why is a dagger a d4 and longsword a d8, every one who crits on the eye will do different damage. you firbolt the eye, roll max damage do 20, they crit the eye with a longsword, 2d8+4 roll max damage do 20.
I think the psychology of it is the big deal.
My point is that you hit a dragon's chest with Firebolt, you do 1d10 damage. You hit the dragon's eye, you do 1d10 damage. That makes no sense.
But you hit the dragon's chest with a crossbow bolt and do 1d10 damage and if you hit his eye with a crossbow you do 2d10 damage.
Why is a crossbow bolt more effective on the eye than the Firebolt?
And why can't a monster hit you in the eye at all?
Or let's consider the groin. You hit a hobgoblin in the groin with a longsword and do 2d8 damage (Strength 10). Your mage comes up and hits the hobgoblin in the groin with Shocking Grasp and does 1d8 lightning damage. Um. Something doesn't seem right here. I don't care if you get hit with a longsword or a jolt of painful lightning, if you get hit in the groin, you're going to suffer some pain. Even getting grazed with a jolt of lightning on the groin is enough to drop a man.
The answer to this objection is that there is no "hit them in the eye" or "hit them in the groin" mechanic in Dungeons and Dragons 5e. You are just adding color commentary to the crit mechanic.
You could expand on that if you want to. Maybe when the wizard rolls 20 on 2D10 damage from firebolt you can proclaim that it hit the dragon in the eye.
Also, as an aside, it would be really easy to houserule the crits at your table.
You can houserule anything, naturally. That's totally not the point. My point is that a Firebolt to the face should do no less damage than a crossbow bolt to the face. Both standardly do 1d10 damage (using Heavy Crossbow stats). A Firebolt to the groin should do no less damage than a crossbow bolt to the groin. You're still hitting a person in a very sensitive area, which is the point of a Crit. A Crit is striking an enemy in a weak spot - whatever that weak spot is. It could be groin, face, clipping the side of the head, slashing an exposed part of the neck, finding a chink in the armor, etc. Exactly what the Crit location is, that's not the point. The point is that regardless of where that weak point is, a magic bolt of fire should do more damage to that weak point than to a well armored part of the person's body. Why does the standard heavy crossbow get to do potentially more damage to a weak point when a magic bolt doesn't? My point is that it's like saying that regardless of whether you get hit in the face full on or in the armored chest full on, you can still only do the same amount of damage simply because it's magic and not a standard weapon type. Firebolt to the face. 1d10 damage. Firebolt to the chest and the person is wearing Platemail armor. 1d10 damage. No difference. But, if you fire a crossbow bolt to the chest it's 1d10 damage and if you shoot the person in the head, it's 2d10 damage simply because it's a physical weapon.
And here's another issue. Will Weapon Damage include when weapons are enchanted with magic damage types? Crossbow does 1d10 piercing damage + 2d6 fire damage. If they crit, will it be 2d10 piercing damage and 4d6 fire damage?
