It's a comic book reference- kind of a public "Yep." that appeared on the letters pages when you caught an error of some kind, usually one that would be extremely hard to notice.
Salvageable Innovations from 4e for Nonenthusiasts
- Thread starter Redbadge
- Start date
It's a comic book reference- kind of a public "Yep." that appeared on the letters pages when you caught an error of some kind, usually one that would be extremely hard to notice.
pawsplay
Hero
No-Prize - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I hung around until well after The Force Unleashed saw print. I was there to kvetch about cantina aliens not being statted in the Rebellion era book. I'm sure you came up with a version that was satisfying to you; if you share it, I'll be happy to shred and burn it for you.
pawsplay
Hero
Specifically, for pointing out a particularly troubling continuity error, than supplying an explanation for why it was not a continuity error at all.
Whether Smaug was old or not, I now feel we must contact Peter Jackson and have Him recast the voice talent for that fearsome beast with Donald Trump.
Celebrim
Legend
"They're certainly terrible for emulating Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings stories, in which Bard kills Smaug with a single arrow, Legolas kills a fell beast in the night with a single arrow, the Witch King of Angmar dies from one stab from a lowly hobbit and a follow-up by Eowyn, etc."
Smaug
Bard's black arrow is part of the inspiration for the Arrow of Slaying.
Additionally, in game terms, Bard seems to cast some sort of spell on the arrow prior to firing it when he bargains with the arrow and reminds it how well he has treated it and honored it.
Additionally, Tolkien appears to be using some sort of called shot/critical hit mechanic; see 'Good Hits and Bad Misses' from Dragon Annual #4 (IIRC) . They are also a standard feature in 3e.
Legolas vs. Fell Beast
It's difficult to know how many hitpoints a fell beast has, but 1e terms it's unlikely to be that many given that a Balor is only 8+8 HD. Morevoer, it's a flying creature with a burden. IIRC my flying rules correctly, Legs only has to deal a fraction of its damage to 'bring the creature down' that he needs to do to kill it. A sufficiently wounded flying creature must land even if it isn't dead, and even one that is not yet dead will crash if wounded sufficiently. And again, we mustn't overlook the possibility that Tolkien is a very forward looking DM and using critical hits.
In 3e terms, this is even more easily explainable as the maximum damage of reasonably optimized 3e characters is enormous compared to CR of their level.
Merry & Eowen vs. A Wraith
This only is a problem if you think the Witch King isn't a Wraith. Wraiths after all have only 5HD, and an average of 23 h.p., so its not at all impossible for two mid-level characters to take one down in two blows.
If Merry is a 6th level rogue and Eonwen is a 5th level Cavalier, which seems reasonable for the power level of the campaign, then Merry is doing a triple damage backstab in this scene with a dagger +1 that appears from the text to have some sort of enchantment that is especially effective against undead. It's concievable that with a good roll depending on the enchantment involved that Merry can kill the Witch King with that blow alone, and certainly some have read the text that way. Eonwen as a shield maiden of the King presumably has a +1 broadsword, a bonus for cavalier training and possibly a 16 STR, so I'd think that even if we don't over think this the average damage of both hits is more than sufficient to explain the death of the Wraith.
Personally, I think from the text the Witch King seems to also have been acting under some sort of curse, the terms of which reduced all damage from male humans to the Witch King to zero, but which greatly enhanced (doubled?) the damage to the Witch King from females and non-humans (thus ensuring the terms of the prophecy). If that is the case, it remains easy to explain the death of the Witch King even if he's an advanced Wraith of 8-10 HD.
Smaug
Bard's black arrow is part of the inspiration for the Arrow of Slaying.
Additionally, in game terms, Bard seems to cast some sort of spell on the arrow prior to firing it when he bargains with the arrow and reminds it how well he has treated it and honored it.
Additionally, Tolkien appears to be using some sort of called shot/critical hit mechanic; see 'Good Hits and Bad Misses' from Dragon Annual #4 (IIRC) . They are also a standard feature in 3e.
Legolas vs. Fell Beast
It's difficult to know how many hitpoints a fell beast has, but 1e terms it's unlikely to be that many given that a Balor is only 8+8 HD. Morevoer, it's a flying creature with a burden. IIRC my flying rules correctly, Legs only has to deal a fraction of its damage to 'bring the creature down' that he needs to do to kill it. A sufficiently wounded flying creature must land even if it isn't dead, and even one that is not yet dead will crash if wounded sufficiently. And again, we mustn't overlook the possibility that Tolkien is a very forward looking DM and using critical hits.
In 3e terms, this is even more easily explainable as the maximum damage of reasonably optimized 3e characters is enormous compared to CR of their level.
Merry & Eowen vs. A Wraith
This only is a problem if you think the Witch King isn't a Wraith. Wraiths after all have only 5HD, and an average of 23 h.p., so its not at all impossible for two mid-level characters to take one down in two blows.
If Merry is a 6th level rogue and Eonwen is a 5th level Cavalier, which seems reasonable for the power level of the campaign, then Merry is doing a triple damage backstab in this scene with a dagger +1 that appears from the text to have some sort of enchantment that is especially effective against undead. It's concievable that with a good roll depending on the enchantment involved that Merry can kill the Witch King with that blow alone, and certainly some have read the text that way. Eonwen as a shield maiden of the King presumably has a +1 broadsword, a bonus for cavalier training and possibly a 16 STR, so I'd think that even if we don't over think this the average damage of both hits is more than sufficient to explain the death of the Wraith.
Personally, I think from the text the Witch King seems to also have been acting under some sort of curse, the terms of which reduced all damage from male humans to the Witch King to zero, but which greatly enhanced (doubled?) the damage to the Witch King from females and non-humans (thus ensuring the terms of the prophecy). If that is the case, it remains easy to explain the death of the Witch King even if he's an advanced Wraith of 8-10 HD.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there's mental gymnastics going on to attempt to justify just how simulationist hit points are.
I like hit points. I use hit points (two different versions, in fact) in my game. I prefer hit points to various other mechanics I've seen (although my experience is admittedly limited).
However, it seems odd to me to say "hit points work well when you use them unconventionally." I mean, things like "the dragon might have only 15 hit points" could simulate the dragon effectively, if the dragon has a way to reduce damage that only a specific called shot would bypass.
However, that's a very unconventional use of hit points. So much so, that I'd say that while it's still using a hit point mechanic, it's much, much different from the proposed assumptions of what people are referring to when they comment on hit points being poor at simulating certain things.
Additionally, pointing out that certain things might bypass hit points (crit charts, arrows of slaying, etc.) just goes to show that hit points might need to be bypassed for certain things to be simulated.
Now, I don't know the rules on the Star Wars game being discussed, but if there was some type of homebrew chart for whenever you failed saves, took damage in any way, had your defenses bypassed by a certain amount, etc., you took an additional effect that was bad for your character, might that solve the problem? I mean, if there's a rule that "if anyone fails a save by 5 or more, they're unconscious or dead, depending on the attack" then all of a sudden we're looking at things differently.
To me, that's about what I get out of this conversation when people say "well, the dragon might have 15 hit points" or "the arrow completely bypassed this supposedly simulationist mechanic" or "there might be a critical hit chart that exceeded what the normal results are."
Again, I like hit points, and I do prefer them. But it still seems like there's some mental gymnastics going on in defending them on this point. I do think they can be used to simulate things very well, I just don't think they're quite as flexible as some others in the thread do. Now, that doesn't mean I'm saying anyone is wrong. This is just my opinion, based on my views of things. I'll personally continue to use hit points to simulate the type of scenes I prefer seeing.
As always, play what you like
I like hit points. I use hit points (two different versions, in fact) in my game. I prefer hit points to various other mechanics I've seen (although my experience is admittedly limited).
However, it seems odd to me to say "hit points work well when you use them unconventionally." I mean, things like "the dragon might have only 15 hit points" could simulate the dragon effectively, if the dragon has a way to reduce damage that only a specific called shot would bypass.
However, that's a very unconventional use of hit points. So much so, that I'd say that while it's still using a hit point mechanic, it's much, much different from the proposed assumptions of what people are referring to when they comment on hit points being poor at simulating certain things.
Additionally, pointing out that certain things might bypass hit points (crit charts, arrows of slaying, etc.) just goes to show that hit points might need to be bypassed for certain things to be simulated.
Now, I don't know the rules on the Star Wars game being discussed, but if there was some type of homebrew chart for whenever you failed saves, took damage in any way, had your defenses bypassed by a certain amount, etc., you took an additional effect that was bad for your character, might that solve the problem? I mean, if there's a rule that "if anyone fails a save by 5 or more, they're unconscious or dead, depending on the attack" then all of a sudden we're looking at things differently.
To me, that's about what I get out of this conversation when people say "well, the dragon might have 15 hit points" or "the arrow completely bypassed this supposedly simulationist mechanic" or "there might be a critical hit chart that exceeded what the normal results are."
Again, I like hit points, and I do prefer them. But it still seems like there's some mental gymnastics going on in defending them on this point. I do think they can be used to simulate things very well, I just don't think they're quite as flexible as some others in the thread do. Now, that doesn't mean I'm saying anyone is wrong. This is just my opinion, based on my views of things. I'll personally continue to use hit points to simulate the type of scenes I prefer seeing.
As always, play what you like
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
Hit points aren't the best system for tracking wear and tear, but as a DM I haven't found a better system that hasn't involved tearing my hair out in frustration keeping track of multiple enemies.
More complicated systems work for players since they're usually tracking one individual, but it's not really reasonable to expect DMs to track such detailed systems. And not having the system apply on both sides of the screen can be really, really unfair.
More complicated systems work for players since they're usually tracking one individual, but it's not really reasonable to expect DMs to track such detailed systems. And not having the system apply on both sides of the screen can be really, really unfair.
I agree with you on that - Gygax probably downplayed it for legal reasons. But, balrog/balor; ents/treants; hobbits/halflings; enmity between dwarves & elves; etc. No mistaking the influence.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
Time to fork the thread yet? 
Getting into which influences were primary, secondary and tertiary without having the man or his contemporaries & foresighted around is probably pretty futile work.
For every Ent or Hobbit, there is an Ioun stone or the basic style of casting & memorizing spells. For the emnity twixt dwarf & elf, there is also the struggle between Order and Chaos. Then there are all the things lifted from Wonderland, Eurasian myths & fairytales, and even the Bible.
The man was a cunning homage artist, borrowing liberally from a myriad of sources...and usually only the best from them besides.
