|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 10:53AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
depth and shallowness are in the eye of the beholder (well depth & perception anyways).
what you call depth/realism/ect, i call it punishing players for no real reason as i cannot view that as "realism". i understand that trained combatants can misread an enemy... thus they miss their attack roll. but to miss so hard that they [someone who's the equivalent of a navy SEAL] stab a friend or fall on their butt... no. i cannot accept that as "real".
Tell that to the parents of Pat Tillman, and those of others killed by friendly fire. And if you don't think that someone who is well trained can slip and fall in combat, I have several bridges to sell you.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 11:00AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2001
|
Well friendly fire is a tragic occurence which most people don't want in their game. If you want to go nitty gritty 4e is propably not the right system for it - or you will have to modify it heavily.
It would start with such things as allies granting cover to enemies - and a chance that if you miss the enemy you hit the ally. Maybe on a 1 on the die...
Ceterum censeo scrinium puniceum esse delendam
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 11:03AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2005
|
Tell that to the parents of Pat Tillman, and those of others killed by friendly fire. And if you don't think that someone who is well trained can slip and fall in combat, I have several bridges to sell you.
friendly fire is not normally due to "frank suddenly jerks his hand and shoots bill, killing him on the spot"
friendly fire is generally due to either:
-wrong position: either your troop was attacking the wrong area or you were in an area you weren't supposed to be.
-wrongly identifying the "enemy": you mistakenly attack your own side in belief they are the enemy.
i'm not saying stray bullets aren't possible, but generally speaking it's not because you slip and fall... it's because there is misinformation among the superiors and this goes down to the soldiers.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 11:12AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I would also be concerned if our friendly-fire rates were 1 in 20 shots. Or if troops were falling down that often.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 11:13AM
#55
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I detest critical miss rules. They are not gritty.[sup]1[/sup] They are not deep.[sup]2[/sup] I have yet to see that they add any benefit to the game that outweighs the complication inherent in such rules. [sup]1[/sup] gritty, in this context, meaning "having strong qualities of tough uncompromising realism." Critical miss rules are not tough uncompromising realism. They aren't realistic at all because D&D combat is not realistic at all. In real combat when you (or your ally) catastophically slip, you (or your ally) die. The Pat Tillman scenario referenced is case in point. Someone messed up and Tillman died in a single shot. Minor slip-ups are already accounted for in the auto-miss rule fo a natural 1. Adding more penalties is not tough uncompromising realism. It just confuses difficulty with realism. [sup]2[/sup]" deep" in this context meaning "characterized by profundity of feeling or quality". There is nothing profound about penalizing your players arbitrarily. The only feeling it should arouse (unless you're a masochist) is a feeling of inequity. And, yes, critical miss rules disproportionately penalize PCs than they do NPCs. NPCs are supposed to die. If one critically fails, they simply die sooner. The game is designed so PCs survive more often than not. Rejiggering the math to make survival randomly less likely is not "realistic", nor is it "dark." It is silly. Now, some people like "silly". But let's not pretend that our love for silly things is somehow profound or a manifestation of one's depth. It is naught but an aesthetic preference for randomly shanking a player's character.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 11:15AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
friendly fire is not normally due to "frank suddenly jerks his hand and shoots bill, killing him on the spot"
friendly fire is generally due to either:
-wrong position: either your troop was attacking the wrong area or you were in an area you weren't supposed to be.
-wrongly identifying the "enemy": you mistakenly attack your own side in belief they are the enemy.
i'm not saying stray bullets aren't possible, but generally speaking it's not because you slip and fall... it's because there is misinformation among the superiors and this goes down to the soldiers.
Wrong position is the key. As you(or someone else here) stated. Combat isn't a static things. All parties are moving, ducking, weaving, swinging, etc. Accidents can happen in a melee like that, especially if the enemy does something to cause you to stumble or move out of position as someone else is swinging. It's not anywhere near being as unlikely as the impossibility you make it out to be. Should it be common, or even uncommon? No. As a rare possibility? Sure. But also, as has been said, if you have fun with these kinds of tables, go with it. If you don't, don't. This game is all about having fun. 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 11:20AM
#57
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Wrong position is the key.
But that has nothing to do with critical miss. Pat Tillman's death is like someone firing into a square shrouded in darkness where they think the orc is, but it turns out that's where their paladin was.
Accidents can happen in a melee like that, especially if the enemy does something to cause you to stumble or move out of position as someone else is swinging.
That is not accommodated by imposing minor penalties for rolling a natural one. Accidents are how people lose hp. Their guard is down, or they slip a little and the foe is able to get under his defenses. It's already accommodated in the game.
What you are doing is simply adding an additional difficulty onto an abstract system in the name of "realism". But it's not realistic as long as you're using D&D's combat system. Armor Class and Hit Points are inherently unrealistic. Stapling a random rule onto an intentionally unrealistic system in the name of "realism" (aka "grit") is nonsensical.
Just admit that the real purpose is to make combat more difficult. Don't make up transparently irrational justifications for it.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 11:20AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
I used, to think critical fumbles were good ideas.
I've since matured and realized how inane the concept was. I quit using them at my tables, because one either it's heroes we're talking about, or monsters. Both of those things far outstrip Mundane Loser Who Thinks He Knows What Combat is. Which really Crit fumbles is the only thing would be applicable to.
At least the proposed Crit Fumble rules in 4e don't suck, but they won't be making a return to my games.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 11:26AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
But that has nothing to do with critical miss. Pat Tillman's death is like someone firing into a square shrouded in darkness where they think the orc is, but it turns out that's where their paladin was.
Yep, but I was discussing melee with that quote, not Pat Tillman.
That is not accommodated by imposing minor penalties for rolling a natural one. Accidents are how people lose hp. Their guard is down, or they slip a little and the foe is able to get under his defenses. It's already accommodated in the game.
No, it isn't. There's NOTHING in my AC that includes accidents. It's all accounted for by other means. If I get hit, it has nothing to do with any mishaps.
Just admit that the real purpose is to make combat more difficult. Don't make up transparently irrational justifications for it.
Why would I admit something that would be a patent lie?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 11:31AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2006
|
I think 4th ED has already given ideas for the best way of handling 'critical fumbles.' Much like Kords Favor and Critical Opportunity give an extra dose of awesome when you do real well, it shouldn't be hard to design some powers or abilities that commit some horrific atrocity on someone when they miss with a 1. Thats a much better crit miss technique. You miss, and if your opponent is good, they'll punish you for it.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
|
|
|
