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

[Reynard]

If you play with player only crits, then combat for the players poses less risk as they are not fearful of the DM rolling 20's. As a player you gain all the benefits of scoring a crit, but have no fear of a crit being scored against you. No risk, but gain a reward.

I have seen so many video games ruined by developers listening to the whiners that want the game made easier for them (usually a vocal minority). In my opinion, this is a step in that direction -- however, unlike a video game where the ruleset is static, in roleplaying we have a dynamic ruleset at the option of the DM. In that line of thought, I would prefer to see crits scrored for both sides as part of the core rules, but then just list as an option for perhaps when playing with younger players, or with players that want to focus more on story, that player only crits might want to be considered.

Crits aren't the only way to impose risk. The mentioned recharge attacks -- whatever they turn out to be -- are another. So are special maneuvers outside of just doing damage. A reduction in uncertainty doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in risk. Now, I like chaos and swing when running D&D so whether i use this rule will depend highly on what they replace it with, but even without crits wel) played monsterswith cool abilities are always a threat to PCs.

 

[OB1]

It does change perception though, and that's the trick. Critical hits often add a lot of perceived threat, without a lot of actual threat.

Sure the chance that a monsters crits on both attacks and does a crapton of damage is extremely rare....but it could happen, and so it might be on a player's mind. This creates extra threat and challenge without having to up the monster's offensive power.

The problem of course is that every once in a while that perceived threat becomes real, and under the right circumstance can kill a player "arbitrarily", especially at low levels. Sure the chance that a brand new player with their 1st character takes a big crit and dies in their first combat is probably very low....but if it happens you might have just lost a player permanently. Though of course a veteran DM might realize that this is just one circumstance where maybe its best not to let the die fall where they may and make some mechanical or narrative "mulligan" for the player.

The rarity and randomness of it is exactly the problem. Across 100,000 tables every week those rare outcomes are going to occur at some of them. I had it happen in the game I ran last weekend, where in the first round of combat, my monsters had 3 Nat20s on 5 attacks.

I'd rather monsters up their offensive power in general, providing a more consistent challenge. Take the Astral Elf Warriors from BAM. They get two longsword attacks (1d8+1) and add on radiant damage (3d6) on every hit. With 2 attacks, they're dealing 31 points of damage a round. If they crit on both attacks in the first round, that's suddenly 60 points of damage caused by nothing but pure dumb luck.

If you play with player only crits, then combat for the players poses less risk as they are not fearful of the DM rolling 20's. As a player you gain all the benefits of scoring a crit, but have no fear of a crit being scored against you. No risk, but gain a reward.

Two things here. First, players have been nerfed as well, since only weapon and unarmed strike damage now doubles (no sneak attack, smite, or spell crits). So really, the balance of the new rule is a slight power bump to martial classes (which many people believe was needed).

Second, what kind of skillful play can a player use to avoid crits? They are completely random. And unlike a video game, there is no save point to go back to if the party is wiped out from a random run of bad luck in the first round of combat before they even get a chance to act.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The rarity and randomness of it is exactly the problem. Across 100,000 tables every week those rare outcomes are going to occur at some of them. I had it happen in the game I ran last weekend, where in the first round of combat, my monsters had 3 Nat20s on 5 attacks.

I'd rather monsters up their offensive power in general, providing a more consistent challenge. Take the Astral Elf Warriors from BAM. They get two longsword attacks (1d8+1) and add on radiant damage (3d6) on every hit. With 2 attacks, they're dealing 31 points of damage a round. If they crit on both attacks in the first round, that's suddenly 60 points of damage caused by nothing but pure dumb luck.



Two things here. First, players have been nerfed as well, since only weapon and unarmed strike damage now doubles (no sneak attack, smite, or spell crits). So really, the balance of the new rule is a slight power bump to martial classes (which many people believe was needed).

Second, what kind of skillful play can a player use to avoid crits? They are completely random. And unlike a video game, there is no save point to go back to if the party is wiped out from a random run of bad luck in the first round of combat before they even get a chance to act.

Quite frankly, bad luck is part of the game to me. If there was no chance of things suddenly turning against me, it would be less fun.

 

[OB1]

Quite frankly, bad luck is part of the game to me. If there was no chance of things suddenly turning against me, it would be less fun.

Oh I agree that bad luck is an important part of the game. I'm suggesting that the old crit rules are a poor way to implement that. And I'm only saying that after seeing the new rules in my last few play sessions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh I agree that bad luck is an important part of the game. I'm suggesting that the old crit rules are a poor way to implement that. And I'm only saying that after seeing the new rules in my last few play sessions.

How would you suggest implementing bad luck working against the PCs?

 

[OB1]

How would you suggest implementing bad luck working against the PCs?

Primarily through recharge abilities and increased damage ranges for hits. Keeps any single encounter more swingy than the old crit rules.

 

[Reynard]

How would you suggest implementing bad luck working against the PCs?

There's a whole 20 sided dice involved in every action.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you play with player only crits, then combat for the players poses less risk as they are not fearful of the DM rolling 20's. As a player you gain all the benefits of scoring a crit, but have no fear of a crit being scored against you. No risk, but gain a reward.

Usually the phrase "risk:reward" suggests a choice, in which you voluntarily take on risk in the hope of getting a reward. The barbarian ability Reckless Attacks is an example of this. Or the -5/+10 feats.

I suppose you could say that adventuring itself is the risk, and it's riskier with monster crits. But, really, is anybody going to opt out of the playing the game, or even opt out of a single encounter, because monsters can crit?

I get what you are saying, but it's a misapplication of the phrase. In my opinion.

On the other hand, if players could make a conscious choice to leave themselves vulnerable to monster crits, in return for some benefit, then it would be an example of risk:reward.

I have seen so many video games ruined by developers listening to the whiners that want the game made easier for them (usually a vocal minority). In my opinion, this is a step in that direction -- however, unlike a video game where the ruleset is static, in roleplaying we have a dynamic ruleset at the option of the DM. In that line of thought, I would prefer to see crits scrored for both sides as part of the core rules, but then just list as an option for perhaps when playing with younger players, or with players that want to focus more on story, that player only crits might want to be considered.

I find it's pretty typical in these scenarios for the losing side to say that the winning side was a "vocal minority", with zero evidence to support that. And also that they are kids. Again, without offering evidence.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Crits aren't the only way to impose risk. The mentioned recharge attacks -- whatever they turn out to be -- are another. So are special maneuvers outside of just doing damage. A reduction in uncertainty doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in risk. Now, I like chaos and swing when running D&D so whether i use this rule will depend highly on what they replace it with, but even without crits wel) played monsterswith cool abilities are always a threat to PCs.

Yeah, I really hope it's lots of cool recharge abilities. Something pretty dangerous that can be used once, and then recharges on a crit. By assuming it's used in the first round the CR can be modeled appropriately, and then after that the players will usually* have a one round forewarning that it could be used again, and can prepare accordingly.

Personally, I think "Holy $%#& we have to neutralize this monster before its next turn!" is way more interesting as a game mechanic than "Let's hope it doesn't roll a 20."

*Unless the monster has multi-attack. But it could be written into the rules that recharge doesn't take effect until the following turn. In fact, it would have to be written that way if they didn't want a lucky monster to be able to use it multiple times in a turn.

EDIT: Oh, and weaker monsters could be designed to start combat without the recharge ability, so no initial spike. I mean, it could be as simple as "On a hit, the creature rolls rolls double damage dice. (Recharge)." It's a crit with foreshadowing.

EDIT 2: Thinking more about this, I really like the idea of this kind of foreshadowing. It changes the calculus on decision-making, and elevates abilities like Frostbite and Dodge. And/or, instead of "hit the goblin with the fewest hit points because they are all equal threats" it's "well, should I finish off this one, or see if in one turn I can kill the one who is about to crit?" It adds variability to monsters in a single stat block.

 

[OB1]

Yeah, I really hope it's lots of cool recharge abilities. Something pretty dangerous that can be used once, and then recharges on a crit. By assuming it's used in the first round the CR can be modeled appropriately, and then after that the players will usually* have a one round forewarning that it could be used again, and can prepare accordingly.

Personally, I think "Holy $%#& we have to neutralize this monster before its next turn!" is way more interesting as a game mechanic than "Let's hope it doesn't roll a 20."

*Unless the monster has multi-attack. But it could be written into the rules that recharge doesn't take effect until the following turn. In fact, it would have to be written that way if they didn't want a lucky monster to be able to use it multiple times in a turn.

EDIT: Oh, and weaker monsters could be designed to start combat without the recharge ability, so no initial spike. I mean, it could be as simple as "On a hit, the creature rolls rolls double damage dice. (Recharge)." It's a crit with foreshadowing.

EDIT 2: Thinking more about this, I really like the idea of this kind of foreshadowing. It changes the calculus on decision-making, and elevates abilities like Frostbite and Dodge. And/or, instead of "hit the goblin with the fewest hit points because they are all equal threats" it's "well, should I finish off this one, or see if in one turn I can kill the one who is about to crit?" It adds variability to monsters in a single stat block.

Love all of this, but I would also keep the traditional recharge that provides a 16-33% base chance each round. Adding recharge on a Nat20 increases the odds of the recharge happening by 5% each attack it makes (scary with a dragon, with 4 base attacks and 3 potential legendary action attacks each round for a total chance of recharge at 68%). And I really love the idea of some monsters starting without it's recharge active. The foreshadowing of recharge abilities makes them a consistently great way to strike fear into players every combat.