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

[Wolfspider]

No.
I'll explain it again. The problem wasn't that the hobgoblin was too powerful.



The problem was that, in the game system, there was nothing the PC could do to kill the hobgoblin in one hit before he made a noise.

Hasn't this been shown over and over in this thread not to be true?

Surprise round. Sneak attacks. More sneak attacks if initiative is (likely) won next time.

Yes, the sentry could have been killed before ringing the bell--maybe not in one strike, but certainly D&D 3.5 could have handed the kind of scenario that would have made you and the PCs happy, one where the guard is killed without raising an alarm and where your rogue gets to be a badass.

Success is not guaranteed, mind you, but success is never guaranteed in any venture. The point is that it is possible, even likely, for the rogue to drop the hobgoblin before he raises an alarm.

 

[Derren]

The rogue could have also tried to grapple the hobgoblin, trip him, destroy the bell, etc. But why be creative when you can complain about rules?

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Hasn't this been shown over and over in this thread not to be true?

No...

The problem was that, in the game system, there was nothing the PC could do to kill the hobgoblin in one hit before he made a noise.

Round 1:

Player: I slam my dagger into the base of his skull! *rolls*
DM: Dead Hobgoblin!

One attack. No follow up surprise attacks. No AoOs. No elaborate setups. No spells.

One round.
One attack.
One dead hobgoblin.

It could happen in real life. It could not happen in D&D.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

No.
I'll explain it again. The problem wasn't that the hobgoblin was too powerful.



The problem was that, in the game system, there was nothing the PC could do to kill the hobgoblin in one hit before he made a noise.

This isn't realistic. In real life, it may be difficult at times, but it can be done.



At max damage on a sneak attack, it couldn't be done. On a critical it couldn't be done. A coup de grace isn't legal in this situation. It has nothing to do with narrative, the module, or the DM.

By the RAW, it was quiet simply impossible, which is unrealistic.

Is the arguement that 3.5 is broken because a hobgoblin can't be killed in one hit, because that is wrong. As per the MM a Hobgoblin starts with 5ph and extra hps come from level. So the hobgoblin at the scene could have anything from 5hp to 200+ depending on the level the designer chose to make him.

Is the arguement that 3.5 is broken because everything can't be killed with one hit. If this is so then as I said this pretty much has to do with every RPG out there. This is not a 3.5 problem but a problem with every rules system that scales PCs and Oppenents to be tougher as they gain experience. With any scaling system at some point there can be a creature inserted into an encounter that can't be killed in one hit. Personally I think that if this is the problem then you won't be happy with any D&D ruleset past, present, or future.

 

[Derren]

It could happen in real life. It could not happen in D&D.

It can happen in D&D when the first attack kills the Hobgoblin. But when the hobgoblin is a highly trained warrior who developed a sixth sense about this it won't work. You know like in real life.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

The rogue could have also tried to grapple the hobgoblin, trip him, destroy the bell, etc. But why be creative when you can complain about rules?

Grapple? He screams.
Trip him? He screams.
Destroy the bell? Maybe he could have hit it with a hammer?

Why be constructive when you can be sarcastic?

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Is the arguement that 3.5 is broken because a hobgoblin can't be killed in one hit, because that is wrong. As per the MM a Hobgoblin starts with 5ph and extra hps come from level. So the hobgoblin at the scene could have anything from 5hp to 200+ depending on the level the designer chose to make him.

Is the arguement that 3.5 is broken because everything can't be killed with one hit. If this is so then as I said this pretty much has to do with every RPG out there. This is not a 3.5 problem but a problem with every rules system that scales PCs and Oppenents to be tougher as they gain experience. With any scaling system at some point there can be a creature inserted into an encounter that can't be killed in one hit. Personally I think that if this is the problem then you won't be happy with any D&D ruleset past, present, or future.

The argument isn't that D&D is broken at all. It's that it isn't realistic.
D&D is fine for what it is.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

It can happen in D&D when the first attack kills the Hobgoblin. But when the hobgoblin is a highly trained warrior who developed a sixth sense about this it won't work. You know like in real life.

What about the highly trained warrior who didn't notice the rogue and got a blade shoved through his medulla oblongata?

Oh, but that can't happen in D&D. In D&D, the highly trained warrior notices and sidesteps just in time, every single time, without fail.

 

[Wolfspider]

No...




Round 1:

Player: I slam my dagger into the base of his skull! *rolls*
DM: Dead Hobgoblin!

One attack. No follow up surprise attacks. No AoOs. No elaborate setups. No spells.

One round.
One attack.
One dead hobgoblin.

It could happen in real life. It could not happen in D&D.

I see.

Well, the only way I can respond to that is by repeating something I said earlier. If the guard was meant to be a "mook" and insignificant, then the guard should have had far fewer hit points, which means that he would have been able to be killed in the manner you are describing.

The higher level and the more hit points a creature has, the more "script immunity" it has from being killed off in such a way. By making the hobgoblin guard more than just a simple Warrior 1 or Warrior 2, the DM basically made him an important NPC. Important NPCs (and PCs) in D&D simply cannot die in such an inglorious way.

As far as I'm concerned, though, you've won your argument. D&D does not model real combat.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The argument isn't that D&D is broken at all. It's that it isn't realistic.
D&D is fine for what it is.

I'll grant that D&D isn't realistic. 3.5 isn't realistic by these standards and 4E won't be realistic by these standards either. So what was the point of this thread then.