Comments on the 4th Ed fact thread

[HuManBing]

I used to play Call of Cthulhu back when it was all d100. That was a good system for Ravenloftish gaming - your hp never increased, combat was quick and deadly, and insanity would slowly but surely get you without fail.

I've never played WHFRP but I've heard that it was a good system (at least back in the day before the accountants got ahold of the game franchise and started releasing a new edition every year or so).

I also played Star Wars back in the day when it was d6. That was arguably my least favorite game mechanic - everything was very freeform and it was sort of assumed that the PCs would get a huge break in their favor in most dice rolls. (Though I suppose that's not too far from the spirit of Star Wars gaming.)

Sadly from what I understand all three of these game systems have changed considerably, with CoC and SWRPG all going d20.

[Ornum]

On the subject of size and hps (and also, with what I propose here, size and damage and size and AC), one could make ALL physical stats dependent on size (similar to what was done with strength, but taking it a step futher). Not only would carrying capacity be greater as you get bigger or less as you get smaller like it is now, but also damage and hps/level (where strength and constitution could actuall mean "bigger equals better"). Also, the opposite would happen with dexterity. AC bonus for dexterity decreases as you get bigger but increases as you get smaller (sure, that's done now, to an extent, but it's not tied to dexterity at all, just size).

I really think this would help with the hps and size issue, among other things, but it also adds complexity (even more math...which really doesn't bother me) and you'd have just one more thing for the min/maxers to abuse (but again, doesn't bother me because neither my players nor myself fit that mold).

[HuManBing]

I really liked how AC and Dex both took a hit when something got bigger. And Str and Con increased, which is how it should be.

Looking at some of the MM creatures it's surprising how few hit points something huge may have compared to something much smaller. And then once you factor class levels into it the whole thing goes off the deep end.

[Lord Soth]

I've never played WHFRP but I've heard that it was a good system (at least back in the day before the accountants got ahold of the game franchise and started releasing a new edition every year or so).

I think you're confusing the miniature game with the RPG. The current version of the RPG is the 2nd edition, while the miniature game is somewhere on its 7th edition.

[alhoon]

Looks like it's gonna be raining criticals, folks:

critmas

The maximized damage sounds decent to me, FWIW; still, the new game's practice of scaling encounter AC with PCs' attack bonuses had better be pretty darn consistent, or we could wind up with the same crit-or-miss phenomenon as made critical hits so ungainly before 3E. And if crits aren't available to monsters just because they're monsters, things could get screwy when the "monsters" are NPCs themselves. :-/

Check out the stat-list on the war pick, BTW. "Prof. 2"? "Category Pick"? Again, with the teasers!

I don't like it. This is one of the few things rule-wise that I don't like in 4th edition so far. I liked the confirmation rolls and the 20 thing is reminding me the dreadful days of "Crit or miss" as Roti said. Back in 2nd edition I had house rules that if you needed more than 16 to hit, then you couldn't have a critical, and the players were shouting that it was unfair etc etc. Confirmation was a very good rule even if it added yes, one more dice. It's not so terrible to roll an extra dice once a while.

Also what's the point of "simplifying" criticals saying "now you only need to remember 1 number! Not 19-20! Not x3!" and then "Of course you should remember that X weapon adds 1d6 on criticals, and that enchantment another +1d4 and offcourse that race talent adds a +1 and that maneuver a +1d4; don't forget that this feat adds a +1d4 too! That simple and easy to remember and calculate! Isn't it brilliant?"

[Jester of the FoS]

But is a 20 still an autohit? And with higher hp, crits are less impressive. They're a nice damage boost but not about to tip the scale. Confirming crits was just deflating. You got all excited then 9 times out of 10 nada.

[alhoon]

Yeah, that was what they said, but I disagree. At least as far as I have seen IMC you got all excited and 1 out of 2 times you got a crit.

[Archedius]

The new crit thing doesn't seem simple to me at all (well that said I know most of 3.5's rules by heart since I DM but regardless) It seems the same to me- I'm neutral about it. I houseruled crits for 3.5 anyway and if I like 4th I'll do the same.

[Georg Kristianokov]

I never really like giving normal humans extra HD. I'm working on rules so that they can distribute HP in different places.

[Lord Soth]

But is a 20 still an autohit? And with higher hp, crits are less impressive. They're a nice damage boost but not about to tip the scale. Confirming crits was just deflating. You got all excited then 9 times out of 10 nada.

That's pretty much how it worked out in a game I played the other day. A good number of 20's were rolled, but because the AC's needed to hit (and confirm) were so high, most of them fizzled into nothing. Even when a crit was scored, the damage sometimes ended up being pretty mediocre. Like rolling a 1 and a 2 for crit damage. Yikes. Max damage would've resulted in much more damage, in that case.

Whatever the case, I'm in favor of these crit changes. At the very least, I'm pretty happy to see the backside of the confirmation roll.

[yergerjo]

Like rolling a 1 and a 2 for crit damage. Yikes. Max damage would've resulted in much more damage, in that case.

Whatever the case, I'm in favor of these crit changes. At the very least, I'm pretty happy to see the backside of the confirmation roll.

Since the start of my current campaign, I've been using Paizo's Critical Hit Deck which has flavorful and frequently disabling aspects tacked onto the normal damage when you crit. Instead of multiplying damage by 2 (or rolling the dice twice as some do) you pull a card do normal damage and depending on damage type do something else.

Bludgeoning: Normal damage and be dazed for 2 rounds
Slashing: Cut the straps of their armor, doubling their armor check penalty and adding it to all their attacks
Piercing: Add +1d4 bleed damage (bleed can be stopped with a DC 15 heal check otherwise it continues each round)

Very flavorful, very useful, very deadly. It fits well for both High Adventure and Ravenloft.

Lucky for my players, they haven't had me crit against them yet.

[HuManBing]

That sounds like a good product. I will try to get my hands on a deck.

[Lord Soth]

Agreed. Sounds like a quick and easy way of applying those kinds of critical effectsin a 3E game.

[yergerjo]

http://paizo.com/store/gameAids/gameMas ... 48btpy7wv9

Thats a link to the Crit Deck. Coming out later this month will be a similar item for Crit Misses. Check out the other Paizo products. Most are great 3.X products, with great writing, thought and editing. In their current line of Pathfinder Chronicles, a 6 adventure Adventure Path, the 2nd adventure "The Skinsaw Murders" would very easily fit into Ravenloft.

Support this excellent RPG company! There are way too few of quality like this.

Disclaimer: I do not work for Paizo or are affiliated in any way save for being a long time Dragon Subscriber, current Pathfinder subscriber, and currently a Top 8 entrant in their RPG Superstar contest.[/url]

[Catman Jim]

Wanna see the 4E SRD? Cough up $5K USD to see it in January, or wait until June when it will be a free download.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dn ... /20080108a