Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

[scarymonkey]

After a few sessions of being a player in a 3E campaign, I am starting to think that D&D combat just doesn't do it for me. Is it just me and my group or does the D&D system encourage too much metagame thinking and unrealistic actions?

For example, my party (3rd lvl) had the task of breaking into a guarded mansion to obtain a magic potion. We snuck around to the rear of the place and spotted two guards by a rear door. In real life, the party would have probably tried sniping at the guards with crossbows- shoot them in the throat and they die silently. Unfortunately, nothing in the rules support this option. As the guards were all 3-4 lvl fighters, there is no chance to kill one with a single shot and not have him raise the alarm. Even the rogue with a sneak attack would have virtually no chance to kill one with a single shot. So the rules have prevented what should have been the logical course of action.

Also, knowledge of hitpoints versus damage potential plus magical healing = no fear of dying and foolhardy actions. For example, the fighters in my party both have around 30 hps. They know that no single attack by one of their foes can kill them (<-10hp), so they gleefully wade into combat at every opportunity. Why bother trying to sneak around when you can kill all your enemies without fear? Also with a cleric around, even getting knocked unconscious is no big deal. One cure light wounds and you're back up and fighting next round (it was only a flesh wound!).

In my experience, players (past 1st level) only fear opponents that have insta-Death(tm) attacks- draining, poison, petrify, spells, etc. Am I missing something or does this sort of thing rub you wrong too?

 

[EricNoah]

D&D combat assumes you can get hit over and over again and still live, in most situations. That works out good for the PCs because they're expected to survive many encounters. It doesn't work out so great for the bad guys if you want your bad guys to die easily.

Some options in d20 products (not D&D) include: Vitality/Wound point systems, where the minor NPCs have a greater chance of dying instantly; and D20 Modern's "massive damage threshhold" (equal to CON score) which means if you take damage greater than your CON in one attack, you have to make a Fort save or drop to -1 hp and start dying.

 

[mystraschosen]

You miss nothing my good sir,I have noticed all of the above myself.

I guess it all comes down to the dm,to use your example,if the dm listens to you say I want to shoot him in the neck to kill him silently.Well then even if he is a 3rd level fighter ,I would allow you to attempt it making the ac to hit higher because it is a form of called shot.If you succeed I would allow the instant kill or at least allow that to silence and shock him enough that you can close with him before he can give the alert depending on a reflex saving throw.It all comes down to the dm and how they adapt situations within common sense.And not ot mention the dm mixing it up so that what a player suspects based on facts are not always accurate.

I am in the same bind as you as are nearly every other gamer I am sure....the temptation to meta is very high with experienced players especially.Combat in my humble opinion takes away from the fantasy of the game,but also enhances the game if done right.

I am fortunate to play with a group of fellas that instead of saying I cast lightning bolt.....says "I pull a glass rod from my pouch along with a bit of fur.....elesisas daranthuin vierg (accompanied by actual hand gestures)....a blinding line of electrcity flows from my hands towards the tarrasque"
It helps alot to minimize the breaks with roleplaying.

 

[The Little Raven]

And there is nothing in the rules to make you fear being wounded as long as you are above 0 hit points. In almost every fantasy book I've ever read, a wound plays a huge part in turning the tide of a fight, due to pain, loss of control or another factor... D&D just doesn't support it.

 

[Paradoxish]

Well, I think part of it is the fault of your DM. Why are two level 3-4 fighters pulling regular guard duty? It's a bit like putting heroes on lowly watch duty - you would expect them not to be killed by someone who decided to snipe them with a bow. Their high hit points, in such a case, would represent the fighter's innate ability to sense nearby danger and move just in time (at the very least) to avoid letting an arrow hit in a vital spot that would kill them.

As for metagame thinking... it's unfortunate, but it's going to happen in any RPG system. The best a DM can do is work against the player's expectations to discourage metagame thinking.

Ultimately, the way your game goes and the "feel" of combat in it is the result of what kind of game your DM runs. Some people prefer to feel as if their characters are true heroes, running into battle with no fear of death except against the strongest foes. Other players (or DMs, for that matter) prefer more gritty games, where each and every combat is dangerous. Even though it may not seem like it if you've only played with the first type of group, it's actually pretty easy to keep combat dangerous and exciting at any level. My group of third level characters, for example, almost died at the hands of roughly 10 kobolds. And, thanks to the suggestions of some people on this board, they'll probably have loads of trouble dealing with another 10-15 that wait for them at the beginning of our next session.

The bottom line is that the feel of combat, and the game in general, is what your DM makes of it. If you don't like how the game is going you might want to talk with your DM or find another group.

 

[Arnwyn]

Guh?? Of course the D&D system encourages metagaming. The whole increasing hit point system creates the dissatisfaction you are experiencing. It's been like that since day one, more than 25 years ago. I certainly hope you are not surprised.

Such is the price of accepting the hp system (which is what you get when playing D&D). As noted above by Eric, though, there are ways within d20 to modify the existing system to something a little more acceptable to your gaming style.

 

[seasong]

Personally, I run D&D (or any other hit point system) when I'm willing to accept that heroes possess the ability to reduce attacks to flesh wounds. When I want something where a throat shot kills, I use a different tool. D&D3e isn't realistic, and doesn't try to be.

 

[DDK]

Number 1 Beef: Export Grade, Grain Fed.

My numero uno beefo with D&D is the hit point system. The only reason I came back to D&D was because the rest of 3rd ed. was SWEEEEEEET

Still, hit points bug me to no end. I'm yet to find a satisfying alternate system that can be incorporated into D&D. This is mainly because hit points are such an integral part of the system that changing it cascades down through the entire thing, creating many problems that need addressing.

If you come up with anything that works, let me know

One thing I will say in defense of it, however, and in regards to what you said, I think a lot of people overestimate just how effective weapons are. Don't get me wrong, a crossbow bolt through the chest is gonna kill yah, no matter how tough you are, but a knife wound in the arm can cause significant damage, without being fatal. I think too, that people overestimate how effective THEY can be with weapons. Shooting someone in the throat is a wonderful concept (well... as wonderful as murder can be...) but in practice its next to impossible without some seriously accurate gear. Even with a modern handgun, most people who don't practice often in the use of it, aren't going to hit someone in the throat even if given time to aim.

I can't recall the exact statistic but there was a write-up in some newspaper somewhere that said something in the order of 9 out of 10 bullets fired by people in anger or violence don't even hit their target, let alone hit where the person aims. The article was about deaths from stray bullets, citing that most gun battles in the streets between gangs result in more homocides of innocents rather than the people involved in the shooting.

Given we're talking medieval crossbows... well, enough said really.

 

[barsoomcore]

In real life, the party would have probably tried sniping at the guards with crossbows- shoot them in the throat and they die silently.

Okay, first of all, obviously you and I have very different notions about how hard it is to shoot someone in the throat with a crossbow so they die silently. But a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon -- that ought to provide a possible instant kill against a 3rd-level fighter. You don't say what level you are but if the GUARDS are 3-4 level I'd expect you were, at least 7th, which gives a rogue +4d6 on sneak attack, meaning your light crossbow does 1d8 + 4d6 = 16 hp on average, with a maximum of 32 -- a lucky hit and you've killed the guard (who's going to average 18-25hp). If you've got two rogues you can double up which, if I were going to take the "shoot 'em in the throat" tactic (which I wouldn't), I'd want to do, and that makes the kill almost certain.

If you're not over 7th level or so, you shouldn't be killing 3rd-level fighters with one blow anyway.

So the rules have prevented what should have been the logical course of action.

Again, you and I have very different notions of what is a logical course of action.

the fighters in my party both have around 30 hps. They know that no single attack by one of their foes can kill them (<-10hp), so they gleefully wade into combat at every opportunity.

"No single attack"? What does that mean? Your enemies only get to hit them once and then have to put their swords down? And why are they always doing less than 10hp? What are you fighting, Girl Scouts? Even an orc with, say, a greatsword and Power Attack can do better than that. Sheesh.

Hit points can provide huge amounts of tension as they ratchet downwards and downwards, with no relief in sight. Sure, it's metagamey, but it's also nerve-wracking. You have to use SOMETHING to represent a character's decreasing ability to take hits. A number that decreases is pretty much the simplest option. Anything else is going to be more complicated. And I have yet to encounter a system that didn't have some issues as far as representing how people actually bleed to death.

Also with a cleric around, even getting knocked unconscious is no big deal. One cure light wounds and you're back up and fighting next round (it was only a flesh wound!).

If you don't like healing magic, don't use it. Why shouldn't it, em, heal you? And one cure lights wounds and you're back up at fighting? Well, okay, but prepare to fall down again the first time someone hits you (at -5 hp, cure light wounds for 1d8+5 = 1d8 hp). Good luck.

In my experience, players (past 1st level) only fear opponents that have insta-Death(tm) attacks- draining, poison, petrify, spells, etc. Am I missing something or does this sort of thing rub you wrong too?

Yeah, you're missing just about everything. Like big monsters that do massive damage with multiple attacks. Like powerful NPCs with better feats and class levels than the PCs. And why do you lump spells and level draining in the "insta-Death(tm)" bucket? There are many spells that do things besides instantly killing PCs. And neither level draining nor ability draining (you don't specify which) instantly slay PCs, either.

Sounds to me like your campaign is too easy for you, rather than some basic flaw in the game.

 

[Oni]

Just a couple of thoughts here.

My thought is that HP as is promotes more heroic action (some, like you, might say foolhardy, but that is largely in the eye of the beholder in my opinion).


As for not being able to sneak in and kill guards in what not, I'm of the school of thought that many DM's don't use enought "mooks". You can have plenty of challenging opponents, but in spots like the guards at the door, I think npc's that are meant to be easily disposed of actually increase the verisimilitude of the game.