How much of a nerf is this?

[Coidzor]

So, in my group, for whatever reason, one of the players got it into his head that the SRD said that natural weapons could not crit and convinced our DM that it said so. Then, when confronted with the actual text of the SRD that disproved this claim, fell back on the position that it somehow made more sense for natural weapons to be unable to crit because of the way animals think and fight, which was just plain facepalm. The interpretation has stuck on as a houserule now, as near as I can tell, though, so I've learned to live with it.

Still, I've been trying to figure out if this limitation of many monsters, totemists, bear warriors, and druids more benefited the party due to the party being subjected to more potential natural twenties or more disadvantaged those characters that relied on natural weapons... (I think we just barely stopped it from resulting in the monk being kicked in the face further)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

It's a minor nerf to most monsters, simply because they have a crit range of 20/x2. But totemists who love to throw attacks to the wind like crazy suffer for it.

Easiest way to counter him is to find a monster with a non-standard crit range and go "No, you're wrong, they can crit."

[Eldariel]

Eh, if you play one of those "DM opens Monster Manual and throws an opponent of appropriate level at you"-campaigns (or has done it before and just plays it out), it'd help you more. If you play a real campaign and have natural attackers in the party, it'd hurt you more.

Mostly though, we're talking about 20/x2 weapons. Doesn't really make much of a difference as the crits we're talking about are lowish impact and rare. Higher up, nothing is vulnerable to them anyways so the relevance grows even smaller.


But yeah, I'd say outside very NA-heavy party it'd help the party more than hurt (especially since Big T would lose his 18-20/x3 critz on biting).

[Darth Stabber]

Wow, that is a painfully bad and completely stupid house rule.
A) most animals generally go for quick kills (especially the throat), the only exceptions I can think of are animals that have some other shtick like constricter snakes, spider's webs, and poisonous critters (or in the komodo dragon's diseased bite).
B) apart from that, why would animal claws have any less chance of hitting a lucky spot than any other weapon with a 20 crit range. Your organs and major arteries don't rearrange themself because you are fighting a bear.
C)Totemist (the poster boy for PC natural weapons) has a soulmeld that increases the threat range of natural weapons, so how would that work under this preposterous modification? And beyond that, totemist is not a class deserving of the nerfbat anyway.
D)Big T is already one of the saddest entries in the monster manual, do you need to nerf him further by taking all the sting out of his bite?
E)yes this benefits manufactured weapon wielding pcs. There is a list of classes that do not like this rule, but on the net it is a statistical gain. But so would house ruling that mosters don't add their con mod to hp for hitdice divisible by three. It is a gain based soley on arbitrary BS.

[J.Gellert]

It won't impact your game all that much, but I'm always amazed at how ... strangely people's minds work at times. I wonder what was going through that player's head. Maybe one of his older characters was killed by a troll's critical hit?

I wouldn't worry about this nerf, but I'd definitely keep an eye out for future... rules alterations. :smalltongue:

[TroubleBrewing]

Suffice to say that it's less a nerf and more a confusing and unnecessary rules adjustment.

[CTrees]

Dragons. Dragons have a ton of natural attacks, and are incredibly intelligent. See also many outsiders. If a PC barbarian with INT 3 is smart enough to go for vital spots, how in the nine hells do you justify things like dragons and demons "not fighting like that!?!"

Further, look at a cat fighting. They go for the neck, grapple, and try to disembowel with their back claws. That's targeting vital points (exact what you'd look for with critical hits (or sneak attacks)) by instinct. That's without getting into things like wolves or tigers/lions, where... you see the same focus on the neck.

One more: a human druid. That druid, using a quarterstaff, knows how to try for critical hits, but once she turns into a bear she somehow forgets?

It's stupid, but it's not *that* much of a nerf in general, and if the party lacks any users of natural attacks, it's mostly helpful. Still stupid.

[HappyBlanket]

I'm reasonably certain that even the player doesn't really believe in that ruling. Probably just doesn't want to admit that he was wrong. Your gm probably agreed with it so it wouldn't turn into a big deal.

I seriously do not recommend confronting the guy about this; he'll just feel stupid again, which puts him one step closer to rage quiting. Best case scenario is your group not bringing it back up again, if only to keep from embarrassing himself.

[Grendus]

If you rotate DMing, just change the house rule back when you're the DM. Once they're used to natural attacks landing crits, they'll probably rotate back to the old way.

As most have said, it's a slight nerf, but a major "wtf" unless they're thinking solely of creatures with very short claws that kill by lacerating surface arteries. Even then, it should be more a case of "kitty still only does 1 damage on a crit, because all of his attacks do negative damage anyways".

[stainboy]

20/x2 crits increase your average damage by 5%, and only against like half the creatures in the game. The nerf isn't big enough to matter.

I don't see the point of the rule though.

[Jude_H]

No vorpal rabbits? Denied!

[Thrice Dead Cat]

20/x2 crits increase your average damage by 5%, and only against like half the creatures in the game. The nerf isn't big enough to matter.

I don't see the point of the rule though.

The issue is, while not a nerf for most PCs (sans druids, wildshape rangers, polymorph loving wizards, and totemists), it's an unnecessary rule. There are also plenty of things out there that show that there are no grounds whatsoever for it, either.

[Moriato]

Wow, that's... strange. Like others have said, it wont make that much of a difference, and in fact it will probably help the PCs more often than it will hinder them, with all the monsters out there that rely on natural weapons. Any difference will be slight, though.

This reminds me of a DM I once had who swore that there was a rule somewhere that said the creatures who were immune to critical hits also couldn't SCORE critical hits. I have no idea where he came up with that.

[stainboy]

The issue is, while not a nerf for most PCs (sans druids, wildshape rangers, polymorph loving wizards, and totemists), it's an unnecessary rule. There are also plenty of things out there that show that there are no grounds whatsoever for it, either.

Oh yeah, totally on board there. It's bad house rule design and I'm all for Coidzor getting rid of it on principle. But if he can't, it's only 5% damage. It's not a reason to avoid natural attack builds.

[myancey]

The one benefit I'd see out of it is if the monsters you encounter have to follow under the same policy. That's the only way it'd be cool for me.

[faceroll]

20/x2 crits increase your average damage by 5%, and only against like half the creatures in the game. The nerf isn't big enough to matter.

I don't see the point of the rule though.

Average damage in a game with high variances is a misleading statistic. This rule change is quite a boon for players, as a lucky crit from a monster with high strength (and most of them have high str) can turn an encounter from routine into deadly.

Burst damage is more useful than a simple average damage assessment would imply, due the discrete nature of D&D.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Average damage in a game with high variances is a misleading statistic. This rule change is quite a boon for players, as a lucky crit from a monster with high strength (and most of them have high str) can turn an encounter from routine into deadly.

Burst damage is more useful than a simple average damage assessment would imply, due the discrete nature of D&D.

While true, there are some monsters designed to crit or get more mileage out of it. The Big T has his bite, and while I don't have any names on hand, I do know that there are a few constructs and the like throughout all of 3.X that do have some special crit designs to them.

Could a DM just re-houserule it so that these guys can still crit with whatever they have? Sure, but that's sloppy.

[Pechvarry]

Then, when confronted with the actual text of the SRD that disproved this claim, fell back on the position that it somehow made more sense for natural weapons to be unable to crit because of the way animals think and fight, which was just plain facepalm. The interpretation has stuck on as a houserule now, as near as I can tell, though, so I've learned to live with it.

Interpretation: you now have a silly house rule in effect for the sole purpose of allowing one player to keep their pride over a silly issue.

Also: yet another hit against monks.

[CodeRed]

Interpretation: you now have a silly house rule in effect for the sole purpose of allowing one player to keep their pride over a silly issue.

Also: yet another hit against monks.

To me, that would be the perfect example of someone who needs to get their pride knocked down several pegs if being wrong about a D&D rule would unman them so terribly.

[Darth Stabber]

To me, that would be the perfect example of someone who needs to get their pride knocked down several pegs if being wrong about a D&D rule would unman them so terribly.

Yeah, and I say this as a man who has been knocked down a peg several times throughout my gaming career (I still occasionally forget about a few things that changed between 3.0 and 3.5).

I have often noticed that crits in general are a frequently moded or expanded rule subset.
Examples
1)3 20s in a row=insta-death or reduce to 0hp or some similar thing ( I generally use this one, not that it has ever actually gone off, but it makes players happy when they get the second 20, and when they don't get the third: oh well still gor a crit)
2)ray and/or touch spell criticals. (I allow touch and ray spells to benefit from example 1, but casters really don't need the bonus damage).
3)no confirmation rolls neccessary(sometimes for pcs only as a pcs are different rule).
4)critical hit charts (and their evil twin critical fail charts).
5)critical skill success and failure.
6)crit=con damage (very strong variant, makes kukri crit-fishers scary), loosely based on the first starwars d20.

And those are just the ones I have played under, I'm sure everyone has seen a number of really weird ones.

[Godskook]

2)ray and/or touch spell criticals. (I allow touch and ray spells to benefit from example 1, but casters really don't need the bonus damage).

If you're talking about if spells can crit in the first place:Spells that have an attack roll can crit, or at least rays and touch spells can. Not as sure about orb spells, technically, due to their fuzzy position on the rulesheet, but there's no reason they shouldn't follow the standard set by rays and touch spells.

Otherwise, ignore me.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I think the general rule was given in the Rules Compendium, that, if you use an attack roll "to hit," then it can crit.

[Bayar]

I think the general rule was given in the Rules Compendium, that, if you use an attack roll "to hit," then it can crit.

That rule exists in the PHB too, if my memory serves well. Spells naturally crit on a roll of 20.

[Darth Stabber]

Well then I guess I had a hoise rule I didn't know about. That could generate an interesting feat or two.

[Aquillion]

It's a ridiculous rule, though, just from a common-sense perspective. Punches and kicks can and do 'crit' in real life -- there's many, many cases of people getting killed by one extremely unlucky punch.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

It's a ridiculous rule, though, just from a common-sense perspective. Punches and kicks can and do 'crit' in real life -- there's many, many cases of people getting killed by one extremely unlucky punch.

Exactly! Like the guy who managed to pull a leopard's tongue out by sticking his hand in its mouth. I'd call that a natural 20 on a grapple check for a pin, if I ever saw one. And on the other end, there are a bunch of stories where people manage to survive devastating shark bites and the like through luck or, more like, simply having more HP than the regular bloke!:smalltongue:

[Metahuman1]

Turn on any good MMA or Boxing match. Watch what happens when one of those Mauy Tai Round house kicks, boxing Hay makers, Mauy Tai Elbow or Knee strikes, hit's the neck/throat, Temple, behind the ear of the opponent of the guy who threw it, or when it chin checks him, or heck just pops him in the forehead with enough force and at the right angle.

Look at any MMA, Wrestling, Judo, Ju-jitsu (Any sub style.), or other grappling/ground fighting style, and watch what happens when one combatant get's a sleeper hold set up and executed properly on the other.


Now tell me that a critical hit can't be made, and made devastating to an utterly terrifying to think about level, with a "Natural attack/weapon."

And if you do this with a straight face after having looked at such matches, I'm afraid much of what ever respect I had for you before you did that will have to go away. This form someone who's been on the wrong end of the aforementioned sleeper hold before. (Incidentally, the head ache I woke up with was worse then the hold itself.)

[Tvtyrant]

I think the general rule was given in the Rules Compendium, that, if you use an attack roll "to hit," then it can crit.

It can also sneak attack! Thought I wish someone would invent a crit-fishing Spellwarp Sniper build...

[Greenish]

It can also sneak attack! Thought I wish someone would invent a crit-fishing Spellwarp Sniper build...It's a bit hard to improve spell crit chance beyond Imp Critical.

[Jude_H]

You could add a whole bunch of attack rolls. So Telekinesis + a generous helping of metamagic would mostly do it. Add Cloud of knives. Maybe some Unseen Seer and Telling Blow to pretend like there's a reason to score the crit at all.

...Actually, there has to be something better than Telling Blow to make the crits meaningful.

Edit: Pathfinder's crit feats! Those are what this needs. I just need to figure out what those do. >_>

[Tvtyrant]

It's a bit hard to improve spell crit chance beyond Imp Critical.

Well you can add more towards confirming it, but yeah its unlikely to be a great build. Was more expressing my wish that someone would do it. I might look into it later.

[Heliomance]

Another crit rule that everyone forgets: Crits don't multiply your damage. If you score a crit on a x2 weapon, you don't roll damage and double it, you roll damage twice.

[Wings of Peace]

In what universe does your friend's logic make sense... there's a world of difference between a bear swinging at me and raking my chest and that same bear managing a "critical" blow and raking my jugular.

[Serpentine]

I wonder if he might be mixing up critical hits and something like sneak attack or called shots... In which case it still doesn't make sense in light of all the ambushing and hamstringing animals out there :smallconfused:

[Bovine Colonel]

Point your player to this thread.