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

[Fifth Element]

Well, for one it can't be done.

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

Yes you can. If you're going to complain about the rules, please make sure you know what they are first.

Edit: Like Lacyon said.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

...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.

I said it is impossible to walk up and stab the man, killing him with that one attack.

That is not a situation with which you can use coup de grace, and it does not include additional time and/or manuevers to make the target helpless.

 

[Fifth Element]

I said it is impossible to walk up and stab the man, killing him with that one attack.

Not quite. You said it's impossible to kill him in one blow, which is not accurate. The reasons that the above is the case in D&D have been spelled out quite clearly in the thread.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Yes you can. If you're going to complain about the rules, please make sure you know what they are first.

Edit: Like Lacyon said.

How do you perform a trip maneuver with a sword in one hand, and a shield in the other as an AoO without dropping either?

You can't perform a trip with a sword.

 

[mmadsen]

But as we looked over his stats, there was no way the rogue could have eliminated him silently. He was a few levels lower than the rogue, but a "one-shot-kill" was still quiet simply impossible.

I suppose you've successfully argued that rogues should get even larger sneak-attack bonuses than they already get.

For the "simulationists" who are frustrated with the direction 4e is going, take a step back and re-evaluate what it is you really want. Don't be afraid to look into other game systems that may better suit your tastes. Why tie yourself down to D&D?

I think many of the so-called "simulationists" out there don't want a totally different game; they just want their D&D to make a little more sense.

And defensive D&D fans clearly love to draw the false dichotomy that a game must either be unrealistic and fun or realistic and unfun -- with complicated rules and charts, and no chance of succeeding at anything heroic, etc.

 

[Lacyon]

How do you perform a trip maneuver with a sword in one hand, and a shield in the other as an AoO without dropping either?

You can't perform a trip with a sword.

Do you not have feet? Do you need a special rule to trip with legs?

 

[Fifth Element]

How do you perform a trip maneuver with a sword in one hand, and a shield in the other as an AoO without dropping either?

You can't perform a trip with a sword.

My post was in response to your assertion that you cannot trip on an AoO, which is false.

Edit: see below.

 

[Fifth Element]

Do you not have feet? Do you need a special rule to trip with legs?

I never thought of that. You'd draw an attack of opportunity yourself (unless you had the appropriate feat), but I don't see why you couldn't do that while holding your sword and shield.

 

[mmadsen]

The trouble with 'realistic' combat systems is that the players die too easily. The attraction of D&D and (games like it) is that PC are hard to take out. The problem is that the one shot kills on sentries (by sneaking up) and or sniper fire is also impossible as per the rules.

Realistic combat doesn't mean what many people seem to think it means. From a realism perspective, the problem is not that a high-level D&D fighter can survive a dozen sword cuts and spear thrusts but that he cannot die by any one attack.

It's not the abstractness of hit points that makes them unrealistic; it's the predictability. Ablative hit points make it very, very hard to kill someone in one blow -- or very, very hard to not kill someone in two.

Hit points tend to model injuries poorly because characters either have an "unrealistic" number of hit points and can't be killed by a single good sword stroke, or they have a "realistic" number of hit points and can't survive three or four stab wounds.

If we eliminate ablative hit points and instead give each wound a chance to end the fight, then we end up with a "realistically" random system, where one shot can mean one kill, but a dozen shots might not mean a kill.

For instance, instead of having 10 hit dice, a great warrior might have a 1-in-10 chance of falling to a spear thrust (via, say, a Damage Save). By either set of rules, the great warrior should expect to survive roughly ten spear thrusts -- he's equally tough under both sets of rules -- but the two systems play out differently.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

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.

Ok, We'll take it step by step then.

D&D =/= Reality

Precisly my point.

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?

No. And it's not the point I'm trying to make.

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..."

How is this relevant? I understand how the attack can fail.

Really, isn't this exactly the kind of thing HP is supposed to abstract?

Yep

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.

Yep

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!)

That level of lethality is exactly what I want. I want to PCs to know that one lucky shot from kobold #2 could mean death.

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?

Because it can happen in real life.

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?

He's not a rules expert. He was making decisions based off of how things work in the real world instead of using D&D-logic.

Thus, my whole reason for wanting a system that isn't D&D and depends more on real world logic.

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.

No. The DM wasn't happy either. The problem was that a scenerio that could happen in the real world was not possible in the game.

He attempted to sneak up and kill the guard in one blow. This is possible in the real world. It was impossible in the game. No matter what he rolled, it could not have happened.

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.

D&D is less realistic than other games. They all have some level, true, but D&D is way at the other end of the scale.

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.

Again, the DM himself wasn't happy with the situation. It wasn't a situation of DM vs. Players, but real world logic vs. D&D rules.