First "critical hit" rules?

[Finarvyn]

This is a question for Gronan, or others from "back in the day" of one of the early campaigns.

There is a discussion on DF about the first ever critical hit and/or fumble chart:
www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=71701

I can't recall exactly when my group brought critical hits into OD&D. As long as I can remember a natural 20 has been a critical hit and a natural 1 a fumble, but I can't recall where we got the rule or when we brought it into play. I think that EPT had a crit rule as early as 1975, but Gary and Dave came up with so many rules early on and I wondered if anyone had a more definite answer to this.

[derv]

Critical hits were part of the game from the beginning. They are represented in U&WA's "Battle in the Skies" and in the Saving Roll mechanic. But, it appears you are asking about a "telling blow" in melee. The idea seems like something Arneson would have used, but I recall reading in Playing at the World that the Los Angeles gamers who came up with the thief class employed crits.

[Stormcrow]

Isn't there a bit in the draft D&D document about critical hits? I'd check for myself but—GASP!—I don't have a copy.

[Deleted]

The Dallhun Manuscript, as Crow said, includes critical hits and an "instant kill" table as well, both of which Gary excised. And when I hit MN in 1973 the Blackmoor crew was still using "double damage on a nautral 20" which I've kept.

[bestialwarlust]

Oct 3, 2015 10:14:15 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The Dallhun Manuscript, as Crow said, includes critical hits and an "instant kill" table as well, both of which Gary excised. And when I hit MN in 1973 the Blackmoor crew was still using "double damage on a nautral 20" which I've kept.

How have you found this worked in play? I've steered clear of this because I like the abstract aspect of only d6 for weapon damage. And I stay away from it as it seems to favor the Ref more.

[Deleted]

I use it. Players get jazzed when they roll a natural 20.

[Finarvyn]

Oct 3, 2015 11:11:07 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

Oct 3, 2015 10:14:15 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

And when I hit MN in 1973 the Blackmoor crew was still using "double damage on a nautral 20" which I've kept.

How have you found this worked in play?

I've played it this way as long as I can remember (with both "d6 only" and variable weapon damage) and I don't think it unbalances the game as long as the rule works for the monsters, too.

[bestialwarlust]

Oct 4, 2015 4:54:34 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Oct 3, 2015 11:11:07 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

How have you found this worked in play?

I've played it this way as long as I can remember (with both "d6 only" and variable weapon damage) and I don't think it unbalances the game as long as the rule works for the monsters, too.

That's why I stopped using it actually I found it tends to favor the DM side more as many times I'm rolling more so the chances of a crit come up for me more often. And with od&d having lower (to me more reasonable) hp that the crit roll isn't usually needed. My players don't seem to miss it I may ask the group again and see how they feel and if they'd like to see it brought back. I more inclined to have a natural 20 roll allow max damage without a roll.

I look at the d20 roll more as to whether or not you succeeded in damaging your opponent not how well the strike was placed, that's more of the d6 roll.

[aldarron]

The Dalluhn Mss. instant kill is a 2d6 roll made after any successful hit, and the table rolled on is identical to the Man to Man table in CHAINMAIL. For missile weapons, there is only the usual attack roll made against two sets of target numbers, with the second number being 2 or three integers higher. The first number (the usual CM numbers) indicates a hit, and the second an instant kill.

What doesn't seem to exist in those earliest games is a fumble mechanic.

[Deleted]

I employ the "double damage on natural 20s" rule, but it's only for players. Giving it to monsters would raise character death-rates to astronomic levels. Which is something I'm not exactly keen to do, OD&D is dangerous enough already.

[Deleted]

I like giving monsters double damage on a natural 20. It teaches players to think about tactics. Spears from the second rank FTW!

[makofan]

Currently I treat a natural 20 as max dmg (i.e. rolling a 6 for damage)

[sepulchre]

aldarron wrote:

The Dalluhn Mss. instant kill is a 2d6 roll made after any successful hit, and the table rolled on is identical to the Man to Man table in CHAINMAIL.

So with the Dalluhn tables, one rolls percentile 'to hit' dice following a successful score 'to hit', then throw dice for a chance to kill(2d6)indicated by a number that compares weapon and armor type as shown on the MTM table?

[coffee]

Oct 4, 2015 6:03:17 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

I look at the d20 roll more as to whether or not you succeeded in damaging your opponent not how well the strike was placed, that's more of the d6 roll.

This is how I've looked at it for a while now.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2015 6:03:17 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

I look at the d20 roll more as to whether or not you succeeded in damaging your opponent not how well the strike was placed, that's more of the d6 roll.

Since most people treat the attack roll as an abstraction representing a round's worth of stabs and parries, you could easily justify crits by just saying that the attacker hit twice in that round.

As far as monsters go, I've started using crit rolls to represent their special attack modes. So a crit from a giant scorpion means he's poisoned you, a crit from a warg means he's jumped and knocked you over, a crit from a zombie means he's grabbed onto your neck and is trying to bite you, etc. This way, the crits become part of the combat narrative rather than just a way to do extra damage. (this is on top of a normal damage roll BTW).

[jcstephens]

I disapprove of critical hit systems on general principles, but on those occasions when players insist on having one I use the following:

An ordinary human being has 1d6 hit points, and any weapon capable of inflicting lethal damage inflicts 1d6 points. Therefore, a roll of 6 for damage is guaranteed lethal to any man sized creature. When a 6 is rolled against multi hit die characters and creatures another die is rolled and added to the first, continuing as long as 6s are rolled. Sixes Add and Roll Over (6ARO) is simple, retains the philosophy of "one hit die is the life of a man", and occurs rarely enough not to tip the balance for or against either side.

[Finarvyn]

Oct 6, 2015 11:08:13 GMT -6 jcstephens said:

I disapprove of critical hit systems on general principles....

I like critical hits because they add a little more danger to an adventure. If a character has 10 hit points, for example, the player might know that the odds are that it would take more than two hits to kill the character. A critical hit upsets the predictability and suddenly that 1d6 damage might become 2d6 and that character suddenly faces danger. Otherwise, I find that sometimes higher level characters tend to get a little casual about combat until they have sustained a couple of hits. Of course, OD&D is dangerous at lower levels so I can see where one might omit this rule until characters rise a little in hit points.

Just to further the conversation ... what is it about critical hits that you don't like on general principles?

[Torreny]

Oct 4, 2015 6:14:37 GMT -6 aldarron said:

The Dalluhn Mss. instant kill is a 2d6 roll made after any successful hit, and the table rolled on is identical to the Man to Man table in CHAINMAIL.

Wow, that makes bihanders right lethal!

[Elphilm]

Oct 6, 2015 15:08:27 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Just to further the conversation ... what is it about critical hits that you don't like on general principles?

My beef with critical hits on a natural 20 is mostly conceptual. If you hit the target on a roll of 17 or better, one hit in four is a crit; if you hit the same target on a 12 or better, only one hit in 9 is a crit. It doesn't sit right with me that a high-level fighter will score relatively fewer critical hits than a low-level one.

[mindcontrolsquid]

Elphilm: My beef with critical hits on a natural 20 is mostly conceptual. If you hit the target on a roll of 17 or better, one hit in four is a crit; if you hit the same target on a 12 or better, only one hit in 9 is a crit. It doesn't sit right with me that a high-level fighter will score relatively fewer critical hits than a low-level one.

You have a valid point, but one must also consider the psychological aspects of the natural 20 as a concept. I've seen it have a profound effect on my own group regardless of edition; there's just something about it that almost requires it to have some sort of significance ascribed to it (and vice-versa for natural 1's). I'm certain my group would be quite cross with me if I were ever to house-rule away the benefits of critical hits.

Consider also that you're examining the issue in terms of relative to-hit scores. The chance for a natural 20 exists separately from to-hit rolls; sure, that high-level fighter can hit on a 12 or better, but he's just as likely as anyone to get in that one lucky shot, or to hit in exactly the right spot at the right time (i.e. 5%). The way I see it (and I could, of course, be wrong) the natural 20 is the great equalizer of combat, and helps to reinforce that no matter how skilled or smart a player is, there is always an element of the game (even a relatively minor one) that will be left to chance.

[Elphilm]

Rolling a d20 for attacks already makes the results random enough for my tastes. Critical hits also kind of undermine Gygax's idea of hit points as a pacing mechanism, which may be why he wasn't a fan of the concept. But, different strokes...

[tetramorph]

I've read a lot of the critiques of criticals and fumbles.

I only give crits to PCs, so that solves one criticism. I like Philotomy's Musings, so I prefer crits to indicate full vs. double damage.

But in general, I find that crits and fumbles inhance the game aspect of the game. They are just fun.

Most of my players also are big enough kids now really to enjoy a good fumble as a role play opportunity.

So I use them and we like them.

[spacelem]

Rolling a 20 is fun and deserves a little celebration, but I don't want things to be unnecessarily lethal (especially as it's the players who tend to suffer in the long run), so in my upcoming game a natural 20 will mean maximum damage (is that also how PJ does it?). This takes the sting out of rolling a good to hit, but rolling badly on the damage, without any particularly wild results.

In the Basic D&D campaign I was in that ended recently, a crit happened when you beat the opponent's AC by 10, and you did double damage (or triple if you beat it by 20, which was starting to happen as we reached the higher levels). I think that's unlikely to happen in OD&D but it sounds like it might also work, and solves the problem of all hits being crits if you need a 20 to hit.

[skydyr]

Oct 6, 2015 16:17:42 GMT -6 Elphilm said:

Oct 6, 2015 15:08:27 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Just to further the conversation ... what is it about critical hits that you don't like on general principles?

My beef with critical hits on a natural 20 is mostly conceptual. If you hit the target on a roll of 17 or better, one hit in four is a crit; if you hit the same target on a 12 or better, only one hit in 9 is a crit. It doesn't sit right with me that a high-level fighter will score relatively fewer critical hits than a low-level one.

It's definitely nonstandard, but have you ever tried something like the damage is the (d20 roll) - (number to hit -1) so if you need a 12 to hit and roll 12, you do 1 point of damage, 2 for a 13 and so forth up to 9 point for a 20?

[Deleted]

In the words of Master Yoda, "Overthinking, you are."

If you're so fussed about the high level fighter scoring fewer crits, instead do an expected value calculation for a first versus tenth level fighter over 10 rounds of combat versus an AC2 opponent.

[Porphyre]

Oct 6, 2015 16:17:42 GMT -6 Elphilm said:

My beef with critical hits on a natural 20 is mostly conceptual. If you hit the target on a roll of 17 or better, one hit in four is a crit; if you hit the same target on a 12 or better, only one hit in 9 is a crit. It doesn't sit right with me that a high-level fighter will score relatively fewer critical hits than a low-level one.

The way I would play it : 
-"natural 20" is always a succesful hit. 
-"natural 20" which is 5+ points higher than the required to-hit-score is a critical (something like the purple worm's "swallow attack")

[coffee]

Oct 6, 2015 16:17:42 GMT -6 Elphilm said:

My beef with critical hits on a natural 20 is mostly conceptual. If you hit the target on a roll of 17 or better, one hit in four is a crit; if you hit the same target on a 12 or better, only one hit in 9 is a crit. It doesn't sit right with me that a high-level fighter will score relatively fewer critical hits than a low-level one.

I had the opposite problem as a player (this was in AD&D). I had a good Dex (for a change...) and really good armor, so a good armor class. Most monsters couldn't hit me, but the ones that could would almost invariably crit. So I'd spend half a fight invulnerable and the other half on the ground.

[Elphilm]

Oct 6, 2015 19:45:07 GMT -6 skydyr said:

It's definitely nonstandard, but have you ever tried something like the damage is the (d20 roll) - (number to hit -1) so if you need a 12 to hit and roll 12, you do 1 point of damage, 2 for a 13 and so forth up to 9 point for a 20?

That would involve too much calculation in each combat round for my tastes. You could probably learn to resolve that style of combat quickly over time, but it's still clunkier than the simple elegance of the OD&D combat system.

Oct 7, 2015 1:05:14 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

The way I would play it : 
-"natural 20" is always a succesful hit. 
-"natural 20" which is 5+ points higher than the required to-hit-score is a critical (something like the purple worm's "swallow attack")

I think talysman uses these purple worm style criticals (natural 20 or 4+ points over the minimum required to hit). I'm still not a fan; it's a fine mechanic for the special ability of a specific monster, but turning it into a possible feature of every combat would again mean too much focus on numbers for my tastes.

Oct 7, 2015 5:39:46 GMT -6 coffee said:

I had the opposite problem as a player (this was in AD&D). I had a good Dex (for a change...) and really good armor, so a good armor class. Most monsters couldn't hit me, but the ones that could would almost invariably crit. So I'd spend half a fight invulnerable and the other half on the ground.

Yeah, that's the other side of the same issue. Personally, I'll happily continue to not tie double damage to any specific attack score. Any damage roll of 6 is already a "critical hit."

[aldarron]

Oct 4, 2015 23:31:54 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

aldarron wrote:

The Dalluhn Mss. instant kill is a 2d6 roll made after any successful hit, and the table rolled on is identical to the Man to Man table in CHAINMAIL.

So with the Dalluhn tables, one rolls percentile 'to hit' dice following a successful score 'to hit', then throw dice for a chance to kill(2d6)indicated by a number that compares weapon and armor type as shown on the MTM table?

Yes

[sepulchre]

mindcontrolsquid:

The way I see it (and I could, of course, be wrong) the natural 20 is the great equalizer of combat, and helps to reinforce that no matter how skilled or smart a player is, there is always an element of the game (even a relatively minor one) that will be left to chance.

Rather than a natural 20 signifying a critical hit, ruling a 'natural 20' to be an automatic hit has been the great equalizer. The elaboration of repeating 20s in the attack matrices in AD&D is inspired from this notion. Also Elphim has it, the move to a d20 ushered in randomness.

Porphyre wrote:

...(something like the purple worm's "swallow attack")

When I rolled d20 and used 'critical hits'that was how we handled it.

Elphim wrote:

Any damage roll of 6 is already a "critical hit."

That is how I see it.

The problem of a game without critical hits: no correlation between higher chances 'to hit' and lethal damage delivered in one rd;

One of the reasons I have found Chainmail to be an infinitely better assessment of combat, being that lethality is assumed in one die roll and within one rd.