Wrapping my head around hit points

[Tranquilis]

Just some background first: long time 0/2/3 D&D player (never played 1st), so I'm not a neophyte per se, but my experience has been "inbred" (for lack of a better word) because I've been playing with (only)the same group for 20+ years.

Hit points have always bugged me a bit. I understand why D&D has them and they work for combat. That really should be enough. When I discovered the Vitality Points/Wound Points systems (and other iterations) in 3rd edition's "Unearthed Arcana", I really liked it and my group uses a modified version of it.

What I can't seem to resolve, however, is the concept of hit points and ranged attacks with ammunition. I can accept that hit points represent the "ebb and flow" of a fluid battle in melee combat; that a "hit" may not actually be a "hit", etc. However, how do you apply that explanation to ammunition that is being fired and "hits" its target?

Example: 10th level fighter caught with no armor: AC 10; and let's give him 60 hit points. He's attacked by a ranger (any level) who is devoted to ranged combat and shot by an arrow! Ok, that's, let's say, 1d6 points of damage (to keep it simple) AND his attacker is down one arrow from his finite stash. The battle contines as the fighter closes the range. Arrow 2, arrow 3, arrow 4, arrow 5... hit, hit, hit, hit... but they're not "really" hits!? The awesome archer's arrows are "parried", "dodged", "reduced in damage", "hand-waved away" in the spirit of hit points!?

How do you explain to the ranger PC that, well, your shots "hit his hit points", but he doesn't have 5 arrows sticking out of him (did he dodge the all!?) OR how do you explain that he DOES have 5 arrows sticking out of him, but he's not dead!!

Reality would dictate that if an arrow hit its target, that target is wounded. Same goes for a sword strike. The difference in fantasy (to me) is that you can "hand wave" the melee combat using hit points; It's not as easy to me with ranged combat with ammunition.

 

[Dandu]

What I can't seem to resolve, however, is the concept of hit points and ranged attacks with ammunition. I can accept that hit points represent the "ebb and flow" of a fluid battle in melee combat; that a "hit" may not actually be a "hit", etc. However, how do you apply that explanation to ammunition that is being fired and "hits" its target?

I am currently in China and the Communists have blocked Youtube, but I assure you, sir, that if I were in America right now I would procure for you the most awesome John Woo dual wielding Berettas gunfu fight scene ever for your enlightenment.

 

[Ashtagon]

Hit points aren't actual hits. They are your "hero shield". Even a near-miss that you dodged through heroic effort will drain your hero shield. When you have little or no hero shield left, that's when a hit actually represents damage.

 

[Morrus]

How do you explain to the ranger PC that, well, your shots "hit his hit points", but he doesn't have 5 arrows sticking out of him (did he dodge the all!?)

Exactly that, yeah. He dodged one, another scratched his leg, another bounced off his water bottle, etc.

He's Indiana Jones climbing up that rope bridge in Temple of Doom. Hundreds of arrows falling around him, but he's a hero - they all miss. Or he's James Bond, a deadly gunshot deflected by the metal cigarette case he happens to have in his breast pocket.

I think that if you try too hard to find realism in D&D, you're going to just hurt your brain. It's an abstract system; where and what that arrow actually does isn't covered by the rules - all you know is that it didn't do any serious harm. You can come up with any explanation for that, but the rules don't address it.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Yeah, HP isn't realistic. It's a mechanic to run combat. Otherwise, when your PC was first hit with the piercing damage of a Rapier somewhere in the chest region, he'd die.

With your example, however, I can imagine someone receiving multiple arrow wounds in non-vital spots, with those arrows hanging out of them, while the wounded continued to advance. What I don't get is how a single slash or piercing of a sword wouldn't be an insta-kill. one would bleed out of a small puncture wound of an arrowhead much slower than a 2 foot long slash of a greatsword, assuming neither punctured an organ.

 

[Tranquilis]

Thanks for the replies! The overwhelming theme I'm taking from this is, "Yeah, your Ranger is good, but the Fighter's good, too." =)

At least I'm on the same page with you guys!

 

[Dandu]

That reminds me, you ever see the end of Scarface?

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Arrow Wound, don't look if you're squeamish.

youtube.com/watch/v=9f-kQgV3D5M

Stronger than a level 1 commoner!

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

 

[Arrowhawk]

Thanks for the replies! The overwhelming theme I'm taking from this is, "Yeah, your Ranger is good, but the Fighter's good, too." =)

At least I'm on the same page with you guys!

Yes, D&D tries to straddle the fence with reality in some areas and not in others, but as a player and DM, you just have to accept that. Gary Gygax would probably tell you the beauty of D&D is that if any particular rule's lack of realism makes the game less enjoyable for you...change it. But that is a slippery slope.

I think the point that needs to be internalized is that the combat is not intended to be real. That's the hurdle your Ranger PC has to overcome. Combat is an abstraction and the abstraction's first job is to make the game playable. If you try to come up with some sort of reality picture to explain it/rationalize it, you're going down the wrong path. It's a game...it's not reality. Do you question whether rolling dice and moving along properties allows you to buy them in Monopoly? No, you just go with it in order to play the game. Same thing with D&D. There are so many "realism" holes in D&D, you could write entire source books on it. Although the D&D mechanics of arrows may be the victim of a frontal lobotomy, other parts of the game are dependent on that and if you start tweaking things, you might end up cause yourself more headaches.