DM Nerfed critical hits

[Cravix]

So im about to join a group were they essentially nerfed critical hits. So instead of rolling all your dice twice for critical hits they have it where you just roll 1 extra dice (IE the dice the weapon is). I dont have alot of dnd 5th experience but how debilitating is that for a would be rogue assassin?

[Talamare]

Depends on if you play Rogue Assassin correctly or not
Most people play it wrong, which increases their power level

If you play it correctly its probably only a minor nerf, and its not like you were specifically nerfed
Paladins and Champions are hit harder

[Vogonjeltz]

So im about to join a group were they essentially nerfed critical hits. So instead of rolling all your dice twice for critical hits they have it where you just roll 1 extra dice (IE the dice the weapon is). I dont have alot of dnd 5th experience but how debilitating is that for a would be rogue assassin?

Sounds like you should just play a Barbarian with a greataxe. No change at all.

[Cravix]

Well apparently this was created due to a Paladin in the group having a ridiculous critical hit. Also im just wondering if this is a sign to run away and not commit to this game.

[pwykersotz]

Tangential topic, I simply maximize the damage on crits in my game. My whole table loves it. It may be a slight overall reduction in average damage on a crit, but it FEELS powerful and it stays simple.

[Giant2005]

Well apparently this was created due to a Paladin in the group having a ridiculous critical hit. Also im just wondering if this is a sign to run away and not commit to this game.

I wouldn't commit to the game. Bad calls are like cockroaches - whenever you see one, you can be sure that there are plenty more laying in wait, out of sight.

[Cespenar]

So im about to join a group were they essentially nerfed critical hits. So instead of rolling all your dice twice for critical hits they have it where you just roll 1 extra dice (IE the dice the weapon is). I dont have alot of dnd 5th experience but how debilitating is that for a would be rogue assassin?

The Assassin feature doesn't even come up that often, and this would nerf their signature schtick a lot. At 5th level, your 1d6 weapon + 3d6 sneak attack would normally deal 8d6 damage on a critical hit. With this nerf, you'd deal 5d6 damage instead. Meh, I'd say. A needless nerf.

[McNinja]

Tangential topic, I simply maximize the damage on crits in my game. My whole table loves it. It may be a slight overall reduction in average damage on a crit, but it FEELS powerful and it stays simple.True, but what if a fighter rolls max damage with their greatsword?


Well apparently this was created due to a Paladin in the group having a ridiculous critical hit. Also im just wondering if this is a sign to run away and not commit to this game.I don't take it as a bad sign. The DM might not have been prepared for that kind of damage and anticipated a longer fight, so they're trying to keep it at least slightly predictable. I've had my players end encounters early because of their insane damage. It's part of the game and I disagree with changing crits because the player dealt damage - if you don't want that then don't have them fight things.

Don't run away just yet! If the DM starts actually nerfing the Paladin or another class, then leave. If he can't design encounters, social or otherwise, for his players that match their current skill/power level, that's his fault. If he's running a published adventure like Out of the Abyss or Elemental Evil, it would be worse since those are tested using the PHB and DMG as-is. Just give it a while. You may even decide to leave because the group or DM are just not people you want to be with, or you might stay because you end up having a ton of fun even if the DM is a bit of a tool.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Also im just wondering if this is a sign to run away and not commit to this game.

I don't think it's that bad. Everyone has a few house rules you have to live with.

With critical hits, it's important to remember that monsters usually roll more attacks than PCs, and a lot of big monsters have multiple damage dice (especially the NPC assassin, which can often prove more lethal than its CR would indicate). Statistically speaking, a nerf to criticals is a good thing for the party.

[pwykersotz]

True, but what if a fighter rolls max damage with their greatsword?

Then it feels like a free crit. This has actually happened several times, someone rolling low on an attack roll, barely hitting, then scoring max damage and crying out "I critted anyway!"

It also feels a LOT less sucky than when the DM (me!) rolls super high on monster crits. I do that way too often.

[Talamare]

The REALLY nasty thing about Paladin Crits is that they can declare Smite after they know they Crit

[djreynolds]

I max out all first rolls and then you roll for you second die. Like a fighter crits with greatsword, he gets 12+ strength and then he rolls his weapon damage again. Otherwise who will play a champion, so I can reroll my intelligence or charisma save again and just fail it again.

So a paladin who crits gets max on all his goodies 12 for the great sword and his smite say 3d8, 24. And then rolls again and if he has GWS rolls 1s and 2s again. for the great sword and rerolls 3 more 8 sided. Don't punish players.

[Spacehamster]

I would run away screaming and never look back, getting a crit should feel awesome not "meh wow I got an average 3,5 damage more...". :)

[djreynolds]

This is why they have a PHB and rules. And the AL plays with the standard array. Stuff gets out of hand.

[Occasional Sage]

I wouldn't commit to the game. Bad calls are like cockroaches - whenever you see one, you can be sure that there are plenty more laying in wait, out of sight.

Plus, by only playing in games you know in advance are perfect you guarantee yourself SO MUCH MORE free time for your other hobbies!

[Dimcair]

Statistically speaking, a nerf to criticals is a good thing for the party.

This. I took it for a mutual beneficial deal until OP said the houserule came up because of a player crit.

If only the player crit is the issue here I would have rather my DM tweak the Monster's HP a little. That creates way less problems like the one we are discussing now.

In short I'd run away (because cockroaches) OR if i'd be desperate for a group to play with choose a different class. That crit nova is really a shtik and I wouldn't want to feel like smth has been stolen of me every time I pull it off.

[EvanescentHero]

Uh, are we supposed to be doubling the damage on sneak attack and smites when we crit now? I was fairly positive it wasn't supposed to be like that.

[Cravix]

Uh, are we supposed to be doubling the damage on sneak attack and smites when we crit now? I was fairly positive it wasn't supposed to be like that.

The book states when you crit if you were to have extra die like sneak attack dice from the rogue you double those dice as well.

[EvanescentHero]

The book states when you crit if you were to have extra die like sneak attack dice from the rogue you double those dice as well.

Well ****, guess I'm an idiot. I thought I'd seen that come up in a Sage Advice or something.

[McNinja]

Uh, are we supposed to be doubling the damage on sneak attack and smites when we crit now? I was fairly positive it wasn't supposed to be like that.ninja'd lol

[Oramac]

Well apparently this was created due to a Paladin in the group having a ridiculous critical hit. Also im just wondering if this is a sign to run away and not commit to this game.

What kind of crit did the paladin get? I've literally one-shot the BBEG with my Cleric/Sorcerer on a crit. I can't imagine any other crits being "worse" than that.

Overall, that form of critical is probably only a minor problem mathematically (I'll leave that to people better than I at math), but it definitely feels lackluster.

[Lavok Rammstein]

Yea, I'd get out of that game. The game is supposed to be fun. Nerfing crits like that takes away the chance of doing something epic that bards will sing songs about. If you are not having fun, get out.



What kind of crit did the paladin get? I've literally one-shot the BBEG with my Cleric/Sorcerer on a crit. I can't imagine any other crits being "worse" than that.

Overall, that form of critical is probably only a minor problem mathematically (I'll leave that to people better than I at math), but it definitely feels lackluster.

If a paladin hits with a charged up searing smite plus a divine smite the damage can be quite large. Especially if they take paladin 2/any full caster X.

[Finieous]

Wherever he is, Gary is smiling.



Combat is a common pursuit in the vast majority of adventures, and the participants in the campaign deserve a chance to exercise intelligent choice during such confrontations. As hit points dwindle they can opt to break off the encounter and attempt to flee. With complex combat systems which stress so-called realism and feature hit location, special damage, and so on, either this option is severely limited or the rules are highly slanted towards favoring the player characters at the expense of their opponents. (Such rules as double damage and critical hits must cut both ways — in which case the life expectancy of player characters will be shortened considerably — or the monsters are being grossly misrepresented and unfairly treated by the system. I am certain you can think of many other such rules.)

[lebefrei]

This is unfortunate railroading... It it were a house rule from the beginning, fine. But to throw a change to the rules because his plans were "ruined"? We as DMs can't plan for everything and have to adapt, and we shouldn't do it by nerfing rules in the middle of a campaign that players understood and accepted.

Critical hits can be devastating... to players and enemies. It happens. He needs to let go of this, accept a moment of startling power on display from an adversary, adapt and move on. He doesn't like how powerful Paladin smites can be? Throw more enemies at them and make them take more spell slot attrition before a big fight then.

I can't just say quit, as finding a new game can be hard (and your next could be worse!). However, I don't like arbitrary rule changes midgame because things didn't go " as planned"... That isn't house ruling, it's just bad DMing. Be on guard for future changes like this.

[Oramac]

If a paladin hits with a charged up searing smite plus a divine smite the damage can be quite large. Especially if they take paladin 2/any full caster X.

A 5th level Searing Smite average damage is 17.5, and a 4th level Smite average is 18. Plus 7 average for a greatsword, you're looking at 42.5 damage. Around 85 on a crit. And that requires the Paladin to be 17th level.

My 6th level (at the time) Tempest Sorcerer did 80 damage on a crit 3rd level Chromatic Orb using the Cleric's Destructive Wrath.

I'm not saying the Paladin is bad or anything. I'm currently playing a Paladin in a different game and absolutely love it. But nerfing crits because a paladin got lucky once is just silly.

EDIT: the major difference in the above is that my Tempest Sorcerer can only do that once per short rest. The Paladin can blow his spell slots to do it many times.

[Serket]

how debilitating is that for a would be rogue assassin?

It's not good. I mean, it probably favours the party overall, but it specifically impacts rogues (and paladins, but you don't care about that) quite nastily, especially assassins. So your character will take a substantial hit in the "awesome" department, which will probably make them less fun.

Should you run? I can help you decide in three questions!
1) ignoring classes for a second, do you hate this change so much that you'd rather do something else with your time? If yes, run. If not, go to 2)
2) do you really want to play an assassin, or is something else okay? Maybe a bard for the skills, or some other fighty-type for the violencing? If you're totally set on assassin, go to 3), if not play as something else.
3) If you really want an assassin, can you ask the GM to change the ruling? If it exists to nerf paladins smite-criticals, couldn't it just apply to those? Or to spell damage? If the GM will alter, then be an assassin. If not, then don't play (you only got as far as this question because you were set on assassin).


Plus, by only playing in games you know in advance are perfect you guarantee yourself SO MUCH MORE free time for your other hobbies!

It seems like you're being sarcastic, but this is actually a serious point. Your time is a cost, and spending it on one thing contains an opportunity cost for not doing other stuff.

[Laereth]

This. I took it for a mutual beneficial deal until OP said the houserule came up because of a player crit.

If only the player crit is the issue here I would have rather my DM tweak the Monster's HP a little. That creates way less problems like the one we are discussing now.



I think the bigger problem is not that the DM should tweak the encounters more than accepting the fact that he cannot control all the variables. Sometimes the players getting a lucky crit that drops the BBEG is what makes it more memorable and fun for them rather than a long winded encounter of 4 hours with 17 different forms to the boss monster. Sure there can be many epic descriptions of the beasts actions, but what counts are the players, not the DM getting it on with himself.

TLDR; DM should adapt his expectations towards the game and not needlessly curb the players' power for the sake of giving his mosnters two-three more rounds of health.




In short I'd run away (because cockroaches) OR if i'd be desperate for a group to play with choose a different class. That crit nova is really a shtik and I wouldn't want to feel like smth has been stolen of me every time I pull it off.

I'll go along and put my weight in with Dimcair's opinion to run. If the DM had changed the crit rule because of a lucky monster hit on a player it might have been different, but to me it comes off as someone who doesn,t like it when things don't go his way and that he might probably tweak other stuff if he deems it "OP" in the future.

If you are determined to go on with them anyways I'd steer clear of crit-classes, unless it is really what you want to RP, since their power (and their special mojos like the assassinate ability of assassins) is nerfed.

Then again this is but my 2 cents on this for what it is worth (probably less than 2 cents).

[Giant2005]

You know, if you wanted to you could show him how much of a terrible idea that nerf is.
Go ahead and play the game - just make sure everyone takes the Healer feat.
With crits no longer doing critical damage, you can fairly safely sit at 1 hp without ever running the risk of being insta-killed from massive damage. In order for someone to actually die, 3 enemies would all need to take a turn before the next person in the initiative order uses a healer's kit to bring them back on their feet. That just isn't very likely.
Your team would essentially be able to sit at 1 hit point all day long and never risk dying.

[RickAllison]

I would also like to point out (beyond the already-excellent ideas that previous posters have discussed better than I could) that one time-honored tradition is the One-Winged Angel. Shouldn't be a trope for every boss, but for your BBEG? Turning him into a more powerful (or maybe weaker, but looking stronger!) form can allow a way to prolong and add to a climactic boss without crippling any classes. Think of Sephiroth, or the Archeoaevis from Final Fantasy 5.

[pwykersotz]

A 5th level Searing Smite average damage is 17.5, and a 4th level Smite average is 18. Plus 7 average for a greatsword, you're looking at 42.5 damage. Around 85 on a crit. And that requires the Paladin to be 17th level.

My 6th level (at the time) Tempest Sorcerer did 80 damage on a crit 3rd level Chromatic Orb using the Cleric's Destructive Wrath.

I'm not saying the Paladin is bad or anything. I'm currently playing a Paladin in a different game and absolutely love it. But nerfing crits because a paladin got lucky once is just silly.

EDIT: the major difference in the above is that my Tempest Sorcerer can only do that once per short rest. The Paladin can blow his spell slots to do it many times.

A second level slot does 3d8. The weapon could be dealing 2d6. A searing smite, also at 2nd level, deals 2d6. I had a Paladin get lucky rolls in my game at level 6 and deal about 86 points of damage on a crit. So pretty much the same as your sorcerer. Statistical outliers do happen, and they can leave a heck of an impression, especially at low level. Not all tables have DM's who can or who desire to deal with those things, and in that case nerfing the crits makes sense.

[Oramac]

A second level slot does 3d8. The weapon could be dealing 2d6. A searing smite, also at 2nd level, deals 2d6. I had a Paladin get lucky rolls in my game at level 6 and deal about 86 points of damage on a crit. So pretty much the same as your sorcerer. Statistical outliers do happen, and they can leave a heck of an impression, especially at low level. Not all tables have DM's who can or who desire to deal with those things, and in that case nerfing the crits makes sense.

True enough. And I'm going on memory, so I may have gotten the damage wrong.

But the point is, statistical outliers are part of what makes those crits FUN. The players shouldn't be punished because there's a 5% chance that the BBEG gets one-shot.

[PoeticDwarf]

Tangential topic, I simply maximize the damage on crits in my game. My whole table loves it. It may be a slight overall reduction in average damage on a crit, but it FEELS powerful and it stays simple.

Yeah this works really well, way faster for most characters

[Soular]

I would also like to point out (beyond the already-excellent ideas that previous posters have discussed better than I could) that one time-honored tradition is the One-Winged Angel. Shouldn't be a trope for every boss, but for your BBEG? Turning him into a more powerful (or maybe weaker, but looking stronger!) form can allow a way to prolong and add to a climactic boss without crippling any classes. Think of Sephiroth, or the Archeoaevis from Final Fantasy 5.

@RickAllison: If you haven't read this, you will likely enjoy it. It basically takes your idea and makes it into a boss mechanic.

Son of the D&D Boss Fight. (http://theangrygm.com/return-of-the-son-of-the-dd-boss-fight-now-in-5e/)

[JackPhoenix]

Uh, are we supposed to be doubling the damage on sneak attack and smites when we crit now? I was fairly positive it wasn't supposed to be like that.

It's almost exact opposite of 3.5 rules. In 5e, you double all the dice and add static modifiers once. In 3.5, you multiply the base dice and all static modifiers, but not any extra dice. Perhaps that's the source of confusion?

[EvanescentHero]

It's almost exact opposite of 3.5 rules. In 5e, you double all the dice and add static modifiers once. In 3.5, you multiply the base dice and all static modifiers, but not any extra dice. Perhaps that's the source of confusion?

Maybe. I really just thought I'd read about it in some clarification post or something somewhere. Either way, I'm not too bothered, just kind of embarrassed. And a little shell-shocked considering the implications for the paladin and the rogue.

I've got a hunter ranger in my group with Colossus Slayer who took a level of rogue. Those are gonna be some gross crits.

[mephnick]

I've had our assassin rogue and paladin both crit before the BBEG had a chance to act.

I gave him more life points when I made him in case a lucky crit happened. It didn't help.

It was cool.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Seconding the playability of just calling a crit max damage and your actual roll as overage. I started doing this after reading it here, and the players have liked it for six months of weekly games. It does cut both ways, as I had a near TPK last session on four 4th levelers as they got critted twice in a fight and once by the hobgob captain with his martial advantage.

Changing the rules because you didn't like the one outcome seems silly, but that's the DM's game. I'd still play unless I have another game. Always better to play with others than play with...well, you know.

[Foxhound438]

Well apparently this was created due to a Paladin in the group having a ridiculous critical hit. Also im just wondering if this is a sign to run away and not commit to this game.

yes, paladin crits are ridiculous. but it's not a "build around" kind of thing, it's not broken.

[thebiglost1]

The REALLY nasty thing about Paladin Crits is that they can declare Smite after they know they Crit

I have always played/ruled that they needed to be declared prior to the roll, just like sharpshooter/GWF.

[Flashy]

I have always played/ruled that they needed to be declared prior to the roll, just like sharpshooter/GWF.

Oof, do they lose the spell slot if they miss?

[MeeposFire]

Tangential topic, I simply maximize the damage on crits in my game. My whole table loves it. It may be a slight overall reduction in average damage on a crit, but it FEELS powerful and it stays simple.

That is actually the 4e crit method though it has various things that could potentially add to that such as a bonus 1d6 damage per + on a magic weapon or a high crit weapon dealing an additional die of damage on top of max damage.

[Talamare]

I have always played/ruled that they needed to be declared prior to the roll, just like sharpshooter/GWF.

Well, then play it correctly

Sharpshooter and GWF need to be declared before you make an attack because they AFFECT the attack roll
Paladin Smite's don't and even specify that it can ONLY be done AFTER you KNOW you hit

[Dimcair]

I think the bigger problem is not that the DM should tweak the encounters more than accepting the fact that he cannot control all the variables. Sometimes the players getting a lucky crit that drops the BBEG is what makes it more memorable and fun for them rather than a long winded encounter of 4 hours with 17 different forms to the boss monster. Sure there can be many epic descriptions of the beasts actions, but what counts are the players, not the DM getting it on with himself.

TLDR; DM should adapt his expectations towards the game and not needlessly curb the players' power for the sake of giving his mosnters two-three more rounds of health.



True dat. To clarify: I wouldn't want this either simply for epic descriptions of beast actions or simply to stretch combat. But perhaps the character is critical in revealing something, or he has yet to perform an action that is important for the plot? Sure, we all wish we had a DM who could quickly adapt, making this unnecessary. But we all know how hard it is to have contingencies to everything your players manage to pull of, and rather than "a wizard did it" I have the BBEG survive the crit.
It is an 'oh ****' button for the DM, use it only if you have to.

[Occasional Sage]

It seems like you're being sarcastic, but this is actually a serious point. Your time is a cost, and spending it on one thing contains an opportunity cost for not doing other stuff.

Your point is valid, and why I'm very selective about games I play; with a non-RPGing wife and two young kids, there are powerful motivators for me to do many things other than play mediocre games of D&D.

However: absolutely that was sarcastic. One table rule with which you don't agree should not be, in a vacuum, a reason to walk away from a game you thought would be fun. There may well be a hundred other warning signs, but they are mentioned we're compelled to assume they do not exist. Until they are, walking away seems to be an extreme overreaction.

[Malifice]

I have always played/ruled that they needed to be declared prior to the roll, just like sharpshooter/GWF.

That sucks. You make paladins waste spell slots for no effect?

To the OP, your DM is being a reactive douche. Some classes (Paladins, Barbarians, Assasins, Champions) are tied to the crit mechanism. He's just nerfed them.

He probably bans GWM and SS too.

Its kind of cool that years in to 5E and the martials are the ones that most DMs take toys away from.

[Arial Black]

Seconding the playability of just calling a crit max damage and your actual roll as overage.

I feel the opposite about the 'crit = max damage' idea. If my normal damage is 1d4+15 (average 17.5), I don't feel that getting 19 damage on a crit is special at all!

[MeeposFire]

I feel the opposite about the 'crit = max damage' idea. If my normal damage is 1d4+15 (average 17.5), I don't feel that getting 19 damage on a crit is special at all!

Well sure but using the RAW method of 5e does 2d4+15 really make that much of a difference? It only brings you up to a max of 23 damage with an average of 20 which is only one more than just using a maximum.

[Deadandamnation]

Is a double edged sword, I've always loved critting as a player and as a DM.

I remember a day back to 3.5 when one of my duergars (i was the GM) got a crit right in the face of the druid of the party insta killing him with a battleaxe rolling 8 on the dice for ~30 dmg.

That have made the encounter more exiciting and put pressure on the party since they have less time to find the "pool of life" to let the dead elf druid reincarnate into a kobold :)

Mechanically nerfing crit will hamper champion fighter more than anyone else and make spells like "hold person" (that are not so powerful on their own) totally usless

[brainface]

I feel the opposite about the 'crit = max damage' idea. If my normal damage is 1d4+15 (average 17.5), I don't feel that getting 19 damage on a crit is special at all!

Maaaybe your max strength barbarian... dueling..I don't even know what else to get that high a static bonus should put the knife down? Unless he's tavern brawling, in which case, carry on. (I thiiink a dueling devotion paladin could get that high, in which case he should smite anyway ^^ )

[thebiglost1]

Oof, do they lose the spell slot if they miss?

No they just need to declare. No hit, no spell rider

There is leeway with level, IE divine smite if I hit, oh look I Crit, that's a level 3 divine smite on top of my regular 2d6.

[Arial Black]

Well sure but using the RAW method of 5e does 2d4+15 really make that much of a difference? It only brings you up to a max of 23 damage with an average of 20 which is only one more than just using a maximum.

For me, both methods can end up underwhelming. 2d4 instead of 1d4, well, you could roll a 4 anyway, which is just as poor as getting an auto 4 with the other method.

The difference is that when you roll twice you are most likely to do more damage than you could on a normal hit (yay!), but the other method never gives you that thrill.

[Arial Black]

Maaaybe your max strength barbarian... dueling..I don't even know what else to get that high a static bonus should put the knife down? Unless he's tavern brawling, in which case, carry on. (I thiiink a dueling devotion paladin could get that high, in which case he should smite anyway ^^ )

Oh, you want to know how to get 1d4+15 in 5E?

How about the Polearm Master feat (the 'butt end' attack does 1d4) combined with the GWM feat (for +10 damage) and 20 Str (for +5), for 1d4+15

[manny2510]

Crits being nerfed does hit your character hard, so pick up that weapon prof feat and use a heavy crossbow for that crit and then defer to two hand crossbows for the rest of combat. 2d10 P + SA is the better end of ranged damage, and sharp shooter you will still be epic. Honestly after playing AD&D I'm just happy with my wizard Hit Die being 1d6, but hey, at least his crits are nerfed as well.

[joaber]

The unbalance about max crit is with the half-orc barbarian, that should get 6d12 at crit for an avarage of 39, get max for 5d12, or 60.

tempest cleric feature or any other that let reroll is affected with this.

Ok, if everyone agree, but why the change?

[MeeposFire]

The unbalance about max crit is with the half-orc barbarian, that should get 6d12 at crit for an avarage of 39, get max for 5d12, or 60.

tempest cleric feature or any other that let reroll is affected with this.

Ok, if everyone agree, but why the change?

Typcially when using a max crit sort of idea the normal damage from the attack is maxed but any damage that is given only due to being a crit (such as from being a half orc or barbarian) is still rolled.

So a half orc barbarian which deals let us say 1d12+5 plus deals an extra two damage dice on a crit at his level would deal 17 (max for his axe attack)+2d12 damage.

A rogue with sneak attack would max his sneak attack dice but not the extra die from the half orc critical.

That sort of thing.

[DivisibleByZero]

You can toss me firmly in the You're greatly overreacting camp.
Listen. This is a role playing game. It's supposed to be fun. The DM wants his game to run a certain way, and he has (and has always had) the leeway to make adjustments so that the game runs the way that he or she wants it to.
You even explained why he made that particular houserule, so obviously you understand why he did it.
It's not the end of the world. The sky is not falling. Your character is not any "less fun" to play because one specific type of die roll that only occurs on 5% of your attack rolls. And that's just when attacking. When you take into account that the damage roll is the one that becomes affected, that drops it to 2.5% of your combat rolls.
It's probably signifcantly less than 1% of the time when all die rolls are taken into account.
The suggestions that you cry foul, run like the wind and quit the game because he made an houserule which will affect your die rolls less than 1% of the time that you roll a die is, simply put, pretty ridiculous.

[Giant2005]

You can toss me firmly in the You're greatly overreacting camp.
Listen. This is a role playing game. It's supposed to be fun. The DM wants his game to run a certain way, and he has (and has always had) the leeway to make adjustments so that the game runs the way that he or she wants it to.
You even explained why he made that particular houserule, so obviously you understand why he did it.
It's not the end of the world. The sky is not falling. Your character is not any "less fun" to play because one specific type of die roll that only occurs on 5% of your attack rolls. And that's just when attacking. When you take into account that the damage roll is the one that becomes affected, that drops it to 2.5% of your combat rolls.
It's probably signifcantly less than 1% of the time when all die rolls are taken into account.
Crying foul and quitting a game because he made an houserule which will affect your die rolls less than 1% of the time that you roll a die is, simply put, pretty ridiculous.

I'd agree if we were talking about a system that was much harder to come by (I'd be willing to endure all kinds of crappy house-rules for a decent T&T game!), but DnD games are a dime a dozen.
Why subject yourself to a game that you already know includes rulings that you dislike, when you can easily find one that doesn't include such flaws?

[MaxWilson]

Tangential topic, I simply maximize the damage on crits in my game. My whole table loves it. It may be a slight overall reduction in average damage on a crit, but it FEELS powerful and it stays simple.

I may steal this, at least as an option for my players. For me as a DM, I appreciate anything which simplifies my life.

[DivisibleByZero]

Why subject yourself to a game that you already know includes rulings that you dislike, when you can easily find one that doesn't include such flaws?

Because who cares?
I've played in plenty of games which featured houserules that I wasn't particularly fond of. Do you know how many times it actually affected my enjoyment of the game?
Exactly zero.

It's small potatoes, and making a mountain out of a mole hill is what's ultimately going to ruin your enjoyment of the game. Not the small houserule, but your own issues.

[McNinja]

Why subject yourself to a game that you already know includes rulings that you dislike, when you can easily find one that doesn't include such flaws?
Right. Such huge flaws. Massive, glaring, bite your **** off if you weren't looking at it flaws. Much flaw. Many dislike.

Cry harder. As pointed out above, a critical hit change affects 1% of all dice rolls and is essentially meaningless.

You want to leave a game because of 1 small change? Get over yourself.

[Giant2005]

Because who cares?
I've played in plenty of games which featured houserules that I wasn't particularly fond of. Do you know how many times it actually affected my enjoyment of the game?
Exactly zero.

You might still enjoy it, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have more enjoyment elsewhere. If two games are basically identical in all other respects but one has a house-rule you dislike and the other doesn't, then you will have more enjoyment spending your time playing the other.
If you are going to dedicate some of your time to enjoyment, you may as well maximize that enjoyment.

[Giant2005]

Right. Such huge flaws. Massive, glaring, bite your **** off if you weren't looking at it flaws. Much flaw. Many dislike.

Cry harder. As pointed out above, a critical hit change affects 1% of all dice rolls and is essentially meaningless.

You want to leave a game because of 1 small change? Get over yourself.

Man I have been away from these forums for around a year. I didn't remember them being quite so aggressive. Although I don't remember why I left in the first place, so that may have been why.

[DivisibleByZero]

You might still enjoy it, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have more enjoyment elsewhere. If two games are basically identical in all other respects but one has a house-rule you dislike and the other doesn't, then you will have more enjoyment spending your time playing the other.
If you are going to dedicate some of your time to enjoyment, you may as well maximize that enjoyment.

We need a new guide here on the forums.
I think you should author the Guidebook explaining How to Optimize Your Fun at the Table, a Guidebook for How to Nitpick Your Way to FUN!
Step 1: Don't actually play the game, just spend all of your time searching for the perfect game.
Step 2: Start all over again when that game dies.

Meanwhile, I'll actually BE having fun playing the game instead of writing a guide on HOW to have fun playing the game.

Incidentally, I dislike the Designated Hitter. Should I never watch an AL game again, or should I just accept that it doesn't really matter?

[MaxWilson]

We need a new guide here on the forums.
I think you should author the Guidebook explaining How to Optimize Your Fun at the Table, a Guidebook for How to Nitpick Your Way to FUN!
Step 1: Don't actually play the game, just spend all of your time searching for the perfect game.
Step 2: Start all over again when that game dies.

Meanwhile, I'll actually BE having fun playing the game instead of writing a guide on HOW to have fun playing the game.

Incidentally, I dislike the Designated Hitter. Should I never watch an AL game again, or should I just accept that it doesn't really matter?

One thing you should realize is that some people, presumably including Giant2005, play games over the Internet. For them, finding a game with a different ruleset might be just a matter of perusing the house rules posted at the start of a campaign.

For those of us who play at the kitchen table, transaction costs for switching DMs may be considerably higher, too high to do because of a single rule.

Edit: BTW, what's the "designated hitter" in AL? I tried searching for "designated hitter 5e" and "designated hitter adventure league" but found only baseball references. I don't play AL but am curious to what you're referring.

[Finieous]

American League. It is a baseball reference. :smallbiggrin:

[RickAllison]

The rule change seriously affects two classes, rogues and paladins. Those two rely on lots of dice via smiting and sneak attacks, so either doubling or maximizing gives a massive boost to those two where simply adding one more die does comparatively little. Barbarians hardly feel it for the crit-farming builds and it puts a little bit of a penalty for greatswords/mauls. Other than that, I don't see it really affecting the game much at all.

[DivisibleByZero]

American League. It is a baseball reference. :smallbiggrin:

Yep. And it's the reason that, as a young lad, this Chicago boy became a Cubs fan rather than a Sox fan.
The point stands.
Disliking the DH and becoming a Cubs fan doesn't mean I hate the AL, nor does it mean I hate the Sox, nor does it mean I never go to Comiskey for games, nor does it mean I gave up on baseball.
It just means that I dislike the DH. That the DH is a thing has in no way lessened my enjoyment of the game, just as a miniscule houserule will not affect someone's enjoyment of a DnD game (unless that person makes a mountain out of a mole hill and ruins the game for himself, but that isn't the rule's fault, is it?).

[Alejandro]

Sounds like a GM was upset that one of their players cut the ring from Sauron's hand.

[Doug Lampert]

Sounds like a GM was upset that one of their players cut the ring from Sauron's hand.

And that impression, not the particular houserule, is why the houserule is troublesome. As a GM you should be overjoyed when your player's cut the ring from Sauron's hand! That's what the game is FOR. You need to be willing to let the players stomp all over your clever plan, because the game is about what the players do, not your clever plan and not your "unbeatable" NPC.

If such a houserule is in the setting document I'm given pre-game with house-rules and major setting rulings, no problem at all. It's well within reasonable GM rulings to say "I don't want that much randomness in combat, no critical hits".

But if the house-rule was made because one PC was "too powerful" on a crit, it sounds a lot like someone doesn't like the way the PC was being awesome. One of the defenders of this rule claimed it would come up something like 1% of the attack rolls and made no real difference, I'll stipulate that claim for the sake of argument, if it's that rare and unimportant, and is part of the character's build, why is the GM nerfing it?!

Characters who are too powerful all the time, bad; lucky die rolls that make you vastly more powerful over the long run, also bad; lucky die roll that lets the PCs win a fight, who cares? The PCs should be winning the vast majority of their fights anyway, they just won this one a bit cheaper than expected, if it really worries you adjust your adventure design to depend less on big monsters with lots of HP and more on swarms of foes with few HP (letting the wizard and sorcerer rock, but that's fine too).

[Oramac]

Yep. And it's the reason that, as a young lad, this Chicago boy became a Cubs fan rather than a Sox fan.
The point stands.
Disliking the DH and becoming a Cubs fan doesn't mean I hate the AL, nor does it mean I hate the Sox, nor does it mean I never go to Comiskey for games, nor does it mean I gave up on baseball.
It just means that I dislike the DH. That the DH is a thing has in no way lessened my enjoyment of the game, just as a miniscule houserule will not affect someone's enjoyment of a DnD game (unless that person makes a mountain out of a mole hill and ruins the game for himself, but that isn't the rule's fault, is it?).

Being a Cardinals fan, I'm forced to disagree with everything you've said. :D

(but really I agree completely!)

[RickAllison]

Being a Cardinals fan, I'm forced to disagree with everything you've said. :D

(but really I agree completely!)

I'll just sit over here and cry...

http://images.birthdayexpress.com/mgen/91662.jpg?zm=1600,1600,1,0,0I don't get to win :smalltongue:

[MeeposFire]

Man I have been away from these forums for around a year. I didn't remember them being quite so aggressive. Although I don't remember why I left in the first place, so that may have been why.

This forum is fairly aggressive.

[Arial Black]

The rule change seriously affects two classes, rogues and paladins. Those two rely on lots of dice via smiting and sneak attacks, so either doubling or maximizing gives a massive boost to those two where simply adding one more die does comparatively little. Barbarians hardly feel it for the crit-farming builds and it puts a little bit of a penalty for greatswords/mauls. Other than that, I don't see it really affecting the game much at all.

It also affects champion fighters, whose first ability is doubling the crit range. Double squat is still squat.

It also affects certain spells, and therefore the classes that cast them. Hold person becomes much less useful if your auto-crits do hardly any more damage than a normal hit.

[joaber]

If you nerf crit because palis and rogues, you're bad in math.

fighters can get a DPR bigger than rogue, he crit don't look that great, but he get 4 attacks, EK can get up to 10 in one nova round, so they crit more frequently than rogue, each time he crit, he get his die, rogue don't. In the end of the day, the DPR of the rogue that already was a little lower, now is even lower.

For pali, divine smite is only good in fact with critical. what you think is better, +2d8 in damage or bless, hunter's mark, command or +2d8? Haste, Aura of Vitality, crusader's mantle or +4d8?
A four lvl spell slot for 5d8? Seriuosly?

Those resources are already low for pali, and he still need a 20 to make it worth.

But of course if you have a DM that only make 1 to 3 encounters day, instead of 6 to 8, now you're the "nova guy every time!". The fault is of DM, not the pali, make the properly number of encounter before giving full long rest recovery that you don't need to nerf his crit.

[Occasional Sage]

Right. Such huge flaws. Massive, glaring, bite your **** off if you weren't looking at it flaws. Much flaw. Many dislike.

Cry harder. As pointed out above, a critical hit change affects 1% of all dice rolls and is essentially meaningless.

You want to leave a game because of 1 small change? Get over yourself.


Man I have been away from these forums for around a year. I didn't remember them being quite so aggressive. Although I don't remember why I left in the first place, so that may have been why.


This forum is fairly aggressive.

Yeah, but that was particularly so.

[RickAllison]

It also affects champion fighters, whose first ability is doubling the crit range. Double squat is still squat.

It also affects certain spells, and therefore the classes that cast them. Hold person becomes much less useful if your auto-crits do hardly any more damage than a normal hit.

It affects champions less so because their damage is not as reliant on the extra dice. The change reduces the dice from doubling to simply adding one of the base weapon dice. A 2H champion wielding a greatsword or maul loses 3.5 per crit on average, while 1H champions (sword-and-board, duelists, etc.) don't lose anything. 1d8 under either system becomes 2d8, and so on with the single-die weapons. This is very different than for a paladin who can go from dealing 12d8 (longsword, 4th-level smite) to 7d8, or even worse for a rogue who goes from 20d6 to 11d6. The 3.5 damage loss for champions only when wielding greatswords or mauls (and who then qualify for GWM anyway!) is small change. Same thing applies for Hold Person, most classes won't actually see a difference as doubling the damage die and adding another are mathematically equal, but it prevents rogues and paladins from getting the massive bonuses. Thus, the caster only suffers because his allies are suffering.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, but that was particularly so.

Lol pay extra attention around here and you will slowly realize it is not as rare as you might think (or hope).

Though I have to admit that I was surprised at the vigor of it right at that moment though not necessarily that it happened.

[Fatty Tosscoble]

It doesn't seem to make all that much scenes to do. it really is in reality (a scary place) a 1/20 chance of happening, and it deals a lot of damage, because of the fact it's a once in a blue moon, home run, hall of fame making swing and thats why it unnaturally does so much damage.