Critical hits in 4th edition


4th Edition

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

I think that my gaming group would be disappointed in doing "max damage" for crits; the excitement of our barbarian tripling his damage up resounds throughout the room!
My two cents?

- I find miss chances mess with crit confirmations more than the second dice roll ... I'm sure anyone who've played through Paizo's Githyanki Invasion from a few years back encountered similar situations

- high-damage crit weapons like greataxes take great advantage of it's user's strength, which between feats and items favours PCs over the orc/ogre they take it from; I wonder what 'powers' they have planned to have similar kick? (compare base damage 1d12+8, which would you rather do on a crit, 3d12+24 or 20?)

- I like the reference a previous poster had, in which a nat-20 provided an extra attack; I may keep that in mind to try out sometime

I know I've been a nay-sayer/whiner on a few previous posts, but this mechanic confirms my feel that 4D is streamlining DnD to be a pen-and-paper version of a computer game, not something that interests me. I like the randomness, the "save-or-suck" powers, and the potential of dying in an encounter. I can't visualize a gritty play experience with how they've currently explained 4D.


Crits still take advantage of everything that they used to, except for the weapon's crit multiplier.
Note that some weapons have a trait called "high crit", and we dont know how that works. Since your barbarian tripling his damage meant that he probably used a greataxe, I can see them getting the high crit trait as well.
We also dont know if 4E warrior-types will get any kind of "extra crit" ability yet, either.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Antioch wrote:

Crits still take advantage of everything that they used to, except for the weapon's crit multiplier.

Note that some weapons have a trait called "high crit", and we dont know how that works. Since your barbarian tripling his damage meant that he probably used a greataxe, I can see them getting the high crit trait as well.
We also dont know if 4E warrior-types will get any kind of "extra crit" ability yet, either.

I'll have to disagree,

Crits do max damamge 4.x so it doesn't take advantage of doubling let alone tripling or quadding.

4.x fighter crits, 1d8 + 4 (strength) + 4 (sword) = 16 points

3.x fighter crits with a long sword, 1d8+ 2 (strength) +4 (sword) = 12-32 points.

I'll take my 3.x crit. The fighter's damage may be upgraded by the 'per encounter' or 'per day' powers in 4x, but I left Power Attack/Weapon Specialization, Keen, etc out of my 3.x example to try to make it a fair comparison.

I also missed that monsters don't get the max damamge. While it makes it more survivable, it also bugs me. Just how special are the PCs to be?

The Exchange

Razz wrote:

Wow, the ONE of very few things I actually like about 4th Edition that COULD'VE easily been applied to 3rd Edition with a wave of the WotC's Magic Wand.

Again, 3E was just one big 4E playtesting ground, I believe. Until I personally see WotC's records myself, nothing will convince me otherwise.

1E was a play test for 2E

2E was a play test for 3E

3E was a play test for 4E

4E will be a play test for 5E

That is the way the game industry works. Why should that be a shocking revelation?


I like the critical hit deck. It's even more fun than rolling a bunch of dice, and better than just "max damage".

I agree that missing a confirm roll after rolling a 20 was a bummer, so I'm not sorry to see the confirm roll go away.

But I don't like the idea that a 20 is both an auto-hit and a critical. If there's such a huge difference between the attack bonus and the AC that you can only hit on a 20, I'm not sure it's fair that each lucky hit is also a critical.


Hiya.

So let me see if I understand this. They wanted to simplify critical hits. Ok. So now you don't need to confirm (ok), and you just get max damage. Ok. Er...wait...that's true unless you have an ability, spell or item thingie that gives you a crit bonus...then you get to roll more dice.

o_O

Is it just me, or are they saying "the old way was roll dice, roll more dice for crit" and the new way is "get maximum, roll more dice for a crit". I thought the point of their 'streamline' was to reduce it to "Roll a 20, get max damage". THAT is simple and fast. But then they go right back to 'slowing it down' or 'complicating' it by saying that special abilities and stuff make you roll more dice.

Uh, do these guys writing 4e even *know* how to design a game? Or do they have some sort of gigantic "Spin the Wheel of Rule Ideas!", taking whatever it lands on?

Scarab Sages

My group already did away with the "confirm" rule a while ago. I prefer it that way.


Mactaka wrote:

I guess I am the only person who likes crit-confirmation rolls.

No, you're not. I like them too because they separate a critical hit from a real strong hit, and it keeps characters and creatures that need a 20 just to hit in the first place from critically hitting every time they hit. That's the whole point of a confirmation roll. I don't care for the max damage thing either. It's been double damage + any special effect on my crit tables forever. No reason to change just for change's sake.


pming wrote:

Hiya.

So let me see if I understand this. They wanted to simplify critical hits. Ok. So now you don't need to confirm (ok), and you just get max damage. Ok. Er...wait...that's true unless you have an ability, spell or item thingie that gives you a crit bonus...then you get to roll more dice.

o_O

Is it just me, or are they saying "the old way was roll dice, roll more dice for crit" and the new way is "get maximum, roll more dice for a crit". I thought the point of their 'streamline' was to reduce it to "Roll a 20, get max damage". THAT is simple and fast. But then they go right back to 'slowing it down' or 'complicating' it by saying that special abilities and stuff make you roll more dice.

Uh, do these guys writing 4e even *know* how to design a game? Or do they have some sort of gigantic "Spin the Wheel of Rule Ideas!", taking whatever it lands on?

Yes. Heh.

Silly is how I describe their idea that rolling less dice somehow makes the game better, but if something augments your weapon, roll more dice to the fixed crit damage value. If they valued consistency within their own rules decisions, they'd make the magical augmentations of weaponry a fixed value too...


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Michael F wrote:

I like the critical hit deck. It's even more fun than rolling a bunch of dice, and better than just "max damage".

I agree that missing a confirm roll after rolling a 20 was a bummer, so I'm not sorry to see the confirm roll go away.

But I don't like the idea that a 20 is both an auto-hit and a critical. If there's such a huge difference between the attack bonus and the AC that you can only hit on a 20, I'm not sure it's fair that each lucky hit is also a critical.

This seems to be a fix to a laziness problem. I think the problem was that people did not like rolling a "20" and then it being the same as rolling a "13". If that is the problem, keep the old crit rules and max out if you roll a "20". The new rule is idiotic.

So, if I roll a 20 with my d10+4 weapon. I do damage of 14. Of course, if I needed a 12 to hit rolled a 12 and then rolled a damage (as I would 10% of the time) I get same damage. Wow, that was definitely worth not having to go through the exhausting effort of rolling a d20 a second time.

Oh, but I am fighting a brigand (and both of use had +1 swords). Thank god (probably some god they have retroactively added to 1e pantheons), I am a PC, I get an extra d6 on my crits (although I will probably have to roll a d6 to find out the damage, completely defeating the elimination of a confirmation roll) and he doesn't.

I have to agree that I like the Crit Hit Deck. I tried using the Arduin table (if you confirmed a crit, you got to roll on it as well) but it did take a bit amount of time, whereas the crit hit deck allows player to announce what he got.

Scarab Sages

Michael F wrote:

I like the critical hit deck. It's even more fun than rolling a bunch of dice, and better than just "max damage".

One of my groups DMs started using the Critical Hit deck, and we soon came to love it.


Frankly, I rarely run into a situation where only a 20 hits, and many of them are in areas of the rules that will probably disappear in 4e rules (e.g. wizards attacking with daggers, late iterative attacks with Power Attack or Combat Expertise active, etc.). I also don't tend to send level 1 kobolds against level 10 characters, though I can see that as a stronger possibility.

All that said, it's easy to fix. If you NEED a 20 to hit, then 20 is a hit and not a crit. Otherwise, 20 is a crit. Not a difficult rule exception, in my mind...

I'm indifferent to the "max rather than double" rule. It has its good and bad points. It leaves more room for other crit options (like decks and tables) than 3e did. I can easily see someone using the Rolemaster crit tables, with the crit intensity determined by the margin of the hit, or something like that.


Aberzombie wrote:
One of my groups DMs started using the Critical Hit deck, and we soon came to love it.

Ditto. I even give my PCs the option of choosing the prescribed damage (2x, 3x, 4x, etc) over the card if they roll a crit.

The NPCs always draw (and I let all of them draw, even the mooks).

Greg


pming wrote:

Hiya.

So let me see if I understand this. They wanted to simplify critical hits. Ok. So now you don't need to confirm (ok), and you just get max damage. Ok. Er...wait...that's true unless you have an ability, spell or item thingie that gives you a crit bonus...then you get to roll more dice.

o_O

Is it just me, or are they saying "the old way was roll dice, roll more dice for crit" and the new way is "get maximum, roll more dice for a crit". I thought the point of their 'streamline' was to reduce it to "Roll a 20, get max damage". THAT is simple and fast. But then they go right back to 'slowing it down' or 'complicating' it by saying that special abilities and stuff make you roll more dice.

Uh, do these guys writing 4e even *know* how to design a game? Or do they have some sort of gigantic "Spin the Wheel of Rule Ideas!", taking whatever it lands on?

I think it's a new form of spin the bottle. I'm not completely sure, I was in the "Boring" camp apparently.


Mactaka wrote:
I guess I am the only person who likes crit-confirmation rolls.
Aberzombie wrote:
My group already did away with the "confirm" rule a while ago. I prefer it that way.

To each their own.

Our group likes the confirm rule, but we tend to accept (or even like) a little more complexity to make the simulation more realistic. It always bothered me when a 1st-level and a 16th-level fighter each had an equal chance of inflicting a critical -- not true in 3.5 :)


Erik Mona wrote:
Max damage seems a little underwhelming, but I like crits on a 20 and no confirmation roll.

Yeah, it's going to feel like very little reward for a good roll. I can think of reasons to do it, but it's going to take away some of the adrenaline rush of rolling those 20s.

I've already said my piece on confirmation rolls, but my group has always liked 3.5's version -- almost no additional work for added realism.


crosswiredmind wrote:
1E was a play test for 2E

Not strictly true - I doubt Gygax and Arneson thought that far ahead. I suspect you're on the money for the other three though.

The Exchange

CEBrown wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
1E was a play test for 2E

Not strictly true - I doubt Gygax and Arneson thought that far ahead. I suspect you're on the money for the other three though.

True - for them Chaimail was a play test for D&D. D&D was a play test for AD&D.

Every game designer looks for ways to make their game better.


crosswiredmind wrote:

Every game designer looks for ways to make their game better.

And sometimes they accidentally make it worse.

Dark Archive

Tatterdemalion wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
Max damage seems a little underwhelming, but I like crits on a 20 and no confirmation roll.

Yeah, it's going to feel like very little reward for a good roll. I can think of reasons to do it, but it's going to take away some of the adrenaline rush of rolling those 20s.

I've already said my piece on confirmation rolls, but my group has always liked 3.5's version -- almost no additional work for added realism.

I agree. 4E crits sound very lame. If I do 2d6 + 4 of damage on a regular hit, and 16 points of damage on a crit, the crit is practically meaningless. If I roll 12 on my 2d6, I do the exact same damage as the crit. They might as well remove crits from the game. I don't mind not rolling confirmation rolls, but reducing crits from a major event to something that doesn't even make players bat an eye is one more reason not to be excited about 4th edition. Everytime I think 4e can't get worse, they showcase some more crappy mechanics.


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
...4E crits sound very lame. If I do 2d6 + 4 of damage on a regular hit, and 16 points of damage on a crit, the crit is practically meaningless...

Statistically, the new crits are little different from the old. Under 3.5, longsword (damage 1d8) averages 4.5, and 9 when it crits. Now it will average 4.5, but only 8 when it crits. But they've also made it easier to crit (for most weapons) by removing the confirm roll.

Still, critical hits aren't about maintaining statistical balance -- they're one of the most exciting moments in combat. Or they were...

IMO :)

Dark Archive

Exactly, we can't have a critical and exciting moment in the game because it might require two rolls, and some extra math. I am so glad they saved us from exciting criticals. It's just dumbing down the game, and some of the more exciting aspects of the game are being removed as a side effect. This is seriously bad game design.


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
It's just dumbing down the game, and some of the more exciting aspects of the game are being removed as a side effect.

I agree completely.

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
This is seriously bad game design.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with this. Dumber products appeal to more people, plain and simple. I always thought a weakness (from a marketing point of view) of 3.5 is that it required a fair amount of intelligence to play. Seriously.

IMO :)

PS which is why Windows (or Vista, or whatever) kicks Linux's butt :|

Scarab Sages

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
...4E crits sound very lame. If I do 2d6 + 4 of damage on a regular hit, and 16 points of damage on a crit, the crit is practically meaningless...
Tatterdemalion wrote:

Statistically, the new crits are little different from the old. Under 3.5, longsword (damage 1d8) averages 4.5, and 9 when it crits. Now it will average 4.5, but only 8 when it crits. But they've also made it easier to crit (for most weapons) by removing the confirm roll.

Still, critical hits aren't about maintaining statistical balance -- they're one of the most exciting moments in combat. Or they were...

IMO :)

Yes, that's the base weapon damage... but let's say that the attacker has an 18 STR, a +3 weapon, and Weapon Specialization.

Normal hit: 4.5 (1d8) + 4 + 3 + 2 = 13.5
4e Crit: 8 (1d8) + 4 + 3 + 2 = 17
3.x crit: [4.5 (1d8) + 4 + 3 + 2] x 2 = 27

Since they seem to be making sure something always adds to something (because subtracting isn't fun), I suspect the addons will be similar in 4e. It doesn't take very long for the actual die roll to become the least impacting part of damage.

Confirmation rolls seem an odd thing to get rid of, but what the heck. That's pretty much the easiest thing to decide how it works in a house rule that I've seen come out for 4e. We like the crit confirmation because it takes some of the absolute randomness out of it and brings some importance to the actual fighting ability of the attacker (ie. the higher the attack bonus, the more likely it is that a crit threat will be confirmed). With a linear progression you might just as well decide that if you roll a 3 it's a critical hit. Every number on the die has the exact same likelihood of coming up every time you roll.


Tatterdemalion wrote:


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
This is seriously bad game design.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with this. Dumber products appeal to more people, plain and simple. I always thought a weakness (from a marketing point of view) of 3.5 is that it required a fair amount of intelligence to play. Seriously.

IMO :)

I think Hasbro agrees with you...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mactaka wrote:

I guess I am the only person who likes crit-confirmation rolls.

Definitely not the only one.

My biggest reason for favoring the threat roll system is situations where *lots* of small mobs (a goblin tribe, group of archers, etc.) are attacking the party with a small chance to hit. With threat rolls, keeping track of the threats/crits is pretty simple, just roll that many extra d20's for chances of extra hit damages. Making every 20 a crit, even with the lessened effect, is pretty brutal.

I've had situations where 100's or even 1000's of arrows came flying at the PCs and they lived. 1000 arrows, only 50 hits if a 20 is needed, with 2.5 crits, - DR 10 from stoneskin or Righteous Might and only the crits really do damage. High level PCs *should* be able to survive a round or two of this from first level orc archers.

As for their claim that this system is more leveled out, that's fairly ridiculous. Crit ranges and threat rolls were *supremely* well designed to smooth out the spikes in damage. The "High Crit" property and magic weapon crit bonuses will leave players rolling from round to round to round, hoping for a crit, along with min-maxing things like that with ways of getting more numerous attacks, just hoping for a crit.

Overall: I highly disagree that eliminating threat rolls reduces spikes in the "curve" of randomness. Other than that, this is a very mundane system that has been around forever.

P.S. I will say it was humorous, but unfortunate, in my Pathfinder game to have the 9 strength dagger wielding Druid performing coup-de-grace's that did only 1 point of damage.

Dark Archive

Tatterdemalion wrote:
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
It's just dumbing down the game, and some of the more exciting aspects of the game are being removed as a side effect.

I agree completely.

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
This is seriously bad game design.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with this. Dumber products appeal to more people, plain and simple. I always thought a weakness (from a marketing point of view) of 3.5 is that it required a fair amount of intelligence to play. Seriously.

IMO :)

PS which is why Windows (or Vista, or whatever) kicks Linux's butt :|

Yes, but a dumber game doesn't equal a better game. In most cases, a dumber game is just a dumber game. They are also essentially eliminating one of the most exciting aspects of the game. How is that a good thing?


I beleive there are two reasons they are going to max damage. One I like. One I don't.

It is frustrating as heck to crit with a short sword, and then roll two 1s for damage. It's a crit! For two. Wow, some crit. I can see wanting to change this. For my games, we allow a reroll of damage with an action point. Ba-da-bing, solved.

It also means damage is going to fall into a narrower range, which helps make all the characters more similar in combat, which helps make them all balanced. I am convinced to my garters this is a big reason for this change, and lots of other 4e changes, and I hate it. Hate, hate, hate.

Now, I may play 4e, just like I sometimes play GURPS or WFRP. But it won't ever be a: my first game of choice or b: DnD.

Dark Archive

Tatterdemalion wrote:

3.5 is that it required a fair amount of intelligence to play. Seriously.

IMO :)

ROFL

Seriously.

IMO :)

EDIT: No, I'm not downing the intelligence of 3e'ers. I just find the RP elitism of "gamers are more intelligent" to be funny every time I see it.


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Yes, but a dumber game doesn't equal a better game. In most cases, a dumber game is just a dumber game. They are also essentially eliminating one of the most exciting aspects of the game. How is that a good thing?

I didn' say it was a good thing -- I simply suggested that it would sell well.

And since the point of publishing a game is to make money, more sales = good game design.


DangerDwarf wrote:
..I'm not downing the intelligence of 3e'ers. I just find the RP elitism of "gamers are more intelligent" to be funny every time I see it.

I hope I wasn't coming across as elitist. I've seen the phenomenon, too, but I don't think it's funny.

I'm criticizing 3.5 -- I really do think it's excessively complex.

Go check out the Rules Compendium (which I just bought, and already I consider it my most important supplement). That there's an actual need and demand for such a product says something about the game.

Still, I do so love 3.5.

Later :)


Dungeon Grrrl wrote:
Now, I may play 4e, just like I sometimes play GURPS or WFRP. But it won't ever be a: my first game of choice or b: DnD.

*sigh* Will you have my children? If not, can I have yours?

Once you've ditched the GURPS stuff, of course :P


I'm a huge fan of 3.5 and will play both 3.5 and 4e (I have two groups). The reason for this is that they are supposed to be so different that it will feel like running separate games.

With this in mind, comparing a system which you know very little about with a system you currently play and enjoy is just ludicrous. It's like trying to review a movie you've seen the trailer for then comparing it to a movie you've watched 100 times and is on your all-time best movie list. It just doesn't work.

Now, is 4e going to be better than 3.5? I have no idea, but I'm not just going to assume it is or it isn't. Now, will 4e suck 100% worse than 3.5? Of course not. That's just ridiculous. If the game were that bad all the designers over at WotC would have to be completely mad. Is 4e going to be perfect? Of course not, but neither is 3.5. For a person to say either game is flawless or better than the other without seeing all the facts is just being a bit extreme.

People who are extreme in their reactions about 3.5 or 4e just annoy me. Extremism is one of the reasons why we have so much trouble in the world.

And 3.5 is not D&D. The true D&D is 1e. Everyone knows that!


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:


Yes, but a dumber game doesn't equal a better game. In most cases, a dumber game is just a dumber game. They are also essentially eliminating one of the most exciting aspects of the game. How is that a good thing?

Ah, but a SIMPLER game (one people "mistake" as "dumber") appeals to more people "out of the box" (given that most people ARE a bit on the dumb side)...


crosswiredmind wrote:
Razz wrote:

Wow, the ONE of very few things I actually like about 4th Edition that COULD'VE easily been applied to 3rd Edition with a wave of the WotC's Magic Wand.

Again, 3E was just one big 4E playtesting ground, I believe. Until I personally see WotC's records myself, nothing will convince me otherwise.

1E was a play test for 2E

2E was a play test for 3E

3E was a play test for 4E

4E will be a play test for 5E

That is the way the game industry works. Why should that be a shocking revelation?

Risk is still Risk.

Chess is still Chess.

Monopoly is still Monopoly.

Poker is still Poker.

Now some of these mentioned games may have rule differences, based on who you play with, but the core rules are still there, still being played by millions, and still left untouched other than a "physical makeover" such as Lord of the Rings Chess Sets or Simpsons Monopoly.

Same game, different tastes.

And that is what D&D should be. It was from 1E to 3E...until 4th Edition came and laid the smack down.


Razz:

Don't feed the troll. Only grief will come of it.

The Exchange

Razz wrote:

Risk is still Risk.

Chess is still Chess.

Monopoly is still Monopoly.

Poker is still Poker.

Now some of these mentioned games may have rule differences, based on who you play with, but the core rules are still there, still being played by millions, and still left untouched other than a "physical makeover" such as Lord of the Rings Chess Sets or Simpsons Monopoly.

Same game, different tastes.

And that is what D&D should be. It was from 1E to 3E...until 4th Edition came and laid the smack down.

Each one of those games is mechanically simple.

They do not have tons of supplements and complex interactions of multiple sub-systems. You can't munchkin chess. You cannot cheese weasel risk.

RPGs are far to open ended and, by their nature, evolutionary.

There can be no comparison between the games you mentioned and any role playing game.

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:

Razz:

Don't feed the troll. Only grief will come of it.

You know that thing about civility?

I suggest you stick to it. I do not want these boards moderated any more than you do. If you have a point to make then please make it rather than adding yet another adhominem attack to the mix.

Dark Archive

The more points people are bringing up, the more I am realizing 3.x crits are more fun to me.

Ever since I can remember playing this game with the red box set, a 20 was always a HIT, no matter what. It just meant that someone was lucky enough to find a chink in the armor no matter how over matched they were.

I dont ever recall offical "critical hits" in 1e and 2e, mostly just house rules.

So 3e comes along and still says a 20 is a HIT no matter what. Ok I was good with that. Now you need a second roll to see if your lucky strike, struck a vial area.....That makes sense.

Now 4e says, ok a 20 is a HIT and a CRIT for max damage! Yeah, not liking that, especially since (if all the statements hold true) only PCs can crit. The only thing I do similar to this new rule they are showing is that in my group we use a modified 20-20-successful hit=death. Instead 20-20-hit=max critcal damage, but as you see, you still need to roll to confirm.

Now I know the designers want to reduce dice in the game, but dice are fun!!

Scarab Sages

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Yes, but a dumber game doesn't equal a better game. In most cases, a dumber game is just a dumber game. They are also essentially eliminating one of the most exciting aspects of the game. How is that a good thing?
Tatterdemalion wrote:

I didn' say it was a good thing -- I simply suggested that it would sell well.

And since the point of publishing a game is to make money, more sales = good game design.

I would respectfully disagree. "Good" game design has nothing to do with what sells well. Just like the Big Mac sells really well, but it's far from "good" - it tastes good, but it will kill you. I don't think anyone could possibly argue that the Big Mac is a good thing, but people do like it.

I'm sure we've all seen a better product overshadowed by another, inferior, product because of marketing, or money, or flashy lies. For instance... OS/2 was a far superior operating system to Windows when they were both vying for market acceptance. MS knows how to market. IBM has never been very good at it. MS won.

Just because something sells well doesn't mean it's good.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

Dark Archive

DmRrostarr wrote:

I dont ever recall offical "critical hits" in 1e and 2e, mostly just house rules.

1st edition, I can't remember. 2nd Edition they can be found in the DMG.


Hm, in my Gamemastery module campaign last night one of the players died in unfortunate critical from flame drake. I throw the dice in front of everyone, so I couldn't fudge the dice. The player had also died in last session and had just leveled up back to level six. So it's back to level five with him. Maybe it's good that those huge criticals are gone... I'm just saying maybe.


That's not my problem with it.

My problem with it is...

I did this in second edition. That was my crit system. So after

A) My players force me to convert to 3.5

B) Convince me of the wonderfulness of the 3.0/3.5 critical hit system

that...

I was right all along, I never should have bothered, or spent all that money on 3.5 D+D books and just stuck with the old Skills and Powers stuff until now?

AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH!


Balabanto wrote:

That's not my problem with it.

My problem with it is...
I did this in second edition. That was my crit system. So after
A) My players force me to convert to 3.5
B) Convince me of the wonderfulness of the 3.0/3.5 critical hit system
that...
I was right all along, I never should have bothered, or spent all that money on 3.5 D+D books and just stuck with the old Skills and Powers stuff until now?
AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH!

Hey think about the poor sap that purchased all the books a week before the 4e announcement.


There can't be many of those, can there?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:

Razz:

Don't feed the troll. Only grief will come of it.

You know that thing about civility?

I suggest you stick to it. I do not want these boards moderated any more than you do. If you have a point to make then please make it rather than adding yet another adhominem attack to the mix.

I'll try to be civil. Maybe you should take a day or two off from reading the boards? He was being funny; making light. I know you don't see it, but most of the rest of us do. We KNOW how you feel. Believe me, we are certain where your loyalties lie. It's in every thread that barely says anything even remotely negative about the new ruleset. Your footprint has been felt in every. single. thread.

Take a chill pill and it's going to be okay. I promise.

Please. For the love of all that's holy.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Razz wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Razz wrote:

Wow, the ONE of very few things I actually like about 4th Edition that COULD'VE easily been applied to 3rd Edition with a wave of the WotC's Magic Wand.

Again, 3E was just one big 4E playtesting ground, I believe. Until I personally see WotC's records myself, nothing will convince me otherwise.

1E was a play test for 2E

2E was a play test for 3E

3E was a play test for 4E

4E will be a play test for 5E

That is the way the game industry works. Why should that be a shocking revelation?

Risk is still Risk.

Chess is still Chess.

Monopoly is still Monopoly.

Poker is still Poker.

Now some of these mentioned games may have rule differences, based on who you play with, but the core rules are still there, still being played by millions, and still left untouched other than a "physical makeover" such as Lord of the Rings Chess Sets or Simpsons Monopoly.

Same game, different tastes.

And that is what D&D should be. It was from 1E to 3E...until 4th Edition came and laid the smack down.

You aren't alone dude. I feel your pain.


Balabanto wrote:
There can't be many of those, can there?

Given what I heard 3.x books were selling for at GenCon...

You could get an AWFUL lot of books for a few hundred bucks.

Yeah, probably 80% of that lot would BE awful, but still...


Tatterdemalion wrote:
Razz: Don't feed the troll. Only grief will come of it.
crosswiredmind wrote:
You know that thing about civility? I suggest you stick to it. I do not want these boards moderated any more than you do. If you have a point to make then please make it rather than adding yet another adhominem attack to the mix.

I'm quite familiar with civility.

In fact, your response was a nice lesson in that regard. Shall we all use it as a model? The last (and incidentally longest) sentence was best -- a very constructive effort at discouraging personal attacks.

That was sarcasm, BTW :)

Regards.

Scarab Sages

Nat20: Max Damage

Then roll a confirmation roll

If a hit, add rolled damage to max damage
If a nat 20 on confirmation, add max damage to mag damage and roll again

If 3rd roll hits, add rolled damage to double max damage
If 3rd roll nat 20, triple max damage, roll again.

etc.

I think you can easily bring the "WHOA!" into this 4e mechanic fairly easily.

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Critical hits in 4th edition All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition