And as I said, both the first time and afterwards, that was not a standard encounter; you acted like I said it was. Perhaps that was a miscommunication on both our parts, so let's take this opportunity to clear the air in that regard.
Fair enough. Nothing I said was meant to be insulting. So I will apologise if it came across as that.
A level 6 creature is a suitable threat for an average (read unoptimised) group of 4 level 6 characters. It’s completely overpowered for a group of level 2 characters.
A CR 6 creature is a medium encounter for an average group of 4 level 6 characters. Boss fights are almost always set to Deadly, not Medium.
Yep, and what would that encounter be for a group of level 2 characters as in this case?
Deadly. As I previously mentioned, Deadly has no upper limit.
Yep, and what would that encounter be for a group of level 2 characters as in this case?
Deadly. As I previously mentioned, Deadly has no upper limit.
Exactly, and that’s the point I made. It was a deadly encounter. The very definition of a deadly encounter is that you can more or less expect a character to be killed. So it’s ‘effortlessly killing’ a character in a deadly encounter, because that’s not a challenge for the dm. The changes to monster critical hits have no real impact on the outcome of an encounter if a monster can one shot a character without a critical anyway. However in a much more even encounter where the combat is balanced and a monster can’t one shot a character unless they crit then that is a completely different matter.
quotes from dmg / storm king;
Medium. A medium encounter usually has one or two scary moments for the players, but the characters should emerge victorious with no casualties. One or more of them might need to use healing resources.
Deadly. A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.
A deadly encounter might be the only encounter the characters have on a given day (and assumes the party is at full strength), or it might be so overwhelming that the characters are expected to avoid combat at all costs.
So as I said earlier, crit hits taking out players is only an issue at low levels. Higher level parties will survive them generally, maybe one person goes down sometimes, but in general certainly from 5th level onwards crits on players will make an encounter a little bit more risky but not fatal unless you get really unlucky or are in a deadly encounter. And a deadly encounter might be the only encounter of the day so the party are at full strength, healed up etc. Having multiple classes able to cast revivify, combined with multiple powerful healing options make permadeath unlikely at higher levels. At lower levels where a monster such as a bugbear doing 2d8+2 or 11 average damage can take down a wizard with a 12 constitution in a single blow then changing the rules on crits doesn’t make any difference. It’s only a borderline improvement in evenly balanced encounters where it could take multiple hits to take down a player.
Exactly, and that’s the point I made. It was a deadly encounter. The very definition of a deadly encounter is that you can more or less expect a character to be killed.
No, it isn't. The definition of a deadly encounter is that a character might be killed. Which is why most DMs never use anything smaller than deadly, because of the sheer pointlessness.
Yep, and what would that encounter be for a group of level 2 characters as in this case?
Deadly. As I previously mentioned, Deadly has no upper limit.
Exactly, and that’s the point I made. It was a deadly encounter. The very definition of a deadly encounter is that you can more or less expect a character to be killed. So it’s ‘effortlessly killing’ a character in a deadly encounter, because that’s not a challenge for the dm. The changes to monster critical hits have no real impact on the outcome of an encounter if a monster can one shot a character without a critical anyway. However in a much more even encounter where the combat is balanced and a monster can’t one shot a character unless they crit then that is a completely different matter.
quotes from dmg / storm king;
Medium. A medium encounter usually has one or two scary moments for the players, but the characters should emerge victorious with no casualties. One or more of them might need to use healing resources.
Deadly. A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.
A deadly encounter might be the only encounter the characters have on a given day (and assumes the party is at full strength), or it might be so overwhelming that the characters are expected to avoid combat at all costs.
So as I said earlier, crit hits taking out players is only an issue at low levels. Higher level parties will survive them generally, maybe one person goes down sometimes, but in general certainly from 5th level onwards crits on players will make an encounter a little bit more risky but not fatal unless you get really unlucky or are in a deadly encounter. And a deadly encounter might be the only encounter of the day so the party are at full strength, healed up etc. Having multiple classes able to cast revivify, combined with multiple powerful healing options make permadeath unlikely at higher levels. At lower levels where a monster such as a bugbear doing 2d8+2 or 11 average damage can take down a wizard with a 12 constitution in a single blow then changing the rules on crits doesn’t make any difference. It’s only a borderline improvement in evenly balanced encounters where it could take multiple hits to take down a player.
Going to have to disagree there. 11 average damage is enough to drop any PC with 12 CON except a Barbarian, any D8 HD class with up to a 16 CON, and any D6 class with up to a 20 CON at level 1, so that is the vast majority of characters. Now consider the "Instant Death" rule under Combat > Dropping to 0 HP in the PHB:
Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum
If that attack is a critical hit, there is a good chance that your level 1 character isn't just dropped to 0 HP, they are outright dead. Any d6 HD class with 16 or less CON (9 max HP) would be dead outright from a max damage crit (19 damage), as would any d8 HD class with 12 or less CON. And any other character could just as easily be killed outright if they had taken even 1 hit before getting hit by that critical. Without the critical, most characters are just going to be dropped to 0 HP and can be healed or stabilized.
Should adventuring be dangerous? Yes, absolutely, and players should definitely understand that. But its still not a great feeling when the character you spent an hour creating and writing a backstory for and just finished introducing to everyone else is killed outright in their very first battle. And its an even worse feeling if you end up having to sit out the entire session or the majority of it because of that one die roll in your very first D&D session ever.
I saw someone mention just having the PCs start at level 3 or whatever, but from my experience attempting to do that with new players, they end up being overwhelmed by the amount of stuff they have to learn and that often results in them never learning any of it, and that is even worse with spellcasters. Maybe if you are fortunate enough to have new players that are committed to learning the game you might have better luck with that, but most of the people I play with are adults with jobs and kids and they don't have time for all that (the perspective changes after they get into the game).
Okay I will take that one. I have never seen that rule used, I know I haven’t in any of the games I run. I just ignore all damage after hitting 0. That would make things far more deadly at low levels and crits would make a big difference.
Exactly, and that’s the point I made. It was a deadly encounter. The very definition of a deadly encounter is that you can more or less expect a character to be killed.
No, it isn't. The definition of a deadly encounter is that a character might be killed. Which is why most DMs never use anything smaller than deadly, because of the sheer pointlessness.
I rarely use deadly encounters. In my game a deadly encounter is either where the players are completely ignoring all the information I feed them or for important fights that have specific impact and meaning in the campaign. Generally I have 6-8 medium and hard encounters per long rest with 1 sometimes 2 short rests. That challenges them enough most of the time.
I, for one, love the proposed rule change. It makes more sense to me. I fully support supplemental Crit systems and house rules for others' campaigns, but I think the core rules should be more mild as proposed.
That's something worth considering, as well. Designing monsters around the lack of monster crits and then letting tables that want Sudden Nonsensical Super Damage Spikes put those crits back in is much easier than designing monsters while accomodating for Sudden Nonsensical Super Damage Spikes and then allowing tables to remove them. The homebrew is easier if the crit rule as presented in Character Origins stays; DMs who want to mercilessly murder their players can simply crit on a 20 like they always had and deal their extra half-dozen dice of damage without worrying about the 'Official' rule against monster crits. And the rest of us will get monsters designed for a more Recharge-focused, stable damage paradigm that can do interesting, story-rich things instead of simply dealing a gorillion bonus damage five percent of the time without warning, rhyme, or reason.
That's something worth considering, as well. Designing monsters around the lack of monster crits and then letting tables that want Sudden Nonsensical Super Damage Spikes put those crits back in is much easier than designing monsters while accomodating for Sudden Nonsensical Super Damage Spikes and then allowing tables to remove them. The homebrew is easier if the crit rule as presented in Character Origins stays; DMs who want to mercilessly murder their players can simply crit on a 20 like they always had and deal their extra half-dozen dice of damage without worrying about the 'Official' rule against monster crits. And the rest of us will get monsters designed for a more Recharge-focused, stable damage paradigm that can do interesting, story-rich things instead of simply dealing a gorillion bonus damage five percent of the time without warning, rhyme, or reason.
All criticals are nonsensical. I dislike 'lucky shot' mechanics in games. The fact that the paladin can go from dealing 'bout ten to twelve damage with an average attack to dealing over a hundred in one shot just because that paladin's player rolled a 20 doesn't excite me, it doesn't thrill me, it doesn't make me love my d20s more - it pisses me off, when I'm thinking with my game dev hat on. Sure, the dopamine hit is real in session, but as a paladin player I hate that I get yelled at whenever I cast a spell instead of saving it for Smite Fuel, and I don't really care for Mandatory Smiting in general. Sometimes I'd like to reserve a spell slot or two for emergencies, without needing to dump my entire daily load into one goddamned nat 20 just because I'm a paladin.
Rolling an extra weapon die? That's fine. That's a decent compromise between culling the gorram crit rules entirely and/or changing them to something sensible (who here's willing to entertain allowing a player to burn their Inspiration to turn an attack into a crit, with the "crits double weapon damage die, not every dice in the pool" caveat?) and the current "once somebody crits, everybody at the table gets to add 12d-whatever to a pool and just turn the fight off altogether" nonsense where every goddamned die in Existence gets doubled. Even the Genesys dice sitting in your dice tray from that one time you tried it at a convention, and they don't even have numbers on them.
All criticals are nonsensical. I dislike 'lucky shot' mechanics in games. The fact that the paladin can go from dealing 'bout ten to twelve damage with an average attack to dealing over a hundred in one shot just because that paladin's player rolled a 20 doesn't excite me, it doesn't thrill me, it doesn't make me love my d20s more - it pisses me off, when I'm thinking with my game dev hat on. Sure, the dopamine hit is real in session, but as a paladin player I hate that I get yelled at whenever I cast a spell instead of saving it for Smite Fuel, and I don't really care for Mandatory Smiting in general. Sometimes I'd like to reserve a spell slot or two for emergencies, without needing to dump my entire daily load into one goddamned nat 20 just because I'm a paladin.
Rolling an extra weapon die? That's fine. That's a decent compromise between culling the gorram crit rules entirely and/or changing them to something sensible (who here's willing to entertain allowing a player to burn their Inspiration to turn an attack into a crit, with the "crits double weapon damage die, not every dice in the pool" caveat?) and the current "once somebody crits, everybody at the table gets to add 12d-whatever to a pool and just turn the fight off altogether" nonsense where every goddamned die in Existence gets doubled. Even the Genesys dice sitting in your dice tray from that one time you tried it at a convention, and they don't even have numbers on them.
You might be pleasantly surprised by this - but the post above makes a lot of sense to me and has me almost wanting to ban critical hits (RAW or homebrewed from the game) - or replacing them with something far less destabilizing or capable of inflicting game-changing/ending amounts of damage.
I don't think I'd be able to sell that at my table - the folks I play with love crits (and they don't have issues when monsters crit) - but I'd be open for something extra for nat 20s on attack rolls but less than what's RAW (or what we use - full rolled damage + modifiers + all damage dice rolled again).
That's something worth considering, as well. Designing monsters around the lack of monster crits and then letting tables that want Sudden Nonsensical Super Damage Spikes put those crits back in is much easier than designing monsters while accomodating for Sudden Nonsensical Super Damage Spikes and then allowing tables to remove them. The homebrew is easier if the crit rule as presented in Character Origins stays; DMs who want to mercilessly murder their players can simply crit on a 20 like they always had and deal their extra half-dozen dice of damage without worrying about the 'Official' rule against monster crits. And the rest of us will get monsters designed for a more Recharge-focused, stable damage paradigm that can do interesting, story-rich things instead of simply dealing a gorillion bonus damage five percent of the time without warning, rhyme, or reason.
It actually sounds better and easier to do the reverse, and have a little sidebar to only let PCs be able to crit.
Are Grave Clerics the only ones that have an ability that is triggered by a Critical? What aspects of this change are there that we are not talking or thinking about?
I haven't read the entire thread in detail, but it's important to note that because only PCs can crit, PC minions can't - this reduces the damage output of Beastmasters, Drakewardens, Battlesmiths, Wildfire Druids, Shepherd Druids if played the way they're intended, etc etc.
For reference, the history of critical hits over the editions
BECMI D&D, AD&D: did not exist outside of house rules, though third party products that worked with D&D, such as Empire of the Petal Throne and Arduin Grimoire, had them. For at least AD&D this was a deliberate decision (see p61 of the AD&D DMG)
D&D 3e, 3.5e: critical hits were hard to get (you had to roll to hit a second time to actually get one) and weapons could have properties that gave them more critical hits, better critical hits, or both. The extreme broken example of this was that a 3e orc used a greataxe that would typically do 1d12+4, and you had to drop PCs to -10 to actually kill them. Without a critical hit, only the squishiest of wizards could get killed by that in one hit, but with a critical hit, you multiplied damage by 3, which was plenty to one-shot not only first level characters, but mid level characters (this was enough of a problem that 3.5e switched their weapon of choice to a falchion, which did 2d4+4 with a x2 crit).
D&D 4e: critical hits were on a 20 (absent special abilities that specified otherwise) and for most monsters just did max damage, though creatures and characters that used magic weapons could get 1-6 extra dice of damage. Given the scaling of hit points and damage in 4e, critical hits were very unlikely to be fatal.
All criticals are nonsensical. I dislike 'lucky shot' mechanics in games. The fact that the paladin can go from dealing 'bout ten to twelve damage with an average attack to dealing over a hundred in one shot just because that paladin's player rolled a 20 doesn't excite me, it doesn't thrill me, it doesn't make me love my d20s more - it pisses me off, when I'm thinking with my game dev hat on. Sure, the dopamine hit is real in session, but as a paladin player I hate that I get yelled at whenever I cast a spell instead of saving it for Smite Fuel, and I don't really care for Mandatory Smiting in general. Sometimes I'd like to reserve a spell slot or two for emergencies, without needing to dump my entire daily load into one goddamned nat 20 just because I'm a paladin.
Rolling an extra weapon die? That's fine. That's a decent compromise between culling the gorram crit rules entirely and/or changing them to something sensible (who here's willing to entertain allowing a player to burn their Inspiration to turn an attack into a crit, with the "crits double weapon damage die, not every dice in the pool" caveat?) and the current "once somebody crits, everybody at the table gets to add 12d-whatever to a pool and just turn the fight off altogether" nonsense where every goddamned die in Existence gets doubled. Even the Genesys dice sitting in your dice tray from that one time you tried it at a convention, and they don't even have numbers on them.
You might be pleasantly surprised by this - but the post above makes a lot of sense to me and has me almost wanting to ban critical hits (RAW or homebrewed from the game) - or replacing them with something far less destabilizing or capable of inflicting game-changing/ending amounts of damage.
I don't think I'd be able to sell that at my table - the folks I play with love crits (and they don't have issues when monsters crit) - but I'd be open for something extra for nat 20s on attack rolls but less than what's RAW (or what we use - full rolled damage + modifiers + all damage dice rolled again).
I use the same crit system because I have seen far FAR too many double 1s on a crit roll and it is really disheartening for a player when it happens.
Yurei might desire a hit location table wherein damage done is associated with where you hit a target - head/vitals max+some bonus, foot 1 point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Thanks for this perspective. Initially, I felt this was an effort to boost martial classes by… nerfing everything else… but with the whole early game being the most dangerous, I can understand now how we are actually getting something good that’s not so obvious on first glance.
The smite and sneak attack thing for me depends. In a vacuum I don't like it. If this comes alongside substantial class changes, it might not be so bad. But if that's the plan then they made a mistake not showing the full context of their plans.
I'm fine with spells not critting. Cantrips aren't meant to be as good as weapon attacks for martials and leveled spells certainly don't have a problem being useful, heck many saving throw spells are guaranteed damage even if the monster makes the save or pops a legendary resistance on a failure.
noone is forced to anything they are saying (guiding, advising, ruling). I personally would say rogues sneak attack still crits since its in world just an amplifier in your pecision of the attack itself, so if you hit a really really vital spot as rogue, you pierce it really hard and really badly, so go for those sweet 20d6 in the end. Meanwhile a paladins smite is an external divine amplifier, that power itself varies and why should something like this has the poossibility to crit? doesnt make sense at all. Any amplifiere that is not weapon damage, would i call be able to crit, anything else cant crit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fair enough. Nothing I said was meant to be insulting. So I will apologise if it came across as that.
Deadly. As I previously mentioned, Deadly has no upper limit.
Exactly, and that’s the point I made. It was a deadly encounter. The very definition of a deadly encounter is that you can more or less expect a character to be killed. So it’s ‘effortlessly killing’ a character in a deadly encounter, because that’s not a challenge for the dm. The changes to monster critical hits have no real impact on the outcome of an encounter if a monster can one shot a character without a critical anyway. However in a much more even encounter where the combat is balanced and a monster can’t one shot a character unless they crit then that is a completely different matter.
quotes from dmg / storm king;
Medium. A medium encounter usually has one or two scary moments for the players, but the characters should emerge victorious with no casualties. One or more of them might need to use healing resources.
Deadly. A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.
A deadly encounter might be the only encounter the characters have on a given day (and assumes the party is at full strength), or it might be so overwhelming that the characters are expected to avoid combat at all costs.
So as I said earlier, crit hits taking out players is only an issue at low levels. Higher level parties will survive them generally, maybe one person goes down sometimes, but in general certainly from 5th level onwards crits on players will make an encounter a little bit more risky but not fatal unless you get really unlucky or are in a deadly encounter. And a deadly encounter might be the only encounter of the day so the party are at full strength, healed up etc. Having multiple classes able to cast revivify, combined with multiple powerful healing options make permadeath unlikely at higher levels. At lower levels where a monster such as a bugbear doing 2d8+2 or 11 average damage can take down a wizard with a 12 constitution in a single blow then changing the rules on crits doesn’t make any difference. It’s only a borderline improvement in evenly balanced encounters where it could take multiple hits to take down a player.
No, it isn't. The definition of a deadly encounter is that a character might be killed. Which is why most DMs never use anything smaller than deadly, because of the sheer pointlessness.
Going to have to disagree there. 11 average damage is enough to drop any PC with 12 CON except a Barbarian, any D8 HD class with up to a 16 CON, and any D6 class with up to a 20 CON at level 1, so that is the vast majority of characters. Now consider the "Instant Death" rule under Combat > Dropping to 0 HP in the PHB:
If that attack is a critical hit, there is a good chance that your level 1 character isn't just dropped to 0 HP, they are outright dead. Any d6 HD class with 16 or less CON (9 max HP) would be dead outright from a max damage crit (19 damage), as would any d8 HD class with 12 or less CON. And any other character could just as easily be killed outright if they had taken even 1 hit before getting hit by that critical. Without the critical, most characters are just going to be dropped to 0 HP and can be healed or stabilized.
Should adventuring be dangerous? Yes, absolutely, and players should definitely understand that. But its still not a great feeling when the character you spent an hour creating and writing a backstory for and just finished introducing to everyone else is killed outright in their very first battle. And its an even worse feeling if you end up having to sit out the entire session or the majority of it because of that one die roll in your very first D&D session ever.
I saw someone mention just having the PCs start at level 3 or whatever, but from my experience attempting to do that with new players, they end up being overwhelmed by the amount of stuff they have to learn and that often results in them never learning any of it, and that is even worse with spellcasters. Maybe if you are fortunate enough to have new players that are committed to learning the game you might have better luck with that, but most of the people I play with are adults with jobs and kids and they don't have time for all that (the perspective changes after they get into the game).
Okay I will take that one. I have never seen that rule used, I know I haven’t in any of the games I run. I just ignore all damage after hitting 0. That would make things far more deadly at low levels and crits would make a big difference.
I rarely use deadly encounters. In my game a deadly encounter is either where the players are completely ignoring all the information I feed them or for important fights that have specific impact and meaning in the campaign. Generally I have 6-8 medium and hard encounters per long rest with 1 sometimes 2 short rests. That challenges them enough most of the time.
I, for one, love the proposed rule change. It makes more sense to me. I fully support supplemental Crit systems and house rules for others' campaigns, but I think the core rules should be more mild as proposed.
That's something worth considering, as well. Designing monsters around the lack of monster crits and then letting tables that want Sudden Nonsensical Super Damage Spikes put those crits back in is much easier than designing monsters while accomodating for Sudden Nonsensical Super Damage Spikes and then allowing tables to remove them. The homebrew is easier if the crit rule as presented in Character Origins stays; DMs who want to mercilessly murder their players can simply crit on a 20 like they always had and deal their extra half-dozen dice of damage without worrying about the 'Official' rule against monster crits. And the rest of us will get monsters designed for a more Recharge-focused, stable damage paradigm that can do interesting, story-rich things instead of simply dealing a gorillion bonus damage five percent of the time without warning, rhyme, or reason.
Please do not contact or message me.
How exactly are enemy criticals nonsensical?
You mistake me.
All criticals are nonsensical. I dislike 'lucky shot' mechanics in games. The fact that the paladin can go from dealing 'bout ten to twelve damage with an average attack to dealing over a hundred in one shot just because that paladin's player rolled a 20 doesn't excite me, it doesn't thrill me, it doesn't make me love my d20s more - it pisses me off, when I'm thinking with my game dev hat on. Sure, the dopamine hit is real in session, but as a paladin player I hate that I get yelled at whenever I cast a spell instead of saving it for Smite Fuel, and I don't really care for Mandatory Smiting in general. Sometimes I'd like to reserve a spell slot or two for emergencies, without needing to dump my entire daily load into one goddamned nat 20 just because I'm a paladin.
Rolling an extra weapon die? That's fine. That's a decent compromise between culling the gorram crit rules entirely and/or changing them to something sensible (who here's willing to entertain allowing a player to burn their Inspiration to turn an attack into a crit, with the "crits double weapon damage die, not every dice in the pool" caveat?) and the current "once somebody crits, everybody at the table gets to add 12d-whatever to a pool and just turn the fight off altogether" nonsense where every goddamned die in Existence gets doubled. Even the Genesys dice sitting in your dice tray from that one time you tried it at a convention, and they don't even have numbers on them.
Please do not contact or message me.
You might be pleasantly surprised by this - but the post above makes a lot of sense to me and has me almost wanting to ban critical hits (RAW or homebrewed from the game) - or replacing them with something far less destabilizing or capable of inflicting game-changing/ending amounts of damage.
I don't think I'd be able to sell that at my table - the folks I play with love crits (and they don't have issues when monsters crit) - but I'd be open for something extra for nat 20s on attack rolls but less than what's RAW (or what we use - full rolled damage + modifiers + all damage dice rolled again).
It actually sounds better and easier to do the reverse, and have a little sidebar to only let PCs be able to crit.
I haven't read the entire thread in detail, but it's important to note that because only PCs can crit, PC minions can't - this reduces the damage output of Beastmasters, Drakewardens, Battlesmiths, Wildfire Druids, Shepherd Druids if played the way they're intended, etc etc.
For reference, the history of critical hits over the editions
I use the same crit system because I have seen far FAR too many double 1s on a crit roll and it is really disheartening for a player when it happens.
Yurei might desire a hit location table wherein damage done is associated with where you hit a target - head/vitals max+some bonus, foot 1 point.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Thanks for this perspective. Initially, I felt this was an effort to boost martial classes by… nerfing everything else… but with the whole early game being the most dangerous, I can understand now how we are actually getting something good that’s not so obvious on first glance.
Come September 1st, I'll be filling out that One D&D feedback survey, encouraging them to change course on the Critical change.
Monsters can't crit. Fine.
Smite/Sneak Attack can't crit. That's terrible.
I hope that the rest of this Critical change is abandoned. Or we can just rename the game Spellcasters & Useful Assistants.
The smite and sneak attack thing for me depends. In a vacuum I don't like it. If this comes alongside substantial class changes, it might not be so bad. But if that's the plan then they made a mistake not showing the full context of their plans.
I'm fine with spells not critting. Cantrips aren't meant to be as good as weapon attacks for martials and leveled spells certainly don't have a problem being useful, heck many saving throw spells are guaranteed damage even if the monster makes the save or pops a legendary resistance on a failure.
noone is forced to anything they are saying (guiding, advising, ruling). I personally would say rogues sneak attack still crits since its in world just an amplifier in your pecision of the attack itself, so if you hit a really really vital spot as rogue, you pierce it really hard and really badly, so go for those sweet 20d6 in the end. Meanwhile a paladins smite is an external divine amplifier, that power itself varies and why should something like this has the poossibility to crit? doesnt make sense at all. Any amplifiere that is not weapon damage, would i call be able to crit, anything else cant crit.