Just saw a poll on Reddit that is somewhat relevant to this thread. Thought is was really interesting to see that very few people wanted the game to be LESS lethal.
I would be curious to see a poll broken down by level range. I think it is fair to say that, overall, the CR system vastly underestimates party power at higher levels--even a modestly challenging fight would be considered "deadly" by CR recommendations. Since the higher level ranges are where players are most likely to spend their time, I expect that is the largest part of the level range forming the opinion of how deadly the game should be. I would probably vote "more lethal" as well, though what I actually would want to vote is "better balanced", since that would imply making levels 1-3 a bit less lethal and higher levels more lethal.
I agree with you.
I would have though that it would be a bit more evenly split between More and Less for that reason, but Less Lethal is SOOO much lower than any other option that it is laughable.
I think that imbalance is a nod to desire to bring back some kind of risk to the system that many players have, outside of the risk present for your first few sessions. Maybe all of the resurrection magics need to be pushed back another tier. Maybe characters need to have only one death save instead of three. Maybe WotC needs to look at their current CR model and adjust monsters so they can just as easily drop a character to 0 in a couple of hits at later tiers like they do at levels 1-4...
I think that imbalance is a nod to desire to bring back some kind of risk to the system that many players have, outside of the risk present for your first few sessions. Maybe all of the resurrection magics need to be pushed back another tier. Maybe characters need to have only one death save instead of three. Maybe WotC needs to look at their current CR model and adjust monsters so they can just as easily drop a character to 0 in a couple of hits at later tiers like they do at levels 1-4...
Maybe limits to the number of times you can die and still be brought back?
I think that imbalance is a nod to desire to bring back some kind of risk to the system that many players have, outside of the risk present for your first few sessions. Maybe all of the resurrection magics need to be pushed back another tier. Maybe characters need to have only one death save instead of three. Maybe WotC needs to look at their current CR model and adjust monsters so they can just as easily drop a character to 0 in a couple of hits at later tiers like they do at levels 1-4...
I think the discussion of the CR system is moving in the right direction when it comes to addressing this. The imbalance is a skewness of risk toward the earlier levels. The solution you propose makes that imbalance more stark, not less. I don't see how any character would survive tier 1 without the extra two death saves. The right solution, in my mind, is to remove DM crits and make monsters more lethal at higher levels by doing more than just inflating their hp. If you think that the current level of challenge at low levels is fair, then remove crits and give the monsters somewhat more base damage to place the emphasis on strategy and preparation more than random swings--the d20 is already swingy enough.
Talk to people you play with and try to establish if they're on the same vibe.
There are people who like meat grinder kinda games and there are people that like to not feel that their characters will die right away.
A discussion on a forum will just devolve with people arguing with each other for something that's essentially a matter of preference.
It is a virtual impossibility to vet all players when creating a group, ESPECIALLY an online group, to get everyone to be onboard with "playstyles" if a significant segment of the player population believe that playing by the rules is a "meatgrinder". Imagine a DM now having to advertise, among other things, "chars can die in my campaign due to crits".
Assume a DM wants 5 players in a group. How many does that DM have to vet to get 5 that will play by his house rules, or in some cases, by the ACTUAL rules. No wonder there are a shortage of DM's. It is just another aggravation for a DM when some player ragequits because their 2nd level char fell to a Hobgoblin when it rolled a crit.
I don't think that there is a significant portion of the player base that feels like the game is a "meatgrinder" I would guess maybe 2% or so.
Talk to people you play with and try to establish if they're on the same vibe.
There are people who like meat grinder kinda games and there are people that like to not feel that their characters will die right away.
A discussion on a forum will just devolve with people arguing with each other for something that's essentially a matter of preference.
It is a virtual impossibility to vet all players when creating a group, ESPECIALLY an online group, to get everyone to be onboard with "playstyles" if a significant segment of the player population believe that playing by the rules is a "meatgrinder". Imagine a DM now having to advertise, among other things, "chars can die in my campaign due to crits".
Assume a DM wants 5 players in a group. How many does that DM have to vet to get 5 that will play by his house rules, or in some cases, by the ACTUAL rules. No wonder there are a shortage of DM's. It is just another aggravation for a DM when some player ragequits because their 2nd level char fell to a Hobgoblin when it rolled a crit.
The DM has the liberty of implementing the playstyle of the group, I think is important to set the pace of how the campaign is going to be on a session 0 - and players can choose to stay or leave.
You can't force people to play with you, if they reach out and say they are uncomfortable with how the game is going and the DM doesn't want to change, the player has the right to leave.
The same goes for a DM that's unhappy with how a player is doing stuff. They are free to kick the player out, if there is no agreement between the two parties.
Honestly, there is not even a discussion here. People are free to do whatever they want. If you can't find people that like your playstyle, I urge to look deeper, as there are plenty of people with specific tastes out there - and if you're the DM that's even easier.
I think that imbalance is a nod to desire to bring back some kind of risk to the system that many players have, outside of the risk present for your first few sessions. Maybe all of the resurrection magics need to be pushed back another tier. Maybe characters need to have only one death save instead of three. Maybe WotC needs to look at their current CR model and adjust monsters so they can just as easily drop a character to 0 in a couple of hits at later tiers like they do at levels 1-4...
I think the discussion of the CR system is moving in the right direction when it comes to addressing this. The imbalance is a skewness of risk toward the earlier levels. The solution you propose makes that imbalance more stark, not less. I don't see how any character would survive tier 1 without the extra two death saves. The right solution, in my mind, is to remove DM crits and make monsters more lethal at higher levels by doing more than just inflating their hp. If you think that the current level of challenge at low levels is fair, then remove crits and give the monsters somewhat more base damage to place the emphasis on strategy and preparation more than random swings--the d20 is already swingy enough.
maybe, as the 1D&D UA has been hinting at, the monster crit will be gone. But I don't think that is necessary. I could see "Critical Hit" or "Lethal Hit" or something being a monster feature that some monsters have, and some don't. This could apply to all tiers of play but would probably scale up to more monsters having it as the tier gets higher. So, a goblin would just do their attack with no crits, but another Tier 1 monster (I don't know monsters and CR's so imagine a tougher version of goblin, like some kind of goblin boss) has the feature "Critical Hit" or "Lethal Hit" so on a roll of a 20 they do the extra damage.
Talk to people you play with and try to establish if they're on the same vibe.
There are people who like meat grinder kinda games and there are people that like to not feel that their characters will die right away.
A discussion on a forum will just devolve with people arguing with each other for something that's essentially a matter of preference.
It is a virtual impossibility to vet all players when creating a group, ESPECIALLY an online group, to get everyone to be onboard with "playstyles" if a significant segment of the player population believe that playing by the rules is a "meatgrinder". Imagine a DM now having to advertise, among other things, "chars can die in my campaign due to crits".
Assume a DM wants 5 players in a group. How many does that DM have to vet to get 5 that will play by his house rules, or in some cases, by the ACTUAL rules. No wonder there are a shortage of DM's. It is just another aggravation for a DM when some player ragequits because their 2nd level char fell to a Hobgoblin when it rolled a crit.
I don't think that there is a significant portion of the player base that feels like the game is a "meatgrinder" I would guess maybe 2% or so.
There are at least 2 in this very thread that believe that playing by the rules are a meatgrinder.
Well, out of the survey of over 4,000 people, 91 would agree with those 2.
I think that imbalance is a nod to desire to bring back some kind of risk to the system that many players have, outside of the risk present for your first few sessions. Maybe all of the resurrection magics need to be pushed back another tier. Maybe characters need to have only one death save instead of three. Maybe WotC needs to look at their current CR model and adjust monsters so they can just as easily drop a character to 0 in a couple of hits at later tiers like they do at levels 1-4...
I think the discussion of the CR system is moving in the right direction when it comes to addressing this. The imbalance is a skewness of risk toward the earlier levels. The solution you propose makes that imbalance more stark, not less. I don't see how any character would survive tier 1 without the extra two death saves. The right solution, in my mind, is to remove DM crits and make monsters more lethal at higher levels by doing more than just inflating their hp. If you think that the current level of challenge at low levels is fair, then remove crits and give the monsters somewhat more base damage to place the emphasis on strategy and preparation more than random swings--the d20 is already swingy enough.
maybe, as the 1D&D UA has been hinting at, the monster crit will be gone. But I don't think that is necessary. I could see "Critical Hit" or "Lethal Hit" or something being a monster feature that some monsters have, and some don't. This could apply to all tiers of play but would probably scale up to more monsters having it as the tier gets higher. So, a goblin would just do their attack with no crits, but another Tier 1 monster (I don't know monsters and CR's so imagine a tougher version of goblin, like some kind of goblin boss) has the feature "Critical Hit" or "Lethal Hit" so on a roll of a 20 they do the extra damage.
I'd actually be up for that. They could also expand the crit range as the tier of monster increases so if you face something like an ancient dragon, they crit on 16-20.
I think that imbalance is a nod to desire to bring back some kind of risk to the system that many players have, outside of the risk present for your first few sessions. Maybe all of the resurrection magics need to be pushed back another tier. Maybe characters need to have only one death save instead of three. Maybe WotC needs to look at their current CR model and adjust monsters so they can just as easily drop a character to 0 in a couple of hits at later tiers like they do at levels 1-4...
I think the discussion of the CR system is moving in the right direction when it comes to addressing this. The imbalance is a skewness of risk toward the earlier levels. The solution you propose makes that imbalance more stark, not less. I don't see how any character would survive tier 1 without the extra two death saves. The right solution, in my mind, is to remove DM crits and make monsters more lethal at higher levels by doing more than just inflating their hp. If you think that the current level of challenge at low levels is fair, then remove crits and give the monsters somewhat more base damage to place the emphasis on strategy and preparation more than random swings--the d20 is already swingy enough.
maybe, as the 1D&D UA has been hinting at, the monster crit will be gone. But I don't think that is necessary. I could see "Critical Hit" or "Lethal Hit" or something being a monster feature that some monsters have, and some don't. This could apply to all tiers of play but would probably scale up to more monsters having it as the tier gets higher. So, a goblin would just do their attack with no crits, but another Tier 1 monster (I don't know monsters and CR's so imagine a tougher version of goblin, like some kind of goblin boss) has the feature "Critical Hit" or "Lethal Hit" so on a roll of a 20 they do the extra damage.
I think that's a far more elegant application of critical hits for monsters. Rather than setting a level limit for when monsters can crit PCs (and not all PCs are generated equally), having specific monsters could do this. And I'm all for things that make monsters stand out among the crowds, even if it means going forward with the 'no monster crits' (if it is to be implemented in such a way) idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I think that imbalance is a nod to desire to bring back some kind of risk to the system that many players have, outside of the risk present for your first few sessions. Maybe all of the resurrection magics need to be pushed back another tier. Maybe characters need to have only one death save instead of three. Maybe WotC needs to look at their current CR model and adjust monsters so they can just as easily drop a character to 0 in a couple of hits at later tiers like they do at levels 1-4...
I think the discussion of the CR system is moving in the right direction when it comes to addressing this. The imbalance is a skewness of risk toward the earlier levels. The solution you propose makes that imbalance more stark, not less. I don't see how any character would survive tier 1 without the extra two death saves. The right solution, in my mind, is to remove DM crits and make monsters more lethal at higher levels by doing more than just inflating their hp. If you think that the current level of challenge at low levels is fair, then remove crits and give the monsters somewhat more base damage to place the emphasis on strategy and preparation more than random swings--the d20 is already swingy enough.
maybe, as the 1D&D UA has been hinting at, the monster crit will be gone. But I don't think that is necessary. I could see "Critical Hit" or "Lethal Hit" or something being a monster feature that some monsters have, and some don't. This could apply to all tiers of play but would probably scale up to more monsters having it as the tier gets higher. So, a goblin would just do their attack with no crits, but another Tier 1 monster (I don't know monsters and CR's so imagine a tougher version of goblin, like some kind of goblin boss) has the feature "Critical Hit" or "Lethal Hit" so on a roll of a 20 they do the extra damage.
I think that's a far more elegant application of critical hits for monsters. Rather than setting a level limit for when monsters can crit PCs (and not all PCs are generated equally), having specific monsters could do this. And I'm all for things that make monsters stand out among the crowds, even if it means going forward with the 'no monster crits' (if it is to be implemented in such a way) idea.
So let's do some math here.
Let's take the example of a Goblin, that does d6 + 2 damage, and that example of a Sorcerer or Wizard with a d6 HD. Let's say that caster has a 12 Con, so 7 HP at 1st level. Now, that nasty Goblin rolls a nat 20, a 5% probability. That particular caster is auto-killed, by RAW, with 14 points of damage. The thing is, by RAW, that Goblin would have to roll both 6's on the Crit rolls, and add the +2, to reach that max of 14 HP.
The odds of that happening are .05/36 = 0.1333% chance. If you are terrified of those odds, I don't know what to tell you.
Further, why are squishy casters up front in such a dangerous situation? And yes, they could just as easily be hit with an attack from a Goblin's Short Bow. But here is a pro tip. DM's NEVER have Goblins run around solo. If the 1st level chars are having Goblin arrows raining down on them, the players already missed the signs of an ambush or went somewhere that was inadvisable.
Further, there are a ton of low level monsters a 1st level group can run into that can dish out far more than 14 HP. A pair of CR 1/2 Hobgoblins BOTH do a max of 21 damage, WITHOUT a crit. The expected value of a normal hit from one of them is 12.5. Are DM's supposed to be banned from having 1st level groups face CR 1/2 monsters?
I don’t personally think so. I’m ok with the occasional PC death. I had 3 elven fighter/magic-users named Dirk when I played AD&D because I didn’t want to spend too much time thinking up good names when character death was common. But I also don’t think it needs to be as common as it was then.
I was just offering up a solution, depending on how 1D&D goes, that might be an alternative to no monsters doing crits. It won’t completely negate character deaths, because as you pointed out some monsters can still dish out damage without a crit, but something like I suggested would help minimize it some. I also suggested in the first UA survey,when the did away with monster crits because monsters had recharge actions that were their “crits”, that if they went that route that most monsters if not all should get these recharge abilities to give the DM flexibility.
Yes, I agree. This game is notoriously poorly balanced for very low and very high level play.
At low levels, like you mentioned one unlucky crit from a monster and you could be toast, especially if you are playing a class that doesn't have the largest hit die or didn't prioritize constitution.
At high levels, + to hit creep rapidly overtakes AC creep, to the point where high level players and high CR monsters might as well not bother rolling to attack and just cut straight to the damage rolls.
Going to 0HP does not cause death, but at low levels...there's not much difference. Firstly, let's note that their time on the floor, assuming zero intervention (friendly or malevolent) is 2-6. With intervention, it can be 0-6. However, let's look at a low level character
Let's take the Wizard. L1, +1 Con. He'll have health of 7. A Gobbo crits against him, that's 2d6+2 damage, average damage of 8.5, flooring him in a single shot from full health. If our Gobbo manages to max out (a 1 in 36 chance), then that's instant death. Not very likely to be sure, however, that assumes max health. If the Wizard is down to say, 2HP because he's already taken an average hit from our Gobbo, then it only takes an average crit to kill him instantly. That's actually not unlikely, if we're looking at a crit situation. In fact, I daresay that if you're dealing with a crit situation...the likelihood for a L1 Wizard is that he'll probably be insta-gibbed. Other, more robust, classes will probably fare a bit better, but even those aren't guaranteed.
Worse, at low levels, those resources are quite rare or at least are very scarce. They might have a healing potion.. .they might not. They probably have a healing spell...but that's also a massive drain on resources at a time when those resources are most sorely needed for dealing with the enemy.
Let's not pretend that monster crits are some minor threat. They're lethal at the levels that we're talking about.
I was struck by what you said, and realized that, perhaps, the big problem isn't Critical Hit damage, it's the insta-gibb you mentioned. That is; taking your max Hit Points in damage or more will instantly kill the character.
And I found the line in the PH, it's the latter half of a short paragraph. lol
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.
So, and my math is rather poor, what if that little rule had it's threshold value upped? Make the insta-gibb a more manageable mechanic. ...to, oh say twice a characters total Hit Points of damage for the same effect?
And yes, read the entire thread, loved every comment. Thx all :)
I personally like the ideas presented where a monster that CAN crit has i in their stat block.:
Critical Hit - a natural 20 allows the creature to double all damage dice. Improved Critical - a 19 or 20 on the d20 counts as a critical hit. Natural Killer - a roll of 16 or higher on the d20 is considered a critical hit.
As you go up in CR for enemies, some gain the ability to crit. As you go up in tier, some crit easier. It's flexible, as you could delay caster crits by waiting until later tiers to give casting type enemies the feature. It would scale up higher end encounters by boosting enemy damage output by a decent bit. I would also like to see keeping ONLY a natural 20 a guaranteed hit. All other crits would only apply if the strike still beat the AC. The monster's to-hit should be significant enough at those levels to overcome the AC in most cases, but a second swipe on a multiclassed fighter who just threw up Shield and now has 25 or so AC MIGHT avoid what would have been a BIG hit.
As a DM, I hide my rolls and in the campaign I am running, early on one of them would have died if the crit had landed. hey had all put a lot into their characters and it was much too early to lose one, so the 20 that faced me became a 16 for a hit, but not a crit. They're level 6 now, so kid gloves are off and I almost got one of them in a random encounter. Series of bad rolls for the PC and good rolls for the invaders and the group was in a prickly situation. As reward for quick thinking and turning the battle, a healing potion was found amid the loot.
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.
To be honest, I really like crits. Sudden surprises and big moments are what makes the game interesting for me. If every roll is just hit or miss, then it gets boring and redundant very quickly. Unpredictability and chaos breed interesting results and fun. I play in games where there is a challenge and a chance of death because your big decisions and even bigger mistakes don't matter whatsoever if there is no chance of any monsters defeating you.
Ultimately, everyone should play how they want to play. But personally, the world wont end if one of my characters died at low levels. Either we bring them back to life later, or the player rolls up a new character and rejoins the group. Personally, the unpredictability and fun cool new elements that monster crits bring into the game for me outweigh the mild annoyances of character deaths.
But this is just my table and my style of play. Play the game how you want, and if you want to ban monster crits until level 3, or just not play with them whatsoever, then you have every right to do so at your table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I just wanted to say, I think fudging a DM die roll is a cop-out.
That is; that's not a solution. That's just a way for DMs to deal with the low level character imbalance problem, which the game clearly has. If we are to seriously find a real Rules As Written solution, we can't rely on homebrew solutions.
I just wanted to say, I think fudging a DM die roll is a cop-out.
That is; that's not a solution. That's just a way for DMs to deal with the low level character imbalance problem, which the game clearly has. If we are to seriously find a real Rules As Written solution, we can't rely on homebrew solutions.
The 'rules as written' include giving DM's explicit permission to homebrew.
Let me be clear; I'm asking people on this thread to make a ruling in an official way. To come up with a solution to an imbalance of the current rules by creating, or agreeing upon, a new rule that would be true for everyone playing the game.
The standard "the DM can rule as they please" rule, which has always been a part of the game, does not infer fudging die rolls. And never has.
Let me be clear; I'm asking people on this thread to make a ruling in an official way. To come up with a solution to an imbalance of the current rules by creating, or agreeing upon, a new rule that would be true for everyone playing the game.
Nobody here can make a rule in an official way, because only the game designers can do that.
Also, characters are supposed to die, without real threat there is no point playing. I fully intend to ignore the new version when it comes out. Im going to vote with my wallet.
Let me be clear; I'm asking people on this thread to make a ruling in an official way. To come up with a solution to an imbalance of the current rules by creating, or agreeing upon, a new rule that would be true for everyone playing the game.
The standard "the DM can rule as they please" rule, which has always been a part of the game, does not infer fudging die rolls. And never has.
Fudging rolls is rules as written, for better or worse. Page 235 of the DMG literally talks about how one of the benefits of rolling behind a screen is that you can fudge rolls. Well I agree with you that fudging rolls is generally bad unless your players are okay with it, a rules as written argument for this is just not going to work because 1) DMs are not limited to rules as written and 2) this is rules as written (as I explained above).
Anyways, monster crits work fine without fudging rolls. All you need to do is decide whether unpredictability and fun are worth the potential risk of character death/s.
I agree with you.
I would have though that it would be a bit more evenly split between More and Less for that reason, but Less Lethal is SOOO much lower than any other option that it is laughable.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think that imbalance is a nod to desire to bring back some kind of risk to the system that many players have, outside of the risk present for your first few sessions. Maybe all of the resurrection magics need to be pushed back another tier. Maybe characters need to have only one death save instead of three. Maybe WotC needs to look at their current CR model and adjust monsters so they can just as easily drop a character to 0 in a couple of hits at later tiers like they do at levels 1-4...
I mean... it is really a matter of playstyle.
Talk to people you play with and try to establish if they're on the same vibe.
There are people who like meat grinder kinda games and there are people that like to not feel that their characters will die right away.
A discussion on a forum will just devolve with people arguing with each other for something that's essentially a matter of preference.
Maybe limits to the number of times you can die and still be brought back?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think the discussion of the CR system is moving in the right direction when it comes to addressing this. The imbalance is a skewness of risk toward the earlier levels. The solution you propose makes that imbalance more stark, not less. I don't see how any character would survive tier 1 without the extra two death saves. The right solution, in my mind, is to remove DM crits and make monsters more lethal at higher levels by doing more than just inflating their hp. If you think that the current level of challenge at low levels is fair, then remove crits and give the monsters somewhat more base damage to place the emphasis on strategy and preparation more than random swings--the d20 is already swingy enough.
I don't think that there is a significant portion of the player base that feels like the game is a "meatgrinder" I would guess maybe 2% or so.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The DM has the liberty of implementing the playstyle of the group, I think is important to set the pace of how the campaign is going to be on a session 0 - and players can choose to stay or leave.
You can't force people to play with you, if they reach out and say they are uncomfortable with how the game is going and the DM doesn't want to change, the player has the right to leave.
The same goes for a DM that's unhappy with how a player is doing stuff. They are free to kick the player out, if there is no agreement between the two parties.
Honestly, there is not even a discussion here. People are free to do whatever they want. If you can't find people that like your playstyle, I urge to look deeper, as there are plenty of people with specific tastes out there - and if you're the DM that's even easier.
maybe, as the 1D&D UA has been hinting at, the monster crit will be gone. But I don't think that is necessary. I could see "Critical Hit" or "Lethal Hit" or something being a monster feature that some monsters have, and some don't. This could apply to all tiers of play but would probably scale up to more monsters having it as the tier gets higher. So, a goblin would just do their attack with no crits, but another Tier 1 monster (I don't know monsters and CR's so imagine a tougher version of goblin, like some kind of goblin boss) has the feature "Critical Hit" or "Lethal Hit" so on a roll of a 20 they do the extra damage.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Well, out of the survey of over 4,000 people, 91 would agree with those 2.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'd actually be up for that. They could also expand the crit range as the tier of monster increases so if you face something like an ancient dragon, they crit on 16-20.
I think that's a far more elegant application of critical hits for monsters. Rather than setting a level limit for when monsters can crit PCs (and not all PCs are generated equally), having specific monsters could do this. And I'm all for things that make monsters stand out among the crowds, even if it means going forward with the 'no monster crits' (if it is to be implemented in such a way) idea.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I don’t personally think so. I’m ok with the occasional PC death. I had 3 elven fighter/magic-users named Dirk when I played AD&D because I didn’t want to spend too much time thinking up good names when character death was common.
But I also don’t think it needs to be as common as it was then.
I was just offering up a solution, depending on how 1D&D goes, that might be an alternative to no monsters doing crits. It won’t completely negate character deaths, because as you pointed out some monsters can still dish out damage without a crit, but something like I suggested would help minimize it some. I also suggested in the first UA survey,when the did away with monster crits because monsters had recharge actions that were their “crits”, that if they went that route that most monsters if not all should get these recharge abilities to give the DM flexibility.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Yes, I agree. This game is notoriously poorly balanced for very low and very high level play.
At low levels, like you mentioned one unlucky crit from a monster and you could be toast, especially if you are playing a class that doesn't have the largest hit die or didn't prioritize constitution.
At high levels, + to hit creep rapidly overtakes AC creep, to the point where high level players and high CR monsters might as well not bother rolling to attack and just cut straight to the damage rolls.
I was struck by what you said, and realized that, perhaps, the big problem isn't Critical Hit damage, it's the insta-gibb you mentioned. That is; taking your max Hit Points in damage or more will instantly kill the character.
And I found the line in the PH, it's the latter half of a short paragraph. lol
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.
So, and my math is rather poor, what if that little rule had it's threshold value upped? Make the insta-gibb a more manageable mechanic. ...to, oh say twice a characters total Hit Points of damage for the same effect?
And yes, read the entire thread, loved every comment. Thx all :)
I personally like the ideas presented where a monster that CAN crit has i in their stat block.:
Critical Hit - a natural 20 allows the creature to double all damage dice.
Improved Critical - a 19 or 20 on the d20 counts as a critical hit.
Natural Killer - a roll of 16 or higher on the d20 is considered a critical hit.
As you go up in CR for enemies, some gain the ability to crit. As you go up in tier, some crit easier. It's flexible, as you could delay caster crits by waiting until later tiers to give casting type enemies the feature. It would scale up higher end encounters by boosting enemy damage output by a decent bit. I would also like to see keeping ONLY a natural 20 a guaranteed hit. All other crits would only apply if the strike still beat the AC. The monster's to-hit should be significant enough at those levels to overcome the AC in most cases, but a second swipe on a multiclassed fighter who just threw up Shield and now has 25 or so AC MIGHT avoid what would have been a BIG hit.
As a DM, I hide my rolls and in the campaign I am running, early on one of them would have died if the crit had landed. hey had all put a lot into their characters and it was much too early to lose one, so the 20 that faced me became a 16 for a hit, but not a crit. They're level 6 now, so kid gloves are off and I almost got one of them in a random encounter. Series of bad rolls for the PC and good rolls for the invaders and the group was in a prickly situation. As reward for quick thinking and turning the battle, a healing potion was found amid the loot.
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.
To be honest, I really like crits. Sudden surprises and big moments are what makes the game interesting for me. If every roll is just hit or miss, then it gets boring and redundant very quickly. Unpredictability and chaos breed interesting results and fun. I play in games where there is a challenge and a chance of death because your big decisions and even bigger mistakes don't matter whatsoever if there is no chance of any monsters defeating you.
Ultimately, everyone should play how they want to play. But personally, the world wont end if one of my characters died at low levels. Either we bring them back to life later, or the player rolls up a new character and rejoins the group. Personally, the unpredictability and fun cool new elements that monster crits bring into the game for me outweigh the mild annoyances of character deaths.
But this is just my table and my style of play. Play the game how you want, and if you want to ban monster crits until level 3, or just not play with them whatsoever, then you have every right to do so at your table.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I just wanted to say, I think fudging a DM die roll is a cop-out.
That is; that's not a solution. That's just a way for DMs to deal with the low level character imbalance problem, which the game clearly has. If we are to seriously find a real Rules As Written solution, we can't rely on homebrew solutions.
Let me be clear; I'm asking people on this thread to make a ruling in an official way. To come up with a solution to an imbalance of the current rules by creating, or agreeing upon, a new rule that would be true for everyone playing the game.
The standard "the DM can rule as they please" rule, which has always been a part of the game, does not infer fudging die rolls. And never has.
Nobody here can make a rule in an official way, because only the game designers can do that.
Also, characters are supposed to die, without real threat there is no point playing. I fully intend to ignore the new version when it comes out. Im going to vote with my wallet.
Fudging rolls is rules as written, for better or worse. Page 235 of the DMG literally talks about how one of the benefits of rolling behind a screen is that you can fudge rolls. Well I agree with you that fudging rolls is generally bad unless your players are okay with it, a rules as written argument for this is just not going to work because 1) DMs are not limited to rules as written and 2) this is rules as written (as I explained above).
Anyways, monster crits work fine without fudging rolls. All you need to do is decide whether unpredictability and fun are worth the potential risk of character death/s.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.