D&D 4E 4e -- Is The World Made Of Cheese?

[Hussar]

/snip

("But what does it add?" Other than a patina of realism, there's something dramatic and impressive about someone strong enough to tear apart a marble statue with his bare hands (Strength+unarmed damage>Hardness).

In 3e this was not modeled on the hardness rules, but on the Break DC. Same as 4e. Hardness in 3e had nothing to do with the Break DC. Someone smashing a statue apart by doing hit point damage is likely not going to be doing it in one blow.

It's cool to see the mighty blows of the barabarian's axe slowly shattering the Gem Of Ultimate Evil, while weaker attacks glance off it ineffectually.

Again, this is modeled in the Break DC in both editions. I'm starting to not understand your concerns. Break DC of objects exists in both editions and are pretty much identical mechanics.

In short, hardness-type mechanics help convey the character's power, because not EVERY attack -- even of the same damage type -- can harm a given object. In 4e, the Str 10 wizard and the Str 20 Dragonborn fighter both chip away at their target; the fighter a bit faster, maybe, but that feeling of inhuman power just isn't there, and that's a loss.)

The problem is, it really didn't. The only difference is usually 5-10 points of DR per hit. Even first level 3e characters could usually do enough damage to bypass hardness. There was never a feeling of "inhuman power" in hacking your way through a door or wall. It took X time, typically handwaved and you moved on.

I think the problem is, you are trying claim elements that belong to the Breaking Stuff rules with the Hacking Through Stuff in a While rules.

 

[Lizard]

I think the problem is, you are trying claim elements that belong to the Breaking Stuff rules with the Hacking Through Stuff in a While rules.

That may be. In Actual Play TM, we tended to almost always use hardness/DR, not Break DC. Why? Because Break DC tended to be...

Roll...didn't make it. Roll...didn't make it. Roll...didn't make it.

Or

Take 20, it breaks. Yawn.

So perhaps the issue is more one of playstyle. I always saw "Break DC" and "Hardness/hit points" as two different systems to accomplish the same goals, pick the one you liked better. (Since things like manacles and rope had stats for BOTH systems, why not pick which one you prefer?)[1] Can't speak for other groups, but we tended to like the feel of "smash...almost there...smash...come on, damn it, break! Smash! Finally!" Wearing down something feels more "D&D" than boolean break/doesn't break.

[1]Here's what the SRD says:"When attempting to break an object, you have two choices: smash it with a weapon or break it with sheer strength."

So maybe in 4e, you DON'T get to pick -- you use breaking for some things and smashing for others. If so, you're right, I'm probably applying my 3e-isms to the 4e rules.

 

[hong]

Digging underneath your enemies frontline is a time tested age old military tactic.

If you are doing this as a matter of course in a Dungeons and Dragons game, then you are playing it wrong.

Heck, when I was stationed in Korea the boyz up north even dug themselves under and past the DMZ.

The boyz up north are NPCs and follow their own rules.

 

[LostSoul]

So maybe in 4e, you DON'T get to pick -- you use breaking for some things and smashing for others. If so, you're right, I'm probably applying my 3e-isms to the 4e rules.

I think in 4e the DM gets to pick.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That may be. In Actual Play TM, we tended to almost always use hardness/DR, not Break DC. Why? Because Break DC tended to be...

Roll...didn't make it. Roll...didn't make it. Roll...didn't make it.

Or

Take 20, it breaks. Yawn.

If Take 20 actually did it. The DCs were _really_ high, in my experience. But bashing down doors wasn't more exciting, either. Only if things became time-critical did we bother to roll this stuff. (Then, it was actually interesting).

I think my argument against Hardness _at_all_ is that it means that it is sometimes absolutely impossible to destroy something. These are corner cases that might not matter much, but - why can't a Strength 8 Wizard not use a Dagger to scratch on a stone wall, to, say.. remove some iron bars? He's fighting against Hardness 5 (Stone) or Hardness 10 (Iron) in 3E, and deals 1d4-1 damage. No way to get through. A Strength 6 Halfling or Gnome wouldn't even be able to "carve" his way through a wooden door. If we want to go all "simulationist" on this, doesn't this reach to some unreasonable looking conclusions?

Off course, if we ignore the corner cases, it might be okay. But are increased hit points so much worse then?

 

[Drakmar]

If you are doing this as a matter of course in a Dungeons and Dragons game, then you are playing it wrong.

I agree with Hong. As I said before, I like my game heroic.. D&D seems to be a game designed for and about heroic adventure. Therefore, I want to be able to bash my way through a wall with my bare hands if I want. That is how legends are made.

If my party has methodically designed a 3 year siege plan and tunnel complex the I think I am playing the wrong system. Rolemaster works great for that. (I'll just check my tunnel digging table).

 

[vagabundo]

If so, you're right, I'm probably applying my 3e-isms to the 4e rules.

That will get you a 15 page thread in no time, make no mistake.*



*using default enworld settings.

 

[hong]

I agree with Hong. As I said before, I like my game heroic.. D&D seems to be a game designed for and about heroic adventure. Therefore, I want to be able to bash my way through a wall with my bare hands if I want. That is how legends are made.

Well... as long as you only do it judiciously, and when it would be dramatically appropriate and in-genre.

 

[gonesailing]

..........("But what does it add?" Other than a patina of realism, there's something dramatic and impressive about someone strong enough to tear apart a marble statue with his bare hands (Strength+unarmed damage>Hardness). It's cool to see...

First my apologies for only using a little bit of your post to forward my own agenda.

Here is my problem with game rules for these kinds of simulations. Your post is exactly correct. It only adds the "patina" of realism. It isn't realistic at all. And all the rules-checking breaks down the drama for me. And for me it isn't cool to see a table with numbers in a nice neat list.

If I want to add a note of realism into the game I want the choice to use "reality". I also want the choice to disregard it and enhance the drama. I DON'T want rules for every scenario under the sun. All I want is a basic framework to adjudicate combat and common out of combat encounters. I see that you and others want something else.

If I want to see a good simulation of reality, I'll just close the books and open my eyes.

 

[GnomeWorks]

If you are doing this as a matter of course in a Dungeons and Dragons game, then you are playing it wrong.

Arrogant much?