Salvageable Innovations from 4e for Nonenthusiasts

[Raven Crowking]

In a quote like this, there is the assertion that Smaug is being hit and injured mechanically, even though he is described as the following: "As with most dragons, Smaug's scaly hide is nigh invulnerable, yet his softer underside is more vulnerable to attack. However, centuries spent sleeping atop his gold hoard has caused gold and gemstones to become embedded in his flesh, creating essentially an impenetrable armour."

If hit points are taken to be a static measure of damage, then, yes, there is no sense in saying that hit point attrition occurs in this fight. But, as the last few hit points are the only ones where "real" damage is taken -- the others, you will recall, include various other factors, even in 1e.....

It is perfectly valid to describe a hit that does non life-threatening damage against an armoured human fighter as "The arrow glances off your helm, doing you no more damage than a fly from the marshes". Especially if the arrow only does 1 hp damage, and the fighter has 100 left.

(In my own ruleset, this could be literally true, as the damage Smaug takes before the Black Arrow might literally be Shaken Off, depending upon several factors. It is quite possible for a hit point system to allow a creature to take no real damage while being whittled down.)

As a 3e dragon, Smaug could be modelled as having a good DR, which knowledge of the weak spot allows Bard to bypass. The description of the Black Arrow -- including that it came from the forge of the true King Under the Mountain -- suggests that it is magical.

So, I have no problem playing out this scene with a game that uses hit point mechanics.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I was thinking of a couple of scenes in REH's Conan – Conan is KO-ed by a single sling stone to the head in Shadows in the Moonlight, and paralysed by poison in The Scarlet Citadel (he's imprisoned and placed in a D&Dish dungeon)

Well, poison doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hit points, nor does a mickey (mouse) slipped into your drink. My system of choice is hit-point-based, and can handle that KO quite easily, using more than one possible mechanic, so I'm not seeing that as a strong argument against hit points, either.

Another example would be the one you mentioned of Luke Skywalker being taken out by the tusken raider. If we give our heroes lots of hit points even at 1st level, as 4e does, then that can't happen.

Nonsense.

This problem only occurs when hit points accrued are not modelled in a static way, and hit point damage is. When you say

What is going on there is not just one more punch, there's more to it than that. But with hit points that's all it takes.

you mistake particular hit point systems for hit point systems overall. If "what is going on there" is more than "just one more punch", the fault lies not with the hit points on the receiving end, but how damage is modelled on the "dishing it out" end.

I am playing a game that models "doing more damage" or "trying harder to hit" or knockback or trips or any of a countless host of other things as a tradeoff. You accept additional risk to potentially gain greater rewards. And it uses hit points.

In a recent fight, where the party was overwhelmed by a superior swordsman, the halfling rogue hid himself and prepared to snipe the swordsman if the opportunity appeared. Another character, a fighter with a spear, was able to drive the swordsman out of the main group, where the rogue had a better chance of sniping.

Despite the fact that, had they simply engaged him in melee, the swordsman would have cut through them, they were able to win. And dramatically so. It did not feel like "just one more punch" -- it felt like what it was: A desperate Hail Mary pass from far downfield.

One of my players/playtesters was concerned that hit points allowed a character to "get shot in the face" with a gun and live. But hit point systems assume that many (if not most) successful attacks are not shots to the face. What a good hit point system does -- and what I worked hard to make mine do -- is differentiate between an average hit and a hit that is more likely to be a shot to the face.

(Incidentally, that player later lost a character by being shot in the face, literally, with a gun, in my rewrite playtest of Paizo's Carrion Hill.)

My feeling on hit points is that, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, "It has been said that hit points are the worst form of adjudicating damage except all the others that have been tried."

Hit points are terribly flawed. But at the same time, they just work.

RC

 

[Nagol]

If hit points are taken to be a static measure of damage, then, yes, there is no sense in saying that hit point attrition occurs in this fight. But, as the last few hit points are the only ones where "real" damage is taken -- the others, you will recall, include various other factors, even in 1e.....

It is perfectly valid to describe a hit that does non life-threatening damage against an armoured human fighter as "The arrow glances off your helm, doing you no more damage than a fly from the marshes". Especially if the arrow only does 1 hp damage, and the fighter has 100 left.

(In my own ruleset, this could be literally true, as the damage Smaug takes before the Black Arrow might literally be Shaken Off, depending upon several factors. It is quite possible for a hit point system to allow a creature to take no real damage while being whittled down.)

As a 3e dragon, Smaug could be modelled as having a good DR, which knowledge of the weak spot allows Bard to bypass. The description of the Black Arrow -- including that it came from the forge of the true King Under the Mountain -- suggests that it is magical.

So, I have no problem playing out this scene with a game that uses hit point mechanics.


RC

How would your description change if the arrow were poisoned?

 

[Raven Crowking]

How would your description change if the arrow were poisoned?

Which arrow?

If you mean all of those arrows bouncing off of him.....If I ruled that the arrows could cause attrition, but not pierce his skin, then the easy answer would be "Unless struck in a specific spot, Smaug is immune to the poison on the arrows".

Do you mean the arrow doing 1 hp to the human fighter? Roll the save. Answers the question.

I'm sure you imagine that there is a problem here, but I seem to be missing it!

(I used to favour a Vitality/Wound Point system because of just these sorts of "problems", but no longer. How the description works can be determined at the time of the blow. That works very, very well. For me, at least.)


RC

 

[JamesonCourage]

If hit points are taken to be a static measure of damage, then, yes, there is no sense in saying that hit point attrition occurs in this fight. But, as the last few hit points are the only ones where "real" damage is taken -- the others, you will recall, include various other factors, even in 1e.....

That's true.

It is perfectly valid to describe a hit that does non life-threatening damage against an armoured human fighter as "The arrow glances off your helm, doing you no more damage than a fly from the marshes". Especially if the arrow only does 1 hp damage, and the fighter has 100 left.

Yep, I agree here, too. I've literally described hit point damage as barely dodging the attack when it seems to hit in 3.X.

(In my own ruleset, this could be literally true, as the damage Smaug takes before the Black Arrow might literally be Shaken Off, depending upon several factors. It is quite possible for a hit point system to allow a creature to take no real damage while being whittled down.)

In my ruleset, as I've indicated, there are two types of hit points. You can take one type all day long and never be physically harmed. So, I know that various other systems can change the nature of hit points.

As a 3e dragon, Smaug could be modelled as having a good DR, which knowledge of the weak spot allows Bard to bypass. The description of the Black Arrow -- including that it came from the forge of the true King Under the Mountain -- suggests that it is magical.

That's true, but where I had a problem is in the idea presented of the arrow being a slaying arrow. If it bypasses the hit point mechanic because Smaug fails his Fort save, then we're not dealing with the hit point mechanic anymore. It's stopped simulating what we need it to, and we had to bypass it to simulate that moment of the story.

Although, my game would allow the damage reduction has a weak spot that's harder to hit but allows the damage reduction to be bypassed. A figure a magical arrow, even if it's not a slaying arrow, that bypasses the damage reduction might really hurt the dragon, especially if the hole leads to the dragon's heart, or other vital area.

So, I have no problem playing out this scene with a game that uses hit point mechanics.


RC

Neither do I. I just think that certain ideas presented in the thread, such as critical hit charts, powerful dragons with 15 hit points, or slaying arrows that bypass the hit point mechanic, aren't really demonstrating that hit points simulate things the way people are asserting they are.

I do have a philosophy of "roll dice, determine effect, look at how it shapes the story" to some degree, as long as the consistency of the game world isn't broken.

At any rate, I don't think we're far off on some views. I prefer hit points to the other wound systems I've seen, even if I've liked those wound systems. I just don't like the way they've been handled in D&D (and thus I have two different types of hit points). I'm sure many people change how hit points are used to hit there wants, and many people leave them, since it's good enough for them and their group. And fair enough, because that's really all that matters.

As always, play what you like

 

[Nagol]

Which arrow?

If you mean all of those arrows bouncing off of him.....If I ruled that the arrows could cause attrition, but not pierce his skin, then the easy answer would be "Unless struck in a specific spot, Smaug is immune to the poison on the arrows".

Do you mean the arrow doing 1 hp to the human fighter? Roll the save. Answers the question.

I'm sure you imagine that there is a problem here, but I seem to be missing it!

(I used to favour a Vitality/Wound Point system because of just these sorts of "problems", but no longer. How the description works can be determined at the time of the blow. That works very, very well. For me, at least.)


RC

The arrow I'm referring to is from this:

It is perfectly valid to describe a hit that does non life-threatening damage against an armoured human fighter as "The arrow glances off your helm, doing you no more damage than a fly from the marshes". Especially if the arrow only does 1 hp damage, and the fighter has 100 left.

We have a PC with 100 hp who is hit by an arrow for 1 hp damage.

Scenario A: the arrow is just an arrow and the attack is resolved and described as above.

Scenario B: the arrow is carrying an blood vector poison that can debilitate the PC over the course of a couple of rounds if appropriate saving throws are not made.

Does your description of the arrow hit change? Does the poison get adjudicated or ignored because there was no injury?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm pretty sure here's how it works:

No poisoned arrow, 1 damage dealt: the arrow bounces harmlessly off your armor.
Poisoned arrow, 1 damage dealt, save made: the arrows bounces harmlessly off your armor.
Poisoned arrow, 1 damage dealt, save failed: the arrow only grazes your skin through the armor.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's true, but where I had a problem is in the idea presented of the arrow being a slaying arrow. If it bypasses the hit point mechanic because Smaug fails his Fort save, then we're not dealing with the hit point mechanic anymore.

Why must a Slaying Arrow bypass the hit point mechanic? Why can it not just do more hit points of damage?

"As always, play what you like" is an excellent tagline, btw!

We have a PC with 100 hp who is hit by an arrow for 1 hp damage.

Scenario A: the arrow is just an arrow and the attack is resolved and described as above.

Scenario B: the arrow is carrying an blood vector poison that can debilitate the PC over the course of a couple of rounds if appropriate saving throws are not made.

Does your description of the arrow hit change? Does the poison get adjudicated or ignored because there was no injury?

The problem is not hit points in your Scenario B, from my perspective. The problem is that you cannot determine, at the initial incident, what has happened. If there is a way you can check if the series of saves need be made, when the strike occurs, then you modify your description accordingly.

For example, "But, when the arrow shatters against your helm, a tiny splinter of the shaft flies within your visor and lodges in your cheek." This could even be done after the fact: "When you remove your helmet, so that Herman the Holy can apply his healing arts, he sees that a tiny splinter of the arrow that shivered on your helmet -- too small even to be felt in the heat of battle -- has lodged beneath the skin of your cheek, and begun to fester."

Again, this is pretty easy to deal with. IMHO, and IME anyway.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm pretty sure here's how it works:

No poisoned arrow, 1 damage dealt: the arrow bounces harmlessly off your armor.
Poisoned arrow, 1 damage dealt, save made: the arrows bounces harmlessly off your armor.
Poisoned arrow, 1 damage dealt, save failed: the arrow only grazes your skin through the armor.

This answer is both faster & clearer than my blathering above, but essentially the same.


RC

 

[Nagol]

I'm pretty sure here's how it works:

No poisoned arrow, 1 damage dealt: the arrow bounces harmlessly off your armor.
Poisoned arrow, 1 damage dealt, save made: the arrows bounces harmlessly off your armor.
Poisoned arrow, 1 damage dealt, save failed: the arrow only grazes your skin through the armor.

So the arrow will bounce off harmlessly unless a wound could inflict secondary effects?

That leads to Scenario C: same arrow except it is carrying a longer-term threat that the PC should be unaware of, for example a disease that won't manifest for at least a day.

If the arrow bounces harmlessly off the armour then the player is given a mental image of the event that doesn't require any form of follow up and the imposition of the disease at a later time can feel like a gotcha. If the arrow acts differently than other arrows of similar ilk and the player is paying attention then he receives more information than he should.

In the olden days before hp inflation, it could be argued that any hit no matter how minor effectively resulted in actually hitting the target (even if luck, morale, inherent toughness, etc. reduced the resulting wound) and my point was moot.

Ultimately, this doesn't matter too much so long as the DM controls the narrative surrounding the combat and the effect of any particular blow. Where it becomes problematic is when the game systems starts to share narrative control with the players and deliberately starts to justify most damage to non-tangible results such as morale, et al. allowing hits to apparently miss.

For the players to effectively participate in narrative control they need the same overall information of the situation surrounding the combat as the DM has. Otherwise the narrative begins to unravel as events no longer seem to unfold in predictable patterns from previous situations.