|
So a module that I shall not name gives a creature the once per day ability to cast Inflict Serious Wounds at Tier 1-2. I had a table of lowbies (2 2s, 4 4s); and per usual rolled my dice in front of everyone. A critical came up, and I didn't think the ninja I just hit could survive 6d8+10 damage (he had already announce. I quickly decided the creature suddenly had the ability to cast Inflict Moderate Wounds twice per day, and reduced the damage to 4d8+6 damage for the crit (which dropped him to -7, so the extra 2d8+4 would have been "certain death", pending rolling 2 1s on the extra d8s).
Similarly, in the same mod I decided that a creature with an AOO attempt on a guy with 1 hp deciding to stand would want to take a hostage, and had him go for subdual damage (said creature hit for 2d6+4, again giving the potential that would have been realized of killing that PC).
Do people feel this is justified for the first few levels, and do other GMs do this for "lowbie" tables?
|
It really depends on your audience. Some veteran players might protest because they want to 'earn' it and when the GM puts on the kid gloves it dilutes the experience. If I had new players at my table I would do just what you did. Most players expect to win. If they don't have a good time at the table then you have wasted both their time and yours. I don't think I have ever regretted dialing it back and letting the players win. There have been a handful of times that I went for the jugular and I have always remember those times sadly, feeling like I failed because the bad guys won. It is hard for me to put myself in a player's shoes since I have so many characters and play so little. The deaths of my PCs mean almost nothing to me. But I think you did exactly what a good GM should do Thalin, you made the game exciting and left the players eager for more.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Speaking for myself, I think the second example (using non-lethal tactics) was reasonable, but not the first.
Please don't change up the abilities of the NPCs or opponent monsters. If you're running Pathfinder Society with training wheels on, and I'm not, how is that fair to my players?
Normally I don't advocate 'dialing things back', but I hate it when scenarios have things that players at the suggested level do not have a reasonable chance of overcoming without someone getting one-shot. Inflict Serious Wounds on a level 1-2 character is just stupid. Not quite as bad as the Level Drain I've seen in other 1-2's, but still pretty bad.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matrix Dragon,
That's an understandable position. My advice would therefore be to choose against running that adventure, rather than re-write the opponent's abilities. Or, run the adventure, modified as you think best, outside the strictures of Organized Play.
Venture-Captain, Texas—Waco
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between new players and new characters. If these low level characters are being played by veteran players as their -6 character then have at it, run it as written. If this is a first time PFS experience for a new player then I have dialed it back to make it exciting but survivable so that hopefully they'll come back for more! The best stories aren't the ones about how we beat the BBEG in half a round, but the ones where we eked out a victory by the skin of our teeth.
|
|
As long as your changes didn't break the following, I have to say it was a good call:
- suspension of disbelief (did a murderous orc captain take you captive, but not the village leader? And if so, why?)
- belief that the encounter actually had the potential for death
- continues the story
- is an enjoyable experience
As Doug stated, the audience is what you need to check out. Did anyone come up to you afterwards and question what happened? When you look at their faces when these things happened, did they have look of disbelief? As GM's, we need to be able to be able to read our players as well as we can.
A good example is with your last one, if the creature had tried to take the hostage, and your players (or at least the majority of them) looked puzzled as to why this happened, then switch it back to lethal. Say something like:
"From the look on the [creature]'s face, he has realized that taking a hostage may not have been the best of ideas and decides to [insert action] that slays [insert character name]".
Or something similar to this.
|
|
The knockout was actually reasonable; the person in question was a CN cleric whose intent was to kill someone the PCs were attempting to protect, and had no ill bearings for the PFS (and had actually offered the PCs the chance to "walk away" if they would leave their protectee). I think we can all agree that was a judgement call, it's in the rules, and I could justify it; so I could do that for the player.
The certainly blatant cheating was changing Inflict Serious Wounds to Inflict Moderate Wounds after a crit was confirmed and a PC announced a failed save. This is where I felt well outside of my realms; but could tell the player was certainly newer to PFS and didn't want them harboring bad feelings against the campaign. The module in question had a LOT of problems with instadeath crits (tier 1-2 module with most of the enemies wielding X3 crit weapons and someone who can cast Inflict Serious Wounds).
And for the record, I don't pull punches after level 3 (I have orchastrated more than one TPK), I just don't like doing it at earlier levels when some players are just getting their feet wet. Was actually cheating to prevent it going too far?
|
|
I misspoke... it was 4 1s and 2 2s, not 4 4s. And I intentionally attacked the level 2 (rather than a level 1) figuring they could more than likely survive 3d8+5, whereas even a non-crit could outright kill a level 1.
And the person standing was warned of the AOO, did see the enemy, and was being stupid. But again, newer players... you sometimes have to expect this. Do you punish them and hope their next character does a better job, or spare them and hope that keeps them in PFS?
|
|
First, if it's a 1-5, 2 twos and 4 fours would average out to APL 3.3, so they should have played up to the 4-5 with the 4 player adjustment. (Assuming it's season 4 or 5.)
As for your specific examples, it depends on the situation.
Why were you attacking the Ninja with Inflict Serious Wounds? Was it written into the tactics to focus down a particular opponent, and if so, why not go after a level 4 rather than a level 2. (Or was the Ninja a level 4?) My preferred method of nerfing an encounter is to spread the love and not focus fire, it often saves me from those really awkward situations where it looks like you're picking on a player and it's much less likely to end in death. But, by level 4 I would expect players to understand that combat is dangerous and their character can die. If it's a new player, I don't know, that's a tough one.
The player who stood up, though, why was he provoking an AoO? Did he know what kind of damage the baddie standing over him did? Did he not understand that standing provoked? I'd warn him about AoOs, but if he provoked... I honestly probably wouldn't have thought of using non-lethal damage.
I really try to avoid killing characters due to bad luck or situations out of their control. But if a player is knowingly doing stupid things, I'll oblige them.
It's season 3.
The ISW is supposed to be at whoever gets there first. The encounter's more a trap than a combat (which is to say, it's a combat, but it plays out like a trap)--it exists to creep people out more than anything.
And I'm hip re: standing up; I probably would have told the player that he would provoke if he stood, and then let him take it if he ignored me.
|
|
I definitely softball for new players playing new low level PCs also. I think this is a good thing. But not for veteran players.
Every aspect of life has an advantage... and a disadvantage. In this case, the disadvantage is that someday a GM is going to take the kid gloves off and start killing PCs. And the players are going to ask "What are we doing that's so different?" The answer is nothing, the GM just isn't softballing for you anymore. So it creates some bad habits if you softball too much.
For #2, the better approach might be to use education. Tell the player that if the PC stands up, they will take an AoO that could kill them. And then let them decide.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
So a module that I shall not name gives a creature the once per day ability to cast Inflict Serious Wounds at Tier 1-2. I had a table of lowbies (2 2s, 4 4s); and per usual rolled my dice in front of everyone. A critical came up, and I didn't think the ninja I just hit could survive 6d8+10 damage (he had already announce. I quickly decided the creature suddenly had the ability to cast Inflict Moderate Wounds twice per day, and reduced the damage to 4d8+6 damage for the crit (which dropped him to -7, so the extra 2d8+4 would have been "certain death", pending rolling 2 1s on the extra d8s).
The problem here wasn't the Inflict Serious Wounds spell; the problem was created by the fact that you scored a critical when delivering the spell. The character could have survived 3d8+3 (I mean, it survived 4d8+6, right?) So, under a normal hit, this spell was fine.
A critical hit doesn't happen that often - you shouldn't diminish its value just because (a) it would have killed a character and (b) it came at a really unfortunate time in the game.
I wouldn't have changed it (and yes, it is technically a violation of the PFS rules, not that I would report, I don't think.)
|
|
I agree to a degree (and consider me self-reported; both my VC and Brock are frequent visitors to this board :)). This is the first time I've ever spared players, but then I am used to GMing for veteran players in the Atlanta area I know. In this case I was GMing for Dragoncon, at a table with several newer players (in fairness, I do believe but am not certain that the ninja was NOT a new player).
I would have done 6d8+10 (I didn't actually see that it should have been a 3rd level spell, I've never seen a 3rd level CSW... I'm usually good at picking up things like that; oversight on my part), which would have killed him on a roll of anything but 2 1s. Even if I did it right and subtracted 4 from the damage, on a roll of 7 or higher on 2d8 he would have been dead.
I've heard talk of many GMs that "kiddie glove" the low tables (use less-than-optimal tactics), and I certainly take advantage of this to a degree. I've heard people "fudge" rolls, which has always been something I've been badly against (I roll all dice in front; though it's somewhat ironic that as much as I am against cheating that I bring up this subject). At an earlier table, I asked my VC and got an "out" so that I did not have to TPK a different module (Rivalry's End). So I do know that sparing is not unheard of. This is just the first time I stepped out of bounds and actually "rewrote" a creature on the fly. I'm just curious if other people have done this before to spare low-level tables, or if they would ever consider it.
Should we just not overthink it and assume our players are mature enough to handle character deaths, even for early games?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that the PC gets a Will save for half-damage from the inflict spell. I'm not sure if the failed save was mentioned.
Thalin, you made a judgment call. Do you feel like you compromised your principles by pulling the punch? Would you feel better if you knew how many of us do the same thing? You're doing everything you should be doing right now by wondering this. The question is, if you could turn back time and do it all again what would you do different (if anything)? It's time to move on.
Also, "kid gloves" references gloves made from soft goatskin (baby goats are called 'kids'). These gloves are worn when handling something you don't want to smudge. Same usage as 'kiddie gloves', different origin.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
To me, you made the right call. Crits on low level characters create odd results that have long-reaching implications in an organized play system. This is why I roll behind a screen for tier 1-2. As far as the rules go, they do allow fudging in the player's favor, and I think that what you did was an acceptable call.
Chris, in regards to not running scenarios that offer enemies that we consider to be unfair, that's not really always an option. Especially for newer scenarios, there may not be a review which points out the problems with it. Some game days may assign people scenarios without a lot of input from them. Other adventures are just fine so long as there is no crit.
In the end, I think that the crit rule is a strange and out of place one, and that this sort of thing illustrates why it is a problem.
|
|
In my opinion, if it's an experienced player or higher level character, crits happen. For new players with new characters, it's not a good thing for their character to die in one hit; especially if they are new to Tabletop RPGs. For some people, you might even deter them from playing the game. I think going soft on them is justified, and also outlined in the guide!
But for higher level characters or experienced PFS players, nope.
|
|
If I softball at all, it's more likely to be in that delicate level where you've invested some time in the character, but he's still low enough level that he can't afford a raise dead, and doesn't yet have the PA for is (sort of around 3rd level I guess); that's the main "unrecoverable loss" zone in PFS.
Even then, I don't "softball" per se - I just decide the character is dropped to a point or two from death (I keep track of character damage), and give his party the option of saving them. Still, I won't invoke full-on deus ex machina: I TPKed a table of Feat of Ravenmoor recently, with some unrecoverable deaths. Sad.
As for beginning tables, I don't worry about it - there's little time investment in the characters at that time, so a reroll (maybe they learned a lesson?) is in order. Let the chips fall where they may. Crits? - that's why you take the Toughness feat at 1st level if you're squishy!
Here's my concern about "GM cheating": Pathfinder is a game. That has an actual technical meaning - a game requires both sides to operate under constraints: that is, both player and judge must be constrained by rules; we understand this, which is why we refer to GM cheating when we discuss this. As soon as the GM stops following the rules, Pathfinder ceases to be a game and becomes simple exposure to the GM's forced narrative; this, I feel, is a disservice to players. Somewhat philosophical, perhaps, but that's my position.
(This is why "narrativist" GMs - GMs who cheat "to make the scenario fun" - are so terrible. This category includes GMs who cheat to prevent slumber hexes from working on the BBEG and so on; playing a fey-bloodline sorcerer, I've encountered this GM a LOT, flat-out cheating to prevent my spells from making the game "un-fun".)
The dice are there for a reason: use them!
|
|
Because criticals are so deadly at low tier (1-2), has anyone thought about the idea of proposing to the players ahead of time (especially new ones)- "Guys, I've seen crits completely wipe out low level characters so for this game if you want to opt out of scoring crits yourselves, the bad guys won't crit." I realize this will nerf someone who built their shiny new character around a high crit threshold, but it could be a possible answer to the "Halfling Barbarian crit with greataxe- thanks for playing." problem. Just an idea.
|
|
It's just not necessary.
I think if you were to collect data, you'd discover that crit-one-shots at first level aren't a "problem". They're just noticeable - it's a matter of selective perception.
I have 10 PFS characters, ranging in level from 1 to 16 (and including four others north of 9th level), and I've only ever died once, and it was completely my fault (trying to tumble around a glabrezu into flank - I'd calculated the odds, knew it was a bad idea, and did it anyway). Things just aren't that dangerous.
Here's what a level 1 party does when facing an enemy with a greataxe - as an alternative to nerfing the scenario - approach with caution! Keep at distance, use ranged attacks, have a druid cast entangle, and so on. Tactics based on facing a high-threat melee combatant.
It simply never necessary to cheat.
The principle of gaming economy: don't fix what isn't broken.
IF the day ever comes that player are being prevented en masse from reaching second level because scenarios are just too dangerous, THEN there's a problem needing to be solved. Not the case currently.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
In regards to the problem of time investment, even a first-session character loss is a big deal. Why? Because most players feel that they can't use the character concept of the character they lost. They lose a name, a personality, a build...whatever. To a roleplaying character like myself, that's definitely a big thing.
In regards to the question of how lethal the campaign is at low level, my opinion is somewhat skewed. In 3 of my first 4 scenarios, I nearly died. One was a TPK that got backed up when my GM realized he had read tactics wrong. One was surrendering to an opponent who doesn't necessarily want to kill you. The final one was just a particularly deadly mission. Honestly, after the third and fourth one, I started seriously questioning whether this was the game for me. My earliest message board posts are from around that time. Since then, I've gotten more experience and seen how little death actually happens. One-shot deaths are not fun for anybody at that level, though.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
I don't believe the game should be driven entirely by the randomness of die rolls, but I do believe that, inasmuch as the dice are the mechanic of random determination in the game, they should have an overwhelming influence on the game's outcome.
I have had bad games where, despite everything else going great, my dice won't warm up. I can't get, I get low initiative rolls, etc. But I have had the opposite where my dice are so hot it burns to pick them up. :)
I think, for a GM to waive the dice away and just make these decisions, there had better be an extraordinary reason. In the circumstance of this thread, I am not sure, in *my* opinion, it was extraordinary.
1. The caster needs to make a touch attack, which in this case resorted in a critical hit.
2. The target must make a saving throw to take only half damage (there was no indication as to whether or not the saving throw was made.)
3. The GM made his decision, in part (and I am only going by what he posted above) because had figured the potential damage incorrectly.
None of these are deal breakers, and certainly, the actions taken by the GM are generally consistent with others who give the players a break. But, when the risk is removed from a game, the satisfaction is less. I know players complain when encounters are too hard; I have seen posts by players who felt cheated when an encounter was too easy.
At any rate, just a few thoughts.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
NN: I don't believe that all low-level death should be prevented. Just this last week, I killed off a level 3 who had been brought to 5 HP by an enemy with shocking grasp - the level 3 walked right up to the enemy again and predictably got shockingly grasped again. I didn't feel bad at all about the death given that the player made a really silly decision. I just believe that the game should make sense, and that crushing blows shouldn't be dealt in a nonsensical way. It doesn't make sense for Mook #5 with a heavy pick to decapitate the hero in the first fight when there's only a 5 percent chance of a crit and a low likelihood of confirming.
Also, I never fudge after level 5, and generally roll in the open at that level.
|
There's a difference between new players and new characters. If these low level characters are being played by veteran players as their -6 character then have at it, run it as written. If this is a first time PFS experience for a new player then I have dialed it back to make it exciting but survivable so that hopefully they'll come back for more! The best stories aren't the ones about how we beat the BBEG in half a round, but the ones where we eked out a victory by the skin of our teeth.
This is how I do it, and it came up 2-3 weeks ago.
Brand new playes, playing their very first game. A normal NPC in the very beginning got a crit on one of them in the surprise round with a battleaxe (1d8+2). The first 2 dice came up 4 and 7. So I didn't roll the 3rd die and called it a 1. The PC learned the dangers and they had a fun time, and came back in the afternoon to try and play again. (they are coming back this weekend as well).
Flip side to that, the night before running a this is how PFS works game to some veteran RPG players at my home. In the BBEG fight a player gets crit by a battleaxe by a raging barbarian. I didn't fudge that at all, that player died and had a fun time doing it. He too is playing again.
Veteran players can normally deal with death. Brand new ones might get ran off by killing them in 1 blow.
I take the training wheels off fairly soon. T1-2 I'll give hints and such on basic tactics, but by T3-4 your on your own.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Just this last week, I killed off a level 3 who had been brought to 5 HP by an enemy with shocking grasp - the level 3 walked right up to the enemy again and predictably got shockingly grasped again.While I'm not an advocate of killing PC's, I admittedly find that comically appropriate.
that crushing blows shouldn't be dealt in a nonsensical way. It doesn't make sense for Mook #5 with a heavy pick to decapitate the hero in the first fight when there's only a 5 percent chance of a crit and a low likelihood of confirming.Well, that's the nature of the game. If Paizo or even PFS felt that was an inappropriate outcome, then they could easily change the rules. But on some level they must feel that such an outcome services the game. Once I sit down at the PFS-OP table, I've consented to uphold their rules...not insert my own.
Well, first of all, I'm not inserting my own rules, as per your own admission.
Second, Paizo really didn't have as much latitude as you might think when developing Pathfinder as a game system. The system was designed to be a continuation of D&D 3.5, and critical hits were one of the most recognizable features of that system. They are popular because players feel excited when they hit them - but it's expected that a GM can fudge a crit against players that doesn't make a great deal of sense, or come up with a storyline way to have the character raised. That's not as easy in PFS.
|
|
Netopalis, I understand that the death of character is a huge thing. The character is gone dead. His personality and plans for him seem less.
But ont he other hand, I have 3 living characters I have no urge whatsoever to play again because they were softballed so much I do not feel I earned them.
I was at one time very excited about thme and excited to see the adventures I would take them on. Now they are just there, because I feel they were just given the the chronicles and I did not earn them.
|
|
I just don't think new players are that delicate... or if they are, good riddance!
Possibly if the player was a small child? My experience in PFS is that the typical player is 30+, and usually confront character death with something between amusement and philosophical consideration.
I can think of TWO "newish" players who got petulant about character deaths in all the time I've GMed PFS (granted, I'm no four-star, but I've still run 55 or so tables). It's simply not a "problem".
|
|
I just don't think new players are that delicate... or if they are, good riddance!I ran a game for a player in which I killed his brand new 1st level ninja. He told me this was his third character death and he was considering dropping PFS because he can't get a character to survive.
Good riddance?
No - if it's his third death he's clearly not having a fit at dying - but at it's at least time for a good sit-down to talk about building/playing a character.
I do think that sometimes there's not enough time/patience with new players in terms of just playing the game. It's probably a good practice for a GM to ask if there are any new players at the table, and they can sit with an experienced player who can sort of mentor them during the session (the GM is otherwise engaged). I can almost advocate such a practice being a "rule" in the Guide, except on can't always guarantee there's an experienced player at the table.
I have on occasion run entire tables of new players, and as a GM I don't "softball", but I DO go over tactical, spell, and other options facing them in a turn. I also turn the roleplaying *up* and the roll-playing *down* a bit - again, not soft-balling or "cheating", but more like... adjusting the sliders? New-player tables are usually a lot of fun if the GM knows before hand.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I just don't think new players are that delicate... or if they are, good riddance!
Who says it has anything to do with getting upset/petulant or being "delicate"?
There are lots of games that I tried once or twice, but never bought; doesn't mean I was upset or petulant or delicate. Just means that my one impression of what the game was like wasn't something worth my time/money. In the same way, someone never trying Pathfinder again after getting one-shotted doesn't mean they were "delicate" or got upset about it, it just means that their impression of what the game is about wasn't worth their time/money.
Someone goes to a con and tries a card game that looks expensive to maintain, a board game that's old and kind of racist, an RPG where apparently there's a random chance of just dropping dead, another board game whose art probably means his wife won't play it with him at home, and so forth... He's not upset about any of them, he just needs to consider the merits and flaws of each game—according to his one experience with each—and decide which, if any, he's going to invest in.
|
|
I see your point, but it's a VERY slippery slope.
It's a common sales technique - make something seem extra-special in the shop, even if that's not necessarily reflective of the reality of the product. Shoes interiors feel extra-cushiony, towels super-soft, and a car interior's "new car smell" enhanced to promote the "close". Never mind that the shoes interior will be crushed with use, the towels will shed a ton of lint on first laundering, and so on.
Soft-balling scenarios at a con as a "lure" isn't something I'd be comfortable with as a GM!
I realize that's not the intent, but I just think it's best to give even new players a straightforward play experience.
|
|
I see your point, but it's a VERY slippery slope.
It's a common sales technique - make something seem extra-special in the shop, even if that's not necessarily reflective of the reality of the product. Shoes interiors feel extra-cushiony, towels super-soft, and a car interior's "new car smell" enhanced to promote the "close". Never mind that the shoes interior will be crushed with use, the towels will shed a ton of lint on first laundering, and so on.
Soft-balling scenarios at a con as a "lure" isn't something I'd be comfortable with as a GM!
I realize that's not the intent, but I just think it's best to give even new players a straightforward play experience.
You are right about that. Just recently I have to run a group of players (all five are friends and know and played with each other) that has never played PFS. They pick a 7-11 mod with 5 pregens as their very first PFS mod. Instead of the expected TPK, they completed the scenario with the big bad running away. Ironic thing is that I actually accidentally ran the higher tier mooks by mistake for most of the combat (hmm, why does the boss have less hp than the mooks?) So, I will only softball if they are brand new inexperience players. That means no softballing for you David!
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overly delicate? Really?
So, I'm a new player. I've really researched Golarion, put my heart into building a character. You, the GM, roll a 20 and confirm a crit. You would have had to roll 15+ to confirm it. My character dies through no fault of my own. As a new player, I'm not going to feel that it's fair. I went and bought and painted a mini for the character, bought a bunch of books, took time out of my busy schedule to work on it, etc.
"But that's the rule!", some would say. Yes, it is. But, just because something is the rule doesn't make it fair or right. I rarely softball these days. When I do, it's usually because something stupid is happening - something stupid which doesn't add to the difficulty and doesn't make sense.
Edit to add: I also respect that there are people like David and Finlanderboy. I GM for one quite regularly. For those players, I do not fudge rolls. However, a 1-5 will never feel as challenging as a 5-9 or 7-11, and if you feel things are easy, you should go play the Season 4 Lissalan Arc.
|
|
I think prepping characters for the possibility of death is the issue. There will ALWAYS be those >5% crits that kill characters. Always.
Fudging the rolls on these is debatable and needs to be addressed differently at each table. Keep in mind sparing one player at the table can be softballing it for every player at that table too. So keep that in mind.
I also warn players about the lethality of the weapons they are going against. This also places the threat of crits on them. Against a certain raging halfling I warned everyone what damage the weapon could crit with. So when I rolled on the table from PCs that chose to say in close could see the threat of that die roll.
Anything you can say or do that gives the player an honest choice to make the best decions based on the risks they want to give their character will make them appreciate the threat vs being surprised by it and quitting.
I would respectfully disagree with netopalis by sayign a good DM mitigates these threats without the PCs knowing. I would say a good DM accurately explains the threats to the PCs so they can make the best choices.
It comes down to me letting the PCs choose for themselves and the GM choose for the players.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finlander: There is no logical choice for a player which will mitigate the killing power of an X4 heavy pick.
Ohh yes there is. If I had a mod with a x4 crit weapon I would alert the PCs that thing will kill them with a crit. That going toe to toe with that type of weapon is a risk of death.
Now there are ways to mitigate that risk. That is up for the PCs to decide and what their characters can do. Focus fire and avoiding them hitting you is a good option almost every table should be able to do. Or going total defense. If someone can boost their defense so a nat 20 is needed to hit them, well then that is a 00.25% chance they will be critted. 1 out of 400.
Making characters aware is what allows them to remove the risk.
In life and in D&D there are infinite solutions. The only thing that is holding people back is creativity to think of a solution and/or the courage to follow through.
This is something like darkness/poison/DR PCs should be prepared to deal with.
What makes dice fair, is that they are not plannable. You can manage and adjust, but thats what those slight chances are for. It is unfair the PCs can crit things in one hit, but a PC can't because of DM intervention.