Looking for a dicussion here.
Recently I have been growing more and more disappointed with critical hits in general. As a player, sure, I like to land that powerful critical hit but sometimes I feel cheated when we finally encounter the BBEG and wham, a lucky crit takes him out in round two. Way too anticlimactic for me. It's almost like a random Deus Ex Machina.
And as a DM, I hate to spend hours carefully constructing a devastating arch villain only to see him dropped in round two by a lucky critical hit.
But I hate it even more as a DM to roll a critical hit for a monster and suddenly realize that I'm about to kill a PC. What to do? Announce the crit and let the players worry about raising him back in town? Pretend it was a normal hit so the poor PC can live through the fight? Heck, I'd rather just not roll any critical hits against PCs that are already badly wounded.
Sometimes as a DM I put out a CR-appropriate monster and it dies in a couple rounds because of a lucky critical hit or two. Then I put out another one, very similar, and it ends up killing a PC in a 10-round combat because the monster is the one with all the luck this time.
As a DM, this "swinginess" makes it very difficult to plan challenging, interesting encounters. All too often it's some trash encounter that ends up being challenging and the BBEG is too easy, even boring.
It's all too unpredicable, and it can be very anticlimactic when a battle that should be fun and challenging gets suddenly trivialized by a single lucky roll.
When my friends are all sitting around, months later, talking about their adventure in the necromancer's tower, I want them saying things like "Wow, that necromancer was awesome! I thought we were going to TPK for sure. I'm still not sure how we made it." But instead, far too often it goes more like this: "Man, that necomancer sure was a pushover. But do you remember those 4 sekeletons in the hallway? Wow, those skeletons were awesome! I thought we were going to TPK for sure..."
Does anyone else feel the same way?
For the people I have gamed:
Usually we recognize the randomness of critical hits and keep them in mind when discussing events that have transpired. For example in the Necromancer example it would be, "Wow we were lucky that (x) got off that critical hit or we would have had a heck of a fight on our hands." While with the skeletons it would have been, "Damn it if those stupid skeletons would quit getting so freakishly lucky we might actually manage to get out of here -- they keep hitting like this though and we are in trouble."
As for the effects of critical hits -- I've seen many people use the hero points (or luck points whatever system you want to call it) to great effect to deal with this.
Isn't that how it's supposed to go? You set up this big battle, and usually it's a great encounter but sometimes the players crit and you move on. You should make it very cinematic, describing what happens to the enemy as the fighter runs to the enemy antipaladin (or w/e) and slices through the man's neck with his scythe, separating head from body, causing instant death. Crits are lucky rolls, after all.
For my part, I like to see criticals. They spice up the monotonous series of swings that a martial character is dedicated to. Not every character wants to be a manuever master, nor does every player want a caster. Sometimes, people just want to see that crit land. I feel the same way regardless if I'm on the giving or receiving end. We nearly lost the shadowdancer and the paladin to separate critical rolls in our last game, and the arcane archer and eldritch knight didn't escape unscathed either. It helps to spice up combat, IMO.
I also believe that any d20 roll can have the same kind of swing in battle, even the initiative roll. Our strangest fights occurred when we managed to "invert" our standard combat order of shadowdancer, arcane archer, paladin (later, the EK), cleric. Saving throws caused their share of swinginess, as fear effects divided the party or holy word cut the enemy troops in half.
My counter-question to you, DM_Blake, is this: do you have similar feelings regarding saving throws, initiative rolls, and all other d20 rolls? Why or why not?
Sometimes yes.
One of my players had a few of those moments when he critted enemy while using the glaive... Dealing enough damage to get it from unscratched to decapitated. Twice upon more important opponents: bestial dwarven druid, whose sole action in the combat was creating a pool of boiling tar with a spell and then dying from single hit. Second time it was drow wizardess that was already wounded, which was irrevelant as he dealt enough damage to kill her if she was healthy.
I must admit that sometimes I think about introducing the rule from 4th edition: critical hits deal maximum weapon damage with weapons with critical multipliers of x3 or more instead getting bonus damage dice on a critical hit.
I must admit that sometimes I think about introducing the rule from 4th edition: critical hits deal maximum weapon damage with weapons with critical multipliers of x3 or more instead getting bonus damage dice on a critical hit.
Once upon a time, back in 1e and 2e, I ruled critical hits like this.
On a 20, roll again, if it's a hit, then roll d4
First roll
1-3 = max damage; 4 = roll d4 again
Second roll
1-3 = max damage + roll damage normally; 4= roll d4 again
Third roll
1-3 = max damage x2 + roll damage normally; 4 = roll d4 again
Fourth roll
1-3 = max damage x3 + roll damage normally; 4 = roll d4 again
repeat
My players really liked it, 75% of the time, a crit meant max damage; about 25% of the time, a crit meant pretty close to double damage; rarely, a crit meant a lot more; sometimes, a crit was crazy, insanely good.
Does anyone else feel the same way?
Partially.
For that reason, I play that only the dice are doubled on a critical, not the damage bonus or other additional damage.
'findel
|
I've had characters crit to death and haven't ever felt cheated. It's part of the game, we actually have fond memories of getting just annihilated in the past. (Stupid freaking Hammer Constructs...)
I've never experienced something in the game that crit and maimed my character that couldn't have clobbered me though.
From the other side of the screen it's great, helps get the combats over faster and move the game and story along more quickly.
I kind of want to make an analogy about like, "Feeling cheated is like feeling cheated you landed on boardwalk when an opponent has a hotel on it in the game Monopoly." It's just part of the game.
My counter-question to you, DM_Blake, is this: do you have similar feelings regarding saving throws, initiative rolls, and all other d20 rolls? Why or why not?
Actually, yes.
But those happen far less often. Maybe only because our groups never really get much above 7-8th level. I don't even remember having a character level of 10+ in any games for so long that I don't even remember it.
Since most of the spells that can change the outcome of a combat with just one casting are the higher level SOD spells, they rarely even come into question in our games.
Initiative rolls don't seem to alter the outcome of combat much. Sure, in a 5-round combat, going first means you go 5 times and the enemy goes 4 times, but going last means the opposite, so it matters. But it's about a 20% swing - not really the kind of roll that wins/loses combat in a single roll.
Critical hits, on the other hand, happen multiple times each fight, except for the really short small fights.
I kind of want to make an analogy about like, "Feeling cheated is like feeling cheated you landed on boardwalk when an opponent has a hotel on it in the game Monopoly." It's just part of the game.
I see one significant difference. Monopoly is a competitive game where each player is out for himself, trying to dominate the other players with a combination of good luck and good financial decisions. When something unlucky happens, like linding on a boardwalk with a hotel, well, that is exactly what is supposed to happen.
Pathfinder, on the other hand, is a bunch of people working cooperatively to tell an interesting and exciting story full of adventure and suspense. We can spend days building up to a climactic final encounter but then having it trivialized by a random roll seems to deflate all that suspense and adventure.
Which is to say, I don't feel "cheated" in the sense that the attacker broke a rule or did something illegal. I only feel "cheated" like someone might feel cheated reading a novel where the heroes struggle against overwhelming odds, struggling through to the end, but then at the last moment when the exciting climax should happen, instead, something random and meaningless trivializes the whole story.
For example, imagine if, in Lord of the Rings, Frodo finally gets to the gates of Mordor and out of the blue, Gandalf's big brother (curiously named Elminster) shows up and says "hey, let me teleport you to Mount Doom and we can toss that in the fire and be home before second breakfast". And then they do. As a reader, I would feel cheated. I would feel like I had invested all this time and energy in this story, in these characters, only to be cheated by a stupid ending.
Sometimes I feel cheated much the same way by a climactic combat that becomes trivialized by a random good die roll.
I enjoy the criticals in game. I think they make it more exciting and dangerous.
My group does not confirm a critical, we stick with the old 2e system.
Things are a bit more dangerous for the party, but people cheer when you deliver them in battle - an dread when they come against you.
My counter-question to you, DM_Blake, is this: do you have similar feelings regarding saving throws, initiative rolls, and all other d20 rolls? Why or why not?Actually, yes.
But those happen far less often. Maybe only because our groups never really get much above 7-8th level. I don't even remember having a character level of 10+ in any games for so long that I don't even remember it.
Since most of the spells that can change the outcome of a combat with just one casting are the higher level SOD spells, they rarely even come into question in our games.
Initiative rolls don't seem to alter the outcome of combat much. Sure, in a 5-round combat, going first means you go 5 times and the enemy goes 4 times, but going last means the opposite, so it matters. But it's about a 20% swing - not really the kind of roll that wins/loses combat in a single roll.
Critical hits, on the other hand, happen multiple times each fight, except for the really short small fights.
I'm actually surprised that spells like grease, color spray, sleep, glitterdust, and hold person haven't had similar effects on your lower level games. I think--as in, IMO--part of the problem, so to speak, as that you're playing in lower-level games, where your one critical hit can outright blast an enemy into the ground. At higher levels, this might be mitigated, depending on how your group plays. At lower levels, luck can be a disproportionately large factor in success or failure in many endeavors. At higher levels, it's still there, but other things can have a bigger influence on success or failure. Such things can include just the number of ranks you have in a skill, your accumulation of magical gear, and your increasingly high attributes.
There are several possibilities that I can see for what you're seeing. One is an artifact of the levels you play at. Another is that you've picked up a mild case of risk aversion. As your doctor I suggest you eat a few bards, a battlerager, and a mind flayer and you'll feel better :)
|
|
Yeah but that was kind of what I was trying to say Blake. A Crit shouldn't completely trivialize a most combats. At best your taking 4 swings at once. Now a series of critical hits might cause a bit more of an impact...
The raging, power attacking weapon specialization, buffed, scythe wielding barbarian/fighter probably hits pretty dang hard even without the crit added into things. Then on the other spectrum a 10 strength rogue sneak attacking with a rapier usually only adds on another d6. No one whose attacks have got any real bulk behind them is going to be too slowed down by the monster they can clobber with a critical hit. So the BBEG takes 2 swings instead of 1, not really that big of a deal.
Now, fail the fort save against the wizard's crit Disintegrate and your probably going to feel that in the morning. >.>;
Wait, crits happen multiple times in every combat? What kind of crazy dice luck do your players have? Maybe that's your real problem....
I am beginning to really dislike the crit system in PF
when a 4.5hp orc can do 45hp of damage its all a bit too much
Being killed by what is in essence a fluke roll, or two, by the GM is not the least bit cool
One shooting bddies cos the parties barbarian 5 does 81 hp damage is not cool either.
i actually like 4e crit system better.max damage plus a little bonus
I'm sensing a parallel between our friendly tarrasque's dislike of critical hits and the dislike of various other people for save-or-dies.
I, too, employ a Luck point system to make things less swingy.
For each point spent, I let the player roll 1d6 and add it to the roll (or subtract it from enemy damage rolls).
I let them roll the dice one at a time, after the result is known, and I announce how much they have to roll to succeed.
When that random critical hit comes down, we at least have a moment where everyone leans in to see how the luck roll goes. Most times, the rolling gets drawn out into two stages; stage 1 where the player rolls the minimum luck possible for the roll they need, and stage 2 where they bargain for extra luck to make up the difference.
Last Sunday I killed another PC. But we had a few moments to discuss it, and watch his luck run out, so by the time it actually came to pass we were ready.
At any time the player can spend a Luck Point to:
This effect can be used just before the roll is made, or immediately after the roll result is announced, but before any other further unrelated rolls are made. You may spend any number of Luck Points on a given roll, and you may roll Luck Points one at a time until the desired outcome is achieved or you run out of Luck Points.
Using Luck Points does not require any type of action. Luck Points may be used by unconscious, dying, or even dead characters who were involved in the current scene. Once spent, a Luck Point disappears forever.
Each PC and important NPC receives one Luck Point at character creation. You gain one additional Luck Point per level, one luck on your birthday, and you can gain any number of bonus Luck Points through in-game actions.
Acts sometimes rewarded with Luck Points include but are not limited to:
I dislike like hero/fortune etc points even more
to me they say: well our mechanics arent quite right so have these bodgers , just in case they go haywire
I dislike like hero/fortune etc points even more
to me they say: well our mechanics arent quite right so have these bodgers , just in case they go haywire
To me they say, "Dice are dice and sometimes dice aren't right."
I dislike like hero/fortune etc points even more
to me they say: well our mechanics arent quite right so have these bodgers , just in case they go haywire
No, I think it is more about the static defense feeling really abrupt. Players deal with PC death more easily if they at least got to throw a die first, at least then they can own it a bit. Without luck or hero points, the die roll that generates most PC deaths is completely in the hands of the GM.
You don't need it. The "mounting tension" mechanic around death is something my group learned to love in Shadowrun 3rd edition. We felt its lack in D&D/PF, and so we added a simple version.
It's not like crits are that broken, just harsh. Remove them altogether, and you'll wait forever for fights to end.
No, I think it is more about the static defense feeling really abrupt. Players deal with PC death more easily if they at least got to throw a die first, at least then they can own it a bit. Without luck or hero points, the die roll that generates most PC deaths is completely in the hands of the GM.
Whole different topic, i like games where the GM dont roll at all
It's not like crits are that broken, just harsh. Remove them altogether, and you'll wait forever for fights to end.
which sorts proves my issue...this fight is only gonna end when someone flukes a dice roll, again
Personally I like the potential swingyness of crits. Its always exciting at my table when someone does a rediculous amount of damage because of a crit. And for my part as a dm I dont mind over much. I have the 'ill get em next time' mentality. But part of that is I always try to have many enemies in a fight, so one crit will never end an encounter, theres still more to fight that is still providing a challenge.
But if you do think its a problem then I would consider nerfing crits a bit. Talk to your group about maybe just doubling damage dice or just doing max damage. Something where a crit has more of an impact but where it isnt doubling or tripling a paladins smite damage or a fighters powerattack/weapon spec/ weapon training.
The spectrum of possibilities is cruel and fickle. In a friend's campaign, a large earth elemental landed a crit on our party's barbarian. Despite his orc ferocity and that d12 hit die, he pretty much died instantly.
Crits are fun from a gameplay aspect, but I do agree that they can be awfully anticlimactic. I bought a crit deck recently - perhaps the lack of emphasis on direct damage will make things a tad more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like crits are that broken, just harsh. Remove them altogether, and you'll wait forever for fights to end.
which sorts proves my issue...this fight is only gonna end when someone flukes a dice roll, again
I should like to add... having a codified plot-armor rule that isn't quite a "mulligan" but an expendable resource, it encourages me as the GM to push the players a little bit harder.
I've always regarded the "sweet spot" as the point where the PCs are near death and every decision counts. Once they start spending luck points, I know I've reached the sweet spot. Without luck points, if I over-reach, PCs die due to GM-balance-error not player-error. I don't like that. I like my PC deaths to come from player error.
Having died 12 days ago to consecutive crits from a large Longspear... I say *KEEP* them.
I can see where the OP is coming from, as I'm more of a cinematic-story style GM myself, but I don't share the opinion. It helped for me to actually get involved in some collaborative writing projects with friends, and have to work out and accept plot decisions in my co-creations that I wouldn't have chosen myself, only to eventually realize that it generally makes a richer, less contrived finished product. Like the Beatles VS their solo work. Now I still think of myself as the storyteller, but I also view the dice and mechanics as my respected collaborator, who represents the collective input of dozens of game designers and who is the chief representative of my players(they vote through making mechanical decisions which the system weighs, resolves, and presents to me as neat and straight forward outcomes).
A lot of the challenge and reward from storytelling with my game-mechanical robot partner comes from putting a cinematic spin on events I wouldn't have chosen or predicted. Actually a few encounters ago I experienced exactly the same example that the OP mentioned, and it wound up becoming a long-term character point that has enriched the game. I planned a big scarry boss fight with hordes of weak flunkies and a big, scarry BBEG. He was built more for offense and high AC than HP. The groups sorcerer's long term goal is to multiclass into a Dragon Disciple and become a casting melee fighter, but so far the party's only ever seen her as a squishy full class sorceress. Well in the battle, while the fighters were being swarmed and distracted, she boldy (perhaps foolishly) moved up with her Longspear (1d8X3) with her 14 STR that yields a +3 to damage with a 2 handed weapon. Before our eyes, she rolled 2 natural 20s and near max damage on her critical. It was like 30 damage out of a third level sorcerer. So far he already took 1 minor hit in the battle, so it was enough to splatter him, well before he did any of the cool offensive things that I had planned. So instead of focusing on how awesome and scary my BBEG was, I just shifted my focus to glorifying my player's shining moment of heroism and prowess, describing how she emerged from the back row, viciously impaled the ferocious commander of the enemy troops, and flung his limp and blood-soaked body aside like a sack of garbage. It completely changed the way the party looked at her, and spoke about her from then on. Sure it was just a mechanical fluke, and truthfully she still isn't too much of a force to be reckoned with, but in the story she has earned major cool points, and the encounter was no less exciting for it.
Thanks for the feedback.
To those suggesting Hero points, there are a few drawbacks that make them undesirable to me. Primarily the fact that they only help the PCs (unless we houserule them for villainous leader types too) but even more vexing is the notion of someone rolling that lucky roll and then having the DM say "Nope, just when you thought you landed that amazing hit, your enemy sidestepped at the last instant" or something of the sort. Seems like that would at least partially motivate the players to hunt the minions rather than the BBEGs, just so they wouldn't have their cool effects stripped by an enemy hero point.
I do like the idea of not multiplying the extra damage modifiers, like STR or Power Attack, etc. That still lets critical hits do extra damage without blowing away the fight.
If I couple that with adding side effects like bleed or daze or maybe even add a bonus combat maneuver like disarm or sunder when appropriate, in addition to the reduced damage, then critical hits could still be meaningful but not usually instantly terminal. It might even make them a little more interesting and/or cinematic.
Or heck, maybe I'll just leave them alone and let fate decide when (and if) to slaughter a PC or trivialize an encounter.
Thanks for the feedback.
Crits should probably be 1.5 for all weapons. They would just have to adjust some of the special abilities that weapons have. That way it makes weapons more unique and crits less absurd.
Simply incorporate fortification of some degree into any really important BBEGs. That way, players can still enjoy their ridiculous crits on mooks they might have killed without critting anyways, while giving a bit of 'plot armor' to the characters you want to have last longer.
Remember, a good number of players build their character to focus on crits, and in many cases crits are the only way for some martial classes to keep competitive damage with casters, so taking them away from the players would weaken their character and make life more boring.
I like crits, and I look at it as fate intervening. Sometimes lady luck favors you, other times she does not.
Indeed wraithstrike.
"Recently I have been growing more and more disappointed with critical hits in general. As a player, sure, I like to land that powerful critical hit but sometimes I feel cheated when we finally encounter the BBEG and wham, a lucky crit takes him out in round two. Way too anticlimactic for me. It's almost like a random Deus Ex Machina.
And as a DM, I hate to spend hours carefully constructing a devastating arch villain only to see him dropped in round two by a lucky critical hit."
I actually make them stronger in my game, with natural 20s going to a separate grisly table.
I sympathise though, I have encountered this type of dm dismay before, and felt it in games I have run.
Two examples, I created an athach fighter, he was quite good. Just as the athach enters sight of the party, the party warrior (yes a warrior, of the npc class) wins initiative, raises his bow, gets a hit, another hit, and on the last shot, a 20, 20, hit. In our games, that is just dead. Straight between the eyes. He collapses.
Now I felt a bit cheated as a dm, I had put time into that guy. A player laughed and found it funny, asked me if I felt it was wrong, anti-climactic. I actually did not on reflection, they won fair and square, and good on them, we got to other encounters that night and the trip away from the ice mountain the athach was guarding. The heroes prevailed easily against the boss, but the going there was hard. The end, it was easy.
A second one, I was playing a knight, another player an elven wizard. Facing off against a drow barbarian, customised by the dm. He gets right up to us, ready to go. The wizard goes hold person, the barb fails badly. I coup de grace.
He survives, his fort is crazy. He can't get out of the hold person, he is given a harder coup de grace. He does not survive. The dm was a bit flustered, I saw the sheet, that was a real nice foe he made there, but it had no iron will, not a high wisdom. It got taken apart easily.
After this, the dm started work on rules to penalise spellcasters, fatigue them from casting and other such things. He felt cheated. The rules later got voted down by the players.
So you might feel cheated about crits, or insta-gibs if you allow them, but I've seen players obliterated by scythe traps, so they should have some chance to also kill their foes quickly. Not everything has to be a long star wars lightsaber duel, sometimes they just walk over and kill the opponent, or make a single great shot. That's the nature of the game, since it is a dice game of chance. It is not like the movies, and movie-logic is frequently broken in games I've seen.
Here's one idea Blake that might help with crits. Don't have them in your game anymore. Nothing says you "have" to have them. Get rid of them. It's all part of having low level games only though, that combat is going to be dangerous and unpredictable, mainly because that's how combat is no matter what.
I ran a RAW game once in PF and saw a lvl 15 character in one combat scene cut down the BBEG with 1 crit, just to have it's assistant in turn crit and kill said character. All part of the game if you use them, crits can swing combat in any direction at any level.
What a turn-around!
Yes, in runelords the early books were particularly hard for our party. One reason was that the dm rolled better than we did (quite a lot better). Crits for the players were really quite rare then!
In other games, players can sometimes seem like ginzu-masters, critting over and over.
I disagree that critical hits add a great level of randomness to the game. Yes, mechanically speaking, to roll a nature 20 is statistically random, but in the context of the game-play and storytelling, I think you are looking at them in the wrong light. Critical hit represent a player's mastery with a particular weapon to deliver a devastating blow. They are not random, but precise. As a character advances in levels, he can take feats, enchant weapons, and have spells placed on them that increases the likelihood of landing a critical hit, which is meant to represent growth in their mastery of a weapon or spell or ability.
Furthermore, almost all players like critical hits on a mechanical level. Whether in the context of the story it represents a warrior's prowess in combat or the lucky strike from a bewildered mage, critical hits make combat less monotonousness and more fun. A single critical hit can enlivens players and encourages them in ways no GM can orchestrate.
I actually have a system in my campaign which increases the critical threshold of weapons as players advance. This removes the randomness of rolling a critical to some degree without denying players something they enjoy.
Food for thought.
Vindicator - when it comes to effects such as keen and improved critical, do you add the bonus to critical range before or after the spell/feat's effect?
Also, would this apply to touch attacks for spell casters (rays, and melee touch attacks all require an attack roll, and so can critical hit)?
|
Maybe you'd like to take a page out of 4ed's book, here, I've adapted it for you, mixing it with pathfinder rules:
✦ Critical Damage: Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack and then add the weapon's critical multiplier (instead of multiplying it by this number, you just add this number to the max damage). This is your critical damage. (Attacks that don’t deal damage still don’t deal damage on a critical hit.)
I really see your point OP. My suggestion is having crits only deal additional damage based on weapon dice (similar to having a "free" vital strike), but let the first damage dice be maximised. So 1d6 + 10 doesn't become 2d6 + 20, but only 1d6 + 16.
This ruling actually gives a net benefit to highly finessing melee characts with low plusses to their damage, as the auto-max raises their damage output on average. But a raging barbarian (say 22 strength) with a power attacking greataxe (say level 8) would be:
Normal: 1d12 + 9 (str) + 9 (power attack) + 2 (magical weapon) (expected about 27)
Classic: 3d12 + 60 (expected about 80)
Suggested: 2d12 + 20 + 12 (max dice) (expected about 45)
The crits are still meaningful and valuable; but they don't swing the fight as badly.
It's all too unpredicable, and it can be very anticlimactic when a battle that should be fun and challenging gets suddenly trivialized by a single lucky roll.
I think that's the point is that it's all based on luck.
Besides, it's not that terrible. I have heard of where I guy ruled if you rolled two natural 20s (basically a crit roll on a confirm crit) he would multiply the weapon damage again so normal crits being x2 would become x4 and x3 becomes x6, ect. This means that a level 1 character could deal over 100 damage in a single hit potentially.
Something also a bit sad can happen at times.
Take a x4 weapon...
Never roll a crit. :''(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At my table we have a houserule: If you roll a natural 20 it's a critical, no need to confirm. You only need to confirm if you crit with anything else but a 20.
Crits are FUN... If you're not just rolling dice, but actually narrating a battle. Substitute "the barbarian crits and deals X damage" with "'You crit and that's enough damage to drop him. What did you do?' 'I swung my axe in an underhand swing and cut him two, right in the middle, from the crotch to the head.'" Substitute "the wizard crits with a fireball and does Y damage" with "Your fireball goes off in a conflagration of eldritch fire, charring the ground and carbonizing the very bones of your enemies."
It's fun even when the monster crit. If it's enough to drop a character but not outright kill him, that adds the excitement of it being a hard battle, now having to protect a fallen comrade and fight with one less to help. The monsters ignore the fallen enemie, focusing on the still alive and dangerous enemies. If the damage IS enough to otright kill the character, well... FUDGE IT. That is why you need a DM screen. Say that you critted, but the damage was just enough to drop him unconscious. The players won't get angry because you kept their characters alive. The dice shouldn't dictate the story. Same if the PCs get to kill the BBEG in one round because of a crit. Just say that he had some ten more hitpoints, just enough so he can survive and run away to battle another day.
Vindicator - when it comes to effects such as keen and improved critical, do you add the bonus to critical range before or after the spell/feat's effect?
Before, the bonus becomes the new critical range, so effects/ spell would be added to it.
Also, would this apply to touch attacks for spell casters (rays, and melee touch attacks all require an attack roll, and so can critical hit)?
Yes, all touch and ranged spells that require an attack roll and potentially crit get the critical range bonus at 5ht and 15th level as well.