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

[Ruin Explorer]

I dunno. You get inspiration when you crit, which there is incentive for you to use ASAP, so you can roll another attack with advantage, which has a not-insignificant chance of giving you another crit, which would give you inspiration...

Yeah I get that they think that's going to happen, but realistically I don't see it happening because players don't like to spend Inspiration that way. It's the sort of thing that would happen in a videogame, for sure, but won't happen on tabletop.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah I get that they think that's going to happen, but realistically I don't see it happening because players don't like to spend Inspiration that way. It's the sort of thing that would happen in a videogame, for sure, but won't happen on tabletop.

You're not wrong that it's been that way so far. We'll have to see if their attempts to make Inspiration more of a thing work. I understand (and agree with) your doubts.

 

[ReshiIRE]

It's so difficult to tell. I want ot say I am against it because I've seen crits be used well in other games and I think it is a positive thing in the game at levels beyond one and two However, this is not a full playtest document, it's only outlining some changes. We need to see moonsters and what replacements they have for cirts before ultimately seeing if it's better or not.

Ultimately I think so much of this is down to table convention. While I haven't GM'd yet, my ideology is not to fudge rolls unless it would be supremely naughty word and a waste of time not to, or there are new players involved.

One of those cases is level 1 and 2 of 5e as I can see, from what others have said, why crits could be problematic at those levels: it's very likely to knock a PC down. In some absurd cases, it might kill them outright! I feel if I'm starting at those levels, especially wth new players, I might feel getting crits that could absolutely swing the combat against the party through no fault of their own might just be a little bit naughty word to let through.

But that's not universal. It might be worth giving advice to GMs that really low level play could be lethal due to unexpected crits in a way that level 3 might not be... but that also depends on other changes. Perhaps they're going to make level 1 much easier to run (by, say, giving everyone their sublcass at level 1, meaning you aren't twiddling your thumbs until level 3, etc.), and then the no crits for monsters will be even weirder.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean, even "monsters" that replicate normal people, like the Gladiator, get things like "Brute: add an additional die of damage to weapon attacks". Most enemies, I honestly can't tell why they do a particular amount of damage at all, it sometimes seems like a truly random and arbitrary amount of dice. Going back to the Giant Ape, we see it's attacks are:

Multiattack: The ape makes two fist attacks.

Fist: Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 22 (3d10 + 6) bludgeoning damage.

Rock: Ranged Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, range 50/100 ft., one target. Hit: 30 (7d6 + 6) bludgeoning damage.

Ok so, it gets 3 dice of fist damage because it's huge, but why does it's fist do a d10? Reasons?

And how did one decide a rock it picks up does 7d6 damage? I mean, it's not like it even says how big said rock has to be, or if it has to take an action to pick it up or anything! Did they go "well, it's 15 HD so a level 15 Rogue has 7d6 Sneak Attack"? Or was it "well it's CR 7, so uh, 7d6?" Who knows!

And then when one of these monsters throws a crit, it's going to be way more bonus damage than a level 7 martial character is going to get, which seems fairly disproportionate. Yeah level 7 Fighter crits for another d12 with a greataxe for an extra 6.5 damage. Level 7 Ape crits for another 3d10 (16.5) or 7d6 (24.5) damage.

To compare the two, a player crit is pretty much weaksauce, save for Paladins and Rogues and, I don't know, Half Orc Barbarians at higher levels?

Or the occasional attack roll spell, which is one of those "when the stars align just so" moments.

 

[Maxperson]

More importantly, monsters don't have stuff like smite divided out in most cases, it's just part of their damage, so they're getting to multiply stuff PCs don't, which frankly, is awful.

Why wouldn't PC's get to double smite damage dice?

"If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."

 

[Benjamin Olson]

One of those cases is level 1 and 2 of 5e as I can see, from what others have said, why crits could be problematic at those levels: it's very likely to knock a PC down. In some absurd cases, it might kill them outright! I feel if I'm starting at those levels, especially wth new players, I might feel getting crits that could absolutely swing the combat against the party through no fault of their own might just be a little bit naughty word to let through.

I think the better solution here, if you don't want a deadly low level game, is to eliminate the kill outright rule, which primarily functions to kill low level characters unexpectedly and causes too much confusion about negative hit points for the very little it effectively adds to the game.

Also start every character with a healing potion.

Personally I like having the occasional early death (or, much better, early near death) in the party to keep everyone on their toes, but I tend to favor starting characters as pretty rough sketches personality and backstory-wise, and filling them out as they develop over the first few sessions. If it was a group where everyone wrote multi-page backstories for their characters I might well introduce precautions to keep death completely off the table for the first session or two.

 

[Horwath]

If there is no crits on roll of 20, then there should be option to increase damage on how much attack roll beats AC.

I.E. for every point over targets AC, damage is increased by 1.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

You don’t double any numbers on a crit in 5e. You roll all the damage dice a second time.

Thanks for clarifying. I'll need to update my jokes.

Personally, I liked how 4e did it (like so many other things it did). You score maximum damage on your damage dice, and then rolled extra dice. Some items even had special crit effects or crit dice.

At least I think that's how it works... need to double-check later...

That does bring up another point. This may not affect new players who've never played any other version of the game, but some of us have been playing since the first editions and/or the original versions. It is really hard, especially for some of us old-timers to keep these changes straight. Some of us would like to stay relevant.

However, those like me who have issues with keeping thoughts straight in their head, just get fed up and drop out, sticking to the older systems and games we're most comfortable with.

 

[mewidner]

By removing the monster crits it feels like the change it about never having the characters feel like they are going to die. There needs to be tension in the game or I can go play a video game on 'not-so-hard mode' and just respawn at the camp fire.

My take on crits on weapon attacks (melee/ranged/unarmed) is they hit the tender spots like the eye, bridge of the nose, exposed side by the spleen, etc. Magic damage doesn't really target a specific spot as I consider it "all over the person" damage so it doesn't magically double in impact like a sling stone to the forehead example. I am all for changing what attacks are valid for the crit doubling as it makes the folks with improved crit ratings shine a little bit more. I champion fighter that crits gets 2d10+str where a 5th cantrip wielding wizard gets 3d10 on a firebolt.

I think the change is potentially a good one so that everyone doesn't take 1 level of wizard and at 11th just use the cantrip instead of the +2 long sword because the firebolt still does more damage than the improved crit hit fighter would do.

 

[Umbran]

By removing the monster crits it feels like the change it about never having the characters feel like they are going to die.

So, as GMs, we are basically relying on the chance of a crit to carry the fear of death for us? Shouldn't we own that possibility instead?

With adversaries less swingy, it means that character death will be less by chance, and more by design. I think that may be a good thing. It effectively gives the GM more control over how deadly their encounters will be.