Critical Hits

[Sir_Thaddeus]

So, in the Pathfinder SRD, it states that "A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together." If I recall correctly, there's similar wording for critical hits in 3.5e.
I'm currently playing a Pathfinder campaign, and when I rolled a critical hit in combat, it turned out that the DM and I had different conceptions of what this text meant.
My character was wielding a Large falchion, and the damage from it was 2d6 + 14. To my knowledge, the bonuses are part of the "damage roll," and as such apply to critical damage twice. The DM said that the "damage roll" was simply 2d6; on a crit I roll THAT twice, and add the +14 on to the total. So we're looking at a difference between a crit of (average damage) 42 and a crit of 28.
I'm curious as to which interpretation is correct; the specific case is irrelevant, since I destroyed the skeleton I hit anyways. Also, since our group is fairly low-op, I'll keep the DM's interpretation as a house rule; I'm mostly curious as to the actual RAW for future campaigns.

[RFLS]

So, in the Pathfinder SRD, it states that "A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together." If I recall correctly, there's similar wording for critical hits in 3.5e.
I'm currently playing a Pathfinder campaign, and when I rolled a critical hit in combat, it turned out that the DM and I had different conceptions of what this text meant.
My character was wielding a Large falchion, and the damage from it was 2d6 + 14. To my knowledge, the bonuses are part of the "damage roll," and as such apply to critical damage twice. The DM said that the "damage roll" was simply 2d6; on a crit I roll THAT twice, and add the +14 on to the total. So we're looking at a difference between a crit of (average damage) 42 and a crit of 28.
I'm curious as to which interpretation is correct; the specific case is irrelevant, since I destroyed the skeleton I hit anyways. Also, since our group is fairly low-op, I'll keep the DM's interpretation as a house rule; I'm mostly curious as to the actual RAW for future campaigns.

RAW, you roll the weapon damage a second time and add your flat bonuses a second time.

[Sir_Thaddeus]

RAW, you roll the weapon damage a second time and add your flat bonuses a second time.

Okay, thanks! So the bonuses DO get added twice.

[andromax]

All the usual bonuses means exactly that.. weapon base damage and anything else that gets multiplied in a critical in 3.5E.

Your DM new?

[TuggyNE]

The only thing that doesn't get multiplied is bonus damage dice (flaming, icy burst, holy, sneak attack, etc).

[Khedrac]

The one thing though is the DM is always right. So don't just tell him that he is wrong - discuss it, etc.

If he sticks to this houserule then it slightly hurts melee more - as at higher levels more damage tends to come from flat bonuses (like power attack) than the base weapon damage, so crits become less of a damage boost.

The one thing not to do is ignore his ruling and play it correctly without telling him - given he made a ruling that is cheating.

[SowZ]

So, in the Pathfinder SRD, it states that "A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together." If I recall correctly, there's similar wording for critical hits in 3.5e.
I'm currently playing a Pathfinder campaign, and when I rolled a critical hit in combat, it turned out that the DM and I had different conceptions of what this text meant.
My character was wielding a Large falchion, and the damage from it was 2d6 + 14. To my knowledge, the bonuses are part of the "damage roll," and as such apply to critical damage twice. The DM said that the "damage roll" was simply 2d6; on a crit I roll THAT twice, and add the +14 on to the total. So we're looking at a difference between a crit of (average damage) 42 and a crit of 28.
I'm curious as to which interpretation is correct; the specific case is irrelevant, since I destroyed the skeleton I hit anyways. Also, since our group is fairly low-op, I'll keep the DM's interpretation as a house rule; I'm mostly curious as to the actual RAW for future campaigns.

Are skeletons not immune to critical hits in PF?

Note, if they are normally I think it is reasonable to ignore that rule. Undead give the DM options to muck with precision damage types, I suppose. But the undead immunity to crits was always strange to me. Elementals and oozes and ethereal beings, sure, makes sense.

[Ravenica]

nope

barely anything is

pretty much elementals and oozes thats it

edit: Ah and incorporeals (but they lose that against ghost touch weapons)

[TopCheese]

The one thing though is the DM is always right. So don't just tell him that he is wrong - discuss it, etc.


Lies, well a common misconception. The group of players are more powerful than any DM. If a DM keeps throwing out "rule 0" that hampers the players will find a DM playing alone. You are right about not just saying "you're wrong" but I hate the misconception that the DM is all powerful.

One of my favorite rule changes in 4.0 is where they got rid of "rule 0" and tells people the first time the DM makes a quick judgement and then the group talks about it and make a group ruling based on everyone's opinion.

[Ravens_cry]

Not really a lie. It's just that there is a rule -1, The Negative First Law: No players equals no game.
If a DM makes a rule, that is the rule, but foot votes are accepted.

[TheTick]

Here's the relevant bit from Paizo's PRD:


A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is ×2.

Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

Emphasis mine, and note the exception as everyone stated.

[Ghen]

Really though, your DM's ruling will work out in your favor in the long run. As players, your party will be subjected to a lot more crits than it meets out. I'd say that your DM's interpretation is looking out for you.

[Ravens_cry]

Really though, your DM's ruling will work out in your favor in the long run. As players, your party will be subjected to a lot more crits than it meets out. I'd say that your DM's interpretation is looking out for you.
Assuming that reducing things to negatives is the typical ways combats end, which, in my experience, is basically the norm, it means that fights will last longer though.

[TheTick]

If you are fighting melee-based monsters your whole adventuring career, that might be true, but many higher-end enemies are going to be attacking with spells, spell-like abilities, breath weapons, and more. It might hurt the enemy some of the time, but it'll be hurting the party's melee characters all the time.

[Harugami]

that kinda weird that you roll damage twice, my group always totals up the damage and multiply it by the crit like 2d6+5 maybe got you a 13 and crit is x2 so like 26 damage. but that's the way our group prefers it so maybe its another mysterious house rule.

[KillianHawkeye]

that kinda weird that you roll damage twice, my group always totals up the damage and multiply it by the crit like 2d6+5 maybe got you a 13 and crit is x2 so like 26 damage. but that's the way our group prefers it so maybe its another mysterious house rule.

Actually rolling multiple times gives you a better random distribution. So, you're less likely to roll a max damage crit, but you're also less likely to get stuck with doubling a bad roll.

[Person_Man]

Here's the relevant bit from Paizo's PRD:


A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is ×2.

Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.


Wait a second. The Paizo "exception" rule as you quoted it is poorly worded. It excludes Precision damage and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities. But it does not exclude additional damage dice from other abilities, spells, etc.

Whereas the SRD exlusion simply states "Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit."

Was that intentional? Or am I just crazy here. (A distinct possibility).

[TheTick]

Interesting thought. So, a Sorcerer casts Firebrand on you, giving you +1d6 fire damage, would that get doubled? The spell does *not* say it replicates the effects of the flaming effect, so you may be able to read it that way.

[yougi]

To the OP: I also use that house rule in the game I played to reduce the number of lucky deaths, and I recently learned that my players did not know it was a house rule. We talked about it, and decided to go back to the regular rules. At least, now they can't complain when they get one-shot by a lucky crit by a minion.


that kinda weird that you roll damage twice, my group always totals up the damage and multiply it by the crit like 2d6+5 maybe got you a 13 and crit is x2 so like 26 damage. but that's the way our group prefers it so maybe its another mysterious house rule.

I also play with that, but yeah, it's a house rule.


Actually rolling multiple times gives you a better random distribution. So, you're less likely to roll a max damage crit, but you're also less likely to get stuck with doubling a bad roll.

Indeed, but it also saves time, and in the end, the average damage is the exact same.

[Socratov]

Interesting thought. So, a Sorcerer casts Firebrand on you, giving you +1d6 fire damage, would that get doubled? The spell does *not* say it replicates the effects of the flaming effect, so you may be able to read it that way.

well, according to Complete Arcane (in 3.5 the point where weaponlike spells and their workings are explained) weaponlike spells (i.e. spells that require an attack roll to land them) do crit for their dicedamage described in the spell itself where the critvalues are x2 modifier and a threat range of a natural 20. Since PF refers to DnD rules a lot I can only assume (unless otherwise stated) that these rules count for PF as well

[TuggyNE]

well, according to Complete Arcane (in 3.5 the point where weaponlike spells and their workings are explained) weaponlike spells (i.e. spells that require an attack roll to land them) do crit for their dicedamage described in the spell itself where the critvalues are x2 modifier and a threat range of a natural 20. Since PF refers to DnD rules a lot I can only assume (unless otherwise stated) that these rules count for PF as well

Except that buff spells that increase weapon damage aren't weaponlike spells by any stretch; they do no damage on their own.

[Socratov]

Except that buff spells that increase weapon damage aren't weaponlike spells by any stretch; they do no damage on their own.

didn't know the spell itself, so :smallredface:

But no, a buffspell is not a weaponlike spell (read my description of a spell with an attackroll).

And no, magical buffs are not weapon (or muscle) inherent, and thus not multiplied on a crit. I am AFB atm (I could remember the CA example from memory), but I somewhere there is a rule against spellbuffs on weapons being multiplied on crit (unless specifically mention to).

[TuggyNE]

And no, magical buffs are not weapon (or muscle) inherent, and thus not multiplied on a crit. I am AFB atm (I could remember the CA example from memory), but I somewhere there is a rule against spellbuffs on weapons being multiplied on crit (unless specifically mention to).

There is indeed such a rule in 3.5, but PF appears to have (inadvertently?) left out some useful text in its rule.