D&D 5E Mitigating Critical Hit Devastation

[Crothian]

Definitely a problem with the critical rules. Neither I, nor my players have a problem with PC death... except when it's really no fault of their own and they can literally do nothing about it.

There is a lot they can do. The first is to kill the enemy faster. The more attacks the enemy gets the better the chances of getting a critical hit. The second is to improve their defenses. Unless the critical hit took a character from full HP to death then they need to get hit less and heal more. The third and best is to avoid combat. Combat can be deadly and should be. So, play smarter and take advantage of everything the PCs can.

It is possible that by the time the crit happened there was nothing the PCs could do but there was a dozen decisions or more that they made that got them into the situation where a crit would kill one of them.

 

[Syntallah]

There is a lot they can do. The first is to kill the enemy faster. The more attacks the enemy gets the better the chances of getting a critical hit. The second is to improve their defenses. Unless the critical hit took a character from full HP to death then they need to get hit less and heal more. The third and best is to avoid combat. Combat can be deadly and should be. So, play smarter and take advantage of everything the PCs can.

It is possible that by the time the crit happened there was nothing the PCs could do but there was a dozen decisions or more that they made that got them into the situation where a crit would kill one of them.

That indeed is exactly what happened. Twice in three weeks. To the same Player. Who was NOT playing a tank.

 

[Crothian]

That indeed is exactly what happened. Twice in three weeks. To the same Player. Who was NOT playing a tank.

Then the player has to play smarter. This is not a new problem. This is a very old problem that players have dealt with for over thirty years.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

That indeed is exactly what happened. Twice in three weeks. To the same Player. Who was NOT playing a tank.

What level was that character? If you're looking for a more 4e feel to the early game, you might want to start at level 2 or 3.

 

[Hereticus]

As DM, I did not always show my dice rolls. Sometimes I overrode the dice to keep a player alive, and other times I chose to have a player be hit by a monster. I see my role as being one to assure a fun game, not to follow the dice.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

A couple of weeks ago, I rolled three critical hits in one night, two of them resulting in a PC death (the third was against the raging barbarian who made it through). This caught my players by surprise as we had very few deaths in all of our 4E playing time, and brought to the fore something that has been bothering me since 5E's release: a 20 is always a critical hit, no matter the skill > AC involved. To assuage the mob, I told them I was exploring ways to mitigate the critical hit:

- 3E's Threat / Confirm mechanic; simple and effective, but the DM does most of the work since I roll more dice than the players in any given night
- an Armor Check concept [ (d20 +(AC - 10)) vs a static DC ] that somebody on these boards mentioned (forgive me, I don't remember who). I like this one because I roll a 20/critical , and the player rolls a defensive roll giving some interaction to the situation.

The problem is, I don't have the math skills to compare these two mechanics. Is one clearly better than the other? Are they about the same? If you were DMing for a group that wanted such a mechanic, which would you choose?

Thanks for any insight..!

Of those two options, I'd go with 3E's threat, but only require crit confirmation for monsters. Let the PCs keep critting on 20s without needing to confirm.

Might want to consider allowing major NPCs to crit without confirming, just like PCs. Or, only requiring crit confirmation from enemies with CRs less than the PC's level.

 

[Scorpio616]

Any rule that works for the PC's will also work against them. I bet your players aren't complaining when they roll high on their crits against enemies.

Exactly. Players just need to have it explained to them if they don't want to suffer enemy's lucky crits, they don't get to inflict lucky crits either!

 

[Syntallah]

Then the player has to play smarter. This is not a new problem. This is a very old problem that players have dealt with for over thirty years.

That's one very large assumption on your part. I, and three of my seven players, have been playing this great Game since 1978. We are well aware of stupid/smart/bad/good/etc/etc play.

The player was not acting poorly, he was a rogue on the fringe and was targeted with an attack that crit, and was dropped from full to dead in one shot. I am empathetic to his frustration and told him I would research some mitigating elements. Like I have for the past ten years, I came here to ENworld for some insight, not condescension.

 

[was]

You could always change the crit rules so they do max. normal damage instead of multiplying it. It does lessen the power of crits on both sides but it's an option.

 

[Iosue]

A couple of weeks ago, I rolled three critical hits in one night, two of them resulting in a PC death (the third was against the raging barbarian who made it through). This caught my players by surprise as we had very few deaths in all of our 4E playing time, and brought to the fore something that has been bothering me since 5E's release: a 20 is always a critical hit, no matter the skill > AC involved.

I don't understand how this is a critical hit problem, since a 20 always being a critical hit was the same in 4e.