Broken NDAs or Elaborate Trolls?

Bedrockgames · Feb 17, 2012

FitzTheRuke said:
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I wasn't looking for a debate.

You were perfectly within your rights to say "No, I don't think it's less believable that a guy can take more shots to the face with an axe. I think it's less believable that a guy could yell him awake afterward."

And I would have said "Fair enough."

I wasn't here for those debates, so I don't know what you said there, but here you said you were looking for "realism in healing" and I was wondering what you meant by that.

I wasn't offended

Just had this conversation too many times to count.

Dannager · Feb 17, 2012

BryonD said:
Except that in 4E "the math worked" so the wizard 1/2 level + Int + bonuses was close to the same as the fighters 1/2 level + Str + bonuses and the defenses they were aiming at were very frequently in the same range.

So the solution proposed here was nearly always irrelevant and other issues (such as but not limited to: anything that automatically happens 5% of the time is limited in just how cool and special it can be) remain.

I don't really care to participate in your sideline nitpicking. Critical hits against opponents with dramatically inflated defenses was an issue, and 4e provided an elegant solution for dealing with it. There's no need to go back to critical hit confirmation rolls.

Besides, let's not pretend that critical hits under a confirmation system are so much rarer and so much more special. Practically speaking, your average attack will hit a typical target roughly 50-60% of the time (based on expected bonus and expected defense relationships), so you're still talking about something that "automatically" happens 2.5% of the time (or so).

I see no need to make critical hits any rarer (or "more special") than they are in 4e. My table still cringes every time a monster rolls a 20, and erupts into cheers every time one of the players does the same. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

Dannager · Feb 17, 2012

variant said:
Honestly, I couldn't stand 4e and I am glad they are moving back to 3e as its base. Maybe I will actually play 5e.

I think you're going to be disappointed, then. D&D is not moving back to "3e as its base". D&D is moving forward, with the goal of providing a welcoming environment to people who prefer any edition of the game.

If you're hoping for a return to 3e, and won't settle for anything else, you will not get what you want.

If you're hoping for a game that combines the best parts of each edition, and allows you to enjoy the game on your own terms while allowing others to enjoy it on their terms, then you might actually get what you want.

underfoot007ct · Feb 17, 2012

Raith5 said:
I agree (if true). It makes far more sense for this to be related to your combat skill than how many your pluses your magic item has (as per 4th). The confirm roll is something from 3rd I like to see reinvented.

But I also like the fact in 4th ed that spells can crit. So I am less impressed if this means that spellcasters cant crit. If a FTR gets 1d10 extra for a melee crit, then I like to see a WIZ get the same for a spell that does damage.

Didn't many people complain about 4E, due to it's treating melee characters just like magic using characters? I am not sure I care either way, but why should both be the same.

underfoot007ct · Feb 17, 2012

Siberys said:
I'm one of those guys that likes "gamey and dissociated stuff", and this is disappointing, because It feels like they're half-assing it. This is what I'm afraid will happen with the playtest; they'll compromise and thereby please no one.

That said, if this is real, it could be a "starting point", from whence the playtest would develop, but I feel that would have a danger of tribalizing the playtest crowds and thereby making the playtest nigh-on pointless. :/

If compromise is a bad thing, then the "gamey & dissociated" crowd will hate 5E-next no matter what it evolves into. Compromise is the ONLY way a new edition will get the B/X, 0E, 1E, 2E, 3E, & 4E players playing the same edition.

BryonD · Feb 17, 2012

Dannager said:
I don't really care to participate in your sideline nitpicking.

...

I see no need to make critical hits any rarer (or "more special") than they are in 4e.

And there is the difference. We are looking for distinctly different things. What you call "nitpicking" I call a fundamental part of the game.

My table still cringes every time a monster rolls a 20, and erupts into cheers every time one of the players does the same. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

I'm certain that is true.

I'm also certain those things reliably happen 5% of the time at your table.

In my games the players know that crits mean more than just "hey look it landed on the 20". The thing with everytime "X rolls a 20" is that the quality of X is completely irrelevant. I've done it the way you describe. It was fun. The way I do it now is a whole new tier.

The rapier guy can get that fun a lot more often.
The great axe guy gets its it a bit less, but knows he is getting a huge boon when it does come.
The players know that sometimes the monster will crit them, but their destiny is more in there hands than simply hoping a 20 doesn't come up.

Our standards and expectations are completely different.

Siberys · Feb 17, 2012

underfoot007ct said:
If compromise is a bad thing, then the "gamey & dissociated" crowd will hate 5E-next no matter what it evolves into. Compromise is the ONLY way a new edition will get the B/X, 0E, 1E, 2E, 3E, & 4E players playing the same edition.

There's good compromise and bad compromise. The problem is bad compromise that pleases no one is much, much easier to come by than good compromise.

I'm hopeful - I /want/ to like 5e. I'm also a bit cynical about the process, though. :/

EDIT: By which I mean to say, 5e is really going to have to hit it out of the park to convince the guy who likes 4e and the guy who likes 3.x to switch from their systems of choice, let alone to play at the same table. I want that to happen, but I am really skeptical that it actually will.

drothgery · Feb 17, 2012

BryonD said:
And there is the difference. We are looking for distinctly different things. What you call "nitpicking" I call a fundamental part of the game.

I'm certain that is true.

I'm also certain those things reliably happen 5% of the time at your table.

In my games the players know that crits mean more than just "hey look it landed on the 20". The thing with everytime "X rolls a 20" is that the quality of X is completely irrelevant. I've done it the way you describe. It was fun. The way I do it now is a whole new tier.

I think you may have missed something here. In 4e a natural 20 is not a crit if you only hit because a natural 20 is an automatic hit.

BryonD · Feb 17, 2012

drothgery said:
I think you may have missed something here. In 4e a natural 20 is not a crit if you only hit because a natural 20 is an automatic hit.

I'm aware of that. It changes nothing in my post.

Estlor · Feb 17, 2012

Maybe try asking the question a different way.

Why shouldn't the wizard crit on a 20 when Team Monster decides, "Cheese it, I'm going to provoke an OA because it's just the wizard"?

One of the 4e adventure stories my group STILL talks about is when the wizard crit-kicked the big bad to death when he made just that tactical decision. It wasn't silly because of how it happened... it was AWESOME.