D&D 5E People are Squishy (Abstract combat).

[karolusb]

One of the arguments I keep seeing in regards to current damage scaling is it doesn't give enough love to the greataxe. And I do get it, but I don't agree. This is not a new problem in gaming it plagues tons of modern games, arguably has been in dnd for a long time as well.

Modern games of course make for easier comparison. in the real world people are squishy, in most games they are tough. The toughness is pretty much never a belief that physics works differently, or that humans have woven carbon nano-tube skin in this game setting (well occasionally, but those people tend to be extra tough), it's purely a narrative device. At the same time we like to give lip service to physics, and rate things in the game world based on some perception of real world capability.

Sadly when you combine the two you get bad rules. Real world (Marshall studies, so disputed and a tad archaic) the center mass take-down on a 9mm on a human target is 47%, for a 44 magnum it is 53%. The 9mm is putting out 326 ft/lbs of energy, the 44 mag 760 ft/lbs. In most games (shadowrun, palladium etc., not d20 modern as it works out) the 44 would be doing ~3 times as much damage as the 9mm. A bit generous in terms of kinetic energy, and completely unreasonable in terms of actual take-down rates.

How does this get back to next? Simple combat is abstract, and hit points are not marble hard skin. In the real world the guy hit with the Arming Sword is going to drop about as quickly as the guy hit with the Danish Ax, which is to say quickly, people are squishy (unlike firearms I don't have actual data on these, I am just guessing). If we take the force of blow as the standard for damage than we are not modelling heroic luck and battle prowess with our hundred hit points, we are instead saying that people are hard as stone, and mining picks should be the best weapons.

 

[LightPhoenix]

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't seem to understand the point you're making. I've attempted a reply, but I apologize if I've misunderstood something and hope for clarification if that's the case.

Sadly when you combine the two you get bad rules. Real world (Marshall studies, so disputed and a tad archaic) the center mass take-down on a 9mm on a human target is 47%, for a 44 magnum it is 53%. The 9mm is putting out 326 ft/lbs of energy, the 44 mag 760 ft/lbs. In most games (shadowrun, palladium etc., not d20 modern as it works out) the 44 would be doing ~3 times as much damage as the 9mm. A bit generous in terms of kinetic energy, and completely unreasonable in terms of actual take-down rates.

It's not necessarily unreasonable, if you consider that the amount of damage needed for a take-down is constant. This has been modeled in D&D as an attack doing over a certain amount of damage requiring saving throws versus death.

How does this get back to next? Simple combat is abstract, and hit points are not marble hard skin. In the real world the guy hit with the Arming Sword is going to drop about as quickly as the guy hit with the Danish Ax, which is to say quickly, people are squishy (unlike firearms I don't have actual data on these, I am just guessing). If we take the force of blow as the standard for damage than we are not modelling heroic luck and battle prowess with our hundred hit points, we are instead saying that people are hard as stone, and mining picks should be the best weapons.

Except that I don't think in any edition of D&D has the pick ever been the best weapon. Nor does that take into account that a piercing blow to the shoulder is less severe than lopping it off with a sword or axe, for example. In point of fact, the average difference between a d6 and a d10 is only 2 points of damage - practically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not sure of the point that you're making here, but it seems to be that characters should be squishier. In which case, I say don't bother playing D&D period. I don't think there's a single edition of D&D that has ever treated the players as anything less than heroic in combat. If you want a more realistic damage system, play another game, because the "stoniness" of characters is pretty much a defining characteristic of Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I do not "keep seeing" the need for greataxe love -- can you post some links to help provide context, please?

The current weapon list has a lot of overlap, and it's not fully differentiated. But it's hard to see any direct relevance to your bullet analogy, unless you just want, "yes, hit points are abstract".

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think it's about modeling any sort of experience, I think it's a purely game-related a need for option differentiation.

I mean, we could make a game where all attacks deal 1d6 damage because people are squishy. It was good enough for OD&D and BD&D! But it's fun to use different weapons to embody different attack strategies, so getting a level of granularity on the weapons is good.

 

[S'mon]

@OP - I agree with your point, but note that the 47%/53% are averages across a range of opponents. High caliber handguns were developed because with an unusually tough opponent the difference does not stay at 9%, it widens out dramatically; the 9mm's chance of stopping the target might drop to 20% while the .44 Magnum stays over 50%.

Edit: Anyway, I think the 4e weapon damage numbers work pretty well. If anything the low-end numbers are a bit too low, it seems weird that a dagger does no more damage than a brick.

 

[Dozen]

...In the real world people are squishy, in most games they are tough. The toughness is pretty much never a belief that physics works differently, or that humans have woven carbon nano-tube skin in this game setting (well occasionally, but those people tend to be extra tough), it's purely a narrative device. At the same time we like to give lip service to physics, and rate things in the game world based on some perception of real world capability.
...
How does this get back to next? Simple combat is abstract, and hit points are not marble hard skin. In the real world the guy hit with the Arming Sword is going to drop about as quickly as the guy hit with the Danish Ax, which is to say quickly, people are squishy...If we take the force of blow as the standard for damage than we are not modelling heroic luck and battle prowess with our hundred hit points, we are instead saying that people are hard as stone, and mining picks should be the best weapons.

There are two things we can dispute in this reasoning. You are right, a good blow from both a greataxe and an arming sword will kill most people, possibly on the spot, therefore the hit point system comes off as kind of weird. By this logic, the amount of damage shouldn't be relevant, since everyone should just fall over dead when hit. But as you apply real life physics to a game(which is quite silly), you have to apply D&D rules to reality(equally silly). You didn't consider that most people today, D&D-wise, are 1-3th level Experts, then a couple of Commoners and Rogues, sprinkled with a few Aristocrats and Warriors - we're hardly the epitome of hit points. And, in our world, nobody advances beyond the equalient of 4-7 levels. Ever. It just can't possibly happen. The amount of progress in experience a real person can make over the course of a lifetime is severely limited compared to game characters. No matter how hard a time you're having, you won't walk out of it as a hero from Greek epics.

But why can characters do that when we can't? I mean, aside from how the game isn't supposed to make sense in this regard, because we're looking for answers. Well, can't say I have an undisputable one, but I'd explain it to my players with the plot device which explains pretty much everything: Planescape philosophy.

In case you never played that campaign setting, the main premise of it can be summed up as 'Want makes right'. Faith shapes every world, every plane. Just by believing in something, it can, under the right circumstances, become real. Now, there is a philosophy(the followers of which are called Godsmen), which dictates becoming a deity and beyond should be a lifegoal. Only Godsmen are actively pursuing godhood, of course, but widely known and accepted as a fact that a mortal can become one of them by following the path to power. All creatures have heard the stories about mortals completing tasks, living through hardships and overcoming overwhelming odds, emerging as immortal, powerful beings as a result. Heracles, Vecna, Zagyg - these objects of worship are role models for the creatures of this world.
And the belief of all these mortals ensures the world will give a fair chance to everyone.
Thus, when a character reach a certain level of experience and skill - when they achieve power, thoughness, tenacity, wile and luck that should be out of their league - they cease to be everyday people. They cannot be killed by one meager swing of a mundane weapon. Not a single, lone mortal being poses real threat to them, thus they aren't completely mortal, not anymore. They are better because next to everyone around expects someone like them to be better. They are on the path of gaining a divine rank. They are now heroes.
One of them could very well turn out to be the next god in a century.

So, what do you think? Fair enough?

 

[LostSoul]

I agree with the OP. Abstract combat should stay abstract.

I don't use abstract combat in my game; you say what your PC does, and then we resolve that. Because of that I dropped weapon-based damage dice. Damage isn't based on weapon size, it's based on the deadliness of your attack. A dagger can deal "a killing blow" or a "bruise or scratch", depending on what your PC is actually doing.

 

[Dozen]

... I dropped weapon-based damage dice. Damage isn't based on weapon size, it's based on the deadliness of your attack. A dagger can deal "a killing blow" or a "bruise or scratch", depending on what your PC is actually doing.

The amount of damage that can be dealt, however, is another story, which is what weapon dice represent. With a larger weapon, the hit covers a bigger area, thus not focusing the damage into one small point, and the more the weapon weighs, the more leverage you have to put into the blow to attack effectively. If it worked the way you imagine, heavy weapons would lose their only advantage, rendering them useless, and everybody in history would have used the fastest, tiniest skunkstabber they could find to fight each other. You can rip through me from chest to guts with a dagger all you want, I'm not going to die instantly unless you hit something important, if I suspect right and I'm lucky enough to have 4+ hit points. I'm still going to bleed out painfully without medical attention, but that's another story. There's a woman whose neck was held together by less tissue than Nick's in Harry Potter, but still survived because her spine was intact. Don't mistake critical hits and sneak attacks for the average.

 

[karolusb]

Now to clarify, I am not saying we shouldn't have abstract hit points, or that people should be squishy in games (though I think there are games that do a ok job of having squishy people without multiple character deaths a game). I am also not advocating for all weapons to do the same damage (though it would make some measure of sense with abstract hit points). Merely saying that conflating force of blow with damage produces an odd disconnect from real and historical sources that serves relatively little benefit.

Yes humans can rise to the powers of the gods, but Conan never survives having a greataxe split his head in twain, he always ducks out of the way. The greataxe is not relevantly more deadly to Conan than a dagger. But a named foe is substantially more dangerous than a faceless horde, and the named foe is not rendered irrelevant based on his weapon choice. In the real world I have never seen a .50 caliber handgun outside of a display case, in games, in my own experience, they are far more common than 9mm. I mean who didn't use the 14mm pistol in fallout, how common are light pistols in shadowrun, when was that last time you saw a D&D fighter with a short sword (Rules Cyclopedia probably) etc..

I don't want DND Next to be another version of the game where everyone wields a fullblade (I am prone to hyperbole of course, not literally everyone uses one choice, but take a look at the weapons wielded by 20 random Living Greyhawk characters, it's going to be a very short list by class. . .) . I don't want 20th level damage to be so intimately tied to the weapon choice that people who make it 'wrong' might as well go home. I am perfectly comfortable with weapon choice amounting to only 6% damage at 20th level, and skill being a far bigger factor. I think once you define hp as "not hardness" than damage needs to be "not force".

Several examples of the greatXXX not getting love can be found in this thread (along with many other corners of the internet):

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...n-this-Packet-is-Totally-Out-of-Control/page4

At 20th level, currently a fighter's damage is W + 6d6 + say 2d8 fire + 28 (+20 fighter damage bonus, +5 strength, +3 weapon). The non-weapon part averages to 58 + W. If W is d4 = ~3.5 for a dagger at the low end, and d12 = ~6.5 for a greatsword or greataxe, that means at level 20 the proportion of damage done by the weapon choice itself vs overall is 4.1% for the dagger and 10% for the greataxe. Meaning your entire character's look, feel, and iconic presentation to the world, the other players, the enemy...is worth 6% from the littlest to the biggest weapon. What...the...#@!@#. That SUCKS

 

[Dozen]

Yes humans can rise to the powers of the gods, but Conan never survives having a greataxe split his head in twain, he always ducks out of the way.

Hit points represent more than just the amount of wounds the body can sucker up before you keel over. It's also part skill and 'heroic luck', as you refer to it. Over time in a fight, your luck runs out and you get tired if you focus on avoiding attacks instead of just relying on your armor and instictive didgy-dodgy.