by Allan Sugarbaker
GameMastery: Critical Hit
Deck
Published by Paizo Publishing
Designed by Jason Bulmahn
52 full-color playing cards, & 1 rule card
$9.95
The GameMastery line from Paizo Publishing started down the path to
success by providing high-quality map tiles, which at times have
accompanied a
short d20 adventure. Other handy products filled in the product line,
such as Item Cards that gave physical representation to the
gear and goodies characters haul around. And even though Paizo's turn
at the helms of Dragon and Dungeon magazines is coming
to a close, the company has managed to produce some worthwhile
compilations and spin-off products from the near-boundless resource of
past issues.
With the GameMastery: Critical Hit Deck, Paizo ventures into
variant rules territory (something they've proven quite good at in the
pages of Dragon), and not just any rules, either. With this
deck, the designers propose to replace/extend the D&D rules for
critical hits, one of the favorite combat events for any gamer. Does
the deck succeed at this task, or fall flat with the most important
critical hit critics, the players? Some playtesting showed me what I
needed to know.
In the Cards
The GameMastery: Critical Hit Deck is a 52 card full-color
deck, with a severed orc head printed on the back as if to warn
players what they're in for. Each card reveals four different combat
results, one each for Bludgeoning, Slashing, Piercing, or Magical
damage respectively. On a confirmed critical, the player scoring the
critical would draw a card and apply the effect appropriate to his
damage type instead of just doing straight damage to the target.
Weapons that normally have higher damage multipliers (x3 or x4) allow
the player to draw two or three cards on a critical and select the
effect they want to apply.
Normally, a critical hit's only effect is extra damage (x2, x3, or x4,
depending on the weapon), and higher damage clears the way for the
next opponent that much quicker. When special character abilities are
factored in - feats, skill tricks, prestige classes, etc - there may
be an extra effect or two from a particular character's criticals. But
under the regular rules, the random luck of battle isn't represented
by the combat results. Yes, good or bad rolls randomly determine the
battle's outcome, but especially as character levels increase, players
come to know roughly what each hit roll's result will be. An average
roll will usually hit this sort of foe, doing at least x damage, and a
critical will do twice that - in situations like these, the combats
risk becoming routine.
Life or death struggles should never be routine. If combats are
predictable for the players, the gamemaster should just hand out
experience and say "You fought some guys and won" rather than waste
valuable gaming time.
With
the Critical Hit Deck a wide range of
painful blows are
possible each time a critical attack happens, without making sweeping
changes to the combat rules. Some have interesting game effects -
temporary blindness, a broken leg, armor damage, a knockout, the
all-time favorite decapitation - some of which give the target a
chance to avoid them with a save roll. Others bestow ongoing damage
upon the unfortunate victim, usually described as Bleed, which the
Deck's rule card says can only be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check. A few
card effects won't change the combat situation much (how often do you
need to deprive a creature of its Swallow Whole attack?), but most are
easily factored into the battle with a minimum of creative thinking.
There are a few particularly nasty blows that can show up when using
the full deck: "Severed Spine" causes double damage and 3d6 DEX
damage; another result causes Bleed equal to the original blow's
damage each round; and a handful inflict significant CON Bleed,
a deadly situation even for high level combatants. These major injury
results may scare away some gamemasters who want more control over the
mortality rate in their campaigns. In my case, these nasty wound
effects make me think back to the critical hits system I used back in
2nd Edition.
I used to keep my copy of Best of Dragon: Volume 5 on hand
during every game I ran, just for the article "Critical Hits & Bad
Misses". Players were psyched every time the article came out, already
envisioning the gruesome outcome. Once in a while, the result rolled
on the tables didn't make sense for the situation, or was over-the-top
lethal in my judgement - in those cases, I'd reroll, thereby reminding
my players of the artificial nature of random criticals. The
Critical Hit Deck has an advantage of medium over a magazine
article: simply put, cards with unwanted results can be removed from
the deck - with or without the players' knowledge, per GM discretion.
The cards could be replaced later for the full, deadly experience, or
weaker effects swapped out for additional deadly cards from a
duplicate deck. The ability to customize the danger level of an
encounter is a handy one for gamemasters to have.
Like the other damage types, magical criticals run the gamut, and are
largely generic enough to apply to any damage-dealing spell. A few
could drastically change the combat, and might best be omitted; a time
vortex or planar rift, both potential card results for magical
attacks, would suddenly be the focus of attention rather than a
compliment to the action. As gamemaster, I'd rather be the one
introducing major plot events. I won't have a random card pull dumping
a character into an outer plane.
Taking the hits
For a true playtest, I dropped the cards directly into my ongoing
weekly campaign. Critical results came up several times (lucky rolls
were plentiful), and my players had mixed reactions to the cards. Like me,
a couple of them really liked the unpredictable nature of using the cards,
and the way the cards added to the story experience of the combat rather
than pure number crunching. At the same time, the players that had built
damage-dealing tank characters were a bit annoyed at getting
surprising results and situational modifiers instead of the expected
big damage payoff. Mind you, big damage is still possible with the
cards - and brutal at times - but even after pointing this out, the
tank players slightly preferred a predictable damage multiplier. So
for my group, we've adopted the cards for continued use in the
campaign, but I'm allowing players to choose between a card draw and
dealing their straight damage.
As to the remaining gameplay concern, are the cards a slower way to
deal with critical hits in D&D? Yes, but only slightly. The
(admittedly oversimplified) critical rules in the core game are
certainly faster, but at the cost of variety. In our games, the cards
slowed combat down a fraction until everyone got used to them, but it
only took a few skirmishes should bring everyone up to speed again.
Conclusions
When you change the way you handle critical hits in combat, you are
fiddling with a fundamental reward of the game. Aside from the overall
enjoyment of roleplaying with friends, the Big Three rewards are
experience points/gaining levels, loot, and bragging rights. For many
players, criticals are a big part of bragging rights, and will be the
highlights of stories they tell about the session. For this reason
alone - not game balance concerns, not speed-of-play concerns -
gamemasters should give the Critical Hit Deck a couple of trial
runs with their players before officially adding the cards to their
game sessions.
If your players can accept the change of emphasis from big damage
numbers to exciting, often tactic-changing effects, consider rewarding
them with the entertaining combat results this deck can provide. For
groups that want to bring back the wild, unpredictable nature of
bloody combat, I highly recommend giving the GameMastery: Critical
Hit Deck a try.