Critical Hits - why, and why not?

Celebrim said:

If you equate 'head shot' with 'critical hit', you don't fully understand the D&D combat system. A critical hit in 3e or later editions indicates an unusually good hit, but it still in no way specifies the outcome in any fashion. It could still just be a scratch on the arm. We don't actually know until the DM applies hit points to the target.
[...]
Maybe. Nothing prevents a critical hit from an axe only doing 3 damage (normal strength, minimum damage). The normal person with 4 hit points might be severely lacerated, but he's not dead. And the normal person with 2 hit points, might be dying, but not necessarily dead. In either case, the color of the outcome need not be 'head shot'. The only time 'head shot' can be equated with critical hit is when the target is a helpless foe and the player colors his proposition with, "I hit him in the head."

Click to expand...

As the 5E rulebook is keen to point out, different people describe HP damage in different ways. It's not at all uncommon for a given DM to say that "crit = head shot" on a consistent basis, just like it's not uncommon for a DM to say that 8 damage is 8 damage regardless of whether your max is 5 or 50. The system is only as abstract as you make it, and there's no requirement for you to interpret it one way or another. Some people like to read it as more directly informative than is strictly required.

In a 3E game, critical hits with a battle axe for a total of 3 damage are not something that the system is designed around. In that game, the major use-cases of battle axe attacks are made by someone with a Strength of at least 14. The rules do exist to cover that situation, but even if you're following the (extremely common) guidelines I've put forth here, the fact that it doesn't exactly line up with our pre-conceptions about reality is not something that is likely to stand out during the game. Even if some random peasant does get a critical hit with an axe - which is already unlikely, given the amount of screen time is spent on random peasants - the damage is much more likely to be 14 rather than 3, and 14 damage is enough to kill any normal orc or goblin.

DireHammer said:

If a battle axe hits you right between the eyes and you aren't dead there's something wrong with the damage system.

Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, in D&D there are no hit location tables.

If an attack with a battle axe succeeds, and the target's hit points have not been reduced to zero, and the GM nevertheless narrates the result of the attack as hitting right between the eyes, or decapitation, or whatever, the problem is with the GM, not with the hit point system.

(As Gygax wrote in his DMG, I think on p 61, because most hit point damage is bruising, scratches, and wearing down luck/resilience, hit locations are not germane to successful attacks in D&D.)

On the issue raised by [MENTION=6685730]DMMike[/MENTION], as to whether critical hits are an admission of failure: in D&D they're just a way of imposing a non-linear damage curve. Whether or not that's a desirable thing, it doesn't seem to be an admission of failure.

I understand exactly how hit points work, but the fact that it's absolutely impossible to be struck dead by a single blow from a weapon is ridiculous. You end up with players seeing 6 enemies with crossbows at the end of a hallway, realizing they can't possibly be killed in the first round, and then realizing the enemy will then be unable to attack again while they re-load they will then charge. That's not a dm problem, that's a system problem. The system informs the player they can take ridiculous risks with very little risk. So the fighter charges is "hit" 4 times, takes a few hit points off, and then proceeds to cut the crossbowmen to pieces.

I use a critical hit system specifically to get rid of that. A fighter in my game in that situation knows that one of those 6 could roll a 20 and then all kinds of bad things can happen, including immediate death.

DireHammer said:

I understand exactly how hit points work, but the fact that it's absolutely impossible to be struck dead by a single blow from a weapon is ridiculous. You end up with players seeing 6 enemies with crossbows at the end of a hallway, realizing they can't possibly be killed in the first round, and then realizing the enemy will then be unable to attack again while they re-load they will then charge. That's not a dm problem, that's a system problem.

Click to expand...

No, that's a GM problem if there ever was one. The problem here is not the system. The problem here is the GM is wanting to control, constrain, and channel player behavior to certain expectations he has about what the players should do and by golly the players just aren't doing it. So instead of reflecting on why one would even care whether players charge down 6 loaded crossbows and start hewing down their foes, they start looking for something wrong with the system. Problem is, the system is doing exactly what it should do.

The system informs the player they can take ridiculous risks with very little risk. So the fighter charges is "hit" 4 times, takes a few hit points off, and then proceeds to cut the crossbowmen to pieces.

Click to expand...

And? So what? In your typical modern action movie, that scene gets more or less repeated in some fashion with the hero and 6 thugs holding revolvers.

If you are dead set on having gritty realism where if someone points a crossbow at you, the player takes it seriously, it's pretty simple to do - just don't let the player ever increase their starting hit points. Or do what D20 Cthulhu did and any time some one takes 10 damage from a single blow, force them to make a fortitude save or die. But none of that is intrinsically better.

I use a critical hit system specifically to get rid of that. A fighter in my game in that situation knows that one of those 6 could roll a 20 and then all kinds of bad things can happen, including immediate death.

Click to expand...

And? How is that good? What is your motivation in that? And in particular, why the heck would I play a fighter in your game when I could just say, "Screw that. Protection from Normal missiles. Fireball."

Saelorn said:

I agree that critical hits are silly, but there are other ways to address this - namely, it should be interesting when someone takes damage, regardless of how many HP they have.

Click to expand...

I like this - it points toward a system of changing the situation instead of changing hit points. But that's another thread...

pemerton said:

If an attack with a battle axe succeeds, and the target's hit points have not been reduced to zero, and the GM nevertheless narrates the result of the attack as hitting right between the eyes, or decapitation, or whatever, the problem is with the GM, not with the hit point system.

On the issue raised by [MENTION=6685730]DMMike[/MENTION], as to whether critical hits are an admission of failure: in D&D they're just a way of imposing a non-linear damage curve. Whether or not that's a desirable thing, it doesn't seem to be an admission of failure.

Click to expand...

[MENTION=6704558]DireHammer[/MENTION]: your battle axe assertion depends on what you call a "hit." In D&D, hit=loss of hit points. So getting hit between the eyes could mean anything, really: bonk on the helm, scratch on the brow, whiplash from jerking backward. These could all be a D&D "hit."

Premerton teases us with the point: the only hit point number that matters in D&D is zero.

I believe I said there might be something "wrong," but you could easily substitute "missing" as well. I'd say criticals are a way of exaggerating a non-linear damage curve. Because die rolls impose the non-linear nature from the get-go.

DireHammer said:

I understand exactly how hit points work, but the fact that it's absolutely impossible to be struck dead by a single blow from a weapon is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

But in D&D it is possible to be struck dead by a single blow - namely, the single blow that reduces a character's hit point total from N to zero (or -10, or whatever the death threshold is in the particular D&D variant that you are playing).

If your complaint is that PCs rarely get struck dead by the first blow, at least once they are above 1st or 2nd level, well that is the system working as intended. Even in this case, though, it's not correct to say that it is impossible for a character to be struck dead by the first blow; rather, it's just that the character is not struck dead by that blow. If it was impossible, then hit points wouldn't be modelling luck and grit - they'd be modelling some sort of immunity. The whole thing about luck is that if you are lucky, bad things that might happen to you don't happen to you.

It's true that this means there is a lack of congruence between the mechanics and the fiction - something which is mechanically impossible, namely, dying from the first blow, is nevertheless possible in the fiction, although it doesn't actually happen. But this lack of congruence is just what is meant by saying that hit points are a non-simulationist or "fortune-in-the-middle" mechanic.

DireHammer said:

You end up with players seeing 6 enemies with crossbows at the end of a hallway, realizing they can't possibly be killed in the first round, and then realizing the enemy will then be unable to attack again while they re-load they will then charge. That's not a dm problem, that's a system problem. The system informs the player they can take ridiculous risks with very little risk. So the fighter charges is "hit" 4 times, takes a few hit points off, and then proceeds to cut the crossbowmen to pieces.

I use a critical hit system specifically to get rid of that.

Click to expand...

It's a system problem if you don't want the players to be confident in having their PCs charge crossbow-armed goons. Whether that is a problem depends on what sort of genre and feel you're going for. If you don't want gonzo heroics, then why are you playing D&D (or, at least, D&D above 3rd level or so)?

DireHammer said:

I understand exactly how hit points work, but the fact that it's absolutely impossible to be struck dead by a single blow from a weapon is ridiculous. You end up with players seeing 6 enemies with crossbows at the end of a hallway, realizing they can't possibly be killed in the first round, and then realizing the enemy will then be unable to attack again while they re-load they will then charge. That's not a dm problem, that's a system problem. The system informs the player they can take ridiculous risks with very little risk. So the fighter charges is "hit" 4 times, takes a few hit points off, and then proceeds to cut the crossbowmen to pieces.

Click to expand...

You are vastly underestimating the power of your fighter. By the time a fighter can risk taking six crossbow bolts without falling, he or she is a crazy demi-god on par with those who can raise the dead or move anywhere in the world instantly. Mortality is a level 1-5 problem. That's a feature, not a bug. Fighters are supposed to be crazy tough.

DireHammer said:

I use a critical hit system specifically to get rid of that. A fighter in my game in that situation knows that one of those 6 could roll a 20 and then all kinds of bad things can happen, including immediate death.

Click to expand...

To contrast, that seems incredibly silly to me. If a fighter can normally take a dozen crossbow bolts without blinking, then it seems inconsistent for one puny kobold to get a lucky hit with a dagger and potentially kill him or her outright.

Neonchameleon said:

Gygax hated critical hits and wanted them nowhere near his D&D. Nevertheless a lot of fans (although not all) did, and in the end those who did won. So who was right in what they wanted?

Click to expand...

not a fan of critical hits. but when i referee i do give bonus or penalty to well used tactics. as the rules have them too. higher ground. bonus to hit. cover. bonus to AC. no helmet. obviously less AC. (actually in the rules in both OD&D and 1edADnD) obvious easier to hit. doesn't mean critical. although rolling hps for lvls means many times even mid level characters die after a few solid hits. i also make characters rest to regain. yes, many days of rest with someone caring for them.

yes, i require training too.

yes, i use weapon vs armor type.

yes, i am that guy.

I've never been a fan of crits. That was one of the draws D+D had for me. MERP and other systems with crits had too many characters die on fluky rolling. They were fun to read if it was someone else though.

.