Critical Hits (any system)

[Winnah]

I am interested in hearing peoples opinions on the use of critical hits in a game. Are they Important to TTRPGs? Are they a rewarding play experience? Should automatic success or failure be an attribute determined by a die roll?

Personally, I was a fan of the 2e Players Options tables. I liked the detail. Weapon crits used to happen to PC's fairly regularly. On the other hand, I fondly recall a number of critters critically failing saving throws while playing a mage.

If you think they should be part of a system, how should they be implemented? Should a critical hit deal more damage? Bypass armour? Do something else entirely?

[Username17]

Critical hits make the results of die rolls cover a larger spread of results. That is bad for player characters. The game's math is set up so that the PCs will probably win. If you introduce more ways that unlikely results can happen as a result of die rolls, you are making that "probably" less likely.

Players in general like extraordinary success and hate extraordinary failure. But both criticals and fumbles have the objective result of making it more likely that the underdog will surprisingly win - which is bad for PCs because they are supposed to have the smart money placed on them.

-Username17

[quanta]

Honestly, fuck criticals. They've only once been awesome for my players when I was a newb DM, and I was really lucky one of my players critted at the exact time I was about to accidentally TPK (I don't fudge. I was new. Shut up.) That was my one lucky pass. I doubt the mechanic will ever serve me well again. If you're going to have them, have a way to make them feel really cool and awesome but secretly not be that big a deal. 4e's got high PC hit points and very few monsters that have threatening critical effects (almost none of them have bonus damage dice on a crit), so crits eventually stop being the rout to sudden player death. But that's also partly because a lot of 4e monsters (especially early ones like MM1) have shit damage.

Like Frank said, bad for PC's compared to monsters.

You can make monsters have lower crit rates and less swingy criticals than PC's. And you should do this if you want crits.

[CCarter]

Criticals do add some more excitement to play, they're good in that regard. Your standard 3E double damage crit can still sway the result of a combat without being cataclysmic.

Gruesome specific damage tables like Rolemaster I don't like particularly - too likely to be randomly taken out by a lucky roll. Skills & powers isn't quite as bad since you at least get a save to avoid getting your skull crushed, but in terms of implementation it gets messy when dealing with non-humanoids. Save-or-dies I don't mind, though I'd have liked D&D to have a 'safety valve' mechanism [spend a points to reroll a critical roll] and keep Resurrection hard to get.

Other systems like die-pool systems sidestep the issue by not having criticals, but having additional to-hit successes add to damage which has similar intent. Depends on your preference for dice pools but a benefit of this is that the system automatically gives damage for catching people while they can't defend themselves, without needing separate sneak attack/coup de grace rules.

Other than that there's Dragon Age criticals where you get stunt points or something rather than extra damage. I believe there's a scathing review of this floating around somewhere...

[ScottS]

Playing 4e DS for a couple sessions, we did the "nat 1 gives you a free reroll but your weapons breaks" and "nat 20 does standard 4e crit plus -1 AC until repair/heal" standard "realism" rules. Not going to take a position on anything harsher than that, other than guessing that "accidentally cutting off your own foot" fumbles etc. are more self-esteem-crushing than they're worth.

[hogarth]

I generally dislike critical success/failure, although if the game has kind of a goofy flavour (like Toon or Teenagers from Outer Space), they can be fun.

[shadzar]

Are they Important to TTRPGs?

This will vary form person to person depending on what they are seeking from the TTRPG.

Those looking for lots of story may not need a mechanic in order to do this type of thing, those looking for movie simulating combat might, those looking for just some fighting might not, etc.

The way they are implemented will be determined by the way the MANY various playstyles requires them.

If sitting out to make a system and determine if you should add critical hits, then you should decide on the playstyle the system works for. If it is a combat simulator, then some way to add a striek to some weak spot might be needed, likewise if going for the dramatic combat it could be helpful.

How to make the mechanic for it will be based on the combat system itself.

Many people like "one shot one kill" concepts from the beginning as real world is the example for most TTRPG play.

So depending on those things will all determine if it is "important" to the TTRPG YOU are playing, based on your playstyle.

[Lokathor]

In d20 it's a little fun to have "automatic hit" on a 20 and "automatic save" on a 20. Auto-miss isn't as cool. I like attacks and don't like magic, oh well.

In SR4, having to fiddle with glitches is just a bother. Sometimes I'll use a critical glitch as a glitch if there's some comedy to be had, but having failed horribly in the first place is usually annoying enough. Overall, I'm glad that AWoD took them out.

Earthdawn kinda has "critical hits". If you get enough more than you needed on your attack roll, your target doesn't get armor against the attack. In this case, it makes it so that the stronger person in a fight usually wins faster if they're stronger enough, but as players get more armor points then sometimes a "critical" against a well armored player is the only way to hurt them, and suddenly it hurts a whole lot. I think it works out well enough though.

[TheWorid]

Not important unless your game is intentionally silly. Critical hits can be used in decent ways if their effects aren't extreme, but very few games use them in a way that isn't stupid. Stuff like "Drop your sword on a fumble" or "Auto-success regardless of the DC on a critical success" needs to die a painful death.

[Winnah]

I have to say my gaming experience has included many systems that included some form of critical success or failure. I had almost forgotten about glitches in SR and botches in Storyteller.

I have to wonder how the use of critical hits may have effected game design. I may be off the mark here, but take the D&D thief or rogue. Backstab used to be a flat damage multiplier. Then it became Sneak Attack, a damage bonus related to critical hits. In the current edition it is simply a damage bonus.

Maybe it is just my preference, but I like those systems that impose an escalating penalty on actions the more damage they take. I mean, I want my character to be able to slay the dragon, but coming out of encounter with one with no real trauma is too light for my tastes. Having said that, I can tell you getting one-shotted by a kobold kind of sucks, so I understand why people don't like risking lasting or semi-permenant penalties on a character they may be quite attached to.

Thanks for the insights

[fectin]

Actually, here's a thought I've been kicking around for a while for d20:

Ignore the old critical/autosuceed rules. Instead, d20 rolls explode on your threat range (or twenty for saves & skills). If you beat AC by at least 20, you get your critical multiplier.

It's good because it makes "100 kobold archers" less of a threat. It's also good because high level characters are likely to autocrit low level characters.

Tell me why it's bad?

[Username17]

Actually, here's a thought I've been kicking around for a while for d20:

Ignore the old critical/autosuceed rules. Instead, d20 rolls explode on your threat range (or twenty for saves & skills). If you beat AC by at least 20, you get your critical multiplier.

It's good because it makes "100 kobold archers" less of a threat. It's also good because high level characters are likely to autocrit low level characters.

Tell me why it's bad?

That would actually make Kobold Archers more of a threat at the high end. Let's say that they have a +2 to-hit with their crossbows and the PCs have an AC of 23. Normally they would automatically hit (and threat) on a 20. To actually critt, they'd need to hit and roll another 20 after that. So they'd do normal damage 4.75% of the time and double damage 0.25% of the time.

Under your system they could not crit at all. But the die would still explode on a 19-20. And they'd only need a 2+ to hit on a 19. So that involves hitting 9.75% of the time, a noticeable increase in average damage.

-Username17

[Daztur]

Sounds good, I've been thinking along similar lines myself, the only problem is adds a little handling time to combat.

[Fuchs]

Well... what about making crits (which players like when they get them) PC-only? The enemy can't crit, only PCs can crit.

[fectin]

That reverses immediately for 20/xWhatever, and above 30 for 19-20. You're right though. And "only 20 explodes, beat your threat range" has too much math.

[CCarter]

Maybe it is just my preference, but I like those systems that impose an escalating penalty on actions the more damage they take. I mean, I want my character to be able to slay the dragon, but coming out of encounter with one with no real trauma is too light for my tastes. Having said that, I can tell you getting one-shotted by a kobold kind of sucks, so I understand why people don't like risking lasting or semi-permenant penalties on a character they may be quite attached to.

Thanks for the insights

OK...so you like specific-damage criticals just because they impair the PCs?

You could do that just with a wound penalty system based off total hit points or equivalent, rather than needing specific injuries. For example, Shadowrun and White Wolf both have an increasing penalty when you're down Health boxes. Or, damage in Tunnels & Trolls comes straight off your Constitution and so reduces your ability to make Con saving rolls.

Or IIRC Earthdawn had Wounds that happened when a shot deals more a given threshold % of your hit points (unrelated to what the actual hit roll was, like most crit systems).

[Fuchs]

Wound penalties often cause a death spiral effect - the first to get wounded will end up dead since once penalized they are more likely to get even more wounds than their unwounded opponents. That can lead to a sort of delayed-explosion rocket launcher tag.

[Roy]

Critical hits are a trap, and something to be avoided, even if you are a player, and you're the one getting them.

[Fuchs]

How are critical hits a trap if players are the only one getting them?

[mean_liar]

I love critical hit systems. BLAOW! Knock a dude's head right the fuck off. FANTASTIC.

Mazes and Minotaurs has them... and PCs are immune.

[Roy]

How are critical hits a trap if players are the only one getting them?

Even if players are the only ones getting them (and I'm not sure how this came up, because I didn't mention it) one of two things happen.

1: You can kill it by straight up DPS. The crits are wasted. So are any resources you devoted to them. And since when most people mention crits it's assumed to be a build that optimizes them...
2: You can't kill it by straight up DPS, but can kill it with crits. Crit it or die. And since the odds of that are rather low, even for said optimized characters you die a lot. Should have got your DPS up, then you wouldn't die.

Which means even in this one sided scenario, you're better off ignoring them entirely, as focusing on them will leave you either wasting your time, or too weak.

Obviously, when enemies can crit you back they punish the player worse. But luck always favors the opposition. Always. That's why IP Proofing is so very important. in D&D, and in other systems for that matter as the concept is system independent - any system where you play through a long campaign, with little character switching mandates IP proofing. So, just about everything except joke systems like Paranoia, CoC, etc.

[Fuchs]

I brought up the "crit only for players" idea.

I am asking since in my experience, rolling a crit is fun for the player, even if one can kill the enemy with straight DPS anyway. So, having crits happen for the players can make the game more fun.

Optimising for crits is a character build decision like any other - and can be mathematically balanced out. (Though a player in my group has infamously bad luck, his character's crit range is 12-20, and he seldom rolls over 11...)

[Psychic Robot]

Once played 3e with a DM who loved critical failures.

1. Roll a one on a ranged attack? Your bow breaks. Do it again? Your bow breaks again. Do it a third time? Your bow breaks!
2. Pet blink dog rolls a one on a bite attack? He breaks a tooth and takes a -1 on attack rolls until he's healed.
3. Sorcerer rolls a one on a ranged touch attack? His orb of force hits you.
4. Roll a one when confirming a critical hit? Your natural twenty misses and you lose all your iterative attacks!

On a side note, I think he has borderline personality disorder.

[RobbyPants]

Holy fuck. Does that guy realize that bows are supposed to last longer than 20 shots in the real world? You're kind of incentivized not to want to confirm your crits on that system, too.

Ugh.

[tzor]

Comming from the 1E AD&D heavily influenced by Rolemaster, I was once a massive fan of critical hits and fumbles. On the other hand (and this is important) the 1E attitude is different from every other edition of the game. (My first game had every character named "Joe.") Save or die was everywhere, so the idea of dying from a critical fumble or a critical hit by an ememy was acceptable as long as it was memorable.

Then again, consulting my occasionally faulty memory, I don't think we bothered to give critical hits or failures to the average joe monster, only to the important ones. (Also do to a lack of identifiable figs most joe monsters were only represented by a die to begin with ... that d6 is an orc ... orc #1 to be precise.)

I don't think we would "break bows" but bowstrings were fair game. Dropping weapons was common also. Hitting yourself or your ally was common. Hitting yourself, falling on your ass and dropping your weapon was ... damn that was funny.

Once people took their characters seriously, that tended to change. Now they are probably not a good idea, unless you want to tie them to something like hero points. (You need to expend a hero point in order to get an effect of a super critical and if you accept the consequences of a super fumble you get an extra hero point.) This would generally keep them from exploiting the RNG since most joe monsters wouldn't have any HP to burn to take advantage of them.