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

[Ashrem Bayle]

This is only a problem if you don't mind your PC being taken down with one hit.

And I don't. That's what I'm going for in my campaign.

(BTW, having played GURPS for several years, I can tell you that while it's easy to have someone be *dying* in GURPS, it's hard for them to *die* if they have any kind of HT (at least in G3). I remember the PCs constantly hacking at a downed foe and he *kept* *making* *his* *HT* *check*. It was painful.)

That's pretty realistic though. There's a big difference between death's door and final death.
Sure, you may to keep hacking at him to totally finish him off, but he's going to be pretty useless long before actual death.

It's easier/best to just wound him to the point of unconsciousness and let him bleed out.

 

[apoptosis]

This is only a problem if you don't mind your PC being taken down with one hit.

Shadow of Yesterday has an interesting and really great mechanic . You can one-shot anyone (it is all conflict resolution) but if they are an important character to the story they cannot be permanently gone unless you invoke 'brining down the pain' which can only be done by the players.

Bringing down the pain moves the participants into a more granular task resolution system.

This means that you can have instant death effects but it is very difficult to kill a player in one round (the player can invoke 'bringing down the pain' anytime they lose a challenge).

 

[mmadsen]

This is only a problem if you don't mind your PC being taken down with one hit.

But there's really little need to keep things perfectly symmetrical between the heroes of the story, the PCs, and every competent opponent they face. With action points, we can easily have one layer of rules for the physics of the game world, where everyone does play by the same rules, and another layer for the metaphysics of the game world, where our heroes have luck on their side.

And it's not impossible -- it's impossible (or unlikely) with a single-classed rogue against a high-hit point (grunt, fighter, thug) type foe.

In a recent game, we had three party members be taken OOC in one round by a basilisk. That's a "one hit kill".

I don't think his complaint was that no one ever dies in one round, but that a sneak-attack expert can't kill anyone competent, even if he does succeed at sneaking up on them unseen and unheard.

I think the primary challenge should be in properly sneaking up on the guard, not in rolling high for damage.

In another session, an assassin with a high hide score had the requisite three rounds to "observe" a PC, and would have one-shotted him if he hadn't made his save. [...] The "deadly blade in the night" isn't the rogue; it's the assassin.

Try explaining that without game mechanics: The rogue is an expert in sneaking up on people and stabbing them where they're most vulnerable. The assassin, on the other hand, is an expert in sneaking up on people and stabbing them where they're most vulnerable, so that they die.

Um...

D&D *does* make one-shot-kills of same-level opponents difficult, but this is to spare high-level PCs the general ignominy of death by a single bad roll.

We can make one-shot kills much less difficult without reducing everyone's overall toughness; we just can't use ablative hit points to do it.

Also, I think it makes more sense to keep lots of rolls involved, but to tie them to the actual challenges of getting the drop on someone, not to doing enough damage once you do have the drop on someone.

 

[Bullgrit]

Um... no. I'm pretty sure I got it. The guard wasn't a significant character.

A leveled enemy is, by definition, not a mook. So I don't think you got it.

A rogue (or just about any class) can one-hit-kill mooks (level 1-2) in D&D. The rogue in your OP example would have killed any "normal", grunt hobgoblin (or human) guard with the one sneak attack.

The guard in the OP example was a leveled (experienced) enemy, not a mook. There is a disconnect between your example and your initial complaint. You've since altered your complaint (leveled rogue vs. equal level guard) to better fit the example (leveled rogue vs. leveled guard).

Bullgrit

 

[MichaelSomething]

IIRC, this encounter wasn't at Rhest. It was at the bridge encounter which I believe was earlier in the module. Our goal was to destroy the bridge to keep the enemy army from crossing over.

Since you mentioned a bell, I assumed Rhest. Sorry about that. But the Hobgoblins at the bridge were all veterans too. So their stats I listed still work. The Red Hand of Doom book also stats that once a hobgoblin spots someone messing with the bridge, they yell a warning out to everyone. When I ran it, the PCs just buffed and then charged in so I don't know how it would happen if the PCs tried sneaking around.

 

[WayneLigon]

The player became very frustrated, and rightfully so. The guard was a mook. A nobody.

He'd never get the "one-shot-kill" against an opponent close to his own level.

D&D has long needed a 'mook rule'. That said, what is a nobody guard doing having levels greater than maybe Warrior1? After about level 2, every normal person save special NPCs becomes a mook if you just follow that rule. I was never one for having 'guardsman: 5th level fighter'; it make very little sense.

 

[jdrakeh]

Sad thing is, it was a WOTC module that gave the guard the stats. (Red Hand of Doom).

The thing that I think you're missing is that D&D (in any incarnation) has ever been meant as a reality simulation. The weapon versus armor rules in OD&D (Supplement I) and AD&D 1e (along with the weapon reach rules therein) are really as close as D&D has ever gotten to reality/physics simulation (and neither of these rules does it very well).

Disliking D&D for not being simulationist is kind of like dislking apples for not being oranges. It's not very logical. That said, playing other systems because they better fulfill certain roles or needs (such as reality simulation) is perfectly logical. The key, I think is indulging the latter idea while cutting the former loose invalid/illogical criticism.

 

[Korgoth]

What we're looking at here is partly a "legacy issue".

In OD&D, a 4th level fighter is a "Hero" (like Boromir), an 8th level fighter is a "Superhero" (like Beowulf)... Grendel is a standard 6+3 HD troll, etc. Various things about the game have changed over the years, but this issue still lingers.

Having a 4th level guard (for example) is like having Boromir on guard duty. Only the most grandiose fantasy empire could manage that, and then only in its fabulous capital! You don't have Boromir or Sinbad or Theseus standing around some crappy guard tower.

So can a stealthy rogue one-shot mighty Boromir? As a 4th level fighter, Boromir has 1 level in the "Dude" class and 3 levels in the "Script Immunity" prestige class. So no... at the last moment he hears the thief and turns aside slightly, sees a shadow or a reflection and dodges, the blow is stopped by his mail coat, etc. Why? Really, because you don't get to one-shot a hero of such mighty proportion.

In the ensuing years, most of the numbers in the game have become inflated, though not all. Nowadays being 4th level doesn't mean you're an earth-shaker... but it still means you can't be one-shotted.

Bottom line for me is that a watch tower flunky should probably be level 1 only, or 2 at maximum (for a sergeant, perhaps); going above that means that you've got beings of legend on guard duty.

 

[jdrakeh]

Bottom line for me is that a watch tower flunky should probably be level 1 only, or 2 at maximum (for a sergeant, perhaps); going above that means that you've got beings of legend on guard duty.

Or, more in line with heroic literature, most mooks should be characters with no levels, no HPs, and be killed or disabled outright by any physical action taken against them. This not only makes things feel more heroic in terms of PCs outclassing common men but, likewise, makes NPCs with levels appear as the awesome (or at least challenging) opponents they should be, when they are encountered. Or, to reiterrate your point, if every NPC encountered is Boramir, Boramir ceases to be unique or heroic, as being Boramir is the norm.

 

[mmadsen]

Having a 4th level guard (for example) is like having Boromir on guard duty.

We can agree that a typical guard should be 1st level, and an exceptional guard from an elite unit might be 2nd or 3rd level. (Under the current rules, a hobgoblin sergeant is 3rd level, and a captain from 4th to 6th level.)

But I don't think Tolkien will support any case against one-shotting "name" characters. If Boromir was, say, 4th level, how many hit dice did Smaug have? Or the Nazgul's fell beasts? Or the Witch-King? Because each of those was killed by one or two good shots.

As a 4th level fighter, Boromir has 1 level in the "Dude" class and 3 levels in the "Script Immunity" prestige class.

I would say just the opposite. Boromir has many levels of fighter and none of plot-protected hero. He's a great warrior, yet he dies fighting. It's the hobbits who have no levels in any adventuring class -- or who start with no such levels -- but who clearly have many, many levels of plot protection.

The Buffy the Vampire Slayer game handles this well and handles it explicitly. In D&D terms, the Slayer is a high-level fighter, while her sidekicks are low-level -- but they get more action points.