should have it?*



It's the bolded bit right here; which put another way says "By 3e, people (in particular, those people charged with designing the game) started over-thinking this stuff and trying to fine-tune the game's math and restrain its variables to a far-too-great degree."

You then quite rightly go on to note the follow-on issues this caused around magic items and values in each edition.


James Gasik said:


> So at this point, treasure was the fuel to let you acquire magical items, which became a separate "xp track" of their own- in addition to what your levels got you, you could funnel gold acquired into purchasing items.  At low levels this was your plate armor and masterwork swords, but eventually this led into utility items, consumables, and eventually bonuses to attack, damage, AC, and saves.
> 
> Unfortunately, despite multiple efforts, 3e's attempt to make item creation a fundamental part of the game led to busted and overpriced items.  4e decided to continue with the process of turning treasure into power, but took a more conservative approach to magic items, and removed custom item creation from the equation.



The other error both 3e and 4e made was to tie item pricing to a rigid formula rather than pricing each different item independently, leading to some inanely over- and under-priced items in both editions.  The pricing in 1e and 2e wasn't perfect, but at least these was a sense that someone had tried to evaluate each item based on what it was and what it could do.


James Gasik said:


> (And yes, there are suggested gold piece costs for magic items in the DMG, but they are ludicrous, based on rarity, making a magic potion cost the same as adamantine armor or a cloak of displacement- in fact, using those costs, adamantine full plate is cheaper than actual full plate, lol).



Another rigidly formulaic approach, only using a different base variable (rarity); and, as you note, coming up with similarly inane results.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Gamist reasons.
> 
> Prevent Christmas-tree syndrome
> Alleviate arguments over loot
> Introduce another interesting decision-making point ("which 3 of these 5 items do I want to be attuned to")
> And I'm ok with purely gamist reasons.  A lot of mechanics in D&D (and most/all RPGs) are purely gamist.



1. Christmas tree syndrome - only a problem if a) too much magic is given out and-or b) items can't be destroyed (IMO another very big error in 3e-4e-5e design).

2. Alleviate arguments over loot - why?  If the characters would argue over treasure division, let 'em argue.

3. Introduce another decision point - OK, I can get behind this one to a point; decision points are usually good things.  That said, there's better ways of doing it than this - an easy-to-implement one would be to make magic a bit unstable in the continued presence of other magic, such that for each magic item carried above N* every item carried has a small but cumulative chance each Y*-time of becoming disenchanted...or worse e.g. going off with a wild magic surge or similar.

* - where N is an arbitrary number of items set by the DM - could be 3, could be 5, could be 51, whatever - and Y is the frequency at which these checks are made, be it daily, weekly, monthly, or whatever.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Sure, but finding magic items is _fun_.  To achieve a result roughly equivalent to attunement by limiting how many are found means they'll have to be pretty rare.
> 
> I hope the DM does.  Getting magic items is fun.  Choosing which 3 are the best (at any given time) is fun.



Agreed; except in 5e there's a great big sword-of-Damocles question hanging over the whole arrangement: what can you usefully do with the rest of your items that aren't in your top three?

You can't by RAW sell them or - incredibly - trade them for other items.  You could give them away, I guess, or just hang them over your fireplace or store them somewhere; or sacrifice them to the deities (but as they by RAW have no value, what's the point of that?), but none of those options are much fun.


----------



## James Gasik

Lanefan said:


> Agreed; except in 5e there's a great big sword-of-Damocles question hanging over the whole arrangement: what can you usefully do with the rest of your items that aren't in your top three?
> 
> You can't by RAW sell them or - incredibly - trade them for other items.  You could give them away, I guess, or just hang them over your fireplace or store them somewhere; or sacrifice them to the deities (but as they by RAW have no value, what's the point of that?), but none of those options are much fun.



Also, changing attunements does take an hour, so it's not like you can often go "oh hey, the dragon's lair is an underground lake, can I have a short rest to put on my _ring of swimming_?"

What generally happens in my experience is that players pick the best three items to attune to, and the rest just take up space on your character sheet (this was, granted in AL games, or I might have loaned some out or even given them away).


----------



## Bill Zebub

James Gasik said:


> Also, changing attunements does take an hour, so it's not like you can often go "oh hey, the dragon's lair is an underground lake, can I have a short rest to put on my _ring of swimming_?"




Ummm….why not?


----------



## CleverNickName

Lanefan said:


> Agreed; except in 5e there's a great big sword-of-Damocles question hanging over the whole arrangement: what can you usefully do with the rest of your items that aren't in your top three?
> 
> You can't by RAW sell them or - incredibly - trade them for other items.  You could give them away, I guess, or just hang them over your fireplace or store them somewhere; or sacrifice them to the deities (but as they by RAW have no value, what's the point of that?), but none of those options are much fun.





James Gasik said:


> Also, changing attunements does take an hour, so it's not like you can often go "oh hey, the dragon's lair is an underground lake, can I have a short rest to put on my _ring of swimming_?"
> 
> What generally happens in my experience is that players pick the best three items to attune to, and the rest just take up space on your character sheet (this was, granted in AL games, or I might have loaned some out or even given them away).



This isn't a new phenomenon.  We used to joke about the mage carrying around a golf-bag full of wands and staffs way back in the B/X days.

I think it was at the all-time worst in 3.X Edition, when characters were expected to not only find magic items in treasure, but also purchase them at Ye Olde Magic Emporium in every town, and craft anything else themselves.  

I never played 4E, but it seems that 5th Edition hit the right balance for us with the Attunement mechanic.  I hope we never go backwards on that mechanic.

  (looks nervously at the Artificer)


----------



## Bill Zebub

Although...call me crazy...what if attunement were by ability score, and you could attune as many items in each ability score as your modifier?  Suddenly nothing is a dump stat.

Gauntles of Ogre Power?  Cha, of course.


----------



## Lanefan

CleverNickName said:


> This isn't a new phenomenon.  We used to joke about the mage carrying around a golf-bag full of wands and staffs way back in the B/X days.



In which case it's almost certain the DM wasn't enforcing the rules around items having to make saves every time their carrier failed against AoE damage e.g. fireball, ice storm, etc.  Never mind that in some cases destruction of a wand had potentially disastrous consequences - anyone else remember Retributive Strike?

IME that's the big limiter - that items can so easily be destroyed.  It's an easy-come easy-go system.  The wonderful side effect is that it means the DM can place more new items and the PCs can thus find more of them. 


CleverNickName said:


> I think it was at the all-time worst in 3.X Edition, when characters were expected to not only find magic items in treasure, but also purchase them at Ye Olde Magic Emporium in every town, and craft anything else themselves.



Yeah, 3e dialled a lot of things to eleven, this was one.


CleverNickName said:


> I never played 4E, but it seems that 5th Edition hit the right balance for us with the Attunement mechanic.  I hope we never go backwards on that mechanic.



I'm not a fan of it, for two reasons: one, it makes items far FAR too easy to identify in the field (I'm a big supporter of the idea of item field-testing and of items being sometimes difficult or expensive to identify); and two, it often acts as too harsh a limit on one's options.  I mean, hell, if I-as-character have gone through all the dangers and trials in order to acquire these things then for the most part I bloody well ought to be able to use them at my own discretion. 

Want a low-magic game?  Then at the DM level, don't give out so many - or any! - magic items.  Don't ask the game to impose your limits for you.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Although...call me crazy...what if attunement were by ability score, and you could attune as many items in each ability score as your modifier?  Suddenly nothing is a dump stat.



Hmmm...interesting.

How does this work if you have a negative modifier somewhere?  Does a random one of your otherwise-attuned items get shut off?


----------



## tetrasodium

Bill Zebub said:


> Although...call me crazy...what if attunement were by ability score, and you could attune as many items in each ability score as your modifier?  Suddenly nothing is a dump stat.
> 
> Gauntles of Ogre Power?  Cha, of course.



That might make an interesting bump for int if int mod impacted or defined attunement slots, but that crashes face first into the problem of 5e making the choice to crank the power on magic items
@Lanefan I'd say yea you deattune.


----------



## CleverNickName

Lanefan said:


> Want a low-magic game?  Then at the DM level, don't give out so many - or any! - magic items.  Don't ask the game to impose your limits for you.



Nope, I don't want a low-magic game.  Nor do I think that the attunement mechanic is "imposing my limits for me." I'm of the opinion that many of the magic items in 5E--as they are written--actually _need_ the attunement mechanic to balance them and prevent certain game-breaking combinations.  I think that making adjustments to the attunement mechanic, without also adjusting the magic items to account for it, would be a mistake.

I'm sure I'm in the minority--already we're seeing this mechanic get relaxed bit by bit--but that's my two coppers.

(continues to look nervously at the Artificer)


----------



## Bill Zebub

CleverNickName said:


> Nope, I don't want a low-magic game.  Nor do I think that the attunement mechanic is "imposing my limits for me."




Spot on.

That bit about "Don't ask the game to impose your limits for you" was kind of astonishingly condescending.


----------



## Reynard

For my part, I don't think PCs should EVER be able to create magic items beyond scrolls and potions, and buying and selling them should be the subject of actual gameplay. Treasure rewards should go toward training and upkeep and retainers and fortresses and specialists and business expenses and ostentatious displays of your absolute badassitude.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> For my part, I don't think PCs should EVER be able to create magic items beyond scrolls and potions, *and buying and selling them should be the subject of actual gameplay*. Treasure rewards should go toward training and upkeep and retainers and fortresses and specialists and business expenses and ostentatious displays of your absolute badassitude.




There's nothing I hate more than Ye Olde Magic Shoppe, and official price lists convey the impression that such shops should exist.

Even if the reality is that the game rains magic items, the idea that they are bought and sold like groceries repels me.


----------



## OB1

CleverNickName said:


> Nope, I don't want a low-magic game.  Nor do I think that the attunement mechanic is "imposing my limits for me." I'm of the opinion that many of the magic items in 5E--as they are written--actually _need_ the attunement mechanic to balance them and prevent certain game-breaking combinations.  I think that making adjustments to the attunement mechanic, without also adjusting the magic items to account for it, would be a mistake.
> 
> I'm sure I'm in the minority--already we're seeing this mechanic get relaxed bit by bit--but that's my two coppers.
> 
> (continues to look nervously at the Artificer)



I'm a firm believer in the attunement mechanic, and go back and forth as to whether every magic item in the rare and above category needs to default to attunement.  On the flip side, I strictly roll on the random treasure charts in the DMG, and if the players get lucky, well, I'm happy for them.

Also, I kinda like that the Artificer is the exception to the rule.

Finally, around level 18 I usually get the players to a true magic emporium in Sigil where everything under legendary is available off the shelf (at prices 3-4 times DMG recommended).  Gives them something to do with all the gold they've accumulated and have some fun in the end game (which is always wild in my campaigns).


----------



## Bill Zebub

As a side note, in general caster-specific magic items require attunement, but +N weapons/armor do not. So fighters have that going for them. Which ish nishe.


----------



## CleverNickName

Neither here nor there, but the flat numerical bonuses (longsword +1, shield +1, etc.) aren't even magic items in my campaign.  They're just very well-made items, or they're made from rare metals.  They don't detect as magical, they don't bypass resistance, etc.  Characters _can _buy those right off the shelf, or commission them to be made by a professional...they'll pay a premium for them, too.

I thought about doing something similar for the spellcasters (such as the rod of the pact keeper +1, or the wand of the war mage +1) but in the end, I decided against it.  Those items require attunement, and I didn't want to have to rebalance it.


----------



## James Gasik

Bill Zebub said:


> Ummm….why not?



Well this is just my experience, but often you find out what you're fighting and where about .2 seconds before you're asked to roll for initiative.  I know in some groups scouting is a thing that's done, but my experience, again, has always been that trying to skulk around and gain advance recon usually just results in someone finding themselves in a solo encounter that they have to try and survive long enough for the party to catch up.

It's been a consistent problem when I play for so long, that I rarely even bother to become proficient in Stealth- there's almost always some enemy or circumstance that trivializes the effort, or the DM is one of those "roll every 5 feet" types.

I will admit that in 5e, most of my experience has been with either home games that have 1-3 larger encounters per session, with the big one being this epic battle, or in AL, where the adventure itself dictates when and where you get a rest.  But again, the idea of "scouting ahead" has never really worked out for me.

Even when I've suggested using spells or familiars to scout, the DM usually nitpicks the capabilities of whatever is being used to the point that the information gathered is next to useless.  And even in those rare instances where I do get actionable intel, there's always a surprise.

It's like those heist shows where there's a foolproof plan that goes all to hell in about five seconds, except I'm not allowed to insert a "previously, however, we anticipated this and set up a game changer".  This ties into why I'm always trying to give my players as much information as I can, because it's really tiresome to have to figure out things blind.

Now, if you're in a game where you can short rest pretty much whenever, and the DM is perfectly fine with some advance recon, perhaps this tactic works.  But it just hasn't for me, so I'm pretty dubious about it's efficacy.


----------



## James Gasik

In my own games, I base the attunement limit not on a totally arbitrary number, but on proficiency bonus.  But it doesn't come up often, because I've changed how attunement works.

In the 5e remake of Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, there's a cursed axe that grants 5 bonus hit points if you attune to it.  The idea struck me as pretty cool, so in my games, items only require attunement if they unlock extra abilities, but they are always useful in their base form.

So a sword might be +1, but then add elemental damage if you attune to it.

If the item has no extra powers, I don't really see the point of forcing someone to attune to it.  This has the extra benefit of players being able to swap items around- not that they do, lol, but they could.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> There's nothing I hate more than Ye Olde Magic Shoppe, and official price lists convey the impression that such shops should exist.



If one reads them that way, sure.

But if one wants to use the listed values as an integral part of treasury division, in that the value of the items you claim counts as part of your share, then having price lists is kind of essential.  And I for one would never do it any other way, having learned the hard way - and more than once - that other methods simply don't work out fairly in the long run.


Bill Zebub said:


> Even if the reality is that the game rains magic items, the idea that they are bought and sold like groceries repels me.



One does not lead directly to the other.

That said, the game raining magic items will inevitably lead to there being some trade in those items.  Realistically, how can it not?

The moment your party has an item you can't use and-or don't want - an item, however, that someone else can use and-or does want - then boom, that item is going to have value to the person who can use it and will probably be sold or traded for some representation of that value.

Flip side: the moment you learn of someone else having an unwanted or un-useful item which your PC can use, what's stopping your PC from throwing some money at the item's owner in hopes of buying it?

Do these things enough times with enough items and a "price list" will eventually develop organically.  A published price list just saves playing through all this by assuming those values have already long since been determined in the setting.


----------



## Reynard

Lanefan said:


> If one reads them that way, sure.
> 
> But if one wants to use the listed values as an integral part of treasury division, in that the value of the items you claim counts as part of your share, then having price lists is kind of essential.  And I for one would never do it any other way, having learned the hard way - and more than once - that other methods simply don't work out fairly in the long run.
> 
> One does not lead directly to the other.
> 
> That said, the game raining magic items will inevitably lead to there being some trade in those items.  Realistically, how can it not?
> 
> The moment your party has an item you can't use and-or don't want - an item, however, that someone else can use and-or does want - then boom, that item is going to have value to the person who can use it and will probably be sold or traded for some representation of that value.
> 
> Flip side: the moment you learn of someone else having an unwanted or un-useful item which your PC can use, what's stopping your PC from throwing some money at the item's owner in hopes of buying it?
> 
> Do these things enough times with enough items and a "price list" will eventually develop organically.  A published price list just saves playing through all this by assuming those values have already long since been determined in the setting.



It would help if D&D "economics" made any sense at all. Then  you could tell how much money someone might pay for a thing. Like, if the Duke wants a goblet that is everful of his favorite wine, how much should that thing cost? Well, it depends on how much money the Duke has, whether these goblets are mass produced versus there being ONE such goblet, and how much effort it takes to get ones hands on said goblet. But without functional economics, there's no reasonable place to start. If we knew how much money the Duke's subjects netted him in taxes, and how much money he paid for his army, that would be something. Hell if the price of a horse and a suit of armor made sense compared to the price of a bushel of grain and a barel of wine from three provinces over, we could have some idea. But because D&D has, over the years, abandoned anything even smelling like the hated "simulationism" we can't, because gold is just another metagame component that doesn't have any real correlation with the fiction world the PCs exist in because that world is just Hollywood sets anyway.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> It would help if D&D "economics" made any sense at all. Then  you could tell how much money someone might pay for a thing. Like, if the Duke wants a goblet that is everful of his favorite wine, how much should that thing cost? Well, it depends on how much money the Duke has, whether these goblets are mass produced versus there being ONE such goblet, and how much effort it takes to get ones hands on said goblet. But without functional economics, there's no reasonable place to start. If we knew how much money the Duke's subjects netted him in taxes, and how much money he paid for his army, that would be something. Hell if the price of a horse and a suit of armor made sense compared to the price of a bushel of grain and a barel of wine from three provinces over, we could have some idea. But because D&D has, over the years, abandoned anything even smelling like the hated "simulationism" we can't, because gold is just another metagame component that doesn't have any real correlation with the fiction world the PCs exist in because that world is just Hollywood sets anyway.



Quoted for truth.  One of the things I love about Autarch's Adventurer Conqueror King System is how much research and effort has gone into making a realistic economy.  Most games, as you say, just hand-wave everything and force DMs who care about economic consistency to do all the work themselves.

It's frustrating for me, but I suspect you and I are outside the mainstream on this, and most people just don't care.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> But if one wants to use the listed values as an integral part of treasury division,




Terrible idea. Things are worth what people (players) are willing to pay. Let the players decide how much they value an item. “I really want that Vorpal Sword…I’ll give up 10k gold of treasure to get it.”  “I’ll give up 15k”. “Ok, you can have it.”


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> Terrible idea. Things are worth what people (players) are willing to pay. Let the players decide how much they value an item. “I really want that Vorpal Sword…I’ll give up 10k gold of treasure to get it.”  “I’ll give up 15k”. “Ok, you can have it.”



What happens if the players aren't the only ones that want the item?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> What happens if the players aren't the only ones that want the item?



Great plot hook.


----------



## James Gasik

I've long been frustrated by the inability to have an economy that makes a lick of sense.  One character concept I've kept trying to play for many years now is a traveling merchant.  However, the idea is so at odds with the systems I play in, that it usually either falls flat and does nothing, or worse, *succeeds*.

There was a 3.5 game where a friend and I decided to try being siblings who were merchants- I was a Sorcerer, and his character was a Wizard.  At low levels, we relied on skill checks to appraise the value of items, haggle with prospective buyers, and so on.  The DM eventually worked out a system for how much of a deal we could get on a successful "haggle" check, and since we were pretty good at it, we could almost guarantee being able to purchase things for 10-15% less, and sell them with the same markup.

Then we got into magic items, making and selling cheap items (or services, like _everburning torches_) that were affordable in large communities and also very useful.

We were happy making money, and sharing our wealth with our party (since we tended to ask them to make detours so we could find new things to buy, and new places to sell them).

But finally one day the DM asked to see our notes, where we kept a running tally of our net worth, and he sighed.

"Guys, I know you're having fun, and we agreed on the rules.  You've even paid your Guild dues and taxes.  But the fact is, you have so much money it's making it harder for me to run the game".

We pointed out several cash sinks we could invest in, like buying property, paying off a Duke to get minor titles, building a base of operations, and even a ship, but the DM then pointed out the realistic cost of such things was well within our reach, and then what?

At some point, we'd have nothing to do but sink vast wealth into crafting powerful magic items for the party, becoming too powerful for appropriate CR enemies.

And the easy solution, giving enemies magical gear of their own, was counter productive, since if we beat them, their wealth would increase our own exponentially.

So we had to retire our characters, and make new ones that paid full price for everything, and had nothing in our backpacks but lint and magical items.  Very dissatisfying.

But we were talking about critical hits, lol.

So here's the thing- 5% of the time, a monster can theoretically deal double dice of damage.  When that happens is not in the DM's control.  It could happen during an epic boss battle, where suddenly the player is taking an extra 7d6 damage, or it can happen when fighting a mook, turning his d8+3 into 2d8+3.

So when you get right down to it, what percentage of DM crits are even really that impactful?  5e generally makes critical hits rare and tame, and only occasionally do the stars line up so that they can truly make a great impact on a battle.

For players, critical hits are generally pretty weak.  Oh maybe you're a Battlemaster so you can get an extra die, or you have some trait to grant a bonus when you score a critical hit, but generally, there's three types of characters who overperform when they crit.

Paladins, assuming they haven't been forced to use up their smites in order to take out dangerous foes.

Rogues, who always have fistful of dice to work with.

And spellcasters, who don't tend to throw out a lot of attack roll spells to begin with.

It seems to me that critical hits are already pretty lopsided, as most monsters get multiple dice of damage, or can make more attacks than a party of level at or around their CR.

And even when players do roll a 20, it's only a big deal for certain characters anyways.  I mean, what's an extra d8 damage anyways?  Even a d12 is a lousy 6-7 points on average.

Most enemies have enough hit points that small amounts of bonus damage aren't really worth talking about.  A big hit on a weak enemy is just a waste, which I'm sure happens fairly often.

Critical hits are just a bad mechanic, and always have been.  We have them because somehow, rolling really well feels like it should let us "win more".  Every once in a super moon, sure, there's that one crit that happened at that one time, that changed everything.

But is it really worth it to have a "one in a million" mechanic?

Maybe we should just have exploding damage dice instead, if we want dramatic moments to happen with any degree of regularity.

On the other hand, I do like the idea of getting a metagame coupon for when I roll well; then I can save it for a dramatic moment when I need a momentum shift, rather than hope I roll a natural 20 at an appropriate time.


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> It would help if D&D "economics" made any sense at all.



Agreed, though this is one area where I'm willing to let gamist concerns rear their heads just a bit.  Why?  Because I rather despise economics (both as a field of study and as practiced in our current society) in real life and don't want to have to deal with it in the game.


Reynard said:


> Then  you could tell how much money someone might pay for a thing. Like, if the Duke wants a goblet that is everful of his favorite wine, how much should that thing cost?



That would depend on one or more of:
--- your item creation rules (homebrew, of course, if you're in a 5e environment)
--- whether anyone already has such a goblet and then whether it is available for purchase
--- the Duke's willingness and-or ability to pay the price requested by either the creator or the current owner.


Reynard said:


> Well, it depends on how much money the Duke has, whether these goblets are mass produced versus there being ONE such goblet, and how much effort it takes to get ones hands on said goblet.



The "how much money the Duke has" piece can be sticky, but the "how common are these goblets" piece is pure DM fiat and-or dice rolling.  Does every member of the nobility have one?  Or is this some hare-brained off-the-cuff idea of the Duke's in order to one-up the neighbouring Baron?  The motivation (and depth thereof) behind why the Duke wants the goblet will go a long way toward determining what he's willing to pay and-or sacrifice for it.


Reynard said:


> But without functional economics, there's no reasonable place to start. If we knew how much money the Duke's subjects netted him in taxes, and how much money he paid for his army, that would be something. Hell if the price of a horse and a suit of armor made sense compared to the price of a bushel of grain and a barel of wine from three provinces over, we could have some idea. But because D&D has, over the years, abandoned anything even smelling like the hated "simulationism" we can't, because gold is just another metagame component that doesn't have any real correlation with the fiction world the PCs exist in because that world is just Hollywood sets anyway.



I agree D&D has rather sadly abandoned simulationism in many other areas but in this particular area I'm willing to live with a more fanciful system.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Terrible idea. Things are worth what people (players) are willing to pay. Let the players decide how much they value an item. “I really want that Vorpal Sword…I’ll give up 10k gold of treasure to get it.”  “I’ll give up 15k”. “Ok, you can have it.”



To me that part has long since been done during history, leading to an enshrined value system.

Bidding wars have IME caused some pretty good arguments in the past, though nothing earth-shattering.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> To me that part has long since been done during history, leading to an enshrined value system.
> 
> Bidding wars have IME caused some pretty good arguments in the past, though nothing earth-shattering.




It’s possible I’m just not understanding how some DMs use price lists. Can you describe a scenario and how a price list would be helpful?


----------



## Lanefan

James Gasik said:


> "Guys, I know you're having fun, and we agreed on the rules.  You've even paid your Guild dues and taxes.  But the fact is, you have so much money it's making it harder for me to run the game".
> 
> We pointed out several cash sinks we could invest in, like buying property, paying off a Duke to get minor titles, building a base of operations, and even a ship, but the DM then pointed out the realistic cost of such things was well within our reach, and then what?
> 
> At some point, we'd have nothing to do but sink vast wealth into crafting powerful magic items for the party, becoming too powerful for appropriate CR enemies.
> 
> And the easy solution, giving enemies magical gear of their own, was counter productive, since if we beat them, their wealth would increase our own exponentially.
> 
> So we had to retire our characters, and make new ones that paid full price for everything, and had nothing in our backpacks but lint and magical items.  Very dissatisfying.



And completely the fault of the 3e system as designed, to not be (mathematically) flexible enough to decently handle both very-high and very-low wealth parties.

The DM was put in a bind because the system put said DM in a bind.  The only blame I can assign to the DM here is that of trying to adhere too closely to the CR system rather than just winging it.


James Gasik said:


> But we were talking about critical hits, lol.



Oh...yeah...er...right!  So we were. 


James Gasik said:


> But is it really worth it to have a "one in a million" mechanic?



Very much, yes.


James Gasik said:


> Maybe we should just have exploding damage dice instead, if we want dramatic moments to happen with any degree of regularity.



But then it's not one in a million, is it.  If "dramatic moments" are occurring with any degree of regularity (or worse, predictability) then they're not so much dramatic as they are just another element in the game.

That's the cool thing about crits and fumbles that need a confirm roll: the confirm roll means they don't happen all that often, making them unusual when they do occur.  A flat 1 in 20 chance for each is far too frequent IMO.


James Gasik said:


> On the other hand, I do like the idea of getting a metagame coupon for when I roll well; then I can save it for a dramatic moment when I need a momentum shift, rather than hope I roll a natural 20 at an appropriate time.



Metagame coupons = complete non-starter.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> It’s possible I’m just not understanding how some DMs use price lists. Can you describe a scenario and how a price list would be helpful?



I can only speak to how we do it.

During an adventure the party picks up a list of items; for the sake of simplicity let's assume all they find this trip are some basic magic items and some cash.  On returning to town those items are identified and - using the price list - evaluated, leading to a list like this (numbers conveniently add to round figures for this example, in practice it's divided down to the g.p.):

(Item number) --- (what it is) --- (value in gp) --- (claimed by)

103 --- Longsword +1 --- 1800 --- Blurt, Danielle (settled by roll-off, Danielle wins)
104 --- Ring: Protection +1 --- 3000 --- Coriander, Jocantha (settled by roll-off, Coriander wins)
105 --- Potion: Healing --- 200 --- [all five] (Blurt wins a 5-way roll-off)
106 --- Spear +1 Returning --- 2700 --- Jocantha
107 --- Spellbook, Illusionist --- 4700 --- [none; sold, none of these characters are Illusionists]
108 --- Folding Boat --- 11000 --- Aloysius+Jocantha go halfsies (because Jocantha lost out on the ring)
109 --- Potion: Invisibility --- 600 --- Danielle
Cash and gems found, minus party expenses e.g. ID pearls = 6000 gp equivalent
------------------------------------------
Total treasury value = 30000 g.p.

There are 5 characters in the party and each gets a full share, thus the share for each one is (30000 / 5 =) 6000.

Next, the players, in-character, claim items from the list; knowing that whatever they take comes out of the 6000 share that character gets; and if they claim and win too much they owe the treasury the difference.  Items claimed by no-one are sold, arbitrarily for the listed value as experience has taught me that high-low value systems are a real PITA.  Claims are shown above; party members are Aloysius, Blurt, Coriander, Danielle, and Jocantha.

So what each character ends up with is:

Aloysius: a half-share in the Folding Boat plus 1000 gp
Blurt: a Potion of Healing + 5400 gp
Coriander: the Ring of Protection + 3000 gp
Danielle: the Longsword, the Invisibility Potion, and 3600 g.p.
Jocantha: the Spear, a half-share in the Folding Boat, and needs to put 1700 back into the treasury from her own existing funds/resources.

Any kind of drafting or take-your-choice system would inevitably end up with one character owning the Folding Boat outright while someone else might end up only with the Longsword; a huge disparity in net value and exactly what the system is specifically designed to avoid.

Sometimes big-ticket items like the Folding Boat here will be taken out of treasury (thus reducing everyone's share) and carried forward as party possessions - which is fine provided that party intends to stick together.  But party makeup often changes as characters come and go, and trying to figure out years later who owns what share of some carried-forward item is the stuff of bookkeeping and record-keeping nightmares! 

Conclusion:
Good luck doing anything like this without a magic item price list.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> I can only speak to how we do it.
> 
> During an adventure the party picks up a list of items; for the sake of simplicity let's assume all they find this trip are some basic magic items and some cash.  On returning to town those items are identified and - using the price list - evaluated, leading to a list like this (numbers conveniently add to round figures for this example, in practice it's divided down to the g.p.):
> 
> (Item number) --- (what it is) --- (value in gp) --- (claimed by)
> 
> 103 --- Longsword +1 --- 1800 --- Blurt, Danielle (settled by roll-off, Danielle wins)
> 104 --- Ring: Protection +1 --- 3000 --- Coriander, Jocantha (settled by roll-off, Coriander wins)
> 105 --- Potion: Healing --- 200 --- [all five] (Blurt wins a 5-way roll-off)
> 106 --- Spear +1 Returning --- 2700 --- Jocantha
> 107 --- Spellbook, Illusionist --- 4700 --- [none; sold, none of these characters are Illusionists]
> 108 --- Folding Boat --- 11000 --- Aloysius+Jocantha go halfsies (because Jocantha lost out on the ring)
> 109 --- Potion: Invisibility --- 600 --- Danielle
> Cash and gems found, minus party expenses e.g. ID pearls = 6000 gp equivalent
> ------------------------------------------
> Total treasury value = 30000 g.p.
> 
> There are 5 characters in the party and each gets a full share, thus the share for each one is (30000 / 5 =) 6000.
> 
> Next, the players, in-character, claim items from the list; knowing that whatever they take comes out of the 6000 share that character gets; and if they claim and win too much they owe the treasury the difference.  Items claimed by no-one are sold, arbitrarily for the listed value as experience has taught me that high-low value systems are a real PITA.  Claims are shown above; party members are Aloysius, Blurt, Coriander, Danielle, and Jocantha.
> 
> So what each character ends up with is:
> 
> Aloysius: a half-share in the Folding Boat plus 1000 gp
> Blurt: a Potion of Healing + 5400 gp
> Coriander: the Ring of Protection + 3000 gp
> Danielle: the Longsword, the Invisibility Potion, and 3600 g.p.
> Jocantha: the Spear, a half-share in the Folding Boat, and needs to put 1700 back into the treasury from her own existing funds/resources.
> 
> Any kind of drafting or take-your-choice system would inevitably end up with one character owning the Folding Boat outright while someone else might end up only with the Longsword; a huge disparity in net value and exactly what the system is specifically designed to avoid.
> 
> Sometimes big-ticket items like the Folding Boat here will be taken out of treasury (thus reducing everyone's share) and carried forward as party possessions - which is fine provided that party intends to stick together.  But party makeup often changes as characters come and go, and trying to figure out years later who owns what share of some carried-forward item is the stuff of bookkeeping and record-keeping nightmares!
> 
> Conclusion:
> Good luck doing anything like this without a magic item price list.




Whoah. 

The closest experience I have to any of that  is divvying up raid loot in World of Warcraft, ca. 2006/7. 

Well, that and my buddy’s acrimonious divorce.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Also, if you want to handle it that way, wouldn’t it be simpler to auction off each item, then divide up the auction proceeds?


----------



## billd91

Bill Zebub said:


> Whoah.
> 
> The closest experience I have to any of that  is divvying up raid loot in World of Warcraft, ca. 2006/7.
> 
> Well, that and my buddy’s acrimonious divorce.



Yeah, I’ve encountered the method before. Absolutely hated it. It meant you lost out on high cost stuff because it wasn’t divisible in such a way.


----------



## Reynard

Lanefan said:


> I can only speak to how we do it.
> 
> During an adventure the party picks up a list of items; for the sake of simplicity let's assume all they find this trip are some basic magic items and some cash.  On returning to town those items are identified and - using the price list - evaluated, leading to a list like this (numbers conveniently add to round figures for this example, in practice it's divided down to the g.p.):
> 
> (Item number) --- (what it is) --- (value in gp) --- (claimed by)
> 
> 103 --- Longsword +1 --- 1800 --- Blurt, Danielle (settled by roll-off, Danielle wins)
> 104 --- Ring: Protection +1 --- 3000 --- Coriander, Jocantha (settled by roll-off, Coriander wins)
> 105 --- Potion: Healing --- 200 --- [all five] (Blurt wins a 5-way roll-off)
> 106 --- Spear +1 Returning --- 2700 --- Jocantha
> 107 --- Spellbook, Illusionist --- 4700 --- [none; sold, none of these characters are Illusionists]
> 108 --- Folding Boat --- 11000 --- Aloysius+Jocantha go halfsies (because Jocantha lost out on the ring)
> 109 --- Potion: Invisibility --- 600 --- Danielle
> Cash and gems found, minus party expenses e.g. ID pearls = 6000 gp equivalent
> ------------------------------------------
> Total treasury value = 30000 g.p.
> 
> There are 5 characters in the party and each gets a full share, thus the share for each one is (30000 / 5 =) 6000.
> 
> Next, the players, in-character, claim items from the list; knowing that whatever they take comes out of the 6000 share that character gets; and if they claim and win too much they owe the treasury the difference.  Items claimed by no-one are sold, arbitrarily for the listed value as experience has taught me that high-low value systems are a real PITA.  Claims are shown above; party members are Aloysius, Blurt, Coriander, Danielle, and Jocantha.
> 
> So what each character ends up with is:
> 
> Aloysius: a half-share in the Folding Boat plus 1000 gp
> Blurt: a Potion of Healing + 5400 gp
> Coriander: the Ring of Protection + 3000 gp
> Danielle: the Longsword, the Invisibility Potion, and 3600 g.p.
> Jocantha: the Spear, a half-share in the Folding Boat, and needs to put 1700 back into the treasury from her own existing funds/resources.
> 
> Any kind of drafting or take-your-choice system would inevitably end up with one character owning the Folding Boat outright while someone else might end up only with the Longsword; a huge disparity in net value and exactly what the system is specifically designed to avoid.
> 
> Sometimes big-ticket items like the Folding Boat here will be taken out of treasury (thus reducing everyone's share) and carried forward as party possessions - which is fine provided that party intends to stick together.  But party makeup often changes as characters come and go, and trying to figure out years later who owns what share of some carried-forward item is the stuff of bookkeeping and record-keeping nightmares!
> 
> Conclusion:
> Good luck doing anything like this without a magic item price list.



Very cool.

Out of curiosity, did you also use XP=gp at the time? If so, did Blurt end up with 5400xp and Coriander only 3000xp because magic items aren't included in the treasure to XP calcs, or did the GM equally split up the cash (plus sold items values) XP regardless of how it shook out individually?


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Also, if you want to handle it that way, wouldn’t it be simpler to auction off each item, then divide up the auction proceeds?



Perhaps; but over the long run that would tend to result in the rich, in effect, getting richer.  There's also the question of what value is received for items sold outside the party, which is where a list also comes in handy...along with for when the party want to know what might be available in town and the costs thereof.


----------



## Lanefan

billd91 said:


> Yeah, I’ve encountered the method before. Absolutely hated it. It meant you lost out on high cost stuff because it wasn’t divisible in such a way.



Two things here:

First, if a party is a) willing to forego some share now and b) are likely to stick together for a while, high-value items can be carried forward into the next treasury as party possessions.  IME this is more commonly done with things that are useful to all, such as the Folding Boat in the above example, or a Flying Carpet; rather than things useful to just one character e.g. a stupendous sword that only the Fighter can make any real use of.

Second, as DM I quite like it if really big-ticket items have to be sold, as it allows me to place them in adventures (where they can be useful) and not have to worry much about any given item's long-term impact. (though I do have to be mindful of the big influx of cash it represents)



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, did you also use XP=gp at the time? If so, did Blurt end up with 5400xp and Coriander only 3000xp because magic items aren't included in the treasure to XP calcs, or did the GM equally split up the cash (plus sold items values) XP regardless of how it shook out individually?



I have never used xp-for-gp.


----------

