I don't think it's a problem with the game's design. I think it was just such a revolutionary concept that people didn't really know how to react to it, and a lot of people just fell into the unintended trap.
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It's always about the group, both DM and players. If you don't have someone creative, it's very easy to just rely on the RAW, which is boring and uninspiring.
Having people that do stuff not immediately suggested by the rules gets people thinking outside the box. As D&D has become more and more crunchy and people turn to video games more and more for their RPG needs, it's become less common that you find these people in your groups, in my opinion.
A simple way to mitigate this, is begin with the question, "What do you want to do?" You can figure out the mechanics pretty easily after that. Starting with the mechanics and trying to shoehorn something creative onto rolling dice and adding numbers is going to be much more challenging.
This is a problem that transcends rule sets and editions.
No, Poshniallo has a point. Yes, the failure to overcome a games limitations are the fault of the GM and the Players. But the game can be designed to actively encourage creativity. I'm sure others can offer up better examples than I, but Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies comes to mind as a game that actively encourages and rewards creativity.
I don't think that Poshniallo went far enough. No edition of D&D (that I'm aware of) actively rewarded or encouraged creativity, so I think it is unfair to claim that 4E stifled creativity. I am curious to hear the comparisons between editions and if people think the trade offs were worth it. It is more interesting and informative to see how the various inactively impacted "creative play".
No, Poshniallo has a point. Yes, the failure to overcome a games limitations are the fault of the GM and the Players. But the game can be designed to actively encourage creativity. I'm sure others can offer up better examples than I, but Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies comes to mind as a game that actively encourages and rewards creativity.
I don't think that Poshniallo went far enough. No edition of D&D (that I'm aware of) actively rewarded or encouraged creativity, so I think it is unfair to claim that 4E stifled creativity. I am curious to hear the comparisons between editions and if people think the trade offs were worth it. It is more interesting and informative to see how the various inactively impacted "creative play".
Previous editions of D&D did not encourage creativity (like you said), they had thousands of pages of codified spells that got you out of any possible situation you could imagine, and they were very specifically detailed in what they did. You didn't have to have a spec of imagination for that. The only time creativity might've entered into the game was when you were describing what your character was doing in such a way as to not get arbitrarily fucked over by your 15 your old friend (because he was the last one to say he didn't want to DM) who barely followed the rules anyway.
See, I found 4E actually sparked my imagination far more than previous editions. When my 3E barbarian raged, all I really knew was that he got slightly stronger and got a few more hit points but I had no idea what was actually changing for him. I knew conceptually he was a little more ticked off, but I couldn't visualize him doing anything other than continuing to swing his axe around the same as usual.
In 4E on the other hand I found the rage powers jump started my imagination. When I used Thunder Hooves Rage I could imagine him stomping around so forcefully that the ground literally shakes, and I could visualize him channeling primal spirits such that he actually takes on their features, sprouting wings or becoming more bear like or whatever. The same was true of other powers for other classes.
But I realize that might be just me. My imagination tends to be pretty barren on its own, but given just a little seed of an idea - for instance from the flavor text - it starts to run with it. In 2E and 3E I found the classes to be either entirely devoid of ideas (pretty much any martial class) or so restrictive that it left no room for growth (any spellcaster). I feel that 4E's division of mechanics from minimal flavor text provides a jumping off point for all classes while leaving room for personalization.
As for skills, I never had any 2E or 3E games that were ever any better for encouraging inventive play than 4E, so I have no reason to believe that removing skills will somehow make people better roleplayers. I do think skill challenges in 4E hurt more than they help, since as written they really force players to think inside very narrow parameters. It's not "How do we overcome this challenge to our characters.", but rather "How do we roll higher than X within Y rolls." The DMG should instead just encourage DM's to provide challenging situations that don't involve combat and give some XP, and give some ideas for how to come up with those situations. Skill situations shouldn't require rules other than how to resolve whatever actions the players decide to take.
On the other hand, allowing for "I, uh, I Diplomacy it" lets the roleplayers and their counterparts play the same game at the same table, so it's hardly a sin. Sometimes we have to remove the sticks from our asses.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
Well, yes, you should allow for that from time to time, but a good DM should encourage his players to become good players, including good roleplayers.
This means somebody who isn't personally persuasive can't play a character who is a smooth talker.
I don't have a solution to this, I think the game is better when players try and give these interactions more detail but it does create a problem. I can't swing a sword but I can play a fighter just fine. Why are we content to allow the game to approximate one of these but not the other?
Because, as a general rule, combat is not a roleplay scene. Also because it is a word-based, pen-and-paper game. So when your character is saying something, you are encouraged to say what your character is saying (speaking in character). If your character is doing something, you are encouraged to say what your character is doing (acting in character).
Well, yes, you should allow for that from time to time, but a good DM should encourage his players to become good players, including good roleplayers.
This means somebody who isn't personally persuasive can't play a character who is a smooth talker.
I don't think it takes a charismatic savant to do what we're talking about, you just need to think of a plausible scenario with which you justify the roll. "I'm going to give the princess the hint that I'm into her, just long enough for her to slip up and tell me where the king sent his mercenaries" or whatever.
But anyway, yes, encourage but not enforce. I just mean that one configuration of tabletop games is "sit around with friends for a couple hours, put a couple drinks down, and fart around in fantasy worlds". Those kinds of games are hindered by "no, you don't get to do that because you didn't adequately describe it, Mike". There's room for multiple configurations in many games (including at least the recent D&D editions).
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
Because, as a general rule, combat is not a roleplay scene. Also because it is a word-based, pen-and-paper game. So when your character is saying something, you are encouraged to say what your character is saying (speaking in character). If your character is doing something, you are encouraged to say what your character is doing (acting in character).
alt-post: because we're not silly LARPing geese.
So why is Diplomacy a skill at all? If you always say what your character says then I'm not certain the skill is supposed to represent because it certainly can't be framing eloquent and persuasive phrases if the player needs to do all that. I don't have to describe tying a bowline if I try and climb down a tree, what makes this skill (and bluff and intimidate) different?
I don't think it takes a charismatic savant to do what we're talking about, you just need to think of a plausible scenario with which you justify the roll. "I'm going to give the princess the hint that I'm into her, just long enough for her to slip up and tell me where the king sent his mercenaries" or whatever.
But anyway, yes, encourage but not enforce. I just mean that one configuration of tabletop games is "sit around with friends for a couple hours, put a couple drinks down, and fart around in fantasy worlds". Those kinds of games are hindered by "no, you don't get to do that because you didn't adequately describe it, Mike". There's room for multiple configurations in many games (including at least the recent D&D editions).
Your scenario is definitely not what I'm getting from Tox's comments. It is actually pretty close to my default level of description required to end up rolling a die.
The trick is also to know your game. If you've got a group of folks who've been playing together for a while and have a very casual play style, by all means, let it ride. But if you've got newer players who are trying to do something that's out of their comfort zone, help them by encouraging them and rewarding their efforts.
Because, as a general rule, combat is not a roleplay scene. Also because it is a word-based, pen-and-paper game. So when your character is saying something, you are encouraged to say what your character is saying (speaking in character). If your character is doing something, you are encouraged to say what your character is doing (acting in character).
alt-post: because we're not silly LARPing geese.
Yeah the speaking part isn't true at all. A lot of people just describe what they're character is going to say rather than speak in character.
Because, as a general rule, combat is not a roleplay scene. Also because it is a word-based, pen-and-paper game. So when your character is saying something, you are encouraged to say what your character is saying (speaking in character). If your character is doing something, you are encouraged to say what your character is doing (acting in character).
alt-post: because we're not silly LARPing geese.
Yeah the speaking part isn't true at all. A lot of people just describe what they're character is going to say rather than speak in character.
A) I was giving an example. A lot of people not doing it doesn't make it "not true at all" it makes it "not entirely true." C) I didn't say "speaking as your character" I said "saying what your character says" as in "My character tells him we'll attack if he doesn't give us the macguffin."
Because, as a general rule, combat is not a roleplay scene. Also because it is a word-based, pen-and-paper game. So when your character is saying something, you are encouraged to say what your character is saying (speaking in character). If your character is doing something, you are encouraged to say what your character is doing (acting in character).
alt-post: because we're not silly LARPing geese.
Yeah the speaking part isn't true at all. A lot of people just describe what they're character is going to say rather than speak in character.
A) I was giving an example. A lot of people not doing it doesn't make it "not true at all" it makes it "not entirely true." C) I didn't say "speaking as your character" I said "saying what your character says" as in "My character tells him we'll attack if he doesn't give us the macguffin."
I never made that insinuation, I said that the game doesn't encourage you to speak in character (it tells you to handle it however you want), unless you just didn't mean what you said.
C) You didn't say either of those things, actually? And speaking in character means speaking in the first person so that's pretty obviously what you were inferring, and if that wasn't your intention then you need to be way more clear.
If you could choose only one spellcasting system, which would you choose Daily/Encounter/At-Will spellcasting 2190 35.9%
Vancian spellcasting 1634 26.8%
Point-based spellcasting 1225 20.1%
Flexible spellcasting (such as the 3rd Edition sorcerer) 1047 17.2%
Total 6096 100.0%
This week's poll
Which of the following best represents what you'd like to have in the D&D game?
-I would like to see save or die effects in the D&D game, working as they did in earlier editions.
-I would like to see save or die effects in the D&D game, working specifically as described above: Give them a hit point threshold trigger.
-I would like to see save or die effects in the D&D game, working in a different way than they did either in earlier editions or as described above.
-I don't want to see save or die effects in the D&D game at all.
If you could choose only one spellcasting system, which would you choose Daily/Encounter/At-Will spellcasting 2190 35.9%
Vancian spellcasting 1634 26.8%
Point-based spellcasting 1225 20.1%
Flexible spellcasting (such as the 3rd Edition sorcerer) 1047 17.2%
Total 6096 100.0%
*sits back and waits for the spin*
Edit: here's my prediction:
"It's obvious from the polls that the systems we had in 3rd edition are all pretty popular, representing 64% of the vote. Of the 3rd edition options, Vancian was the most popular. The majority of you prefer a system where Vancian is the default but is replaceable with other systems, so that's what we'll do. Thanks for voting!!!11one"
Which of the following best represents what you'd like to have in the D&D game?
-I would like to see save or die effects in the D&D game, working as they did in earlier editions.
-I would like to see save or die effects in the D&D game, working specifically as described above: Give them a hit point threshold trigger.
-I would like to see save or die effects in the D&D game, working in a different way than they did either in earlier editions or as described above.
-I don't want to see save or die effects in the D&D game at all.
New poll sucks in phrasing, since two of the options are "choose your variant on this mechanic", a third is "you think our current ideas for the mechanic are garbage, but hope there's something better" and finally the fourth is "please don't do this".
Myself, I could do without the swingy effect on the game. But it's iconic, so obviously that doesn't matter.
bss on
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
Myself, I could do without the swingy effect on the game. But it's iconic, so obviously that doesn't matter.
Save or die effects are soooo stupid. They are pretty biased towards monsters. Monsters are expected to die; they only encounter the PCs once. PCs, on the other hand, encounter monsters a bajillion times. Monsters often aren't grouped in cohesive parties, where the combat ability of the entire group is dependent on each member. Player parties will often be fubared if the healer goes down. It's also super-unfun, really.
Like in Pokemon, I'd never have a team loaded with just 1HKO moves. But if every Pokemon trainer in the game had Pokemon loaded with such moves, the game would be close to impossible, just because statistically, you'd eventually get wiped no matter what you do.
Myself, I could do without the swingy effect on the game. But it's iconic, so obviously that doesn't matter.
Save or die effects are soooo stupid. They are pretty biased towards monsters. Monsters are expected to die; they only encounter the PCs once. PCs, on the other hand, encounter monsters a bajillion times. Monsters often aren't grouped in cohesive parties, where the combat ability of the entire group is dependent on each member. Player parties will often be fubared if the healer goes down. It's also super-unfun, really.
It's funny you mention that, I can't remember if it was in the 3e DMG or just the supporting material at the time, but somewhere the brains behind the game at the time said basically that, in a generic sense. Any rule that added more lethality or swingyness to the game only threatened to cause more player death and TPKs, because the game was already designed for just what you mentioned --- monsters are already expected to die, and the game is engineered to favor that.
I guess that logic only applies for house rules though, not anything blessed by the gods, or in this case the gods of nostalgia.
Edit: I think it was in the DMG, on a hypothetical house rule where double 20s meant instant death or something. Which is even worse than "save or die", since it's "random chance to just straight up die". I'd try to find it but it's late and my 3e stuff is in a box where I'd like to keep it.
bss on
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
We had a triple 20 rule. One guy one-shotted the boss that the DM had been hyping and building up for at least four sessions, the anticlimax still hangs over us. Sessions later that same player got instagibbed in a throwaway combat and that was the end of that rule.
All of us like some lethality in our games but it turns out that it's pretty uninteresting when someone just randomly disappears from play.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
4E has been fantastic for me creatively, because it gave me solid enough rules structures that I can build exactly what I want. The rules were also sparse enough that they got the bloody hell out of my way.
Past editions were so freaking random in how they did things that I'd waste all my energy trying to figure out HOW to do something and then never actually get to DO it. With 4E the way is usually pretty damned clear, and then it just comes down to effort.
We had the 20/%00 rule. Crit means roll the % and determine effect, 00 was instakill.
Another PC in a 2e game way back (against my first character ever, actually), she slapped me because I was being a drunken ass. Everyone laughs. DM is like "roll it!" She rolls a 20. Much laughter. Picks up the dice and double zero. Everyone is like o_O and then turns to the DM. DM is "uhhhh... guess you're knocked the FUCK out, yeah."
So (keeping this anonymous for NDA purposes) I have a quote regarding a playtest for Next.
what was seen was sooooooooo far away from a complete edition that it's going to be at least a few more years before anything playable is released
So they're basically asking us how to make a game we'll buy. Which, I mean, I guess I can get behind that, but they're so all over the map that I just can't see it working. Like, even if they went back to a 3.X type game, I could at least understand their decision and say "yes, hopefully they will finally fix those mechanics to a point they're much harder to break."
IE, if you've got a 2x multiplier weapon and you roll a 20 on the confirmation roll, you double-threaten. Roll another confirmation, and you triple-threaten. Etc, until you stop rolling 20s. If you confirm a triple-crit, you get x8 instead of x2.
It was...stupid. Almost never came up, and when it did it either killed a player or gibbed the shit out of a random throwaway monster. One of those two outcomes is forgettable; the other is incredibly annoying.
So (keeping this anonymous for NDA purposes) I have a quote regarding a playtest for Next.
what was seen was sooooooooo far away from a complete edition that it's going to be at least a few more years before anything playable is released
So they're basically asking us how to make a game we'll buy. Which, I mean, I guess I can get behind that, but they're so all over the map that I just can't see it working. Like, even if they went back to a 3.X type game, I could at least understand their decision and say "yes, hopefully they will finally fix those mechanics to a point they're much harder to break."
What they're doing just seems doomed to fail.
I see two options. Either 1) they're legitimately open to suggestion and they'll end up creating a terrible amalgamation of awesome 4e stuff and legacy bullshit from older editions that needs to die off or 2) they're just doing this as a big PR campaign, don't give a fuck, and Monte Cook is going to ruin the whole thing anyways.
Edit: here's my prediction:
"It's obvious from the polls that the systems we had in 3rd edition are all pretty popular, representing 64% of the vote. Of the 3rd edition options, Vancian was the most popular. The majority of you prefer a system where Vancian is the default but is replaceable with other systems, so that's what we'll do. Thanks for voting!!!11one"
This made my day!
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
The house rule for us for rolling multiple twenties is bonuses. Like I double twentied something with a bow, so the DM gave me +1 to hit with a ranged weapon against that enemy type. Another time I double twentied on perception, so he gave me a +1 bonus to perception checks. Things like that. It hasn't unbalanced the game as far as we can tell.
Also I think to encourage creative play in the game I'm going to run this summer I'm going to make up some +1 tokens. Do something awesome, get a token. Redeem them whenever you want on anything where a bonus would apply. Does not stack.
Posts
Having people that do stuff not immediately suggested by the rules gets people thinking outside the box. As D&D has become more and more crunchy and people turn to video games more and more for their RPG needs, it's become less common that you find these people in your groups, in my opinion.
A simple way to mitigate this, is begin with the question, "What do you want to do?" You can figure out the mechanics pretty easily after that. Starting with the mechanics and trying to shoehorn something creative onto rolling dice and adding numbers is going to be much more challenging.
This is a problem that transcends rule sets and editions.
I don't think that Poshniallo went far enough. No edition of D&D (that I'm aware of) actively rewarded or encouraged creativity, so I think it is unfair to claim that 4E stifled creativity. I am curious to hear the comparisons between editions and if people think the trade offs were worth it. It is more interesting and informative to see how the various inactively impacted "creative play".
this is why you need 5D&D
it is the game that transcends all rules and all editions
Previous editions of D&D did not encourage creativity (like you said), they had thousands of pages of codified spells that got you out of any possible situation you could imagine, and they were very specifically detailed in what they did. You didn't have to have a spec of imagination for that. The only time creativity might've entered into the game was when you were describing what your character was doing in such a way as to not get arbitrarily fucked over by your 15 your old friend (because he was the last one to say he didn't want to DM) who barely followed the rules anyway.
In 4E on the other hand I found the rage powers jump started my imagination. When I used Thunder Hooves Rage I could imagine him stomping around so forcefully that the ground literally shakes, and I could visualize him channeling primal spirits such that he actually takes on their features, sprouting wings or becoming more bear like or whatever. The same was true of other powers for other classes.
But I realize that might be just me. My imagination tends to be pretty barren on its own, but given just a little seed of an idea - for instance from the flavor text - it starts to run with it. In 2E and 3E I found the classes to be either entirely devoid of ideas (pretty much any martial class) or so restrictive that it left no room for growth (any spellcaster). I feel that 4E's division of mechanics from minimal flavor text provides a jumping off point for all classes while leaving room for personalization.
As for skills, I never had any 2E or 3E games that were ever any better for encouraging inventive play than 4E, so I have no reason to believe that removing skills will somehow make people better roleplayers. I do think skill challenges in 4E hurt more than they help, since as written they really force players to think inside very narrow parameters. It's not "How do we overcome this challenge to our characters.", but rather "How do we roll higher than X within Y rolls." The DMG should instead just encourage DM's to provide challenging situations that don't involve combat and give some XP, and give some ideas for how to come up with those situations. Skill situations shouldn't require rules other than how to resolve whatever actions the players decide to take.
SoogaGames Blog
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
This means somebody who isn't personally persuasive can't play a character who is a smooth talker.
I don't have a solution to this, I think the game is better when players try and give these interactions more detail but it does create a problem. I can't swing a sword but I can play a fighter just fine. Why are we content to allow the game to approximate one of these but not the other?
alt-post: because we're not silly LARPing geese.
I don't think it takes a charismatic savant to do what we're talking about, you just need to think of a plausible scenario with which you justify the roll. "I'm going to give the princess the hint that I'm into her, just long enough for her to slip up and tell me where the king sent his mercenaries" or whatever.
But anyway, yes, encourage but not enforce. I just mean that one configuration of tabletop games is "sit around with friends for a couple hours, put a couple drinks down, and fart around in fantasy worlds". Those kinds of games are hindered by "no, you don't get to do that because you didn't adequately describe it, Mike". There's room for multiple configurations in many games (including at least the recent D&D editions).
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
So why is Diplomacy a skill at all? If you always say what your character says then I'm not certain the skill is supposed to represent because it certainly can't be framing eloquent and persuasive phrases if the player needs to do all that. I don't have to describe tying a bowline if I try and climb down a tree, what makes this skill (and bluff and intimidate) different?
Your scenario is definitely not what I'm getting from Tox's comments. It is actually pretty close to my default level of description required to end up rolling a die.
Yeah the speaking part isn't true at all. A lot of people just describe what they're character is going to say rather than speak in character.
A) I was giving an example.
C) You didn't say either of those things, actually? And speaking in character means speaking in the first person so that's pretty obviously what you were inferring, and if that wasn't your intention then you need to be way more clear.
I suppose it's a good thing no one said anything remotely like that, what the hell
This week's poll
*sits back and waits for the spin*
Edit: here's my prediction:
"It's obvious from the polls that the systems we had in 3rd edition are all pretty popular, representing 64% of the vote. Of the 3rd edition options, Vancian was the most popular. The majority of you prefer a system where Vancian is the default but is replaceable with other systems, so that's what we'll do. Thanks for voting!!!11one"
New poll sucks in phrasing, since two of the options are "choose your variant on this mechanic", a third is "you think our current ideas for the mechanic are garbage, but hope there's something better" and finally the fourth is "please don't do this".
Myself, I could do without the swingy effect on the game. But it's iconic, so obviously that doesn't matter.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
if a game actually has balanced rules without mastery traps
then i cannot be better at the rules than other people
if i am not also rewarded for being better than them at roleplaying and creativity
how do i know that i am winning
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120305
Save or die effects are soooo stupid. They are pretty biased towards monsters. Monsters are expected to die; they only encounter the PCs once. PCs, on the other hand, encounter monsters a bajillion times. Monsters often aren't grouped in cohesive parties, where the combat ability of the entire group is dependent on each member. Player parties will often be fubared if the healer goes down. It's also super-unfun, really.
Like in Pokemon, I'd never have a team loaded with just 1HKO moves. But if every Pokemon trainer in the game had Pokemon loaded with such moves, the game would be close to impossible, just because statistically, you'd eventually get wiped no matter what you do.
It's funny you mention that, I can't remember if it was in the 3e DMG or just the supporting material at the time, but somewhere the brains behind the game at the time said basically that, in a generic sense. Any rule that added more lethality or swingyness to the game only threatened to cause more player death and TPKs, because the game was already designed for just what you mentioned --- monsters are already expected to die, and the game is engineered to favor that.
I guess that logic only applies for house rules though, not anything blessed by the gods, or in this case the gods of nostalgia.
Edit: I think it was in the DMG, on a hypothetical house rule where double 20s meant instant death or something. Which is even worse than "save or die", since it's "random chance to just straight up die". I'd try to find it but it's late and my 3e stuff is in a box where I'd like to keep it.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
in high school i had a DM who used that sorta
(this was AD&D 2nd)
it wasn't necessarily instant death but it always caused something ridiculous
that dumb houserule is how my paladin killed tiamat
oh and also himself
it was a good death i guess
All of us like some lethality in our games but it turns out that it's pretty uninteresting when someone just randomly disappears from play.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
Past editions were so freaking random in how they did things that I'd waste all my energy trying to figure out HOW to do something and then never actually get to DO it. With 4E the way is usually pretty damned clear, and then it just comes down to effort.
Another PC in a 2e game way back (against my first character ever, actually), she slapped me because I was being a drunken ass. Everyone laughs. DM is like "roll it!" She rolls a 20. Much laughter. Picks up the dice and double zero. Everyone is like o_O and then turns to the DM. DM is "uhhhh... guess you're knocked the FUCK out, yeah."
Unconscious straight until morning!
So they're basically asking us how to make a game we'll buy. Which, I mean, I guess I can get behind that, but they're so all over the map that I just can't see it working. Like, even if they went back to a 3.X type game, I could at least understand their decision and say "yes, hopefully they will finally fix those mechanics to a point they're much harder to break."
What they're doing just seems doomed to fail.
IE, if you've got a 2x multiplier weapon and you roll a 20 on the confirmation roll, you double-threaten. Roll another confirmation, and you triple-threaten. Etc, until you stop rolling 20s. If you confirm a triple-crit, you get x8 instead of x2.
It was...stupid. Almost never came up, and when it did it either killed a player or gibbed the shit out of a random throwaway monster. One of those two outcomes is forgettable; the other is incredibly annoying.
Common houserule that developed out of the 3.5 crit rule.
Shitty, shitty rule.
I see two options. Either 1) they're legitimately open to suggestion and they'll end up creating a terrible amalgamation of awesome 4e stuff and legacy bullshit from older editions that needs to die off or 2) they're just doing this as a big PR campaign, don't give a fuck, and Monte Cook is going to ruin the whole thing anyways.
yaaay
This made my day!
Also I think to encourage creative play in the game I'm going to run this summer I'm going to make up some +1 tokens. Do something awesome, get a token. Redeem them whenever you want on anything where a bonus would apply. Does not stack.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
:sadface:
Silly players