D&D (2024) DM's no longer getting crits on PC's

[Cadence]

In my experience (I'm from Spain) Crits were one of the first house rules most groups created in the AD&D era. These and fumbles, but fumbles were not so popular.

The oldest I think I've seen came out a couple years before I started playing." The Dragon Crown" in 1979 by Judges Guild was one of the first modules I bought, and it had crits (and fumbles iirc):

For the second roll after your natural 20...
1-14=like a normal roll of 20 (not a guaranteed hit)
15=max damage (15+ are guaranteed hits)
16=damage roll x 2
17=max damage x 2
18=damage roll x attackers level/HD
19=max damage x attackers level/HD
20=Instant Death

 

[James Gasik]

In my experience (I'm from Spain) Crits were one of the first house rules most groups created in the AD&D era. These and fumbles, but fumbles were not so popular.

Mainly because fumbles are more punishing to Fighters than anyone else, as you gain the ability to make more attacks.

Though in all honesty, I started to hate them as a DM too, since I made more attack rolls than any of my players, lol.

 

[Oofta]

I skipped most of this (no internet) but how do we know that monsters won't crit? The playtest says PCs crit on a 20, as far as I can tell it's silent on what happens for monsters.

If it's true. I'll ignore it, just like I'll ignore auto failure/success for skill checks.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Ditto, and same for 1s and 20s auto-failing or auto-succeeding on abilities, etc. We use those for and only for combat to-hits and will continue to do so.

Why, why bother rolling if the outcome can’t change.

 

[pnewman]

Without Crits, how can 200 Commoners with slings be a true challenge to my party of four L7 characters? The 10 per round who roll 20's will still auto-hit but for only 2 points each, not five. Will I need to use 400 Commoners instead? I don't have enough pennies to use as minis for 400 commoners.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Why, why bother rolling if the outcome can’t change.

???? Do what, now? Of course the outcome can change: there's success and failure as the options for non-attack rolls.

 

[the Jester]

After a great deal of thought, I have decided that the only way I am okay with removing potential crits from monsters is removing them from the game entirely. I just do not like the pcs getting yet more bennies denied to their foes when they are already pretty darn unlikely to even drop, much less die, in combat.

 

[Bill Zebub]

, and especially at the lower levels will help get the results the DM is looking for with their encounter design - including pushing the party harder if that is what is wanted because there's no worry a random crit will make a PC go from up to insta-kill and then having to tone the encounter down to leave more buffer.

That’s the main thing that appeals to me. Larger margins of error means I can design harder encounters. Leave the swinginess and surprises to the players.

 

[SkidAce]

Without Crits, how can 200 Commoners with slings be a true challenge to my party of four L7 characters? The 10 per round who roll 20's will still auto-hit but for only 2 points each, not five. Will I need to use 400 Commoners instead? I don't have enough pennies to use as minis for 400 commoners.

dimes as units of 10.

 

[Reynard]

After a great deal of thought, I have decided that the only way I am okay with removing potential crits from monsters is removing them from the game entirely. I just do not like the pcs getting yet more bennies denied to their foes when they are already pretty darn unlikely to even drop, much less die, in combat.

If only there was some way to figure out how often -- say, how many times out of 100 or even 20 -- this would matter.