D&D 5E Critical Hits Appears to be Next in D&D Archive

[BryonD]

And yet you compare adults who disagree with you with 9-year-old children.
glass.

I did no such thing. It is a gross misrepresentation to claim I did.

I stated, factually, that my 9 year old daughter has no trouble with the math required. The only comparison there was the implict assumption that pretty mcuh anyone on these boards should have even less trouble with it. Saying that a threshold is set well below what I assume to be the capacity of the readers is, if anything, exactly the opposite of equating the readers with that threshold.

edit: I also don't understand how you leapt to the question of my daughter doing arithmatic for fun. I said it was easy for her. I said nothing that remotely states "arithmatic == fun". The same arithmatic will be required in determining a hit or miss in 4E. Yet I don't expect you will say that 4E will be "arithmatic for fun".

 

[Pinotage]

Them's 3e thinkin'. In 4e, those mooks will have a better chance to hit, but will drop faster and probably do less damage. 3e didn't do mooks very well, and 4e has aims to build them into the system from the get go.

Yes, that's true. It's entirely possible, and highly likely, that the 4e critical system will makes much more sense under 4e's framework than in the light of what we know about 3e.

Pinotage

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

But the way the mechanic is currently written, against a high AC opponent, any blow the farmer lands is a devastating blow. There's no middle ground. If your only chance to hit is a natural 20, and you automatically critical on it, you can't score a 'glancing' blow against a high AC hero. Mind you, the farmer's 7 hp is likely to be a mere scratch or dent in any case against a high AC hero.

Pinotage

Of course the farmer can't score a glancing blow against he high AC opponent. A glancing blow from a lowly farmer is something that is going to slide off armor, or be deflected away with a simple parry - he doesn't have the skill to make anything but a perfect blow actually land. That perfect blow is going to hurt when it happens.

 

[Deverash]

If a "critical" strike is not really a "devastating blow," as Plane Sailing has rightly pointed out, then why use a misleading term? Wouldn't it better to just say that a 20 causes maximum damage without calling it a "critical"?

The only problem with this is you need a keyword you can use in other rules to key off the fact you rolled a natural 20(or whatever else is going to trigger the effects). If you don't call it "critical hit," what /do/ you call it?

 

[Professor Phobos]

I am going to also freely admit, before someone thinks I'm being a grognard or whatnot, that this is a problem with all editions of D&D that used criticals that merely caused an increase in hit point damage, instead of some special, truly dire effect.

1. Legacy
2. It's the term used in CRPGs, other RPGs, and virtually every other media the audience for D&D 4th is going to be familiar with.
3. We know that class abilities and magic weapons are going to have powers tied to critical hits; as far as we know they might well be special effects worthy of the term "critical."

 

[JohnSnow]

I did no such thing. It is a gross misrepresentation to claim I did.

I stated, factually, that my 9 year old daughter has no trouble with the math required. The only comparison there was the implict assumption that pretty mcuh anyone on these boards should have even less trouble with it. Saying that a threshold is set well below what I assume to be the capacity of the readers is, if anything, exactly the opposite of equating the readers with that threshold.

edit: I also don't understand how you leapt to the question of my daughter doing arithmatic for fun. I said it was easy for her. I said nothing that remotely states "arithmatic == fun". The same arithmatic will be required in determining a hit or miss in 4E. Yet I don't expect you will say that 4E will be "arithmatic for fun".

The thing is that what you did is as insulting as it would be to you if I said: any 9-year-old should know how to spell 'arithmetic.'

The idea of eliminating math is about making the game more straight-forward. It's not that the math is hard. It's that every time people have to do math, there's a risk of a mistake. Like there can be with spelling. Except that in D&D, that small math error can actually change the outcome.

Which means that less math = smoother flowing game.

 

[BryonD]

The idea of eliminating math is about making the game more straight-forward. It's not that the math is hard. It's that every time people have to do math, there's a risk of a mistake. Like there can be with spelling. Except that in D&D, that small math error can actually change the outcome.

Which means that less math = smoother flowing game.

The point made at the time was that ti took to much time. If you go back and look at my post you will see that my replyl was in regard to it not taking any significant time at all. I'd hope people managed to get no more insulted by my simply stating a fact than I did by you pointly trying to be insulting to me.

Obviously, I find the reward to be far and away worht the risk of a mistake.
The same arguement could be made for removing math for determing the success of attacks, saves, skill checks, etc... Mistakes with major implications can happen in any of these things. But if the game assumes that the players may be disrptued by this, then the freedom to develop the best game possible becomes constrained.

I consider that "risk" to be remote in the extreme and the value being lost to be significant.

The "smoother flowing" would be imperceptable to me. But the reduced quality of simulation and reduced reward (5% no matter what you do) would be constant reminders of a better way.

 

[rvalle]

I haven't been able to make it though all the messages yet so maybe this has been pointed out already...


But it seems like some of the people saying 'this is a good thing because it reduces the number of dice rolled' are the same ones saying 'this is a good thing because it can trigger a feat that lets you roll more dice'.

That seems contradictory.

Also, how much time does it take for someone to pick up a few more dice, roll them and add them up? 10 seconds? 15?

But, give that player more options: "You can trigger your auto knockdown feat or, because you are within 10' of the Warlord you can get +2d6 damage or, you can instacast your 'teleport 30 feet on a crit spell' " What do you want to do???

NOW watch how much time goes by before the next die is rolled.


The biggest things slowing down our game hasn't been the number of dice rolled, its players deciding what they want to do.

rv

 

[Professor Phobos]

The thing is that what you did is as insulting as it would be to you if I said: any 9-year-old should know how to spell 'arithmetic.'

The idea of eliminating math is about making the game more straight-forward. It's not that the math is hard. It's that every time people have to do math, there's a risk of a mistake. Like there can be with spelling. Except that in D&D, that small math error can actually change the outcome.

Which means that less math = smoother flowing game.

Plus, it takes up time that could be better spent gaming. I can certainly add and subtract. I can even multiply. If I sit down for a while and take my shoes off I can divide. But it doesn't mean that any damn calculation I don't absolutely have to do isn't going to annoy me, just because I can do it.

 

[Wormwood]

But it doesn't mean that any damn calculation I don't absolutely have to do isn't going to annoy me, just because I can do it.

Exactly. Unnecessary rolls and calculations are irritating, regardless of their complexity.

IMO: the game system should intrude as little as possible in my game play.