|
5 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2008 - 7:27AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
EDIT - off topic
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2008 - 7:52AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2008
|
Edit: As for the dumbing-down arguments, I don't think this is really the most suitable rules-change for that label. Ok, it's a little simpler without the confirmation roll, but the current rules aren't hard to understand. What is hard to understand (and what sucks, IMO) is that critical hits can result in just normal hits quite often.
I liked the unpredictability of crits. It added some tension to the game when the pc's were facing off against the boss and one of them rolls a 20. Everyone kind of holds their breath for a moment when the pc rolls to confirm.
And I don't think dumbing-down is (just) meant to aim the game at a lower age group. Lots of people at my age (17) have problems understanding some of the more complex rules (crits not included), and I think a little "dumbing-down" would be great for bringing more people (a diverse group including both interested kids and great role-players that dislike complex rules) into the hobby
4th edition is a dumbing down overall into a simpler game that utilizes mmo terminology and game mechanics in an effort to entice the video game addicts into playing D&D.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2008 - 8:16AM
#23
|
|
|
Please remember to post your differing opinions with civility. No need to include personal attacks/smarmy remarks.
Thanks
WizO Kayn
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2008 - 9:40AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2007
|
The 3.X crit system is terrible. You roll a 20 on your attack, but you get a 2 on your confirmation, so you get nothing. Alternatively, you roll a 20 on your attack, you make your confirmation and then you roll a 1 on your damage. It's like getting kicked in the balls.
At least with maximum damage on a 20, you always get something good. Wasn't there an article that said that some weapons had additional effects on a natural 20 too?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2008 - 9:45AM
#25
|
|
|
4th edition is a dumbing down overall into a simpler game that utilizes mmo terminology and game mechanics in an effort to entice the video game addicts into playing D&D.
Want an cookie? it is an elite cookie...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2008 - 9:49AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
The 3.X crit system is terrible. You roll a 20 on your attack, but you get a 2 on your confirmation, so you get nothing. Alternatively, you roll a 20 on your attack, you make your confirmation and then you roll a 1 on your damage. It's like getting kicked in the balls.
Yep, 3rd Ed crits could be like the ultimate blue-balls (very anticlimactic).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2008 - 9:53AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2003
|
The 3.X crit system is terrible. You roll a 20 on your attack, but you get a 2 on your confirmation, so you get nothing. Alternatively, you roll a 20 on your attack, you make your confirmation and then you roll a 1 on your damage. It's like getting kicked in the balls.
Actually, in the 3.x crit system you're supposed to roll the extra damage, not roll once and multiply.
For example, a longsword crit with a strength bonus of one crits as 2d8+2 instead of 1d8+1.
This just goes to show you how much people houseruled crits in 3e.
*** In reference to the OP saying the game is being dumbed down, I've added this to my sig, because I keep seeing it being used all over the place regarding subjects that don't merit being blamed for being dumbed down. "I could post in Japanese to make it more complicated for you figure my posts out by forcing most users to use an online translator, but I've dumbed it down by putting it into English for you. All computers could be like this, but they were dumbed down so that you can press the on button to actually start a computer and use it. Moral of the story: It's not dumbing down when you're simply using efficient design."
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2008 - 11:02AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2007
|
I actually miss the double damage on a crit from 2e. The 3e confirmation mechanic added an extra degree of uncertainty that I've been pretty indifferent about. The crit system my long-time group uses, is the massive damage threshold rule from d20 Modern - If a character suffers damage from any single attack equal too or greater than their Constitution score, then they have sustained massive damage and are dropped to 0 hit points. After some experimentation, I added a Fort save DC (Damage dealt) in order to see if the knock out happens. A player also came up with a modification to the Heroic Surge feat that allowed for the expenditure of a Heroic Surge to shrug of the possibility of a knock out.
The 4e crit system has some potential. I think it takes away some lethality from combat, but can't say for certain, as I haven't seen it in play. I don't believe it's dumbing down the mechanic, simply a speed up of play.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2008 - 11:36AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2001
|
That the new age target of the D&D is becoming 12 is nearly evident.
Some semplification can appear interesting... others appear like totally crazy... but if you think that they want the game be easy understandable by a 10 year old guy... well you understand why they're over-semplifiating so much
Its a little ironic, but generally I found when it comes to getting a handle on a complex set of rules for a game, 10 and 12 year olds do so much faster than say a 24 or 30 year old; I know when I was younger, changing rules or changing systems was a much smoother process than it is for me now (and I have a lot more experience with a variety of rules and systems than I did fifteen years ago). Its sort of like the comments of parents when discussing on how fast their kids learn to utilize new technology. 
I liked the unpredictability of crits. It added some tension to the game when the pc's were facing off against the boss and one of them rolls a 20. Everyone kind of holds their breath for a moment when the pc rolls to confirm.
Well I have to give you that; the confirmation roll did make for some really exciting and tense moments like these.
But I generally found moments like the following were common enough, IMO, to warrent a change.
The 3.X crit system is terrible. You roll a 20 on your attack, but you get a 2 on your confirmation, so you get nothing. Alternatively, you roll a 20 on your attack, you make your confirmation and then you roll a 1 on your damage. It's like getting kicked in the balls.
 LOL, Ouch
With the crit depending on both a good damage roll, and confirmation roll, situations like these came up way to often, leaving a moment of suspense and excitement fall flat. :raincloud
4th edition is a dumbing down overall into a simpler game that utilizes mmo terminology and game mechanics in an effort to entice the video game addicts into playing D&D.
I don't take issue with WotC trying to attract new gamers; I know my area could use a few more, and generally if a change to a system encourages more people to give it a try (and is capable of keeping them) then it likely does so for a better reason than being dumbed down. And here is where I disagree, though I'll have to see the game to make a final choice in 4th editions case, I have generally found (in SW SAGA, the storytelling system, etc) that to simplify certain aspects has made for a smoother, more exciting game; results are resolved in short order, fewer hold ups, and with fewer rules artifacts mucking things up. I also found, in the case of Saga, that simplifying aspects of the rules have made for a much more nuanced game (Simple example: do I want to sacrifice mobility to increase my damage by taking Deadeye, or should I just grab rapid shot and take a reduction in acuracy...).
So what I'm trying to say is (like many before me) if you simplify a system in a thoughtful and considered manner, you're not only not 'dumbing it down,' but can open the doors to some pretty interesting options. Just because something is simple doesn't mean its simplistic.
In the case of the new crit rules, they strike me as well thought out and considered.
He who should not speak...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2008 - 11:51AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2001
|
The 4e crit system has some potential. I think it takes away some lethality from combat, but can't say for certain, as I haven't seen it in play. I don't believe it's dumbing down the mechanic, simply a speed up of play.
Though I'm probably just stating the obvious,
We've been using rules like these (no confirmation roll; max damage) for a while now (since the article, anyway). In my experience, crits are more consistently dangerous, they can't be shut down with a bad roll (confirmation or damage); if you score one, you reap the rewards.
(Point of Note: This is in a Star Wars game, where you often gain more damage dice [3d6 blaster pistols, 2d10 vibro-axe, etc vs. 1d6 shortbow, 1d12 great axe, etc], -not to mention bonus dice gained from feats, talents, and starship damage multipliers- so max damage may have a bigger impact)
What you lose is crits as 'encounter altering events,' in 3.5 a single crit can have major ramifications on combat, altering the outcome completely. You also lose the massive disapointments that JediDragoon alluded to.
Its been a good trade off so far in my opinion. More consistantly dangerous, perhaps a little less overtly leathal
He who should not speak...
|
|
|
