Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[Lwaxy]

Do four cracked ribs heal at the exact same rate as one cracked rib, or does it take longer? I'm not a doctor, so the concept isn't immediately intuitive, and I could be convinced either way.

Sure they do. Why would they not? Cells grow back at the same rate in all ribs. And they take a few weeks to heal, so all the timing in D&D is generally off anyway unless you involve magic. People just don't heal damage overnight.

 

[pemerton]

I think Gygax's point was that the rules should be designed to work for the majority of situations, and merely hope to not fail catastrophically in those off cases. If the game rules don't work so great when modelling axe v bare flesh, then that's because they weren't designed to.

Which is fine, because it's not something that comes up much. Have you ever noticed how most of these arguments, on both sides, go down to corner-case examples?

Wait, what? Axe vs unarmored happens all the time.

<snip>

Hits vs unarmored opponents are hardly corner case.

I have to say, I'm with Hussar here. He's given examples of NPCs/monsters.

Of AD&D character's I've GMed, I remember a slew of MUs (no armour), lots of thieves (leather armour or no armour, depending on magical items), a kensai (no armour) as well as, of course, heavily armoured clerics, fighters and similar warrior types.

In my Rolemaster campaign plenty of PCs have been unarmoured mages and monk/martial-artist types, who would similarly have been unarmoured in their AD&D analogues.

In my 4e campaign the unarmoured wizard took plenty of hits. And the unarmoured sorcerer still does! And two PCs are in hide armour, which is probably not converting all the damage from a frost giant's axe into blunt force trauma if you actually get collected by the sharp edge! Only the fighter and paladin wear heavy armour that is feasibly protecting the whole body. Even then, the largest amount of damage the paladin has taken recently is from being swallowed by a remorhaz (20 hp + 20 hp fire damage per round). When he finally cut himself out of the dead remorhaz, having taken, I would guess, well over 100 hp of damage, I'm not 100% sure what he looked like - a bit singed at least! - but I find it hard to conceive of that in terms of his armour protecting him from otherwise fatal damage.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wait, what? Axe vs unarmored happens all the time. Unless all you use in your game is armoured humanoids. What happens when you hit a Mind Flayer, Minotaur, Medusa or Mummy with an axe?

Mind Flayers aren't part of the OGL, but Medusas have skin that is the equivalent of hide armor, Minotaurs have skin like chainmail, and Mummies are equivalent of +2 full plate. Even a Harpy has a natural armor bonus (or, in AD&D terms, an unarmored AC lower than 10).

The only things that aren't armored, and can still conceivably take a few solid hits from an axe, are high-level wizards and monks. Who are magic.

 

[Hussar]

Mind Flayers aren't part of the OGL, but Medusas have skin that is the equivalent of hide armor, Minotaurs have skin like chainmail, and Mummies are equivalent of +2 full plate. Even a Harpy has a natural armor bonus (or, in AD&D terms, an unarmored AC lower than 10).

The only things that aren't armored, and can still conceivably take a few solid hits from an axe, are high-level wizards and monks. Who are magic.

Hang on, that's shifting the goal posts. You said that a hit from an axe was blunt force trauma due to armour. A wizard can take a whack from an axe at 1st level with a decent Con score. Are we now trying to say that wizards are inherently magical? They're no longer just regular people because they study magic?

And, what does "skin like chain mail" actually mean? Can I skin a Minotaur and make armour out of him? Why or why not? Why can't I make mummy armour? That would be fantastic. How does natural armour heal? If it's as strong as steel, it shouldn't heal as quickly as flesh, more like breaking bone, so, do minotaurs heal slower? A Harpy has a +1 natural armour bonus. Ok, fine. That's still weaker than any actual armour, so, how do you deal with axes hitting harpies?

"Because Magic" is a very, very poor answer in a simulationist model. Do Monks and Wizards lose HP when in an anti-magic field? Or if I cast Dispel Magic on either class, do they lose HP? Note, also, people have gone to great lengths to tell me that they want to play the non-combat cleric who wears no armour but still adventures, so, that means that there are people out there who play unarmored characters who are not wizards or monks. What do they do?

Trying to downplay this as "corner case" scenarios is not really fair IMO. These aren't corner cases, these are pretty standard events that are likely going to come up every session. An unarmored character isn't that rare is it?

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and I'd point out that a Brown Bear has +5 Natural Armour bonus. [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION], does that mean that I can't cut a bear with an axe in your game? I hit a bear with an axe for 8 damage and it does only blunt force trauma, no actual bleeding wound?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Hang on, that's shifting the goal posts. You said that a hit from an axe was blunt force trauma due to armour. A wizard can take a whack from an axe at 1st level with a decent Con score. Are we now trying to say that wizards are inherently magical? They're no longer just regular people because they study magic?

Yes, wizards are magical creatures, more resistant to injury than mere muggles. This is traditional lore. It need not be the case within every fictional reality, but it covers this one obvious gap within the D&D ruleset.

Or, more reasonably, the wizard has Mage Armor going, like the vast majority of wizards who expect combat at some point. Seriously, unarmored characters are pretty rare. It's not worth adding substantial complexity to the ruleset in order to cover that.

Oh, and I'd point out that a Brown Bear has +5 Natural Armour bonus. @Saelorn , does that mean that I can't cut a bear with an axe in your game? I hit a bear with an axe for 8 damage and it does only blunt force trauma, no actual bleeding wound?

The question was the type of wound suffered by a PC, which I posit would be blunt force, since the PC was wearing armor. Natural Armor doesn't necessarily work the same way as worn armor, even if we can model it in a similar way. In any simulation that is less complex than the underlying reality, you're going to get similar mechanics that represents multiple things within the game world.

Bears are super tough, and it's unlikely to even feel an axe hit that isn't well placed. The bear's thick hide protects it in much the same way as chainmail, but they aren't identical. It's not necessary that it corresponds to an identical reality within the game world.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, wizards are magical creatures, more resistant to injury than mere muggles. This is traditional lore. It need not be the case within every fictional reality, but it covers this one obvious gap within the D&D ruleset.

What traditional lore would that be? I'm drawing a blank here where wizards are more resistant to injury than anyone else. Can you point me somewhere?

Or, more reasonably, the wizard has Mage Armor going, like the vast majority of wizards who expect combat at some point. Seriously, unarmored characters are pretty rare. It's not worth adding substantial complexity to the ruleset in order to cover that.

I get taken to task pretty hard for even beginning to claim any sort of universality to my experience. I have to wonder why [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91 and [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] aren't taking you to task for the same thing. Unarmored characters are not rare at all IME. The wizard for one almost never has any armour on.

The question was the type of wound suffered by a PC, which I posit would be blunt force, since the PC was wearing armor. Natural Armor doesn't necessarily work the same way as worn armor, even if we can model it in a similar way. In any simulation that is less complex than the underlying reality, you're going to get similar mechanics that represents multiple things within the game world.

Note that your idea is actually directly in contradiction to what the rules say. THere's absolutely nothing in the rules to support this. The idea that if I put on a suit of armour, all damage becomes bludgeoning is not found anywhere in the mechanics and this is 100% on you.

Bears are super tough, and it's unlikely to even feel an axe hit that isn't well placed. The bear's thick hide protects it in much the same way as chainmail, but they aren't identical. It's not necessary that it corresponds to an identical reality within the game world.

Umm, I think you really need to do a bit more research into this if you think a bear's skin is anywhere near as strong as riveted steel mesh. You realise chain mail can actually stop bullets right? Not high power rifle rounds, true, but, subsonic? I'm pretty much going to stop subsonic rounds with chain mail. Will likely hurt like hell, but, it will stop the round. Bear skin will not stop bullets. Heck, it won't even stop arrows and it certainly won't stop axe hits.

If it did, why on earth would I bother with chain mail? Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot cheaper to use bear skins for armour if they were similar in effect?

 

[Tony Vargas]

What traditional lore would that be? I'm drawing a blank here where wizards are more resistant to injury than anyone else. Can you point me somewhere?

I vaguely remember one legend where the evil wizard had his heart in a casket somewhere, making him un-killable in person (you had to find the heart and destroy it). Rather like the D&D lich and his phylactery.

And 'wizard' could be conflated with fey, spirit, or even god... and thus be immortal or incorporeal or some such.

Finally, a wizard could be viewed as an elderly non-combatant. So, and you had to just stand there and listen to the details of the curse he was putting on you, because killing him would be murder and shutting him up disrespectful to an elder. ;P

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What traditional lore would that be? I'm drawing a blank here where wizards are more resistant to injury than anyone else. Can you point me somewhere?

If you recall the traditional arguments against Meat Points, magic is one of the many factors that go into Hit Points - magic is why you can have a wizard who doesn't die when hit by a frost giant's great axe. And since it's there, we might as well have it explain why that 40hp hit didn't cause your internal organs to go spilling. It's all connected.

Also: Harry Potter.

Unarmored characters are not rare at all IME. The wizard for one almost never has any armour on.

I'm vaguely curious, back in Gygax's day, how many high-level Magic Users were wandering around with AC 10.

Note that your idea is actually directly in contradiction to what the rules say. There's absolutely nothing in the rules to support this. The idea that if I put on a suit of armour, all damage becomes bludgeoning is not found anywhere in the mechanics and this is 100% on you.

I didn't say that it became bludgeoning damage. I said that it inflicts blunt trauma. An axe deals slashing damage, which the body armor converts into blunt trauma. A maul deals bludgeoning damage, which the body armor converts into blunt trauma. Just because they have similar effects on an adventurer, that doesn't make it pointless to distinguish between them. For example, it's much easier to slash a rope than to bludgeon it, and skeletons don't particularly care about being pierced.

If it did, why on earth would I bother with chain mail? Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot cheaper to use bear skins for armour if they were similar in effect?

It was just a quick example. Much of a bear's toughness also comes from its musculature and skeletal structure. The point is just that it's hard to hurt a bear, in much the same way that it's difficult to hurt someone wearing armor.

Also, armor in D&D is criminally under-valued. Good armor in real life is way better than its in-game statistics would have you believe.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm vaguely curious, back in Gygax's day, how many high-level Magic Users were wandering around with AC 10.

High enough (16th) to make his own permanent magic items? Or late enough in the game to cast Mage Armor? None, obviously. If you didn't get a brownie familiar or boots of speed for an 18 DEX /and/ bracers AC 2 (why, with it costing you a point of CON, either way, would you ever make anything but the best possible), not to mention any rings or cloaks of protection found on the way to such high level. Negative AC was prettymuch inevitable.

Also, armor in D&D is criminally under-valued. Good armor in real life is way better than its in-game statistics would have you believe.

It does seem like AC has been awefully important in every version of D&D. Maybe armor was never the only (nor even always best) way to get it, but it was certainly important.