|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 8, 2017 5:08:27 GMT -6
I think that the key with critical hits is that they work both ways -- on the player as well as on the monster.
Hit points are a resource in the game, and (particularly in an all-d6 damage campaign) players have a slightly unfair advantage in that they know their HP total and can estimate how many hits he or she can take before running out of the resource. Critical hits from a natural 20 that do double damage or max damage have a way of upsetting this estimate and adds an additional layer of uncertainty to the game, and I like that. I've seen some RPG systems which allow for certain class options to gain a crit on a 19-20, and I dislike that. The 20 should count for more, and it does in my campaign.
In the same way, rolling a natural 1 leads to a critical miss or a fumble. Is it realistic that a hero would mess up 5% of the time? Clearly not, but again it adds in a tiny variable that a player can't count on to upset that resource management. My fumbles often result in missing the next action, dropping a weapon, or other annoying things that cause the players' plans to be derailed slightly. But the monsters suffer the same penalties when they roll a nat 1 as well.
Basically, I think that OD&D is about the fun and having a little extra randomness for 1's and 20's makes the game more fun.
Just my two coppers.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Nov 8, 2017 11:56:45 GMT -6
|
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Nov 8, 2017 11:58:53 GMT -6
I'm not philosophically opposed to critical hits and fumbles in my games. As Finarvyn said, they ad a bit more variability and uncertainty, and I like that. But when I run something old school, I'll ask the players if they want to use crits and fumbles, and they usually pass on them. They're smart enough to know that the DM is rolling way more attacks than they are, and thus they'll be disproportionally affected by critical hits (though, theoretically, using fumble rules should balance out the additional crits).
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Nov 8, 2017 12:12:44 GMT -6
From Jon's article: "Gygax wrote in Dragon #16 (July 1978) that "the 'critical hit' or 'double damage' on a 'to hit' die roll of 20 is particularly offensive to the precepts of D&D." When critical hits (or fumbles) are played, as he puts it, "the whole game system is perverted, and the game possibly ruined"" There was no one like Gygax, may he rest in peace. I love that man.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Nov 8, 2017 12:24:21 GMT -6
I tried to say this earlier in the thread: the only figures who are involved in every important fight are the PCs and their allies. Therefore they will be subject to far more numerous critical fumbles and take far more numerous critical hits than any other figure.
The balance to this - the critical hit - is not enough to satisfactorily balance the additional harm the system does to their chances. While small, this disadvantage will add up over several fights.
The solution I came upon is to give only the fighting-man the critical hit. A fighting-man who rolls the 20 drops his man to 0 hits immediately. Like hitting a home run - that at-bat is over, in his favor. It means mooks chump negligibly quicker and he has a chance to slay the unslayable dragon.
Don't like not getting the crit? Play the fighting-man!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Nov 8, 2017 14:48:39 GMT -6
Great research there. Very interesting, thank you. That's my fault for hitting the first relevant google link and not looking further down the results list.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Nov 8, 2017 15:13:03 GMT -6
From Jon's article: "Gygax wrote in Dragon #16 (July 1978) that "the 'critical hit' or 'double damage' on a 'to hit' die roll of 20 is particularly offensive to the precepts of D&D." When critical hits (or fumbles) are played, as he puts it, "the whole game system is perverted, and the game possibly ruined"" There was no one like Gygax, may he rest in peace. I love that man. I think this must be what Stormcrow was referring to upthread. Fascinating, I had no idea Gary felt that passionately about crits. Offensive, perverted, and ruinous! Oh my!! Really love the quote, thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Nov 8, 2017 15:18:19 GMT -6
Well, I would say rather that he wanted to be understood strongly at that particular time for a particular purpose. When he was defending AD&D against competitors he always used that sort of tone and language.
And I should say, first I liked it, then I didn't, then I finally came to have a sort of nostalgic affection for it. It's just so obviously partisan, self-serving and over the top.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Nov 8, 2017 16:02:59 GMT -6
I just want to add a few late (relatively speaking) but relevant (for OD&D) sources to Jon Petersen's excellent list: 1. The article "Critical Hits" by Lew Pulispher in White Dwarf #8 (Aug/Sep 1978) on page 12. Pulispher's (1978) mechanics work like this: - If you roll a "natural 20" on your attack, then roll again.
- If the second roll is high enough to hit, then it is a "critical hit." Roll the d20 a third time for a special effect.
- Normal damage is inflicted, unless modified by the special effect.
Pulispher's "critical hits" only work against humans, humanoids and human-sized creatures, not non-human monsters. In the table of special effects, MDR=minimum damage roll: d20 | Special effect |
---|
1 | Shield arm unusable d6 turns | 2 | Shield arm unusable d3 days, MDR=2 | 3 | Shield arm unusable 2d6 days, MDR=3 | 4 | Weapon arm unusable d6 turns | 5 | Weapon arm unusable d3 days, MDR=2 | 6 | Weapon arm unusable 2d6 days, MDR=3 | 7 | 20%: Shield arm, 80% Weapon arm, unusable d4 weeks, MDR=4 | 8 | Leg limp d6 turns | 9 | Leg limp d3 days, MDR=2 | 10 | Leg maimed d6 turns, MDR=2 | 11 | Leg maimed d3 days, MDR=3 | 12 | Leg maimed d4 weeks, MDR=4 | 13-14 | Head hit, stunned -- no attack d6 rounds but may defend | 15 | Head hit, knocked out d6 rounds (MDR=2 unless no helmet) | 16 | Head hit, concussed, knocked out as above, can't walk without aid when wake up, can't fight/cast spells. MDR=3 unless no helmet; concussion lasts 2d12 days. | 17-20 | Body hit, x2 damage |
2. The article "Good Hits & Bad Misses" in Dragon #39 (July 1980) on page 34, where Carl Parlagreco describes mechanics for both "critical hits" and "critical fumbles". He also acknowledges that mechanics like this are a lightning rod for criticism: 3. In the "RPGA INTERVIEW with... E. Gary Gygax" in Polyhedron #1 (Summer 1981) on page 5, Gary Gygax clearly distinguishes between the terms - "double damage on a natural 20", and
- "critical hits"
The difference is that "critical hits" have side effects including a hit location. Jon noted that Gary dislikes and rejects "critical hits." In this Polyhedron interview, Gygax lumps "critical hits" together with a lot of other unbalanced mechanics that "pervert", "destroy", and "spoil" the game. Here is an excerpt where he talks about this: So why did these destructive "mutations" come about? He offers several explanations: - The game was originally intended for hard-core miniatures wargamers (who would never use such unbalanced mechanics). But then the game went to the mass market, who did not understand miniatures wargaming.
- Referees like to spoil (or in his words: "baby") their players: Gary chuckles, "who can say 'nay' to someone who's having a good time with the game?"
Gary previously warned players against employing unbalanced game mechanics in White Dwarf #7 (Jun/Jul 1978), on page 22. There he writes: - "Rewards must be in proportion to risk, possibly less and never greater."
- "Things must not be too easy or there is no sense of accomplishment gained from playing the game."
- "Conversely, a campaign must never be so difficult that players become discouraged with the hopelessness of never being able to have a character to survive long enough to actively associate with."
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Nov 8, 2017 17:05:44 GMT -6
All these quotes are great. It's nice to see that Gary seems just like most of us here.
He's no different than any of us, in that he agonized over, and had strong opinions on many rules, classes, and general RPG philosophy just like we still do today. There must be something in our common gamer DNA that is always striving to unearth the "core essence" of D&D. It's probably a large part of what drew many of us to the game in the first place.
I fondly remember being just as excited to reread the books for the Nth time, as I was to play again. I've probably spent more time thinking about new worlds and rules than I have actually playing.
To think, that we are still having some of the exact same discussions and debates that occurred four decades earlier.
Tinkerers to the end, us all...
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Nov 8, 2017 17:11:30 GMT -6
Well, I would say rather that he wanted to be understood strongly at that particular time for a particular purpose. When he was defending AD&D against competitors he always used that sort of tone and language. And I should say, first I liked it, then I didn't, then I finally came to have a sort of nostalgic affection for it. It's just so obviously partisan, self-serving and over the top. Go big, or go home!
|
|
luc
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 30
|
Post by luc on Nov 8, 2017 19:58:10 GMT -6
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. I normally play with a critical hit system (usually Natural 20 = extra attack) and I only ever give the benefit to players. Never to monsters. I think that's mainly because players get excited about them, so it increases the enjoyment at the table. I roll monster hits behind a screen, so if a monster rolls a 20 I'd be the only one that cares. I've never found that it screws up game balance enough to care about, and my combats are pretty quick so I don't think it slows things down much either. There's still enough opportunities for players to get themselves killed
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 8, 2017 23:37:24 GMT -6
Interesting table, krusader74. Some years back I would have taken and used it quickly. These days I tend to run my fights fast-paced, so everything which causes players to roll an additional time (or even twice) and look up the number on a table slows the game down. I have to admit, though, that this depends heavily on the game. I do love DCC and its many crit and fumble tables, I just wouldn't want to introduce them to OD&D, for example.
|
|
|
Post by korvin0starmast on Feb 27, 2018 21:43:25 GMT -6
Jon, I hate to tell you this, but from the player's perspective, the first critical hit was in the hit location table in the rule books provided for us in Supplement II. Blackmoor. Pages 7-11. In that optional rule you would spread the HP out over various parts of the body, although the total sum was more than the total HP. If a hit were rolled you check for location. Heads had 15% of the HP. If someone hit your head, all of the damage was done to your head. And often if a decent damage roll happened from a monster of some merit, you were dead. You could also lose arms or legs with one hit. It wasn't called "critical hit" as we saw in Dragon Magazine articles some months later, but that was the effect. It was also a great way to slow down combat, so we only tried it a few times in two of the campaigns I played in. Nice way to kill a dragon, though, if you got craptastically lucky as a friend of mine did with a thief, surprise, from the back, and he killed the head. And the dragon was dead. So was half of our party, to include my Fighting Man. And to be honest with you, we all should have aldied but for that lucky blow. The dragon was awake but we attacked anyway. DOH! PS. I DM'd EPT for a few years, crits in that game worked Ok, but it also added to lethality. I am of the school of thought that "the critical hit is a bane, not a boon, to the PC given the number of times the PC's get attacked" but for some reason a lot of players like it. Sort of like playing the lottery.
|
|
|
Post by gemini476 on Mar 4, 2018 14:29:00 GMT -6
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. While that is somewhat common, probably because of later editions where that was a rule (e.g. BECMI), I might as well go through the by-the-book probabilities a bit. The LBBs have an exceptionally small pool of attack modifiers, some of which are non-stacking. To give a somewhat comprehensive list of the ones in the first two volumes: - Missile attacks get +2 to hit at short range, +1 at medium range.
- Dexterity can give +-1 to hit with missile weapons.
- Protection from Evil gives -1 from hit dice of evil opponents, but does not stack with magic armor and rings.
- Bless adds +1 to attack dice. Reversed it gives -1.
- Attacking sleeping dragons gives +2 on hit dice for chances of hitting.
- Attacking dragons with certain elements can give +-1 to the probability of hitting.
- Magic swords can have anywhere between -2 and +3 to hit.
- Magic armor gives up to -2 to opponent hit dice, and does not stack with magic shields (1/3rd chance of up to -3).
- Non-sword magic weapons range from +1 to +3, with missile weapons only ever reaching +2.
- A Potion of Invulnerability adds +2 to defensive capabilities.
- A Ring of Protection serves as +1 armor would. Presumably does not stack with it.
- A Displacer Cloak adds +2 to defense.
The highest semi-permanent bonus to attack is +5 with ranged weapons, +3 with melee weapons. Bless can give +1 more for six turns, and attack sleeping dragons can give +2. The highest permanent attack penalty is -6 with a cursed sword vs. +2 armor and Displacer Cloak, with a shield bringing in -1 more 33% of the time, a Potion of Invulnerability giving -2 more for 6+1d6 turns, and reversed Bless -1. (The highest permanent defence bonus, therefore, is +4.)
However, do note that unless the DM is going out of their way to make custom NPCs or you're fighting other PCs then you're unlikely to face anything beyond +2 Armor/+3 Shield/+3 Sword. The "magical accouterments with the super-normal types" tables aren't that generous. Do also note that in the LBBs no monster has greater than AC2.
The highest unmodified roll needed to hit is 17+ for a first-level character attacking someone with AC2, with the lowest rolls needed to hit being 1 for players (FM 16+ vs. AC6) or 0 for monsters (11HD+ vs. AC9). (Monsters actually going to 0 is somewhat interesting, but doesn't actually matter much.) Combined with the former, that means that first-level characters attacking your +2 Armor/Displacer Cloak character would need to roll a 21 to hit. On the flip side, a first-level character without any particular debuffs needs to roll at most 19 to hit an opponent - 20 if their shield kicks in. A -2 sword immediately knocks you down to needing a 21, though. Unless they're hit with a penalty, very high-level characters will always hit low-AC characters. A Ring of Protection is not enough to make the Purple Worm sometimes miss your Magic-User, but might work on the Lord, 16th Level. tl;dr: for the most part the math of the LBBs mean that a 20 will generally always hit and that a 1 is extremely likely to miss unless dealing with very high-level characters. There are things that make that not true, though. It's easier for players to become unhittable than it is for monsters, but that only applies to low-level attackers.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 4, 2018 15:37:25 GMT -6
tl;dr: for the most part the math of the LBBs mean that a 20 will generally always hit and that a 1 is extremely likely to miss unless dealing with very high-level characters. There are things that make that not true, though. It's easier for players to become unhittable than it is for monsters, but that only applies to low-level attackers. Fantastic analysis! I've come to many of these same observations. Well done. If you include the handful of temp effects you mention, then the modifiers can start to add up and the extremes become more likely. However, as you say, this won't happen too often. I'm always OK with never missing, or not being able to hit when things are lopsided. This eliminates unnecessary hit rolls and speeds things up considerably. Just roll damage or try something other than hitting if it's impossible to do so. It's amazing how naturally balanced the 3lbbs are, even if it wasn't an explicit design goal. Finally, I don't enforce missile ranges since none are given. You would need Chainmail to look up the ranges, and I don't do that. Besides, in a dungeon, everything would be short range (+2) anyway. Now, you could say that missile combat should be easier since it usually only occurs for a round or two before being engaged in melee. This would also make firing into melee easier if you houserule a modifier for doing so. Easier to hit both the enemy and your buddies!!! Very nice job putting all this together.
|
|
|
Post by gemini476 on Mar 14, 2018 8:07:23 GMT -6
OD&D puts encounter range at 2-8 inches, and Chainmail puts short range at... Short Bow: 5" Horsebow/Light Crossbow/Arquebus: 6" Longbow: 7" Composite Bow/Heavy Crossbow: 8"
So you're likely to be at short range (even moreso in dungeon rooms!) and definitely at medium range. Starting on your second expedition you can probably afford the 50GP for a Composite Bow, at which point beginning at short range is guaranteed. So yes, assuming short range as default is probably reasonably accurate.
The only time it really begins to matter is when you bring in wilderness encounters and their 4-24" distance (maximum range for missiles is between 15-24"), at which point you should probably consider looking into Chainmail anyhow to handle the sheer numbers involved and the variable ranges get subsumed into the Missile Fire table.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Mar 14, 2018 19:29:13 GMT -6
I think critical hits should be tied to tactical choices in combat rather than left purely up to random chance. I've been tinkering with a set of critical hit rules in which a critical hit is only possible for certain types of attacks where the attacker has an advantage: * Melee Attacks - flank attacks, attacks against an unarmed/motionless opponent, attacks from an invisible attacker, and charge attacks * Missile Attacks - most missile attacks could result in a critical hit EXCEPT when the target has at least 30% cover (or can dive for cover) or is moving at a rate of at least 6"/round (except when moving straight toward the attacker at short range) * Other - siege engine attacks against individual creatures
The rest of the details are rather fiddly, so I won't go into them. The gist of it is that the players have to use tactics if they want the possibility of scoring critical hits, and can use tactics to reduce their chances of being susceptible to them.
|
|