D&D 4E Verisimilitude IMPROVEMENTS in 4e

[ZombieRoboNinja]

There's been a lot of negative focus on the way 4e seems to damage verisimilitude. Some of the complaints make a lot of sense to me - why should a naked wizard have better AC than a naked fighter, again? - and some of them seem to me like more minor quibbles. But regardless, I think people might be neglecting the ways 4e IMPROVES the "believability" of its gameworld. Here are a few examples I can think of offhand:

HIT POINTS: This is a biggie. We all know that hit points are "abstract" in some way: when a level 1 wizard loses 5 hp, that's a much different kind of injury from when a level 20 fighter loses 5 hp. But weirdly, in every previous edition, healing magic ignores this. Cure Light Wounds will bring a level 1 wizard from bleeding-to-death to full health, while it'll barely cure that level 20 fighter's hangnail. This is a problem 4e at least starts to address: most of the magical healing abilities we've seen rely at least partially on Healing Surges, which scale with the player's max hp.

VANCIAN SPELLCASTING: After about 30 years of trying, 3e almost sort of had a decent explanation for the way Vancian spellcasting "worked." But I still haven't heard an explanation of Vancian casting that didn't provoke half a dozen immediate counterpoints or weirdnesses. Well, the most egregious examples are gone now. No more paladins sitting down every morning to pre-order their god's help for the day.

MIN-MAX WEIRDNESSES: Granted, this is more of a player-based than a system-based problem. But I'll be happy to play in a world where 50% of fighters don't graduate from the Helicopter Blade school of spiked-chain warfare, and none of the PCs grew up on the mean streets of Bigcity before spending a year on the plains with a remote barbarian tribe and then discovering latent psionic abilities, etc. etc. etc., all to justify a ridiculously min-maxed multiclass build. True, 4e will undoubtedly have min-maxing weirdnesses, but I'm expecting them to be less prevalent, since so many big ones from 3e will be addressed.

GREATCLUB SNEAK-ATTACKING: Oh yeah, I went there. I've heard arguments for it, but I really can't see how a rogue smacks someone over the head more "sneakily" than any other character. "Sneak attack" is a pinpoint strike to an unguarded vital area, not just hitting a dude really hard.

RESURRECTION, TELEPORTATION, WISH: With a lot of the more problematic high-end spells either moved to rituals or removed completely, it SHOULD be a lot easier to separate them out when your campaign world demands it. Not to mention that a lot of the more flashy 3e spells (fly, long-distance teleportation, resurrection, etc) seem to be moved to the Paragon tier at least.

Feel free to add your own - how is 4e BETTER than 3e on the verisimilitude scale?

Disclaimer: I realize that some of the things I list might not be an issue in YOUR 3e group, or might seem like minor points, etc., but I think the same argument can be made for a lot of the 4e complaints.

EDIT: Forgot an obvious one. In 4e, when you fall in lava, you die without a saving throw - none of the rigmarole of lava-damage tables we all got sick of in 3e.

 

[The Little Raven]

There's been a lot of negative focus on the way 4e seems to damage verisimilitude.

Meh. You can't damage what has never been there. D&D has never had verisimilitude (depicting realism), and if that was it's intention, then it's been a supreme failure in that department.

 

[A'koss]

Well, immersion in lava now kills you outright, no save - so there is that improvement.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Vancian spellcasting is as real as any other sort. It was explained perfectly fine in the books and in the game.

And the rogue (thief) sneak attack (backstab) was as much about taking the target completely off-guard, without that last second, out of the corner of his eye glimpse that let him ever so slightly deflect or avoid the blow.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Meh. You can't damage what has never been there. D&D has never had verisimilitude (depicting realism), and if that was it's intention, then it's been a supreme failure in that department.

That's a really negative attitude that doesn't seem to be reflective of how most people felt about D&D. If you always had such a viewpoint, though, that explains a lot about things you've said. I always thought D&D had "just about enough" versimilitude, in terms of "simulating" a Heroic Fantasy environment. Not a huge giant amount, but a lot more than 0.

ZombieRoboNinja - Good post.

HP - I agree, I find 4E's HP actually MORE believable and "real" than previous iterations, if sliiiiightly too easy to get back. What's less believable, sadly, is the lack of long-term conditions. Maybe they're in the DMG. There's hope.

Vancing Spellcasting - Massively agreed. The Wizard seems a lot more like, y'know a WIZARD, rather than some wierd living magical device. Harry Dresden vs Spellbot 3000, I much prefer ol' Harry. I just hope we get plenty of "utility" spells.

Min-max wierdness - Hopefully stays true in the final cut, but yeah, at this stage it's looking good.

Greatclub Sneak Attack - Well, it was limited in 1E and 2E too (iirc), so this is a return of versimilitude imo. However it's currently negated from full versimilitude value by being limited to specific weapons, some of which make no sense (sling) and where others would make more sense than many on the list (bow).

Crazy high-level spells - So long as there are cool, complex rituals to do similar things, then yes, this is an improvement. If Teleport and Resurrection are just gone I will be unamused. Kinda suspect Resurrection is a routine thing at Epic level, which may or may not lack versimilitude.

I'll not mention any of the other negative stuff, but yeah, these mostly do help. I think 4E is going to be not dissimilar to 3E overall for "Heroic Fantasy Versimilitude", I just think the designers have gotten a little too psycho-stalkerish towards Combat.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Vancian spellcasting is as real as any other sort. It was explained perfectly fine in the books and in the game.

Hopefully I'll be excused for inviting an educational derailment of my own thread - what, exactly, is the complete explanation of Vancian spellcasting as it exists in 3.5 for the base classes - wizard, cleric, paladin, and ranger?

I think I understand the basics (something about preparing each spell 95% of the way to completion and only needing a trigger-word to complete the casting in combat), but even that seems weird. Why does a paladin or cleric need to perform complicated procedures to get his god to help him out, and how are those procedures based on how "wise" he is? If a wizard is smart enough to prepare one 3rd-level spell, why can't he just prepare 99 copies of it every morning? Etc.

 

[HeinorNY]

Meh. You can't damage what has never been there. D&D has never had verisimilitude (depicting realism), and if that was it's intention, then it's been a supreme failure in that department.

In my years of D&D, it has always being there.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I agree

I've never felt that D&D was particularly lacking in versimilitude , but I would agree with the OP; all of the points he layed out are improvements which I am looking forward to. Even if I don't switch to 4E, I'll try to house rule some of these things into my 3.5 game.

Ken

(oh, I should say _except for Vancian spellcasting_. I really don't see how it's any more or less realistic than any other spellcasting system.

 

[Campbell]

If you fall in lava you die. No save.

 

[ferratus]

I think 4e improves Verisimilitude because it seems people use their terrain to their advantage and engage in variety of combat tactics, rather than standing in a doorway every single time and trading blows until one or the other falls over.