Critical Hit with Fireball!

[Sundragon2012]

I'm 100% behind spell criticals....nice. There is no reason that only warriors should have the flashy kills.



Sundragon

 

[Celebrim]

I'm 100% behind spell criticals....nice. There is no reason that only warriors should have the flashy kills.

And no reason the DM shouldn't get more flashy kills, too, right?

 

[HeinorNY]

And no reason the DM shouldn't get more flashy kills, too, right?

If the characters have to die, the characters have to die.
Next time kill the enemy caster first.

 

[Sundragon2012]

And no reason the DM shouldn't get more flashy kills, too, right?

Well now that you mention it.....yeah...as a DM....this is cool.


Sundragon

 

[Felon]

I gotta say, this is a little worrisome. Anyone else recall the September podcast where Mearls and Noonan discussed the "sweet spot" of D&D? One of the "sour spots" they mentioned was when a PC manages to one-shot an opponent that's meant to be a big, powerful brute.

Now granted, this trog doesn't sound like he was intended to be some memorable foe, but even so, I have trepadations about a crit making a huge difference in whether a monster is a tough opponent or just a chunk of slag.

 

[hectorse]

This is nice, and there are a hundred and ten ways of making this balanced

 

[Lanefan]

I gotta say, this is a little worrisome. Anyone else recall the September podcast where Mearls and Noonan discussed the "sweet spot" of D&D? One of the "sour spots" they mentioned was when a PC manages to one-shot an opponent that's meant to be a big, powerful brute.

Now granted, this trog doesn't sound like he was intended to be some memorable foe, but even so, I have trepadations about a crit making a huge difference in whether a monster is a tough opponent or just a chunk of slag.

Keep in mind, though, that by the sound of it you'll not have so many "big powerful brute" opponents in 4e...they're going for strength in numbers, it seems. So, smoking one opponent might well not carry the same impact as it does now, as he'll have lots of buddies on hand to avenge him.

Lanefan

 

[Felon]

I really, really hope this implies that aiming rolls for all the various ranged damage spells (fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold, etc.) are being brought in. It has never made sense to me that in the heat of combat a wizard can always put her fireball *exactly* where she wants it...

Well, it "makes sense" in the same way that characters don't have to suffer any number of other inconveniences that plague real combatants, such as shooting friends in the back; it's done for the sake of smoothening gameplay.

Keep in mind, though, that by the sound of it you'll not have so many "big powerful brute" opponents in 4e...they're going for strength in numbers, it seems.

Just sounds to me like they're saying the heavy-hitter will have support, not that there won't be heavy-hitters.

 

[Szatany]

I dislike the idea of saves being a static defense. It has the benefit of cutting down on die rolls which I appreciate as a GM, but it has significant potential to hose a wizard/artillery role or significantly reduce the threat of an encounter. Let me explain.
Imagine an homogeneous group of baddies. Pretty common occurrence, it could be a bunch of hobgoblins or drow or whatever, the point is they have the same stats. If they all have the same reflex defense, they either all "make the save" or all "fail it." Which leads to two undesirable outcomes. If they all fail, the encounter is blown through and no one else gets to go. If they all "make the save," then the wizard might feel like he wasted his action, or if they had evasion, has wasted his action.
This was a big problem I had with SESW.

You can houserule it extremely easily you know. First possibility is to force an attack roll for each opponent affected. Another is to allow creatures make saves (essentially everyone takes 10 on saves unless they don't want to, and if they don't they make a roll).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I really, really hope this implies that aiming rolls for all the various ranged damage spells (fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold, etc.) are being brought in. It has never made sense to me that in the heat of combat a wizard can always put her fireball *exactly* where she wants it...

On the other hand, it IS magic. It might simply be that the wizard can vary the width of the lightning bolt a foot or 2 in each direction so that he can fairly safely fire nearby allies without hitting them or as part of the casting of the spell he specifies the exact angle the spell is to be at and the exact point in space it is to appear and since he visualizes with his mind and it is immediate, it always appears where he thinks about, unlike a sword which requires hand-eye coordination.

Or maybe it's absolutely no fun to play a wizard who has no idea if he is going to roast all of his friends with a spell each time he casts so he delays instead (like happened in the one game I played in where the DM enforced a "you can't place your spells exactly" rule).

I've played a couple of the D&D video games where (at the right setting) you could hurt your allies with area of effect spells and you had to choose the point to attack 2 or 3 seconds before the spell appeared. I don't think I managed to MISS an ally with a spell...ever.