Post originally by woodelf at 2003-09-02 15:04:01
Converted from Phorums BB System
A bit more on the nuts-n-bolts, please. Specifically, what's gonna make or break this one for me is how the wound factors are determined: are they based on fraction of current hitpoints, fraction of total hitpoints, absolute numbers, percentage of possible damage with that weapon, or what? I'm presuming that you somehow compare damage to total and/or current HPs, and this tells you--is that the basic idea? Or is it based on your total HP loss, not just from this attack (which would lead to critical hits being more likely against already-wounded foes)?
Post originally by Nareth at 2003-09-02 15:11:46
Converted from Phorums BB System
From what I've read and come to understand, the factor of damage depends on the difference between the number needed to hit, and the result of the d20 roll plus modifiers. The greater the difference, the more severe the hit.
woodelf wrote:
-------------------------------
A bit more on the nuts-n-bolts, please. Specifically, what's gonna make or break this one for me is how the wound factors are determined: are they based on fraction of current hitpoints, fraction of total hitpoints, absolute numbers, percentage of possible damage with that weapon, or what? I'm presuming that you somehow compare damage to total and/or current HPs, and this tells you--is that the basic idea? Or is it based on your total HP loss, not just from this attack (which would lead to critical hits being more likely against already-wounded foes)?
Post originally by Iron Messiah at 2003-09-02 21:24:54
Converted from Phorums BB System
This is a nice touch because now players can see a great effect from a great roll. I never liked the whole "threatening a critical" concept.
Old-school players all used the "natural 20 is a crit" rule at their tables. When third edition intorduce the threatned crit rule, those players were apt to say, "the hell with you! I didn't THREATEN anything! I caved your skull in, got it?!?" The hard-core 3rd edition players got ruffled by this attitude, but I understood where it came from. After all, you made a great roll, right? A reward is always nice when that happens.
I'm not much of a third edition player these days, but I'd like to see how this system works. Maybe I'll pick it up. Any of my fellow Grognards have an opinion to relate?
Post originally by Capn Zapp at 2003-09-03 02:27:32
Converted from Phorums BB System
The 3E rule för critical hits is, like so many other 3E changes, vastly superior to its corresponding older AD&D rule.
Having a flat 5% chance of "caving your skull in" is severely unbalancing. There is no connection to the opponent's might or skill. This is what 3E neatly introduces, as a "threat" is no "crit" unless you make another roll to hit which actually hits; thus making the opponent's AC part of the equation.
I guess AD&D DMs who used this rule didn't apply it to the player characters? Didn't want to roll up a new character every 20 combat encounters (on average), eh?
---
Nevertheless, I agree with "woodelf". To be able to judge this system, and to see if and how unbalancing it is, I would need sufficient detail on its workings: does this system add flavor, lethality, or both, to standard D&D combat?
Listen to what the DMG says (current version, p28):
"[this or that variant] makes a game more lethal and combat more random. In any contest, an increase in randomness improves the odds for the underdog. Since the PCs win most fights, a rule that makes combat more random hurts the PCs more than it hurts their enemies."
Linear Mode
