Community

Less math and less dice rolls means faster combat.

Faster games don't equate to better games.

It is more suspenseful and exciting to have critical hits be a quasi-separate die roll. This allows the excitement of the first combat roll (do I hit?), the excitement of possibly making a critical hit (do I crit?), and finally, how much did I beat the snot out of him?

The current game mechanics for critical hits is fairly straightforward and easy - never had a problem with neophytes learning them.

Again, faster doesn't mean better.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that anything that makes a game better cannot be written in any version of D&D, as it totally relies on the people playing the game - not the game mechanics.


*****

@Logan Bonner:

you mentioned in your Design & Development article that you're looking forward to reading comments from people who liked the confirmation roll -- I am one of them, and here's why: they made crits feel truly special, because every "threat" was not a automatically guaranteed crit. For example, it seems that "minion"-level monsters can only hit high-level PCs with crits, which means that an average of one in twenty will not only hit your character but also inflict *maximum* damage. So, a 1st-level goblin cannot scratch you with its short sword anymore for 1 point? It feels a bit comical to me -- not to mention that like others have already pointed out, you can always roll maximum damage "naturally", so crits don't even feel that special anymore. And if one of the "design goals" in 4E was to make PCs rely *less* on magic items, why give crit-related abilities to magical weapons that would function without them? For some weird reason, I have believed that magical weapons in 4E don't have any "to hit" bonus, adding the "plusses" to damage only -- why not do the same with these "special abilities"? I mean, +6 Frost Damage (on a crit) would be a significant amount and could also impart some sort of "Freezing"-effect on the target.

Yet you're correct that sometimes a single crit could turn the flow of battle, sometimes even taking out a PC or a monster with a single hit. Even so, I think that crits *should* be unpredictable and dangerous, and they *should*, occasionally, be also lethal. For one, it's realistic (and I like to have at least *some* sort of realism in D&D) in combat -- even a low-level PC should be able to take down an ogre or even a giant with a single hit, no matter how small that chance *actually* is. And I also like that when I'm fighting a horde of goblins, I don't suffer at least one automatical crit (and potentially "other effects" if all of them have levels in a "Heroic" Class) every round. On the other hand, I *could* be argued that monsters and PCs with high AC (Defenses) can only be hit by seeking a "vulnerable" spot and hence it'd be logical that every hit by low-level PCs against Dragons, for example, would be a crit.

Yet all in all, in my opinion confirmation rolls make the system more unpredictable but more fun and exciting -- even when you rolled badly for damage. That's the way I see it both as a DM and player. You see, most of the time crits in 3E favoured the PCs -- after all, they had more Feats and Buffs at their disposal than most monsters or solitary NPCs. This was even more emphasized in 3.0 -- you could quite easily have a crit range of 12-20 or even less and build characters who could hit for 100+ points of damage with a crit or a right combination of Templates, Spells, Prestige Classes and Feats. 3.5 Edition did away with some of that, for example by prohibiting 'Keen'-effect stacking with Improved Critical. Besides, using Power Attack at high-levels ensured (more or less) that you didn't usually confirm a crit (at least against more dangerous monsters).

4E Crit System may result in faster game-play, but it also makes crits more boring and they'll have less impact on the battle. Is that a bad thing? Not automatically, but in my opinion it takes a lot of "tension" and excitement out of the game. As I suggested above, some sort of "special effects" (even without any Buffs, Buffs, Abilities, Talents, Feats, Weapon Tricks or Magic Items) would make them more interesting *if* every 20 is *not* an automatic Crit. Maybe you should overcome the 'Fort Defense' with your "threat" (or maybe it only affects 'Bloodied' beings?), or maybe there should be a confirmation roll on a natural 20? You see, in any case since these "passive" Defenses have replaced more "protagonist-friendly" Saving Throws, the system already exists. Speaking of this subject: has it ever occurred in playtesting that a single Area Spell or Breath Weapon has resulted in TPK when it has critted everyone? Because I see it being a more of a threat to everyone in the game than any "lucky" crit in battle, yet I'm not sure whether I have interpreted correctly that 4E spells, as attacks, must overcome every target's appropriate Defense or not? So, do you roll only once for a Spell/Breath Weapon and use that roll against every target, or do you roll separately for each target? In the former case, this would result in most spells cast by PCs either affecting everyone *or* affecting nobody -- I hope that this is not the case?

Having maximized dice also helps out when you have multitarget attacks. You'll roll an attack roll against each target, so maximized dice keep you from needing to roll a bunch of dice over and over -- you can just write your crit damage on your character sheet for quick reference.

I didn't just get this -- why not include a space for 'Crit' on the Character Sheet? You know, one "box" in the Weapon Statistics wouldn't be too much, and it would also remove the need to write down that damage each time you hit.

I do not see the change of crits as "speeding up combat" but removing a large amount of randomness to it. I don't know about you guys, but I do not like it when there are outlying random factors that completely swing the tide of battle. Less randomness = better for players. The 3E criticals heavily favor monsters, for one lucky crit by a player to a goblin isn't too much to get excited about, but one lucky cirt by a goblin to a player means that player may be re-rolling shortly. A single miss is not game-breaking, a single crit can be the difference between life or death for a player (under 3E rules).

In battle, I want to be able to count on the consistency of my attacks and those of my enemies. The direction they seem to be moving in 4E is toward decision making rather than luck. They do not want that random chance to end encounters.

Too many times as a DM I have had to fudge rolls to avoid one-shotting an unlucky caster due to the multiplication factor of critical hits (especially those wicked monsters with augmented criticals.), and too many times have I had my well-developed monsters get one-shotted by a lucky adventurer.

Also, for who argue for "realism", I wonder how massive spikes in combat effectiveness fit into a "realistic" vision. In battle, someone swings with around the same effectiveness pretty consistently (barring exhaustion, which does not fit into D&D combat), operating within a range based on their physical strength and dexterity. It is not realistic to think that a person gets massive, sudden spikes where they strike with remarkable power. If I were to take a stick and strike someone repeatedly, I wouldn't suddenly hit them twice the force by luck. I may land a lucky hit, striking them in a vulnerable spot, but it would not result in them being cleaved in half (pardon the hyperbole).

It has also been made clear that different weapons will have different abilities based on critical hits, as is mentioned in the article.

I like the crit rules. natural 20 = max damage. Simple, elegant and possibly yoinked if I ever run D&D again before 4e.

As to the prof. of 2. My thought is this. Classes get a certain number of proficiency slots, rogues maybe only get 6, while fighters get 20. These are points to spend on learning weapons. The more points you spend let you be proficient in the weapon, and if your a fighter you get a basic maneuver. Like someone said certain weapons require more to learn, spiked chain being 4, dagger or spear maybe being 1.

The other option is this: The number of proficiency number is only for fighters, and it is the number of maneuvers you start with using that weapon. You might get a feat that lets you learn a number of a number of additional maneuvers, or a new become proficient in a new weapon. The higher this number the more maneuvers you can learn for the weapon. That makes so me weapons, we'll say for simplicity a longsword, more common because they have more maneuvers. Other weapons, while having lower maneuvers initially, offer other advantages. Versatile could also mean that it can be used as a tool, instead of just a weapon. A war pick could also be used while climbing a mountain possibly.

Just a few thoughts there. I'm kinda hoping something along the second idea really.

As to how beneficial getting max damage may be, if there is any kind of condition track similar to SWSE, getting max damage would be a very big boon.