D&D 4E How does 4E hold up on verisimilitude?

[Shabe]

Um, if a human guard is 3rd level and a human bandit is a 2nd level monster, doesn't that indicate that human warrior types in 4E are just plain tougher than humans peasants before?

A regular human warrior that's reasonably healthy and of the roughly the same training should still have more HP than kobold warriors and goblin warriors.

I think you are missing some words, i added them in bold, that and hp are defined as how lucky/skillful/fated/tough you are, see rants about minions.

To be honest 4th Ed worries less about what a standard creature of a particular race is and instead gives you a fun and easy to run creature instead, appropriate for the tier of adventure you are running.

 

[Keltheos]

I can't believe you're ignoring the extremely popular 1979 D&D supplement, Carrots & Cabbages!

You play 0-level commoners, fighting against boll weevils and housecats. You die when a horde of three goblins invades. Its rules for tilling fields are still in use to this day!

-O

I did like the random boil body location placement table they had...

"98-00: Arse."

 

[Obryn]

I did like the random boil body location placement table they had...

"98-00: Arse."

Yeah, that table had great verisimilitude.

-O

 

[apoptosis]

There are a number of roleplaying games that actually do include those kinds of effects. (e.g. in The Shadow of Yesterday, you might play out a debate essentially as a combat, with damage affecting your social abilities similar to how physical combat affects your physical abilities.)

What is awesome about TSOY is that you could use social conflict to weaken someone so that you can kill them easily with a physical conflict.

 

[Mallus]

What is awesome about TSOY is that you could use social conflict to weaken someone so that you can kill them easily with a physical conflict.

In 4e...

...first make a Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff skill check to set the damage of the "social attack" --use the chart for determining the damage of an Acrobatics stunt in the DMG

...then CHR vs. Will attack.

That would about do it, right?

 

[apoptosis]

In 4e...

...first make a Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff skill check to set the damage of the "social attack" --use the chart for determining the damage of an Acrobatics stunt in the DMG

...then CHR vs. Will attack.

That would about do it, right?

Not sure (dont know rules well enough)..but sounds good.

That would make a really nice addition to the game.

It would have to do HP damage (does you example do that)?

 

[Mallus]

It would have to do HP damage (does you example do that)?

Sure. I'd categorize that as 'supported by the rules, if not exactly intended'.

 

[apoptosis]

Sure. I'd categorize that as 'supported by the rules, if not exactly intended'.

That could really put a lot of bite into certain aspects of roleplaying.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Personally, I'm tired of the current fad where elitism is somehow a bad thing.

You are the wind beneath my wings.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Its been like that in every edition of D&D. This is nothing new for 4th edition, so please stop saying that it is.

No, it hasn't always been that way. That statement is pure urban legend. It was only vaguely applicable to PCs or other more or less humanoid races to begin with, and the greater level of abstraction is certainly new to 4e.

Unless you are claiming that an ancient gold dragon has roughly the same 10 physical hit points that a 2nd level halfling fighter has. That the layers upon layers of meat, scale and bones, literally tons of it, has nothing to do with the increased hit points.

Because, even in the 1st edition DMG, it wasn't said that none of the hit points were meat. It was said that only a small portion were, after mid levels. And again, no one reading the books at the time thought that giants, golems or dragons only had about 10 meat points, and the rest was their ability to dodge, shrug it off, or grit their teeth against the pain.

If it had been true 'since the beginning', Int or Wis would have some effect on hit points. Yet, the only score that affected hit points was... Constitution. A character's general health, in other words. The ability to survive being raised or resurrected. The ability to mitigate the effects of poison (saves) or magic (dwarves and gnomes).

So, the idea that hit points are the same in 4e as they were in 1st is wrong. This has been pointed out numerous times in numerous places. Continuing to use this as some kind of proof is akin to laughing at Al Gore for claiming to have invented the internet. People who know better will instantly dismiss almost everything else you have to say, as will other people who eventually find out the same.