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

[Obryn]

Why not?

If you have a Hardness 10 100 hp wall, in 3e, that means that the fighter is likely going to be able to bash his way through in about 10 rounds. Or shorter if the party works together.

If you have a Hardness 0 100 hpwall, that means that the 4e character may take a shorter time to get through the wall, but, he's still going to take time.

At the end of the day though, he's still gotten through the wall.

Except at very far edges (adamantine walls forex) the hardness rating didn't actually do anything. You could carve your way through pretty much any substance, given enough time.

So, again, what is lost by losing hardness?

It's a matter of (1) what kinds of things will actually get through said wall, limiting the options to beefier attacks; and (2) the time it takes to cut through it.

By the line of argument you're making, walls might as well have 2 hp, since "you're still getting through the wall, given enough time."

-O

 

[Lizard]

What I object to is people complaining that the system is broke since it didn't include their favorite subsystem (like hardness) and when told that they can just houserule it to their heart's content, with the complete blessing of the DMG (and even guidelines from it), they cry "we shouldn't HAVE to!! How can you have a fantasy game without hardness?!" That annoys me.

Nah, hardness isn't my favorite subsystem. Not sure what is, really. There's nice little elegant bits all throughout 3e.

You seem to be misinterpreting me; in the interests of message board peace, I will assume this is unintentional.

No single change/alteration/deletion/substitution is, by itself, game killing. It's the sum of the changes, all apparently made for the sake of simplification without consideration of the ramifications, which make 4e less than what it could have been. Simplicity cannot be the only goal of design.

Also, your argument that nothing is "removed", because it's a new game, is somewhat specious. It's called the fourth edition of D&D -- not the first edtion of Caverns&Creatures. It is not possible to meaningfully discuss it in a vacuum, divorced from all which had gone before. The designers did not begin with a blank slate; they began with the 3x rules, which had been evolving in a 4e-ish direction for several years (Bo9S, MIC, SWSE, etc). Thus, every place the rules differ from 3x, you have to ask "What was gained by this change, and is it greater than what was lost?"

And if it isn't, players have the right to call this out. Apparently, in the great age of Newspeak, criticism is "trolling", and anything less than worship is proof one is a mindles h4t3r. If you think I am, I suggest you tell me why I bothered designing Familiar rules for 4e (see the house rules forum) -- what's the point of writing rules for a system I putatively "hate"? I assure you, I *do* have better things to do with my time.

Arguing that "the rules respect your intelligence" is also a bit of a spurious argument, as it can be dredged up for any missing/broken rules. "Of COURSE you're supposed to not let X accomplish Y! Duh! Just because the rules say you can doesn't mean you SHOULD. You ought to know, by sheer instinct, which rules are broken or bad and which aren't, and adjust accordingly! What do you think game designers are paid for, to THINK for you?"

And really, was hardness some wonderful revolution of object damage that forever changed the way we all envision fantasy RPGs?

No, it was a pretty basic, simple, elegant mechanic which had appeared in various forms in many other games (at the very least since Hero system in 1982, possibly earlier). The removal of it accomplishes very little good. I suppose one could argue that the increase hit points for object now results in the same average time to destroy as the old hardness/hit point system did, with the minor advantage of needing only one number instead of two, but I consider that to be too much simplification for too little gain.

Ah well, there's a 2-3 page PDF in there to write, if they ever come out with the GSL.

The genre is "take the stuff" not "kill the stuff".

Ah, there's my problem. I thought the genre was "fantasy adventure", and the rules should support anything which reasonably falls under that broad umbrella. If the only genre intended to be supported by the rules is "loot and pillage", I suppose I must scale back my expectations. Of course, the DMG lists quite a few genres 4e supposedly supports, including political intrigue and swashbuckling adventures, but what do the people who wrote it know about how the game is intended to played?

 

[Ahglock]

No, it was a pretty basic, simple, elegant mechanic which had appeared in various forms in many other games (at the very least since Hero system in 1982, possibly earlier). The removal of it accomplishes very little good. I suppose one could argue that the increase hit points for object now results in the same average time to destroy as the old hardness/hit point system did, with the minor advantage of needing only one number instead of two, but I consider that to be too much simplification for too little gain.

I don't have a problem with the mechanic, but I'll point out in 3e D&D breaking stuff was actually really hard. Sure adamantite, meant you could get through anything but it was still fairly slow HP attrition. In 4e its just as slow, just without the hardness. you do less damage and the object has more HP.

In Hero a brick wall is what 5 armor, 5 body? A missile would obliterate that in a modern campaign. What would a D&D modern shoulder fired missile do to a brick wall in 3e or 43(if there was a modern), take some paint off maybe?

I want more of the Hero games style where if I throw a lightning bolt it will take down the door. A powerful warrior can push someone through a wall, and overall stuff breaks in the fight. With hardness, without hardness I don't really care but I want powers to break things.

I apologize if this is even less coherent than my usual poor grammar and spelling posts. I got like 2 hours sleep after picking family up at the airport.

 

[hong]

Arguing that "the rules respect your intelligence" is also a bit of a spurious argument, as it can be dredged up for any missing/broken rules. "Of COURSE you're supposed to not let X accomplish Y! Duh! Just because the rules say you can doesn't mean you SHOULD. You ought to know, by sheer instinct, which rules are broken or bad and which aren't, and adjust accordingly! What do you think game designers are paid for, to THINK for you?"

I would certainly not assume that the designers are paid to tell me that dungeon walls cannot be carved through as a matter of course.

 

[Thasmodious]

Also, your argument that nothing is "removed", because it's a new game, is somewhat specious. It's called the fourth edition of D&D -- not the first edtion of Caverns&Creatures. It is not possible to meaningfully discuss it in a vacuum, divorced from all which had gone before. The designers did not begin with a blank slate; they began with the 3x rules, which had been evolving in a 4e-ish direction for several years (Bo9S, MIC, SWSE, etc). Thus, every place the rules differ from 3x, you have to ask "What was gained by this change, and is it greater than what was lost?"

You are right, its not a vacuum. You are wrong in that you want to limit the history of the game to the single previous edition. The designers didn't have, nor use, 3e as a base. 4e isn't a modification or upgrade of 3e. Its the 4th edition of D&D. There was a 1st, and 2nd, an O and B in there, too. There is a whole history that contributes to what D&D is. They no more removed hardness because it was in 3e, than they did the space hamster because it was in 1e. That's my point. 3e wasn't the baseline for 4e, from a rules standpoint. The history of D&D was the baseline for what the game should encompass. D&D is a combat focused fantasy roleplaying game. It is not a semi-realistic game of medieval mining, or Daggers&Doors. Hardness was an idea for 3e, within the context of that system, that fit in with other mechanics of that iteration of the game. It matched up, and worked like, DR. 4e doesn't have DR. 4e didn't remove DR, they use a different system to represent resistances and vulnerabilities. That system works just fine if you want to extend it to objects, assign a reasonable resistance and move on. Hardness wasn't some revolution in RPG design that perfectly simulated object and wall damage.

The reason it wasn't included wasn't to put a gaping hole in the genre because hacking away at walls with a dagger is not really part of the fantasy milieu. The few times it comes up that an object needs HP because a PC is trying to kill it with his sword, there is, indeed, a system for it. Why spend any more time or effort on something of such limited utility?

criticism is "trolling"

Read your OP again. The mocking tone, the ridiculous examples (punching tunnels, escaping prison with wooden spoons, etc), that's not serious criticism. It's a ridiculous level of nitpicking because no serious game and no serious DM is going to read that and actually think, huh, the designers apparently want PCs to punch their way through dungeons or use spoons to tunnel through the earth.

Arguing that "the rules respect your intelligence" is also a bit of a spurious argument, as it can be dredged up for any missing/broken rules. "Of COURSE you're supposed to not let X accomplish Y! Duh! Just because the rules say you can doesn't mean you SHOULD. You ought to know, by sheer instinct, which rules are broken or bad and which aren't, and adjust accordingly! What do you think game designers are paid for, to THINK for you?"

You know, you would ALMOST have a point here, if we weren't talking about you stating that the rules are bad because they support people tunneling through the earth with their fists and escaping prison with dinnerware.

Ah, there's my problem. I thought the genre was "fantasy adventure"

It is. Fantasy adventure, last I checked, doesn't include a lot of mining. Sure, heroes go into mines occasionally, but its usually to kill bad things there. And bad things don't usually include the tunnel walls. But hey, if that's what you want to include in your fantasy games, by all means. Hey, by the RAW, I guess your familiars can join the PCs in their tunneling operations with their bites. That sounds like a really dramatic and thrilling game of fantasy adventure.

 

[silentounce]

Wasn't hardness in 2e as well? I don't feel like going and finding my books to look it up.

Anyway, this thread probably needs this:
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=680

 

[Hussar]

It's a matter of (1) what kinds of things will actually get through said wall, limiting the options to beefier attacks; and (2) the time it takes to cut through it.

By the line of argument you're making, walls might as well have 2 hp, since "you're still getting through the wall, given enough time."

-O

In the case of (1), no it has no real effect. It doesn't matter what you use, so long as you do X damage, you bypass hardness. Time, OTOH, I already agreed was the main difference.

My line of argument is that walls should have no hit points at all since using combat mechanics to deal with things better handled by skills is pointless.

And, oh look, that's what they did. Walls don't have hit points AT ALL. You can beat on a wall all day long with a sword and it won't do anything.

But, in any case, there's another reason for the removal of hardness - the removal of Damage Reduction. Yes, there is still energy resistance, but, as far as I know, there is no DR. Hardness is the same mechanic. If we don't have DR for monsters, why do we need DR for walls?

 

[Kichwas]

Trying to carve your way through walls as a matter of course is very odd indeed.

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

Either you want to get past their walls, or you want to collapse them, or both.

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

 

[Lizard]

But, in any case, there's another reason for the removal of hardness - the removal of Damage Reduction. Yes, there is still energy resistance, but, as far as I know, there is no DR. Hardness is the same mechanic. If we don't have DR for monsters, why do we need DR for walls?

Well, if I was obsessing over the term "hardness", instead of the mechanical concept of "some things resist damage below a certain threshold", you'd have a point. Indeed, the fact there IS such a mechanic in 4e -- now called "Resistance" -- is a large part of my argument.

If there was no such mechanic, anywhere, you're right -- it would be silly to expect them to add it in for objects.

But since there is -- it comes down to "How hard could it have been to add a column to the hit point table called 'Resistance'"? My answer is "Not very hard", but, apparently, to many folks on here, the answer is "Unbelievably mind-bogglingly hard and doing so would make the game totally not fun!"

I do not care that there is no value called "hardness" in 4e. I do care that the object damage system is sub-par when there's no reason for it to be so. It adds to the overall rushed, unfinished, feel of 4e, something a product this long in development, with this much talent behind it, really should not have.

("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 the mighty blows of the barabarian's axe slowly shattering the Gem Of Ultimate Evil, while weaker attacks glance off it ineffectually. 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.)

 

[Victim]

I think the way 4e is written, knocking down an adamantium door would be a skill challenge - not something you could do with your fist.

Here we go... Page 64... Breaking down a 3' thick stone wall. Incredible strength check DC 43. Since a 20 isn't an automatic success, a DC 43 is strictly impossible for normal individuals.

Break down adamantium door... DC 29. And that's assuming it's not reinforced in some way. This is NOT something any normal person, or a paragon level PC, could do with a spoon, their fist, or a sledge hammer. Only several of the +2 assist bonuses would allow it.

And if breaking thru a 3' stone wall is a DC 43, your example about burrowing through a mountainside presents an even more formidable challenge.

A level 15 PC can swing a 20-22 STR (16 start, +2 race, +1 tier bonus, +3 from level ups), for a check bonus of +12-13 without items (some of which add to STR checks). So a paragon level PC can smash through an adamantine door by themselves.