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

[tetrasodium]

Except when choosing to do something different allows more people to reduce its hit points faster. Because of positioning.

No. Just no. You are asking the GM to insert the rules wotc removed in order to make positioning matter again & hanging everything on the result of a huge uphill battle to carve those rules back into a system designed to obliviate them in nearly every way that it could. Not only that though,,, Even the most advanced of the 3.x crit fishing builds would have a heck of a time trying to time a crit so it gets rimed when it matters for "positioning" & 3.x actually had rules that would make "positioning" matter,

 

[Bill Zebub]

Terrain doesn't necessarily affect "dead is the best status condition". Under the vast majority of circumstances, reducing the enemies' hit points faster is a tactical superior move to just about everything.

That would suggest that wizards should only cast damaging spells.

Surely there is some zone in which a well designed alternative to damage could, in some circumstances, be preferable to damage? And isn’t that how we would want it to be: “sometimes, not always”?

 

[Bill Zebub]

No. Just no. You are asking the GM to insert the rules wotc removed in order to make positioning matter again & hanging everything on the result of a huge uphill battle to carve those rules back into a system designed to obliviate them in nearly every way that it could. Not only that though,,, Even the most advanced of the 3.x crit fishing builds would have a heck of a time trying to time a crit so it gets rimed when it matters for "positioning" & 3.x actually had rules that would make "positioning" matter,

It doesn’t have to mean literal spatial positioning (although that’s probably how the word was used).

 

[Reynard]

No. Just no. You are asking the GM to insert the rules wotc removed in order to make positioning matter again & hanging everything on the result of a huge uphill battle to carve those rules back into a system designed to obliviate them in nearly every way that it could. Not only that though,,, Even the most advanced of the 3.x crit fishing builds would have a heck of a time trying to time a crit so it gets rimed when it matters for "positioning" & 3.x actually had rules that would make "positioning" matter,

I'm not sure what has gotten you so excited. There is a tactical aspect to D&D, ergo positioning matters. ie You place your dudes where you do for a reason.

 

[Reynard]

It doesn’t have to mean literal spatial positioning (although that’s probably how the word was used).

I did mean it spatially, but it matters otherwise as well.

 

[Blue]

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.

That can be offset by monster math changing. And by monster math I don't only include stat blocks, but also encounter design math and daily XP budgets.

For example, if I no longer need to worry about errant crits moving a CR 1/4 creature to damage of a CR 2 creature, I can include more creatures.

Remember, the DM has all the monsters. Removing a bennie from the monsters does not in any way mean that the monsters won't make it up in numbers or deadliness elsewhere.

 

[the Jester]

That can be offset by monster math changing. And by monster math I don't only include stat blocks, but also encounter design math and daily XP budgets.

For example, if I no longer need to worry about errant crits moving a CR 1/4 creature to damage of a CR 2 creature, I can include more creatures.

Remember, the DM has all the monsters. Removing a bennie from the monsters does not in any way mean that the monsters won't make it up in numbers or deadliness elsewhere.

It sounds like you prefer combats with less risk. I'm the opposite. It doesn't matter if monsters have other abilities that do lots of damage. The pc fighter can Action Surge, the wizard can cast his high level spells. Pcs can do it too. I like my monsters to be able to push the players to use good tactics and strategies. That will never happen if the stand-and-slug-it-out approach is always reliable, and removing crits increases the odds of that working in any given combat.

I'm fine with removing crits from everyone, but this is a player-favoring rule change that I don't care for- because the players don't need any more favoring. The game is already set up with them having a major advantage against their foes.

 

[Blue]

It sounds like you prefer combats with less risk.

Not in the slightest. I do however prefer combats with less swinginess. As I mentioned before I ran a 4 year campaign using average damage for common enemies. That wasn't less damage, but it reduced swinginess as well as avoided a roll for most foes.

In 5e, I'm worried that if I put 5 orcs vs. 5 low level PCs, because a randomly rolled crit can bring them from d12+3 to 2d12+3 which is pretty easy to bring a character from up to insta-death. And that's not fun for the player, and no way to avoid what is just a statistical blip. So I might put out only three orcs so they defeat them quicker. Less rounds, less attacks per round, less likely for that crit and then a big 2d12 roll.

With 2024, I might put them straight against the 5 orcs. That's a more deadly combat, you can't say I'm avoiding risk. But there is much, much less chance for an unavoidable insta-death, and PCs dropping brings levels of tactics in.

I didn't quote a lot of what you wrote - it's based on a misunderstanding that I like less risk in combats. Plus much of the rest you wrote I agree with. The one part I didn't was:

I like my monsters to be able to push the players to use good tactics and strategies. That will never happen if the stand-and-slug-it-out approach is always reliable, and removing crits increases the odds of that working in any given combat.

I strongly disagree that fights can not use good tactics and strategies if crits only exist on one side. Tactics and strategies have nothing to do with crits. Slugfests aren't reliant on crits to break them up.

I'm fine with removing crits from everyone, but this is a player-favoring rule change that I don't care for- because the players don't need any more favoring. The game is already set up with them having a major advantage against their foes.

Again, this only favors the player if monster math stays the same. If encounter budgets increase, or monsters get a corresponding boost in their statblock, then it's part of a collection of changes that may not favor the players.

Yes, it's all we know right now. But don't assume that no other changes are coming. Or are possible for you as a DM.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a good point. In fact, if we recall how crits worked in 3E, it seems pretty clear they were included to inject some uncertainty back into the game after the power level was increased. they were weaponized by players, for sure, but where they really shined was the crit by the power attacking ogre that could one-stroke eliminate even the toughest (level appropriate) barbarian. TSR editions did not really need crits because the power level was generally lower.

During 1e and 2e I played with more than a dozen DMs, dozens if you count convention games and I can recall 0 tables that didn't either use the magazine crits mentioned, create their own crit table, or just do something simple like double damage. 3e didn't put crits back into the game, it simply codified what most people were already doing, like they are doing with the success on a 20 rule.

 

[pantsorama]

It sounds like you prefer combats with less risk. I'm the opposite. It doesn't matter if monsters have other abilities that do lots of damage. The pc fighter can Action Surge, the wizard can cast his high level spells. Pcs can do it too. I like my monsters to be able to push the players to use good tactics and strategies. That will never happen if the stand-and-slug-it-out approach is always reliable, and removing crits increases the odds of that working in any given combat.

I'm fine with removing crits from everyone, but this is a player-favoring rule change that I don't care for- because the players don't need any more favoring. The game is already set up with them having a major advantage against their foes.

But the monsters operate under a different rubric. Many PC abilities persist across encounters / a days. There is a meta game where the players need to decide how much effort to expend on this encounter. A monster should never have that consideration. They leave it all on the floor every time. PC are playing a season, monsters are playing a one-off match.

So crits are a PC ability that fire randomly and are not a depleting resource (with some edge cases - eg Reckless Attack does not deplete, but using it to crit fish has consequence for a depleatable resources - namely HPs). So lumping them with resources that replenish with short or long rests is flawed, IMO. They seem fundamentally different from those other PC bennies you mentioned.

On the other hand, I can see where you say they are a straight up power boost for PCs (if the monsters don't get them) But if you take them away for the PCs, will you take away the abilities the monsters get to replace crits too?

Besides - they nerfed them for PCs anyway. And that is a good thing, if you give the crits other knock on effects.