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

[Blue]

Swinginess is by far the greatest source of risk to the PCs in almost any typical combat in any edition.

Thus, preferring less swinginess directly equates to preferring less risk, all other things being equal. If you (or, in this case, the designers) then want to make the combats tougher overall to put the risk back in, that's different.

Yes, but then please stop ignoring that for two messages I have said "but not everything else is equal" and given examples. Is 3 orcs that can crit more risky than 5 orcs that can't? Not in a normal face-off. It's easy enough to test if you want, could write a quick Monte Carlo and do a few thousand iterations.

Respectfully, you haven't engaged the main point I keep bringing up -- "all else being equal" directly reads as "am am ignoring your points about possible changes elsewhere in monster maths or XP budget" that we just don't have a whole picture on yet.

And less swinginess can mean MORE risk, because a DM can increase the threat without having to leave a buffer for statistical anomalies getting multiplied out of proportion. PC doing from up to insta-kill from a crit is a heck of a lot less fun then a PC getting dropped and then other PCs having to rush in and take blows and try to heal them to try to avoid them getting hit again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 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.


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.

You can't properly playtest a rule that has knock-on effects with so many other rules. They should have taken the crit rule out, or included the rest of combat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

What monster abilities? We don't know anything. This playtest is too incomplete in this area to provide useful data.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but then please stop ignoring that for two messages I have said "but not everything else is equal" and given examples. Is 3 orcs that can crit more risky than 5 orcs that can't? Not in a normal face-off. It's easy enough to test if you want, could write a quick Monte Carlo and do a few thousand iterations.

Respectfully, you haven't engaged the main point I keep bringing up -- "all else being equal" directly reads as "am am ignoring your points about possible changes elsewhere in monster maths or XP budget" that we just don't have a whole picture on yet.

And less swinginess can mean MORE risk, because a DM can increase the threat without having to leave a buffer for statistical anomalies getting multiplied out of proportion. PC doing from up to insta-kill from a crit is a heck of a lot less fun then a PC getting dropped and then other PCs having to rush in and take blows and try to heal them to try to avoid them getting hit again.

He is ignoring those points because they don't exist outside of a comment in a marketing video, which means they can't be tested, which means rules associated with them can't be tested properly.

 

[Maxperson]

He is ignoring those points because they don't exist outside of a comment in a marketing video, which means they can't be tested, which means rules associated with them can't be tested properly.

Or perhaps like me those other things just don't matter to him. Crits are going to happen DM side in every game I run. It doesn't matter to me what they change. If the combination becomes too deadly, I will modify their modifications.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, but then please stop ignoring that for two messages I have said "but not everything else is equal" and given examples. Is 3 orcs that can crit more risky than 5 orcs that can't? Not in a normal face-off. It's easy enough to test if you want, could write a quick Monte Carlo and do a few thousand iterations.

Respectfully, you haven't engaged the main point I keep bringing up -- "all else being equal" directly reads as "am am ignoring your points about possible changes elsewhere in monster maths or XP budget" that we just don't have a whole picture on yet.

And because these things are not yet known, unfortunately all things still are equal.

And less swinginess can mean MORE risk, because a DM can increase the threat without having to leave a buffer for statistical anomalies getting multiplied out of proportion.

Leave a buffer? What is this foreign concept of which you speak?

PC doing from up to insta-kill from a crit is a heck of a lot less fun then a PC getting dropped and then other PCs having to rush in and take blows and try to heal them to try to avoid them getting hit again.

Thing is, if the ablation rate of PC hit points becomes that predictable the players (if they're smart) will start basing their tactics around it, which is about the last thing I want to see.

And sure, the save-the-downed-guy scenario you posit here is fun - and it happens all the time as things stand now. I'm not sure taking crits away from monsters will make it any more frequent. It'll make the insta-kills less frequent, probably, but I don't see that as a good thing in a 5e system that's already quite easygoing on the PCs compared to earlier versions of the game.

That, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I-as-DM make it clear to all that adventuring is dangerous business before they even take to the field. Then, the dice fall where and how they may.

 

[jerryrice4949]

My groups loves crits. Both when they get a critical hit and when their adversary does. Fighting monsters and villains is dangerous and should be a little unpredictable. From a Simulation perspective I think they work too. To me a critical hit represents a perfect shot, hit, strike or whatever. It represents when the the dagger lands perfectly between the plates etc.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There’s no change so small that people won’t find a reason to argue that the game will be ruined. Often the same people who already think it’s ruined.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or perhaps like me those other things just don't matter to him. Crits are going to happen DM side in every game I run. It doesn't matter to me what they change. If the combination becomes too deadly, I will modify their modifications.

See, to me the sad thing about this is that stuff like this, continuing to make combat lean more and more toward the PCs is likely already decided as a design choice, even if the specifics haven't been. There's no fighting the tide really.

 

[jerryrice4949]

See, to me the sad thing about this is that stuff like this, continuing to make combat lean more and more toward the PCs is likely already decided as a design choice, even if the specifics haven't been. There's no fighting the tide really.

I agree. I love 5th edition but having played Basic, 1st edition and 2nd edition I can also say this edition is the most difficult to make challenging encounters for the PCs where they routinely feel in danger. It can be done but requires more effort than ever before.