Broken NDAs or Elaborate Trolls?

GrayLinnorm · Feb 16, 2012

Dragonblade said:
I can't believe that they have rolling for critical confirmation!!!!! Grrr!!

Thats such a stupid rule. It was one of the first things we house ruled out of 3e and our Pathfinder games. Even the Pathfinder diehards in my group think its stupid.

As far as healing goes, I'd rather have the healing system be a 3e OR a 4e style healing and you choose which. Rather than some weird hybrid compromise.

It's not so stupid. Without it, a creature that could ONLY hit on a 20 would inflict a critical EVERY time it hit. Does that make sense?

Siberys · Feb 16, 2012

Dunno about you, but that makes perfect sense to me. Bard v. Smaug, anyone?

BryonD · Feb 16, 2012

Siberys said:
Dunno about you, but that makes perfect sense to me. Bard v. Smaug, anyone?

That is a perfect 1 in 400 miracle example to me.

Calling that something that should happen 5% of every attack by anyone seems the peak of anticlimatic.

Siberys · Feb 16, 2012

Look at it this way; the only way I could hope to harm that powerful creature is by hitting it in its one vulnerable spot (rolling a crit). If I don't hit exactly there, nothing happens, but if I do hit it right there, it is going to /hurt/.

Honestly, all confirmations did was make actually rolling a 20 anticlimactic, because the glow of rolling a twenty was immediately overwhelmed by needing to roll the die again - especially against creatures with high AC, it went from being fun to being a slog. And it adds another superfluous roll to the fight's resolution.

kitsune9 · Feb 16, 2012

STAB MORE FACES.

Loved that comment! Makes me want to play a warlord.

MortalPlague · Feb 16, 2012

I'm right there with the crowd who hates seeing a 20 go to waste. However, I think they've got a solution I can live with; you still get maximum damage on a crit, then the confirmation roll gives you extra dice. Not bad; failing the confirmation roll doesn't take away your crit. So that's important. But you have a shot at additional damage.

Also, when a creature can only hit on a '20', so what if it's a crit? Usually with such a power disparity, the bigger creature laughs off the measly amount of damage inflicted.

kitsune9 · Feb 16, 2012

Piratecat said:
I'll personally make my decision based on whether my preferred rules are supported, not based on what other rules are there that I plan to ignore anyway.

This is wisdom from a great wise man. Couldn't agree more.

Bedrockgames · Feb 16, 2012

I dont know how genuine these "leaks" are but if they are, this is very disapointing. It seems like WOTC doesnt really understand how much people disike the gamey and dissociated stuff from 4E. Maybe they have tunnel vision from culling too much feedback on their own website.

Siberys · Feb 16, 2012

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. :/

Dragonblade · Feb 16, 2012

GrayLinnorm said:
It's not so stupid. Without it, a creature that could ONLY hit on a 20 would inflict a critical EVERY time it hit. Does that make sense?

Actually in 4e its not a crit unless the 20 would have resulted in a hit. If the only reason they hit at all was because of the 20 being an auto-hit then its not a crit.

Much better than inventing a clunky extra roll that mostly just screws over players.