Critical Ranges for Weapons

[Ranjazzo]

I have run a couple of 5e games with some friends, and was wondering why they took out the critical ranges for the weapons. There are some weapon properties that make certain weapons better choices than others, but I know the critical ranges were a big decision in which weapon I chose.

If there is no direct answer, maybe this thread will foster some discussion.

[RedMage125]

For one, it would dilute the appeal of the Champion Fighter.

For two, there is no "confirmation roll" on crits, so a weapon with a 19-20 threat range would automatically score a crit on a 19 or a 20, and this would make weapons with an 18-20 threat range overwhemingly good.

If you plan on implementing this, you may want to consider how you will adjust the Champion Fighter so that he does not lose his appeal.

[GiantOctopodes]

My theory is this:

With Advantage and Lucky being in place (as well as diviner and other ways to affect rolls), there is already the potential to have a greater than 10% chance to get a crit. With just advantage, an 18-20 crit range actually represents a nearly 30% crit chance, which becomes problematic when considering, as an example, Rogue sneak attacks or Brutal Critical rolls.

The simple fact is, doubling or tripling your crit chance is *always* better than +1 or even +3 to your average damage, and as such, it would force people to use those weapons to maintain optimal damage, effectively reducing variety in weapon choice. By increasing the "conformity" of damage across various weapons, it appears they went the route of trying to make it mechanically equivalent to use as many different weapons as possible, to allow weapon choice to be based on flavor and RP considerations rather than mechanical advantage, and differing crit ranges would fly in the face of that goal. So do the feats they have, but that's a different matter entirely.

[Demonic Spoon]

My theory is this:

With Advantage and Lucky being in place (as well as diviner and other ways to affect rolls), there is already the potential to have a greater than 10% chance to get a crit. With just advantage, an 18-20 crit range actually represents a nearly 30% crit chance, which becomes problematic when considering, as an example, Rogue sneak attacks or Brutal Critical rolls.

The simple fact is, doubling or tripling your crit chance is *always* better than +1 or even +3 to your average damage, and as such, it would force people to use those weapons to maintain optimal damage, effectively reducing variety in weapon choice. By increasing the "conformity" of damage across various weapons, it appears they went the route of trying to make it mechanically equivalent to use as many different weapons as possible, to allow weapon choice to be based on flavor and RP considerations rather than mechanical advantage, and differing crit ranges would fly in the face of that goal. So do the feats they have, but that's a different matter entirely.
They could easily have just made higher crit range cost something in terms of damage; I don't see how double crit chance is in any way better than +3 to average damage unless you benefit disproportionately from crits such as being a rogue.


Anyway, I think the main reason is just that there are far more many ways in 5e to modify crits and amplify the effect of crits rather than just improving threat range (or a couple medicore weapon properties that did extra damage). Off the top of my head, the following are ways to amplify your crit damage:

-Champion class feature improving critical range
-Half-orc feature
-Barbarian feature? Not sure about this
-Advantage
-Sneak attack/smite/anything that adds damage dice


Having weapon-specific crit ranges would encourage people who benefit from the above properties to take the weapons with the biggest crit ranges, which would either be overpowered in their hands, or useless in the hands of someone who didn't have such features. It could also potentially lead to some cheesy builds built around critting all the time.

[SharkForce]

i kind of like it this way. if you make one weapon better for crits, it eventually becomes the absolute optimized option for builds that are heavily influenced by crits (half-orcs, great weapon users, paladins, rogues, barbarians).

as it stands, there are times when one or the other is the better option, depending on your build, rather than one weapon being the be-all end-all weapon of choice for damage.

if you've ever played D&D online, you've probably experienced a discussion on why you "have" to use a khopesh unless you've got certain specific named weapons for a TWF or sword and board build or you're not optimized, and you "have" to have a certain named weapon for two-handed builds (actually, the pool may have expanded slightly by now... the (epic) sword of shadows may no longer be the only weapon that has a ridiculous crit range and multiplier for two-handers these days, haven't played in a while).

as it stands, you can often get by just fine using a wide variety of weapons without making a huge difference. and that is nice. it expands the pool of weapons you can use without feeling like you're taking a bit hit to your effectiveness.

[Ghost Nappa]

They could easily have just made higher crit range cost something in terms of damage; I don't see how double crit chance is in any way better than +3 to average damage unless you benefit disproportionately from crits such as being a rogue.

When you score a critical hit you double the amount of die you roll.

At what point does a flat bonus to your damage overcome double die?



Case: Small Die.

Normal: Let's say you do 1d4 (2.5)+2 damage or 4.5 damage on average.

Flat-bonus: 1d4+5 damage is 7.5 damage on average.
Double Die: 2d4 (5)+2 damage is 7 damage on average.

Flat-bonus is better.

Case: Large Die.

Normal: 1d8 (4.5)+2 or 6.5 on average.

Flat Bonus: 1d8+5 or 9.5 on average.
Double Die: 2d8 (9) +2 or 11 on average.

Double Die is better.

The issue here is that the larger the damage die of the weapon, the more you're going to favor looking for increased critical damage over flat-bonuses to your damage, which don't get multiplied during a critical hit.


I have run a couple of 5e games with some friends, and was wondering why they took out the critical ranges for the weapons. There are some weapon properties that make certain weapons better choices than others, but I know the critical ranges were a big decision in which weapon I chose.

If there is no direct answer, maybe this thread will foster some discussion.


For one, it would dilute the appeal of the Champion Fighter.

For two, there is no "confirmation roll" on crits, so a weapon with a 19-20 threat range would automatically score a crit on a 19 or a 20, and this would make weapons with an 18-20 threat range overwhemingly good.

If you plan on implementing this, you may want to consider how you will adjust the Champion Fighter so that he does not lose his appeal.

Say now that instead of giving "Improved Critical" as a class feature to the Champion, we rephrased it so it lowered the required roll to achieve a critical by X (where X is hopefully not larger than 2). That way we could give the improved crit range to weapons like in older editions. Then we could make it so it stacks!

But the crit range is less important on smaller weapons (which tend to be "simple") and more important on larger ones (which tend to be "martial").

Guess which classes get full access to all martial weapons. The Fighter and the Paladin.

Let's say our theoritcal crit range property on weapons goes up to three. If it stacks with improved critical, then that means we can generate a 1/4 chance of a crit on a d10 or d12 weapon on a single attack. We're probably making MULTIPLE attacks with this weapon, so you're looking at 4 to 8 attacks each with a 25% to crit.

Under this model, a Level 20 Champion fighter with a crit range of 16 to 20 has roughly a 90% chance (1 - (.75)^8) of getting a critical hit during an Action Surge. Some call out the DPR calculator people because that's a red flag for me. Even in a "low" magic setting, a Level 20 character can expect to have some kind of magic weapon (DMG p. 38). Assuming one is a generic +1 magic weapon of at least a d6 or higher, the character should have +12 to hit and is doing at least (1d6+12) 16.5 damage on a hit, or 20 (2d6+12) on a crit. They are making at least FOUR of these attacks.


Edit: I haven't even included advantage on these attack rolls.


A Single roll would have a 25% chance to crit (and a 75% chanceNOT to crit).
So two rolls (like an attack w/ advantage) would have a 100*(.75)^2 = 56.25% chance to NOT crit or a 43.75% TO crit.

During an Action Surge, if you have advantage on all your attacks, you have a 98.9977404% to get at least one crit if you allow for expanded crit ranges.

Compare to the results under core: the Battle Master and Eldritch Knight's 55.987% (1 - (.95)^16) and the still kind of absurd Champion's 92.575% (1 - (.85)^16).

Or most importantly, compare to the BM/EK wielding a Crit range weapon: (1 - (.80)^16) = 97.185%.


Why is this important? Because you can see the different it makes to put the crit ranges on weapons. Sure, the Champion gets BETTER at it, but the BM and EK can basically doing the same thing that the Champion does WHILE ALSO STILL HAVING THEIR OWN MANUEVERS/SPELLS. By limited the expanded crit range to the Champion, The Champion gets the sole owner of ridiculous cumulative crit percentage.


tl;dr Expanded Crit ranges on weapons would actually hurt the Champion sub-class by allowing the Eldritch Knight and Battle Master to reliably duplicate the Champion's currently unique features at no cost to their own effectiveness. They would never be able to do it as often or as well as the Champion, but they are good enough at it that doesn't matter.

[Demonic Spoon]

None of what you said is relevant to the point I was making. I agree that weapon-based crit ranges are bad because they would cause balance hell. However,


The simple fact is, doubling or tripling your crit chance is *always* better than +1 or even +3 to your average damage, and as such, it would force people to use those weapons to maintain optimal damage, effectively reducing variety in weapon choice.

Is false. It's only better in certain situations where you can sharply increase your chance/damage on crit from other features or improve the damage done on a crit.

[Ghost Nappa]

When you score a critical hit you double the amount of die you roll.

At what point does a flat bonus to your damage overcome double die?



Case: Small Die.

Normal: Let's say you do 1d4+2 damage or 4.5 damage on average.

Flat-bonus: 1d4+5 damage is 7.5 damage on average.
Double Die: 2d4+2 damage is 7 damage on average.

Flat-bonus is better.

Case: Large Die.

Normal: 1d8+2 or 6.5 on average.

Flat Bonus: 1d8+5 or 9.5 on average.
Double Die: 2d8+2 or 11 on average.

Double Die is better.

The issue here is that the larger the damage die of the weapon, the more you're going to favor looking for increased critical damage over flat-bonuses to your damage, which don't get multiplied during a critical hit.


None of what you said is relevant to the point I was making. I agree that weapon-based crit ranges are bad because they would cause balance hell. However,



Is false. It's only better in certain situations where you can sharply increase your chance/damage on crit from other features or improve the damage done on a crit.

You are NOT remembering the existence of advantage.

5% on a single attack -> 9.75% to crit on a single attack with advantage.
10% to crit on a single attack -> 19% to crit on a single attack w/ adv.
15% to crit on a single attack -> 27.75% to crit on a single attack w/ adv.

I believe I have already sufficiently proven that the damage increase from a critical hit is more significant than a flat-bonus to damage as the size of the die increases. Also recall that a critical is a guaranteed hit, while the flat-bonus will vary in importance between scenarios.

[Demonic Spoon]

You are NOT remembering the existence of advantage.

5% on a single attack -> 9.75% to crit on a single attack with advantage.
10% to crit on a single attack -> 19% to crit on a single attack w/ adv.
15% to crit on a single attack -> 27.75% to crit on a single attack w/ adv.


Yes I am. From my post:

-Champion class feature improving critical range
-Half-orc feature
-Barbarian feature? Not sure about this
-Advantage
-Sneak attack/smite/anything that adds damage dice



I believe I have already sufficiently proven that the damage increase from a critical hit is more significant than a flat-bonus to damage as the size of the die increases. Also recall that a critical is a guaranteed hit, while the flat-bonus will vary in importance between scenarios.


The damage increase from a crit gets relatively better, but it doesn't actually become better until you have a high crit chance or many damage dice.

Advantage isn't guaranteed. There are specific situations, such as when you have a crit-focused build or advantage, where +3 damage will be inferior to an increased crit chance, but that is not every situation.

[Ghost Nappa]

I have run a couple of 5e games with some friends, and was wondering why they took out the critical ranges for the weapons. There are some weapon properties that make certain weapons better choices than others, but I know the critical ranges were a big decision in which weapon I chose.

If there is no direct answer, maybe this thread will foster some discussion.


Yes I am. From my post:




The damage increase from a crit gets relatively better, but it doesn't actually become better until you have a high crit chance or many damage dice.


Are you arguing in terms of absolute damage rendered by a single attack or expected damage from an attack factoring in hit-chance?



Advantage isn't guaranteed. There are specific situations, such as when you have a crit-focused build or advantage, where +3 damage will be inferior to an increased crit chance, but that is not every situation.

The claim you are refuting is acting under the presumption that the player is using either a teammate or a player resource to achieve advantage. You said ^^here^^ that you agree with that, so what are you arguing?

Edit: Re-read the part I have bolded. He is stating that the improved crit range from Champion is more powerful with advantage than a flat-bonus the same as you.


My theory is this:

With Advantage and Lucky being in place (as well as diviner and other ways to affect rolls), there is already the potential to have a greater than 10% chance to get a crit. With just advantage, an 18-20 crit range actually represents a nearly 30% crit chance, which becomes problematic when considering, as an example, Rogue sneak attacks or Brutal Critical rolls.

The simple fact is, doubling or tripling your crit chance is *always* better than +1 or even +3 to your average damage...

[Demonic Spoon]

Edit: Re-read the part I have bolded. He is stating that the improved crit range from Champion is more powerful with advantage than a flat-bonus the same as you.

I suppose I was confused because he was also talking about things like brutal critical which made it seem like he was talking about the big picture rather than a specific build.


Anyway, I think we all agree that weapon crit ranges are a bad idea.