Thought on critical hits

[Starbeard]

I haven't used critical hits in some time. I think I've just figured out how to put into words why. The random nature of hit dice already subsumes the idea of critical hits.

In a recent game my players ran into a 4HD monster (B/X rules). The party's elf charged in and hit, rolling 7 damage. I rolled up the monster's HD behind the screen and got a 1, 1, 2, 3 = 7 hits. This first level veteran-medium took out a 4HD monster in one round. I'd call that a critical hit.

Likewise, there are times where a 2HD monster rolls out with 16 hits, and nobody can seem to get more than 1-2 damage on it at a time. Call those fumbles, 'critical saves', or whatever. The point is, the idea of the lucky & unlucky roll is already there when you roll hits and roll damage.

[coffee]

Nov 3, 2017 4:29:29 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

The random nature of hit dice already subsume the idea of critical hits.

Exactly.

[scottenkainen]

Well said. A better reward for a critical hit is more flavor text, not a game mechanic advantage.

[Scott Anderson]

The only figures involved in every combat are the PCs. Therefore they are disproportionately impacted by critical hits and misses.

[sixdemonbag]

While I agree that rolling maximum damage is essentially a "critical hit," there is something so visceral and satisfying about rolling a 20 on the to-hit roll. As long as it works both ways (PCs and monsters) then i'm okay with the added variability and unpredictability of crits.

I will also say that all critical hit and fumble rules should be mostly optional and campaign-specific. I'm actually glad they aren't a written rule in OD&D. As written, each group already has to decide whether or not 20s and 1s are auto hits and misses, respectively, since those situations aren't in the rules either.

Bonus question: Does anyone know when critical hit house rules began appearing in the hobby? Did they exist pre-AD&D?

[Stormcrow]

If rolling a 20 on the attack roll is already visceral and satisfying, then why do you need to add critical hits? I've seen lots of players thrilled when they rolled a 20, even though they knew ahead of time they wouldn't get any mechanical benefit from it. They don't care; they just like to imagine how awesome the hit was.

[sixdemonbag]

There isn't a need, but some find it exciting. To me, the excitement of rolling a 20 isn't about doing more damage, but about hitting when the odds are low. I've never played in a game without crits but I'd really like to.

[Starbeard]

Nov 3, 2017 21:13:14 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

If rolling a 20 on the attack roll is already visceral and satisfying, then why do you need to add critical hits? I've seen lots of players thrilled when they rolled a 20, even though they knew ahead of time they wouldn't get any mechanical benefit from it. They don't care; they just like to imagine how awesome the hit was.

Me too. I typically don't tell my players what ACs they are hitting against, so the thrill of rolling a 20 is also tied to the knowledge that I don't even have to look at the table to tell if they hit or miss. Unless you are throwing things at the players that are vastly, extraordinarily out of their league, in practice 20s will always hit and 1s will always miss anyway.

[Starbeard]

Nov 3, 2017 20:50:57 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

While I agree that rolling maximum damage is essentially a "critical hit," there is something so visceral and satisfying about rolling a 20 on the to-hit roll. As long as it works both ways (PCs and monsters) then i'm okay with the added variability and unpredictability of crits.

I will also say that all critical hit and fumble rules should be mostly optional and campaign-specific. I'm actually glad they aren't a written rule in OD&D. As written, each group already has to decide whether or not 20s and 1s are auto hits and misses, respectively, since those situations aren't in the rules either.

Bonus question: Does anyone know when critical hit house rules began appearing in the hobby? Did they exist pre-AD&D?

I want to say that Empire of the Petal Throne had a rule for critical hits, but I've never read it. and could be misremembering. I think it was of the '20s hit and do full damage' variety. So they must have sprung up even in the earliest days of D&D, when it was still largely in the sphere of the C&CS.

[hamurai]

We've often used the house rule that rolling a "crit" in combat allows another action at the end of the turn, reasoning that the character maneuvered cleverly and got lucky. That worked well and added some tactical advantage when you could move again, for example. Of course, some players always opted to attack again.

[Scott Anderson]

The critical I use is limited to fighting-men only. No other character on either side gets it.

A to-hit roll of 20 by a fighting-man brings the target to 0 hits immediately. Not dead, but incapacitated.

[talysman]

Nov 3, 2017 20:50:57 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

While I agree that rolling maximum damage is essentially a "critical hit," there is something so visceral and satisfying about rolling a 20 on the to-hit roll. As long as it works both ways (PCs and monsters) then i'm okay with the added variability and unpredictability of crits.

I will also say that all critical hit and fumble rules should be mostly optional and campaign-specific. I'm actually glad they aren't a written rule in OD&D. As written, each group already has to decide whether or not 20s and 1s are auto hits and misses, respectively, since those situations aren't in the rules either.

Bonus question: Does anyone know when critical hit house rules began appearing in the hobby? Did they exist pre-AD&D?

It's in Volume 2, Monsters & Treasure, buried in the description of Purple Worms:

Any hit which scores over 20% of the minimum total required to hit, or 100% in any case, indicates the Purple Worm has swallowed its
victim.

Elsewhere, this is explained as score needed +4, or a natural 20. This evolved into the more general rule about natural 20s, but like scottenkainen, I prefer the flavor text or special effect approach, which actually fits the Purple Worm rule as well: a critical hit doesn't do extra damage, it gives the victim a time limit to escape the worm's stomach or die.

For the "lost" issue of Fight On!, I did an article, which I guess will never be published now, on weapon critical tables that use the damage roll instead of a separate roll on critical effects tables. The critical success (and failure!) results were flavor text/special effects linked to weapon type, rather than to extra damage. I did include an optional rule for extra damage on a traditional critical hit, but I think I'd revise that now so that the critical effect takes place on a +4/natural 20, with the damage roll also determining the severity, and only fighters would do extra damage. Seeing the post Piper made about EPT makes me think that critical damage handled by no extra dice rolls, just exploding damage on the standard dice roll, might be a good way to handle it. As you can probably guess, I like reducing the number of extra dice rolls.

[Stormcrow]

Critical hits that appear in the rules are not house rules.

Critical hits have been appearing in games in one form or another LONG before the invention of the role-playing game. They accompanied the invention of D&D. Gygax was fully aware of them when he published D&D, and he specifically chose NOT to include them in the rules, citing the desire that players be able to judge when they should withdraw from danger.

[geoffrey]

Nov 3, 2017 4:29:29 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

I haven't used critical hits in some time. I think I've just figured out how to put into words why. The random nature of hit dice already subsumes the idea of critical hits.

In a recent game my players ran into a 4HD monster (B/X rules). The party's elf charged in and hit, rolling 7 damage. I rolled up the monster's HD behind the screen and got a 1, 1, 2, 3 = 7 hits. This first level veteran-medium took out a 4HD monster in one round. I'd call that a critical hit.

Likewise, there are times where a 2HD monster rolls out with 16 hits, and nobody can seem to get more than 1-2 damage on it at a time. Call those fumbles, 'critical saves', or whatever. The point is, the idea of the lucky & unlucky roll is already there when you roll hits and roll damage.

Amen.

[geoffrey]

Nov 3, 2017 20:50:57 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

While I agree that rolling maximum damage is essentially a "critical hit," there is something so visceral and satisfying about rolling a 20 on the to-hit roll.

What is great about rolling a 20 is not having to consult the to hit table. You know you hit!

But what was even more satisfying was the time I hit an ogre with a two-handed sword, rolled 3d6 for damage: 18!

[sixdemonbag]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe most of what's mentioned above concerning rolling a 20 would also apply to rolling a 17, 18, or 19 as well, right? A 17 or higher always hits according to the charts, I think. That would make rolling a 17-20 all equally special! That's pretty cool!!

Also, is it common to assume that a 20 always hits no matter the magic bonuses/penalties and a 1 always misses?

I'm surprised that so many people don't do anything special for rolling a 20, but I totally dig it. One less thing to worry about. And just to reiterate, I'm not arguing for crits. As I said above, I'm glad they aren't a written rule.

[coffee]

Nov 3, 2017 20:50:57 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

Bonus question: Does anyone know when critical hit house rules began appearing in the hobby? Did they exist pre-AD&D?

They certainly did before the DMG was published, because Gary specifically warned against DMs letting their players insist on using them.

Actually, there were critical hits in D&D. Volume III, p. 27, in the Battle in the Skies (BITS) rules, there were critical hits for aerial combat.

[Deleted]

The Empire of the Petal Throne rules are as follows: If you roll a natural 20, you do double damage and roll again. If the second roll comes up a 19 or 20, the target is killed regardless of hit point.

[Deleted]

I've changed my thinking on critical hits and now use them as a regular part of combat. A crit occurs on a natural 20 or if your attack roll is 10 points higher than what you need to hit*. Generally crits do double damage.

However, I give each monster a "Special Attack" that they perform when they get a crit (in addition to their regular damage). This can be anything from tripping, grabbing, swallowing, stunning, disarming, etc. Basically, what certain monsters had for special rules, I've expanded to a general rule. For example, zombie's grab, wolves knock down, giants push you around, etc.

If the players get a crit, they can spend that crit to do extra damage but might also do a similar special attacked depending on what weapon they are using or any secret techniques they have earned. For example, if armed with a haldberd, they can use their crit to do base damage + trip their opponent.

This use of crit replaces all the old "called shot" type rules. So if a player has learned how to disarm an opponent, they don't make a special "Disarm" attack, but can spend their crit to do it. I find this a bit more realistic as well as faster in play.


*If your attack requires a 17 or higher to hit, you CANNOT get a critical, even on a nat 20.

[sixdemonbag]

Thanks for all the background history everyone.

I started with 2E (crits are an optional rule) and Basic (20s are auto hits) hence my historical confusion. So many good ideas being thrown around! It's nice to see all the different ways people implement the concept. I've never read or played 1E, so many conventions therein are lost and foreign to me.

It's also nice to see that many people eschew crits completely which seems to fit with GG's philosophy. Anyone know how DA felt about crits?

Also, here is a great post I found about the history of critical hits while googling:

songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/a-short-history-of-critical-hits-in-dd/

[EdOWar]

Nov 6, 2017 10:47:09 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I've changed my thinking on critical hits and now use them as a regular part of combat. A crit occurs on a natural 20 or if your attack roll is 10 points higher than what you need to hit*. Generally crits do double damage.

However, I give each monster a "Special Attack" that they perform when they get a crit (in addition to their regular damage). This can be anything from tripping, grabbing, swallowing, stunning, disarming, etc. Basically, what certain monsters had for special rules, I've expanded to a general rule. For example, zombie's grab, wolves knock down, giants push you around, etc.

If the players get a crit, they can spend that crit to do extra damage but might also do a similar special attacked depending on what weapon they are using or any secret techniques they have earned. For example, if armed with a haldberd, they can use their crit to do base damage + trip their opponent.

This use of crit replaces all the old "called shot" type rules. So if a player has learned how to disarm an opponent, they don't make a special "Disarm" attack, but can spend their crit to do it. I find this a bit more realistic as well as faster in play.


*If your attack requires a 17 or higher to hit, you CANNOT get a critical, even on a nat 20.

I really like this approach to crits. I may just steal it for my next game.

[Starbeard]

Nov 6, 2017 12:59:05 GMT -6 EdOWar said:

Nov 6, 2017 10:47:09 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I've changed my thinking on critical hits and now use them as a regular part of combat. A crit occurs on a natural 20 or if your attack roll is 10 points higher than what you need to hit*. Generally crits do double damage.

However, I give each monster a "Special Attack" that they perform when they get a crit (in addition to their regular damage). This can be anything from tripping, grabbing, swallowing, stunning, disarming, etc. Basically, what certain monsters had for special rules, I've expanded to a general rule. For example, zombie's grab, wolves knock down, giants push you around, etc.

If the players get a crit, they can spend that crit to do extra damage but might also do a similar special attacked depending on what weapon they are using or any secret techniques they have earned. For example, if armed with a haldberd, they can use their crit to do base damage + trip their opponent.

This use of crit replaces all the old "called shot" type rules. So if a player has learned how to disarm an opponent, they don't make a special "Disarm" attack, but can spend their crit to do it. I find this a bit more realistic as well as faster in play.


*If your attack requires a 17 or higher to hit, you CANNOT get a critical, even on a nat 20.

I really like this approach to crits. I may just steal it for my next game.

Agreed, if I were to use critical hits again I think it would involve something akin to this. It certainly has the advantage of trying to shoehorn rulings for unorthodox combat actions into the rather narrow abstractions of D&D combat.

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2017 5:24:24 GMT -6 Piper said:

This rule is a large part of why I don't use critical hits in my game. I'll play in someone's game with them, but I won't put them in my campaign.

Why would an old rule from an old game convince you to deny your players the fun of getting a crit?

[Stormcrow]

Nov 7, 2017 8:22:08 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Why would an old rule from an old game convince you to deny your players the fun of getting a crit?

Your question is biased; it presupposes that critical hits are fun, which is not obviously the prevailing viewpoint around here.

Otherwise, your question is valid: Piper did not explain what it is about the Empire of the Petal Throne rule that makes him not want to use critical hit rules in games he runs.

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2017 9:00:15 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Your question is biased; it presupposes that critical hits are fun, which is not obviously the prevailing viewpoint around here.

Well, I've never had a player get upset about being able to roll double damage.

[oakesspalding]

I like the possibility of critical hits for players, and see no reason why, if you have them, monsters therefore must have them as well. Why is that sort of asymmetry so obviously wrong? Both player-characters and monsters have a mix of advantages and disadvantages, many of them unique. Why is it so wrong to give one more to the player-characters, especially if it makes things more fun? In a campaign run by an even-handed referee who is perfectly willing to see player-characters die (sometimes just because of bad luck) things are pretty dangerous anyway.

[talysman]

Nov 7, 2017 16:39:16 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

I like the possibility of critical hits for players, and see no reason why, if you have them, monsters therefore must have them as well. Why is that sort of asymmetry so obviously wrong? Both player-characters and monsters have a mix of advantages and disadvantages, many of them unique. Why is it so wrong to give one more to the player-characters, especially if it makes things more fun? In a campaign run by an even-handed referee who is perfectly willing to see player-characters die (sometimes just because of bad luck) things are pretty dangerous anyway.

In terms of what you want a game to do, in my opinion, you can have an asymmetric design that gives monsters critical hits, but not players, or you can have a symmetric design that gives the same thing to both, but I can't see having one that gives critical hits only to players without making other changes.

Think about the effects of a critical hit system and why you would want one/what you want to encourage. Most of the house rules being discussed above involve extra rolls, ranging from rolling extra damage dice, through rolling a second attack, up to rolling on a Rolemaster-style critical hit table. These all add handling time for combat, and make combat deadlier. If you want to discourage a combat-centric playstyle, it makes sense to give monsters critical hits. If you want to encourage lots of combat, it makes sense to not use any critical hits, because a high-handling time will slow down combat and thus reduce the number of combats per session. But giving critical hits only to players only makes it easier to breeze through combat. It encourages players to fight more, because they know they can survive longer in combat than a monster. This reduces the challenge, so it's a bad idea, unless you are planning on cranking up the monster level relative to the player level (1st level characters vs. mummies and vampires) to make it balanced again.

Rules that don't involve extra rolls, like "double damage or max damage on natural 20 or target # + 4 [or +10]" or "special effect on natural 20", save from increased handling time, but still make combat deadlier. There's little point in not using a rule like that for both sides, but again, if you were shifting the balance in another way and pitting low-level PCs against much higher level monsters, giving critical hits only to players might make sense... and using a simple player-only critical hit rule would make a whole lot more sense then using a more complicated rule that way.

[oakesspalding]

Nov 7, 2017 18:27:09 GMT -6 talysman said:

Nov 7, 2017 16:39:16 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

I like the possibility of critical hits for players, and see no reason why, if you have them, monsters therefore must have them as well. Why is that sort of asymmetry so obviously wrong? Both player-characters and monsters have a mix of advantages and disadvantages, many of them unique. Why is it so wrong to give one more to the player-characters, especially if it makes things more fun? In a campaign run by an even-handed referee who is perfectly willing to see player-characters die (sometimes just because of bad luck) things are pretty dangerous anyway.

In terms of what you want a game to do, in my opinion, you can have an asymmetric design that gives monsters critical hits, but not players, or you can have a symmetric design that gives the same thing to both, but I can't see having one that gives critical hits only to players without making other changes.

Think about the effects of a critical hit system and why you would want one/what you want to encourage. Most of the house rules being discussed above involve extra rolls, ranging from rolling extra damage dice, through rolling a second attack, up to rolling on a Rolemaster-style critical hit table. These all add handling time for combat, and make combat deadlier. If you want to discourage a combat-centric playstyle, it makes sense to give monsters critical hits. If you want to encourage lots of combat, it makes sense to not use any critical hits, because a high-handling time will slow down combat and thus reduce the number of combats per session. But giving critical hits only to players only makes it easier to breeze through combat. It encourages players to fight more, because they know they can survive longer in combat than a monster. This reduces the challenge, so it's a bad idea, unless you are planning on cranking up the monster level relative to the player level (1st level characters vs. mummies and vampires) to make it balanced again.

Rules that don't involve extra rolls, like "double damage or max damage on natural 20 or target # + 4 [or +10]" or "special effect on natural 20", save from increased handling time, but still make combat deadlier. There's little point in not using a rule like that for both sides, but again, if you were shifting the balance in another way and pitting low-level PCs against much higher level monsters, giving critical hits only to players might make sense... and using a simple player-only critical hit rule would make a whole lot more sense then using a more complicated rule that way.

In the system I use, my own Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, you do double damage (regular damage is generally 1-6 hits) when you roll a 20. That's it. So, say, a first level fighting-man, armed with a longsword is attacking a creature of AC 7 (which I would estimate is the most common AC among Zylarthen monsters). He needs an 11 to hit and does 1-6 hits of damage, which gives an expected damage value of 1.75 hits per attack. If you add in the double damage thing at 20, the expected damage value per attack rises to a whopping 1.925, or 10% higher than without it. That hardly seems like something that would break the game or encourage too much fighting, etc.

Indeed, it's not really even 10% since you can subtract critical hit results where a normal attack would have delivered the coup de grace anyway.

Under different systems the results would be different, but in any system where there's a roughly 50% chance to hit, doubling damage on a 20 will only increase expected damage by at most 10% and probably less.

There are all sorts of other things the rules could say or not say or the referee could do or not do that would have more of an influence than that.

And no, a measly 10% increase in the expected damage of attacks by fighting-men would not make them the equals of mummies or vampires.

Of course I'm with you that combat should not be overly encouraged and dungeons should be dangerous places, etc. Indeed, I'm sort of a boring evangelist on those claims and believe that they represent true old school philosophy. But I think you're overestimating the importance of the effect, unless we're just talking past each other and you're thinking of critical hits as automatic kills or whatever.

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2017 18:27:09 GMT -6 talysman said:

If you want to encourage lots of combat, it makes sense to not use any critical hits, because a high-handling time will slow down combat and thus reduce the number of combats per session.

The rolling of a second die of damage will always be faster than an additional attack roll on the following round. Plus, it will cause the combat to end at least one round earlier. Thus, critical hits will only speed up combat.

I would argue that there is no balance in OD&D to mess up. A slightly more powerful set of PCs will simply move to a lower dungeon level a tad bit earlier. The PCs should be setting the difficulty through their actions irrespective of any powers the player might possess from one campaign to another.

[oakesspalding]

Nov 7, 2017 21:05:00 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I would argue that there is no balance in OD&D to mess up. A slightly more powerful set of PCs will simply move to a lower dungeon level a tad bit earlier. The PCs should be setting the difficulty through their actions irrespective of any powers the player might possess from one campaign to another.

I actually think that's a subtle but fundamental point. To put it another way (not as well), in general, there's a sort of equilibrium the players will choose or find for themselves regardless of momentary strengths or weaknesses. The only thing that can really mess that up is if the referee has an unyielding determination to be a permanent jerk or Santa Claus.