And there is an imbalance, everyone agrees to that. And many of the posts here present terrific ideas as a solution. I'm thrilled at what many have posted. And I hope this goes towards what players feel works best and pass that on to the devs. A vigorous discussion on a minute point of DM rules is, imho, the best way to get there. :)
And there is an imbalance, everyone agrees to that. And many of the posts here present terrific ideas as a solution. I'm thrilled at what many have posted. And I hope this goes towards what players feel works best and pass that on to the devs. A vigorous discussion on a minute point of DM rules is, imho, the best way to get there. :)
Not at all. I have no problem with monster’s getting crits. I have no problem with players dying. It’s all part of the game, just like losing your queen in chess or going to jail in monopoly.
After three pages in just figured I'd add my thoughts.
1. DMs should never fudge rolls...ever. Whatever happens happens and that is what the death saving throws are for and why players are different than monsters/NPCs. DMs can certainly have the monster go after a different party member that still poses a threat versus finishing off the knocked out member. If a party member is dumb enough to go on their own and get in this situation they deserve to die. Even then many things in game can bring them back and it can lead to a fun side adventure. Without fear of death the game loses a lot.
2. As you can probably guess I'm also against removing crits for monsters/NPCs. I believe it is only more realistic that everyone has a chance to crit. I can see what they are trying to do with removing it or even only allowing it at higher levels...but no.
And there is an imbalance, everyone agrees to that. And many of the posts here present terrific ideas as a solution. I'm thrilled at what many have posted. And I hope this goes towards what players feel works best and pass that on to the devs. A vigorous discussion on a minute point of DM rules is, imho, the best way to get there. :)
No, there isn't an imbalance. PCs can die from crits and non-crits. Enemies can die from crits and non-crits. Any imbalances around this are likely the creation of the DM making the encounters. Those arguing against enemy crits keep using the 'frail wizard' as their yardstick, apparently forgetting that there are 12 other classes and a DM that can tailor encounters to the party. If every encounter is a TPK or results in some kind of PC death, that's not a game issue, that's a DM or Party issue.
Well certainly you can say there's no imbalance guys, it's all good. Of course that's fine. But the topic of this thread is about answering, or contributing to, the conversation about the proposed "no crits for monsters" rule 1D&D is proposing. Is there a better way to tackle this, since WoTC are doing so themselves. Thx :)
And there is an imbalance, everyone agrees to that. And many of the posts here present terrific ideas as a solution. I'm thrilled at what many have posted. And I hope this goes towards what players feel works best and pass that on to the devs. A vigorous discussion on a minute point of DM rules is, imho, the best way to get there. :)
No, there isn't an imbalance. PCs can die from crits and non-crits. Enemies can die from crits and non-crits. Any imbalances around this are likely the creation of the DM making the encounters. Those arguing against enemy crits keep using the 'frail wizard' as their yardstick, apparently forgetting that there are 12 other classes and a DM that can tailor encounters to the party. If every encounter is a TPK or results in some kind of PC death, that's not a game issue, that's a DM or Party issue.
There is an imbalance in that the characters are limited to their character sheets. The DM has literally everything else to work with. If a DM overestimates the party and unintentionally tosses too much at them, should they nevertheless just kill off the party to 'install a sense of risk?'
If the party's dice are hot, then the encounter is quicker than expected and the DM can always add a second encounter around the corner or make the next session's encounter(s) a little harder. If the DM's dice are hot then the party has to find a replacement character, or if the entire party dies, then the whole plotline dies and the campaign has to pick up the pieces virtually from scratch. And the DM has to do re-writes to whatever extent such radical changes require. Even if it is only a general plot outline being re-written to avoid feelings of repetition, it is a pain for the DM, not just for the players.
These might not be issues for all tables. Not all tables encourage personal attachment to characters or character development beyond basic tactical improvement, but for those tables where it matters, it matters.
This is basically agreeing with what I stated, sometimes player dice are hot, other times it is the DM. The difference being that, as you said, the DM has everything else at their disposal. If dice rolls (Player or DM) aren't going the way they intended the DM has options. Is it more work? Of course, that's why so few agree to DM. But that doesn't suggest the game itself is flawed (imbalanced) or skewed against the players. A DM overestimating the party's capabilities isn't an issue with the game. Crappy dice rolls for the party isn't an issue with the game.
Well certainly you can say there's no imbalance guys, it's all good. Of course that's fine. But the topic of this thread is about answering, or contributing to, the conversation about the proposed "no crits for monsters" rule 1D&D is proposing. Is there a better way to tackle this, since WoTC are doing so themselves. Thx :)
As to this, here are suggestions in increasing order of change.
1. Leave crits as they are currently (everyone can crit)
2. Make (monster) crits only for certain monsters (eg. a feature in a stat block)
3. Make (monster) crits a Legendary action bonus of sorts (high-level creature uses LA to turn normal hit into crit)
It isn't an issue with the game, though, because the DM can homebrew solutions and can even do so on the fly. This is part of the rules, too.
Those insisting the rules should provide clear solutions to everything are, arguably, trying to reduce DM responsibility. This is not automatically a wrong argument. There is validity to it, if that is what works best for that table, if that is what they prefer.
Keep in mind that there is also AL which is pretty strick on RAW.
Well certainly you can say there's no imbalance guys, it's all good. Of course that's fine. But the topic of this thread is about answering, or contributing to, the conversation about the proposed "no crits for monsters" rule 1D&D is proposing. Is there a better way to tackle this, since WoTC are doing so themselves. Thx :)
We are all responding on the topic of the original post. You not liking the fact that we disagree with you and your sweeping generalisations doesn’t change that fact. You may think there is an imbalance and a problem, some other people might agree with you, but clearly not everybody does as per your earlier statement where you claimed everybody agrees with you… and we are all contributing, because just as you are allowed your opinion so too are we. A lot of people seem to be giving their opinion that there is no problem with monsters being able to have critical hits and WoTC should not waste time trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Our opinions on that are just as valid as yours. Combat is lethal, players should risk character death for doing something stupid. I don’t mean every time they make a less than optimal choice someone should die, but if the barbarian dives into deep water to fight a giant octopus and doesn’t have the ability to breath underwater then yes, that character is very likely going to drown, hopefully the player learns a valuable lesson and the game moves on. Dice rolls shouldn’t be fudged, unless you get super unlucky then you have up to 6 rounds for someone to cast spare the dying, cure wounds, healing word, healing spirit, pour a healing potion, use lay on hands or the celestial warlock healing ability, or the Aasimar healing hands ability, or use a healers kit or even just make a medicine check to stabilise the dying character. Even if all those options fail revivify is just a 3rd level spell, and multiple different classes can access it so even dying isn’t the end necessarily. There are a crazy number of options available, and all that doesn’t even include magic items that heal - staff of healing, amulet of the drunkard, periapt of wound closure etc. I believe there around 14 or 15 items plus all of the potions, ointments or salves.
There is an imbalance in that the characters are limited to their character sheets. The DM
Well of course they are, every player makes their character’s according to the same set of rules. If there were a free for all and everybody could do anything, the game would be pure chaos. I don’t understand the point you are making?
There is an imbalance in that the characters are limited to their character sheets. The DM
Well of course they are, every player makes their character’s according to the same set of rules. If there were a free for all and everybody could do anything, the game would be pure chaos. I don’t understand the point you are making?
The point they are making is that the DM has infinite ways to kill the players, while the players only have finite ways to stave off the DM. This means the DM can always go up - an encounter that is too easy can either be made harder or future encounters balanced better. A player, however, cannot make an encounter easier, since they are limited in what they can do.
The argument, however, ignores that DMs have multiple ways to mitigate an encounter that is too hard - adding friendly NPCs, the enemies thinking the players are not worth their time, or whatnot.
I don’t think the limitations or lack thereof for players and DMs respectively is a reason to change game balance - that’s not a problem, it is a feature of the game. What is a reason to change something about game balance would be when the game’s stated difficulty expectations do not match with reality - and CR certainly fails to do that. Experienced DMs might be able to instinctively design encounters, but adventure modules as written and recommendations to novice DMs result in widely disparate player-enemy power levels. Low level crits are one example of that problem - it isn’t just that the monsters might do well on some rolls - they can take out entire players with a single hit. No skill, no luck involved - just a 1-in-20 chance of a player death.
Now, I certainly don’t think we should remove monster crits - and even if Wizards does, as they indicated they might for OneD&D, monster crits will remain a feature at our table. I also do not support governing different monsters by different rules depending on what CR they are. That just would be something low-level, new DMs would get used to not using and have to remember to add those into the game later.
What I do think should be done - increasing starting HP just a smidge. Enough a low-level encounter can’t roll an instant kill. That would solve a low-level problem, allow DMs to implement slightly longer and more dynamic fights at the (already pretty boring) starting levels, and, percentage wise, would make little difference long-term as a few starting HP additional would swiftly be equipped by class HP amounts.
It isn't an issue with the game, though, because the DM can homebrew solutions and can even do so on the fly. This is part of the rules, too.
Those insisting the rules should provide clear solutions to everything are, arguably, trying to reduce DM responsibility. This is not automatically a wrong argument. There is validity to it, if that is what works best for that table, if that is what they prefer.
Keep in mind that there is also AL which is pretty strick on RAW.
How widespread is AL, though? To be fair, I play strictly online, there sadly being no local book or game store hosting anything. Never really understood the point of AL other than for tournament purposes.
Although, that comes under 'if that is what is best for that table'
It's basically a way to standardize play so your character created can go to any AL table and be legit. Modules are also designed around AL play.
If you have a place that does AL it is pretty fun.
The point they are making is that the DM has infinite ways to kill the players, while the players only have finite ways to stave off the DM.
I know what Kotath is saying, I don’t get the relevance. That has always been the case since the very beginning. A dm could literally just say earthquake, the ground opens up and swallows you, you die, entombed in a deep crevasse. In a hundred years time archeologists discover your corpses. Game over. The fact that players can only use what is written on their character sheet has no relation to whether monsters should be able to crit. Moreover it isn’t or shouldn’t be players v dm anyway. If the table is that hostile you are better off leaving and finding another group.
To me, the only valid reason to adjust and/or remove monster crits from the rules is for new DM/Player groups. A new DM may not realize how easily a couple bad rolls can wipe a party at early levels. They might not realize in time that the party member who was hit by an arrow a moment ago is about to suffer a crit from the other enemy who has made it to melee with his Greatsword. This PC hasn't yet had their turn and is about to be DEAD without having done a single thing in the game.
An experienced DM who rolls behind the screen gets an easy fix, the blow drops the player to 0 HP and they fall. Enemy moves on to the next. The crit, then the 9 total on the 2 d6 are ignored, so the Orc DOESN'T deliver the expected 21 damage, outright killing the PC, but deals 8, dropping them out of this fight, but with a decent chance to fight another day. A new DM, not used to having to shift on the fly when the Dice Gods get antsy, reads totals and numbers and the Rogue his friend spent a week creating, working up a backstory and everything else is done. If this is all "part of the game" and just how things go, this new payer (and perhaps entire group) may well be soured to the game. I know I wouldn't consider it much fun from either side of the table and as such, when I am DM, the fist scenario (drop to 0) is how it shakes out.
Essentially it's a case of everyone's S&S being a little different and having different tolerances and acceptance for ease of PC death means trying to have a ruleset (RaW, not "also" or "instead of" exceptions) that covers MOST bases is best. It looks like nerfing monsters, at least in early levels, is the best way to try and accommodate the most players. It's not too far a stretch to say that those more experienced, who also LIKE the chance of a character getting snuffed with never having lifted a finger, can easily apply those "house rules" that the other side currently employs. Having the nerfed version as the standard just makes it easier still for brand new folks to jump in and not have a weird moment mar the experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I crit-hit a lvl 3 with an Awakened Tree...insta-kill. Foolish me rolled out in the open so I couldn't fudge the roll. I had already killed one other player with the same Awakened Tree. Against a party of 4, I TPK'd, only one survived on death save throws. DOH!
probably the easiest thing to do, if you want to keep monster crits, but don't want to wipe out a low-level characters/groups is to just ignore the insta-kill rule. Let them make death saves, allow the party time to stabilize or heal them. Maybe even get rid of taking damage counts as two failed death saves. If the party can't be bothered to try to help a downed party member then I don't know what to say at that point. Except roll another character or keep a backup character handy.
I'm not opposed to monster crits and don't think they need to be removed, but if some are worried that monster crits are too much then that's an option to look at.
Not sure which way 1D&D will go at this point so is speculating on a problem that doesn't exist.
I crit-hit a lvl 3 with an Awakened Tree...insta-kill. Foolish me rolled out in the open so I couldn't fudge the roll. I had already killed one other player with the same Awakened Tree. Against a party of 4, I TPK'd, only one survived on death save throws. DOH!
With a 13 AC and just 59 HP it should have gone down in 2 rounds 3 at most against 4 level 3 characters. Even if they were all bards.
As to this, here are suggestions in increasing order of change.
1. Leave crits as they are currently (everyone can crit)
2. Make (monster) crits only for certain monsters (eg. a feature in a stat block)
3. Make (monster) crits a Legendary action bonus of sorts (high-level creature uses LA to turn normal hit into crit)
4. Remove (monster) crits entirely
I will go with #1, myself.
Wait, you forgot my suggestion (and Linklite too)' to remove or change the "insta-kill" rule.
This one, at the end...
Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. Ifthe damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death.
Maybe take that rule out, or perhaps make that value higher to prevent an insta-kill, but still account for massive damage? That dragon just didn't like the look of ya level3 guy, sorry.
A CR 2 Ogre Bolt Launcher does 3d10 +1. With a crit that is 6d10 +1 or expected damage of 34, max damage of 61. Let;s have a look at that Level 4 Sorcerer with a Con of 12, and 22 HP. There is a good chance that char is dead dead, from a single shot. So, now we can't have level 4 chars dying to crit's, so we now up the thresholds before monsters can crit. The entire concept is ludicrous, because at every level there is some monster that can kill a char with a crit. Or maybe what happens is this. My Dragon brings a char to zero with one of the attacks, but being intelligent uses the remaining attacks on that round to ensure the char is dead (every melee attack on an unconscious char is 2 death save fails).
Or is a DM now banned from performing coup de grace's on helpless chars?
Leave the rules as is, accept that sometimes through bad luck or bad decisions chars die.
The part you conveniently ignore--this is not a "Squishy Sorcerer" problem: Starting HP = maximum hit dice score for the class + constitution modifier. A barbarian has the highest hit dice at 1d12. The maximum starting Constitution score is 20--you have to use dice rolling and roll three sixes then add 2 from your racial trait. This gives a modifier of +5. That means the maximum HP a player an have at level 1, with a fairly specific set of circumstances reliant on luck, would be 17.
Looking only at the average damage, that 34 damage will deal 17 damage to knock the player to 0. The remaining damage equals the character's max HP, so, even at level 1, a crit can kill a player with absolutely perfect HP. That is simply bad game design--each hit should not have a 1 in 40 chance (1 in 20 for dice roll x 1 in 2 chance of rolling at or above average damage) of "oops, re-roll your character". Recall also that chance is per hit, so while 1/40 does not sound very large, when you have multiple hits per level 1 encounter, with multiple encounters per level 1, spread across thousands of games, that is going to be a really high number of players who would simply die under RAW).
Now, I would never get rid of instant death--I think it is necessary for some aspects of the game, such as falling damage (which caps at too low and very quickly reaches the point where you could fall a mile and be fine--which, yes, I know happens in the real world sometimes, but it should not happen every time a mid-to-high level character takes falling damage). Simply adding 10-15 HP or so to starting characters would mitigate a large part of the the problems with low-level crits, while representing such a tiny fraction of HP in the late game as to be relatively insignificant long-term.
A CR 2 Ogre Bolt Launcher does 3d10 +1. With a crit that is 6d10 +1 or expected damage of 34, max damage of 61. Let;s have a look at that Level 4 Sorcerer with a Con of 12, and 22 HP. There is a good chance that char is dead dead, from a single shot. So, now we can't have level 4 chars dying to crit's, so we now up the thresholds before monsters can crit. The entire concept is ludicrous, because at every level there is some monster that can kill a char with a crit. Or maybe what happens is this. My Dragon brings a char to zero with one of the attacks, but being intelligent uses the remaining attacks on that round to ensure the char is dead (every melee attack on an unconscious char is 2 death save fails).
Or is a DM now banned from performing coup de grace's on helpless chars?
Leave the rules as is, accept that sometimes through bad luck or bad decisions chars die.
The part you conveniently ignore--this is not a "Squishy Sorcerer" problem: Starting HP = maximum hit dice score for the class + constitution modifier. A barbarian has the highest hit dice at 1d12. The maximum starting Constitution score is 20--you have to use dice rolling and roll three sixes then add 2 from your racial trait. This gives a modifier of +5. That means the maximum HP a player an have at level 1, with a fairly specific set of circumstances reliant on luck, would be 17.
Looking only at the average damage, that 34 damage will deal 17 damage to knock the player to 0. The remaining damage equals the character's max HP, so, even at level 1, a crit can kill a player with absolutely perfect HP. That is simply bad game design--each hit should not have a 1 in 40 chance (1 in 20 for dice roll x 1 in 2 chance of rolling at or above average damage) of "oops, re-roll your character". Recall also that chance is per hit, so while 1/40 does not sound very large, when you have multiple hits per level 1 encounter, with multiple encounters per level 1, spread across thousands of games, that is going to be a really high number of players who would simply die under RAW).
Now, I would never get rid of instant death--I think it is necessary for some aspects of the game, such as falling damage (which caps at too low and very quickly reaches the point where you could fall a mile and be fine--which, yes, I know happens in the real world sometimes, but it should not happen every time a mid-to-high level character takes falling damage). Simply adding 10-15 HP or so to starting characters would mitigate a large part of the the problems with low-level crits, while representing such a tiny fraction of HP in the late game as to be relatively insignificant long-term.
Character "death" doesn't mean a new character must be rolled every single time. That's another part that conveniently gets ignored in this topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Certainly I realize this is an academic exercise.
And there is an imbalance, everyone agrees to that. And many of the posts here present terrific ideas as a solution. I'm thrilled at what many have posted. And I hope this goes towards what players feel works best and pass that on to the devs. A vigorous discussion on a minute point of DM rules is, imho, the best way to get there. :)
Not at all. I have no problem with monster’s getting crits. I have no problem with players dying. It’s all part of the game, just like losing your queen in chess or going to jail in monopoly.
After three pages in just figured I'd add my thoughts.
1. DMs should never fudge rolls...ever. Whatever happens happens and that is what the death saving throws are for and why players are different than monsters/NPCs. DMs can certainly have the monster go after a different party member that still poses a threat versus finishing off the knocked out member. If a party member is dumb enough to go on their own and get in this situation they deserve to die. Even then many things in game can bring them back and it can lead to a fun side adventure. Without fear of death the game loses a lot.
2. As you can probably guess I'm also against removing crits for monsters/NPCs. I believe it is only more realistic that everyone has a chance to crit. I can see what they are trying to do with removing it or even only allowing it at higher levels...but no.
No, there isn't an imbalance. PCs can die from crits and non-crits. Enemies can die from crits and non-crits. Any imbalances around this are likely the creation of the DM making the encounters. Those arguing against enemy crits keep using the 'frail wizard' as their yardstick, apparently forgetting that there are 12 other classes and a DM that can tailor encounters to the party. If every encounter is a TPK or results in some kind of PC death, that's not a game issue, that's a DM or Party issue.
Well certainly you can say there's no imbalance guys, it's all good. Of course that's fine. But the topic of this thread is about answering, or contributing to, the conversation about the proposed "no crits for monsters" rule 1D&D is proposing. Is there a better way to tackle this, since WoTC are doing so themselves. Thx :)
This is basically agreeing with what I stated, sometimes player dice are hot, other times it is the DM. The difference being that, as you said, the DM has everything else at their disposal. If dice rolls (Player or DM) aren't going the way they intended the DM has options. Is it more work? Of course, that's why so few agree to DM. But that doesn't suggest the game itself is flawed (imbalanced) or skewed against the players. A DM overestimating the party's capabilities isn't an issue with the game. Crappy dice rolls for the party isn't an issue with the game.
As to this, here are suggestions in increasing order of change.
1. Leave crits as they are currently (everyone can crit)
2. Make (monster) crits only for certain monsters (eg. a feature in a stat block)
3. Make (monster) crits a Legendary action bonus of sorts (high-level creature uses LA to turn normal hit into crit)
4. Remove (monster) crits entirely
I will go with #1, myself.
Keep in mind that there is also AL which is pretty strick on RAW.
We are all responding on the topic of the original post. You not liking the fact that we disagree with you and your sweeping generalisations doesn’t change that fact. You may think there is an imbalance and a problem, some other people might agree with you, but clearly not everybody does as per your earlier statement where you claimed everybody agrees with you… and we are all contributing, because just as you are allowed your opinion so too are we. A lot of people seem to be giving their opinion that there is no problem with monsters being able to have critical hits and WoTC should not waste time trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Our opinions on that are just as valid as yours. Combat is lethal, players should risk character death for doing something stupid. I don’t mean every time they make a less than optimal choice someone should die, but if the barbarian dives into deep water to fight a giant octopus and doesn’t have the ability to breath underwater then yes, that character is very likely going to drown, hopefully the player learns a valuable lesson and the game moves on. Dice rolls shouldn’t be fudged, unless you get super unlucky then you have up to 6 rounds for someone to cast spare the dying, cure wounds, healing word, healing spirit, pour a healing potion, use lay on hands or the celestial warlock healing ability, or the Aasimar healing hands ability, or use a healers kit or even just make a medicine check to stabilise the dying character. Even if all those options fail revivify is just a 3rd level spell, and multiple different classes can access it so even dying isn’t the end necessarily. There are a crazy number of options available, and all that doesn’t even include magic items that heal - staff of healing, amulet of the drunkard, periapt of wound closure etc. I believe there around 14 or 15 items plus all of the potions, ointments or salves.
Well of course they are, every player makes their character’s according to the same set of rules. If there were a free for all and everybody could do anything, the game would be pure chaos. I don’t understand the point you are making?
The point they are making is that the DM has infinite ways to kill the players, while the players only have finite ways to stave off the DM. This means the DM can always go up - an encounter that is too easy can either be made harder or future encounters balanced better. A player, however, cannot make an encounter easier, since they are limited in what they can do.
The argument, however, ignores that DMs have multiple ways to mitigate an encounter that is too hard - adding friendly NPCs, the enemies thinking the players are not worth their time, or whatnot.
I don’t think the limitations or lack thereof for players and DMs respectively is a reason to change game balance - that’s not a problem, it is a feature of the game. What is a reason to change something about game balance would be when the game’s stated difficulty expectations do not match with reality - and CR certainly fails to do that. Experienced DMs might be able to instinctively design encounters, but adventure modules as written and recommendations to novice DMs result in widely disparate player-enemy power levels. Low level crits are one example of that problem - it isn’t just that the monsters might do well on some rolls - they can take out entire players with a single hit. No skill, no luck involved - just a 1-in-20 chance of a player death.
Now, I certainly don’t think we should remove monster crits - and even if Wizards does, as they indicated they might for OneD&D, monster crits will remain a feature at our table. I also do not support governing different monsters by different rules depending on what CR they are. That just would be something low-level, new DMs would get used to not using and have to remember to add those into the game later.
What I do think should be done - increasing starting HP just a smidge. Enough a low-level encounter can’t roll an instant kill. That would solve a low-level problem, allow DMs to implement slightly longer and more dynamic fights at the (already pretty boring) starting levels, and, percentage wise, would make little difference long-term as a few starting HP additional would swiftly be equipped by class HP amounts.
It's basically a way to standardize play so your character created can go to any AL table and be legit. Modules are also designed around AL play.
If you have a place that does AL it is pretty fun.
https://dnd.wizards.com/adventurers-league
I know what Kotath is saying, I don’t get the relevance. That has always been the case since the very beginning. A dm could literally just say earthquake, the ground opens up and swallows you, you die, entombed in a deep crevasse. In a hundred years time archeologists discover your corpses. Game over. The fact that players can only use what is written on their character sheet has no relation to whether monsters should be able to crit. Moreover it isn’t or shouldn’t be players v dm anyway. If the table is that hostile you are better off leaving and finding another group.
To me, the only valid reason to adjust and/or remove monster crits from the rules is for new DM/Player groups. A new DM may not realize how easily a couple bad rolls can wipe a party at early levels. They might not realize in time that the party member who was hit by an arrow a moment ago is about to suffer a crit from the other enemy who has made it to melee with his Greatsword. This PC hasn't yet had their turn and is about to be DEAD without having done a single thing in the game.
An experienced DM who rolls behind the screen gets an easy fix, the blow drops the player to 0 HP and they fall. Enemy moves on to the next. The crit, then the 9 total on the 2 d6 are ignored, so the Orc DOESN'T deliver the expected 21 damage, outright killing the PC, but deals 8, dropping them out of this fight, but with a decent chance to fight another day. A new DM, not used to having to shift on the fly when the Dice Gods get antsy, reads totals and numbers and the Rogue his friend spent a week creating, working up a backstory and everything else is done. If this is all "part of the game" and just how things go, this new payer (and perhaps entire group) may well be soured to the game. I know I wouldn't consider it much fun from either side of the table and as such, when I am DM, the fist scenario (drop to 0) is how it shakes out.
Essentially it's a case of everyone's S&S being a little different and having different tolerances and acceptance for ease of PC death means trying to have a ruleset (RaW, not "also" or "instead of" exceptions) that covers MOST bases is best. It looks like nerfing monsters, at least in early levels, is the best way to try and accommodate the most players. It's not too far a stretch to say that those more experienced, who also LIKE the chance of a character getting snuffed with never having lifted a finger, can easily apply those "house rules" that the other side currently employs. Having the nerfed version as the standard just makes it easier still for brand new folks to jump in and not have a weird moment mar the experience.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I crit-hit a lvl 3 with an Awakened Tree...insta-kill. Foolish me rolled out in the open so I couldn't fudge the roll. I had already killed one other player with the same Awakened Tree. Against a party of 4, I TPK'd, only one survived on death save throws. DOH!
probably the easiest thing to do, if you want to keep monster crits, but don't want to wipe out a low-level characters/groups is to just ignore the insta-kill rule. Let them make death saves, allow the party time to stabilize or heal them. Maybe even get rid of taking damage counts as two failed death saves. If the party can't be bothered to try to help a downed party member then I don't know what to say at that point. Except roll another character or keep a backup character handy.
I'm not opposed to monster crits and don't think they need to be removed, but if some are worried that monster crits are too much then that's an option to look at.
Not sure which way 1D&D will go at this point so is speculating on a problem that doesn't exist.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
With a 13 AC and just 59 HP it should have gone down in 2 rounds 3 at most against 4 level 3 characters. Even if they were all bards.
oh snap! lol
Wait, you forgot my suggestion (and Linklite too)' to remove or change the "insta-kill" rule.
This one, at the end...
Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death.
Maybe take that rule out, or perhaps make that value higher to prevent an insta-kill, but still account for massive damage? That dragon just didn't like the look of ya level3 guy, sorry.
The part you conveniently ignore--this is not a "Squishy Sorcerer" problem: Starting HP = maximum hit dice score for the class + constitution modifier. A barbarian has the highest hit dice at 1d12. The maximum starting Constitution score is 20--you have to use dice rolling and roll three sixes then add 2 from your racial trait. This gives a modifier of +5. That means the maximum HP a player an have at level 1, with a fairly specific set of circumstances reliant on luck, would be 17.
Looking only at the average damage, that 34 damage will deal 17 damage to knock the player to 0. The remaining damage equals the character's max HP, so, even at level 1, a crit can kill a player with absolutely perfect HP. That is simply bad game design--each hit should not have a 1 in 40 chance (1 in 20 for dice roll x 1 in 2 chance of rolling at or above average damage) of "oops, re-roll your character". Recall also that chance is per hit, so while 1/40 does not sound very large, when you have multiple hits per level 1 encounter, with multiple encounters per level 1, spread across thousands of games, that is going to be a really high number of players who would simply die under RAW).
Now, I would never get rid of instant death--I think it is necessary for some aspects of the game, such as falling damage (which caps at too low and very quickly reaches the point where you could fall a mile and be fine--which, yes, I know happens in the real world sometimes, but it should not happen every time a mid-to-high level character takes falling damage). Simply adding 10-15 HP or so to starting characters would mitigate a large part of the the problems with low-level crits, while representing such a tiny fraction of HP in the late game as to be relatively insignificant long-term.
Character "death" doesn't mean a new character must be rolled every single time. That's another part that conveniently gets ignored in this topic.