Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

[Trine]

You expect your group of level 3 characters to be able to take down an EL 5 challenge in *two* hits (one for each guard)? Unrealistic expectations, to be sure.

A single casting of sleep has better chance of taking down both guards at once than attacking them. A DC of 14-15 should be expected, meaning the level 3 Fighters will both have to roll 12-13 to stay awake. The biggest difficulty is getting the spell to affect enough HD. Not a great chance, to be sure, but it's a chance to pull off a difficult feat.

Maybe another problem is that you know what the enemies' levels are. Why would your DM give you that information in the first place? That's ruining part of the fantasy itself, and encourages meta-gaming more than any rules-system ever could.

 

[TwoSix]

The book Master of Arms has a good feat for doing a lot of damage with one arrow. If you want your archers taking down guards in one shot, it's worth checking out.

 

[Zappo]

Re: Re: Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

The D&D HP system isn't a flaw, it's a feature. Incidentally, it's also possibly the single biggest element that creates the D&D feeling. It does what it's supposed to do almost perfectly, and that doesn't include being realistic.

Breaking news, realism isn't necessarily a desirable trait in a game.

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.

It's even worse. IIRC, when you're negative any healing spell will take you to 1 hp, regardless of actual number of hit points healed. It's the best use of cure minor, in fact. So if you get to -5 and the cleric heals you, you get to 1 hp and you can fight but you risk an insta-kill by any 11 damage blow.

 

[kenjib]

Re: Re: Re: Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

It's even worse. IIRC, when you're negative any healing spell will take you to 1 hp, regardless of actual number of hit points healed. It's the best use of cure minor, in fact. So if you get to -5 and the cleric heals you, you get to 1 hp and you can fight but you risk an insta-kill by any 11 damage blow.

Really? Where is that rule. I thought it just stabilizes you but you can still be negative -- i.e. if you are at -5 and dying (losing an additional hp per round) and get cure minor you are at -4 and incapacitated but no longer dying.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Sleep, silence, etc. etc. -- is that "realistic"? Don't ask for too many contradictions in your fantasy game system.

I give my players "hero points" that they can use to guarantee success on a roll -- that way if they want to do something like you said, they can get a natural "20" on their attack roll (they just have to confirm the critical). Seems to work pretty well for that sort of thing.

 

[Nathal]

Re: Re: Re: Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

The D&D HP system isn't a flaw, it's a feature. Incidentally, it's also possibly the single biggest element that creates the D&D feeling. It does what it's supposed to do almost perfectly, and that doesn't include being realistic.

Right, forget being 'realistic' when playing D&D, it is a ludicrous proposition. I have heard combat 'experts' verbally duke it out for years, but none agree with each other. Self-proclaimed experts in the field of gaming violence disagree on this issue, and so there is no proper appeal to authority. The only authority is personal preference in how deadly and "gritty" one wants a game to be.

 

[mmadsen]

You don't have to track hits

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.

Actually, you don't have to track anything "to represent a character's decreasing ability to take hits" -- just as a roulette wheel doesn't need to track which numbers have come up already to eventually land on 0. A 1-in-10 chance of getting dropped per hit, for instance, isn't too terribly different from having enough Hit Points to take ten hits -- except that the first hit might take you down, or you might last 20 or 30 hits.

And, under such a system, you don't have to track hits at all.

 

[Umbran]

Is it just me and my group or does the D&D system encourage too much metagame thinking and unrealistic actions?

That depends on what you call "unrealistic". Personally, I think the idea of shooting two men in the throat (simultaneously, even) at a reasonable hiding distance with medieval-technology crossbows is an unrealistic expectation.

Others have said it before - the term "realism" tends to lose it's applicability in a game with dragons and fireballs. Working in a world world whose laws have been so warped as to allow such things, would you expect to continue on using the same methods as your mundane-world self? Heck no! You'd adapt to local conditions.

You've got two choices - you can sit and concentrate on how the D&D system is "unrealistic", or you can sit and see what kind of reality the system defines, and then work within that reality.

 

[hong]

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

Yes.

Scarymonkey, meet girallon/troll/dire bear/frost giant/etcetera. Try not to get too close.

 

[Paradoxish]

Actually, you don't have to track anything "to represent a character's decreasing ability to take hits" -- just as a roulette wheel doesn't need to track which numbers have come up already to eventually land on 0. A 1-in-10 chance of getting dropped per hit, for instance, isn't too terribly different from having enough Hit Points to take ten hits -- except that the first hit might take you down, or you might last 20 or 30 hits.

This makes me think of the way the D6 starwars system worked. Each hit could potentially be fatal, could possibly just stun you, or might do nothing at all. I liked that system - made combat feel very brutal. Ultimately, though, I like the way D&D works as far as hit points go. They can easily be explained "realistically" (that is, you can describe damage in-character without requiring too much suspension of disbelief) and at the same time they encourage truly heroic actions. Let's face it - dying at the first swing of the sword is no less boring than knowing you can't die at all. Hit points give you the opportunity to understand when you're truly outnumbered or outclassed and when you actually have a chance.

That depends on what you call "unrealistic". Personally, I think the idea of shooting two men in the throat (simultaneously, even) at a reasonable hiding distance with medieval-technology crossbows is an unrealistic expectation.

Yeah, keep in mind that the path of an arrow or crossbow bolt is hardly straight. It's difficult to get an exact hit, which is also a good way of explaining away why rogue sneak attacks don't always kill. The rogue may have aimed perfectly for the heart, but unfortunately the arrow might have missed and hit a non-vital area instead. Of course, the rogue's careful aiming insured that the arrow actually penetrated and did real damage, explaining why the target is now so weak (low on hit points) and yet not quite dead.