[Black Company] Mental Effects of War

[Skywalker]

I am currently planning a military style campaign in Iron Kingdoms using the variants from Black Company. Generally, I have a number of issues with D&D combat mechanics. In particular:

1. HP escalation being unrealistic, and
2. Attack Progression increasing much higher than AC making high level combat more about attrition.

Anyway, one of the things that my reading of 15th Century military accounts has lead me to want to incorporate the mental effects of warfare. Though skill is important, warfare is generally a brutal affair that is not so much about trading blows but wearing down your target. There were very few swashbucklers, mostly it was heavily armoured me bludgeoning each other. Those with steely nerves seemed to last much longer. I then realised that D&D actually does a good job of replicating this. All I had to clarify that 'Hit Points' reflects 'Morale' and 'Massive Damage Threshold' is essentially a 'Breaking Point'. I note that in Black Company wounds are Con damage.

The result is that combat was about the slow attrition. Many fights over many days can make soldiers more easy to break and weary. Generally, someone is capable of defending themselves until they either slowly loose it or are struck by a blow that scares them witless. This also means that attacks are more about successfully threatening your target and not necessarily just wounding them. This justifies the high Attack Progressions. A skilled warrior can easily threaten opponents, even a similarly skilled warrior.

This may sound all a bit unnecessary and "obvious" but from a narration POV it makes things easier. No more shrugging away arrow hits. Con damage is wounds. Morale loss can be anything the PC wishes to narrate from seeing a friend die to blood in the eyes to a sudden realisation how close that swing came to one's face etc.

Any comments/thoughts?

 

[Khorod]

That sounds like a fine way to flavorize hit points/Con damage.

However, hit points really encompass all manner of things. Its an abstraction, and generally speaking *every* effort to make more specific definition leaves conceptual holes.

But that doesn't mean that emphasizing a given flavor for hit points can't affect and enhance your game. The morale twist is a new one on me. It seems to imply that the more hit point damage you take, the more subject to Intimidation.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I very much like the idea of hit points as morale-- it makes hit point escalation make sense in a context other than "plot immunity". However, I wouldn't make Massive Damage a reflection of morale-- Massive Damage should reflect the fact that nerves of steel do not, in fact, serve as armor.

Failing a Massive Damage save is essentially very bravely and calmly getting your head smashed in.

edit:

But that doesn't mean that emphasizing a given flavor for hit points can't affect and enhance your game. The morale twist is a new one on me. It seems to imply that the more hit point damage you take, the more subject to Intimidation.

Going further, using hit points as a kind of measure of morale, it would follow that Intimidation could either inflict damage itself or give its user damage bonuses-- their menacing demeanor allows them to chip away at enemy morale that much faster.

 

[Henry]

That's the Star Wars Vitality points and Wounds, essentially. I actually like the way Black Company does it better than the Star Wars VP/WP system, because you don't have VP, WP, and CON to track - if you hit 0 CON, you're dead.

 

[Skywalker]

However, I wouldn't make Massive Damage a reflection of morale-- Massive Damage should reflect the fact that nerves of steel do not, in fact, serve as armor.

Failing a Massive Damage save is essentially very bravely and calmly getting your head smashed in.

I agree with the addition that, as you loose all your HP if you fail Fort check on the MDT, the idea would be the hit lands, wounds and scares the crap out of the victim.

Going further, using hit points as a kind of measure of morale, it would follow that Intimidation could either inflict damage itself or give its user damage bonuses-- their menacing demeanor allows them to chip away at enemy morale that much faster.

Agree. However, I think this is factored to an extent into D&D weapon damage. For example, being hit by a gun is not much more harmful than being hit by an axe. However, most d20 games (IK included) give guns more damage to show their effectiveness. In the 15th Century, the real impact of guns was that they scared the hell out of most soldiers. Hence, the increased damage bonus.

Also look at the long sword versus the rapier. Both are capable of being deadly. However, the longsword was used to beat an opponent down, hence the higher damage. The rapier was used to cause injuries, hence the higher critical threat range.

To a certain extent these ideas also apply to other D&D weapons' damage. The scale actually works better if you acknowledge that it doesn't just track damage but also the weapon's ability to intimidate

 

[Skywalker]

That's the Star Wars Vitality points and Wounds, essentially. I actually like the way Black Company does it better than the Star Wars VP/WP system, because you don't have VP, WP, and CON to track - if you hit 0 CON, you're dead.

Sort of in that the mechanics are similar. However, I always viewed VP in SW to be dramatic immunity than "Morale". The mechanics are the same but the narrative spin is different. It may sound petty but I think have a clean understanding of mechanics can make the narration all that much better.