Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

[hong]

Its just this sort of thinking that causes unrealistic actions to occur in the game.

Screw realism.

If someone had the drop on you with a crossbow and you knew he would shoot you before you could possibly get to him, would you attack him? But in the game, you would probably attack without too much concern as long as you have more than 10 hps. This metagame thinking is due to the lack of an instakill threat in every combat.

For every example, there is a counterexample. In _The Long Kiss Goodnight_, Geena Davis' uber-badass ex-black op is confronted by a thug waving a gun at her. They badmouth each other for a bit, and then Davis slaps the thug's gun away, twists his arm round, and uses his own gun to shoot another thug sneaking up on them.

High-level D&D characters are larger than life. They shouldn't be bothered by mooks who are way less proficient than they are, except maybe in overwhelming numbers.

Yes, this sort of thing could lead to more pc deaths. Or maybe it would encourage pc's to try other ways of overcoming obstacles rather than just trying to kill everybody.

Then don't play D&D.

 

[Quinn]

"Yes, this sort of thing could lead to more pc deaths. Or maybe it would encourage pc's to try other ways of overcoming obstacles rather than just trying to kill everybody."

Heh, you weren't looking for a solution other than fighting when you wanted to off those two guards with one shot in your example.

Besides, this isn't a realistic game nor does it claim to be. If you're looking for realism, you probably want a different system than d20.

 

[Psion]

Yes, this sort of thing could lead to more pc deaths. Or maybe it would encourage pc's to try other ways of overcoming obstacles rather than just trying to kill everybody.

You mean like you were trying to do but are complaining about now? I don't see the problem being that nobody could bribe the guards, or make a distraction so that the party could wrestle down one guard while the rogue takes out the others one. No, instead you complain that you could not shoot them in the throat and kill them silently...

 

[mmadsen]

the reason for all of these flaws is because it is a game.

Other games have different flaws. There isn't just one way to model combat.

i real live there is no way a human could have a 18 str. mabye a 13 but thats it.

In real life, there are men who can deadlift nearly half a ton. A strong man isn't just twice as strong as normal; he's five or six times as strong as normal.

in D&D you are adventurers and are super natural for just that ability not every one can adventure.

The issue is not that D&D characters are too heroic or too powerful for scarymonkey's taste. The issue is that D&D's combat system doesn't model the kind of combat he enjoys.

With an ablative Hit Point system, anyone who can challenge you at all -- anyone you expect to last a few rounds of combat -- has zero chance of dying from a single well-placed strike. That's just how Hit Points work. Other mathematical models would have different properties, of course.

 

[barsoomcore]

If someone had the drop on you with a crossbow and you knew he would shoot you before you could possibly get to him, would you attack him?

If I was Conan or the Grey Mouser? Of course! Away with your puny crossbows! I laugh at your pitiful efforts. Even before you've pulled that trigger, deary, I'm already dodging aside. Your crossbow bolt might graze my shoulder, but by then my blade will be in your face and you'll be WAY to busy to think about reloading.

That's not metagame thinking. That's the world the game models. If you don't like that world, then you need to use a different model. There are plenty out there. Find one that describes the world as you want to play in it.

But honestly, complaining because D&D doesn't model YOUR world is not going to accomplish anything.

 

[scarymonkey]

If I was Conan or the Grey Mouser? Of course! Away with your puny crossbows! I laugh at your pitiful efforts. Even before you've pulled that trigger, deary, I'm already dodging aside. Your crossbow bolt might graze my shoulder, but by then my blade will be in your face and you'll be WAY to busy to think about reloading.

The problem is that even if it were Robin Hood holding the bow, he still wouldn't threaten you enough to make you hesitate in your attack. No matter how good the archer is, he still couldn't kill you before you got to him.

Now if you were playing using something like the "massive damage threshhold" from D20 Modern (thanks, Eric), you would probably think twice before attacking. Conan could still probably take whatever was dished out to him, but there would always be the chance of death with most attacks. Therefore every combat would be tense and exciting- not just the ones that occur when your hitpoints are low or when you are fighting some insta-Death monster.

 

[barsoomcore]

The problem is that even if it were Robin Hood holding the bow, he still wouldn't threaten you enough to make you hesitate in your attack. No matter how good the archer is, he still couldn't kill you before you got to him.

Really? Well that would depend on a great variety of things, now wouldn't it?

But a sneak-attack capable rogue with Improved Crit on their mighty bow might be entirely capable of killing quite powerful characters in one shot. And if you don't know what this bow-holding guy is capable of, are you really going to risk it?

Well, sure, if you're playing in a campaign with a DM who doesn't know what he's doing and can't come up with reasonable threats to his party.

But I'll tell you this -- my players would surely hesitate.

Now if you were playing using something like the "massive damage threshhold" from D20 Modern (thanks, Eric), you would probably think twice before attacking. Conan could still probably take whatever was dished out to him, but there would always be the chance of death with most attacks. Therefore every combat would be tense and exciting- not just the ones that occur when your hitpoints are low or when you are fighting some insta-Death monster.

Okay, obviously you believe that combat isn't exciting unless the characters might be killed with any single blow from anyone. Fair enough, and you're quite correct, D&D doesn't do that.

...

...Unless you're fighting opponents who are tough enough that they just MIGHT kill you with one blow. Like, say, opponents at an appropriate Encounter Level for your party.

If you want to play a game where the hero can be killed by a single lucky mook, then go for it. Lots of games let you do that. Play Cyberpunk, where you can get killed crossing the street.

 

[kenjib]

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

I checked and I was wrong, sorry.

Oh, no need to apologize. I was just worried that I had it wrong.

 

[Paradoxish]

Its just this sort of thinking that causes unrealistic actions to occur in the game. If someone had the drop on you with a crossbow and you knew he would shoot you before you could possibly get to him, would you attack him?

Once again, you're missing the point. The idea is to be heroic. It's hard to be heroic when you know every combat is going to kill you. To be totally honest, if you're just not into heroic fantasy combats than D&D really isn't the game for you. It's not a gritty simulation of medieval battles, it's about fighters charging head first into odds they should never be able to overcome and then somehow coming out in one piece.

And yet, despite that, I don't think you're properly understanding the concept of hit points. No character in D&D should be able to survive being shot in the face with a crossbow and, if your DM plays it correctly, no character will ever be able to. When your character runs right at a guy it shouldn't be taken as him standing there as arrows pelt his body. It's more like he's running forward, taking a few flesh wounds, getting grazed by arrows, dodging others, etc.

It's much more heroic to say "That guy's pointing a crossbow at me... I think I can get there before he takes me down." than "That guy's pointing a crossbow at me, I better hide behind this rock until he runs out of bolts."

 

[scarymonkey]

Once again, you're missing the point. The idea is to be heroic. It's hard to be heroic when you know every combat is going to kill you. To be totally honest, if you're just not into heroic fantasy combats than D&D really isn't the game for you. It's not a gritty simulation of medieval battles, it's about fighters charging head first into odds they should never be able to overcome and then somehow coming out in one piece.

No, I believe it is you that is not getting my point. I don't feel very heroic going into battles where I know that there is almost no chance of being killed. Who is more heroic - The warrior who fights with no fear of death or the one who knows he can be killed at any moment but fights anyway?