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

[ForbidenMaster]

...but a hit can still miss. If you roll higher than my AC, you have hit me, have you not? Yet in 4e, HP is such that you could roll low enough on damage that you have effectively "missed" me.

Your answer might be workable, but I'll have to mull it over.

Its been like that in every edition of D&D. This is nothing new for 4th edition, so please stop saying that it is.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Its been like that in every edition of D&D. This is nothing new for 4th edition, so please stop saying that it is.

Yes, but 4e has taken it to new extremes. Before, it took healing magic or long periods of rest to recover your HP. Now, it takes nothing more than a shout of encouragement or 6 hours of rest. Quite a difference.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Its been like that in every edition of D&D. This is nothing new for 4th edition, so please stop saying that it is.

Point to where I said that it wasn't true in previous editions.

I'm sorry that I feel it necessary to explain which edition I'm talking about.

Please stop making judgments upon my writing based upon your inferences, especially when they have no basis in what actually happened.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

The rogue 1st level daily power which enables you to make an attack with your ranged weapon against every target in a 'close burst 3' strains my credibility a little.

Whether it is in terms of reloading and using your sling or light crossbow that quickly, or - for your dagger throwing rogue - how he manages to attack up to 9 people with his four throwing daggers

He cant. You must have one piece of ammunition or thrown weapon for each target as per page 270 of the PHB.

Now as for how he can do it so faat, ie how he can manage such a feat as throwing 9 daggers each at a separate target, all within a short amount of time, is a different aspect. That is explained away by the fact that he is a hero with the potential to become a god.

Now honestly, is it really so abstract as to think that one who could become a god cant do such an attack? Yeah he is only 1st level, but at that point he is a hero. Heroes can do things that normal people cant even dream of. This just represents one of the ways the 1st level rogue is better then normal people. And I dont think that a 1st level rogue being able to do such a thing is any more unbelievable then that very same rogue becoming a god.

 

[FireLance]

Whether it is in terms of reloading and using your sling or light crossbow that quickly, or - for your dagger throwing rogue - how he manages to attack up to 9 people with his four throwing daggers

At least with respect to your daggers example, PH pg 271 states, under the bullet point Multiple Attack Rolls but One Damage Roll: "if you're using thrown weapons, you need one for every target".

 

[Nightson]

An attack roll represents your skill at maneuvering your weapon into the opponent. It represents reading your opponent, knowing how best to swing your weapon, knowing different attack styles to use in different situations. A hit means you forced them to do something, whereas a miss is when they dodge or parry your blow without any effort.

Your damage roll is representative of the physical limitation of your weapon, how much force you can put behind the blade, where you manage to hit or almost, etc.

Your AC is basically how good you are at dodging, parrying, outguessing your opponent, and how good your armor is.

Your health is representative of your luck, your endurance, and your concentration. Every hit that deals damage is a near miss averted only by luck, or it's a blow that you manage to dodge or parry but your forced to expend a lot of effort to do so weakening you, or it's a hit that gets to close and makes you lose your focus.

Bloodied to me means the point at which you start slipping up. Blows start getting through a little easier, your muscles are getting tired, you've already had too many close calls, etc.

Dropping to zero is the point where they got you. You slipped up or you got unlucky and now you've got a half foot of steel in your stomach and you're off to sweet unconciousness hoping that you don't bleed out before someone can get to you.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Point to where I said that it wasn't true in previous editions.

I'm sorry that I feel it necessary to explain which edition I'm talking about.

Please stop making judgments upon my writing based upon your inferences, especially when they have no basis in what actually happened.

Yet in 4e, HP is such that you could roll low enough on damage that you have effectively "missed" me.

You singled out 4ed. If you are talking about all of them then complain about D&D as whole, not just 4ed. Call me a fanboy if you wish, but I find it upsetting when people blame the wrong party in an argument.

This HP argument is nothing new, yet for some reason people feel the need to blame it on 4ed. Honestly, I had this very same argument with the group that I play with last year when playing 3.5, and I was on your side of the fence then.

 

[Plane Sailing]

At least with respect to your daggers example, PH pg 271 states, under the bullet point Multiple Attack Rolls but One Damage Roll: "if you're using thrown weapons, you need one for every target".

Thanks!

As you can probably tell, I've not got to that bit yet (Still on rogue...)

Cheers

 

[Erisea]

I'm okay with HP being more than just physical wounds, but this definition of their abstract-ness frustrates me to no end.

Let's say Bob has 30 hit points and an 18 AC. George the Goblin rolls a 19 to hit, so that hits Bob; George then deals 8 points of damage.

Assuming that when you hit bloodied is when you first take actual damage (seems a legit assumption), that means that Bob was not actually hit by the weapon - he dodges, or it's a near miss, or George screwed up his swing a bit, something.

...but isn't that represented by the attack roll?

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.

 

[GnomeWorks]

You singled out 4ed. If you are talking about all of them then complain about D&D as whole, not just 4ed. Call me a fanboy if you wish, but I find it upsetting when people blame the wrong party in an argument.

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.

This HP argument is nothing new, yet for some reason people feel the need to blame it on 4ed. Honestly, I had this very same argument with the group that I play with last year when playing 3.5, and I was on your side of the fence then.

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."