D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[Lalato]

That would make a fine House Rule, but it is not RAW. Per RAW, the character can jump the chasm, change direction in mid-air, and land on his feet.

It's not reasonable to argue that "the rules are fine, since I can ignore/expand/alter the rules."

Can you point to the page number where it explicitly says that you can change direction mid jump? I can't find it.

 

[kaomera]

D&D rules aren't realistic. You might get realism in the fiction, but if I had to give a numerical value to the "realism index" of various editions I'd say:

1e: exactly zero.
2e: not enough data for a significant result.
3e: exactly zero.
3.5: exactly zero.
4e: exactly zero.

The only issue I've seen with realism in 3e and onward is that the battlemat (or dungeon tiles or whatever) draws attention away from the fiction, leading to players mistaking the squares and figures for an accurate representation of what's happening in the fiction.

The fiction asks the question: "Can the fighter jump across the chasm without provoking an OA from the flying whoosit?" The dice and rules (including the figures and map) are consulted for an answer, in this case "Yes." And then the fiction proceeds based on that response.

Getting back to the OP: I can see where the loss of a specific mechanical way to enforce your character's aptitudes sucks. It seems to me that the WotC design team decided that it was a fair tradeoff for reduced complexity, and personally I would agree. However I think that the real tragedy would be if you felt that there was no other way to display your character's aptitude. The skill system is meant to enhance the game, and while it can have iffy to outright detrimental effects at times (my fighter can't easilly be good at fightery stuff like sneaking around or commanding troops?) it and other rules shouldn't be seen as an absolute limit on who your character is. I would hope that, if you approached your DM with the concept of your character being a comedian she would be willing to help you to make that meaningful in any way that she could, and to find mechanical things that could be made to fit. IMO re-fluffing is a core rule in 4e.

 

[theNater]

The key difference is that we're not asking "who won this competition", but "who won the World Record" - what are the conditions of the best ever result. Since no-one has done better in 20 years, that really suggests to me that it has to be a '20' on that roll.

I'll yield the point, as any difference would probably be less than a centimeter, and this is an issue of inches.

Joe has a hard limit to how far forward his foot can be. Indeed, given the requirements of leverage, he's actually better not having his foot "over the line".

If Joe is leaping from the ball of his foot, his toes can be over the line. That gives him inches, depending on how long his toes are.

This is true, but I'll bet that World Record jumper didn't land standing on his feet. Per RAW, Joe does.

If Mike Powell fell backwards, his distance was measured to where his backside or hand landed, depending on which was further back. It seems unlikely this is the case(as it would be very rough on his score), and if it is, then his feet are well ahead.

As for falling forward, upon doing so Joe can roll up to his feet. Mike Powell wouldn't have any reason to do this, but Joe would.

This, however, is true, and is a point I will concede.

That is very gracious.

However, even given this, Joe is still superhuman. That World Record jumper was an extreme specialist in that one event. Joe can swim, climb, run (and high-jump) just as well as he can long jump. He doesn't even need to rest between these many feats.

I suspect that the World Record holder has much greater consistency. His jumps are probably reliably within the 25-30 foot range, while a jump by Joe could land him anywhere from 10-30 feet from his launch point.

As for resting, Joe is likely to want a rest after he fails any of his attempts(and takes the resulting damage). Don't forget, he is still failing them some 80% of the time.

Now, the game doesn't support these extreme specialisations, and rightly so. The more narrow the categories become, the more things get excluded (since there isn't infinite page count). But it does give rise to the problem that 1st level characters aren't just "a cut above". They really are superhuman.

They are less reliable than Olympic athletes, but capable of a wider range of feats. That's just different, not straight better.

And Joe isn't even a terribly unusual 4e character. The game assumes that an '18' in the primary stat is the norm, with a '20' being common.

Actually, Joe is terribly unusual. A 20 is expensive, especially for a human, who only gets to boost one ability score. And while training in Athletics is likely for a fighter, it's not certain.

But most significantly, who takes Skill Focus(Athletics) as a level one feat? This idea relies heavily on that selection, and in the PHB1 alone there are some 9 other feats that are at least as appealing for which Joe must qualify, in addition to any others his ability scores may qualify him for. That choice alone makes Joe very unusual, and with the other two factors being reasonable but not certain, there's no way this combination is anything but terribly unusual.

So we get a game where every Fighter is The World's Strongest Man, every Wizard is an Einstein, every Bard is an Elvis, and every Warlord is a Julius Caesar. And all this at 1st level, before they've done anything! (Still, I suppose that does negate those "1st level Warlord" arguments we had back in the day.)

As bganon points out, this is typical for the great heroes of the age. The PCs are among the best of the best by design.

So, yeah, I'm going to stick with my assessment that this sort of performance by 1st level characters is an absurdity in the rules.

You do what you must, as do we all.

 

[Fifth Element]

So what? I just don't understand why this provokes more disbelief than, say, fighting a giant floating eyeball that shoots death rays from a dozen little eyestalks.

And indeed, since the context here is that 4E supposedly removed the realism, why the fact that a 3.5 character could do the same thing doesn't mitigate the 'problem'?

 

[Fifth Element]

D&D rules aren't realistic. You might get realism in the fiction, but if I had to give a numerical value to the "realism index" of various editions I'd say:

1e: exactly zero.
2e: not enough data for a significant result.
3e: exactly zero.
3.5: exactly zero.
4e: exactly zero.

I played a lot of 2e, and I can fill in your table for you. It's remarkably similar to the other entries.

 

[delericho]

After a quick read through of the SRD, I didn't see anything that precluded changing direction mid-jump either (I may have missed something).

Can you point to the page number where it explicitly says that you can change direction mid jump? I can't find it.

PHB, p287, under "Movement Requirements" for "Charge" specifies that you must move directly to your enemy (and so can't change direction). Since this is an exception to the normal rule (can change direction), and since no other form of movement provides such an exception (normal moves, run, swim, jump), it is implicit that this is permitted.

Incidentally, in 3.5e is that you need to be running for 20 feet before your jump (or the DC doubles), and you can't change direction when running. In theory, you could change direction in a standing jump, but by the time a PC could make that jump, he'd have to be Epic level anyway.

However, do we have to keep discussing this? It's intentionally a really stupid example of absurdity in the rules. It makes far more sense to just accept the ridiculousness of the situation, declare that any sane DM would fix it, and move on.

 

[the-golem]

Lets face it, how many people really take up 5ftx5ft in real life (my shoulders aren't even 2ft wide).

I may not "fill" a five foot square, normally. If I were to take up a defensive stance, I'd try my darnedest to make sure you stayed out of arms reach. Really, with a person in the center, its only an arms width radiating out, which isn't all that much. Here's an idea: don't think of it as physical space that's being taken up, but more of as a "personal bubble." You'd let your friends in the bubble all the time, but would you let a hostile unknown into your personal space? Probably not.

Another example: Imagine you're in PE class, (or at the gym, or up on the quarterdeck being punished by your drill sergeant) doing some good ol' jumping jacks (side-straddle hops). You can bet that that you'd space yourself out enough so that ya'll don't smack arms while jumping around. I'm willing to bet that the average distance is pretty durned close to 5ft.

Just my two pence.

 

[KarinsDad]

Dude let's not do the whole... "Hey, it shouldn't bother you because you can do extra work to circumvent the problem." thing, please. It's not that diagonal movement exsists in a vacum, it's that I don't now (and don't want to have to everytime I build an encounter) design the features of a room to combat diagonal movement... I design them to fit the encounter area. Is it the worst of my problems with D&D 4e... no, but it is irritating to me.

There is a solution to this.

Use offset squares instead of squares. They work just like hexes, but are not hex shaped.

It means that diagonal movement is longer than non-diagonal movement, and it allows for basically rectangular rooms or areas as well (although the N/S or E/W edges do have "half squares" in them that require squeezing or a house rule that they are actually full squares, but that is typically a minor issue).

And Fireball almost comes our circular in nature.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Offset-square_grid.png

 

[Barastrondo]

I will personally believe that D&D ever had "simulation" in the first place when someone delivers a definition of the hit point that does not invoke abstraction and the thought that high hit points can mean a number of things from luck to skill to tensile strength. 'Cause if even Gygax points out that hit points are an abstract shot at emulation rather than something simulationist, and hit points have been a critical building block of every stat block in D&D ever, then I have some severe doubts that D&D was ever meant to be a simulation.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

I don't agree. There are alot of powers that are made to deliver mechanics without alot of explanation. It's very hard for me to describe how a fighter can make every foe around them in a 15 foot radius to come next them so the fighter can hit them all. Is it a cool game effect? Sure but you have to leave the story at the door with that one. Alot of people I have seen don't care about the story though. Where a warlord can yell at an unconscious companion and they all of a sudden get back up is really hard to swallow but if they couldn't do that then who would ever play a warlord over a cleric?

A Warlord yelling at an unconscious companion to bring him back up via sheer morale is no different than a 3.5 Crusader being able to heal vis sundering enemy sheilds/equipment in a dramatic show of force by boosting morale. HP isnt just literal health/blood.(Hate on Bo9S if you like; it was a test of some 4E concepts to come)

But yes, some mechanics are dissasociated from reality.

Also, the Campaign material, Monster info, and info on world building was reduced down to very minimal. This means that all that falls on the hands of the GM to create and describe and many don't bother. The game is great for making encounters, who cares if the monsters in it don't belong in a forest setting when their level is what's important? While most people would say this is how it should be, I would rather more fluff that I can absorb and use for my game. I like it when my players try to do something wild and crazy outside of their powers.

But do you need any rules for that?

I grew up thinking that we are playing characters in a story and that the GM is a storyteller. But I see too much that people just think it's board game and the purpose is to accumalate XP and level up.

Just a thought here

On the other hand while you cant deny the games wargaming roots...

Those wargamers who lack imagination those who dont care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste.

Or at least at one time, it was supposed to be that way.

Anyway I think I keep veering away from the subject. Let's just leave it at you have to do your best to work the encounters into your story and don't let the rules "rule" your world.