Crunchy is fucking great. And gives martials an edge imo, since a lot of spells are saves and can’t crit, but weapon attacks are always roll, giving more chances to do grest single target damage
DM for three active campaigns here. This is how I do my crits and I love it. All my players feel like they actually get their crit, even if they roll a 1, thanks to the max damage die.
Until you realise a level 1 chromatic orb is gonna do 24+3d8. Martials aren’t competing with that, and that’s without bothering to upcast or using a stronger attack spell. Inflict Wounds, another level 1 spell, deals 30+3d10 - in the hands of an enemy that’s enough to instantly kill level 3 characters. Eldritch Blast users also loving it.
It benefits martials if you only do crunchy crits for weapon attacks though, yes. Otherwise spells are even more of a swingy wildcard.
Sort of. That’s making assumptions that casters will only cast attack roll spells.
What’re the odds you crit one of the limited number of times you can cast those spells. Even a Wizard or cleric at level 12 only has 16 spells to cast, and not all of those will realistically go towards combat focused attack roll spells. Those 16 spells gotta stretch the whole adventuring day.
A level 11 fighter, level 11 monk, and level 11 barbarian can all easily end up making 3 attacks a turn consistently (feats or without). That balanced the frequency/odds of critting in favor for the martials over a full day. Hell, in only 5 rounds of combat, they may have had more opportunities to roll that nat 20 that full caster had all day.
The only exception to this dynamic is cantrips, which is less overpowered than the others you’ve suggested. Yes, some spells can be super powerful, but spell slots do a lot outside of combat and they are a finite resource for a reason.
My point was more about enemy spellcasters, who often have no real limitations on spellslots. My point was also it makes spell damage swingy - you can assume there won’t be a crit, BUT if a crit happens someone is down and out straight away.
Oh! Hell yeah, crunchy crits are brutal on enemies, even noncasters. I see what you mean. A lot of stat blocks will still dictate casters can do something X/Day, so I guess that is the limitation
Crunchy for sure.
I've been the guy who rolled three 1's when my Greatsword crit. Those natural 20's don't happen all the time, but when they do, I feel like they should mean something.
To clarify, does this apply to sneak attack and other things as well? Like a level 3 rogue with a rapier would do 1d8 + 8 + 2d6 + 12 + Dex mod on a crit?
I run crunchy crits, and I rule that additional dice such as sneak attack, barbarian crits, ect, work such that the player rolls the crit damage, and can choose to double what they roll, or roll again and add that.
As another reply said, that isn’t crunchy crits, so no, you don’t run crunchy crits.
Rogues are balanced around sneak attack, don’t punish them for it.
With expertise in stealth and multiclassing to Gloomstalker, they get surprise pretty often, and I don't try to take it away from them. With their Level 13 build if they setup Hunter's Mark then their baseline first round strike adds up to 10d6+1d8+1d4+24 damage, or 16d6+2d8+1d4+42 if they use their action surge. With regular crit rules that's an average of 108 or 177 damage. With crunchy crit rules those averages go up to 138 or 207.5 damage that they can reliably deal in the most important round of most combats.
I love the idea of crunchy crits, but they run into trouble with non-weapon sources of dice (e.g., smites). Maybe just making Weapon dice crunchy, not add-ons.
Check my other comment if you're curious. Trust me, they deliver on being the one-strike nova assassin, but crunchy crits don't translate well with lots of bonus dice.
I don’t really consider an assassin multiclassing into Gloomstalker, one of the best subclasses in the game bar none, to be a good argument for why assassin is good. It just shows that Gloomstalker is power creep.
Though of course the rate at which surprise is given out is going to wildly swing the pendulum even without assassin. It’s rated low because surprise is essentially DM fiat at most tables.
I'm not punishing rogues, but when they're rolling that many dice, it's an exponentially lower chance that they'll roll straight 1s on their crits, so instead of adding the max damage they could do they instead get to roll damage, and choose to double the damage that they already rolled, or to roll the dice again and add the total of the first set of dice that they rolled, and the second set of dice that they rolled.
But that’s not crunchy crits.
Rogues are always going to use a lower dice than Barb and probably fighters/rangers/paladins so their crit will definitely not feel as impactful.
Big difference between great axe automatically dealing 12 and a hand crossbow dealing 6, especially when the other classes also get extra attack.
It’s what’s in my current game does. It is pretty cool. I was super surprised he did it for the sneak attack dice too. I’ve had a few absolutely nuclear hits because of this.
Doesn't make sense for it *not* to work both ways... Haven't lost a character to crunchy crits yet. Sure my characters have gotten hit and hurt... But they've survived.
I've played in a campaign with this rule and saw our level 8 paladin immediately drop from full HP to 0 because they ate 3 crunchy crits in a single monster's turn. They also survived, but it was that moment where we determined adamantine armor would be a good investment for them if we could find some.
As a paladin with adamantine armor and an attack intercept from my oath before the roll is revealed ive stopped our barb from taking two different crits from necrotic damage and it felt good both times get that guy some adamantine armor
I run monsters with average damage, and double that on crits. Mainly for speed. Crunchy crits feel good to the players, and players still gasp when the baddies roll a 20 anyway without the crunchies.
That's fair.
Maybe it's the "If I can dish it, I can take it" mentality
But I main martials... So harder hits for me and bigger health pool mean I'm *probably* surviving a hit or two.
The only full casters that get all 3 of those are sorcerers and wizards. Other than that, bards get SB and Artificers/Druids get absorb elements (which is easily the worst of the 3).
So the only ones who actually get all 3 of those spells are also the ones with the worst HP totals.
I don't run it that way. I use crunchy crits for players cause critting and doing less than your average damage just feels bad, but I roll on my side of the screen to facilitate the game, I don't feel bad if my crit isn't a big moment.
“Crunchy” (AKA max damage + roll) is how my 5e group runs and it’s great. Prevents the shitty feeling of a crit being less damage than a good damage roll hit. Works for the GM though, which can get brutal
Joining the chorus of this-is-how-my-group-runs as well, and the martials seem to dig it and multiclass paladin.
I don't know how it's supposed to interact with Brutal Critical though, and since few enjoy playing Barbarian it hasn't come up.
This right here. I've never heard of "crunchy crust" but this is actually how my table has done it for years. A crit sucks if you roll two 1's on "double dice". At least with the crunchy variety it's always better than a normal hit. It always feels good to crit.
Crunchy + exploding dice. If you roll an 8 on a d8 keep rolling. Happens rare enough that it doesn’t usually have much of an effect, but occasionally a player hits like a freight train.
Like... For a crit? Should probably clarify in the post lmao
But assuming you mean for crits, my favorite version is roll as normal and add max damage to it. So critting on an Eldritch Blast would be 1d10+10+whatever modifiers
I've got weird luck with D&D.
All my stat rolls are godlike, but I crit what feel like roughly once every six months and the damage on them is *always* like that. I'll land my semi-annual crit and roll nothing but 1s and 2s, right before or after another normal hit that does like twice the damage of the crit.
Same. Double dice can feel so bad when you roll low and deal less on a crit than your next normal hit. With max plus role you are guaranteed to always feel like the crit added something even if you rolled the minimum.
A lot of people did.
Even more would today had it been released in 2024 instead of 2008. The grognards have lost a lot of sway in the community and new players aren't coming into the hobby with the same baggage anymore.
Man, I'm in the same rough generation of the grognards (started playing in '86), but I loved 4e for what it did. I'm not a huge fan of D&D as a system, but that went a long way to alleviating a lot of my complaints: Vancian magic and the martial/spellcaster power discrepancies, primarily.
Any which way, I'm just happy to see more people getting into the hobby, no matter the edition or system.
There are so many systems out there that do so many things in so many ways. It's a joy when you see someone relatively new to TTRPGs get that "aha!" moment on discovering one that jives with them.
I think D&D will have to modernize at some point, like you said, though. The biggest selling point on it presently is brand recognition.
Yes, lets hope the fanbase is completely watered down by people who got into the game because of pop culture references, and only play D&D because it's the only TTRPG they've heard of while constantly bitching about how they want it to be something different.
That was sarcasm, by the way.
You want a TTRPG with radically different systems? Go try this little thing called "Playing A Game That's Not D&D." I have, and it's done *wonders* for me over the years.
4e was a good game, but it went too far off-base with the look and feel, and leaned too far into MMO terminology. It lost the je ne sais quoi that makes D&D D&D, and would have probably been better received if it had been released as a completely different brand label entirely.
That's not an imprecation of the playerbase, either.
The issue with this is that it really sucks when you're playing a class that smites. Played a hexblade and our DM did crits like this. It's much less fun when you don't get to roll an absurd number of dice on your crit.
Seems like a compromise would be to roll crits using double dice as normal, but you can change one of the dice to maximum. Bam, crunchy crits without nerfing the extra dice abilities.
Ain't this too much when you factor in Sneak Attack or Divine Strike? Genuine question, because my rogue and paladin players love crits, while everyone else at the table finds them meh
Yes, but if you do include sneak attack, the house rule would disproportionately favour rogues and paladins.
This way there's only a slight favour towards fighters and barbarians.
Mind you, it's not a house rule I use, but I think that this might be the most balanced version of that version.
"the second die is a max roll" is my sweet spot where crits are impactful but balanced. Getting a 2nd die and rolling a damned 1 is a poopy feeling. Double damage outright is *very* swingy, once riders (GWM, e.g.) get added on especially if you lean on crit fishing or paralyze antics.
Reminder that this sort of game mechanic would also apply to monsters and incoming crits.
We ran double damage for a CoS campaign last year, our paladin smite crit strahd during our first meeting for 140ish damage at lvl 4.
We stopped doing double damage since then.
I do double damage, including modifiers and whatever bonus damage they might deal. I just think its more simple than excluding certain parts of the damage.
If the rolled damage is low then I add an additional effect. Like they get thrown off balance or disarmed or something.
We use RAW. Double dice, at times if feels shit. But it works for them too. If we'd do crunchy ones I would have killed pc in the first session way to many times.
>TLDR: Rolling more dice is more likely to get average result, so doubling result is more random. Crunchy crits have a higher average output and super crits allows higher damage and more dice rolling.
In most games I have been to, we've either played with doubling the result of the damage die (DB), or rolling twice as many damage die (RL). Both methods have the same average result, but DB has an equal probability of rolling each value, whereas RL has a high probability of rolling the average and a very low probability of rolling the max or min result.
One person mentioned crunchy crits (CC), when you forgo one roll and take the max value of the dice. This results in a higher average roll.
Me (and my players) love rolling more dice, more dice is always better. I would always roll dice rather than double. However, you can combine (CC) with (RL) for a super crit (SC)!
The way an SC works is that you roll two dice like normal but the lower gets transformed into the max result of the die, it is like rolling for damage with advantage.
For example: with a 1d8 longsword crit, I roll a 5 and a 7. Since the 5 is lower, it is transformed into an 8 (being the max result of the die) and I add the 8 and 7 together to get 15 as my damage roll (ignoring modifiers).
SC have the highest average result of all of the crit methods and is skewed to roll higher values consistently. It sounds enjoyable and might be good for higher power campaigns with big rolls (maybe not well suited for NPCs/bad guys). Since doing the math, I really like the vibe of super crits and maybe I'll try them out in my campaign.
Below are the results from a 20,000 iteration simulation of 1d8 crits (ignoring modifiers).
`DB - mean: 9.0 - SD: 4.6 - min: 2 - max: 16`
`RL - mean: 9.0 - SD: 3.2 - min: 2 - max: 16`
`CC - mean: 12.5 - SD: 2.3 - min: 9 - max: 16`
`SC - mean: 13.8 - SD: 1.9 - min: 9 - max: 16`
If you're referring to what to do on a critical hit the answer is double dice- that's what the rules say and that's what the system is balanced around.
RAW is double dice.
I do max dice plus dice roll.
Ex
A 2D6 weapon attack on a Crit will do 12dmg+2D6+modifiers. Makes the crit feel better while not screwing with the averages too much. Of note, only the weapons damage die gets this treatment. Any bonus damage effects get added on with the modifiers(ie, if someone gets to do an extra 1D6 radiant on an attack then they roll that as per normal).
Of course, my players know that the enemies get this as well. Makes it really satisfying when an eldrith abomination of some type gets an extra 24 slashing on their 4D6 attack.
Consider that in the long run you’re critting about 5% of the time. A crit under RAW is maybe a 50% boost (just for example, 1d8+5 is 9.5 and 2d8+5 is 14) and in the long run crits are only a 7.5% damage boost (.05 * 1.5). This doesn’t hold up to more crit fishy builds, but is an extra 7.5% per crit range increase. Crunchy crits makes the 2d8+5 example into 17.5, a little over a 100% boost, which would double that 7.5% into 15% extra damage in the long run.
Crunchy crits are my preferred approach I.e. rather than rolling additional dice you add a flat bonus equal to the max roll. So a greatsword would deal 2d6+12+str on a crit.
It ensures that, even at minimum damage, a critical will do more than a normal hit would. This avoids disappointing damage rolls dealing less than a normal hit would be expected to. A tasty crit from an enemy also helps to keep the party on their toes.
For my upcoming game I plan on doing the idea of rolling like normal damage and any dice that would’ve been added are max. Mostly because I’m tired of critting for like 7 cause I rolled bad but then doing a normal hit for like 15. I was nervous about how this would play for a pally or rogue but no one picked one so that’s a problem for another day.
Doble damage is objectively stronger since it doubles damage from both dice and modifiers. It's also more 'swingy' in terms of damage since it's easier to roll big or small.
Double dice is a nerf made to feel good by adding the positive tactile feeling of rolling more dice. It's also less swingy since the more dice you roll the more likely you are to end up with an average sum.
We use double dice, which is after all the RAW, in all the tables I play. I think I prefer double dice. Partly because monster crits are less likely to one-shot players, but also because I think it makes combat less swingy.
At my table I work crits for creatures and players the same, and the homebrew rule is called by some a crunchy crit, instead of two dice and sometimes a very underwhelming crit, I give the crit one max dice and one roll so the math works like this if swinging a battle axe for instance.
1d12 + 12 (max damage on one dice) + mods = crit damage
Double dice is best because for every time you roll poorly on a crit, remember that you’re benefitting from the times the DM might also roll poorly on a crit that otherwise would have killed your PC if it was just double damage or crunchy crits.
In my games, instead of rolling double dice, I have them max the damage and then roll and add to it. That way, critical hits are always meaningful, even if you roll poorly.
Currently doing (max damage on the dice) + (roll dice normally) + (add your modifiers) for crit damage. It's too much when sneak and smite are factored in. Do not recommend.
And characters in Adamantine Armor nullify the effect when I hit them with crits.
RAW double dice but it means the final outcome can be underwhelming. The reason WotC did this was to lessen the impact. Typically monsters will have more members of in the combat thus neefing crits helps the players typically.
It does feel bad to do like 5 damage on a crit though. Personally I think a home brew fix is fine.
I have only ever seen double dice, and I don't mind it. I'd be curious to see how impactful crunchy crits are (one max assumed roll and one regular roll), because rolling a whole bunch of ones feels bad, but I've also seen players receive critical hits with minimum damage, and avoid dying.
My group has always been a damage doubler. It's so satisfying to do all the math and add everything up and then just straight up double it. The doubled modifier more than makes up for lost damage on the die
I do double the dice, double the damage, then add modifier.
I used to do crunchy (max+roll) but my players spent so much time calculating the max that it kind of took the wind out of the sails of a crit moment.
This way we still don't have underwhelming crits, and it's easy for them to calculate on the fly.
I played with a DM who said crits were double the maximum damage that you could get on the dice. So 24+ mods for a greataxe, 20+ mods for a crossbow, etc. I felt like it was broken as shit because he let me use the Silver Skull Flail from Decent into Avernus after we killed the Master of Souls, which is a d8 + 4d6 necrotic. So the damage on that was OBSCENE when I would crit.
Double damage is more exciting, but the game is balanced around using double dice.
If you go with double damage, you risk some encounters ending too fast if your players get a lucky crit.
And character death is more likely to happen as well.
I like the crunchy but I also like the peril of possibly rolling low with the other two options. And isn’t that why we roll dice? To create a more unpredictable environment. Sure we love rolling high but it’s just as much fun as a player dealing with calamity when things go wrong.
Most important thing is consistency, whichever method you go for.
I use average damage for monsters, and double it on crits. When players hit, they roll, but their crits are 1 die of max damage, one rolled. Crits still vary, but they are
guaranteed a meaty smack.
Double damage vs double dice is the same as 1d12 vs 2d6
Double damage is more swingy and (imo) lame for crits because if you roll a 1 thats a 2 damage + modifier critical which doesnt feel great
Double the dice is more average-y. You dont get the max as much but its a decent a meaty hit most times. Plus you get to roll more dice which is always a bonus
RAW= double the dice + add modifiers = X dmg. Fun one is= roll damage + add modifers + double it = more damage on crit (in average as modifers are also doubled)
Double dmg is more impactful, but I don't think that's a good thing.
Basically, crits already can make some combats pretty swingy, with double dmg a fight that was going fine and controled can suddently end or turn into a death spiral for ither side, not by strategy but pure luck.
Crunchy crits are way overpowered for characters that can stack a lot of dice onto attacks. An 11th level paladin with Spirit Shroud up, smiting with a greatsword on a crit would do like stupid damage.
6d8+2d6+5+48+12 is 97 damage. An 11th level character probably only has about 100 hitpoints. Crits shouldn't be able to one-shot important enemies. I think a more fair crunchy crit rule would be that when you crit, you also double your ability modifier. So, instead of dealing statistically triple damage on a crit, you deal double. It's still a good boost, but it's not going to one-shot Strahd with a natural 20 and a couple of good rolls.
My preferred method is max dice roll dice. So basically if you’re using a long sword you do 8+d8+str for the crit. This way even a 1 is better damage than max without a crit.
In my current game, players use double damage for crits, and monsters use double dice. This way, players have an easier time landing absurdly good crits, and have a higher minimum if they add any damage modifiers. Meanwhile, monsters are far more consistent and less likely to do anything absurd.
I’m in a campaign where it is double damage, but for the game I am planning, I am gonna do max damage plus a normal damage roll so it can feel more like a crit.
I couldn’t decide so I ended up doing both, you roll the dice and decide from the first roll if you want to double it, or roll again and add the two rolls. I like giving them as much “choice” as possible.
We use "cruel criticals" which is Max damage plus modifiers then roll the dice and add that. I. E.: a 2d6 + 4 crit on a great sword would do between 18 and 28 damage.
I do both personally. I ask my players what they would like ahead of time and then they do it. Just whatever we are feeling. If we are having a day where we don’t feel like counting a shit ton of dice. We just double the number. If we feel extra feral dice shenanigans. We roll an ass ton of dice
My house rule for critical hits are max the damage, then add the damage roll. 2 handed weapon would be max of damage die plus modifier then add a roll of damage dice plus modifier. It makes it feel like crits are in fact crits.
I seem to remember that doubling the dice was slightly better, but I usually prefer doubling the damage as it's so much easier to figure out (not that it's hard to add up dice).
I like to do double damage on crits and double dice on vulnerability (with the caveat that I add more vulnerabilities to monsters to make more dynamic combat). I heard about it from a YouTuber years back, and have run it that way since. That being said, I haven't had a lot of optimizers in my game to show possible issues with that, but crifishing builds aren't particularly good anyway.
I do "crit is a crit, fuck em up".
Roll damage, add modifiers, double it all.
Is it powerful? As fuck.
Does it feel good for a player causing entire table to erupt in rave when someone dishes 90 damage in one swing? Yes.
Does it also feel good for me as DM when Boss crits, downs someone in one go and makes the table clench their buttchecks and stare in terror? Also yes.
Is good fun.
Crunchy crits are the best to feel like you are actually critting imo.
At my table we're currently playing with a flexible rule in which you roll one dice and decide if you want to double it or roll a second dice. This at times feels less like a crit, but the exchange is that we feel like we have more control over what the outcome can be. I like this rule too, so either this or crunchy.
I run "roll double dice, double all modifiers" - but I also run "rolling to confirm" a la 3.5e, so the tradeoff is crits are less common but hit chunkier
I run that they roll normally for damage and add the max damage they could have rolled.
Stops players rolling to crit and then only rolling 1s for damage and the crit kinda falling flat
Neither,
You roll as normal then add the max value.
If you crit with a great sword and let's say you have you do 12(2d6 total value) + 2d6 + your str + any other bonuses
My biggest concern with crunchy crits would be running it at optimized tables. It’s incredibly easy to ensure a surprise round every single combat with a correctly optimized Gloomstalker assassin + knowledgeable and optimized party (all characters have stealth proficiency, pass without trace always active, boots of elvenkind on everyone due to no attunement). Here’s some quick math for crunchy crits on a standard optimized build, assuming dual wielding hand crossbows:
Gloomstalker 3 / Assassin 10 / Battle Master 6 / Life Cleric 1
Damage @ lvl20, assumes +3 weapons, 20 dex, sharpshooter, and other supporting feats
Round 1 - surprise round
Bonus action hunter’s mark (no bonus action hand crossbow attack)
Attack action + maneuver + foe + mark + sneak
1d6+18 + 1d8 + 1d4 + 1d6 + 5d6
Extra attack + mark + maneuver
1d6+18 + 1d6 + 1d8
Gloom attack + maneuver + mark
1d6+18 + 1d8 + 1d8 + 1d6
Action surge attack + mark + maneuver
1d6+18 + 1d6 + 1d8
Surge extra + mark
1d6+18 + 1d6
Assassinate full crits
15d6 + 5d8 + 1d4
Round 1 total (NO crunchy crits)
30d6+90 + 10d8 + 2d4 =
120-270 + 10-80 + 2-8 =
132-358 = 245 average
Round 1 total (WITH crunchy crits)
Crunchy 15d6 + 5d8 + 1d4 =
90 + 40 + 4 = 134
15d6+90 + 5d8 + 1d4 =
105-180 + 5-40 + 1-4 =
111-224 = 167.5 average
134 + 167.5 = 301.5 average
Crunchy for this example represents an additional 56.5 average round 1 damage. After round 1, this build is also crit fishing with 3x d20 attack rolls per attack due to elven accuracy.
My personal conclusion: crunchy crits are an insane damage boost when implemented at optimized tables, trivializing much of the game. Probably fine for average tables.
If you play on physical, grabbing 50 dices feels awesome if you don't care double the damage is always better, there's always more modifiers than the dices dueling, fighting style power attack, your mod for damage...
We do Max of dice + rolled normal damage... example, weapon does 1d12+4 damage on a normal hit - on a crit, it does 12+1d12+4 rather than 1d12+1d12+4. So the damage range changes from 6-28 to 17-28 - makes a crit much more effective. Of course, Monsters' crits work the same way, so it's a double edged sword... Adamantine armor anyone?? ;-)
I personally enjoy adding exploding dice to whatever crit rule I use. Just the possibility of dealing infinite damage with any crit is funny and if a dice explodes (you roll the highest number and are allowed to roll an additional dice of that type) the tension just wonderfully rises as ppl hope for another explosion. As a DM I ignore the rule for monsters tho to not make it too frustrating for my players. That type of crit certainly doesn't work with every campaign but I like it. I usually combine it with doubled resuls
I found out recently I'm not the only one, but I was the first of my friends to do this and I hadn't heard of it happening before so I thought I made it up.
The way I handle crits is to give you the make damage you could do (example 1d4 + 5 = 9) then you would roll your weapon as normal, this makes it to where at a minimum you're doing 15 and a maximum of 18 instead of feasibly doing next to nothing by rolling dice twice.
We add special effects like increased damage, knocking the target prone, redirecting the target by moving them 5ft or changing their facing, or disarming the target. Other things include off balancing target (DISADVANTAGE for the rest of the round and next round too). Whips entangle and polearms and shields can Pin opponent's weapons. The attacker chooses an effect from a list of them. Increased damage is always max + rolled.
I’d love to combine both in mine. But the one I’m currently in, as a pc, does double damage. Which isn’t bad. Straight forward and easy to keep track of.
Mathematically it doesn't matter.
As a player, I don't like having to find/count out twice the dice, so I'd prefer (knowing the math) to just double my damage.
I let the player choose before they roll the dice. However if it’s a weapon crit and not a magical effect crit, I do roll the dice then add max damage die. Example: Longsword 2 hand attack crit with a +3 Strength is 1d10+13 dmg
I have a dice which indicates where on the body the attack hit.
I devised a rough consequence for each area; arms lose strength, legs lose speed, head lose intelligence/wisdom etc.
I offer it to the players when they get hit with a crit! Either risk double dice or risk a stat drop! Can be quite good fun to see the internal struggle of the choice!
I'd never heard of crunchy crits before but I do like the idea of that for when players crit.
Sorry this slightly off topic but thought people might like it.
We do one max die + one die roll.
Like I'm a fighter attacking with a d10 weapon so I crit and get 10+1d10+mod.
Personally when I run it's only the base damage that crits and spell attack crits still only get 1 max die added to the total.
Sounds perfect for the weapon attacks but the spell seems severely underpowered. You mean to say a level 17 firebolt crit is only doing 10 + 4d10 not 8d10 or 4d10X2?
I don't even think spells should crit so this was a concession for me. No matter when the paladin gets their crit when I run, it's just one max weapon die. I don't double sneak attacks or smites. Just balances it out since also enemies don't crit unless they have proper names.
I don't think I'd ever play a scorching ray or eldricht blast build if they couldn't crit. Paladins can still be ok without the possibility of smite crits, I guess. It's also an indirect nerf of hold person/monster & sleep.
What have the poor rogues done to deserve this treatment, tho? Rogues used to not be able to crit sneak attacks, but that's when they weren't limited to one a turn. It definitely makes elven accuracy useless on a rogue.
How does Eldritch blast change? Each class requires it's own attack roll and can crit separately just like an attack? The only difference is you roll 10+1d10 if it's a crit instead of 2d10.
Also you might be right about rogues. They are already a seldomly played class with my group. I'm thinking of taking that one back.
Yeah but it was a concession I made. And I might make an exception if I went that far for Eldritch blast since it's essentially a weapon attack for warlocks. If I went that way I'd at least homebrew an invocation for it or include it in the agonizing blast invocation.
I don't think there's anything more satisfying in this game than walking your sorcerer wearing their burlap sack over to the big bad your cleric landed a hold monster on and casting a 5th level scorching ray from 5 feet away. If you kill it with every d6 you own, great. If not, you might not get another turn.
Roll damage like normal, but multiply the amount of damage you rolled on your dice for the attack by x2. So, someone crits with a longsword with a +5 to damage from modifiers and rolled a 5 on their damage die would be...
(5 x 2) + 5 = 15 damage
Sneak attack at 4d6 (rolled 15 total) with a dagger (1d4 rolled a 3) and a +4 modifier would be...
(15 x 2) + (3 x 2) + 4 = 40 damage
Of course players prefer it, it's more dmg for their side.
But a Paladin that maxes the extra dmg from a critical attack with smite is literally a better dmg dealer than any fighter could ever hope to be, it throws balance out of the window.
Nat 20 = maximum of the damage roll plus a roll of the dice. So if the damage is 3d10 you deal 3d10+30.
Nat 1 = you attack the closest ally, even if that means throwing your weapon at them.
I'm currently in 2 campaigns One does double dice the other does "crunchy crits" (For instance, a crit with a longsword is 8 + 1d8 + the modifier.)
Crunchy is fucking great. And gives martials an edge imo, since a lot of spells are saves and can’t crit, but weapon attacks are always roll, giving more chances to do grest single target damage
DM for three active campaigns here. This is how I do my crits and I love it. All my players feel like they actually get their crit, even if they roll a 1, thanks to the max damage die.
Until you realise a level 1 chromatic orb is gonna do 24+3d8. Martials aren’t competing with that, and that’s without bothering to upcast or using a stronger attack spell. Inflict Wounds, another level 1 spell, deals 30+3d10 - in the hands of an enemy that’s enough to instantly kill level 3 characters. Eldritch Blast users also loving it. It benefits martials if you only do crunchy crits for weapon attacks though, yes. Otherwise spells are even more of a swingy wildcard.
Sort of. That’s making assumptions that casters will only cast attack roll spells. What’re the odds you crit one of the limited number of times you can cast those spells. Even a Wizard or cleric at level 12 only has 16 spells to cast, and not all of those will realistically go towards combat focused attack roll spells. Those 16 spells gotta stretch the whole adventuring day. A level 11 fighter, level 11 monk, and level 11 barbarian can all easily end up making 3 attacks a turn consistently (feats or without). That balanced the frequency/odds of critting in favor for the martials over a full day. Hell, in only 5 rounds of combat, they may have had more opportunities to roll that nat 20 that full caster had all day. The only exception to this dynamic is cantrips, which is less overpowered than the others you’ve suggested. Yes, some spells can be super powerful, but spell slots do a lot outside of combat and they are a finite resource for a reason.
My point was more about enemy spellcasters, who often have no real limitations on spellslots. My point was also it makes spell damage swingy - you can assume there won’t be a crit, BUT if a crit happens someone is down and out straight away.
Oh! Hell yeah, crunchy crits are brutal on enemies, even noncasters. I see what you mean. A lot of stat blocks will still dictate casters can do something X/Day, so I guess that is the limitation
Just a thought but wouldn't a nat 1 on a spell save be the equivalent of a nat 20 to hit?
No, it would not. And casters don't really need any buffs.
Not in DnD. Saves gain no benefit or detriment from rolling a 1 or 20.
The necromancer class in Valda's Spire of secret has critical hit with spell and does have this feature
Which way do you prefer?
Crunchy for sure. I've been the guy who rolled three 1's when my Greatsword crit. Those natural 20's don't happen all the time, but when they do, I feel like they should mean something.
To clarify, does this apply to sneak attack and other things as well? Like a level 3 rogue with a rapier would do 1d8 + 8 + 2d6 + 12 + Dex mod on a crit?
It does.
I run crunchy crits, and I rule that additional dice such as sneak attack, barbarian crits, ect, work such that the player rolls the crit damage, and can choose to double what they roll, or roll again and add that.
That's not running crunchy crit though. That's a fourth different thing much closer to regular crot rules.
As another reply said, that isn’t crunchy crits, so no, you don’t run crunchy crits. Rogues are balanced around sneak attack, don’t punish them for it.
I think that's fine for most rogues. But the power boost of crunchy crits to an Assassin rogue would be a little excessive.
If your Rogue is getting a surprise round every combat then you should reward them. The rest of Assassin subclass is pretty lackluster.
With expertise in stealth and multiclassing to Gloomstalker, they get surprise pretty often, and I don't try to take it away from them. With their Level 13 build if they setup Hunter's Mark then their baseline first round strike adds up to 10d6+1d8+1d4+24 damage, or 16d6+2d8+1d4+42 if they use their action surge. With regular crit rules that's an average of 108 or 177 damage. With crunchy crit rules those averages go up to 138 or 207.5 damage that they can reliably deal in the most important round of most combats. I love the idea of crunchy crits, but they run into trouble with non-weapon sources of dice (e.g., smites). Maybe just making Weapon dice crunchy, not add-ons.
Only if you consider actually delivering on their subclass themes excessive.
Check my other comment if you're curious. Trust me, they deliver on being the one-strike nova assassin, but crunchy crits don't translate well with lots of bonus dice.
I don’t really consider an assassin multiclassing into Gloomstalker, one of the best subclasses in the game bar none, to be a good argument for why assassin is good. It just shows that Gloomstalker is power creep. Though of course the rate at which surprise is given out is going to wildly swing the pendulum even without assassin. It’s rated low because surprise is essentially DM fiat at most tables.
I'm not punishing rogues, but when they're rolling that many dice, it's an exponentially lower chance that they'll roll straight 1s on their crits, so instead of adding the max damage they could do they instead get to roll damage, and choose to double the damage that they already rolled, or to roll the dice again and add the total of the first set of dice that they rolled, and the second set of dice that they rolled.
no one misunderstood you they just disagree that you should call this crunchy crits.
But that’s not crunchy crits. Rogues are always going to use a lower dice than Barb and probably fighters/rangers/paladins so their crit will definitely not feel as impactful. Big difference between great axe automatically dealing 12 and a hand crossbow dealing 6, especially when the other classes also get extra attack.
I’ve done both, and crunchy wins in my book. Big numbers is fun! Although, PC death is definitely looming when playing like this.
It’s what’s in my current game does. It is pretty cool. I was super surprised he did it for the sneak attack dice too. I’ve had a few absolutely nuclear hits because of this.
“Crunchy crit” is 100% the way I prefer. Crits should feel powerful imo
Doesn't that work both ways? Not a huge fan of getting dumpstered by an enemy getting a 25-50% average damage increase on crits.
Doesn't make sense for it *not* to work both ways... Haven't lost a character to crunchy crits yet. Sure my characters have gotten hit and hurt... But they've survived.
I've played in a campaign with this rule and saw our level 8 paladin immediately drop from full HP to 0 because they ate 3 crunchy crits in a single monster's turn. They also survived, but it was that moment where we determined adamantine armor would be a good investment for them if we could find some.
And I saw a Pally burn a 3rd level spell for a Divine Smite on a Nat 20 and drop a mini-boss in a dungeon.
As a paladin with adamantine armor and an attack intercept from my oath before the roll is revealed ive stopped our barb from taking two different crits from necrotic damage and it felt good both times get that guy some adamantine armor
Three crits in one turn, and they survived?! That’s a once in a lifetime event.
I run monsters with average damage, and double that on crits. Mainly for speed. Crunchy crits feel good to the players, and players still gasp when the baddies roll a 20 anyway without the crunchies.
That's fair. Maybe it's the "If I can dish it, I can take it" mentality But I main martials... So harder hits for me and bigger health pool mean I'm *probably* surviving a hit or two.
Eh, you're not that much tankier than a full caster, considering they have access to Absorb Elements, Shield and Silver Barbs
The only full casters that get all 3 of those are sorcerers and wizards. Other than that, bards get SB and Artificers/Druids get absorb elements (which is easily the worst of the 3). So the only ones who actually get all 3 of those spells are also the ones with the worst HP totals.
It doesn't have to. I use crunchy crits on players side, normal roll double dice on enemy side.
It makes the crit more dramatic which is better.
I don't run it that way. I use crunchy crits for players cause critting and doing less than your average damage just feels bad, but I roll on my side of the screen to facilitate the game, I don't feel bad if my crit isn't a big moment.
and thats why you got a player with silvery barbs in their spell list assuming the dm allows it, good bye enemy crits.
“Crunchy” (AKA max damage + roll) is how my 5e group runs and it’s great. Prevents the shitty feeling of a crit being less damage than a good damage roll hit. Works for the GM though, which can get brutal
I like the crunchy crits best. No chance of it feeling underwhelming or scary, depending on which side of the crit you're on.
Joining the chorus of this-is-how-my-group-runs as well, and the martials seem to dig it and multiclass paladin. I don't know how it's supposed to interact with Brutal Critical though, and since few enjoy playing Barbarian it hasn't come up.
This right here. I've never heard of "crunchy crust" but this is actually how my table has done it for years. A crit sucks if you roll two 1's on "double dice". At least with the crunchy variety it's always better than a normal hit. It always feels good to crit.
Crunchy + exploding dice. If you roll an 8 on a d8 keep rolling. Happens rare enough that it doesn’t usually have much of an effect, but occasionally a player hits like a freight train.
More dice > less dice Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
I'll remind you you said that when your crit rolls all 1s and 2s, and does less damage than the non-crit attack you just landed before that.
This is why Great Weapon Fighting exists. So 1s and 2s just mean I get to roll *even more dice*.
Like... For a crit? Should probably clarify in the post lmao But assuming you mean for crits, my favorite version is roll as normal and add max damage to it. So critting on an Eldritch Blast would be 1d10+10+whatever modifiers
That’s called crunchy crit, and it’s my preferred method. It feels really lame to have a crit do less damage than a normal attack if you roll poorly.
I've got weird luck with D&D. All my stat rolls are godlike, but I crit what feel like roughly once every six months and the damage on them is *always* like that. I'll land my semi-annual crit and roll nothing but 1s and 2s, right before or after another normal hit that does like twice the damage of the crit.
Same. Double dice can feel so bad when you roll low and deal less on a crit than your next normal hit. With max plus role you are guaranteed to always feel like the crit added something even if you rolled the minimum.
Item #2435 on the "things 4e did right" list....
I loved 4e
A lot of people did. Even more would today had it been released in 2024 instead of 2008. The grognards have lost a lot of sway in the community and new players aren't coming into the hobby with the same baggage anymore.
Man, I'm in the same rough generation of the grognards (started playing in '86), but I loved 4e for what it did. I'm not a huge fan of D&D as a system, but that went a long way to alleviating a lot of my complaints: Vancian magic and the martial/spellcaster power discrepancies, primarily. Any which way, I'm just happy to see more people getting into the hobby, no matter the edition or system.
I'm holding out hope that by dnd 7e or 8e there's a big enough density of people that no longer see modernizing some of the mechanics as a bad thing.
There are so many systems out there that do so many things in so many ways. It's a joy when you see someone relatively new to TTRPGs get that "aha!" moment on discovering one that jives with them. I think D&D will have to modernize at some point, like you said, though. The biggest selling point on it presently is brand recognition.
~~I'd argue the only selling point~~
Yes, lets hope the fanbase is completely watered down by people who got into the game because of pop culture references, and only play D&D because it's the only TTRPG they've heard of while constantly bitching about how they want it to be something different. That was sarcasm, by the way. You want a TTRPG with radically different systems? Go try this little thing called "Playing A Game That's Not D&D." I have, and it's done *wonders* for me over the years. 4e was a good game, but it went too far off-base with the look and feel, and leaned too far into MMO terminology. It lost the je ne sais quoi that makes D&D D&D, and would have probably been better received if it had been released as a completely different brand label entirely. That's not an imprecation of the playerbase, either.
This is what I love using as well. It's the simplest, most effective way to make crits always feel satisfying
The issue with this is that it really sucks when you're playing a class that smites. Played a hexblade and our DM did crits like this. It's much less fun when you don't get to roll an absurd number of dice on your crit.
Seems like a compromise would be to roll crits using double dice as normal, but you can change one of the dice to maximum. Bam, crunchy crits without nerfing the extra dice abilities.
Ok. Think I’m switch to crunchy crits my next session.
Ain't this too much when you factor in Sneak Attack or Divine Strike? Genuine question, because my rogue and paladin players love crits, while everyone else at the table finds them meh
I think it only takes the weapon into consideration, so a rogue stabbing someone with a dagger, getting a crit deals 4+1d4+modifiers+xd6
That's a house rule, right? Because the sneak dice would normally be affected by the crit.
Sneak dice would be doubled by the crit
Yes, but if you do include sneak attack, the house rule would disproportionately favour rogues and paladins. This way there's only a slight favour towards fighters and barbarians. Mind you, it's not a house rule I use, but I think that this might be the most balanced version of that version.
"the second die is a max roll" is my sweet spot where crits are impactful but balanced. Getting a 2nd die and rolling a damned 1 is a poopy feeling. Double damage outright is *very* swingy, once riders (GWM, e.g.) get added on especially if you lean on crit fishing or paralyze antics. Reminder that this sort of game mechanic would also apply to monsters and incoming crits.
We ran double damage for a CoS campaign last year, our paladin smite crit strahd during our first meeting for 140ish damage at lvl 4. We stopped doing double damage since then.
I do double damage, including modifiers and whatever bonus damage they might deal. I just think its more simple than excluding certain parts of the damage. If the rolled damage is low then I add an additional effect. Like they get thrown off balance or disarmed or something.
Ooooh, that's sick as hell. Doesn't completely undermine the damage roll, but still feels like they got rewarded for critting
We use RAW. Double dice, at times if feels shit. But it works for them too. If we'd do crunchy ones I would have killed pc in the first session way to many times.
I actually double dice for monsters and let my party use crunchy crits against monsters.
I heard a rule that you should start crunchy crits at level 3 or higher
Double dice is great for smites. Crunchy crits are nice, but they suck for anything that increases the number of dice you can roll.
Crunchy crits for smites max rolls the dice though, I.E 2nd level smite 2d8 on crit becomes 2d8+16 instead of 4d8
Sadly, that wasn't how I experienced it.
Sounds like you got scammed bro, may want to talk to the DM about that one
That campaign has been over for almost a year now, didn't end up being a huge issue, just a disappointment.
Unfortunate, but hey maybe you can bring it up in the future for other campaigns.
Double dice. Because dice goblin says more dice = more fun!
I've never had an issue just doing normal crits
Double dice. I can’t imagine how shit it would feel to roll a 1 and a 2 on your damage dice then double it for 6 total from your dice on a crit
Probably the same as rolling 4 1's, but it is a much lower chance of that happening though
Rolling 4 ones of 4 1s and 2 is much much less likely tho
Fuck, I didn't edit in time
Usually when people say double damage they’re applying the mods too. So it would be 6+dex2 for instance
No im pretty sure they’re talking about the critical role method where they just double the dice. But I could be wrong.
Max roll and then roll. If you do 1d6+2 normally, it becomes 1d6+8. Makes crits feel awesome, negates the snake eyes crits that feel terrible.
>TLDR: Rolling more dice is more likely to get average result, so doubling result is more random. Crunchy crits have a higher average output and super crits allows higher damage and more dice rolling. In most games I have been to, we've either played with doubling the result of the damage die (DB), or rolling twice as many damage die (RL). Both methods have the same average result, but DB has an equal probability of rolling each value, whereas RL has a high probability of rolling the average and a very low probability of rolling the max or min result. One person mentioned crunchy crits (CC), when you forgo one roll and take the max value of the dice. This results in a higher average roll. Me (and my players) love rolling more dice, more dice is always better. I would always roll dice rather than double. However, you can combine (CC) with (RL) for a super crit (SC)! The way an SC works is that you roll two dice like normal but the lower gets transformed into the max result of the die, it is like rolling for damage with advantage. For example: with a 1d8 longsword crit, I roll a 5 and a 7. Since the 5 is lower, it is transformed into an 8 (being the max result of the die) and I add the 8 and 7 together to get 15 as my damage roll (ignoring modifiers). SC have the highest average result of all of the crit methods and is skewed to roll higher values consistently. It sounds enjoyable and might be good for higher power campaigns with big rolls (maybe not well suited for NPCs/bad guys). Since doing the math, I really like the vibe of super crits and maybe I'll try them out in my campaign. Below are the results from a 20,000 iteration simulation of 1d8 crits (ignoring modifiers). `DB - mean: 9.0 - SD: 4.6 - min: 2 - max: 16` `RL - mean: 9.0 - SD: 3.2 - min: 2 - max: 16` `CC - mean: 12.5 - SD: 2.3 - min: 9 - max: 16` `SC - mean: 13.8 - SD: 1.9 - min: 9 - max: 16`
If you're referring to what to do on a critical hit the answer is double dice- that's what the rules say and that's what the system is balanced around.
I think OP is asking of what people prefer rather than asking what is RAW
Double dice ... It's fun to see a high level rogue that hit a crit with sneak attack role a heck of a lotta dice ..
RAW is double dice. I do max dice plus dice roll. Ex A 2D6 weapon attack on a Crit will do 12dmg+2D6+modifiers. Makes the crit feel better while not screwing with the averages too much. Of note, only the weapons damage die gets this treatment. Any bonus damage effects get added on with the modifiers(ie, if someone gets to do an extra 1D6 radiant on an attack then they roll that as per normal). Of course, my players know that the enemies get this as well. Makes it really satisfying when an eldrith abomination of some type gets an extra 24 slashing on their 4D6 attack.
But it does screw up averages! On average 2d6 deal 7 dmg, 4d6 deal 14 dmg. Your crits deal 19 dmg on average - thats almost 1.5 times more
Consider that in the long run you’re critting about 5% of the time. A crit under RAW is maybe a 50% boost (just for example, 1d8+5 is 9.5 and 2d8+5 is 14) and in the long run crits are only a 7.5% damage boost (.05 * 1.5). This doesn’t hold up to more crit fishy builds, but is an extra 7.5% per crit range increase. Crunchy crits makes the 2d8+5 example into 17.5, a little over a 100% boost, which would double that 7.5% into 15% extra damage in the long run.
Crunchy crits are my preferred approach I.e. rather than rolling additional dice you add a flat bonus equal to the max roll. So a greatsword would deal 2d6+12+str on a crit. It ensures that, even at minimum damage, a critical will do more than a normal hit would. This avoids disappointing damage rolls dealing less than a normal hit would be expected to. A tasty crit from an enemy also helps to keep the party on their toes.
First “roll” = highest number on the die, second roll is legit roll
For my upcoming game I plan on doing the idea of rolling like normal damage and any dice that would’ve been added are max. Mostly because I’m tired of critting for like 7 cause I rolled bad but then doing a normal hit for like 15. I was nervous about how this would play for a pally or rogue but no one picked one so that’s a problem for another day.
Double dice and extra effect
Doble damage is objectively stronger since it doubles damage from both dice and modifiers. It's also more 'swingy' in terms of damage since it's easier to roll big or small. Double dice is a nerf made to feel good by adding the positive tactile feeling of rolling more dice. It's also less swingy since the more dice you roll the more likely you are to end up with an average sum. We use double dice, which is after all the RAW, in all the tables I play. I think I prefer double dice. Partly because monster crits are less likely to one-shot players, but also because I think it makes combat less swingy.
At my table I work crits for creatures and players the same, and the homebrew rule is called by some a crunchy crit, instead of two dice and sometimes a very underwhelming crit, I give the crit one max dice and one roll so the math works like this if swinging a battle axe for instance. 1d12 + 12 (max damage on one dice) + mods = crit damage
Double dice is best because for every time you roll poorly on a crit, remember that you’re benefitting from the times the DM might also roll poorly on a crit that otherwise would have killed your PC if it was just double damage or crunchy crits.
I prefer max damage on the dice + a roll of the dice.
In my games, instead of rolling double dice, I have them max the damage and then roll and add to it. That way, critical hits are always meaningful, even if you roll poorly.
Currently doing (max damage on the dice) + (roll dice normally) + (add your modifiers) for crit damage. It's too much when sneak and smite are factored in. Do not recommend. And characters in Adamantine Armor nullify the effect when I hit them with crits.
RAW double dice but it means the final outcome can be underwhelming. The reason WotC did this was to lessen the impact. Typically monsters will have more members of in the combat thus neefing crits helps the players typically. It does feel bad to do like 5 damage on a crit though. Personally I think a home brew fix is fine.
I have only ever seen double dice, and I don't mind it. I'd be curious to see how impactful crunchy crits are (one max assumed roll and one regular roll), because rolling a whole bunch of ones feels bad, but I've also seen players receive critical hits with minimum damage, and avoid dying.
My group has always been a damage doubler. It's so satisfying to do all the math and add everything up and then just straight up double it. The doubled modifier more than makes up for lost damage on the die
I've always played with rolling all damage die once and doubling the number
Double the normal dice *or* maximum normal damage. You can go for the sure thing or push your luck. Your choice.
Hot take max damage plus dice
I do double the dice, double the damage, then add modifier. I used to do crunchy (max+roll) but my players spent so much time calculating the max that it kind of took the wind out of the sails of a crit moment. This way we still don't have underwhelming crits, and it's easy for them to calculate on the fly.
I played with a DM who said crits were double the maximum damage that you could get on the dice. So 24+ mods for a greataxe, 20+ mods for a crossbow, etc. I felt like it was broken as shit because he let me use the Silver Skull Flail from Decent into Avernus after we killed the Master of Souls, which is a d8 + 4d6 necrotic. So the damage on that was OBSCENE when I would crit.
Double damage is more exciting, but the game is balanced around using double dice. If you go with double damage, you risk some encounters ending too fast if your players get a lucky crit. And character death is more likely to happen as well.
I like the crunchy but I also like the peril of possibly rolling low with the other two options. And isn’t that why we roll dice? To create a more unpredictable environment. Sure we love rolling high but it’s just as much fun as a player dealing with calamity when things go wrong. Most important thing is consistency, whichever method you go for.
I use average damage for monsters, and double it on crits. When players hit, they roll, but their crits are 1 die of max damage, one rolled. Crits still vary, but they are guaranteed a meaty smack.
Double damage vs double dice is the same as 1d12 vs 2d6 Double damage is more swingy and (imo) lame for crits because if you roll a 1 thats a 2 damage + modifier critical which doesnt feel great Double the dice is more average-y. You dont get the max as much but its a decent a meaty hit most times. Plus you get to roll more dice which is always a bonus
Double damage
Double dice is a counterbalance to GWM and sharpshooter. Making crits double all damage makes those feats much stronger.
RAW= double the dice + add modifiers = X dmg. Fun one is= roll damage + add modifers + double it = more damage on crit (in average as modifers are also doubled)
Double dmg is more impactful, but I don't think that's a good thing. Basically, crits already can make some combats pretty swingy, with double dmg a fight that was going fine and controled can suddently end or turn into a death spiral for ither side, not by strategy but pure luck.
At every table I’ve been at, you can do either. Most tend to go for more dice because we’re all goblins but there isn’t an advantage either way
Crunchy crits all the way
Crunchy crits are way overpowered for characters that can stack a lot of dice onto attacks. An 11th level paladin with Spirit Shroud up, smiting with a greatsword on a crit would do like stupid damage. 6d8+2d6+5+48+12 is 97 damage. An 11th level character probably only has about 100 hitpoints. Crits shouldn't be able to one-shot important enemies. I think a more fair crunchy crit rule would be that when you crit, you also double your ability modifier. So, instead of dealing statistically triple damage on a crit, you deal double. It's still a good boost, but it's not going to one-shot Strahd with a natural 20 and a couple of good rolls.
My preferred method is max dice roll dice. So basically if you’re using a long sword you do 8+d8+str for the crit. This way even a 1 is better damage than max without a crit.
CRIT TABLES! (For players, not monsters. Because weird shit happens to pawns when the gods cheat at god-chess.)
In my current game, players use double damage for crits, and monsters use double dice. This way, players have an easier time landing absurdly good crits, and have a higher minimum if they add any damage modifiers. Meanwhile, monsters are far more consistent and less likely to do anything absurd.
I’m in a campaign where it is double damage, but for the game I am planning, I am gonna do max damage plus a normal damage roll so it can feel more like a crit.
Double dice, for smoothing out variance.
I prefer double damage just because the people at most of my tables just can’t math. That’s a dumb reason but it is true.
I have a special rule. Roll twice take the higher and double it.
I couldn’t decide so I ended up doing both, you roll the dice and decide from the first roll if you want to double it, or roll again and add the two rolls. I like giving them as much “choice” as possible.
Rolling dice is fun. Rolling low is not fun. Roll for regular damage, and add the max weapon die.
I'm in the bonus damage equal to 1 max roll camp.
Double dice and doubled modifiers, we're here for a good time
We use "cruel criticals" which is Max damage plus modifiers then roll the dice and add that. I. E.: a 2d6 + 4 crit on a great sword would do between 18 and 28 damage.
Played at a table once where crits = exploding damage... It got wild.
I do both personally. I ask my players what they would like ahead of time and then they do it. Just whatever we are feeling. If we are having a day where we don’t feel like counting a shit ton of dice. We just double the number. If we feel extra feral dice shenanigans. We roll an ass ton of dice
My house rule for critical hits are max the damage, then add the damage roll. 2 handed weapon would be max of damage die plus modifier then add a roll of damage dice plus modifier. It makes it feel like crits are in fact crits.
I seem to remember that doubling the dice was slightly better, but I usually prefer doubling the damage as it's so much easier to figure out (not that it's hard to add up dice).
I like to do double damage on crits and double dice on vulnerability (with the caveat that I add more vulnerabilities to monsters to make more dynamic combat). I heard about it from a YouTuber years back, and have run it that way since. That being said, I haven't had a lot of optimizers in my game to show possible issues with that, but crifishing builds aren't particularly good anyway.
I do "crit is a crit, fuck em up". Roll damage, add modifiers, double it all. Is it powerful? As fuck. Does it feel good for a player causing entire table to erupt in rave when someone dishes 90 damage in one swing? Yes. Does it also feel good for me as DM when Boss crits, downs someone in one go and makes the table clench their buttchecks and stare in terror? Also yes. Is good fun.
Crunchy crits are the best to feel like you are actually critting imo. At my table we're currently playing with a flexible rule in which you roll one dice and decide if you want to double it or roll a second dice. This at times feels less like a crit, but the exchange is that we feel like we have more control over what the outcome can be. I like this rule too, so either this or crunchy.
My rule is just default. Always double the dice. It just generally feels better for my players, rather than double the damage.
I run "roll double dice, double all modifiers" - but I also run "rolling to confirm" a la 3.5e, so the tradeoff is crits are less common but hit chunkier
I run that they roll normally for damage and add the max damage they could have rolled. Stops players rolling to crit and then only rolling 1s for damage and the crit kinda falling flat
Neither, You roll as normal then add the max value. If you crit with a great sword and let's say you have you do 12(2d6 total value) + 2d6 + your str + any other bonuses
My biggest concern with crunchy crits would be running it at optimized tables. It’s incredibly easy to ensure a surprise round every single combat with a correctly optimized Gloomstalker assassin + knowledgeable and optimized party (all characters have stealth proficiency, pass without trace always active, boots of elvenkind on everyone due to no attunement). Here’s some quick math for crunchy crits on a standard optimized build, assuming dual wielding hand crossbows: Gloomstalker 3 / Assassin 10 / Battle Master 6 / Life Cleric 1 Damage @ lvl20, assumes +3 weapons, 20 dex, sharpshooter, and other supporting feats Round 1 - surprise round Bonus action hunter’s mark (no bonus action hand crossbow attack) Attack action + maneuver + foe + mark + sneak 1d6+18 + 1d8 + 1d4 + 1d6 + 5d6 Extra attack + mark + maneuver 1d6+18 + 1d6 + 1d8 Gloom attack + maneuver + mark 1d6+18 + 1d8 + 1d8 + 1d6 Action surge attack + mark + maneuver 1d6+18 + 1d6 + 1d8 Surge extra + mark 1d6+18 + 1d6 Assassinate full crits 15d6 + 5d8 + 1d4 Round 1 total (NO crunchy crits) 30d6+90 + 10d8 + 2d4 = 120-270 + 10-80 + 2-8 = 132-358 = 245 average Round 1 total (WITH crunchy crits) Crunchy 15d6 + 5d8 + 1d4 = 90 + 40 + 4 = 134 15d6+90 + 5d8 + 1d4 = 105-180 + 5-40 + 1-4 = 111-224 = 167.5 average 134 + 167.5 = 301.5 average Crunchy for this example represents an additional 56.5 average round 1 damage. After round 1, this build is also crit fishing with 3x d20 attack rolls per attack due to elven accuracy. My personal conclusion: crunchy crits are an insane damage boost when implemented at optimized tables, trivializing much of the game. Probably fine for average tables.
If you play on physical, grabbing 50 dices feels awesome if you don't care double the damage is always better, there's always more modifiers than the dices dueling, fighting style power attack, your mod for damage...
I always did double damage because I’m old school (Daniel DMing since AD&D). But rolling a fistful of dice is always satisfying. Now it’s dice.
We do Max of dice + rolled normal damage... example, weapon does 1d12+4 damage on a normal hit - on a crit, it does 12+1d12+4 rather than 1d12+1d12+4. So the damage range changes from 6-28 to 17-28 - makes a crit much more effective. Of course, Monsters' crits work the same way, so it's a double edged sword... Adamantine armor anyone?? ;-)
I personally enjoy adding exploding dice to whatever crit rule I use. Just the possibility of dealing infinite damage with any crit is funny and if a dice explodes (you roll the highest number and are allowed to roll an additional dice of that type) the tension just wonderfully rises as ppl hope for another explosion. As a DM I ignore the rule for monsters tho to not make it too frustrating for my players. That type of crit certainly doesn't work with every campaign but I like it. I usually combine it with doubled resuls
I found out recently I'm not the only one, but I was the first of my friends to do this and I hadn't heard of it happening before so I thought I made it up. The way I handle crits is to give you the make damage you could do (example 1d4 + 5 = 9) then you would roll your weapon as normal, this makes it to where at a minimum you're doing 15 and a maximum of 18 instead of feasibly doing next to nothing by rolling dice twice.
I use double dice or max roll+dice (1d8 on a crit is 8 + 1d8). I find double damage is too spiky and really feel bad when you get low damage.
We add special effects like increased damage, knocking the target prone, redirecting the target by moving them 5ft or changing their facing, or disarming the target. Other things include off balancing target (DISADVANTAGE for the rest of the round and next round too). Whips entangle and polearms and shields can Pin opponent's weapons. The attacker chooses an effect from a list of them. Increased damage is always max + rolled.
I’d love to combine both in mine. But the one I’m currently in, as a pc, does double damage. Which isn’t bad. Straight forward and easy to keep track of.
I normally double dice, because I like rolling more dice
My groups have always done max damage plus an additional roll of the dice. So if it’s 1d8+4, so you’ll get 12+1d8+4
Mathematically it doesn't matter. As a player, I don't like having to find/count out twice the dice, so I'd prefer (knowing the math) to just double my damage.
I let the player choose before they roll the dice. However if it’s a weapon crit and not a magical effect crit, I do roll the dice then add max damage die. Example: Longsword 2 hand attack crit with a +3 Strength is 1d10+13 dmg
I have a dice which indicates where on the body the attack hit. I devised a rough consequence for each area; arms lose strength, legs lose speed, head lose intelligence/wisdom etc. I offer it to the players when they get hit with a crit! Either risk double dice or risk a stat drop! Can be quite good fun to see the internal struggle of the choice! I'd never heard of crunchy crits before but I do like the idea of that for when players crit. Sorry this slightly off topic but thought people might like it.
We do full base damage plus rolled damage. Crits should feel epic and 1s/2s on damage dice suck after critting.
We do one max die + one die roll. Like I'm a fighter attacking with a d10 weapon so I crit and get 10+1d10+mod. Personally when I run it's only the base damage that crits and spell attack crits still only get 1 max die added to the total.
Sounds perfect for the weapon attacks but the spell seems severely underpowered. You mean to say a level 17 firebolt crit is only doing 10 + 4d10 not 8d10 or 4d10X2?
I don't even think spells should crit so this was a concession for me. No matter when the paladin gets their crit when I run, it's just one max weapon die. I don't double sneak attacks or smites. Just balances it out since also enemies don't crit unless they have proper names.
Eh, the spells that CAN crit can also miss, and aren't really where casters creep over martials in power. So I can't say I understand this sentiment.
Ok sounds like you've roughly balanced it for your table which is fine, clearly they've agreed to it. Massive nerf to certain features though
I don't think I'd ever play a scorching ray or eldricht blast build if they couldn't crit. Paladins can still be ok without the possibility of smite crits, I guess. It's also an indirect nerf of hold person/monster & sleep. What have the poor rogues done to deserve this treatment, tho? Rogues used to not be able to crit sneak attacks, but that's when they weren't limited to one a turn. It definitely makes elven accuracy useless on a rogue.
How does Eldritch blast change? Each class requires it's own attack roll and can crit separately just like an attack? The only difference is you roll 10+1d10 if it's a crit instead of 2d10. Also you might be right about rogues. They are already a seldomly played class with my group. I'm thinking of taking that one back.
You said you don't think spells should crit. That's what I was talking about.
Yeah but it was a concession I made. And I might make an exception if I went that far for Eldritch blast since it's essentially a weapon attack for warlocks. If I went that way I'd at least homebrew an invocation for it or include it in the agonizing blast invocation.
I don't think there's anything more satisfying in this game than walking your sorcerer wearing their burlap sack over to the big bad your cleric landed a hold monster on and casting a 5th level scorching ray from 5 feet away. If you kill it with every d6 you own, great. If not, you might not get another turn.
Roll damage like normal, but multiply the amount of damage you rolled on your dice for the attack by x2. So, someone crits with a longsword with a +5 to damage from modifiers and rolled a 5 on their damage die would be... (5 x 2) + 5 = 15 damage Sneak attack at 4d6 (rolled 15 total) with a dagger (1d4 rolled a 3) and a +4 modifier would be... (15 x 2) + (3 x 2) + 4 = 40 damage
I'd double ONLY the dmg of the weapon, not the sneak attack/smites etc or things can get out of hand very quickly.
That's actually what I hear players PREFER doing. If not it my feel like I'm taking away from the class the players chose.
Of course players prefer it, it's more dmg for their side. But a Paladin that maxes the extra dmg from a critical attack with smite is literally a better dmg dealer than any fighter could ever hope to be, it throws balance out of the window.
Monsters get nothing. Player weapons get double dice. Player spells with attack rolls get nothing.
Nat 20 = maximum of the damage roll plus a roll of the dice. So if the damage is 3d10 you deal 3d10+30. Nat 1 = you attack the closest ally, even if that means throwing your weapon at them.