|
Like all dictators, I shall derive my legitimacy from having a sword lobbed at me by a young woman lying in a pond.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
D-whatever The Gamey's The Elfies The Board awards The Awful Ennies The Awful Awards Treasure type Awful Awards No dice awards RNG awards The Bell curves The Copper coins Golden Kobolds The critical hits I actually like "The Critical Hits" most. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Sep 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
The Elvenstones
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
There's always the way the Diana Jones award was named.quote:
Burn a sourcebook, name it after whatever's still visible of the logo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
honestly i thought it would take a little longer before people recommended book burning as a part of recognizing good games
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
I like the Golden Kobold but Critical Hits is also good--'The Critties'? You could do a statue for the Kobold by spraypainting one of those foil-wrapped chocolate easter bunnies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:honestly i thought it would take a little longer before people recommended book burning as a part of recognizing good games Flame resistance is an important criteria to determine
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
The Corgis, if we're going on personal choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
I like the Awful Awards because you have to explain that it's good actually every time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
I chuckled at the TeeGees, but the Critical Hit Award sounds cheeky while still meaning something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Hey folks. Mind making a thread for setting this up? I get the feeling this is either going to fill the thread for days or be lost the next time something industry-related happens. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Will do Edit: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3791873 inklesspen fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Sep 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
I like the name "Critical Hit Award"
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
A bunch of tabletop self-publishers got together to do a charity donation bundle on OneBookShelf for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. In case you don't know, this big oil company is running the big XL pipeline through a Native American reservation without the consent of those living there, creating many protests against the construction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:A bunch of tabletop self-publishers got together to do a charity donation bundle on OneBookShelf for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. This is a pretty cool bundle. A lot of it is supplement stuff but there's neat things like Reign by Greg Stolze, and a Dungeon world supplement for doing Rifts stuff. Suprisingly there's a hell of a lot of OSR stuff, which surprised me. Plus it's a good cause, lots of crazy poo poo going on in the protest world recently and could do with more attention and help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
No Thunder Plains supplements? Missed opportunity, Monte.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Unrelated to the previous discussion and more of a game design question than industry, but does anyone know why 3E D&D add critical hit confirmation? To wit:quote:When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target’s Armor Class, and you have scored a threat. The hit might be a critical hit (or "crit"). To find out if it’s a critical hit, you immediately make a critical roll—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the critical roll also results in a hit against the target’s AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit. It doesn’t need to come up 20 again.) If the critical roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit. i mean its purpose is to lower the number of critical hits in a game and to prevent PCs from getting lucky crits on enemies with super high AC. I think it was designed to solve the problem of PCs only being able to hit a dragon or other boss monster on a nat 20, so any hit on the dragon was a critical hit but I don't see why that was such an important problem to solve for 3E. Was it a common problem in 2E and the designers wanted to solve that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:Unrelated to the previous discussion and more of a game design question than industry, but does anyone know why 3E D&D add critical hit confirmation? To wit:
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:Unrelated to the previous discussion and more of a game design question than industry, but does anyone know why 3E D&D add critical hit confirmation? To wit:
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:Unrelated to the previous discussion and more of a game design question than industry, but does anyone know why 3E D&D add critical hit confirmation? To wit: Obligatory blog plug: A Short History of Critical Hits in D&D Critical hits first saw official support in AD&D 2nd Edition's Player's Option - Combat and Tactics. The rule there was that if you rolled a natural 18, 19, or 20, and the final modified roll exceeds the required to-hit by 5 or more, you score a critical hit. That second clause was to, as you said, prevent a situation where if you needed a nat 20 to hit something, that it would also always be a critical hit. This isn't really a problem in and of itself, so much as a consistency/intuitiveness issue that D&D wanted to solve. Now, in the transition to 3rd Edition, there was a strong focus on mechanics that supported scaling and proportionality. I used this passage describing the evolution of spell resistance to demonstrate my point: quote:EVOLUTION OF SPELL RESISTANCE You can also see this in the form of size modifiers: a Large-sized creature has a -1 size modifier to both attack and AC, so while a Medium attacker against a Large defender has an easier time hitting, it's a wash for a Large attacker and a Large defender, since the -1 AC of the defender is made up for by the -1 attack penalty on the attacker. In this spirit, the 3rd Edition crit confirmation rules are a transformation of the "and the final modified roll exceeds the required to-hit by 5 or more" into a rule that supports scaling and proportionality. That is, the "window" by which your critical hits will confirm will change to however normally hard the enemy is to hit, rather than a flat +5 over the required. In a vacuum, that actually means that this rule would enable more critical hits, since needing a flat +5 over the required would otherwise lock out anything that needed a natural 16 or higher to be hit, but the trade-off is that the crit trigger itself changed from 18/19/20 in AD&D Combat and Tactics, to just 20 or 19/20 depending on the 3rd Edition weapon. Finally, this crit confirmation rule gives you another "stat to be fiddled with", as far as effects and spells and abilities that give you "a bonus to the crit confirmation roll" Such as this Warblade ability:  Or this spell: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Also neatly illustrating the idiotic caster supremecy of 3rd edition: a 1st level magic spell makes the caster (and only the caster, not an ally) better at critting than a melee class character, even one with a keen blade. And probably better than a warblade with a keen blade AND that ability quoted, since the warblade probably doesn't have a +4 INT bonus. ...for one round. But there are metamagic feats for extending the duration of spells, and anyway it's a swift action so a midlevel caster can cast it plenty of times in a combat and can explicitly only bother casting it when scoring a critical hit would matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Also neatly illustrating the idiotic caster supremecy of 3rd edition: a 1st level magic spell makes the caster (and only the caster, not an ally) better at critting than a melee class character, even one with a keen blade. And probably better than a warblade with a keen blade AND that ability quoted, since the warblade probably doesn't have a +4 INT bonus. As someone who played a Warblade, yes, you do. Int is a Warblade's secondary stat and you want Int boosting gear as much or more than you want strength boosting stuff. Half their class features key off of it and they've got a lot of skills that they want to keep maxed for some of their powers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Oh OK, my mistake, I never had the supplement that had warblades in it for 3.5. That makes it fine, then, it's cool for a 1st level spell to make a caster as good as a warblade with a keen blade at scoring crits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Oh OK, my mistake, I never had the supplement that had warblades in it for 3.5. ...for one round. And since it's only a spell for wizards, sorcerers, bards and assassins, the caster probably isn't going to be very good at actually hitting with the weapon in the first place, unless they've either invested enough into multiclassing that they're more likely to hit with that one crit-boosted attack than a single-classed bard, but still aren't as likely to actually hit as a single-classed fighter-type. And even a multiclassed caster has plenty of better spells to devote a first-level spell slot to, like Sleep (an apt comparison, since nearly everything that's immune to Sleep is also immune to crits in 3e) or even Magic Missile, which is reliant on fewer conditionals and which can be cast from range to deal comparable amounts of damage. And they have even more options if they're burning a second-level spell slot to apply a metamagic feat to Critical Strike to make it last two rounds instead of one - or you could use that second-level spell slot to cast a spell like Web that's guaranteed to take multiple enemies out of the fight. There are plenty of spells that underline the full caster's ability to infringe on other classes' bailiwicks; Critical Strike is one of those spells that aren't especially good at doing so unless the caster is rolling with a multiclass martial/caster setup, and in 3e/PF, split-caster multiclass characters need all the help they can get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
It's pretty telling that a spell that makes a wizard do a muggle's job better than a muggle is actually a suboptimal choice for the wizard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
To my knowledge, while Keen and a number of feats either do increase your crit chance, or allow you to inflict additional effects if and when you crit, there at least isn't a 3rd Edition feat that just increases your chance to confirm critical hits. It's Pathfinder that was droll enough to try that, with a +9 BAB requirement, no less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Nah, Complete Warrior apparently had Power Critical, which did about the same thing. Still, CW was published in 2003, so Pathfinder had six years to fail to learn from such goofs in design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:Nah, Complete Warrior apparently had Power Critical, which did about the same thing. Still, CW was published in 2003, so Pathfinder had six years to fail to learn from such goofs in design. That also lists it as being in Deities and Demigods and Masters of the Wild, so February 2002 actually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
There were a lot of feats relating to critical threat ranges / confirmations scattered across the 3.5E splats. I once planned out a fighter build whose sole purpose was using a Scythe plus virtually every crit-related feat in the entire edition on the theory that, if he won initiative and was in range, he'd be able to crit an equal-level wizard to death from full health before they got to cast anything. (Kind of falls apart if you assume permanent uptime on Contingency or poo poo like that, but it was still a fun experiment.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:There were a lot of feats relating to critical threat ranges / confirmations scattered across the 3.5E splats. Contingency was such a poo poo spell, either your DM let you get away with janky nonsense with it, or it was worthless, and there were basically no guidelines on what it couldn't do or how it worked. Did it interrupt other people's actions? Could it metagame? Who knows! It just says to specify a condition when the second spell goes off and it has to target you. If I tell it to cast teleport to my house when something breaks my skin, and you hit me with the scythe, how much damage do I take? Neither SRD is clear on what happens in this instance because the spell doesn't specify if this counts as an action, and what kind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Contingency was such a poo poo spell, either your DM let you get away with janky nonsense with it, or it was worthless, and there were basically no guidelines on what it couldn't do or how it worked. Did it interrupt other people's actions? Could it metagame? Who knows! It just says to specify a condition when the second spell goes off and it has to target you. If I tell it to cast teleport to my house when something breaks my skin, and you hit me with the scythe, how much damage do I take? Neither SRD is clear on what happens in this instance because the spell doesn't specify if this counts as an action, and what kind. Clear Natural Language!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Clear Natural Language! Kwyndig posted:Contingency was such a poo poo spell, either your DM let you get away with janky nonsense with it, or it was worthless, and there were basically no guidelines on what it couldn't do or how it worked. Did it interrupt other people's actions? Could it metagame? Who knows! It just says to specify a condition when the second spell goes off and it has to target you. If I tell it to cast teleport to my house when something breaks my skin, and you hit me with the scythe, how much damage do I take? Neither SRD is clear on what happens in this instance because the spell doesn't specify if this counts as an action, and what kind. The spell swoosh a lot and suddenly spells out the following words before you: "Contingency is poo poo!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:The Corgis, if we're going on personal choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Mr.Misfit posted:The spell swoosh a lot and suddenly spells out the following words before you: "Contingency is poo poo!" That's it, for my crunchy fantasy RPG I'm going back to GURPS, at least with one second combat rounds I can make edge cases make sense. Think I just missed the Dungeon Fantasy KS though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Anyone have any idea what this tweet is about? https://mobile.twitter.com/fredhicks/status/790681009817870336
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:Anyone have any idea what this tweet is about? Fred does this periodically, unfortunately, because the industry is lovely, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Basically, there are a lot of publishers who drastically underpay their artists and writers. Sometimes, they'll delay or even forego payment entirely because there are writers and artists who will want to contribute just to feel like they're a part of the industry, and to see their name in the book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Or the ever-popular "pay you in exposure" gag.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Or the ever-popular "pay you in exposure" gag. Nothing says exposure like getting your name seen by dozens of people in a little-known supplement. Or hundreds of people for a side game which isn't made by an AAA publisher. There was also a Facebook group of professional RPG cartographers and artists who made it against the rules to ask folks to do work for free because it was becoming a recurrent problem there. Libertad! fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
How much would it change if someone like Fred said "gently caress the trad game industry" and told everything that they otherwise wouldn't, names and all? Could one person make a difference by themselves? Or even a group of big names?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:27
|
|
