Critical Hits: What's Best?

[ThirdWizard]

So you are, in fact, one of those DMs who insist that the dice must fall where they may, while at the same time demanding "tame dice."

Isn't that a good thing? Preferring the rules to stand on their own instead of needing to be fudged around to work? I can't imagine it not being a good thing.


But, more generally:

This seems to be partially a simulationist vs. gamist thing. The 3e version is more simulationist, while the 4e system is more gamist, like many of 4e's other aspects.

3e's system was good because it had more granulatiry between situations. The farmer example is one of granularity, where the rule looked palatable across a wide swath of the gaming world's events. You could see that criticals made sense in a wider array of situations than previously, and in the context of the world made for a good "world physics" for lack of a better term.

4e's system is good because it is clean and fast and deals with situations that will come up in game. It make a few eyebrows raise when it goes out of the typical combat situations 4e is built on, but the new math will mean that needing a 20 to hit should never come up anyway in game. Being gamist, it doesn't worry about simulating the farmer vs the heavily armed person, because that isn't going to be something happening in the course of a game.

 

[Hussar]

I’m in “do not fudge camp” (while I don’t consider it cheating I think it should be avoided, it is good if players know you will not nanny them, it makes their successes more meaningful) but I don’t think one PC death every three sessions is too much, it seems just about right. For group of 4 PC that means every PC will die approximately every 12 sessions, exactly what s needed to keep PC from getting overconfident and helps maintaining verisimilitude (slaying dozens or even hundreds opponents without a fatality kind of kills any feeling of dagger, tension and suspense in adventure, occasional defeats are necessary to make victories meaningful, that is why Gandalf had to perish in Moria, only to return later) and D&D has mechanics to deal with cases like that witch will become even better now that level loss is gone.

Having done this, I can honestly say that players don't like it. What's the point in getting too attached to a character if you have to roll up another one in a few sessions? Getting a new PC every couple of months just leads to things like Erac's cousin and the like.

Ressing is an option, true, but, remember, you're going to eat up a LOT of party resources trying to keep it up in 3e. 5k gp every 3 sessions is simply not feasible in any single digit level game. And, that's saying that res is available. Raise Dead is not automatic.

Naw, been there, done that, discovered that it's not a whole lot of fun. I use Action Points now to mitigate things and that works for me.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I suggest looking in your 3.5 DMG under variant rules for crits. Right there they talk about taking crits out of the system since it favours monsters more than PC's.

I'm not looking for "tame dice", but, there's a world of difference between whacking a PC every couple of sessions and having close fights. 3.5 combat is lethal. Extremely lethal. A given monster at a give CR can generally kill a given PC in one round. It usually takes max damage, but, it's usually possible.

I know that PCs are subject to more crits than monsters.

I'm just curious why you would favor a system that creates MORE crits (no confirmation roll) that deal (by your own account) DEADLY MAX DAMAGE.

 

[Hussar]

I know that PCs are subject to more crits than monsters.

I'm just curious why you would favor a system that creates MORE crits (no confirmation roll) that deal (by your own account) DEADLY MAX DAMAGE.

Because max damage for a single attack isn't the problem. Max damage for all attacks is.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Isn't that a good thing? Preferring the rules to stand on their own instead of needing to be fudged around to work? I can't imagine it not being a good thing.

It's not a good thing when the rules aren't serving your needs and your player's needs, and your only option is to wait for WoTC to fix it for you.

You have the ability to see that this crit, at this time, killing this PC, is going to derail your game, but you just plow ahead, slave to the rules and the dice?

No, that's not a good thing.

 

[Umbran]

Not really necessary, while result of Milgram’s experiment might be depressing it is not offensive, and I still think psychological phenomena examined in that experiment are still best explanation for unconditional support many give to WotC 4e changes (luckily with not such ugly repercussions).

Around here, claiming to know what's going on inside someone else's head is considered rude.

It is strongly suggested you not try to do internet mind reading, as you don't have anything near the sort of information to divine the reasons why a given person or group of people like or dislike something around here.

Rather than point to someone else's research about nameless groups, and claim that's the answer, around here you could ask the individual in question. Since you can ask, assuming is downright rude, and is generally considered dismissive of what may well be well-considered opinions. So, we ask you not to do it. Thank you.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It's not a good thing when the rules aren't serving your needs and your player's needs, and your only option is to wait for WoTC to fix it for you.

You have the ability to see that this crit, at this time, killing this PC, is going to derail your game, but you just plow ahead, slave to the rules and the dice?

No, that's not a good thing.

Well, the main thing I like about it is that it goes with the general "less random death" than 3e has in it, which I don't have time to remove myself. This means that death can be more meaningful. In my current 3.5 game at 15th level, for example, death is fairly constant for the PCs. That's okay because they can raise themselves easily. Now, that's part of the game, and that's how its played, and I accept that. But, if they could remove that, I would like the system even better. The crit system seems to be part of a larger picture that aims for this goal.

 

[Darkwolf71]

"1st-to-20th in a year" characters...

This is 4e... that's 1st-to-30th in a year. :\

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, the main thing I like about it is that it goes with the general "less random death" than 3e has in it

Point taken. This is a matter of taste, I think we all agree.

which I don't have time to remove myself.

"Monsters can't crit." I believe that solution meets all your needs. It is fast. It is easy. It is PC-centric. The PCs only need concern themselves with the normal variance of the attack and damage rolls.

 

[Beckett]

Also, this new rule helps lead to less PC fatality (or at least random fatality), which makes it much easier for the designers to make raise dead higher level and more rare, which is a great thing in my opinion! Possibly the best possibility of the whole shebang, I think.

This also reminds me of Mearls' encounter building article. It was okay to put higher level creatures in a dungeon, because without save or die effects, and apparently lower damage spikes, the party has a chance to run if it looks like they're in over their heads. Right now, party enters a lair and one power attack crit can kill before the situation is assessed.