How do I explain the following to my players?

Hi, I have a couple of questions regarding how to narrate some actions to my players (I'm the DM). First, a warrior-type wearing fullplate is attacked by a wolf. I say to the player: The wolf bites you, take 5 damage. The player responds: I'm wearing fullplate, how can the wolf damage me with its bite, shouldn't the wolf take damage instead, destroying its teeth? I explain that the wolf managed to bite a soft spot, or inbetween the plate armour, etc. But this grows stale after several bites, the player naturally starts wondering why he is wearing that crappy armour which seems to be full of gaps and holes.

A similar situation: The warrior wearing platemail is attacked by a zombie. The zombie does a "slam attack" (what is a slam attack, btw, we treat it like a punch or similar attack) and damages the fighter for 8 hit points. Again the fighter asks: how can the zombie punch through my armour, is it a super-strong zombie? Looking at the zombie-stats I can tell that the zombie is not particularly strong, so I explain that the blow was not impressive from a physical stand-point. (The "natural" thing to do for the zombie would be to grab and simply overbear the fighter, draining his fatigue, undead are great in the sense that they can continue wrestling / marching / whatever all day without being fatigued.)

How do I explain (in narrative) the fact that the warrior is taking damage from attacks that would seem rather harmless?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Full plate is not a force field
Full plate does not cover every inch of your body
HP do not just represent physical damage, it include luck, endurance, resilience and the will to fight on

HP are an abstract system for dealing with combat which shouldnt be thought about too closely. If you are that concerned about simulating combat and damage then you may want to look at alternate options.
 

1) You tell the player that hit points aren't 'how much I can be hacked with a sword in my face'. They represent luck, morale, and skill at avoiding death.

2) One of the weaknesses of full plate armor is that bludgeoning weapons do bad things to it; namely, the tender flesh underneath the plates suck up the blow. So a wolf biting a man in full plate might bite his arm and then *squeeze*, which would still do damage, even if the teeth aren't rending flesh.

3) Ask the player if he thinks it's reasonable his non-magical weapons shatter when he attacks a monster with DR? After all, his weapon can't harm that impenetrable flesh, and the force has to go somewhere.
 

The wolf lunges at the plate-clad warrior, teeth flashing. Instinctively, the fighter steps back, and the glittering teeth snap shut inches from his face. The wolf's bulk crashes into the fighter, knocking him off balance. Struggling to regain his footing, the warrior realizes that another wolf has taken the edge of his cloak in its teeth and is trying to pull him backwards, into the hungry embrace of the pack.

* * *

The zombie lurches toward the fighter, reaching out hungrily with its pale, bloated hands. Grabbing the edge of the fighter's shield, the decaying undead abomination tries to pull the hapless warrior closer, in the process wrenching the fighter's shoulder badly and pulling him off balance. Panting heavily, the fighter raises his sword awkwardly to ward the monster off, noticing that its half-dozen undead companions are shambling toward him slowly, mindlessly--but inevitably.
 

Vicar In A Tutu said:
a warrior-type wearing fullplate is attacked by a wolf. I say to the player: The wolf bites you, take 5 damage. The player responds: I'm wearing fullplate, how can the wolf damage me with its bite, shouldn't the wolf take damage instead, destroying its teeth? I explain that the wolf managed to bite a soft spot, or inbetween the plate armour, etc. But this grows stale after several bites, the player naturally starts wondering why he is wearing that crappy armour which seems to be full of gaps and holes.
Well, your explanation is just about the only sensible one (that I can think of right now.) At the same time, the complaint is valid.

Armour as DR (with some other house rules) ftw. YMMV, etc.


The warrior wearing platemail is attacked by a zombie. The zombie does a "slam attack" (what is a slam attack, btw, we treat it like a punch or similar attack) and damages the fighter for 8 hit points. Again the fighter asks: how can the zombie punch through my armour, is it a super-strong zombie? Looking at the zombie-stats I can tell that the zombie is not particularly strong, so I explain that the blow was not impressive from a physical stand-point. (The "natural" thing to do for the zombie would be to grab and simply overbear the fighter, draining his fatigue, undead are great in the sense that they can continue wrestling / marching / whatever all day without being fatigued.)
Firstly, it's again a valid concern. I suppose zombies could be supernaturally strong in certain ways, but not in others, insomuch as it might affect damaging or killing the living. Also, the HP damage could be of the bruised, concussed, shocked, etc. kind. But I can see the problem with (stat-wise) average Strength, or at least not spectacular Str.

I tend to make zombies rather strong and tenacious in the first place. Again, YMMV, etc.


Lastly, in any situation, HP loss won't necessarily represent being wounded or otherwise physically damaged. It's usually pitched as a combination of things, as per suggestions in the core books and elsewhere. This is a matter of taste, and practioality, depending on what base system you might be using, and what house rules, if any.
 

Also, would your friend want to take a .357 bullet to the chest while wearing a bulletproof vest?

After all, he would be wearing armor. It couldn't possibly hurt him....
 

Wolfspider said:
Also, would your friend want to take a .357 bullet to the chest while wearing a bulletproof vest?

After all, he would be wearing armor. It couldn't possibly hurt him....
Take the calibre down some notches though, and it mgiht start to look similar.

But even then, good point. The threat of being wounded is a pretty scary one - understandably, as it doesn't necessarily take much (impact, say.)
 


Vicar In A Tutu said:
How do I explain (in narrative) the fact that the warrior is taking damage from attacks that would seem rather harmless?

Hey guys, since you all want to be simulationist whiners, I brought GURPS.
 

Charwoman Gene said:
Hey guys, since you all want to be simulationist whiners, I brought GURPS.

Heh!

But yeah, they kind of need to just accept that that's how D&D works: with a good enough roll, anyone can hurt anyone regardless of their armor. That the wolf can hurt them also means that, at some point, they'll be able to slice big chunks out of a dragon that normally wouldn't even blink at one of their sword blows.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top