5e Core Rule Change Opinions

[Zaygos]

Greetings,

My first post here so forgive me if I am lacking something, I will try and keep this short.

So, our DM has made a change to the core rules regarding crits, which I guess it not uncommon for DM's to change rules but I feel it changes a lot to the melee/ranged aspect.

So say my Paladin hits a crit, so naturally I decide to smite to spike my damage.

He became confused why I was rolling so much dice being it was a weapon attack and I explained it was my smite, hunter's mark, and long sword.

So to sum it up, be feels because it was a weapon strike that only the weapon damage gets multiplied. Even being shown the rules in the rule book as well as the tweet from Crawford reminding what all gets multiplied he stayed his ground, citing that such a huge spike in damage is encounter breaking if hitting a boss, etc.

So the rule change being, when a physical class hits a crit, only their weapon damage gets additional die.

So naturally this changes more than just the Paladin, Rogue Assassin is changed, etc.

My question is, exactly how much does this change the game in terms of long term? I fear that such a change, although nerfs out output in the beginning, in the long run I feel spellcasters will start to be the more dominate class by default since melee is hit by the "Scoring a crit only changes the weapon die" effect.

I even explained the damage spike is very circumstantial being it has to be a nat 20 for my Paladin, but he cited that is still a 5% chance to do massive spikes of damage.

So if this does change the melee and other multiple die classes like Rangers and such, what options am I left with the more keep up in a sense?

Naturally I don't care about being top of the group, but I also feel like I have been falling behind as levels progress, more so since things like cantrips dwarf my melee strikes now, etc.

Thoughts?

Thank you,
Zaygos

[Mr.Spastic]

The short answer is... your dm is an idiot. It doesn't break the game. The designers specifically intended for those abilities to multiply on crits. They hit hard. That's the point of weapon based classes.

From a balance perspective, it does change a lot. The biggest thing is that most spells require saves. Their not supposed to crit in exchange for big damage. Weapons add bonus dice to crits because their damage is more constant. A wizard can drop a fireball and wreck a horde of orcs. The paladin who crits on his attack against an ogre can potentially one shot it. That's how the game works.

If your dm doesn't like that then he shouldn't rule against it on the fly. It shows more of his lack of preparedness than his hatred for the rules. He didn't expect you to crit and thought it was too much. If he had the house rule before hand he should of told the group first. Overall he just seems like he doesn't know the game that well. If you don't like how he runs the game, find a different group or try to persuade him otherwise.

Edit: Also, hello. Welcome to the playground. Always good to have new people.

[guachi]

Rerolling all the damage dice is intentional.

Millions of people have played rerolling all the dice for the last 4.5 years. Not only didn't it break anything, doing it the other way would be an unnecessary nerf to several classes/subclasses.

[KOLE]

Welcome to the playground!

My DM was also hesitant about this at first- when I crit as a rogue and rolled a ton of d6’s for sneak attack too- I can understand the trepidation, it’s a lot! But it’s very much huilt in the game. In fact, Rogues and Paladins are expected to take advantage of crits. It’s kind of built into the meta. Reassure him that it’s a feature- not a bug! Smite is specifically built to take advantage of crits IMO. It’s a lot of damage- but it’s very unreliable, so it’s a tradeoff.

[Callak_Remier]

I suggest you get your DM to look up Adamantine Armor and put it on his recurring Big Bad.

Dont break the game.

Also id like to point out
If you Rolled to attack got a Crit and then declared smite after, i would 100% deny those dice.

Too often i see this behaviour, its bad form

[KOLE]

I suggest you get your DM to look up Adamantine Armor and put it on his recurring Big Bad.

Dont break the game.

Also id like to point out
If you Rolled to attack got a Crit and then declared smite after, i would 100% deny those dice.

Too often i see this behaviour, its bad form

Divine smite specifically says you declare it after a hit. It’s practically designed to be saved for a crit, and far from gamebreaking.

[Lord Vukodlak]

If you Rolled to attack got a Crit and then declared smite after, i would 100% deny those dice.

Too often i see this behaviour, its bad form
But that's how smite works, smites are declared after you hit, its not an ability declared before your roll, or after you roll but before the results are known but when you hit. So is a paladin barred from ever using smite on a critical hit? Does the paladin have to say. "If I hit I intended to smite" before he rolls in order to get the critical smite should it happen.


Divine smite specifically says you declare it after a hit. It’s practically designed to be saved for a crit, and far from gamebreaking.

Last adventure with my Paladin, the party is third level and were fighting a bearded devil and several minions. I stayed back to protect the squishy ranged rogue and wizard(who was concentrating on a magic weapon spell cast on the barbarian's axe) from the minions while the Barbarian recklessly charged the bearded devil alone. Would have gone better if we'd switched rolls, but he won initiative. Once we mopped up the support the Barbarian was near death, so he disengaged and I strolled up, rolled a critical hit used my last spell slot to smite and dealt around forty some damage. A grand cinematic end to the adventure.

[LudicSavant]

I agree with those saying that this is simply a bad rule.

DMs should make sure they understand the balance of the game before leaping to conclusions about whether something’s overpowered or not.

If the DM had paused for a moment to ask themselves if there was a way for boss enemies to counter melee characters and their damage spikes, they would have found plenty of options in the books already, all of which are more elegant than their hamfisted houserule.

[JakOfAllTirades]

The best way to fix is this problem is with your feet.

Walk away from the table and find a DM who can run a real D&D game.

[LudicSavant]

Also id like to point out
If you Rolled to attack got a Crit and then declared smite after, i would 100% deny those dice.

Too often i see this behaviour, its bad form

You probably see this behavior often because people are following the rules as written, intended, and explicitly designed, and then being unpleasantly surprised by your denial of their damage dice after the fact.

In fact, declaring your smite at any time OTHER than after a successful attack roll would be breaking the rules.

[Louro]

Your DM made a mistake.
Instead of changing smite ruling he should yave added 30 more HP on that foe. Problem solved. Everything stays as it should be and his dramatic final boss doesn't go down in one unexpected hit..

[Spriteless]

The best way to fix is this problem is with your feet.

Walk away from the table and find a DM who can run a real D&D game.

Why is this such a common response? Every thread someone says to vote with your feet, as though there were infinite D&D tables locally, and the DMs are unapproachable strangers rather than friends. It is a strange assumption. I could see one or the other, if D&D is rare in your city then you would need to find a stranger's table in the local game store. If D&D is common than you would be more likely to run with friends, so walking would mean spending less time with friends.

The best way is to point out that without the damage spike, the magic classes are out-damaging the player, even on crits. Maybe they should also get a nerf, so that bosses don't go down in less rounds than otherwise they would. Maybe your nerf should be removed or mitigated (roll half the bonus dice?). Gotta keep quadratic-casters/linear-fighters in line somehow. 5th edition uses consistent magic vs. impressive but rare crits to do so.

If your DM is quite adamant on the point anyways, you could say: this character is not what I wanted when I rolled him up with these rule changes. Can I retcon his powers as those of a warlock whose patron most closely resembles my oath? I mean, and keep the fluff of the oath?

Or whatever you think would be fun. If the nerf is keeping you from having fun.

[Asmotherion]

I so much want to comment about not making a whole deal out of your DM's homerule, but your DM's rule is dumb as well, so I guess it's a loose loose situation.

So, your options now are to discuss removing the homerule, and if it doesn't work (it won't):
A) suck it up, accept that your DM can't handle criticals 'cause he's too new at this, and enjoy the game, or
B) abandon ship, and play with an other group, more at your taste.

But you knew that already. You just wanted some moral support to know who was right, in wich case you both are.

Why? 'Cause a DM does have the right to homerule anything he feels like. He may even homerule that everyone has a passive flying speed in his world. His reasons are his reasons, but if he feels he needs those rules to run the campain, (be it lack of ability to handle an outcome, or give a certain tone), better trust him with it, than make the campain fall appart. If it does fall appart, it's on him after all.

[Skylivedk]

Why? 'Cause a DM does have the right to homerule anything he feels like. He may even homerule that everyone has a passive flying speed in his world. His reasons are his reasons, but if he feels he needs those rules to run the campain, (be it lack of ability to handle an outcome, or give a certain tone), better trust him with it, than make the campain fall appart. If it does fall appart, it's on him after all.

I'd say that a DM that imposes house rules on the fly without including the players in the decision and give them space and time to present their case is not a (in that situation) a good DM. The game isn't the DM's. The is for everybody around the table and should maximise the fun you have while narrating a story together that's never been told before.

OP's DM is severely nerfing two core classes, one subclass and two-three others as well and it deserves to be discussed.

[Knaight]

Why is this such a common response? Every thread someone says to vote with your feet, as though there were infinite D&D tables locally, and the DMs are unapproachable strangers rather than friends. It is a strange assumption. I could see one or the other, if D&D is rare in your city then you would need to find a stranger's table in the local game store. If D&D is common than you would be more likely to run with friends, so walking would mean spending less time with friends.

This thread is an example of that being a dramatic overreaction, but a lot of the time the response is common because by the time people bring their game to an internet forum they're essentially getting confirmation that it's actually as horrendously terrible as it sounds. Most of the time that response comes up in the context of deeply dysfunctional social dynamics.

[Solusek]

To be honest, Paladins are overpowered anyways so a nerf like this doesn't break that class or ruin anything about the game for them. A Paladin under this house rule is still very strong. Rogues don't deserve that nerf, though, so it does suck for them.

[terodil]

I agree with the general opinion that nerfing crits this way takes away from both the mechanical and the narrative dimension of fun.

However, this post deserves special praise, imo -- thank you, Spriteless, especially for the first paragraph:


Why is this such a common response? Every thread someone says to vote with your feet, as though there were infinite D&D tables locally, and the DMs are unapproachable strangers rather than friends. It is a strange assumption. I could see one or the other, if D&D is rare in your city then you would need to find a stranger's table in the local game store. If D&D is common than you would be more likely to run with friends, so walking would mean spending less time with friends.

The best way is to point out that without the damage spike, the magic classes are out-damaging the player, even on crits. Maybe they should also get a nerf, so that bosses don't go down in less rounds than otherwise they would. Maybe your nerf should be removed or mitigated (roll half the bonus dice?). Gotta keep quadratic-casters/linear-fighters in line somehow. 5th edition uses consistent magic vs. impressive but rare crits to do so.

If your DM is quite adamant on the point anyways, you could say: this character is not what I wanted when I rolled him up with these rule changes. Can I retcon his powers as those of a warlock whose patron most closely resembles my oath? I mean, and keep the fluff of the oath?

Or whatever you think would be fun. If the nerf is keeping you from having fun.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To be honest, Paladins are overpowered anyways so a nerf like this doesn't break that class or ruin anything about the game for them. A Paladin under this house rule is still very strong. Rogues don't deserve that nerf, though, so it does suck for them.

Opinion you. I, however, don't approve of nerfing a class (or martials as a lump) arbitrarily because my opinion of a single class has colored my perception of what does and doesn't ruin the game.

I'd also argue that taking away an ability that they're well within their right to use (calling smite on a crit) does break the class, it takes something that by both RAW and RAI they are permitted to do and throws it away. Not fun for the player and a pretty poorly thought out decision from the DM.

Better solutions (Opinion me, use these sparingly):
-Big Bad is wearing adamantium armor
-Big Bad has a pocket Grave Cleric
-Big Bad has resistance to Radiant Damage
-Big Bad has increased health
-It's not actually the Big Bad
-Change nothing, let the player have their big crit. Very heroic dealing 150+ damage to Strahd von Zarovich and freeing Barovia from an eternal darkness.

[GreyBlack]

To the OP: Did your DM play in older editions?

I ask because in older editions of the game, critical hits DID NOT multiply the additional dice on sneak attacks and other various attacking effects. So, in your DM house ruling that these additional dice are not multiplied, he may be hearkening back to an older edition of the game.

If this is the case, I would gently remind the DM that this isn't the older edition of D&D; rather, it's 5e whose rules are designed in such a way to allow critical hits to multiply all damage dice. I would advise him to try these rules before trying to houserule them out.

Although, personally, I'm fine with the houserule, I am a veteran of the older editions; I don't allow druids to wear metal armor, I take away a Paladin's oath if they break their tenets, I drop a Cleric's spellcasting ability if they don't follow their domain's tenets, etc. By no means should you follow my lead on this because I'm a bad example.

[Leith]

I might walk away from this table. It's such a blatant overreaction to a fairly simple concept within the rules that, likely, the DM should have noticed before just now. I've had DMs arbitrarily deny me the use of my class features in specific situations, on the fly, under the guise of narrative or game balance and it just pisses me off. I've done it to players and it makes me ashamed which forces me to recant. Bad DM.

[Keravath]

Honestly, it sounds like a DM that is relatively new to 5e and a player who has more experience than the DM with 5e.

If the DM hasn't run into the feature of doubling all the damage dice on a crit then they haven't been playing 5e long, then when faced with this new feature, some DMs might well react the way this one did because they feel it will have a negative effect on the current encounter (it won't really but that is another topic).

They don't have the time to consider it, they aren't even sure if that is the rule except that one of the players is pushing a bunch of rule book references and irrelevant internet tweets at them to justify their character doing a relatively large amount of damage. Some DMs might have a gut reaction to say no and will stick with it at least until they have some opportunity to look into the situation and perhaps adjust future encounters.

Out of game and away from the session, the player might want to chat to the DM about how the feature is not game breaking. It does allow for large burst damage from paladins (with at will smite doubling on crits) and rogues who get lucky. Mention that it is an aspect of the overall class balance between martials and casters and that it really won't break anything in the long run. It actually makes the game more fun when a character gets to do something spectacular when they roll a 20.

You could also point out that when a 5th level wizard rolls 8d6 for a fireball they are doing a lot of damage to a lot of targets while a paladin using a long sword and a critcal smite is only doing 6d8 to one target (low level smite). Honestly, it isn't a big deal just a fun feature but it sounds like the DM in this case is inexperienced enough in 5e to need some time to think about it.

All that said, it won't really break the game without this feature ... just take away a bit of the fun. So if you enjoy playing with the DM in general, you can just go with it. On the other hand, the DM may come up with some other unexpected reactions to events within the game (especially some spells - just wait until one of his encounters is totally wrecked by a bard/wizard/warlock casting hypnotic pattern - available at 5th level) since they obviously aren't as familiar with the rules as they could be.

(for example ... the DM could react to the use of hypnotic pattern by adding a save/round or some other adjustment like limiting the number of affected creatures just because they feel it is OP when most or all of the closely spaced NPCs start staring into space at the pretty lights ... this would be a problem since a DM should NEVER try to balance encounters by changing the rules on the fly to accommodate what they prefer to see happen).

[JakOfAllTirades]

Why is this such a common response? Every thread someone says to vote with your feet, as though there were infinite D&D tables locally, and the DMs are unapproachable strangers rather than friends. It is a strange assumption. I could see one or the other, if D&D is rare in your city then you would need to find a stranger's table in the local game store. If D&D is common than you would be more likely to run with friends, so walking would mean spending less time with friends.

The best way is to point out that without the damage spike, the magic classes are out-damaging the player, even on crits. Maybe they should also get a nerf, so that bosses don't go down in less rounds than otherwise they would. Maybe your nerf should be removed or mitigated (roll half the bonus dice?). Gotta keep quadratic-casters/linear-fighters in line somehow. 5th edition uses consistent magic vs. impressive but rare crits to do so.

If your DM is quite adamant on the point anyways, you could say: this character is not what I wanted when I rolled him up with these rule changes. Can I retcon his powers as those of a warlock whose patron most closely resembles my oath? I mean, and keep the fluff of the oath?

Or whatever you think would be fun. If the nerf is keeping you from having fun.

It's a common response for myself because I usually have invites to more games than I can attend. If I don't like the way one game is running, finding another is seldom difficult for me. However, reading this forum has taught me that not everyone has that many options. So thank you for that.

[Rhedyn]

1. Never quote tweets to your DM. They are inconsistent and you are actively decreasing the quality of your gaming whenever they are spoken about.

2. It's a fair ruling because it applies to monsters as well.

3. I think it would be fair for only smite not to crit because it is never wasted. Other stuff can miss.

[JNAProductions]

Is the game otherwise fun?

Because, while I certainly disagree with this houserule, ESPECIALLY since it was made as a reaction, rather than proactively, if the game is fun besides this... Ah well. One minor hiccup does not a bad game make.

If it's part of a pattern of bad DMing, though, I'd recommend a serious talk with the DM, and potentially looking for a new game.


1. Never quote tweets to your DM. They are inconsistent and you are actively decreasing the quality of your gaming whenever they are spoken about.

2. It's a fair ruling because it applies to monsters as well.

3. I think it would be fair for only smite not to crit because it is never wasted. Other stuff can miss.

1) Fair.

2) But monsters have riders on their attacks that can be doubled a LOT less often. Usually the biggest rider you see is poison on a save, which is NOT doubled. I think a few angels have extra damage? But most monsters just deal a lot of damage with their natural attacks.

3) Except that's the point of Smiting being able to be declared after a hit.


Also id like to point out
If you Rolled to attack got a Crit and then declared smite after, i would 100% deny those dice.

Too often i see this behaviour, its bad form

As others have said, Smites pretty explicitly work on crits, AFTER you roll the crit.

You're free to houserule it to something else, but like this DM, you're making a bad move if you don't announce that before players make their characters.

[Mr.Spastic]

I would also like to add that Roll20 is a thing and people are always creating public games. Some of then are a bit selective but others are open first come first serve.

[Malifice]

Greetings,

My first post here so forgive me if I am lacking something, I will try and keep this short.

So, our DM has made a change to the core rules regarding crits, which I guess it not uncommon for DM's to change rules but I feel it changes a lot to the melee/ranged aspect.

So say my Paladin hits a crit, so naturally I decide to smite to spike my damage.

He became confused why I was rolling so much dice being it was a weapon attack and I explained it was my smite, hunter's mark, and long sword.

So to sum it up, be feels because it was a weapon strike that only the weapon damage gets multiplied. Even being shown the rules in the rule book as well as the tweet from Crawford reminding what all gets multiplied he stayed his ground, citing that such a huge spike in damage is encounter breaking if hitting a boss, etc.

So the rule change being, when a physical class hits a crit, only their weapon damage gets additional die.

So naturally this changes more than just the Paladin, Rogue Assassin is changed, etc.

My question is, exactly how much does this change the game in terms of long term? I fear that such a change, although nerfs out output in the beginning, in the long run I feel spellcasters will start to be the more dominate class by default since melee is hit by the "Scoring a crit only changes the weapon die" effect.

I even explained the damage spike is very circumstantial being it has to be a nat 20 for my Paladin, but he cited that is still a 5% chance to do massive spikes of damage.

So if this does change the melee and other multiple die classes like Rangers and such, what options am I left with the more keep up in a sense?

Naturally I don't care about being top of the group, but I also feel like I have been falling behind as levels progress, more so since things like cantrips dwarf my melee strikes now, etc.

Thoughts?

Thank you,
Zaygos

To be fair this also nerfs a whole lot of monsters.

[JNAProductions]

To be fair this also nerfs a whole lot of monsters.

Such as...

I think a few Angels get hit by this. But what else?

[Malifice]

Such as...

I think a few Angels get hit by this. But what else?

Every dragon, quite a few undead, some Drow, Githyanki knights etc.

Heaps of monsters deal X weapon damage plus Y poison/ fire/ acid/ psychic/ necrotic/ cold etc on a hit.

Poison is probably the most common.

[JNAProductions]

Every dragon, quite a few undead, some Drow, Githyanki knights etc.

Heaps of monsters deal X weapon damage plus Y poison/ fire/ acid/ psychic/ necrotic/ cold etc on a hit.

Poison is probably the most common.

Hm. Did miss the dragon.

But note that poison, if it requires a save, does NOT get doubled on a crit.

[Ganymede]

You could completely delete Divine Smite as a feature (keeping Improved Divine Smite with a name tweak) and the Paladin would still be a useful, powerful, and top-tier class.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To be fair this also nerfs a whole lot of monsters.

How do we know this is intended to affect monsters as well? Seems to me that the DM only wanted to avoid having the Paladin end an encounter faster than he expected. I could be making assumptions but we've got no reason to believe he'll be consistent one way or another.

My hope is that he is consistent, if he plans to continue using this houserule, and has it affect all weapon attacks. It still hurts the paladins and rogues more than it does the monsters in most cases. Most of the monsters you listed here would only lose 2-3 extra die rolls. Paladins and Rogues lose 2 minimum and as many as 7 (4th level smite against an undead, remember improved divine smite can no longer crit under these rules) to 10 respectively. Couple that with spells like hex and hunters mark and the players quickly outpace any monsters they'd fight in terms of lost damage.

[JNAProductions]

I mean, crits are not that frequent, and more to the point, outside Assassins, they aren't RELIABLE.

This is a rule I'd be perfectly willing to play under. (Though not as an Assassin.)

The issue, how I see it, is HOW the rule happened. It was not a rule established from the very start. It was not done after the session, in an open discussion with the players. It was a unilateral decision made as a reaction to something that felt bad to just the DM.

[stoutstien]

I mean, crits are not that frequent, and more to the point, outside Assassins, they aren't RELIABLE.

This is a rule I'd be perfectly willing to play under. (Though not as an Assassin.)

The issue, how I see it, is HOW the rule happened. It was not a rule established from the very start. It was not done after the session, in an open discussion with the players. It was a unilateral decision made as a reaction to something that felt bad to just the DM.

Agreed.
All houserules should be cleaned with all players(dm is player also) before the campaign even starts. At least at the beginning of a session. this would probably be the most absolutely worst way to react to something unexpected a player did and damage output is probably the easiest thing to adjust to.

[Zaygos]

To the OP: Did your DM play in older editions?

I ask because in older editions of the game, critical hits DID NOT multiply the additional dice on sneak attacks and other various attacking effects. So, in your DM house ruling that these additional dice are not multiplied, he may be hearkening back to an older edition of the game.

If this is the case, I would gently remind the DM that this isn't the older edition of D&D; rather, it's 5e whose rules are designed in such a way to allow critical hits to multiply all damage dice. I would advise him to try these rules before trying to houserule them out.

Although, personally, I'm fine with the houserule, I am a veteran of the older editions; I don't allow druids to wear metal armor, I take away a Paladin's oath if they break their tenets, I drop a Cleric's spellcasting ability if they don't follow their domain's tenets, etc. By no means should you follow my lead on this because I'm a bad example.

We all did, yes, we started at 3.5 and it was our longest campaign setting. Working for years to get from level 1 to level 20 (our heroic mission being the Lich Queen)

So yes, he does bring that up even though I bring up the 5e book and tweets from Crawford.

But here is also the thing, in 3.5 you also multiplied your modifiers, he did that in 3.5 but won't in 5e because it stats it in the rule book not to.

[Rhedyn]

tweets from Crawford.
That's the act of a bad player.

Never bring those up and you probably shouldn't read them and Crawford shouldn't be making them.

[Trustypeaches]

Your DM is clearly inexperienced with 5e.

[Somva]

DMs get to set the rules in their games and particularly if making changes on the fly may want to get on with the game and not want a huge debate. That said you should definitely discuss this with them afterwards, but if as you've suggested they won't listen you need to decide if you want to play in the game or keep playing the character.

As others have said Paladins and Rogues are specifically designed to take advantage of this type of damage spike - it's kind of the point.

In an attempt to speed up combat I actually run lethal criticals - maximum possible on the dice plus the normal roll. Players get to feel super awesome, but criticals by their enemies get super scary.

[Chronos]

Forget, for a moment, about balance, or game design, or all of that. Ask instead, what's fun?

I assure you, everyone at my table still remembers the time when our paladin got a crit on a max-smite against a shadow demon (vulnerable to radiant! and a fiend!) and one-shotted it. Probably none of us remember where the shadow demon came from, or why we needed to get past it, or how it fit into the rest of the structure of that adventure... but we sure do remember that crit. It was, in other words, a lot of fun (especially for the paladin's player, of course, but also for everyone else). And isn't that the whole point?

[NorthernPhoenix]

While i'm a lot more sympathetic to the DM in this story than most people here, radically changing the rules isn't the answer. If you'd prefer to not have your boss monster be crit to death, just give him more HP. It's that simple. Explaining this would probably go a long way and help a new DM step back from instantly trying to rewrite the core rules.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread Necromancy is a forbidden art.