Well, you see, not wanting to buy the DMG is new to me.
OK, I didn’t buy the 3.5 DMG either, but that’s different. (^_^)
I suspect one could indeed discuss 2e accurately without the DMG. But that’s neither here nor there, really.
Disappointed in 4e
- Thread starter WarlockLord
- Start date
Well, you see, not wanting to buy the DMG is new to me.
OK, I didn’t buy the 3.5 DMG either, but that’s different. (^_^)
I suspect one could indeed discuss 2e accurately without the DMG. But that’s neither here nor there, really.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
By divorcing morale from hit points? Like how in 3E, there were levels of fear. Now granted, it was a little too simplistic, and it'd be nice if there were added rules/modifiers, like a penalty on rolls/saves if injured (the bloodied state of 4E), as well as triggers for morale checks when certain events happen (like an ally getting dropped). I've been thinking about instituting such thingsi n my games, if only to enforce "fear" on the PCs outside of casting the fear spell. Of course, this would result in taking some control out of the players' hands and telling them, "that huge ogre just killed 6 soldiers in one round, you're scared." Such things are always controversial...
Tangent aside, both examples -- bloodied condition causing penalties and seeing allies fall force a morale check -- are related to the hp system, without hp becoming a sort of measure of bravery. I wouldn't mind something like that in the rules, but I don't like the idea of hp directly reflecting morale.
It looks like I need to clarify my point, which is that hit points either went too far -- or didn't go far enough -- in divorcing themselves from physical damage. They hold an untenable middle ground between representing physical damage and representing luck, divine favor, etc.
If warriors were trees, and great warrior were trees with thick trunks, then hit points would model physical damage nicely. You chop, chop, chop away, until you chop through, and the tree falls. But warriors aren't trees. In real life, physical damage doesn't slowly accrue. People don't ablate. In real life and in adventure fiction, one hit often takes out a great warrior -- and sometimes dozens of hits don't.
I think we all agree that hit points currently represent physical toughness plus all kinds of intangibles -- luck, divine favor, plot protection, what have you. In fact, hit points seem to represent primarily those intangibles, since we know characters don't double and triple in their physical toughness against sword wounds as they gain experience.
So we have a bit of a paradox in our model. We act as if hit points are physical toughness, and they should be lost to "damage" from "hits" with attacks that cause injury, but they clearly represent something else entirely. And now that they can be "healed" by inspiring words and the like, we have to wonder why they can't be lost to "damage" from uninspiring words, or harsh language.
But the rules still treat them as physical injury, at least when they run out, which leads to silly results if we allow intimidation to cause "damage" -- because scared warriors should flee the field, not keel over disabled or dead.
So some people would recommend splitting hit points into two buckets -- wounds and vitality, for instance.
But another way to look at it is to ask why hit points are still associated with physical toughness and wounds at all. If they really are intangible "can still fight" points, why not use them for anything and everything that keeps you in the fight, not just withstanding physical damage from physical hits? After all, those "hits" doing "damage" may or may not be hits doing damage, if we accept that hit points represent luck, etc.
Why not roll toughness into AC, or split AC into one value for avoiding hits and one for withstanding hits, and let hit points be used to modify die rolls? If you narrowly dodge a poisoned arrow, that's using up a few points to boost your AC -- via extra effort or divine favor. Then we'd know you weren't hit. If you take a hit in a barroom brawl, and spend a few points to stay standing, we know you were hit, but not seriously hurt. And very little changes mechanically.
Indeed. Read the realistic combat thread for some good examples of that.
But can't we define overcoming AC to mean landing a good shot in the right place? If you didn't have years of D&D experience under your belt, and someone explained what AC was, wouldn't you assume that overcoming AC meant landing a telling blow? Otherwise, why is armor making you harder to "hit"?
Last edited:
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Grazzt
Demon Lord
I believe Hyper- has it.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Please find any quote that suggests that hit point damage is not always at least partially physical damage and you will have demonstrated that this stupid concept has been a part of D&D since the beginning.
Otherwise, please stop blaming Gary for 4e's faults.
RC
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
This.
No these French were veteran soldiers, most contential armies would have opened fire at 200 yards, though not usually with Fireballs
, though case shot is a good substitute and there were used to that so no extra intimidate check allowed, if I was DM'ing it. 
As Hypersmurf says above the DM
For that matter, I always have had the opposite problem with fireballs. If you take significant fire damage from a fireball, how are you still able to fight with heavy burns and why don't you die from blood poisioning due to infections of the burns. In every edition I have had to ignore that to make the game work for me. And it has always helped to regard hit points as something not entirely physical.
Not entirely clear what you mean here, but;
Splitting AC in to 'hard to hit' and 'withstanding hits' is pretty much what WHFRP does, There is no AC as such but each character has a percentile chance to hit and then if successful toughness + armour is subtracted from damage.
On the spend hit points to evade damage, well is that not what we are currently doing?
