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

[Ashrem Bayle]

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.

Right, and that's what I'm trying to get away from.
For my camapign, narrative doesn't matter. A blade through the heart means death, it doesn't matter who you are.

I want the PCs afraid of violence for realistic reasons. That's why I chose GURPS over D&D.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

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.

The point is that he personally prefers a realistic game and equates this with all simulationism. Falsely I might add simulation does not have to simulate OUR reality merely A consistent reality. And as a result of this is essentially telling simulationists to just switch to GURPS because it's more "realistic" and stop complaining about changes to the 4e design philosophy. As not being "realistic" clearly it isn't meant for simulationist players or DMs.

 

[DM_Blake]

Untrue. In D&D, the only way to get a blade through an experienced swordsman's heart is when he's helpless (coup de grace). Otherwise he is able to deflect the attack away.

Yep, and in 4th edition, he will deflect that blade so well that it won't even draw blood - it will only make him a little tired, so that he can take a second wind and recover his lost HP.

Or, alternatively, a cleric could wander by and cast Cure Light Wounds, er, uh, Cure Light Tiredness to cure his condition of being a little tired.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The point is that he personally prefers a realistic game and equates this with all simulationism. Falsely I might add simulation does not have to simulate OUR reality merely A consistent reality. And as a result of this is essentially telling simulationists to just switch to GURPS because it's more "realistic" and stop complaining about changes to the 4e design philosophy. As not being "realistic" clearly it isn't meant for simulationist players or DMs.

Seems more like pointing out that simulationists shouldn't play D&D in general (any rules version) and that they should play GURPS instead.

 

[DM_Blake]

Just to nitpick, assuming we're talking about 3.5, there's no such thing as refocusing initiative. You can't guarantee initiative advantage.

Yes, technically the term "Refocus" is a holdover term I use from 3.0, but the tactic still exists in 3.5 by using the delay action and delaying until initiative 20 of the following round:

Delay
By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.

You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen. You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action).

Initiative Consequences of Delaying
Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again).

If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.

It's just easier to say "refocus"...

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

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.

Read the OP.

The point was that you shouldn't sit around whining that D&D isn't realistic. It isn't realistic. Don't bother with extensive house rules. There are more realistic game systems out there.

Don't be chained to D&D if it isn't really the game you want.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Seems more like pointing out that simulationists shouldn't play D&D in general (any rules version) and that they should play GURPS instead.

Yes, and based on false logic. Simulationism =/ realism. Simulationism can just as easily be in creating a self-consistent setting that meshes with and supports the rules as its own reality where things work differently than ours but still non self-contradictory.
EDIT: I've personally given up on any attempt at GURPS it just doesn't work beyond a narrow band centered around fairly low powered basically human PCs.

 

[Pale Jackal]

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. House rules should be to flavor the game to the groups wishes, not finish the game we all played money to play...

I agree, in theory. Your statement is reasonable and sound.

However, a rule for death-dealing sneak attacks (and I do mean one-shot kills) doesn't strike me as a huge rules gap. I mean, do we want a decent chance for PCs to suddenly be dropped without a fight? Not... really, at least, death effects were removed and that's something I approve of. How many rules do we need for a scenario that only occurs when the PC has complete surprise, and part of the reason we want the one-shot kill is "because it's freakin' cinematically awesome."

As another poster said, there could've been the surprise plus initiative rules, effectively granting the rogue two sneak attacks.

Or you could extrapolate from the coup de grace rules (I don't know them off hand) but say: "This guy's helpless, you may spend 6 seconds lining up your shot and finish him."

We could totally revise D&D's wound system, and I do currently enjoy Burning Wheel's methods of handling wounds, but BW is a different game.

I don't think the gap in the rules, as shown in the original scenario, is a particularly glaring one, especially since there is some rules that one could've used to mediate such a scenario.

Edit: Ultimately, if you want PCs to be able to cause and suffer such instant death wounds, you need to revise the way D&D deals or handles damage. Since I don't want to subject my players to suffering those types of wounds... well, ever, really, but particularly not in D&D... and I only want them to be able to CAUSE such death wounds (and only when I feel it appropriate, even! Of course, I could always fudge some statistic under your rules, I suppose), house-ruling is the best way to go.

If you want a grittier game, then feel free to use a different system as opposed to house ruling it. I don't begrudge you for not using D&D. However, I don't think that having to house-rule in that scenario is a significant flaw of D&D. YMMV.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, and based on false logic. Simulationism =/ realism. Simulationism can just as easily be in creating a self-consistent setting that meshes with and supports the rules as its own reality where things work differently than ours but still non self-contradictory.

QFT. I have no problem with a D&D ruleset that simulates a cinematic world, where a great warrior can literally take on hundreds of foes. My problem is when the mechanics clash with the reality they're supposed to simulate.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Seems more like pointing out that simulationists shouldn't play D&D in general (any rules version) and that they should play GURPS instead.

I'm not trying to sell you on GURPS specifically, but you aren't far off the mark. D&D focusses too much on it's on internal logic and rules instead of paying much attention to how things work in the real world.

That's all well and good.

My problem with it crops up when someone tries to perform an action that is perfectly possible in the real world, but simply can not be done with the rule system. The assassination of the tower guard was my example.