To all the other "simulationists" out there...

[Fifth Element]

And yes, one hit assassinations are not easy. But in real life, they are possible.
In D&D, they are not. (Against an opponent of similar level.)

Yes they are: coup de grace against a helpless opponent. If you want to argue that's too difficult to achieve, that's one thing, but your insistence that it's impossible (despite several mentions of coup de grace in the thread) is simply incorrect.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

You mentioned that this was "Red Hand of Doom". Which encounter was it? If you refer to the "Bell Tower" encounter (p.59), then the encounter is supposed to be with three hobgoblin veterans with 20 hit points each. Not exactly a description I would associate with 'mook'.



I don't know for sure. I wasn't DMing.

But the point wasn't that he failed to kill the hobgoblin. It was the realization that he couldn't have killed him in one hit, no matter what.

It wasn't that he didn't succeed in doing what he was trying to do, but that it was IMPOSSIBLE to do what he was trying to do.


Quote:
Alternately, in D&D the Fighter uses his AoO to Trip the hobgoblin, and the Wizard casts his spell. How is that any different?



Well, for one it can't be done.

#1. You can't trip as an AoO, which is defined as a single melee attack.
#2. You can't trip with a sword.

also...
#3. Trip will be a special maneuver in 4e, and apparently not available to everyone.

Which is another gamist D&Dism that irks me.

 

[DZeroStar]

In reality, the greatest swardsman in the world will die from a blade through the heart, even if a peasent girl is the one that puts it there. D&D cannot handle this.

D&D =/= Reality

You can interpret the dice rolls and mechanics in many ways, but is it really that awful that your party's rogue didn't one-shot a random enemy?


DM: "The warrior of the Red Hand army chuckles to himself as he looks out the window, staring at a cloud formation that vaguely resembles something provocative--if you squint at it just right. You raise your blade, focusing on the small gap between the scales of his armor above his left kidney, and tense your muscles in anticipation of the attack. Roll to hit!"

<dice roll>

DM: "The subtle movement of the air behind him causes the warrior to shift on his feet, just as your blade strikes home. This warrior must have seen more battles than you anticipated, and contorts his body to absorb some of your thrust, turning what would have been a lethal blow into gaping flesh wound instead. Wincing in pain, he turns to face you, with his mace held high. Roll for initiative."

Player: "What do you mean he didn't die, I totally sneak attacked him!"

[Player2: "Where are the Cheetos?!"]

DM: <sigh> "Well, his fighting instincts seemed to kick in, and he was able to survive your attack. You should probably roll for initiative now..."


Really, isn't this exactly the kind of thing HP is supposed to abstract? How does a 5th level fighter survive a critical hit from a battle axe when any first level character won't? Once again, maybe the enemy wasn't meant to be the "mook" you thought he was, if he had that many HP. Maybe the encounter wasn't meant to be a pushover. You seem to be blaming the DM for not changing the scenario to match your expectations, and not considering the idea that your expectations were wrong.

A "realistic" game would mean that any single hit could be instantly lethal to anybody, and plenty more hits would be mortal wounds that you can't recover from. While such a game could conceivably be enjoyable, I like to take my reality in small doses when roleplaying, and not being able to one-shot any given enemy is something I'm willing to accept if it makes the game more fun. YMMV...(and obviously does!)

Even with all of it's abstractions, D&D contains many "save-or-die" effects, including death from massive damage. If your rouge wasn't an Assassin PrC, and couldn't deal 50+ HP of damage on a single attack, why should he even expect a one-hit kill? If that's what the player was after, he should have asked the DM if his attack would be considered a coup de grace (which the DM could rule in favor of, even if the enemy wasn't helpless), since that includes a save-or-die effect based on the damage dealt. But if the rogue didn't think to ask that up front (or did and had the idea rejected), why should he be upset afterwards when his assumption that the enemy had low HP didn't pan out?

I think at the most fundamental level, this is more a disagreement between the players and the DM. It could happen in any roleplaying system. The players had a certain expectation that was different than the DM's for a given scenario. It's bound to happen in every campaign, regardless of the system's rules... I don't think it's fair to blame the disagreement on D&D being any more or less "realistic" than any other roleplaying game, because they all have some level of abstraction. And if the players don't enjoy the game because they don't see eye-to-eye with the DM on the way the game is supposed to play out, then changing your abstracted rule system isn't going to fix the problem.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Yes they are: coup de grace against a helpless opponent. If you want to argue that's too difficult to achieve, that's one thing, but your insistence that it's impossible (despite several mentions of coup de grace in the thread) is simply incorrect.

I ignored the mentioned of coup de grace because it isn't accurate. Per the RAW, you can't coup de grace an opponant just because he isn't aware of you.

And for what it's worth, I haven't really ignored the coup de grace comments. I've already mentioned that it wasn't a legal use of it a page or so back.

EDIT: See page 2, post #72.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

D&D =/= Reality

You can interpret the dice rolls and mechanics in many ways, but is it really that awful that your party's rogue didn't one-shot a random enemy?

You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing if you had bothered to read what I've been saying.

I'm continually astounded by the lack of reading comprehension in this thread.

 

[DZeroStar]

You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing if you had bothered to read what I've been saying.

I'm continually astounded by the lack of reading comprehension in this thread.

I think you neglected to read what I wrote. I'm continually astounded by how defensive you are in response to all of the board comments.

 

[Lacyon]

Well, for one it can't be done.

#1. You can't trip as an AoO, which is defined as a single melee attack.
#2. You can't trip with a sword.

also...
#3. Trip will be a special maneuver in 4e, and apparently not available to everyone.

1: "You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack."
2: "You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack."
3: In 4E, you don't need to trip him if you're a fighter, because his movement is automagically ended if you hit with an OA.

 

[WheresMyD20]

While no game is perfect, do not think it is unreasonable to have a rule-set that is fully functional out the door, not some assembly required.

Good luck with that. Please let me know if you ever find an RPG ruleset that covers everything without resorting to any rule tweaks, houserules, DM fiat or interpretation.

 

[Fifth Element]

I ignored the mentioned of coup de grace because it isn't accurate. Per the RAW, you can't coup de grace an opponant just because he isn't aware of you.

...which just means you didn't read my posts. I said that you have to get the target helpless first. Which makes it difficult, but not impossible, which you keep insisting is the case.

 

[Celebrim]

D&D cannot be all things for all people, at least, not without extensive house ruling. But then, why play D&D if that's the only way you can enjoy it?

Because I know what I like, rather than just liking what I know. Alot of us - even the simulationists amongst us - have played GURPS before. I've not been a one system gamer since the mid-80's. If you seem to have quite a few prickly posters, its because you described something that relates to how we felt 10 years of gaming ago. I'm glad you are enjoying your new toy, but please understand that I do know why I like D20. It's not that I'm kludging a bad system together when what I really want is to play GURPS and just don't know it.

I play every game that I run the way I want to run it. I don't play it the way the designer wanted to run it. To me, every GM is the peer of the designer. The GM relies on the designer to do the heavy lifting when it comes to the design of the game, because its the designer's 'day job' and he's good at it. But I don't expect the designer to deliver to me exactly the game I want to play, nor do I feel obligated to play it the way he wants to play it. Afterall, boiled to its essentials, he's just another GM.

I've rarely been at any table where there weren't some house rules, because ever GM has a different story they want to tell and different things that they consider important. That to me is a good thing (assuming that the GM has something interesting to do and is a halfway decent rulesmith or at the least open to suggestion). Even you are doing some house ruling via deciding what material is in effect for your game. This page is applicable and this is not is a house rule. It differs in that you are still letting someone else do the heavy lifting, but in terms of the mechanical overhead it creates for your game (what you have to remember that is unique to your particular table), its fundamentally the same. And if you are a decent rulesmith, chances are your houserules or something very much like them will turn up in a later edition of the game because its not you are going to be the only one to spot the problem.

Besides which, not even GURPS is truly universal. There are always corner cases.