Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wolfspider" data-source="post: 3978499" data-attributes="member: 300">Yeah, I know.&nbsp; I couldn't resist making this point.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> I've thought about it ever since my self-imposed (and very brief) exile, and what bothers me is the use of the word &quot;critical&quot; to describe what happens when a 20 is rolled in 4e.The word &quot;<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/critical" target="_blank">critical</a>&quot; means, among other things:&quot;of decisive importance with respect to the outcome&quot;and&quot;Fraught with danger or risk; perilous&quot;If a &quot;critical&quot; strike is not really a &quot;devastating blow,&quot; as Plane Sailing has rightly pointed out, then why use a misleading term?&nbsp; Wouldn't it better to just say that a 20 causes maximum damage without calling it a &quot;critical&quot;?Now, if rolling a 20 had additional effects, like causing the foe struck to lose a turn or become dazed or have to roll a Saving Throw to avoid going unconscious or dying or having a limb disabled or whatnot, then that could be called a &quot;critical&quot; strike.&nbsp; You have all very well shown that a farmer, even when he rolls a 20, is no threat to a hero.&nbsp; Why call such a blow &quot;critical,&quot; then, when it is anything but?It's just a max damage attack.&nbsp; Nothing critical about it, unless, of course, it reduces someone to negative hit points, as glass pointed out.I am going to also freely admit, before someone thinks I'm being a grognard or whatnot, that this is a problem with all editions of D&amp;D that used criticals that merely caused an increase in hit point damage, instead of some special, truly dire effect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wolfspider, post: 3978499, member: 300"] Yeah, I know. I couldn't resist making this point. :p I've thought about it ever since my self-imposed (and very brief) exile, and what bothers me is the use of the word "critical" to describe what happens when a 20 is rolled in 4e. The word "[URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/critical]critical[/URL]" means, among other things: "of decisive importance with respect to the outcome" and "Fraught with danger or risk; perilous" If a "critical" strike is not really a "devastating blow," as Plane Sailing has rightly pointed out, then why use a misleading term? Wouldn't it better to just say that a 20 causes maximum damage without calling it a "critical"? Now, if rolling a 20 had additional effects, like causing the foe struck to lose a turn or become dazed or have to roll a Saving Throw to avoid going unconscious or dying or having a limb disabled or whatnot, then that could be called a "critical" strike. You have all very well shown that a farmer, even when he rolls a 20, is no threat to a hero. Why call such a blow "critical," then, when it is anything but? It's just a max damage attack. Nothing critical about it, unless, of course, it reduces someone to negative hit points, as glass pointed out. I am going to also freely admit, before someone thinks I'm being a grognard or whatnot, that this is a problem with all editions of D&D that used criticals that merely caused an increase in hit point damage, instead of some special, truly dire effect. [/QUOTE]

Verification