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

[Parmandur]

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.

4E followed the trend line from 3.x here, took it to the next level; a trend 5E has now bucked successfully.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I on the other hand much appreciate the richer narrative possibilities. The weaker guy could actually cut and run credibly (in AD&D that wouldn't even be an option) for instance. The 'combat' might be recast as an SC with some other goal in mind besides ganking someone, etc.

 

[Parmandur]

Do you never watch movies or read fiction? This scenario is a staple of both kung fu and heroic fantasy. We're not talking about real world scenarios here but rather the fantastical world of D&D, which seeks to evoke these aforementioned genres.

One thing you do have correct, though, is that the standard trope in such fictions is that the armed novice winds up panting on the floor, disarmed and likely slapped on the face or back of the head by the master who effortlessly avoids his attacks time and time again.

Been reading Howard's Conan lately; Conan is a bit absurd himself, but the combat is accurately super swingy and deadly.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Parmandur]

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.

The reason the master will probably win is he will disable the aggressor; if he doesn't fight back, sooner or later he will go down.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Parmandur]

I on the other hand much appreciate the richer narrative possibilities. The weaker guy could actually cut and run credibly (in AD&D that wouldn't even be an option) for instance. The 'combat' might be recast as an SC with some other goal in mind besides ganking someone, etc.

Yeah, comes down to what you want from the game, really: pulpy old school feel, or involved tactical feel.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[MwaO]

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.

It is when one person doesn't really know what they're doing, one person is the best in the world at X, and the weapon is not a gun. The difference between a 1st level Fighter in every edition of D&D and a '0' level NPC is usually a +1 to +2 to hit and maybe a couple of extra hp.

The myth of the expert is more a middle-level talent being unable to touch best in the world, which is the fantasy trope.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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...?

Does it? Conan, Grey Mouser, Fafhrd, (can't name a Salvatore character, sorry) are all nigh invincible in combat, except maybe against some really nasty and usually magical beast or other. I don't recall any scenes that wouldn't play out interestingly in 4e. Certainly it is MUCH better than 3.x with its 'full round actions' boat-anchoring fighters. Ready stunting and built-in tricks of various kinds seem to make it ideal for highly dynamic fights with lots of crazy stuff going on. I don't think AD&D combat is BAD for that kind of thing, but it doesn't handle some things very well, like disengagement (which is usually impossible) or any sort of 'non-standard' tactics.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, comes down to what you want from the game, really: pulpy old school feel, or involved tactical feel.

I just don't know what it is about AD&D combat that makes you consider it more "pulpy old school", aside from its more D&D-traditional and thus there may be that association in your mind. I can't find any outright reason why it emulates the literature better.

 

[S'mon]

Just imagine an unarmored 20th level Fighter simply dodging a 1st level Fighter while the 1st level Fighter attempts to smack them. In which edition does the expected happen? That the 1st level Fighter barely does anything at all after a few minutes of trying to kill the other Fighter?

1e/2e: Fighter is likely AC 10. Probably gets hit more than half the time and is killed after 2 minutes.
3e: Again, AC 12 or so(14 Dex?). Fighter 20 probably doesn't even last that long.
5e: Again, AC 12 or so(14 Dex?). Fighter 20 again dies quickly.
4e: Wait a second - AC 22 or so and Total Defense Action = 24. Fighter 1 likely has a +8 to hit, so only hits the higher level Fighter 25% of the time. He likely dings him for a few hp, but he's unlikely to come anywhere near killing him. Even without Second Wind.

That's what you'd expect in an actual fight with a fast, strong novice going after a fast, strong expert unarmored swordsman with "in world" reference.

3e Fighter can take total defence for (AIR) +4 AC, attacker will have ca +4 or +5 to hit. 5e Fighter can Dodge, imposing disadvantage on enemy attacks, but attacker likely has +5 to hit. 4e unarmoured F20 probably has INT 9 DEX 11 (since DEX is a 4e Fighter dump stat) for AC 20, unless he's a Slayer when he might have DEX 14-16. I just created a 4e Slayer-1 and he has +11 to hit at 1st level with the accuracy stance, so hits AC 22 on 11+. Basically identical to a 1e Fighter vs AC 9. So not actually a huge difference from 1e IMO.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Been reading Howard's Conan lately; Conan is a bit absurd himself, but the combat is accurately super swingy and deadly.

How many times did Conan die? Not so swingy, then.

The high level sniper can still be killed with a brick walking down the street by a teenage partisan, he is not invincible.

That's the inverse of what I was thinking. An untrained person with a rifle has little or no chance of making a shot that a skilled sniper could make consistently, which BA fails to handle well.

OTOH, the way BA makes numbers tell overwhelmingly is 'realistic' - in the sense that it's less like the very unrealistic myth/legend/genre tropes of lone heroes defeating hordes of enemies.

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...?

Far more accurately than it simulates RL is still pretty faint praise (nor terribly deserved, considering counter-genre oddities of D&D combat like clerical healing), but yes, hps do that, for instance, modeling 'plot armor.' 4e took the game further in the direction of modeling genre combats like that.

I just don't know what it is about AD&D combat that makes you consider it more "pulpy old school", aside from its more D&D-traditional and thus there may be that association in your mind. I can't find any outright reason why it emulates the literature better.

Better than reality? Hit points & saving throws. They model 'plot armor.' Not wonderfully, but there's no plot armor in reality.
Better than other editions? No, not at all, early D&D was quite primitive in that way, of course, as the first RPG.