Falling from Great Heights

This is the problem right here.

The decisions the PCs make are not unrealistic in the world in which they exist. They are unrealistic in Shadowrun. They are unrealistic in the real world. They are perfectly realistic in D&D. This is the huge disconnect. D&D, as presently written, has a very specific universe, and many people are constantly confusing it with a completely different fantasy universe they have cooked up in their head from some other source.

Laughing at generic city guards, in 4E D&D, when you are level 20, is realistic.



The rules reflect the reality of the world. As for different WORLDS, absolutely. I find it deeply unfortunate that there have been no such optional rules for worlds where guards are always a threat. A lack of optional rules is a huge huge huge flaw in 4E.



Ehhh. I'd say no, it isn't, but it could and it should. D&D, in 4E, is based on a world that does not match what most people could call realistic. That is why I enjoy it so much! But while rules to add Real Life Realism to the game could be made, they haven't, at least not by WotC.



That is their claim, yes. I wish they had bothered trying it in 4E rather than starting from scratch.



The answer is No.

I have issues with people arguing based on a fiction they have created in their heads. D&D, thus far, lays down a specific concept. We can absolutely discuss the merits of that concept. We can talk about how that concept differs from other concepts. We can talk about how we can expand that concept. We can talk about adding new concepts using similar tools. We cannot talk about how D&D teaches you how to use psychic powers to derail trains - it does not do that.

What you say may be true of 4E, and may or may not prove to be true of 5E, but it's not true of "D&D" in general. The lethality of the game has been different throughout different editions; and, indeed, various editions have had such optional rules.

"D&D" arguably encompasses a whole range of play styles and 'universal laws'. 4E attempted to codify that much more tightly, and tried to make the rules part of the fluff to describe a single coherent universe, but previous editions didn't do that. And there's no reason at present to think that 5E will.

So, in short - I don't agree that there's a defined D&D 'universe' where certain things can happen and others can't. Not unless you take a very restrictive view and view the concept of "D&D" outside it's historical context.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As I've already mentioned, this is the bit I have trouble with. (Not in the sense of objecting to it, but as not really getting it.)

Because I can't see hp rules, or saving throw rules, as anything but metagame mechanics (and Gygax describes that way in his DMG), I can't take any objection to players making decisions based on their knowledge of their metagame situation. Conversely, if I wanted a game in which players made decisions for their PCs based purely on the ingame situation, I would play a game without those metagame elements.

In the context of falling damage, or twelve guards with crossbows, the metagame rules mean that a player knows that, if his/her PC jumps over the cliff, or tries to rush the guards, the PC has a pretty good chance of pulling it off. That's the point of the metagame mechanics.

It all goes back to the inconsistency of the description and actual play of high level characters across all editions. Pre-3e characters would know they can can't take a dozen guys or leap off a mountain.

In 3E, double digit characters could be hurt by a dozen dudes... but they would know they could also slaughter the crossbowmen. Depending on their individual experiences, they might also try other risky maneuvers.

And in 4E, paragon characters can say "LOL Material Plane humanoids without titles." or "Ha. None of you are royalty, nobility, or nationwide legends. Step aside.". And their player might be able to justifiably act that way.

Once thing, especially with the flatter math, that I hope to see in 5E is aclear description of the power of a high level character.
 

No, it happens frequently. Even in the last LotR movie, Gandolf seems to think he's about to die while fighting troops, and that's after he's defeated the Balrog and came back even more powerful than before.

When Strider is tracking the hobbits down with Gimli and Legolas, they get surrounded by mounted riders. Sure, Legolas could have gotten a shot off first, but they were obviously in a terrible situation.

Jamie Lannister, basically the best swordsman around, is overwhelmed by troops and captured.

When Rand al'Thor is training against four men, he gets on hit on each, but the last one hits him in the head. He routinely takes on the Forsaken.

This is not uncommon by any means in fantasy.

I would point out that Gandalf and Rand are the only mid- to high-level characters among those examples, and both of them are only threatened at all because they're holding back. Gandalf isn't using most of his power to avoid attracting the attention of the other people in the world who are a real threat to him (and because Iluvatar nicely asked him not to). When Davram Bashere tries to stab Rand to prove a point--that Rand hasn't been really keeping up with his practice, and shouldn't be anyway because he has better options--Rand stops and disarms him without even having to take the time to think about it.

Those high level characters being "threatened" by mundane threats are akin to saying that a D&D planetar isn't actually powerful because Pelor will smite any angel that tries to use its supernatural abilities, or that a 15th-level wizard is trivial to take out as long as you have either an antimagic field or 13 12th-level wizards working together. Yes, if you have a high-level caster not use any of his magic for personal protection or offense, low-level threats might affect him, but that's exactly the problem: most fiction deals with what would be low-level characters in D&D, and any high-level characters are usually holding themselves back.

A common argument to see on forums is the following:

"Casters and noncasters should be equal. Noncasters take out casters in fiction all the time."

"Nuh-uh! Magic is inherently superior!"

"Nope, Gandalf and Thoth-Amon and so on are just higher-level than Aragorn and Conan and the rest!"

It goes around in circles after that, but the latter sentiment is closer to being right: main villains are end-game bosses because they're higher-level and heroes tend to be at a disadvantage because underdog stories are classic, not because wizards are better than fighters in the source material. If you look at most fiction that ends up with the hero facing down a drastically stronger foe against which he's at a disadvantage, you'll notice that it almost always occurs because the hero outsmarts the villain (which works because power is not always proportional to intelligence) or because he takes advantage of a special weakness, whether or not it's built in to the magic system or the villain. The corollary to those stories is that the hero has to do it himself because brute force by bunches of mooks just doesn't work. The Witch-King gets taken out by a "puny" woman and hobbit duo only because of a glaring weakness and his misinterpretation of that weakness. The Emperor is taken down by Vader because Luke manages to turn him back to the light, which Palpatine never saw coming. Wheel of Time channelers are only taken down by the equivalent of antimagic fields, whether it's forkroot tea or 13-women circles or steddings or whatever else.

Any number of men or elves who go up against the Witch-King flat-out die. Any number of Rebel troops who go up against Vader flat-out die, and even the heroes get captured easily. Any number of Aiel who go up against a Forsaken flat-out die. The only equalizer for lower-level characters is trickery or knowledge of a hidden weakness, and "a dozen bandits with crossbows" just isn't that kind of weakness for higher-level heroes. In fact, if we really want to talk about source material, any game which does have Jedi Master Luke threatened by generic stormtroopers and TIE fighters is contradicting the source material as much as a game that has Gandalf able to mow down the armies of Isengard and Mordor single-handedly.

And that's what the different level ranges are for. Farmboy Rand al'Thor and Farmboy Luke Skywalker are low- to mid-level, and still threatened by a dozen bandits with bows or a squad of stormtroopers. Dragon Rand "Lews Therin" al'Thor and Jedi Master Luke Skywalker are mid- to high-level, and just aren't threatened by them anymore. And that kind of growth has always been part of D&D. Perhaps not to the same extent, as different editions have handled high-level and epic/immortal play differently, but even in the very earliest editions PCs started off scrabbling for every advantage they could get and worked their way up to being awesome at mid-to-high level. Back in the day, most NPCs were assumed to be 0th-level, and fighters could attack 1 0th-level opponent per level per round, so 6th-level fighters (which, again, is roughly at the point where AD&D and 3e characters first start surpassing real-world limits) were seriously expected to kill 6 people per round, and those half-dozen bandits would find their numbers halved if the fighter's side rolled well on initiative and completely wiped soon thereafter if they didn't run away.

Yes, characters have less health and fewer protections in AD&D, and yes, 4e builds in a lot of safeguards to protect PCs, but at the end of the day the relationship of low-level characters to mid-level PCs has always been "oh yeah, low-level people, they're those things that the PCs either ignore, order around, or slaughter as the mood strikes them." Mid-level heroes of every edition slay gods, take over nations, planes-hop, and otherwise do larger-than-life stuff on a daily basis. When you can take on a half-dozen glabrezu for breakfast, or as Incenjucar said wipe a colony of illithids before lunch, a bunch of bandits have to go waaay out of their way to qualify as a threat.
 

Yes, if you have a high-level caster not use any of his magic for personal protection or offense, low-level threats might affect him, but that's exactly the problem: most fiction deals with what would be low-level characters in D&D, and any high-level characters are usually holding themselves back.
This is true in a lot of fiction, yes. A lot of fiction also wavers, switching back and forth. In Wheel of Time, Lan -arguably the best warrior in the series- can take on like eight guys at once, and win, but he's hurt at the end. Earlier, Galad is able to cut his way through an angry mob without spilling blood on his clothes.

Strider is able to take the entire group of ring-wraiths at the same time, but has to get hauled up from the bridge with Gimli before he gets overrun, even though only a limited number of enemies can reach him at once.

And, as I've pointed out, the Song of Ice and Fire series is even more brutal when treating how dangerous "mook" characters are. You get surrounded by them, you basically lose.

Conan is knocked out by tripping a couple of times. Yet, he can kill a gorilla-monster in one hit that would tear his limbs off if it reached him.

Like any genre, there's different variations in how powerful creatures are treated. Rand al'Thor will get hit in the head by a common soldier, but he'll burn a city down with fire that erases it from time. Quite a power difference there. I'd like to see D&D at least allow for the lower power end at later levels.

The corollary to those stories is that the hero has to do it himself because brute force by bunches of mooks just doesn't work.
That's true, though it often happens to protagonists. That is, a bunch of mooks can take them on, and capture them. Han Solo and Chewbacca getting captured by soldiers in Episode 6, for example.

The Witch-King gets taken out by a "puny" woman and hobbit duo only because of a glaring weakness and his misinterpretation of that weakness. The Emperor is taken down by Vader because Luke manages to turn him back to the light, which Palpatine never saw coming. Wheel of Time channelers are only taken down by the equivalent of antimagic fields, whether it's forkroot tea or 13-women circles or steddings or whatever else.
This can easily apply to melee characters, too, though. Achilles is invincible, but he can only be taken down by a strike to his ankle.

Any number of men or elves who go up against the Witch-King flat-out die.
Well, save Strider, of course...

Any number of Rebel troops who go up against Vader flat-out die, and even the heroes get captured easily.
And they get captured by stormtroopers. Vader and Boba Fett were there, but they weren't going to capture all of them alone. In Episode 3, the clone troopers take out jedi left and right.

And that kind of growth has always been part of D&D. Perhaps not to the same extent, as different editions have handled high-level and epic/immortal play differently, but even in the very earliest editions PCs started off scrabbling for every advantage they could get and worked their way up to being awesome at mid-to-high level.
Yes, and people being threatened by a weak group has been part of D&D for a long time. It fits well within the spirit of the game. The current discussion is to how this dynamic might be acceptable at all level ranges, for those who want this style of game.

Again, the discussion is not "how has D&D always treated levels?" It's "is being threatened by groups of weaker creatures within the spirit of D&D?" The answer, of course, is yes. So, the discussion has turned to that (as it's related to fall damage), and how it might be applied (even optionally) to people that want D&D to be played this way.

It's been house ruled by different groups for decades, anyways. More intense falling damage, harsher rules for lava, drinking tons of poison, staring contests with medusa, etc.

Yes, characters have less health and fewer protections in AD&D, and yes, 4e builds in a lot of safeguards to protect PCs, but at the end of the day the relationship of low-level characters to mid-level PCs has always been "oh yeah, low-level people, they're those things that the PCs either ignore, order around, or slaughter as the mood strikes them."
Again, the discussion isn't "how has D&D rules made the game behave?" Because, really, we all know how that is. The objection is being made to how the rules have made the game behave, in fact. Everyone here basically agrees with that.

The discussion one side is trying to have is "I'd like the game to be able to make low groups dangerous at all levels." Yes, it fits within the spirit of D&D: it happens at low and mid-low levels. However, characters grow out of that. We're agreed that it's the case. Now, one side is trying to say "I don't like that it happens, and would like to see an alternative."

I was replying to someone saying "if a dozen bandits with crossbows are dangerous to you, dragons mean nothing!" That's not necessarily true, and that's what I was pointing out. As always, play what you like :)
 

FenrisWolf# said:
At one point, he's barefoot and looking at broken glass on the floor. He doesn't just shrug and walk across it, knowing that it's only a few HP damage. There is general concern, but it's either that or be killed (despite it being only a couple of machine guns firing at him, which a player would think "Ah, I can take that").

However, the point is, he does walk on broken glass and that doesn't stop him. Nor does it do any lasting damage to him as we see him pull the glass out of his feet, wrap himself up and off he toddles for the rest of the movie.

Y'know what happens when you pull large shards of glass from your feet in the real world? You bleed profusely and are likely not going anywhere for several days. You don't then proceed to go running all over a building.
 

When the rules don't state what happens, you fill in the blanks by thinking about what the most realistic possibility is, rather than trying to be colorful and expressive with it just because you can. Magical and mystical and weird experiences have to earned. In my view. I'm sure that sounds boring.

Why?

In a fantasy world where all sorts of weird and wonderful things happen before breakfast, why in the world would you have to "earn" mystical and weird experiences.
 

We already went through this Hussar. I agree that you can apply a thoughtless application of the rules in an absence of intent and completely go sideways with the experience. And I'll also point out that there are countless other comments in the DMG, throughout Dragon Magazine, and many other resources that describe, defend, and embrace as fundamental to every rule in the game that intent and rational application are paramount.

There is NO basis whatsoever for thinking that actually ever intentionally looking at Medusa would do anything other than turn you to stone. The rules didn't find a need to explain that, particularly given that the concept of over-riding intent is so frequently made clear. The rules PRESUME an effort to avoid. And, before this "recent era" I've mentioned NO ONE I ever games with in a situation of this type even CONSIDERED it an option to do otherwise.

Quote please. Show me ANYWHERE, in any rule book where the rules presume an effort to avoid. I can see where it talks about what happens if you deliberately try to avoid, but, nowhere can I see anything that actually supports what you claim.

OTOH, I can point to every single edition of the game, many specifically, stating that I can look at a medusa and not turn to stone.

But, you can continue to bang this drum all you like.

You are putting what amounts to an abuse of the rules over any effort to create a quality narrative. And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you complain over and over about bad experiences you have with other players. And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you are the one calling your own game experience "ludicrous". I've reach the point that I'm convinced that you are completely blind and unaware of what the game experience *I* seek and routinely enjoy is even about.

Ad hominem aside, who is playing by the rules, the specific rules, not a bizarre interpretation, not adding or taking anything away from what is written there, an abuse of the rules?

I don't know what you want and it makes no difference. I hope your games are as fun as you can make them. But I also am certain your comments are virtually irrelevant to the kind of amazing experience I know can happen. And certainly even remotely suggesting that my experiences are slightly "ludicrous" is unfathomable, much less calling that fish in a barrel.

But keep that in mind when you struggle to grasp the disconnect between what you talk about and others achieve.

Again, why the ad hominem attacks? Just because you were spanked rather resoundly by several people showing you exactly where you were wrong and how you were misinterpreting the rules for years, why take it out on me?

Wait....
Ok, and if it did come up, as a DM what would you do?
Is a staring contest with Medusa any less of a corner case?

Which position are you taking?

Me personally? If the player stated he was cutting off his own eyelids to stare down the medusa, I would play D&D. Which means that he would make the applicable saving throw, or suffer the applicable attack (depending on edition) and we'd move on from there.

Why?

Because I play D&D. It's not like I really need to make house rules here. I mean, the mechanics for a medusa haven't significantly changed in 40 years of D&D - other than maybe which saving throw, or a bit of a percentages shift. Every single medusa in D&D has worked exactly, almost with the same language used, the same.

Heh, 5e is to be the unification edition. Here's one monster that can go into 5e almost unchanged since throughout it's entire history, it hasn't really changed at all. At least, not in D&D. :D
 

What you say may be true of 4E, and may or may not prove to be true of 5E, but it's not true of "D&D" in general. The lethality of the game has been different throughout different editions; and, indeed, various editions have had such optional rules.

Sure. That's why I said "4E" like four times. :P In 2E this was only true for wizards. :P
 

Funnily enough, if you go back into one of the earlier Dragon magazines, shortly after the release of 3e, (and I forget the issue, I'll have to go dig it up) they actually talk about poison and saving throws. They mention one of the more wahoo ideas is that your dwarf with an 18 Con can pretty much guzzle poison by the pint and not suffer any effects.
 

In the context of falling damage, or twelve guards with crossbows, the metagame rules mean that a player knows that, if his/her PC jumps over the cliff, or tries to rush the guards, the PC has a pretty good chance of pulling it off. That's the point of the metagame mechanics.
Why do you call them "metagame rules"?

If Mike Tyson thinks that he can easily defeat a dozen of 4 years old kids in a boxe fight, is he applying "metagame rules", or does he simply know what he can achieve?

The Snatch feat in 3.5 states:
A snatched opponent held in the creature’s mouth is not allowed a Reflex save against the creature’s breath weapon, if it has one.

This means that a frigging colossal dragon could hold a high level monk, with no armor whatsover, in his/her mouth, and breath acid/fire/youchoosewhat right on his face, with no saving throw allowed, and most high level PC would survive this attack.

Now, in this link I read that the maximum potential bite force of T. rex is between about 183,000 and 235,000 N for a bilateral bite (!), which is less than an ancient colossal wyrm, since the Trex bite is listed a 3d6, while the latter is listed as 4d8.

Now, I'm no physician, but I do remember being bitten by a medium sized dog, and it was painful. I don't want to imagine what such a bite could do to me.

But our high level PC could reasonably face the bite/grapple damage of the colossal dragon (of course including his Str modifier to damage), looking at the damage sustained after being bitten several times, no matter being held in his mouth.

Now, this high level PC should also have suffered several crossbow bolts / bow arrows hit in his career, even direct hits while he was helpless, and would know what damage he could reasonably aspect from them, and he could compare them to the cited dragon.

Now, I really can't see why his expericence with the dragon and the bolts/arrows should be seen as metagame rules.
 

Remove ads

Top