D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

Given this is precisely what 4e did, are you asserting 4e is not D&D?

I think 4e took a very different approach and style. To me 4e was D&D in about the same way the 60s Batman TV show was the same as Chritopher Nolan's Batman movies.

 

[Enrahim]

4e doesn't allow henchmen? And if not, why not?

4ed seem to support henchmen better than 3ed, as there are rules for simplified NPCs. (I don't think there is a leadership feat in core though). I think the advice is more the same as for all WotC D&Ds: The complexity added with babysitting lower tier characters are rarely worth the benefit.

 

[AnotherGuy]

If I want a horde of lower level monsters I jut use mobs. I think its a better solution. At least it is for me.

I'd say we are spoilt for choice right now (regarding tools we can use), fortunately.

 

[Hussar]

I really hope that if I ever need heart surgery that my doctor has advanced their skill level from someone who knew advanced first aid. D&D is not a reality simulator, it simulates heroic fictional characters. In fiction you do have a vast difference between Conan and the low level soldiers he regularly chops into pieces.

In my own profession I grew significantly from someone who could do basic programs to someone designing and implementing complex software systems with dozens of interfaces.

Scale of growth isn't particularly relevant to simulating that growth happens. I also don't care if an or from 1e is the same as an orc in 5e. Why would that even matter?

You keep trying to "prove" that other people's opinions and preferences are somehow wrong. How about trying to accept that we just have different viewpoints?

No, I keep trying to prove that the point you are making is inconsistent. Which it is. After all, is your doctor stronger/tougher than someone who only knows first aid? After all, that's what D&D says is true. That in order to be a trained doctor, you need to be several levels higher than someone who only knows first aid. Which brings with it all sorts of extras like more HP, better attacks and whatnot. By D&D logic, a neurosurgeon should be the best MMA fighter on the planet. Stephen Hawkings should be able to arm wrestle a giant. Heck, you should be able to swing a sword much better now than you could when you first started learning basic programming. And, you should be stronger, healthier and in much better shape than you were twenty years ago.

I dunno about you, but my knees kinda creak now when I stand up too quickly. Going from a new teacher with only basic knowledge to one with twenty years experience certainly didn't make me stronger, healthier and better able to withstand damage.

Yet, that's what the "simulation" that you and @Lanefan are talking about does. If the stat block must grow, and it must grow exactly the same for everyone - PC and NPC - then your world must be filled with geriatric Conan's who can routinely assault dragons.

But, since I'm fairly sure that's not true, I will simply continue to point out the inconsistencies in what you are describing as "simulation".

 

[Enrahim]

And no, I don't think all possible mechanically-symmetric games are non-diegetic. I think all possible 100% perfectly mechanically-symmetric Things That Do What D&D Does are non-diegetic.

I think this points to my issue. What is it D&D does? You seemed to posit that is a long string of "engaging" battles?

I am not fond of that mode of D&D. There are other ways to play D&D I like a lot better.

 

[Hussar]

I would agree that for some people D&D doesn't do some specific things as well for some things. Which I'm fine with. People have different preferences. I don't want all the overhead, detail and results an accurate medieval fighting sim would presumably have. So for me D&D's simplified heroic combat is better because it gives me the experience I want.

Saying it doesn't do well for anything ignores that a game is more than the sum of it's parts.

P.S. I'm not offended by what as said. Just pointing out what I consider a boring, but typical, biased trope

You mean the strawman that no one here has claimed?

I mean, good grief, the other reaction is far, far stronger. I made the mistake of claiming that another system might be better for building sandboxes and got told that I hated D&D. I point out that D&D isn't particularly good at simulating things, complete with a fairly extensive list of examples and proof, and get told I hate D&D. I point out that the claims about 4e are baseless and again, I apparently hate D&D.

No one here hates D&D. That's the part you are failing to understand. We all play D&D. We've all played D&D for decades. We play D&D because we like it. But you're making claims about D&D that are inconsistent using definitions that you have pretty clearly misunderstood. When it gets pointed out to you that you flat out contradict your own definitions, you start moving the goalposts yet again.

Which, given the origin of this entire thread, is exactly what this thread was always about.

 

[Hussar]

I'd say we are spoilt for choice right now (regarding tools we can use), fortunately.

I've got a couple of different horde rulesets that I like to use for large mobs. They work pretty well.

 

[AlViking]

The math of 4e is not my preferred method of reflecting the world.

However if I use the minion concept in 5e I would be using things like damage threshold, resistance and # of attacks etc to reflect a minion. I would not be changing the creature's AC, with regards to damage I'd likely use the DMG's mob tactics if there were a lot of them - which is the idea for minions.

If I were to mimic something like a minion I would use mobs as I stated above. Another option would be to increase attack and damage of a low level creature but keep everything else the same. It may take more than one hit to kill them for a fighter, but it keeps most of their core stats intact

No, I keep trying to prove that the point you are making is inconsistent. Which it is. After all, is your doctor stronger/tougher than someone who only knows first aid? After all, that's what D&D says is true. That in order to be a trained doctor, you need to be several levels higher than someone who only knows first aid. Which brings with it all sorts of extras like more HP, better attacks and whatnot. By D&D logic, a neurosurgeon should be the best MMA fighter on the planet. Stephen Hawkings should be able to arm wrestle a giant. Heck, you should be able to swing a sword much better now than you could when you first started learning basic programming. And, you should be stronger, healthier and in much better shape than you were twenty years ago.

I dunno about you, but my knees kinda creak now when I stand up too quickly. Going from a new teacher with only basic knowledge to one with twenty years experience certainly didn't make me stronger, healthier and better able to withstand damage.

Yet, that's what the "simulation" that you and @Lanefan are talking about does. If the stat block must grow, and it must grow exactly the same for everyone - PC and NPC - then your world must be filled with geriatric Conan's who can routinely assault dragons.

But, since I'm fairly sure that's not true, I will simply continue to point out the inconsistencies in what you are describing as "simulation".

So you're trying to prove that my purely subjective opinion and preferences are wrong? Good luck with that.

 

[TwoSix]

4ed seem to support henchmen better than 3ed, as there are rules for simplified NPCs. (I don't think there is a leadership feat in core though). I think the advice is more the same as for all WotC D&Ds: The complexity added with babysitting lower tier characters are rarely worth the benefit.

That's pretty much it. And even more importantly, I feel, is that narratives involving "henchmen" simply aren't the stories that 4e is trying to tell.