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

[Ashrem Bayle]

It didnt drive me from the game...heroic characters don't worry about getting shot once, they have a lot of HP.

That's right. We aren't talking about heroic characters though. We are talking about realistic characters.

D&D is a great game, but if you are looking for realism, you'd best look elsewhere.

 

[Fifth Element]

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

While I understand your frustration with that particular area of D&D rules, perhaps it was your assumption that the guard was a "mook" that was the greater problem. If he was a mook, he'd be a 1st-level warrior, and the rogue would have little trouble taking him down quietly. But he wasn't a mook, apparently. That's arguably a problem with the adventure, but not necessarily the system.

 

[DZeroStar]

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

That said, had I been DMing, I would have changed it anyway. But in this case the DM that was running it has always been a "slave to the module" type of DM.

I remember that bell, and it's guard, from my own group's RHoD campaign. I'm not sure if that encounter was intended to be full of "minions" that could get dropped in one hit. I can see certain situations where an NPC guarding a wall or tower with a bell really should be a minion, but that particular encounter seemed to be more than simply "cleaning up trash" to me, as a player in the campaign.

If I recall correctly, a pivotal battle occurs in that part of the campaign, and the bell tower houses reinforcements for that battle. Taking care of the tower's guards without letting them hit the bell makes for a much easier time in that pivotal battle, since no more reinforcements are available. (At least, that's the impression I got as a player!) It took our entire party, each tasked with specific duties--like taking care of the guards vs. silencing the bell--to pull off that encounter without the bell being rung. We were very proud of our planning and teamwork for pulling that off, too!

I'm not surprised that a DM would rule against a single party member taking out the guard without the bell being rung, even if it was a rogue. Rogues as written aren't exactly assassins--if that's the kind of character your group member wanted to play, they should have taken levels in the Assassin PrC!

I understand not wanting your DM to be a slave to the module as written, since sometime that can get silly. But I also don't think your party should be upset when an encounter doesn't go as they're expecting! Some of the most exciting encounters I've played are the ones where things didn't go as planned, or were not quite what they seemed to be at first...

 

[WhatGravitas]

Still, we were using the rules correctly. The sneak attack didn't do a lot of damage, and he missed with his second sneak attack attempt. The AoO, if I remember correctly, just did very little damage.

When I see that, I think two things:

a) DM issue. If the DM is slave to the module, it won't change with another system.
b) You're thinking cinematically. It's more of a cinematic thing to knock out the lone guard with one hit.

But I agree, if 4E doesn't suit you, search another system. Trying out other systems is often freeing, and helpful, even if you just learn *why* you love D&D. My group has seen Savage Worlds - and dislikes it. But they still like D&D, so I (DM) took the best ideas from Savage Worlds (letting players run allies, mook rules and so on) and put it into my D&D game. And 3.5E is still a valid system.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Zerakon]

The challenge of the encounter comes not from guard's hit points but from his ability to ring the bell and alert the tower and bring more powerful enemies to the scene.

Totally agree.

I think this problem is almost entirely an adventure design and/or DM-being-willing-to-change-stats-on-the-fly- to-help-a-player-feel-like-his-character-is-cool problem and not a system problem. Because the intended result (rogue taking out a guard in one shot) is possible in D&D, if the adventure or DM says that it is.

 

[Lacyon]

I remember that bell, and it's guard, from my own group's RHoD campaign. I'm not sure if that encounter was intended to be full of "minions" that could get dropped in one hit. I can see certain situations where an NPC guarding a wall or tower with a bell really should be a minion, but that particular encounter seemed to be more than simply "cleaning up trash" to me, as a player in the campaign.

If he wanted to finish the guard without raising the alarm, there are plenty of options you can use without needing to know if the guard is a mook or not. Like pushing him off the tower, for one.

That doesn't solve the particular player's desire to play a character capable of (occasionally, at least) one-shotting level-appropriate enemies in quasi-realistic fashion.

 

[helium3]

WARNING: This is going to be long.


A few years ago I witnessed a gaming event that was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". We were playing a 3.5 D&D game. It was a serious campaign, and we had all really gotten into our characters.

We had come upon an enemy encampment. There was a guard tower, at the top of which was a guard on watch. He had a bell which he would ring if he saw anything. So the rogue hatched his devious plan. He drank an invisibility potion, scaled the outer wall of the tower, and stealthily sneaked up beside the guard. His goal was to eliminate the guard silently so the others could approach.

The guard stood there, unaware of the rogue, looking out over the surrounding area. But what could the rogue do? His only option was a sneak attack. So he did it, inflicting a nice chunk of damage. But the guard wasn't killed, and on his next action, he rang the bell.

The player became very frustrated, and rightfully so. The guard was a mook. A nobody. A "red shirt". 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. All that preparation and cleverness, by the rules as written, meant nothing.

The player had imagined his character as a silent blade in the night, killing his foes swiftly and silently if he could get the drop on them. Now that character concept was shattered as he realized he'd never get the chance to play that way, no matter what. The rules would never allow it. He'd never get the "one-shot-kill" against an opponent close to his own level.

So, the following responses are probably in one of the replies in this thread, but I'm gonna chime in without bothering to read because . . . well . . . no one else does it anway.

First, If he wants to be a "silent blade in the night with a one shot kill ability, sounds like he needs to take levels in the Assassin prestige class."

Secondly, if the goal was to prevent the bell from ringing while killing the mook he could have cast Silence if he had the ranks in UMD or had a caster cast it on him.

Alternatively, if the use of magic as a solution wasn't possible, there's this maneuver in the combat section called "Disarm" and it can be used to snatch items from opponents. So, he should've disarmed the mook of the bell first and then killed him.

Thirdly, I'm something of a simulationist myself, but if simulation is so important why are you fretting about the PC not getting to do something after putting out a lot of clever effort? That's something that a Narrativist would worry about, as I understand it. Why mod the system to produce better simulation if what you're upset about is poor narrative rewards?

 

[Spatula]

I doubt a single one of 3.X's major flaws would have been apparant in anyone's first session. How long did you have D&D's notorious 'a crossbow pointed at your chest isn't dangerous' problem in 3.X before it became so problimatic that it drove you from the game?

That's a 3.X problem? If that sort of thing was going to drive you from the game, it would have done so back in the OD&D days...

 

[Gundark]

You are still on your honeymoon with the system. Every decent system seems really great in the first year or so. At least for me, it takes at least a year before the nagging flaws really start to bother you so much that it detracts from the joy of gaming and you start trying to remodel the house.

My honeymoon phase lasts a little longer. Rifts was this ugly relationship (going with a marriage/relationship methaphor here ) that I stuck with for years because it was my first real relationship and I thought I could ignore the the elephant in the living room. After cheating with table top games for awhile I eventually left.

3.0 lasted about 1.5 years, before 3.5 which lasted about 2.5 years. Now...I'm a lot more choosey about the games I waste my time on. If I'm not happy after 3 sessions....bye bye

 

[Celebrim]

The "problem" was obvious the first time I read the rules. It didn't drive me away until I realized I wanted something else bad enough to leave.

Which is how it works with most problems. Yours was an obvious complaint since 1st edition days, not something semi-obscure. Most people have no problems with the spot and listen rules, until they start wanting to have combat at realistic starting engagement distances and taking the rules literally. And naturally, this breaks 'hide' as well, which most people don't have a problem with until you get 'hide in plain sight' going and you are trying to arbitrate it. Most people have no problem with the craft rules, until they really use them. Most people don't realize how burdensome all the buffs and modifers can be, until they take the game up to 14th level or so. Most people don't realize how easy it is to make a character that does millions of points of damage in a combat. And so forth. It just isn't obvious at first glance, just like it isn't obvious at first glance how bone headed the 'spot invisible creature' table is in 1st edition until you need to use it and take it literally (to bring up one of the many things that eventually drove me to GURPS).

Every one of these "problems" can be solved by knowing what aspects of GURPS you are going to allow or disallow for your game.

Ahh... completely configurable rules, eh. And this is very different from having house rules...?

Again, this is realistic. I don't want super-heroism in GURPS. I want realism.

Are you sure? Because if you really want realism, you are going to have to start looking for more than GURPS.

How many character points are you playing with?!

How long has you campaign gone on? How much system mastery are your players evidencing? Granted, the 4e rules seem to have made it abit harder to get your block or parry up to the point that only criticals go through. But then again, this rule change is based on a house rule from early versions specifically to deal with this problem.

Still, I don't see the problem. The Deceptive Attack options means that nobody is immune to being hit, no matter their Active Defense scores.

You do realize that deceptive attack started out as a house rule to deal with this very sort of problem? It became popularized and showed up (I think in GURPS Martial Arts) before becoming 'core' in the latest edition.