Removing Criticals

[Amechra]

So, I have a confession to make: I don't like critical hits. Or, at least, not D&D-style "You rolled a natural 20 on your attack! Here, have some extra damage!" crits. They feel like they're too random, and can lead to weird spikes in damage.

My instinct is to make the following changes:
0) Rolling a natural 20 doesn't mean anything special. No bonus damage, no automatic hit, no nothing. Similarly, rolling a natural 1 isn't an automatic "fumble" or a miss or whatever.
1) Anything that increases your crit range just gives you a flat bonus to attack rolls - 19-20 gives you a +1, and 18-20 gives you a +2. This basically just changes Champions, Hexblades, and some 20th-level Paladins.
2) Anything that triggers on a critical hit (like Great Weapon Master or Brutal Critical) instead trigger when you attack with advantage and hit with both dice. Yes, this is a lot of love for Half-Orcs and Barbarians. I'm OK with this.

But I'm not sure if that's the best way to go about it. It's simple, sure, but it doesn't address one of my gripes (the randomness). Any thoughts? Any critical-focused class feature I missed?

[stoutstien]

Setting aside how much this would hurt some classes, critical hits are a big component on why low CR NPCs stay relevant. If you reintroduce unhittable ACs it would be a huge step backwards.

Without slapping anything into an actual calculator I would say your changes would reduce the damage output of martials by roughly 15% and closer to 20-25% for rogues, pally, and barbarians.

[Segev]

The auto-hit is important. I would leave that in place; it doesn't actually lead to the "too random weird spike in damage" that seems to be the core of your issue.

I propose the following way to smooth out the spikes: Critical Chain. Every time you roll a critical hit, you automatically hit, and gain +1 link in your critical chain. You do no additional damage at this time. Any time you miss with an attack and have a link left in your critical chain, you may spend that link to convert the miss into a hit.

This slows down the damage spike, because you won't get one massive hit on a single action, but it will give the character more damage overall because a missed hit gets its FULL damage roll when converted into a hit (so, for barbarians in particular, they get rage damage out of it), not just extra dice.

[Man_Over_Game]

So, I have a confession to make: I don't like critical hits. Or, at least, not D&D-style "You rolled a natural 20 on your attack! Here, have some extra damage!" crits. They feel like they're too random, and can lead to weird spikes in damage.

My instinct is to make the following changes:
0) Rolling a natural 20 doesn't mean anything special. No bonus damage, no automatic hit, no nothing. Similarly, rolling a natural 1 isn't an automatic "fumble" or a miss or whatever.
1) Anything that increases your crit range just gives you a flat bonus to attack rolls - 19-20 gives you a +1, and 18-20 gives you a +2. This basically just changes Champions, Hexblades, and some 20th-level Paladins.
2) Anything that triggers on a critical hit (like Great Weapon Master or Brutal Critical) instead trigger when you attack with advantage and hit with both dice. Yes, this is a lot of love for Half-Orcs and Barbarians. I'm OK with this.

But I'm not sure if that's the best way to go about it. It's simple, sure, but it doesn't address one of my gripes (the randomness). Any thoughts? Any critical-focused class feature I missed?

I'm with you. Not a huge fan of changing the increased crit range to being an accuracy buff (as that would mean the Champion's feature is just a +1 to hit), but it is simple and it does tie in to your new critical method.

What you're describing for the critical method is the same math as Disadvantage, which estimates roughly to a -4 to hit on your dice. That is, if you can reliably hit with a -4 to hit, you're probably going to crit. I'm not a huge fan of it overall, as it'd mean putting more power towards stronger creatures against smaller ones.
That could be a good thing to some, but to me it'd mean the monster manual doesn't get much bigger as you level up (as weaker monsters become more and more irrelevant, while much stronger monsters are still off the table). How much better weaker monsters can fight bigger ones determines how much of the monster manual you can use at any given time.
A good way of mitigating that adjustment is by including Flanking rules, as smaller units will have something to close that gap through their numbers and gain Advantage on their attacks.

[stoutstien]

The auto-hit is important. I would leave that in place; it doesn't actually lead to the "too random weird spike in damage" that seems to be the core of your issue.

I propose the following way to smooth out the spikes: Critical Chain. Every time you roll a critical hit, you automatically hit, and gain +1 link in your critical chain. You do no additional damage at this time. Any time you miss with an attack and have a link left in your critical chain, you may spend that link to convert the miss into a hit.

This slows down the damage spike, because you won't get one massive hit on a single action, but it will give the character more damage overall because a missed hit gets its FULL damage roll when converted into a hit (so, for barbarians in particular, they get rage damage out of it), not just extra dice.

Cool concept. It's close to my momentum one that turns X number of missed attacks and failed saves/checks into a mini inspiration.

Does your chain reset per target?

[KorvinStarmast]

The auto-hit is important. yep. And I dislike it, but nvm.

I propose the following way to smooth out the spikes: Critical Chain. Every time you roll a critical hit, you automatically hit, and gain +1 link in your critical chain. You do no additional damage at this time. Any time you miss with an attack and have a link left in your critical chain, you may spend that link to convert the miss into a hit. That's a neat idea, but it adds one more thing to track. If the players will track it, great. (Maybe user poker chips, staking up one more on each crit?)

I guess my final thought in that is "at some tables, this will work. At others, no."

But I like the way you approached this.

[Segev]

Cool concept. It's close to my momentum one that turns X number of missed attacks and failed saves/checks into a mini inspiration.

Does your chain reset per target?

I actually don't mind criticals as they are, for the record, so wouldn't plan to use this mechanic, myself. I am suggesting it to the OP to address her specific concerns.

That said, I would not reset it at all if I could, because it is meant to smooth out a damage spike, and any reset makes it a much more significant nerf. That said, resetting it per encounter would proably be the best way to do it if you're resetting at all, because that makes it a resource you only track as you need it rather than having to look back to see what you had "left over." (It's still a nerf: got that crit mid-fight and lucked into not missing after that, and your fight lasted one hit longer than it needed to with no benefit to you and possibly at cost to you.) But there is benefit to resetting after the encounter is over, and it fits thematically.



Anything that triggers on a crit would need rethinking, unless it's not dealing extra damage (in which case it's fine as-is). I think GWM is fine as-is: score a crit, make an extra attack (possibly spending your new critical chain link on it to make it auto-hit if it misses). Brutal Critical would need to be rewritten to provide an additional link when you crit. So crits are +2 links rather than +1 for people with Brutal Critical.



yep. And I dislike it, but nvm. I ... am not sure why, but I won't say you're wrong for feeling that way. All I'll say is that it really breaks bounded accuracy to get rid of it. Which I see you understand, so I won't belabor it.

That's a neat idea, but it adds one more thing to track. If the players will track it, great. (Maybe user poker chips, staking up one more on each crit?) Poker chips are a good idea. Yeah, one more thing to track is a problem.

I guess my final thought in that is "at some tables, this will work. At others, no." Yeah, this is probably true of any optional rule. Personally, I'm fine with criticals as they are, and will continue to run them by the book in my own game.

But I like the way you approached this.Thanks!

[Magic Myrmidon]

I like criticals as is, but I just wanted to chime in more appreciation for the critical chain idea. A pretty elegant idea to keep significant benefits of a 20, and keeping the math close to the curve. Also, noone likes missing attacks. It's a satisfying bonus. Finally, it keeps combat moving. Rather than stalling out due to misses, these help to keep damage pumping out.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Setting aside how much this would hurt some classes, critical hits are a big component on why low CR NPCs stay relevant.
Is it, though?

Is it?

Goblins, the prototypical low-CR mook, have a to-hit bonus of +4. That means you need an AC of 25 to ignore them. That's not easy to hit, not without a lot of magic items and/or spell slots. A Barbarian can hit 24 at 20th level with Unarmored Defense and a shield; Bladesinger with a Fighter 1 dip can get you to 24, assuming your GM lets Defensive Style work with Mage Armor. I've got a level 14 party right now that's pretty well stocked with magic items and none of them have more than 22 AC.

Exactly how often do you see AC 25 or more?

And even if the party tanks do hit that point, does it really matter when one Fireball means your mooks are gone anyway?

[Segev]

Is it, though?

Is it?

Goblins, the prototypical low-CR mook, have a to-hit bonus of +4. That means you need an AC of 25 to ignore them. That's not easy to hit, not without a lot of magic items and/or spell slots. A Barbarian can hit 24 at 20th level with Unarmored Defense and a shield; Bladesinger with a Fighter 1 dip can get you to 24, assuming your GM lets Defensive Style work with Mage Armor. I've got a level 14 party right now that's pretty well stocked with magic items and none of them have more than 22 AC.

Exactly how often do you see AC 25 or more?

And even if the party tanks do hit that point, does it really matter when one Fireball means your mooks are gone anyway?

It's not so much that they guarantee hits even when the AC is too high, as it is that the spiked damage roughly 5% of the time keeps them dangerous.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Just prepare for saving throw based abilities be the most used, and for the rogue to quit coz they can no longer roll ALL OF THE DICE for their damage.

[Jerrykhor]

Just wanna say, those are some lame changes, and most likely would turn away players. It just feels like a 'i hate fun' mechanic. Also, just gonna say most of it is a straight nerf and no buff, and looks to be uninformed changes that don't care about consequences.

No auto hit is not that big of a deal. If nat 20 does not hit the AC, you have bigger problems than that. Same goes to Nat 1 not auto missing, most of the time attack modifiers are not high enough to hit when you roll too low, so it won't make a difference. Basically, you need a +9 modifier to always hit a 10 AC creature, but at that point why waste time rolling dice?

It doesn't just change Champion fighters, they are nerfed even harder and have basically a useless feature.

[LordCdrMilitant]

So, I have a confession to make: I don't like critical hits. Or, at least, not D&D-style "You rolled a natural 20 on your attack! Here, have some extra damage!" crits. They feel like they're too random, and can lead to weird spikes in damage.

My instinct is to make the following changes:
0) Rolling a natural 20 doesn't mean anything special. No bonus damage, no automatic hit, no nothing. Similarly, rolling a natural 1 isn't an automatic "fumble" or a miss or whatever.
1) Anything that increases your crit range just gives you a flat bonus to attack rolls - 19-20 gives you a +1, and 18-20 gives you a +2. This basically just changes Champions, Hexblades, and some 20th-level Paladins.
2) Anything that triggers on a critical hit (like Great Weapon Master or Brutal Critical) instead trigger when you attack with advantage and hit with both dice. Yes, this is a lot of love for Half-Orcs and Barbarians. I'm OK with this.

But I'm not sure if that's the best way to go about it. It's simple, sure, but it doesn't address one of my gripes (the randomness). Any thoughts? Any critical-focused class feature I missed?

I partially agree with the sentiment that I don't like critical hits being just bonus damage [extra damage really unexciting for a critical hit, really, and I come to RPG's some degree from an environment where a critical hit means something], but I don't agree with the method or the idea that they're too random.

Anyway, the implementation is negative for the following reasons:
0) Auto hits on 20's and misses on 1's ensures that there's always a chance of success and failure. I think this is an important feature for the game. That's why tests are called, because there's a chance of success and a chance of failure, and if either were automatic, then it would defeat the point of resolution by dice
1) This is a pretty weak ability replacement.
2) This is okay.


Anyway, as for why eliminating criticals is bad:
1) Lucky events, critical hits are a part of real life conflict and can change the face of a battle.
Critical hits were well, critical in the fate of the battleship Bismark, for example. Prince of Wales was not aiming for her fuel tanks, she just luckily hit an unarmored spot that also had fuel and spilled out a ton of Bismark's fuel. Because of the random event, Bismark turned for home, and was caught by Ark Royal. If she had taken Prince of Wales's hit anywhere else, she would have been able to continue her mission. Then Ark Royal's torpedoes overwhelmingly failed, but one lucky on got a critical hit, crippling the Bismark's rudder. Had that torpedo hit anywhere else, Bismark would have made it home for repairs. Finally, a lucky shell from Rodney at long range smashed the fire director, rendering Bismark unable to fight back effectively. Bismark was doomed, but she might have taken Rodney, King George V, Sheffield, Norfolk, or Dorsetshire with her to the bottom had her main battery been fully operational for more of the fight. That's not to say that all battles are decided by critical hits, but sometimes something lucky or unlucky happens and the responses can be decisive. [That's why it's on a 20, not on any hit]
2) Critical hits are fun. Players like having critical hits and feeling lucky, special, and like something happened. Critical hits, especially in a game where you aren't trying to outstrategize another player, help to make combat more dynamic and fun. Something happens, and sometimes, something lucky can change the combat so the players can take an advantage or have to quickly respond, and either way abandon the plan and probability.

Anyway

[Man_Over_Game]

It doesn't just change Champion fighters, they are nerfed even harder and have basically a useless feature.

To be fair, the normal Champion feature roughly translates to a damage bonus of 5% of your dice damage (and roughly double that under Advantage).

Considering the best normal weapon you can get deals an average of 7 damage from dice, you're looking at the equivalent of a +0.35 damage bonus per average swing.

Now consider that +1 to hit roughly equals +2 to damage, and that you're trading randomness for consistency. This is actually a *buff* to the Champion, believe it or not, by about x6 in value (if my estimations are correct) before including the new Advantage/Crit rules.

[Segev]

Can you point me to the math on the claim that +1 to hit equals +2 to damage, please? On the face of it, that seems like something that would depend heavily on AC and weapon choice, and thus be too variable for that simple an equivocation to be truly meaningful. But I don’t know for sure, so am open to being convinced.

[stoutstien]

Is it, though?

Is it?

Goblins, the prototypical low-CR mook, have a to-hit bonus of +4. That means you need an AC of 25 to ignore them. That's not easy to hit, not without a lot of magic items and/or spell slots. A Barbarian can hit 24 at 20th level with Unarmored Defense and a shield; Bladesinger with a Fighter 1 dip can get you to 24, assuming your GM lets Defensive Style work with Mage Armor. I've got a level 14 party right now that's pretty well stocked with magic items and none of them have more than 22 AC.

Exactly how often do you see AC 25 or more?

And even if the party tanks do hit that point, does it really matter when one Fireball means your mooks are gone anyway?

Being a threat isn't necessary the same as being deadly. It sounds counterintuitive but lots of low CR NPCs are very unlikely to kill a PC but they do run the risk of leeching resources. A fireball now means one less 3rd slot for something like fly/sleet storm when you face the Hobgoblins on flying mounts. I'm not perfectly happy the way AC scales but even the soft capped (only can be hit by a Crit) fighter with constant disadvantage isn't completely immune to the 10,00 arrow volley.

Then there's a psychological effect of critical hits. 5e crits are really not that dangerous past the first few levels. They do tend to feel dangerous because it does bypass most defensive features.

I do agree that critical range increases and increase critical damage for players are pretty bland and underperforming features. I do allow players to replace those features. The Barbarian especially as a lot of wasted space with brutal critical.

[Segev]

I do agree that critical range increases and increase critical damage for players are pretty bland and underperforming features. I do allow players to replace those features. The Barbarian especially as a lot of wasted space with brutal critical.

Highly anecdotal, but the party is 5th level in my game, and the half-orc barbarian adores her bonus dice on critical hits.

[Crucius]

It's not so much that they guarantee hits even when the AC is too high, as it is that the spiked damage roughly 5% of the time keeps them dangerous.

Does it though? Does dealing 2d6 + Dex instead of 1d6 + Dex on a 100+ hp fighter really keep the goblins dangerous?

Edit: I feel bad leaving such a snarky remark which only contains an example that clearly benefits my case. I'm sorry. But I am still curious what your reply would be regarding spike damage and its relevance.

[Mikal]

Meh. Another solution looking for a problem. Critical damage is meant to also help on built in nova classes to be more viable vs. the more steady builds, i.e. Rogue Sneak Attack and Paladin/Hexblade Smites.

If you get rid of the boosted damage, then you make enemies even more of an HP sponge due to their totals.

Removing the auto hit is even worse, due to high enemy AC. You're meant to be able to hit 5% of the time regardless of the enemies base AC minus other effects such as advantage/disadvantage. You're unbalancing the game for no reason.

[Segev]

Does it though? Does dealing 2d6 + Dex instead of 1d6 + Dex on a 100+ hp fighter really keep the goblins dangerous?

In numbers? Yes.

[Luccan]

I'm mostly just looking at this from a player perspective and wondering why I'd want it. If I play a Champion or something, then my class feature goes from "more crits!" to "Small to-hit bonuses!" I can tell you which is more exciting and is actually going to feel different, but I think you can figure it out. I suppose if I was really into the specific options you mentioned as activating on double Advantage hits it might be a little exciting, but not enough to trade out crits entirely (especially since some of those are a lot less impressive without riding on crits). Is this something you think is bad as a DM or as a player?

[MoiMagnus]

Can you point me to the math on the claim that +1 to hit equals +2 to damage, please? On the face of it, that seems like something that would depend heavily on AC and weapon choice, and thus be too variable for that simple an equivocation to be truly meaningful. But I don’t know for sure, so am open to being convinced.

Some feats allow you to convert 5 to hit into 10 damages, so +1 to hit against +2 dmg. The magical sword Flame Tongue gives +2d6 dmg instead of the standard +2 att +2 dmg of the same rarity, which gives +1 to hit against +2.5 dmg. There are probably other similar examples.
While the math might not be correct (and definitely wrong if you step outside of the "average situation"), this is a trade-off which is coherent with the other design choices of 5e.

[Segev]

I'm mostly just looking at this from a player perspective and wondering why I'd want it. If I play a Champion or something, then my class feature goes from "more crits!" to "Small to-hit bonuses!" I can tell you which is more exciting and is actually going to feel different, but I think you can figure it out. I suppose if I was really into the specific options you mentioned as activating on double Advantage hits it might be a little exciting, but not enough to trade out crits entirely (especially since some of those are a lot less impressive without riding on crits). Is this something you think is bad as a DM or as a player?

Out of curiosity (because I'm vain like this), would the critical chain alternate rule make you feel similarly cheated as a Champion?

[da newt]

In my opinion, it's much more a matter of psychology than math. A crit FEELS powerful, a +1 to hit and +1 damage FEELS like a very small bonus even though the math shows that over time the +1 is a significantly greater damage boost than a crit on ~ 5% of attack rolls.

Removing crits will really nerf the power of smites.

[Luccan]

Out of curiosity (because I'm vain like this), would the critical chain alternate rule make you feel similarly cheated as a Champion?

No, though I still feel it lacks a certain excitement factor, as well as leaving the question of how the math works out: chaining might actually be better, because it guarantees not one but two hits. While there is little effective difference in cases where you use your stored hit vs the same for right away, I'm somewhat concerned about unlimited counters until you can reasonably fight a high AC for at low levels because you've saved every critical chain hit you can. Not that it's a huge problem, but storing away guarantees just feels exploitable.

Then there's the fictional issue. My PHB Champion is getting better at hitting just the right spot on their enemies and the Critical Chain Champion is doing the same... But also hitting the right spot on one enemy might make him better at hitting the right spot on another unrelated enemy?

It feels like you'd need to place some kind of cap or limit on how many you can store and when you can use it against sperate foes, but at that point especially, I feel like we could have just kept the regular crits which are far less confusing and only ever work on one to-hit/damage roll at a time.

[da newt]

I'm pretty sure the chain rule variant would yield more damage over time than the current crit rules because IF it can change a miss into a hit, then the hit gets to add in ST dam, rage dam, GWM, SS etc bonuses where the crit only doubles the rolled damage (and sometimes a crit is mostly wasted if you do 30 pts of damage to the creature with only 10 hp left). The chain would remove quite a bit of variability / spikes in damage though ...

[MrStabby]

I like critical hits for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it keeps weapon choice just a little more relevant. D6+5 vs d10+5 is significantly different. Add a +2 enhancement bonus, rage bonus, hexblades curse or whatever and the proportional difference shrinks. Crits dont do a huge amount but they do act to keep the gap between weapons relevant. With two responses fighting it becomes pretty significant.

Secondly, that extra spread of damage adds tension to the game. It adds hope to lost causes and fear to sure things. It adds to the drama knowing what might happen.

This isnt to say that I wouldn't be open to other rules, but I would look for them to do this same kind of good thing. Add drama and tension to keep each roll of the dice relevant. Making more enemies able to surpass that dc10 concentration check...

Now there are downsides, I dont like how the current system works with paladin smite- the spells are fine but choosing to smite after knowing there is a crit is a bit much on an already strong class.

[Man_Over_Game]

Some feats allow you to convert 5 to hit into 10 damages, so +1 to hit against +2 dmg. The magical sword Flame Tongue gives +2d6 dmg instead of the standard +2 att +2 dmg of the same rarity, which gives +1 to hit against +2.5 dmg. There are probably other similar examples.
While the math might not be correct (and definitely wrong if you step outside of the "average situation"), this is a trade-off which is coherent with the other design choices of 5e.

Also consider that the Defensive Fighting Style grants +1 to AC (effectively -1 to hit for your enemies) while the Duelist Fighting Style grants +2 to damage. I agree, it's not perfect (especially since hit bonuses aren't too valuable at high levels when everything hits everything), but that's what seems to be the rough guideline, if there was one.

I suppose you could also work backwards from the Monster Manual CR calculations and see if they support this theory. I would, but I don't have a copy myself.

[Doug Lampert]

I'm mostly just looking at this from a player perspective and wondering why I'd want it. If I play a Champion or something, then my class feature goes from "more crits!" to "Small to-hit bonuses!" I can tell you which is more exciting and is actually going to feel different, but I think you can figure it out. I suppose if I was really into the specific options you mentioned as activating on double Advantage hits it might be a little exciting, but not enough to trade out crits entirely (especially since some of those are a lot less impressive without riding on crits). Is this something you think is bad as a DM or as a player?

It is however, blatantly obvious, that the "small plus to hit" is VASTLY better.

Crit on a 19 gives extra damage dice 1 time in 20.
+1 to hit (and no automiss on a 1) gives an extra FULL set of damage 1 time in 20, unless your attack ability has a +0 modifier, this is better. And this is without any benefit for the "crit on advantage" rule, which also hits more often with the +1 to hit.

+1 to hit with the advantage rule is better by enough that I seriously doubt it will feel lame to someone who pays attention. When you roll a 1 or 2 and hit anyway, that still gives a big feeling of "I'm powerful".

[LordCdrMilitant]

Vastly better seems an overstatement, and the claim that +1 to hit is +2 damage seems off.

Both are basically something that happens 1/20th of the time.

+1 to crit is an additional 5% chance of doing your damage dice in extra damage.
+1 to hit is an additional 5% chance of doing your total damage in extra damage.

Thus, the relative balance here is obviously dependent upon how many dice you roll, and how large the dice and your non-dice damage modifiers are. That said, your average expected damage per hit would have to exceed 40 for +1 to hit to equal +2 average damage.

If you're a Great Weapon Master, +1 to hit is obviously better. If you're not, well, it's not a whole lot better. It is worth mention though that criticals on 19's/18's always feels valuable, while +1 to hit doesn't feel valuable when your to-hit mod is already high enough to like only miss on 1's.

[jas61292]

No comment on whether or not it is a good idea, but +1 instead of extended crit range is absolutely a buff, in general, for the Champion. It might not be a buff if you have been making a dedicated crit-fishing build, but that is not a requirement of playing a champion. Looking just at the class itself, and not any potential optimized builds, it is quite simple to see how +1 to hit is stronger.

With the normal crit rules, 5% of the time you do [damage die] in extra damage.
With +1 to hit instead, 5% of the time you do [damage die] + [ability modifier] in extra damage.

Both have the same rate of occurrence, while the +1 has a better benefit on its occurrence. In order for crit range to be better on average, there needs to be extra damage added to the crit that on average surpasses [ability modifier] in damage.

[Amechra]

Just to explain my reasoning a bit more...

For whatever weird reason, I don't have the "fun" response to gambling. Winning the jackpot would be cool, I guess, but I don't really get excited about it. So when it comes to critical hits, I fundamentally find them unsatisfying, because they just kinda happen. There's nothing I can do while playing that will improve my chances of getting a critical hit outside of getting Advantage, and "getting Advantage" is already kinda bland because of how common it is. Especially since the payoff is so minor unless you've really built around scoring critical hits. Someone with a +8 to hit is expected to deal more damage round-to-round than someone with a +7 to hit and a 19-20 crit range.

And, because I'm lazy and didn't want to construct a whole called shot system, I buffed all of the things that explicitly relied on critical hits and called it a day.

[Segev]

Just to explain my reasoning a bit more...

For whatever weird reason, I don't have the "fun" response to gambling. Winning the jackpot would be cool, I guess, but I don't really get excited about it. So when it comes to critical hits, I fundamentally find them unsatisfying, because they just kinda happen. There's nothing I can do while playing that will improve my chances of getting a critical hit outside of getting Advantage, and "getting Advantage" is already kinda bland because of how common it is. Especially since the payoff is so minor unless you've really built around scoring critical hits. Someone with a +8 to hit is expected to deal more damage round-to-round than someone with a +7 to hit and a 19-20 crit range.

And, because I'm lazy and didn't want to construct a whole called shot system, I buffed all of the things that explicitly relied on critical hits and called it a day.

That explains why you aren't excited about critical hits, bit it doesn't really explain what you want to achieve. Why does "I'm not excited by this" translate to "I actively dislike it enough to change?"

[Zhorn]

That explains why you aren't excited about critical hits, bit it doesn't really explain what you want to achieve. Why does "I'm not excited by this" translate to "I actively dislike it enough to change?"
The homebrew bug, when you've got the itch to tinker with the mechanics you'll naturally be driven to 'fix' parts of the game. Doesn't matter if there is an actual problem or not, it just needs to be mechanic that you don't like as-is.
Not always a bad thing, sometimes interesting brews pop out.

[Luccan]

I think you could replace increased crit chance with more interesting abilities, but I'm not sure a simple +1 is the way to go, even if it's mechanically superior. It's not really any more interesting and if the concern is that crits aren't interesting enough...

As for crits themselves, well, I guess it is a bit of gambling, but the thing I think they actually add to the game as a whole is the potential for combat to swing from victory to near defeat and vice versa. That means you shouldn't treat too many fights as a "sure thing". Even if all it leads to short term is some more healing magic spent or a short rest to burn HD, the consequences long term can be more far reaching (unless you constantly allow the 15 minute adventuring day). And, honestly, 5e is pretty low on ways to spook players. Sometimes they need to remember the PCs are mortal.

[Man_Over_Game]

That explains why you aren't excited about critical hits, bit it doesn't really explain what you want to achieve. Why does "I'm not excited by this" translate to "I actively dislike it enough to change?"

Can't speak for everyone, but for me, it's the fact that so much can be riding on a 5% chance. Barbarian features, racial powers, effects from magical weapons, etc.

It's dumb to have an effect that occurs 1/20 times, especially when the bonus has a 30% chance of not being relevant (like critting on a goblin). If it has to happen 1 our of 20 times, don't make it random but instead make it circumstantial (like if you're missing 90% of your HP) so that it's just as rare but still something that isn't likely to be wasted.

Why invest in something that is unpredictable and has the chance of providing no return? I'd be cool with criticals as a general rule, if there was nothing in the game that explicitly relied on them (as those investments are usually perceived as being more valuable than they actually are).

Random critical bonuses ironically have the same toxicity as gambling, where it looks the most favorable to those who don't know the math.