|
5 years ago ::
Feb 21, 2008 - 6:11PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2008
|
No crit confirmation roll? YES!!!
I did max normal damage... wow... thats terrific. He sure felt that... Thats some critical hit. I did a whoping 12 points of damage. Take that vile ogre... oh forget it. Crits just aren't worth celebrating anymore.
I'll be frank, I don't like the max damage rule. It seems less like a crit and more like nice hit. I mean, you can max damage without a crit, in 4E's case. In fat you'll hvae more a chance dealing max dmage via normal attack then through a crit.
Lots-O-RPG's Played: D&D (Advanced 2nded, 3.0, 3.5, 4thed & Pathfinder), StarWars (RCR & Saga), Scion, Shadowrun (4thed), Call of Cthulhu (Original % & d20), Warhammer, BESM (d20-3.5 compatable), Fudge (Fudge on the fly variant).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 21, 2008 - 8:22PM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2006
|
Don't forget that certain classes (*cough*rogue*cough*) will likely have abilities that deal more damage when critting, or have abilities that deal other special effects when critting. Then there is the Heavy Crit from the Pick entry we have seen. What does it do? We don't know. FYI, (with a longsword) if you only hit 50% of the time, then 10% of those hits are crits that deal maximum damage. Of the remaining 90% of the successful hits, there is a 12.5% chance to max. That equals out to, on a successful hit, a 13.8% chance per non crit of dealing max damage. 13.8% compared to 10% for a longsword. The number goes down wither larger dice, and up with smaller dice. The best you can hope for is a 27.7% per successful hit of dealing max damage........ With a dagger. 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 21, 2008 - 8:52PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2007
|
No crit confirmation roll? YES!!!
I did max normal damage... wow... thats terrific. He sure felt that... Thats some critical hit. I did a whoping 12 points of damage. Take that vile ogre... oh forget it. Crits just aren't worth celebrating anymore.
I'll be frank, I don't like the max damage rule. It seems less like a crit and more like nice hit. I mean, you can max damage without a crit, in 4E's case. In fat you'll hvae more a chance dealing max dmage via normal attack then through a crit.
Don't we still get excited over rolling maximum damage when they've just scored a regular, non-critical hit? And who hasn't felt like they've wasted everyone's time rolling all those extra dice when they confirm a critical hit that only does twice your minimum damage?
(4e) A natural 20 is a guaranteed hit and I know is going to do maximum damage!
vs.
(3.x) A natural 20 gives me a chance to do extra damage that might total more than my weapon normally does. Otherwise there is a possibility that I could do my normal maximum damage.
Not only have they made the process quicker, we're guaranteed to get something for it. Besides which, by streamlining it in this way they've increased the frequency (by increasing the probability) of critical hits.
Sure, it's exciting to get that lucky roll that fells an opponent in the first round of combat, but is it worth it when the next opponent turns around and fells our character with the same lucky roll? The philosophies of 4e would appear to be answering "no" by eliminating a lot of the arbitrary, random, save-or-die elements that can send an encounter, an adventure, and/or a campaign into a tail spin. Not everyone may share this same philosophy and can/will incorporate their own house rules - as they should. I for one am fairly indifferent about the new critical hit rules (other than liking the faster game play they offer), but approve of them because they adhere to the philosophy of the 4e game.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 22, 2008 - 5:02AM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2008
|
Again, "GM fiat" isn't a good way to run a game in a post-3e world. That's 2e and earlier Gygaxian "GM is god, players are barely more than spectators" thinking.
Cheating in newer editions of D&D with Mearlsian design is bad, even if you're the GM, since it steals from the players their sense of self-determination.
BAHAHAHAH! Whatever. DM Cheating is and always will be the best way to insure that the players and the DM have an enjoyable game. There is absoballylutely no reason for the DM to follow the rules 100% of the time. DM fiat is the best way to run a game.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 22, 2008 - 5:14AM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2006
|
BAHAHAHAH! Whatever. DM Cheating is and always will be the best way to insure that the players and the DM have an enjoyable game. There is absoballylutely no reason for the DM to follow the rules 100% of the time. DM fiat is the best way to run a game.
Are you using DM fiat to steal the players' ability to succeed and fail on their own merits, to railroad them onto the path you want, or both?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 22, 2008 - 5:19AM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2007
|
I love new crits. If I ever run a 3.5 game before 4E comes out, crits get house-ruled to that rule. I hated confirmation rolls anyway.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 22, 2008 - 5:32AM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2008
|
Are you using DM fiat to steal the players' ability to succeed and fail on their own merits, to railroad them onto the path you want, or both?
Neither. Obviously that style of DM'ing is beyond your comprehension since it doesn't involve going by the RAW. The point of DM fiat in all situations, is to insure an enjoyable game with the illusion of the players being in control of their fate. My players never know when I break the rules on their behalf. All they know is that they're having fun.
It is the DM's responsibility to insure that the game be fun for everyone, including the DM themselves. Otherwise there's really no point to running the game or playing in it. I let the players believe they're in mortal danger or believe that the foe they're facing is a challenge. I've DM'd this way since the early 90's using 2nd edition and I've not heard one complaint about it and only a few player (who also happened to be excellent DM's) noticed anything amiss about the rules.
The rules, for the DM, are like the Pirate's Code. Just guidelines. They're not some set in stone rules that everyone, DM included has to follow. The players do however, to keep things fair and balanced between them... up to a degree. Of course, how the players bend the rules (aka houserules) is up to the DM as well.
Any DM that runs strictly by the book is taking a chance of being forced to use a lot handwavium that becomes obvious when the situation spirals out of control. At that point, the illusion of disbelief is broken and the players confidence in the DM's ability takes a hit.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 22, 2008 - 5:44AM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2006
|
See, I used to fudge. Likely about as much as you do. I ran 2e. Then again, I ran 1e as well. 2e didn't have enough rules to allow the GM to get through a campaign without throwing fiat around.
I only stopped fudging in 3.5. I decided I was going to try running games for a while without fudging any rolls - playing by the same rules as my players (which weren't entirely RAW - the campaign I was running at the time had rather a lot of house rules). I tried a few sessions like that... then, deciding that I liked it and realizing that without a screen hiding rolls my players knew for a fact that they were overcoming challenges by their own merits, without the question-mark that the possibility of GM fudging creates, I did something rather dramatic - I threw away my GM screen. I started making completely sure that every foe had a stat block on paper, and would, if a foe wasn't going to make a later appearance, let the players see the stat blocks after the game.
I enjoyed myself more. My players enjoyed themselves more. I HAD to learn the game better. My players got a deeper sense of accomplishment for success because they knew it was earned - and never had a reason to doubt, on occasions when they failed, the fact that the failure, too, was on their own merits.
It's a bigger hit to my confidence in a GM's ability when I catch them fudging - especially when it's against a player - than when they honestly mess up.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 22, 2008 - 6:03AM
#79
|
|
|
I'm with you on that one trailfoot. I stopped using a GM screen about 2 years ago when I started using a laptop to DM. (I often travel to play, and having PDFs is a huge help) At first it seemed odd to the players who were now intently watching the dice, but they soon came to realize that there was no fudging with numbers in plain sight of all. Now they hardly notice except when an enemy roles a critical, and you see the nearest players jaw drop as he/she looks at the monsters target sympathetically.
I have felt the same sense of accomplishment and feeling of terror from my players when they succeed or fail. I think this is part of the reason I prefer crits that are more in check with a regular hit. Huge damage spikes can kill PCs, and without a DM constantly cheating, people die. Sure I could go back to using a screen and I have considered it once or twice, but knowing my players KNOW they have succeeded at something challenging without my help is far more rewarding.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 22, 2008 - 6:17AM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2008
|
::laughs:: Like rolling a die is in any way a "merit". That has nothing to do with player skill at all. It's random. I guess if your players felt they "earned" the 20 they rolled... heh... all the more power to them. By fudging, I allow player inventiveness to not be influenced by the vagaries of fate as much as they would be. Unless of course it is appropriate for the situation.
|
|
|
