Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Critical Hits - why, and why not?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6678097" data-attributes="member: 6681948"><p>20/20 hindsight, 3e was the last one I should have picked as you clearly had to <strong>add </strong>criticals.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Round after round after round. Since NOTHING affects initiative rolls in 1e, outside ties the kobolds will win half the time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the "1 attack per level per round" suggests that the 1e designer thought they should not be a serious threat. But really, all we have to do is keep tossing Kobolds at the fighter until he Fumbles himself to death. Of course, if his AC is good enough that the Kobold literally cannot hit (IIRC, the 20 repeated half a dozen times then moved to 21, but it's possible), then he can just stop attacking. Sadly, this IMPROVES his survival odds - unless the kobolds remember how to Overbear, anyway. As I recall, Overbearing would be their best bet, not just attacking. At a couple of points of damage from each fumble, it will take a while to whittle away, say, 83 hp (5.5 average per level +2 for a generous 16 CON), but a LOT of kobolds would be needed to fight a L11 fighter.</p><p></p><p>If she tosses her weapon away, and a Kobold picks it up, he could possibly roll higher than a 20 (and could get a critical on that nat 20 as well - 30% of Kobold hits will be critical if they need a nat 20 to hit).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Everyone has different ways of building a character. To me, the background often explains some of that personality. But your approach is what I think swingy combat and short PC lifespans incent - don't put a lot of time and effort into the character, since most will not last long enough to become relevant. With combat inevitable and common, go high risk/high reward - sooner or later, one of the lemmings I roll up will get lucky!</p><p></p><p>Does it really make it more satisfying when, more by luck than by any player skill, one of the characters gets lucky? I guess so, for many players - I see it in Talisman, for example. It doesn't strike me as a great recipe for a role playing driven game as opposed to an endless dungeon crawl.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Critical hits and fumbles add mechanics, making the system more mechanics driven. I would expect the players you run with to fit with your style, and enjoy a high risk, high reward, swingy combat, frequent character death system. Those are the players that would stay in such a game, and you noted you have been running games for a long time - I doubt your style has changed markedly over those years. A player looking for something else in a game will either find another group, or conclude your group represents the hobby and find something else to do.</p><p></p><p>Back to KoDT, when Bob's dad plays in a Western game, only to storm out because he was always told these games were about Heros, not Back shooting dry gulchers - you'd never see The Duke behave like that! But the game rules motivated ambushes, not "fair" gunfights a la John Wayne Westerns.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Define ridiculous. One example upthread, IIRC, was L1 characters attacking a dragon. But, if I have 1 chance in 10,000 in killing a dragon, thereby gaining obscene levels of xp, treasure and power, that's high risk/high reward, and I'll get that one satisfying character who makes it sooner or later. To me, an endless series of characters throwing themselves into near-certain death in the hopes of getting lucky due to a high risk/high reward paradigm is ridiculous. How many people would buy lottery tickets if the losers were executed?</p><p></p><p>Swinging from the chandeliers when it will succeed only one time in 10, or 100, may make sense when I can toss hundreds of characters in to try. But if the characters keep trying, either they clearly are too stupid to have a sense of the risks, or they are simply bat**** insane. This, to me, is the kind of ridiculous behaviour I don't want in my game - what semi-rational person would try something with a 1/10% chance of success where the consequences of failure are devastating? These are not characters - they are game pawns.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6678097, member: 6681948"] 20/20 hindsight, 3e was the last one I should have picked as you clearly had to [B]add [/B]criticals. Round after round after round. Since NOTHING affects initiative rolls in 1e, outside ties the kobolds will win half the time. I think the "1 attack per level per round" suggests that the 1e designer thought they should not be a serious threat. But really, all we have to do is keep tossing Kobolds at the fighter until he Fumbles himself to death. Of course, if his AC is good enough that the Kobold literally cannot hit (IIRC, the 20 repeated half a dozen times then moved to 21, but it's possible), then he can just stop attacking. Sadly, this IMPROVES his survival odds - unless the kobolds remember how to Overbear, anyway. As I recall, Overbearing would be their best bet, not just attacking. At a couple of points of damage from each fumble, it will take a while to whittle away, say, 83 hp (5.5 average per level +2 for a generous 16 CON), but a LOT of kobolds would be needed to fight a L11 fighter. If she tosses her weapon away, and a Kobold picks it up, he could possibly roll higher than a 20 (and could get a critical on that nat 20 as well - 30% of Kobold hits will be critical if they need a nat 20 to hit). Everyone has different ways of building a character. To me, the background often explains some of that personality. But your approach is what I think swingy combat and short PC lifespans incent - don't put a lot of time and effort into the character, since most will not last long enough to become relevant. With combat inevitable and common, go high risk/high reward - sooner or later, one of the lemmings I roll up will get lucky! Does it really make it more satisfying when, more by luck than by any player skill, one of the characters gets lucky? I guess so, for many players - I see it in Talisman, for example. It doesn't strike me as a great recipe for a role playing driven game as opposed to an endless dungeon crawl. Critical hits and fumbles add mechanics, making the system more mechanics driven. I would expect the players you run with to fit with your style, and enjoy a high risk, high reward, swingy combat, frequent character death system. Those are the players that would stay in such a game, and you noted you have been running games for a long time - I doubt your style has changed markedly over those years. A player looking for something else in a game will either find another group, or conclude your group represents the hobby and find something else to do. Back to KoDT, when Bob's dad plays in a Western game, only to storm out because he was always told these games were about Heros, not Back shooting dry gulchers - you'd never see The Duke behave like that! But the game rules motivated ambushes, not "fair" gunfights a la John Wayne Westerns. Define ridiculous. One example upthread, IIRC, was L1 characters attacking a dragon. But, if I have 1 chance in 10,000 in killing a dragon, thereby gaining obscene levels of xp, treasure and power, that's high risk/high reward, and I'll get that one satisfying character who makes it sooner or later. To me, an endless series of characters throwing themselves into near-certain death in the hopes of getting lucky due to a high risk/high reward paradigm is ridiculous. How many people would buy lottery tickets if the losers were executed? Swinging from the chandeliers when it will succeed only one time in 10, or 100, may make sense when I can toss hundreds of characters in to try. But if the characters keep trying, either they clearly are too stupid to have a sense of the risks, or they are simply bat**** insane. This, to me, is the kind of ridiculous behaviour I don't want in my game - what semi-rational person would try something with a 1/10% chance of success where the consequences of failure are devastating? These are not characters - they are game pawns. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Critical Hits - why, and why not?
Top