Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

[Ferret]

I like crits being auto hit, but I hate for the dice to then fuck the character. Maybe I should do Crit == max damage, nat 20 == auto hit + crit? It just blows to roll 1s and 2s for damage.

Also, while everyone here seems confident that AC will start around 18 and go up from there, most of the play reports I've seen have inexplicably listed people playing with 15s and below.

Heck, the Penny Arcade guys never actually told Krahulik to cast Mage Armor, he was getting splatted on a 13 or some shit.


Rawbeard, is your fighter having shitty rolls or something? They should be hitting AC 14/15 at least 50% of the time. You might also consider granting the fighter two attacks on the Attack action at level 1 instead of 5 (and noting that folks who multiclass into Fighter don't automagically get an extra attack unless they're lvl 5 or better).

[MfA]

Is going down really that big a deal if the cleric is still standing? Oh you're down, one healing word (bonus action, 60 feet range) and half your movement later and you're back up again.

[Deathfork]

Also, while everyone here seems confident that AC will start around 18 and go up from there, most of the play reports I've seen have inexplicably listed people playing with 15s and below.

Heavy armor + Shield will grant AC 18 at 1st level. Capping out at 20 AC once they get some cash. Up to 19/21 for the +1 AC style.
Medium armor + shield or two handed wielders cap out at AC 16, but AC 15 for medium armor two handers. Capping out at 18 AC once they get some cash.
Mage armor characters, have, at best, AC 16, more likely 15 or lower. And that won't improve until at least level 12, barring magic items.
Light armor Dex characters will have AC 15, improving to 17 at 8th.
Oddly, barbarians have the best potential armor. Able to cap out at AC 24, if they spent the ability scores on Con and Dex, and for go a one-handed weapon and shield.

[hamstertamer]

The problem with 20's equalling instant double damage in 5e is that it completely fucks the games damage output when combined with bounded accuracy, particularly in the first 6 levels of the game. When you only give monsters attack bonuses of +2 or 3 and you give players AC scores that start at ~18-20 and go up then monsters only hit you at all on the last few numbers on the RNG. While the chance for a crit is just 5% of all attacks the chance for a hitting attack to be a crit is about 1 in 3. Which is an enormous damage variance. Read any 5e play report and I can guarantee that 50% of deaths will be caused by crits.

The "new" critical hit rules are the old terrible critical hit house rules. In Ad&d there were no official rules for natural 20s being a critical hit or double damage, it was just a popular one, so popular that must people don't realize that critical hits were only made official in 3rd edition (or possibly in a 2nd edition supplemental book). Anyway the old terrible rule created illogical outcomes, when you needed a 20 (auto hit) to even hit a creature but when you do it's double damage. No in-between, either you auto hit and double damage or miss and no damage. I was very happy that the 3rd critical rules fixed that bad logic when they made criticals official. This is another example of going back to bad rules for no real reason.

What's also weird is that people complained about having to roll twice to confirm a critical hit, but those same people are just fine with rolling adv/dis rolls (rolling twice) almost every round. And I do not like the adv/dis rules because of this, and also because of adv/dis abuse; far too many things grant adv/dis and it will only get worst.

For me, i doubt I'll ever play a campaign of "The 5th" but if I did, I would have to fix a lot of the rules like critical hit rules. I just won't use bad rules when we already had superior ones.

[Ferret]

A lot of the issue with rolling to confirm the critical in 3.x wasn't that it was too much rolling, but that it was often disappointing when you failed to confirm.

Throwing out rolling to confirm is akin to my desire to max damage or something with criticals in 5e. To get a crit and then roll shit damage was just as disappointing as failing to confirm a potential crit.

[hamstertamer]

A lot of the issue with rolling to confirm the critical in 3.x wasn't that it was too much rolling, but that it was often disappointing when you failed to confirm.

Throwing out rolling to confirm is akin to my desire to max damage or something with criticals in 5e. To get a crit and then roll shit damage was just as disappointing as failing to confirm a potential crit.

You have understand, that old house rule was fixed over time because of illogical outcomes. Besides monsters also critical on 20s too. When your high armor class character is taken out by a lucky roll, you'll see why it was changed. Also consider that you have twice as much chance (advantage) to roll a natural 20, which means that the monsters that get advantage are also going to be critical hitting more, the same frequency against against low AC characters and high AC characters. None of this may bother you, and that's fine, but I personally dislike illogical outcomes more than I dislike being disappointed in not confirming a critical hit. Plus I like I said, the player characters are in more trouble than the monsters when critical hits are made easier.

[hamstertamer]

A lot of the issue with rolling to confirm the critical in 3.x wasn't that it was too much rolling, but that it was often disappointing when you failed to confirm.

Throwing out rolling to confirm is akin to my desire to max damage or something with criticals in 5e. To get a crit and then roll shit damage was just as disappointing as failing to confirm a potential crit.

Btw, I have heard people complain about having to roll twice for criticals because for them it slows down the game and adds too much complexity. But so far no one is complaining about the game slowed down because of adv/dis. Weird.

[GnomeWorks]

Btw, I have heard people complain about having to roll twice for criticals because for them it slows down the game and adds too much complexity. But so far no one is complaining about the game slowed down because of adv/dis. Weird.

I think it's how the process plays out.

3e-style crits, you had to roll one d20, then if it's a natural 20, you roll another d20. That takes time to deal with, especially if you have players who are bad at being able to keep track of their bonuses over time (I know a number of players who, after doing the math on the first roll, will have to look up their bonuses again if they need to make the exact same roll literally seconds later).

5e adv/dis, you can roll both d20's at once (I presume, anyway). So you have to add the time to figure out which one has a better/worse value, then carry on normally.

That little bit of extra time you spend resolving the crit in 3e is apparently enough to make people unhappy with it.

[hamstertamer]

Btw, I have heard people complain about having to roll twice for criticals because for them it slows down the game and adds too much complexity. But so far no one is complaining about the game slowed down because of adv/dis. Weird.

I think it's how the process plays out.

3e-style crits, you had to roll one d20, then if it's a natural 20, you roll another d20. That takes time to deal with, especially if you have players who are bad at being able to keep track of their bonuses over time (I know a number of players who, after doing the math on the first roll, will have to look up their bonuses again if they need to make the exact same roll literally seconds later).

5e adv/dis, you can roll both d20's at once (I presume, anyway). So you have to add the time to figure out which one has a better/worse value, then carry on normally.

That little bit of extra time you spend resolving the crit in 3e is apparently enough to make people unhappy with it.

Well you can roll multiple attack rolls at the same time too if you have more than one d20 in front of you. But I imagine a lot of people didn't roll twice or more at the same time because they had only the one d20 in front of them. This makes adv/dis a re-roll for people with one d20. The thing you have to know about complaints about rpgs is that people are often disingenuous. It never was about the really about the extra few seconds to roll again in my opinion. A lot people will re-roll with their single d20 (the lucky one) for adv/dis even if they have more than one d20 and no one will complain about extra time and complexity (at least for now).

Also, sorry to hear that your friend suffered from very short term memory lost, and forgot the target number he needed a second before. You see all you need to remember is one number. The target number is same on both rolls. If you needed a 9 on the first roll, you needed a 9 on the second. There was no reason to look up attack bonuses again unless a person had a mental illness that affected memory.

[fectin]

Because they're not calculating a target roll, and most MCs don't even announce a target number (AC). So they're rolling, adding everything piecemeal, and then announcing a result.
That really does take longer, especially when you have to go through it twice.

[hamstertamer]

Interesting though that the new starter kit comes with only one d20. So the game designers had a base assumption that people would using a adv/dis as a re-roll mechanic, and that rolling twice at once was optional.

[Amalie Gaston]

Interesting though that the new starter kit comes with only one d20. So the game designers had a base assumption that people would using a adv/dis as a re-roll mechanic, and that rolling twice at once was optional.

You should win some sort of award for how terrible this reasoning is.

[Axebird]

Because they're not calculating a target roll, and most MCs don't even announce a target number (AC). So they're rolling, adding everything piecemeal, and then announcing a result.
That really does take longer, especially when you have to go through it twice.

I'm not sure I follow. If I know my total bonus is +17, I'm not going to forget that my bonus was +17 just because I added it to die roll.

[Amalie Gaston]

I'm not sure I follow. If I know my total bonus is +17, I'm not going to forget that my bonus was +17 just because I added it to die roll.

In practice, I think this is easier to mess up in practice then it seems at first glance.

Your bonus on your attack roll depends on what buffs are currently on you, whether you are flanking this turn, whether your target has cover, etc. Because of this, your attack bonus varies from round to round. Further, because of how 3.5 does iterated attacks, your attack bonus varies from swing to swing. Each turn, you have up to four or more different numbers your attack bonus could be. These aren't always going to be the same four numbers from the previous round. Juggling that many different numbers, it's quite easy to slip and forget which number applies to your current roll.

[Axebird]

They're all derived from one number that doesn't change, though. It's not hard to know that your standard attack bonus is +17 (it's even on your character sheet), and record what buffs you have on a slip of paper or something. Iterative attacks are always increments of -5, so they're no challenge to figure out.

[fectin]

Because they're not calculating a target roll, and most MCs don't even announce a target number (AC). So they're rolling, adding everything piecemeal, and then announcing a result.
That really does take longer, especially when you have to go through it twice.

I'm not sure I follow. If I know my total bonus is +17, I'm not going to forget that my bonus was +17 just because I added it to die roll.

But you don't know that. You know that you rolled a 19, plus 7 for your normal bonus is 26, plus 2 for charge is 28, plus 1 for the bard is 29. Oh, and 2 more because you're raging is 31. Did that hit?
Roll to confirm? Oh, okay.
So thats 16, plus 7 is 23... (etc). Does a 28 still hit?

[Kaelik]

But you don't know that. You know that you rolled a 19, plus 7 for your normal bonus is 26, plus 2 for charge is 28, plus 1 for the bard is 29. Oh, and 2 more because you're raging is 31. Did that hit?
Roll to confirm? Oh, okay.
So thats 16, plus 7 is 23... (etc). Does a 28 still hit?

Are you being deceptive or are you just that god awfully stupid?

Add the fucking bonuses to your AB before you roll like a non idiot.

[fectin]

It doesn't make a bit of difference whether I am that stupid; it matters whether enough people who play DnD are that stupid (or drunk, or uncaring). And every table seems to have at least one, usually two people who fit that.

I churn through attacks quickly. So what? Like gnomes though, a small chunk of the player base who are slow can easily affect a majority of tables.

[NineInchNall]

But you don't know that. You know that you rolled a 19, plus 7 for your normal bonus is 26, plus 2 for charge is 28, plus 1 for the bard is 29. Oh, and 2 more because you're raging is 31. Did that hit?
Roll to confirm? Oh, okay.
So thats 16, plus 7 is 23... (etc). Does a 28 still hit?

In my experience, this is exactly how it usually plays out.

[Kaelik]

But you don't know that. You know that you rolled a 19, plus 7 for your normal bonus is 26, plus 2 for charge is 28, plus 1 for the bard is 29. Oh, and 2 more because you're raging is 31. Did that hit?
Roll to confirm? Oh, okay.
So thats 16, plus 7 is 23... (etc). Does a 28 still hit?

In my experience, this is exactly how it usually plays out.

It's not about having a separate line on your sheet, it's about having a brain.

You have to know whether or not you are charging and have buff spells before you fucking roll, so add 7 to 2 for charging to 1 for some buff spell, then roll after that.

[LeadPal]

People too stupid to total their bonuses before rolling aren't unusual at all. I'd like to tell players like that to fuck off completely, but they're really too common for that.

[Wiseman]

And that's why I typically rely on online dice rollers.

[Koumei]

I'd like to tell players like that to fuck off completely, but they're really too common for that.

Don't let that stop you. It just means you have to be more vigilant in telling people to fuck off!

[pragma]

But you don't know that. You know that you rolled a 19, plus 7 for your normal bonus is 26, plus 2 for charge is 28, plus 1 for the bard is 29. Oh, and 2 more because you're raging is 31. Did that hit?
Roll to confirm? Oh, okay.
So thats 16, plus 7 is 23... (etc). Does a 28 still hit?

In my experience, this is exactly how it usually plays out.

Seconded.

Curiously, I have a lot more trouble with this among my highly numerate friends than with less math-inclined crowds. The professional number crunchers assume they can add everything up fast enough to keep up the pace of the game (they are wrong). the amateurs are absolutely willing to write a few numbers down so that you don't have to keep telling them.

[Koumei]

My experience is that when people try to add individual pieces onto the end of the die roll every time, we say mean things to them until they learn to add it all up beforehand and write the common stuff down. Being condescending and insulting is also how Attacks of Opportunity, Positioning, Grappling, and "What equipment Elf Rogues are supposed to have" are explained.

It tends to work really well.