Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6802158" data-attributes="member: 6790260">And I think &quot;ignoring the dice when they don't do what you want them to do&quot; is not an appropriate type of correction. I've given many, many other examples of corrections that can be applied that don't do that, by just not using dice in the first place. And, as said in the other thread, I probably shouldn't be continuing to discuss this with you; only doing so because you replied to me, and because......this is an interesting question. One could argue that it is &quot;ignoring&quot; the dice despite using them, but one could also argue that it is merely a different form of the &quot;grades of success/failure.&quot; Having thought about it for a while, I'd say I fall more on the latter side. You're still asking the dice whether the attack will land or not. And, presumably, you could still allow that a natural 20 is always a hit, even if it isn't therefore a crit. If I were to formalize it (which I would prefer, if it is to be used), I'd probably put it as &quot;normally, crits don't need to be confirmed, but sometimes the DM may call for a confirmation. And sometimes, the DM may decide that the confirmation just fails, without a roll.&quot;The nice thing about a rule like that--requesting, or simply denying, confirmations for crits--is that it would address much of the &quot;divergent event&quot; stuff. Both &quot;the party did supermax damage and killed it before it even got to act&quot; type (perhaps player and monster crits always need to be confirmed on round 1?), and &quot;the baddies have gotten roll after roll in their favor&quot; type. Still a bit arbitrary for my taste on the latter count, but it's an improvement, and one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6802158, member: 6790260"] And I think "ignoring the dice when they don't do what you want them to do" is not an appropriate type of correction. I've given many, many other examples of corrections that can be applied that don't do that, by just not using dice in the first place. And, as said in the other thread, I probably shouldn't be continuing to discuss this with you; only doing so because you replied to me, and because... ...this is an interesting question. One could argue that it is "ignoring" the dice despite using them, but one could also argue that it is merely a different form of the "grades of success/failure." Having thought about it for a while, I'd say I fall more on the latter side. You're still asking the dice whether the attack will land or not. And, presumably, you could still allow that a natural 20 is always a [I]hit[/I], even if it isn't therefore a [I]crit[/I]. If I were to formalize it (which I would prefer, if it is to be used), I'd probably put it as "normally, crits don't need to be confirmed, but sometimes the DM may call for a confirmation. And sometimes, the DM may decide that the confirmation just fails, without a roll." The nice thing about a rule like that--requesting, or simply denying, confirmations for crits--is that it would address much of the "divergent event" stuff. Both "the party did supermax damage and killed it before it even got to act" type (perhaps player and monster crits always need to be confirmed on round 1?), and "the baddies have gotten roll after roll in their favor" type. Still a bit arbitrary for my taste on the latter count, but it's an improvement, and one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. [/QUOTE]

Verification