How many Hit points does a sacred cow have?

[enigma5915]

it wouldn't be D&D...?

In response to the various statements that changing hit points would change the game so that it wouldn't be D&D… D&D has gone through many changes over the editions. Saving throws are very different from 2e to 3e and even more so in 4e. THAC0 went away and was replaced by a Base Attack Bonus. Cleric spell level cap went from 7 to 9. Racial level limits went away. Dual classing went away. Multi-classing has been radically different for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Combat roles and healing surges did not exist until 4e. My point here is that any one of these changes can be construed as to have made the game no longer be “D&D”.

What makes the game “be D&D” is relative and not necessarily pertinent. My point is strictly about the absurdity of Hit points and possible alternatives. I will write up a brief conceptual alternative shortly. And yes, I’ve heard of these other game and have played many of them, thanks for pointing them out. But if D&D is going through another iteration, then I would think it cool to have something alternative to the unimaginative and lazy hit points. And just because Hit points are copied in other systems and computer games does not prove the concept works or is decent. It just proves that others are not coming up with something new and using the same busted system.

 

[enigma5915]

The problem with proposing that hit points belong on the griddle is coming up with a better system. Because no one really has for non-entirely abstract cinematic combat. (If you want gritty realism sure you use direct wounds and impairment). If you go for the high-defence, low hit approach then it's more or less a win by lottery.

Direct wounds and impairment seem like the right way to go.

As for armour providing DR, that's a common idea. And not as realistic as it looks. Plate armour in particular provides such high DR from frontal assaults that other than in rare cases, the idea was to get at the joints. And breastplates were literally bullet proof - and a good one would have a small circular dent in it that demonstrated that it had indeed been shot by a pistol. Making the wearer harder to hit is a better model of good armour than DR would be.

Actually crossbows have worked well for penetrating plate armor as well as axes and guns. Hence the move away from using it. Just because some attacks did not penetrate plate does not mean that no attacks have penetrated plate.


Why model it differently than it would be? Armor in no way makes one harder to be hit. If anything it may make someone easier to be hit. Model things as they are. Abstraction solves nothing.

 

[DogBackward]

Why model it differently than it would be? Armor in no way makes one harder to be hit. If anything it may make someone easier to be hit. Model things as they are. Abstraction solves nothing.

When a person is in armor, yes, they are easier to hit. The only problem is that you're not hitting the person, you're hitting the person's armor. If you're in full plate, then it's easier for a trained warrior to hit you, yes... but he won't do much when he does. When your attack roll beats a target's AC, that's one of two things; hitting a joint, or penetrating the armor. If attack rolls were purely accuracy-based, then Strength wouldn't add to attack, you'd only use Dexterity, even for melee. No, an attack roll represents both your accuracy and your ability to make your weapon get through the other guy's armor, hence using your Strength modifier.

 

[Derren]

Why on EARTH would short swords be considered good weapons to use against a knight?

Because they historically were (at least if you had to use words they were better than bigger ones).
Something that D&D (or most RPGs really) doesn't simulate very well and DR as armor would make even worse is that when fighting heavily armored opponents the usual tactic was to hit the gaps in the armor, not to get a bigger weapon.

There is a reason why knights preferred a polaxe instead of huge 2 handers. Because greatswords were very bad against other knights. A longsword was equally ineffective and it required a lot of skill to harm a knight in plate with them.

PS War hammer:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...en-1578.jpg/461px-Moritz-von-Sachsen-1578.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/War_hammer2.jpg

They were not the oversized sledgehammers with flat heads D&D wants you to believe.

Actually crossbows have worked well for penetrating plate armor as well as axes and guns. Hence the move away from using it. Just because some attacks did not penetrate plate does not mean that no attacks have penetrated plate.

So much wrong...
1. Bows, crossbows and most guns had quite a lot of trouble with heavy armor. Plate armor was designed to be bulletproof and also normal arrows and bolts couldn't penetrate them either. Only rather modern muskets (17th century) became more armor piercing and still the important people wore breastplates.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk[/ame]

2. Normal Axes sucked against heavy armor. Against heavy armor the only "axe" you used were in the form of long polearms like halberds. For smaller weapons people prefered piercing weapons (or slashing weapons with a pointy end) because those weapons were actually able to pierce through armor.

 

[DogBackward]

Smart things.

This is exactly why moving toward simplification and abstraction are important these days. You simply cannot realistically represent combat without making a rules bog so deep as to be utterly worthless. Trying to be realistic or historically accurate makes a game that is simple not fun for the majority of gamers. These abstractions... HP as "plot armor" rather than actual health; AC being both dodging and absorbing blows with armor; attacks being both accuracy and armor penetration... these things are far more viable options than actually trying to accurately model real-world combat.

 

[Derren]

This is exactly why moving toward simplification and abstraction are important these days. You simply cannot realistically represent combat without making a rules bog so deep as to be utterly worthless. Trying to be realistic or historically accurate makes a game that is simple not fun for the majority of gamers. These abstractions... HP as "plot armor" rather than actual health; AC being both dodging and absorbing blows with armor; attacks being both accuracy and armor penetration... these things are far more viable options than actually trying to accurately model real-world combat.

And that is exactly the opposite of what I want.
Yes, the reality is complex but imo it is possible to have simple rules representing them to a degree.

But for that people have to stop to design for coolness and the mass market.

So please when you do change a mechanic also think a bit about realism.

 

[DogBackward]

And that is exactly the opposite of what I want.

Then I hate to say it, but D&D is probably not the game for you. D&D has never been about accurately representing the real world, but about adventuring and killing things and having fun. It has never been a realistic combat simulator, nor was it ever meant to be.

 

[Derren]

Then I hate to say it, but D&D is probably not the game for you. D&D has never been about accurately representing the real world, but about adventuring and killing things and having fun. It has never been a realistic combat simulator, nor was it ever meant to be.

And D&D is currently failing partly because it went more into the wuxia direction, causing a even greater disconnection between the game and reality.

Get the hint?

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

HARN had one of the most realistic systems I've seen, they even had weapon break rules when you parried an attack. The few games I did play were horrendous, no hit points, you simply rolled vs. your Endurance until you passed out, or in rare cases, were killed. There were at least 20 hit locations and armor pieces covered each (except the eyes). As you accumulated wounds, you're skills (by percentile) would slowly drop until you kept falling over yourself.

This style of game does appeal to some, not to me, especially not with D&D.

 

[enigma5915]

Because they historically were (at least if you had to use words they were better than bigger ones).
Something that D&D (or most RPGs really) doesn't simulate very well and DR as armor would make even worse is that when fighting heavily armored opponents the usual tactic was to hit the gaps in the armor, not to get a bigger weapon.

There is a reason why knights preferred a polaxe instead of huge 2 handers. Because greatswords were very bad against other knights. A longsword was equally ineffective and it required a lot of skill to harm a knight in plate with them.

PS War hammer:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...en-1578.jpg/461px-Moritz-von-Sachsen-1578.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/War_hammer2.jpg

They were not the oversized sledgehammers with flat heads D&D wants you to believe.




So much wrong...
1. Bows, crossbows and most guns had quite a lot of trouble with heavy armor. Plate armor was designed to be bulletproof and also normal arrows and bolts couldn't penetrate them either. Only rather modern muskets (17th century) became more armor piercing and still the important people wore breastplates.
Longbow vs Plate Armour - YouTube

2. Normal Axes sucked against heavy armor. Against heavy armor the only "axe" you used were in the form of long polearms like halberds. For smaller weapons people prefered piercing weapons (or slashing weapons with a pointy end) because those weapons were actually able to pierce through armor.

There are different opinions on the effects of longbows versus plate armor. The construction quality of the plate first, And the construction quality of the particular bow. Not to mention the skill of the bow user. Longbow archers supposably had to start train ing at young age to get good enough to wield a bow properly. So the specifics of exact damage reduction versus exact damage caused by weapons is unknown and can be argued. However the fact that heavy plate armor was very superior than other forms of armor is a given as far as damage reduction is concerned. So what is wrong with that?