Full disclosure: I'm not even entirely certain how I feel about the new crit rules myself, but I can understand the reasoning behind them, and I'm willing to see where it goes before giving some knee-jerk reaction to them.
In the absence of that it takes WOTC making a change to the core rules to address?
Why not? It has potential, and I'm willing to see where it goes. Hell, we could have our cake and eat it here too if it were presented as a modular ruleset for different types of games.
In the absence of that it takes WOTC making a change to the core rules to address?
Why not? It has potential, and I'm willing to see where it goes. Hell, we could have our cake and eat it here too if it were presented as a modular ruleset for different types of games.
Ok. So, I never once stated that I had a problem with the UA crit rules. Only that I had a preference for options between PCs and NPCs. That preference being if a PC can do it (like crit or counterspell) then NPCs can also do it. At no point did I ever argue the new (potential) rules are better or worse than the old rules as a generality. I merely stated my preference. If you like the idea of the new crit rules, great. I'm mostly indifferent because, at the end of the day, like you mentioned, I could still use the rules I previously played with while others who want to use the newer rules at their tables can do what they want. One thing I definitely like about the newer rule is the no spell crit. And, as I previously mentioned, that rule at my table would apply to PCs and NPCs alike.
Personally, I'm waiting for some 3rd party supplements before I start my next campaign anyway. Who knows, perhaps more things will have changed in UA.
Then I apologise for making that assumption about you, though in my defence I will say it was not immediately clear that was the case. Again, I'm not entirely certain about it myself, but I'm willing to see where it goes and adjust my impressions accordingly.
(Plus it's practically guaranteed that things in playtest will change. The Artificer alone went through mutiple drafts over *years*...)
So what if a low level characters dies from a crit.
Adventuring is risky.
Just roll up a new PC.
You go ahead and roll a new PC, if that's what's fun for you.
It always amazes me that people are just like "Aight.... this character gon head out".
I guess some folks like playing stat blocks with a randomly generated name. It takes me hours to concept up a character. Stats and classing is usually one of the last things I build.
So what if a low level characters dies from a crit.
Adventuring is risky.
Just roll up a new PC.
You go ahead and roll a new PC, if that's what's fun for you.
It always amazes me that people are just like "Aight.... this character gon head out".
I guess some folks like playing stat blocks with a randomly generated name. It takes me hours to concept up a character. Stats and classing is usually one of the last things I build.
I think this is a little unfair.
When I make a character, I put a lot of thought into it's background and who that character is and how they might fit into the campaign/story.
BUT
I also accept that characters die. It happens. If there wasn't a risk of death, I am not sure I would play the game. Some of the most memorable story moments in the games I have played over the decades has been centered around the death of a character. Sometimes deaths are heroic, sometimes they are not. However, just like in the real world, death doesn't care.
So what if a low level characters dies from a crit.
Adventuring is risky.
Just roll up a new PC.
You go ahead and roll a new PC, if that's what's fun for you.
It always amazes me that people are just like "Aight.... this character gon head out".
I guess some folks like playing stat blocks with a randomly generated name. It takes me hours to concept up a character. Stats and classing is usually one of the last things I build.
I think this is a little unfair.
When I make a character, I put a lot of thought into it's background and who that character is and how they might fit into the campaign/story.
BUT
I also accept that characters die. It happens. If there wasn't a risk of death, I am not sure I would play the game. Some of the most memorable story moments in the games I have played over the decades has been centered around the death of a character. Sometimes deaths are heroic, sometimes they are not. However, just like in the real world, death doesn't care.
I wasn't saying it as a catch all against everyone who is fine just rolling up a new character, just stating the concern that not everyone can just churn out a new one on the spot when they accidentally died to a random 5% chance that happened to go off.
Sometimes I'm in love with a concept and I'd be less than interested in being like "whelp, the concept I've thought about all week amounted to a wolf with a lucky critical. Now I'll never see it come to fruition. Next!"
And again, there's nothing wrong even if you do like "Bro Johnson, son of John Bronson, son of Bron Joeson, etc" If you have fun I'm glad. I just can't wrap my head around it personally. I don't play like that.
So what if a low level characters dies from a crit.
Adventuring is risky.
Just roll up a new PC.
You go ahead and roll a new PC, if that's what's fun for you.
It always amazes me that people are just like "Aight.... this character gon head out".
I guess some folks like playing stat blocks with a randomly generated name. It takes me hours to concept up a character. Stats and classing is usually one of the last things I build.
I think this is a little unfair.
When I make a character, I put a lot of thought into it's background and who that character is and how they might fit into the campaign/story.
BUT
I also accept that characters die. It happens. If there wasn't a risk of death, I am not sure I would play the game. Some of the most memorable story moments in the games I have played over the decades has been centered around the death of a character. Sometimes deaths are heroic, sometimes they are not. However, just like in the real world, death doesn't care.
I wasn't saying it as a catch all against everyone who is fine just rolling up a new character, just stating the concern that not everyone can just churn out a new one on the spot when they accidentally died to a random 5% chance that happened to go off.
Sometimes I'm in love with a concept and I'd be less than interested in being like "whelp, the concept I've thought about all week amounted to a wolf with a lucky critical. Now I'll never see it come to fruition. Next!"
I am also not saying that character deaths are easy to take. A character's death can't create a meaningful moment it if it was unloved. I don't think that we fundamentally disagree with one another.
So what if a low level characters dies from a crit.
Adventuring is risky.
Just roll up a new PC.
You go ahead and roll a new PC, if that's what's fun for you.
It always amazes me that people are just like "Aight.... this character gon head out".
I guess some folks like playing stat blocks with a randomly generated name. It takes me hours to concept up a character. Stats and classing is usually one of the last things I build.
I think this is a little unfair.
When I make a character, I put a lot of thought into it's background and who that character is and how they might fit into the campaign/story.
BUT
I also accept that characters die. It happens. If there wasn't a risk of death, I am not sure I would play the game. Some of the most memorable story moments in the games I have played over the decades has been centered around the death of a character. Sometimes deaths are heroic, sometimes they are not. However, just like in the real world, death doesn't care.
I wasn't saying it as a catch all against everyone who is fine just rolling up a new character, just stating the concern that not everyone can just churn out a new one on the spot when they accidentally died to a random 5% chance that happened to go off.
Sometimes I'm in love with a concept and I'd be less than interested in being like "whelp, the concept I've thought about all week amounted to a wolf with a lucky critical. Now I'll never see it come to fruition. Next!"
I am also not saying that character deaths are easy to take. A character's death can't create a meaningful moment it if it was unloved. I don't think that we fundamentally disagree with one another.
I don't either, I just posit that a random critical in an opening encounter might not be that meaningful moment either lol
But we'll let the folks who actually disagree debate lol
I wonder if it would improve gameplay to change the amount of damage past zero required to kill you outright from being based on your total hit points to being based on something that's less variable by level. For example, if death was at -CON instead of -HP, instant death becomes a lot less common at level 1 but a lot more common at higher levels (when PCs are far more likely to have a method of dealing with it).
I wonder if it would improve gameplay to change the amount of damage past zero required to kill you outright from being based on your total hit points to being based on something that's less variable by level. For example, if death was at -CON instead of -HP, instant death becomes a lot less common at level 1 but a lot more common at higher levels (when PCs are far more likely to have a method of dealing with it).
I have no issue with character death. What I have issue with is this brick wall, sheer-cliff "NOPE you're dead now go home and we'll call you if you're invited back" nonsense. I don't particularly care for meaningless, senseless, completely unavoidable Instant Murders. They don't really make for good stories, even with tables that can cope with character death.
I don't understand the "we'll call you part" - honestly. When a character dies, you roll up a new one and the DM works them in as quickly as possible (or at least, they should). This is just part of the game. Death doesn't always happen at convenient locales and times, but as DM, (I think) part of your responsibility is working a new player and/or character as soon as you can without it breaking the campaign or session.
And I'll say again: this is ultimately about philosophies about the game. Myself, I find it...odd...that folks are deciding what deaths "make sense" and which ones don't - that it's only fun or acceptable if the character dies in a heroic last stand or cataclysmic act that takes down an opponent, too (or something suitably poetic tragic) - especially when so much of the game consists of the PCs unceremoniously offing opponents, many of them random (i.e., not planned and often not really related to any intentional themes of the campaign). Sometimes that gnoll gets lucky - if your character wanted a safe life, free from unlikely, sudden death, they probably shouldn't have taken up adventuring as a career.
It always amazes me that people are just like "Aight.... this character gon head out".
I guess some folks like playing stat blocks with a randomly generated name. It takes me hours to concept up a character. Stats and classing is usually one of the last things I build.
Maybe a different, more measured approach could be taken? One where you're not just playing a series of mooks with ability score....but you're also not investing hours upon hours of real life into fictional characters with a reasonable chance of dying early in their career? This comes off as snarky, but that's not the tone I'm intending. I love a well-rounded, thought out character. I, also, don't want to simply play a set of stats. But I've always liked discovering the character as I go - I provide a background, some minimal but evocative details, and a core idea of the personality...but let the game and events help me shape them.
I have two warlock characters; one was started 3-4 years ago, and I love that character. LOVE them. Unfortunately, that campaign stalled and doesn't appear to be ever going anywhere ever again. This year, when we started up a new campaign, I started a new warlock. Both are hexblades, both favor melee over ranged attacks. Ultimately, they're different "people" but both sprang from the same or at least very similar gaming interests. While my earlier warlock didn't actually die, he is, for all intents and purposes, dead. I accepted it and created a new hexblade warlock - one I ended up loving even more, which surprised me.
Serious question for those who are in favor of removing monsters' ability to crit: at what level is it acceptable for a PC to die? And in what circumstances? I'm seeing a lot of people protesting "meaningless" deaths of beloved characters, but this feels more like forcing D&D to be some kind of solo-authored novel rather than a shared storylike experience that includes both the meaningful and the random.
I guess I've always just understood that part of D&D is that beloved characters can die at any time, for virtually any reason (sort of like real life) - and that if it happens, you grieve, you accept it...and you roll up a new character.
The question you should be asking is "why does the DM need to be able to crit in order to enjoy the game?" Frankly, Crawford is right - Recharge abilities are better in pretty much every respect than randomized crits, especiallyl for the DM who is in charge of monsters that already deal drastically more damage than any regular PC does with a crit. Stabilizing damage this way means A.) DMs who use static damage rather than rolled damage aren't left out in the cold the way they currently are, and B.) monster design can be overall better because Wizards doesn't have to factor in a random low chance of dealing double damage out of the blue for absolutely no reason.
The DM and the players do not need to follow the same rules. The DM gets to do things that would break the game if the players did them too, and the players get to do things that would break the game if the DM followed them. Players get to crit, DMs get to Recharge. It's a clean divide, and one that would serve the game very well - especially since critting can be a Recharge ability for certain monsters, wherein their ability to crit is special and unique to them and can be accounted for in their design.
I have no issue with character death. What I have issue with is this brick wall, sheer-cliff "NOPE you're dead now go home and we'll call you if you're invited back" nonsense. I don't particularly care for meaningless, senseless, completely unavoidable Instant Murders. They don't really make for good stories, even with tables that can cope with character death.
I don't understand the "we'll call you part" - honestly. When a character dies, you roll up a new one and the DM works them in as quickly as possible (or at least, they should). This is just part of the game. Death doesn't always happen at convenient locales and times, but as DM, (I think) part of your responsibility is working a new player and/or character as soon as you can without it breaking the campaign or session.
And I'll say again: this is ultimately about philosophies about the game. Myself, I find it...odd...that folks are deciding what deaths "make sense" and which ones don't - that it's only fun or acceptable if the character dies in a heroic last stand or cataclysmic act that takes down an opponent, too (or something suitably poetic tragic) - especially when so much of the game consists of the PCs unceremoniously offing opponents, many of them random (i.e., not planned and often not really related to any intentional themes of the campaign). Sometimes that gnoll gets lucky - if your character wanted a safe life, free from unlikely, sudden death, they probably shouldn't have taken up adventuring as a career.
It always amazes me that people are just like "Aight.... this character gon head out".
I guess some folks like playing stat blocks with a randomly generated name. It takes me hours to concept up a character. Stats and classing is usually one of the last things I build.
Maybe a different, more measured approach could be taken? One where you're not just playing a series of mooks with ability score....but you're also not investing hours upon hours of real life into fictional characters with a reasonable chance of dying early in their career? This comes off as snarky, but that's not the tone I'm intending. I love a well-rounded, thought out character. I, also, don't want to simply play a set of stats. But I've always liked discovering the character as I go - I provide a background, some minimal but evocative details, and a core idea of the personality...but let the game and events help me shape them.
I have two warlock characters; one was started 3-4 years ago, and I love that character. LOVE them. Unfortunately, that campaign stalled and doesn't appear to be ever going anywhere ever again. This year, when we started up a new campaign, I started a new warlock. Both are hexblades, both favor melee over ranged attacks. Ultimately, they're different "people" but both sprang from the same or at least very similar gaming interests. While my earlier warlock didn't actually die, he is, for all intents and purposes, dead. I accepted it and created a new hexblade warlock - one I ended up loving even more, which surprised me.
Serious question for those who are in favor of removing monsters' ability to crit: at what level is it acceptable for a PC to die? And in what circumstances? I'm seeing a lot of people protesting "meaningless" deaths of beloved characters, but this feels more like forcing D&D to be some kind of solo-authored novel rather than a shared storylike experience that includes both the meaningful and the random.
I guess I've always just understood that part of D&D is that beloved characters can die at any time, for virtually any reason (sort of like real life) - and that if it happens, you grieve, you accept it...and you roll up a new character.
I find that unless I have a strong connection to a character's story- or theme I suppose- I rarely enjoy playing them for long periods of time.
A counter question is how long does it take you from concept to creation to build a character, and if you suddenly die how does that line up with how long you are out of play?
I would say it is acceptable for a PC to die at any level. At my table however it usually only happens in situations where it feels warranted as I rarely if ever start a game below 3rd level and I tend towards 5th.
I dont regularly experience death that results in character loss so it might be over-flavoring my knee jerk reaction against it.
As I have said before, none of the experiences of others are wrong, just strange to me.
But most monsters don't recharge. It's not equivalent.
Nobody needs to crit--neither PCs or creatures run the by DM. PCs absolutely do not need to, just like PCs don't need magic items (the 5E rules pretty much explicitly call this out). It's not about need. Both monsters and PCs can use magic items (indeed, some of the most powerful fiends and foes wouldn't be the same without their signature weapons or items). It feels overly protective to disallow crits from monsters. Perhaps I'm not a very good DM or monster-runner, but in almost 5 years of experience DMing 5E (and many, many more running 1E), I've yet to create an encounter where the monster have the ability to crit wildly unbalanced or swung the outcome of the encounter. No PCS have experienced permadeath in my 5E campaign, and it's certainly not my goal to change that - but it's also not my goal to stop it.
As I've been saying: this boils down to what you (generic you) find fun. It's clear some folks do not find a random, sudden PC death to be fun, ever. It's clear some do (or can).
Full disclosure: I'm not even entirely certain how I feel about the new crit rules myself, but I can understand the reasoning behind them, and I'm willing to see where it goes before giving some knee-jerk reaction to them.
By cheesing the utter shit out of it, sure.
In the absence of that it takes WOTC making a change to the core rules to address?
Why not? It has potential, and I'm willing to see where it goes. Hell, we could have our cake and eat it here too if it were presented as a modular ruleset for different types of games.
Ok. So, I never once stated that I had a problem with the UA crit rules. Only that I had a preference for options between PCs and NPCs. That preference being if a PC can do it (like crit or counterspell) then NPCs can also do it. At no point did I ever argue the new (potential) rules are better or worse than the old rules as a generality. I merely stated my preference. If you like the idea of the new crit rules, great. I'm mostly indifferent because, at the end of the day, like you mentioned, I could still use the rules I previously played with while others who want to use the newer rules at their tables can do what they want. One thing I definitely like about the newer rule is the no spell crit. And, as I previously mentioned, that rule at my table would apply to PCs and NPCs alike.
Personally, I'm waiting for some 3rd party supplements before I start my next campaign anyway. Who knows, perhaps more things will have changed in UA.
So what if a low level characters dies from a crit.
Adventuring is risky.
Just roll up a new PC.
Then I apologise for making that assumption about you, though in my defence I will say it was not immediately clear that was the case. Again, I'm not entirely certain about it myself, but I'm willing to see where it goes and adjust my impressions accordingly.
(Plus it's practically guaranteed that things in playtest will change. The Artificer alone went through mutiple drafts over *years*...)
You go ahead and roll a new PC, if that's what's fun for you.
It always amazes me that people are just like "Aight.... this character gon head out".
I guess some folks like playing stat blocks with a randomly generated name. It takes me hours to concept up a character. Stats and classing is usually one of the last things I build.
I think this is a little unfair.
When I make a character, I put a lot of thought into it's background and who that character is and how they might fit into the campaign/story.
BUT
I also accept that characters die. It happens. If there wasn't a risk of death, I am not sure I would play the game. Some of the most memorable story moments in the games I have played over the decades has been centered around the death of a character. Sometimes deaths are heroic, sometimes they are not. However, just like in the real world, death doesn't care.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Bear in mind that a significant fraction of first-time players also have first-time DMs.
I wasn't saying it as a catch all against everyone who is fine just rolling up a new character, just stating the concern that not everyone can just churn out a new one on the spot when they accidentally died to a random 5% chance that happened to go off.
Sometimes I'm in love with a concept and I'd be less than interested in being like "whelp, the concept I've thought about all week amounted to a wolf with a lucky critical. Now I'll never see it come to fruition. Next!"
And again, there's nothing wrong even if you do like "Bro Johnson, son of John Bronson, son of Bron Joeson, etc" If you have fun I'm glad. I just can't wrap my head around it personally. I don't play like that.
I am also not saying that character deaths are easy to take. A character's death can't create a meaningful moment it if it was unloved. I don't think that we fundamentally disagree with one another.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
I don't either, I just posit that a random critical in an opening encounter might not be that meaningful moment either lol
But we'll let the folks who actually disagree debate lol
I wonder if it would improve gameplay to change the amount of damage past zero required to kill you outright from being based on your total hit points to being based on something that's less variable by level. For example, if death was at -CON instead of -HP, instant death becomes a lot less common at level 1 but a lot more common at higher levels (when PCs are far more likely to have a method of dealing with it).
I think I like that.
I don't understand the "we'll call you part" - honestly. When a character dies, you roll up a new one and the DM works them in as quickly as possible (or at least, they should). This is just part of the game. Death doesn't always happen at convenient locales and times, but as DM, (I think) part of your responsibility is working a new player and/or character as soon as you can without it breaking the campaign or session.
And I'll say again: this is ultimately about philosophies about the game. Myself, I find it...odd...that folks are deciding what deaths "make sense" and which ones don't - that it's only fun or acceptable if the character dies in a heroic last stand or cataclysmic act that takes down an opponent, too (or something suitably poetic tragic) - especially when so much of the game consists of the PCs unceremoniously offing opponents, many of them random (i.e., not planned and often not really related to any intentional themes of the campaign). Sometimes that gnoll gets lucky - if your character wanted a safe life, free from unlikely, sudden death, they probably shouldn't have taken up adventuring as a career.
Maybe a different, more measured approach could be taken? One where you're not just playing a series of mooks with ability score....but you're also not investing hours upon hours of real life into fictional characters with a reasonable chance of dying early in their career? This comes off as snarky, but that's not the tone I'm intending. I love a well-rounded, thought out character. I, also, don't want to simply play a set of stats. But I've always liked discovering the character as I go - I provide a background, some minimal but evocative details, and a core idea of the personality...but let the game and events help me shape them.
I have two warlock characters; one was started 3-4 years ago, and I love that character. LOVE them. Unfortunately, that campaign stalled and doesn't appear to be ever going anywhere ever again. This year, when we started up a new campaign, I started a new warlock. Both are hexblades, both favor melee over ranged attacks. Ultimately, they're different "people" but both sprang from the same or at least very similar gaming interests. While my earlier warlock didn't actually die, he is, for all intents and purposes, dead. I accepted it and created a new hexblade warlock - one I ended up loving even more, which surprised me.
Serious question for those who are in favor of removing monsters' ability to crit: at what level is it acceptable for a PC to die? And in what circumstances? I'm seeing a lot of people protesting "meaningless" deaths of beloved characters, but this feels more like forcing D&D to be some kind of solo-authored novel rather than a shared storylike experience that includes both the meaningful and the random.
I guess I've always just understood that part of D&D is that beloved characters can die at any time, for virtually any reason (sort of like real life) - and that if it happens, you grieve, you accept it...and you roll up a new character.
The question you should be asking is "why does the DM need to be able to crit in order to enjoy the game?" Frankly, Crawford is right - Recharge abilities are better in pretty much every respect than randomized crits, especiallyl for the DM who is in charge of monsters that already deal drastically more damage than any regular PC does with a crit. Stabilizing damage this way means A.) DMs who use static damage rather than rolled damage aren't left out in the cold the way they currently are, and B.) monster design can be overall better because Wizards doesn't have to factor in a random low chance of dealing double damage out of the blue for absolutely no reason.
The DM and the players do not need to follow the same rules. The DM gets to do things that would break the game if the players did them too, and the players get to do things that would break the game if the DM followed them. Players get to crit, DMs get to Recharge. It's a clean divide, and one that would serve the game very well - especially since critting can be a Recharge ability for certain monsters, wherein their ability to crit is special and unique to them and can be accounted for in their design.
Please do not contact or message me.
I find that unless I have a strong connection to a character's story- or theme I suppose- I rarely enjoy playing them for long periods of time.
A counter question is how long does it take you from concept to creation to build a character, and if you suddenly die how does that line up with how long you are out of play?
I would say it is acceptable for a PC to die at any level. At my table however it usually only happens in situations where it feels warranted as I rarely if ever start a game below 3rd level and I tend towards 5th.
I dont regularly experience death that results in character loss so it might be over-flavoring my knee jerk reaction against it.
As I have said before, none of the experiences of others are wrong, just strange to me.
ETA: this is in response to Yurei1453
But most monsters don't recharge. It's not equivalent.
Nobody needs to crit--neither PCs or creatures run the by DM. PCs absolutely do not need to, just like PCs don't need magic items (the 5E rules pretty much explicitly call this out). It's not about need. Both monsters and PCs can use magic items (indeed, some of the most powerful fiends and foes wouldn't be the same without their signature weapons or items). It feels overly protective to disallow crits from monsters. Perhaps I'm not a very good DM or monster-runner, but in almost 5 years of experience DMing 5E (and many, many more running 1E), I've yet to create an encounter where the monster have the ability to crit wildly unbalanced or swung the outcome of the encounter. No PCS have experienced permadeath in my 5E campaign, and it's certainly not my goal to change that - but it's also not my goal to stop it.
As I've been saying: this boils down to what you (generic you) find fun. It's clear some folks do not find a random, sudden PC death to be fun, ever. It's clear some do (or can).