GhostInTheMachine said:So the people nay-saying this new rule in this thread represent the majority of ENworld, and therefore the majority of gamers as a whole?
Yes, I think that ENWorld is fairly representative of the D&D community as a whole; and since the majority of that representative group holds a negative opinion of this change (and others), I feelit is safe to say, the majority of gamers will not receive this change well.
A lot of people are upset because this change is going into effect not for some game balancing reason, but in an effort to make critical hits more cinematic.
That should be a decision made by DMs and their players at individual tables. Perhaps Andy and his buddies think critical hits should be rarer, but maybe I and my friends find them PLENTY rare enough!
They shout out that this is "wrong" and that anyone who'd make such changes was obviously dropped on their head when a child.
I, personally, shout no such thing. I instead shout "how dare you foist YOUR personal preferences off on US, without even asking us if we AGREE with you?"
Who are you to dictate that 3.0 or 3.5 is a game about crunching numbers.
I'm me. Who are you to dictate it is NOT? Besides, I've never said it's about crunching numbers.
The issue here is, Andy apparently personally dislikes broad threat ranges -- despite the fact thet 12-20 threat ranges have been in the game since initial playtest was complete. I have never, before now, heard anyone COMPLAIN about such broad threat ranges; the response has always been "yep, and a lot of stuff out thereis plain immune to crits".
A revision should fix PROBLEMS, not tweak the way a game plays to suit some aesthetic goal.
For me, this will make those critical hits fewer and far between, events making memorable moments in climactic battles. Fine, this isn't a change catering to those of you who want to see all the rows and columns line up. This is a change for me.
And you'd be perfectly welcome to choose not to get stacking-threat-improvement affects for yourself.
As of 3.5e, I will NOT be welcome, in a default-rules game, to choose any such thing.
So much for 3E being all about choices and "you can do anything", eh?
Originally written by spunky_mutters:
So I guess what I'm saying is that I can accept attacks on the explanations and reasons given by Andy and others at Wizards, but I think it's pretty weak to suggest something is a problem because he uses it in his home games.
It's not wether or not Andy uses it in his campaign that matters; it's the fact that, or so it seems, his use of it in his campaign is the ONLY real reason it's getting pushed into the core rules for 3.5; if Andy wants nonstacking threat improvements, and a watered-down-to-uselessness SF/GSF, and so on -- he's welcome to use them IN HIS OWN GAME.
But unless it's blatantly broken in the core rules, on it's own merit, it should never be "fixed".
Stacking threat-range improvements wasn't broken, taking only the core rules into account. And as has been said before, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The problem is, Andy didn't heed that advice, and he's now pushed HIS house rule into games I play in, but he doesn't play in.
I don't care WHAT his job title is, nothing makes that RIGHT.