Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[darkbard]

That's true, as well, I suppose. But in the context of D&D, I think the fictional examples are closer to the mark.

 

[Nagol]

Actually, I'm talking real world scenarios here. Take a novice with a sword against an actual world-class martial artist armed with a sword. Which is what we're talking about when referring to a 1st level Fighter vs a 20th level one.

The novice doesn't have the slightest chance at all.

Nor does the low-level in any edition of D&D. Apply the constraint to your world-class fighter that he can neither strike back nor disengage from combat though. That's the restriction you've placed on the D&D high-level fighters. 1e, 3e, and 5e high-level fighters will end the combat in a single round -- assuming the low-level fighter is wearing plate and shield in addition to using a weapon against the unequipped high-level fighter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A 4E powered Supers game would probably work passingly well, though the combat would be fairly involved still, somewhat limiting the audience to the tactical crowd.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

All my IRL friends who dig 4e are not tactical players. The game appeals to them because every single player option has lore, the game runs smoothly, they can read their abilities and know what to expect, etc. Not because it's tactical.

 

[Parmandur]

All my IRL friends who dig 4e are not tactical players. The game appeals to them because every single player option has lore, the game runs smoothly, they can read their abilities and know what to expect, etc. Not because it's tactical.

Those descriptors sound tactical to me...?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actually, no; the other editions are what I would expect to happen in a real fight as set up, 4E is an outlier in terms of combat realism compared to other editions. D&D is never, strictly speaking, "realistic," but the real world definitely has "Bounded Accuracy" built in.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

I disagree. Armor is nice, and definitely a very significant edge in combat, but it won't even come close to making up for experience.

Of course D&D combat is pretty abstract, so I'm not entirely clear that the narrative of 'level 20 vs level 1' here is at all accurate. The level 20 guy has on the order of 70 hit points (maybe more if he's got high con). and the level 1 guy has about 5, maybe 12 absolute max. Level 20 THAC0 is what, a 1? The level 20 guy CANNOT MISS, and the level 1 guy still only hits AC10 about half the time. Even if he does max damage and assuming he can survive to round 2 and do the same again he will have basically scratched the level 20 guy and then he goes down with virtually 100% certainty.

So, in terms of actual results I think 1e and 4e come out about the same, except in 4e the fight will be LIGHTLY more interesting, as it will take maybe several rounds to play out, since both sides have some chance of missing, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, no; the other editions are what I would expect to happen in a real fight as set up, D&D is never, strictly speaking, "realistic," but the real world definitely has "Bounded Accuracy" built in.

May those expectations never be tested - especially not by a sniper. I'd hate for you to have to find out just how apropos 'dead wrong' can be.

4E is an outlier in terms of combat realism compared to other editions.

D&D combat has never been remotely RL-realistic. It's far too abstract for that, even as turn-based combat engines go. It does a terrible job emulating genre combat, as well - but orders of magnitude better than it does RL.

That's true, as well, I suppose. But in the context of D&D, I think the fictional examples are closer to the mark.

Which is the actual point, in a way. 4e is the 'outlier' among editions, in that it emulates genre combat noticeably better. Since genre is unrealistic, that must mean 4e is 'more unrealistic.' See how that works?

 

[Parmandur]

I disagree. Armor is nice, and definitely a very significant edge in combat, but it won't even come close to making up for experience.

Of course D&D combat is pretty abstract, so I'm not entirely clear that the narrative of 'level 20 vs level 1' here is at all accurate. The level 20 guy has on the order of 70 hit points (maybe more if he's got high con). and the level 1 guy has about 5, maybe 12 absolute max. Level 20 THAC0 is what, a 1? The level 20 guy CANNOT MISS, and the level 1 guy still only hits AC10 about half the time. Even if he does max damage and assuming he can survive to round 2 and do the same again he will have basically scratched the level 20 guy and then he goes down with virtually 100% certainty.

So, in terms of actual results I think 1e and 4e come out about the same, except in 4e the fight will be LIGHTLY more interesting, as it will take maybe several rounds to play out, since both sides have some chance of missing, etc.

Taking several more rounds being desirable or undesirable is the rub, really (note in the scenario provided the level 20 wasn't attacking, because of a Geas or something; as such, in real life he would be dogfood eventually). Taking more rounds is, frankly, boring to me: shorter, swingier is what is desirable.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[cavalier973]

Armor Class is the numerical representation of the character's ability to avoid being hit. In other editions, the character's DEX modifier is added to AC; in 4e, the "level modifier" (1/2 level) is added, as,well, as a representation of the character's growing experience with hit avoidance.

I didn't play 3rd edition on the tabletop, but I played a snotload of Neverwinter Nights PvP, and my observation is that getting the best armor with all the magical bonuses helped you avoid getting hit zero percent of the time.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actually, I'm talking real world scenarios here. Take a novice with a sword against an actual world-class martial artist armed with a sword. Which is what we're talking about when referring to a 1st level Fighter vs a 20th level one.

The novice doesn't have the slightest chance at all.

I think the 'myth of the expert' is pretty strong here. Yes, highly experienced fighters stand a MUCH greater chance of victory in the real world, but being skewered with a sword is VERY lethal. Given a determined novice who is willing to accept a killing blow in return for one, I wouldn't want to be that master. You'll win 9 out of 10 times in that scenario, and the tenth time you'll 'win' with a sword through the gut for your trouble. Real-world violent action is just not real predictable.

 

[Parmandur]

May those expectations never be tested - especially not by a sniper. I'd hate for you to have to find out just how apropos 'dead wrong' can be. D&D combat has never been remotely RL-realistic. It's far too abstract for that, even as turn-based combat engines go. It does a terrible job emulating genre combat, as well - but orders of magnitude better than it does RL.Which is the actual point, in a way. 4e is the 'outlier' among editions, in that it emulates genre combat noticeably better. Since genre is unrealistic, that must mean 4e is 'more unrealistic.' See how that works?

Well, that's a different scenario than the one proposed: a master letting a novice hack away with a sword with no attempt to disable him is not a good plan. The high level sniper can still be killed with a brick walking down the street by a teenage partisan, he is not invincible.

D&D combat is not terribly realistic, no; but the traditional combat does simulate pulp combat far more accurately (see Howard, Leiber, Salvatore, etc.) so it has that going for it...?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app