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
D&D Older Editions
[3.5] Threat ranges no longer stack!
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="Pax" data-source="post: 972035" data-attributes="member: 6875"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm me. Who are <strong>you</strong> to dictate it is NOT? Besides, I've never said it's about crunching numbers.</p><p></p><p>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 <strong>initial playtest</strong> 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".</p><p></p><p>A revision should fix PROBLEMS, not tweak the way a game plays to suit some aesthetic goal. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And you'd be perfectly welcome to choose not to get stacking-threat-improvement affects for yourself.</p><p></p><p>As of 3.5e, I will NOT be welcome, in a default-rules game, to choose any such thing.</p><p></p><p>So much for 3E being all about choices and "you can do anything", eh?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <strong>ONLY</strong> 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 <strong>IN HIS OWN GAME.</strong></p><p></p><p>But unless it's blatantly broken <em>in the core rules</em>, on it's own merit, <strong>it should never be "fixed".</strong></p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>The problem is, Andy didn't heed that advice, and he's now pushed HIS house rule into games <strong>I</strong> play in, but <strong>he</strong> doesn't play in.</p><p></p><p>I don't care WHAT his job title is, nothing makes that RIGHT.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pax, post: 972035, member: 6875"] 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. 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! 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?" I'm me. Who are [b]you[/b] 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 [b]initial playtest[/b] 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. 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? 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 [b]ONLY[/b] 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 [b]IN HIS OWN GAME.[/b] But unless it's blatantly broken [i]in the core rules[/i], on it's own merit, [b]it should never be "fixed".[/b] 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 [b]I[/b] play in, but [b]he[/b] doesn't play in. I don't care WHAT his job title is, nothing makes that RIGHT. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
[3.5] Threat ranges no longer stack!
Top