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

[Weiley31]

I always use Critical Hits. And yes, I am of the camp where the first Die is automatically the Max Damage while the second die you roll for.

Because you know how "awesome" it is to score a Critical Hit in a harrowing moment and you roll a 1 and a 1 on both dice?

Yeeeeaaaah might as well not have Crit in the first place then if I'm only gonna do 2 damage on a Crit Hit.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But for people used to critical hits, I don't know that you can put the genie back in that bottle.

Yeah, I know.

And frankly there is not a much better feeling in D&D when in comes down to the wire and you have one more chance to save the day... and you roll a 20!!! The cheers around the table, knowing the battle will be won due to your... well--good luck?

That 20 is the gambling bug really. That is what makes it appealing.

Like I said, we use critical hits, but we also use critical fumbles which can also lead to some comical and butt-saving moments (when the bad guys roll that natural 1 ).

 

[Lanefan]

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.

We've had both crits and fumbles since forever, and always had a flat non-modified roll to confirm. (to confirm a fumble it's always been 1/d6 followed by a d% roll on a chart to see what you did, we've varied a bit on crit confirming but what I use is 8-9-0 on a d10 with the roll also determining what happens)

Why the confirm roll? Because otherwise crits and fumbles happen far too often, meaning they'd either determine how every battle goes or their effects have to be toned down to near-pointlessness. As we like them to be sometimes spectacular when they do happen, we had to make them less frequent; hence the second roll.

 

[Shiroiken]

Something I fiddled with during the playtest, but never fit with the simplified concept of 5E, was exploding crits. Basically if you crit, you did max damage and made another attack roll. If that roll hits, deal normal damage in addition to the crit. If the roll crits, however, you maximize the damage and repeat the process with another attack roll. In theory you can deal infinite damage, but in reality it comes out just a bit better than the current system.

 

[DeviousQuail]

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.

For more crits and less swinginess I'd suggest the Cypher approach. Rolling a 17 on the d20 gives +1 damage, +2 for 18, +3 for 19, and +4 for 20. Crit chance is now 20% instead of 5% (guaranteed hit could still be reserved for a 20 though I doubt a 17 misses much of the time) but the damage won't ever be more than 4 higher than a normal attack. Just be wary of the Rogue/Paladin uprising if you implement this.

 

[GlassJaw]

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!

Haha I haven't got that far yet!

But no reason why monsters can't keep using the current rules. Otherwise, instead of doubling their damage dice on a crit, you could max their base damage and then roll weapon dice and add them. It raises the average damage but maintains the ceiling.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Haha I haven't got that far yet!

But no reason why monsters can't keep using the current rules. Otherwise, instead of doubling their damage dice on a crit, you could max their base damage and then roll weapon dice and add them. It raises the average damage but maintains the ceiling.

Well, a fire giant base damage is 6d6+7, so currently averages 49 damage. Using max + dice would be average 64 damage, or 15 points more.

Not to mention if you are using massive damage-type rules, 64 points is more likely to be half of max, so could drop the PC instantly.

 

[Stoutstien]

My players have critical damage immunity at lv 1 and 2. I still announce them just role normally.
I don't know if that counts.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My players have critical damage immunity at lv 1 and 2. I still announce them just role normally.
I don't know if that counts.

So, your PCs can't be crited at level 1 and 2? But they can still crit monsters?

 

[The Old Crow]

I'm part of that small percentage of people who hates crits. When I first started playing 5e my group just plain forgot to apply extra crit damage whenever a 20 was rolled. Besides the forgetting part, I found the MOAR DAMAGE thing boring. It would be cool if a crit had something interesting happen instead, like allowed some effect from the battlemaster's maneuver list. I haven't played 5e in a good while, but I talked my husband into a solo campaign that I am starting this weekend. I'll see what he thinks of crits (probably we will forget them, like we did before).