D&D (2024) Enhanced Critical Hits (Dynamic Critical Hits, WIP+)

[Xeviat]

It actually IS an argument for it. The risk of going to 0 hp, especially when full or near-full, at a time when you know it might happen more reasonably (like a BBEG critical hit) adds excitement to the game.


It hardly ever happens as it is, so having a bit more of a chance of it happening increases the tension--which is part of the fun. So, yep, another argument for more of that.


And many wouldn't when the odds are so extreme. So... so what to your so what?

A PC might normally take 15 damage from a crit but takes 30 instead and is suddenly out of the fight for the moment!? Now the situation is more dangerous and the players have to work harder with the increased challenge.

And when a character takes out a stronger foe when they get really lucky, the group remembers it.

I mean, @Xeviat gave you a like on that post, so agrees with you it seems, so I'll let it rest, but I know a lot of players who enjoy the drama that our critical damage creates. And they idea of allowing dynamic criticals to explode will create a similar tension.

There are certainly games where I'd want the potential lethality of fully exploding Critical Hits. Slow recovery (short rests are 8 hours, long rests are 2 days), horror rules, strict tracking of supplies... I want to do another horror game.

 

[ezo]

Regardless of whether crits do or don’t favor monsters, I don’t agree with this.

So... did I convinced you that crits don't really favor monsters more than PCs? I mean, that was your point before but now you said it is "regardless" of that point.

Crits exist because it feels like a natural 20 should be special.

Which originally it never did, but I blame Dragon Magazine for bringing it into the game and 2E for making it official!

The attack roll is binary: hit or miss. What number you hit on doesn't matter. If I need an 8 or 9 (typical), it doesn't matter if I roll an 8, 13, 19, or 20--they all hit. If you roll a 1, 4, or 6 they all miss. A 1 isn't any better or worse than a 7. And a 9 isn't any better or worse than a 20.

I find it mildly amusing when someone says "I missed by 1!" Consider this image of a d20:

If you needed to roll an 8, but got a 7, why do you think you missed by 1? The 20 is right next to the 7, but the 4 is one facet away also. I know perfectly well what they mean, but it has no bearing on the fact that they missed. It might not make sense, but it is just the way I see it.

Most people don’t really put much thought into whether crits favor monsters or PCs, they just want something special and exciting to happen when they roll a natural 20. And the game designers know that, and they know that meeting that expectation is important, even though on paper it is better for the monsters (or even if it was).

They would not want something exciting on a 20 if it really favored the monsters.

Take critical fumbles on a 1. Most groups don't use them. Why? Because PCs are more likely to fumble because they roll more often than monsters. It isn't a lot more, but groups notice it IME, and so fumbles are generally rejected.

Anyway, we can disagree on this, it isn't a big deal as far as I am concerned, but frankly I have never had anyone demonstrate how critical hit rules actually favor monsters.

 

[Charlaquin]

So... did I convinced you that crits don't really favor monsters more than PCs? I mean, that was your point before but now you said it is "regardless" of that point.

No, I just didn’t think there was any use arguing that point. We disagree on the basic fact that monsters make more attack rolls than players do. We won’t be able to agree on who crits favor if we don’t agree on that underlying point, and without data we won’t be able to convince each other of that underlying point. But, either way I think players would want critical hits.

Take critical fumbles on a 1. Most groups don't use them. Why? Because PCs are more likely to fumble because they roll more often than monsters. It isn't a lot more, but groups notice it IME, and so fumbles are generally rejected.

Obviously I disagree with you there as well. But, yeah, it’s a reasonable thing to agree to disagree about

 

[FrogReaver]

Take critical fumbles on a 1. Most groups don't use them. Why? Because PCs are more likely to fumble because they roll more often than monsters. It isn't a lot more, but groups notice it IME, and so fumbles are generally rejected.

That’s not the reason most people don’t like fumbles.

Anyway, we can disagree on this, it isn't a big deal as far as I am concerned, but frankly I have never had anyone demonstrate how critical hit rules actually favor monsters.

An analogy if you will. Say there’s a casino game that you win 99% of the time. But to play it you have to go all in each time. If you play the game long enough you’ll eventually lose and when you do you lose everything.

Now say there was an option you could get 1.5x winnings for a slightly lower win rate. Say 98.9%. This is similar to the effect of higher variance on something providing a favorable expected value.

But if you expect to play this game a very long time, you’ll eventually lose everything and the higher chance just serves to speed up that process.

If this was an actual casino game take the higher expected value and walk away when your up a decent amount. But we don’t just walk away from an rpg when we’ve got a few wins under us.

And that’s why higher random variance is always worse for the PCs. Because eventually they will fail and failing is losing everything for the PC.

That said creating a new PC is generally free and often is done at or near the other pc’s levels. So with a different perspective maybe it’s just an opportunity to play a new PC and that’s exciting, right? But most players don’t really embrace that perspective. Losing their PC to a random high damage crit was likely a big negative for them.

 

[ezo]

Losing their PC to a random high damage crit was likely a big negative for them.

Then they would not have criticals RAW in the game, either.

And FWIW, the odds we're talking about is much lower than even 1 in 1000. For exploding crits to actually down a PC of any real level, you'd have to roll a minimum of three crits and likely much much more.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then they would not have criticals RAW in the game, either.

Why not?

And FWIW, the odds we're talking about is much lower than even 1 in 1000. For exploding crits to actually down a PC of any real level, you'd have to roll a minimum of three crits and likely much much more.

Sorry but this argument doesn’t track. If anytime someone pushes back on exploding crits, you say it won’t ever actually happen, or rarely so, then that’s actually a far better argument for not implementing it in the first place.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

@ezo do you allow exploding die on all attacks or just on nat20 rolls? I cant remember.

I have in mind of allowing all damage roll to explode once, then allow crits to add +1 weapon damage roll and remove the cap of once per attack.

 

[ezo]

Why not?

Because they would not favor PCs. But they do favor PCs, just like every rule in the game.

Sorry but this argument doesn’t track. If anytime someone pushes back on exploding crits, you say it won’t ever actually happen, or rarely so, then that’s actually a far better argument for not implementing it in the first place.

No, it tracks perfectly fine.

But otherwise yes I agree. It is so rare many times I have no bothered to use such a rule. Which is why we've adopted exploding DAMAGE on critical DAMAGE. The hit roll has no impact anymore in my games other than what it was intended for: binary succeed or fail.

@ezo do you allow exploding die on all attacks or just on nat20 rolls? I cant remember.

We don't explode damage on d20 attack rolls. We explode damage on the actual damage roll.

We've done it a couple of different ways:

1) Infinite exploding damage, but the exploding dice are all N-1 instead of N. So, you roll d6-1 if your d6 exploded on a 6.
2) One-time exploding damage. You roll max on a die, you roll another die. Simple and quicker.

Right now we are going with option 2 more for simplicity and speed of play, but my preference is for option 1.

have in mind of allowing all damage roll to explode once, then allow crits to add +1 weapon damage roll and remove the cap of once per attack.

Sounds awesome to me!