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

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but if your hope is to sell hundred of thousands or millions of units, you can't think about (and design for) individuals, you have to think about broad trends.



The pandemic was only a handy example - it is by no means the only element of looming unpredictability in our world. Add all of them up...

Yeah this why the new D&D of the last few years and moving forward just isn't for me. I don't agree with the broad trends that WotC care about.

 

[Lanefan]

Before you go off on this tear, let us remember that critical hits were not a part of core AD&D rules until 3e! In 1e and 2e, you had to dig around in magazines and mimeographed fanzines to find critical hit tables if you wanted to use them.

Even so and notwithstanding, IME back in the day everybody and their little dogs used them in some form. That's probably why 3e made them official, because they were so commonly in use already.

So, the thing you seem to miss... or hyperbolically elide over, at least, is that critical hits are not the only randomness in the game! It is not like by removing critical hits, suddenly challenges become foregone conclusion

They do, however, become considerably more predictable in not only their outcomes but in how long - as in how many rounds - it will take to arrive at that outcome.

Critical hits represent - or should - a sudden swing in fortune, where what was maybe predictable now isn't.

Because, dude, we still use dice. Random numbers are still in play. Characters and parties were killed off by bad luck for decades before critical hits became the usual thing.

In systems/editions where death was at 0, there were no death saves, and both characters and their foes had generally far fewer hit points than today, this is likely true. The main difference now is the much-greater numbers of hit points, which allow more rounds of combat and thus more time for things to pro/regress to the expected mean. Luck becomes less of a factor, though still existent.

Beyond that... honestly, if the GM requires the rules as a shield from adversarial positioning, that's an issue of table interpersonal dynamics, not game design. If you cannot make it clear that the table is friends who are interested in good times, not in being adversarial, the rules won't save you.

I look at it from the other direction: I don't mind being adversarial to some extent, without being unfair; and want the system to back me up when I am.

 

[Umbran]

Even so and notwithstanding, IME back in the day everybody and their little dogs used them in some form. That's probably why 3e made them official, because they were so commonly in use already.

Well, IME, everyone knew about the possibility, but nobody used them. Personal experience isn't terribly meaningful, and probably isn't a great support for a design choice.

They do, however, become considerably more predictable in not only their outcomes but in how long - as in how many rounds - it will take to arrive at that outcome.

Yep. I already noted that effect.

In systems/editions where death was at 0, there were no death saves, and both characters and their foes had generally far fewer hit points than today, this is likely true.

And, IME, nobody actually played with death at 0. They all moved that back to -10 or -Con, because zero was too harsh. This has much the same impact as death saves - a clock ticking under which others in the party typically try to race some healing to the downed character.

 

[Vael]

I long ago houseruled that as a DM, I don't roll weapon damage, it speeds up the game. So Crits reverted to 4e, I just assumed a maximum roll. A monster that deals 1d8+3 deals 8 damage, 11 on a crit. I like having crits, DMs want to enjoy rolling dice too, but only taking the max, I think makes it a little less swingy.

 

[Zaukrie]

In talking to my adult son, he and I agree.....players love crits. They love the surprise, and the power. They even love it when monsters do it (most of the time).

I think the point of keeping track of recharges on several monsters is an interesting one I had not considered (as a publisher, it gives me pause on some of my work!).

 

[CleverNickName]

In my upcoming campaign, I'm trying something new on critical hits and fumbles. (Yes, I use fumbles.)

If a player rolls a natural 20 on an attack roll, I won't force the player to roll extra damage. Instead of extra damage, they could choose to do regular damage and perform some kind of stunt. Maybe they do regular damage and disarm their foe? Maybe they do regular damage and knock their opponent prone? Maybe they want to deal regular damage and disengage for free? I bet that nine times out of ten, the player chooses the extra damage. But my hope is that every now and then, when the stars align, something much more memorable happens.

I do the same for critical fumbles. When a player rolls a 1, they miss. But I give them the option to turn that miss into a hit, at a cost: maybe they take a point of exhaustion, maybe they fall prone, or maybe their weapon gains the Broken condition at the end of the attack. Nine times out of ten, I expect the player chooses to just let the attack miss. But I hope that every now and then, when they really need that attack to hit, rolling a nat-1 will feel like an interesting twist of fate.

This house rule will apply to the monsters too, which is why I bring it up in this thread. If a dragon scores a critical hit, it can choose to do double damage per the rules, or it can choose to do regular damage and recharge its breath weapon automatically at the end of the turn. Or it can choose to do regular damage and automatically grapple its target. Or disengage for free. Or knock its target prone. I'll be honest, most of the time that dragon is going to want to take the extra damage...but the exceptions could be very interesting indeed.

My issue isn't with the amount of damage; it's the lack of interesting options. MOAR DAMAMAGE LOLZ!!!1 gets pretty dull after a while.

 

[Blue]

I ran a 4 year campaign using average damage for all normal monsters. Really, reducing swinginess in combat is not a demon, 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.

 

[SkidAce]

...Before you go off on this tear, let us remember that critical hits were not a part of core AD&D rules until 3e! In 1e and 2e, you had to dig around in magazines and mimeographed fanzines to find critical hit tables if you wanted to use them.

Ergo, critical hits, in and of themselves, are not what make combat an interesting challenge...

I would postulate that critical hits in 1e and 2e, as house rules risen spontaneously from varying gaming groups, DID make combat more interesting and a challenge, and therefore were incorporated into 3rd edition because of their popularity.

YMMV.

edit: spellin

 

[Campbell]

I really think it's too early to tell. I'm going to need to see how the rest of the combat model ends up working in practice. That includes combat rules, class design and monster design changes. Instead of a piecemeal approach I would prefer to see a larger document so we could see the possible interactions.

 

[Turbiales]

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.