D&D 5E Do you play without Critical Hits?

[Charlaquin]

Crits increase the swinginess of the game. The more swinginess you introduce, the riskier it is for PCs.

Also this. Assuming you’re following the encounter building guidelines, the math favors the players. If everything conforms to the average, expected results, the PCs will do fine. Big swings away from the average will tend to favor the monsters.

 

[Odysseus]

we use crits, with crit deck cards.
A few years a go I spent some time looking into what my players like the most and/or found most memorable about my games. And discovered random events are pretty popular. Since then I've been trying to embrace more random things. And if the combat is more swingy embrace it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Going back to 1E before critical hits were a thing, I like thinking of the attack roll as binary: hit or miss.

How much you "hit" by really doesn't matter because how severe the hit is gets determined by the damage roll. Roll low, and the attack barely hits or hits something non-vital. Roll max, and the weapon was as "lethal" as it can be.

 

[MNblockhead]

Crits are a necessary part of the game. Rolling a 1 and rolling a 20 add excitement to the game. We use critical hit cards, but not critical fail. A one is just a miss.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I didn't use crits in D&D until 3e. Were I to go back and run an older edition, I'd probably add crits back in - it'd be hard to be a downer on the excitement of rolling a nat 20.

Gods, do I hate the "roll to confirm" crit mechanics though. It's the gaming equivalent of "Syke!" That is to say, frustrating and dated.

 

[Charlaquin]

Going back to 1E before critical hits were a think, I like thinking of the attack roll as binary: hit or miss.

How much you "hit" by really doesn't matter because how severe the hit is gets determined by the damage roll. Roll low, and the attack barely hits or hits something non-vital. Roll max, and the weapon was as "lethal" as it can be.

I agree with you, but I have to concede that it feels like something special should happen when you roll the highest number possible on the die, and not meeting that expectation can be subtly psychologically dissatisfying. That’s why I use crits even though logically I know they’re bad for the PCs overall. They feel good for the players, and because of various psychological biases, they don’t really notice or feel particularly bad when the monsters roll crits. So I think the best option from a player psychology standpoint is to include crits, but keep their effect as minimal as you can get away with while still satisfying that expectation of something extra-special on a natural 20.

Now, for the same reasons crits are satisfying despite being bad for the players, fumbles are frustrating despite ultimately favoring the players. And since the players don’t need the help anyway, I think it’s best to leave fumbles out entirely. Which 5e does by RAW, but fumble house rules are very popular.

 

[DND_Reborn]

it'd be hard to be a downer on the excitement of rolling a nat 20.

But that's the point, we "baked in" the excitement by adding the rule. Before a natural 20 was exciting because it allowed you to hit AC's which would otherwise be "unhitable". Otherwise, a 20 is no different from a 10 as long as both rolls hit the AC.

I suppose if you want to have critical hits on 20, why not have minimum damage if you just hit the AC?
Others use critical hits but not critical fumbles, simply the 1 "always misses". So, why not use critical fumbles?

Just to be clear this is simply a discussion, I am not advocating one mechanic over the other.

 

[GlassJaw]

Crits are a necessary part of the game. Rolling a 1 and rolling a 20 add excitement to the game. We use critical hit cards, but not critical fail. A one is just a miss.

Fun? Sometimes. Necessary? Absolutely not.

I'd actually like to see more frequent crits but less swinginess. Again, bringing back the increased crit ranges but tone down the amount of crit damage, at least the spikes. 5E is too spikey: either crits are lackluster (yay I get to roll 2d6 and got snake eyes) or Yahtzee (rogue sneak attack or paladin smite).

One of my side projects is redoing the weapon table. I went back to increased crit ranges like 3ed with without the multipliers. I've been crunching the numbers for maxxing the weapon's base damage dice and then rolling additional crit damage. Additional dice don't get doubled.

So a greatsword would crit on 19-20 and do 12+2d6 damage and a greataxe would crit on a 20 and do 12+2d12 damage.

The math works out surprisingly well and opens up a TON of design space to utilize crits. Average damage is better because the floor is higher but less spiky because the crit damage is controlled.

Someday I'll get around to finishing it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So a greatsword would crit on 19-20 and do 12+2d6 damage and a greataxe would crit on a 20 and do 12+2d12 damage.

So using your system style how much damage does a Fire Giant do?

I really don't think I'd like to have my PC on the end of that hit!

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Rolling a 20 back in the day and knowing (barring immunity to magical weapons of insufficient pluses or somesuch) that you had them with that shot, was still a great feeling. But for people used to critical hits, I don't know that you can put the genie back in that bottle.

But that's the point, we "baked in" the excitement by adding the rule. Before a natural 20 was exciting because it allowed you to hit AC's which would otherwise be "unhitable". Otherwise, a 20 is no different from a 10 as long as both rolls hit the AC.

I suppose if you want to have critical hits on 20, why not have minimum damage if you just hit the AC?
Others use critical hits but not critical fumbles, simply the 1 "always misses". So, why not use critical fumbles?

Just to be clear this is simply a discussion, I am not advocating one mechanic over the other.