D&D 4E How does 4E hold up on verisimilitude?

[ForbidenMaster]

Let's assume Bob is using a shield which gives him 2 points of AC. George rolls a 16 to hit - if it weren't for the shield, this would have hit Bob. Bob tilts his shield lightly to deflect the blow, taking no damage.

Next round, George rolls an 18 to hit, and rolls the 8 damage. The swing crunches in to the shield hard; not enough to bloody Bob, but his shield arm is certainly a bit sore, and Bob is a little more flustered. Next round, George again rolls 18 to hit and 8 damage. Thanks to his sore arm, this time George doesn't manage to quite get the shield to fully take the blow, and George's sword slips over the top edge of the shield and nicks Bob's arm - he is just bloodied.

The next round, George criticals and does 16 points of damage; Bob fails to get the shield to block the attack at all, and takes a nasty wound to the gut. He drops to the floor, bleeding badly, but not yet actually dead (-2hp).

Will the Warlord sees Bob drop, and yells at him to suck it up and get back on his feet. Bob spends a healing surge, and reinforced by Will's call, ignores the pain. On his next turn, he stands up and kills George. After the fight, he's certainly going to need to bandage up that gut wound, but he can soldier on for another half minute or so because he knows his team mates need him.

Celia the Cleric then calls on the power of Pelor, and divine energy surges in to Bob; this energy draws on his inner reserves, his gut wound is knitted back up, and the earlier nick on his arm also heals. He is no longer bloodied.

Now what would have happened if Celia was the one who managed to bring Bob back from unconsciousness with her prayer, and then the warlord yelled at Bob to suck it up, such that Bob is no longer bloodied. Does the wound just stitch itself up because of the warlord? If the bloodied condition is an actual representation of being physically wounded, and the non bloodied condition is the state of not being physically wounded, then how can an inspiring word ever get you out of being bloodied?

The only way I can every see any HP related condition, whether it be 1HP, full HP, bloodied, or even unconsciousness, is if the entire aspect is abstract and never actually mean anything in game.

The mechanics may represent themselves in game such that they physically effect how thing turn out, but as in the situation above, if the warlord really was the one who got Bob to no longer be bloodied, then Bob really never was physically wounded, and it was only ever something that the warlord could "heal."

However at the same time, the ability for your scenario to take place must also be true. Therefor those two, as well as many other scenarios must exist at the same time. That can only ever work when everything is abstract as possible and never actually be represented in game as anything.

 

[med stud]

As for realistic, 3e and 4e are equally realistic.

For a low magic, sword and sorcery campaign I would say that 4e is more viable:
*Magic healing isn't as necessary.
*Monsters aren't balanced on the assumption that every party has immensely powerful magic.
*Magic items are easier to do away with.
*Mages in the S&S- literature generally don't blast people. In 4e, this can be emulated by wizards using rituals.

For versimilitude, it depends on how sensitive you are. Per encounter abilities and daily abilities are that way due to game balance. There is no explicit, waterproof reasoning why they are that way in game.*

For "classic D&D"- fantasy, 4e falls short. Wizards are way less powerful in this edition due to the nerfing of magic. 1e-3.5, high level magic made Exalted-powers pale. Now, they are in line with what other characters can do. If you're after that kind of magic, 4e isn't for you.

For me, 4e is what I wanted from D&D all along. I've never been a fan of high magic, I have always liked martial characters more than mages and I like settings where one's skills matter over a certain level.

*I, personally, don't agree with this logic. I have a long experience with martial arts and I have studied medicine and D&D combat has always felt as realistic as Streetfighter II to me. That's why I got into this game in the first place .

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Emphasis yours.

You apparently missed the part of my post - that you quoted, no less! - where I apologized for feeling the need to point out which edition I'm talking about.

You need to stop being so defensive.

Apparently I did, and honestly I still dont see it, but whatever.

4e exacerbates the problem by introducing the term "bloodied." The conceptual problem with HP has been brought to the fore with that term.

Did the problem exist in previous editions? Yes, yes it did. However, that term has made me think about what HPs "mean," and I didn't worry about it previously to now. Now that 4e has brought it to my attention, it irks me, but I can ignore it in earlier editions because they don't draw attention to the idea with something like "bloodied."

What brought it to my attention in 3.5 was sneak attack and crits. Personally I see it all as the same problem, and easily explained essentially by ignoring it. It may seem dumb, but from what was written in the 1ed DMG (I believe), thats exactly how it should be handled.

 

[med stud]

Can we please not start a HP-debate in this thread? Noone will ever win one of those anyway...

 

[Derren]

4E is much worse than 3E in this regard.

Here some examples:

• Some martial attacks are limited to 1 use per day
• The whole geometry does not resemble something we can imagine. The D&D world looks more like a alternate dimension out of a Lovecraft novel (1-1-1 diagonals = Circles are Squares)
• Every PC is a superhuman who can do everything. (Skills are automatically increased making it impossible that a PC is bad in something)
• There is a huge difference between what PCs can do and what NPCS/Monster can do, making PCs looks like some aliens or mutants which are not a normal part of the world

 

[Kestrel]

It's not doing too well on the realism front; it has dragons, and demons and magic and stuff.

Coffee...everywhere.

 

[robertliguori]

4E is consistent like an action movie is consistent; within the bounds of what is presented. It produces consistent, versimillistic action, and does so better than many (cough Revenge of the Sith and Order 66) movies. Character can do certain things, and they do them extremely consistently; if your starting point is "Characters have these attributes and can do these things in combat.", you'll get what you're looking for.

Not only is the rest of the world not versimillistic, there simply aren't rules covering a lot of it. It's not that the rules for minions don't make sense outside of combat; its that there are no rules for minions outside of combat.

So, game yes, but world no.

 

[Knightlord]

4E is much worse than 3E in this regard.

Here some examples:

• Some martial attacks are limited to 1 use per day
• The whole geometry does not resemble something we can imagine. The D&D world looks more like a alternate dimension out of a Lovecraft novel (1-1-1 diagonals = Circles are Squares)
• Every PC is a superhuman who can do everything. (Skills are automatically increased making it impossible that a PC is bad in something)
• There is a huge difference between what PCs can do and what NPCS/Monster can do, making PCs looks like some aliens or mutants which are not a normal part of the world

• PC cannot always set up the attack. Limited opportunity.
• Easier to play, easier to manage=more fun, less frustration.
• Willing to bet no one really wants to play a commoner in D&D. PC's are "Heroes", and they probably should feel like it.
  
• No, it makes the PC's feel like Heroes. When the town is being ravaged by a vile dragon, and the commoners are nearly powerless to stop it, they put out a call for Heroes (ie the PC's). And why not? If your tough enough to raid dangerous and trap ladened dungeons every other week (as the PC's are and the commoners are not), and survive, then your tough enough to face a dragon.

 

[Erisea]

Now what would have happened if Celia was the one who managed to bring Bob back from unconsciousness with her prayer, and then the warlord yelled at Bob to suck it up, such that Bob is no longer bloodied. Does the wound just stitch itself up because of the warlord? If the bloodied condition is an actual representation of being physically wounded, and the non bloodied condition is the state of not being physically wounded, then how can an inspiring word ever get you out of being bloodied?

The same way it got Bob on his feet after falling; the boost in morale helped him work through the pain. The physical wound is still there, but it's no longer immediately affecting Bob's performance. You just describe the situation differently. Divine energy knits together the gut wound, and Bob stands up but there's still a bit of a gash there, and the arm wound is still leaking blood. Will shouts encouragement at Bob, who wipes away the blood from the wounds, and ignores the pain.

If it can get him up after dropping, it can get him so that the wounds are no longer affecting him as if he were bloodied. I admit, inspiring word is a lot harder to use to discuss actual wounds, but even at the point where dropped to negative HP is the only wound that counts, you still have to accept inspiring word. It's why I put it in as the one used to get Bob to not die.

 

[KarinsDad]

Explain, explain, explain, ...

So many people trying to explain game mechanics in real world situations. So many people denying that those explanations really fit.

It's all about game mechanics. The wonkiness that bug some people is that in order for the game mechanics to fit nicely together and be balanced and consistent, some believability gets stretched or assumptions get made.

Understanding that a minion is a minion and it's ok for it to have 1 HP is fine. Trying to explain that in any sort of real world terms doesn't make a lot of sense. The 1 HP rule is merely a game mechanic to simplify the use of mooks for DMs. Nothing more. It has no decent explanation because it's believable that a Minion could actually survive getting hit once in a whiie, but the game system prevents that.

Ditto for a lot of the other explanations for Shift, Pull, Hit Points, "why Dex helps Hide armor, but not Chain armor", etc.

There are several 4E mechanics that need new (or even more detailed) explanations for it to fit into some people's versimilitude than others. That's why we keep having these discussions.

But, it's just a game. These rules are no more believable or less believable than falling damage in earlier editions. Either a given DM and group buy into them, or they house rule them to make them more believable, or they don't play the system.


Just like going into a campy movie, if one goes in with the mindset that it's a campy movie and will have stupid stuff in it and that's expected, they generally tend to have a better time at the movie then if they go in picking the movie apart.

For 4E, it's all in the mindset of the players. JMO. If one tries to pick it apart, it's not that hard to do. If one concentrates more on having a good time understanding that this is not a simulationism type RPG, then enjoying the game is not that hard to do either.

To me, some level of versimilitude is important. But, not enough that I am going to make the game less fun for my players by throwing dozens of pages of house rules at them. That's not why I play the game. I play the game because I LMAO more times in a four hour period than I do in the rest of my week combined.