D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3e to be changed to new d20 rules? 4e coming!

[mmadsen]

It should be? It should be based on what?

Realism.

That's the problem.

If you were to make a movie (or write a book) where our hero finds himself armed only with a knife against an enemy in full plate armor with sword and shield, you wouldn't have our hero go toe to toe with the armored knight. You'd find some other way for our hero to win -- or run away to come back and win later, or have the demure princess rescue him (oh so amusingly), or bring his attacker to his side, etc.

Action movies and pulp novels don't hold themselves to lofty criteria of perfect reality simulation, but some things make a whole lot more sense than others (or are a whole lot more entertaining), and I'd think a game system should work the same way.

A system that promotes a toe-to-toe combat between our hero with a knife and his Evil-Knight opponent and has them trade blows for dozens of six-second rounds isn't just unrealistic in some strict no-fun sense; it doesn't make for a fun story either -- in part because stories that make more sense resonate better with audiences (and players).

D&D has not been a highly simulationist game, and nor should it be, IMO. By doing so, you move the game away from heroic fantasy and towards an melee infantry simulation.

And anything that makes more sense than the current rules must be less heroic?

 

[Ravellion]

That sounds like an extremely suspicious assertion. IME, players who have and will only play D&D are actually quite rare. In fact, I think that I think I can only name three total in all of the circles that I have travelled in 4 states and 20 years of gaming.

You'll find a LOT of those in Europe, or at least in the Netherlands. WW games aren't very popular here (it has a very geeky stigma.. haha!), and some games just sent about two copies to Europe, so that kind of limits their potential. Shadowrun does OK however.

Rav

 

[Psion]

Don't misunderstand me...I am not saying D&D should be more realistic. I was addressing all the people who want more realism but feel they hit a snag when they encounter the dagger vs. armor "problem" with their new rules. That snag should be there if it is realism they truly want. See?

Well, with that I can only agree.

 

[Psion]

If you were to make a movie (or write a book) where our hero finds himself armed only with a knife against an enemy in full plate armor with sword and shield, you wouldn't have our hero go toe to toe with the armored knight.

Maybe you would. I have seen many instances of the hero facing grim odds finding that chink in the armor or other weakness that they can hit due to their skill.

And anything that makes more sense than the current rules must be less heroic?

You keep repeating this, and you keep missing the upshot of my reply. Which is, no, the rules don't have to be less heroic, but you are going to face problems reaching the same level of heroic flavor as easily. Given that daunting of a task, I wouldn't attempt it unless you have a good reason to do so. And you don't have one.

 

[Ravellion]

Second, a knight is defined by his horse, at least historically. In most other languages this is pretty explicit: French - chevalier, Spanish - caballero, German - Ritter; they all mean "horseman" or "rider". And, of course, medieval heavy cavalry were shock troops in heavy armor wielding lances.

In English, the word "Knight" goes back to the Dutch word "Knecht" which means "servant".

Definition through using historical entymology can be biased, since there are often multiple words for similar concepts (such as the English "cavalier" and the Dutch "Ridder" being closer to your example.)

Just a word of caution, and a flip side of the coin that I had to share, with my linguistic/literary background.

Rav

 

[mmadsen]

I have seen many instances of the hero facing grim odds finding that chink in the armor or other weakness that they can hit due to their skill.

And that sounds exactly like a critical hit. A "heroic" system would have heroes dishing out criticals more often and receiving them much less often than their cannon-fodder opponents -- and that would let them acheive a spectactular hit with a dagger against an armored opponent without it being just as wise a tactic as using a mace or pick.

 

[mmadsen]

In English, the word "Knight" goes back to the Dutch word "Knecht" which means "servant".

The Japanese word "samurai" has a similar meaning.

 

[Ravellion]

And that sounds exactly like a critical hit. A "heroic" system would have heroes dishing out criticals more often and receiving them much less often than their cannon-fodder opponents -- and that would let them acheive a spectactular hit with a dagger against an armored opponent without it being just as wise a tactic as using a mace or pick.

The problem is that critical hits are more than often portrayed and seen as luck than as skill. In D&D, the system displays itself as heroic, but crits happen without too much influence of skill (for confirming skill is important, but the first chances are based purely on luck).

Besides, crits in D&D aren't very Critical. After 10th level, crits are more like "Heavy hits" than... well... critical hits. Howver , that isn't too big of a problem, besides terminology really. But that deciding dagger strike is non existant, in both systems (Armour as DR and as AC).

Rav

 

[mmadsen]

The problem is that critical hits are more than often portrayed and seen as luck than as skill. In D&D, the system displays itself as heroic, but crits happen without too much influence of skill (for confirming skill is important, but the first chances are based purely on luck).

Exactly.

Besides, crits in D&D aren't very Critical. After 10th level, crits are more like "Heavy hits" than... well... critical hits.

Agreed.

But that deciding dagger strike is non existant, in both systems (Armour as DR and as AC).

With no other rule changes, correct.

We can solve these problems (for those who consider them problems) with a little tinkering. For instance, imagine if every hit was a critical threat, that crits could stack (i.e. keep rolling to-hit until you miss), and that each level it critting added 1d6 damage. (We can fine tune later.)

With such rules, critical hits wouldn't be blind luck (better fighters would score many more crits), even a knife could be dangerous in the right hands, and we'd have fewer problems with one lucky attack from a big monster killing our heroes (since extra dice aren't as nasty as x3 with a minotaur-powered battle-axe).

 

[Psion]

And that sounds exactly like a critical hit.

No... that sounds exactly like a character with a high degree of combat skill overcoming his opponent's defenses with his skill. There is no reason to make an adjunct system to do this when the existing system does this now.

We can solve these problems (for those who consider them problems) with a little tinkering. For instance, imagine if every hit was a critical threat, that crits could stack (i.e. keep rolling to-hit until you miss), and that each level it critting added 1d6 damage. (We can fine tune later.)

Yeesh. And welcome to the white-wolfish world of die-roll mania. No thank you. You are causing more problems than you are solving.