A few D&D irregularities

Remove all ads!

Does it really matter? If you dont like the system, don't use it! Use that Pathwanderer-stuff... Please, we already know you don't like it, stop naggin'!

(no flame/insult/attack meant. I just think we've had enough of these posts already. No need to repeat yourselves)

 

Anyone finding, or would like to see D&D as a realistic system should get their heads screwed on straight. It's a game where you can actually whack the evil guys (due to the nature of good and evil in this world), a spectacle, a show. Just relax and enjoy.

Actually I'm quite thankful for all the nonsense things in D&D, good reminders for people to get that it is, just a game.

 

Anyway, like Lokken said, it is just a game, so what's the big deal with this?

If you don't like the whole HP thing, just don't use it, create other rules for that.

You can change the rules if you're the DM you know.

 

Swordaliser,
Quote: So how come it takes weeks of rest to recover from being "worn down, battered and bruised"?

This is a fair question but it’s not hard to work around it. Work out the *percentage* of a character’s hps that one night of bed rest recovers according to the PC’s level e.g. one night’s rest (8 hrs. sleep = 1 HP recovered) which for a 1st level character with 10 HP is 10% recovered. As the rules state, if you get rest in a comfortable bed as opposed to on a dungeon floor, and you rest for 24 hrs. per day, you recover more hps e.g. 3 per night as a minimum, which would be at least 30%. If the PC is being tended by someone with the optional Healing proficiency this is further increased and if the nurse also has Herbalism, it is increased still further. With healing handled this way, it’s clear that in 24 hours rest, a warrior, being tended, could recover half his hps in one night, without any spells whatsoever. With various point bonuses for high constitution (such as allowing a +1HP recovered per HP cons. bonus) recovery would be even quicker.

Remember that being on full hps means not having so much as a bruise. A kick to the thigh from a troll probably gives one hell of a dead leg, and to expect your PC to recover sufficiently to fight again without even a limp, in less than a couple of days, would be unrealistic.
This percentage method enables characters of any level to recover at precisely the same rate, no matter how many hps they have.

Quote: ”My point about levelling up was more to do with the fact that a high level priest couldn't have, say, normal hit points but a great store of spells, he has to have improved combat abilities as well. Same for mages”

This is a more valid point but I would say that it’s fair to expect an adventuring mage to be well able to whup a normal person even in a hand-to-hand fight, on the basis of confidence, combat experience *and* practice. Perhaps you overestimate the combat abilities of normal folk and underestimate the combat requirements of the adventurer.
Here’s a scenario to illustrate how the rules enable mages to be so physically tough. A high level mage with 50 hps (i.e. a lot) is pitted against a werewolf. This monster would typically, in the movies, kill a normal person practically at once. It does 2-8 damage per attack with 1 attack per round. Without armour, the mage would be crashing about the room trying to stab the werewolf as it leaps to bite his throat out. It needs only a 5 or more to hit AC 10 so the chances are the mage will be taking some damage *every* round – which means he is nearly killed but manages to avoid death (and instead get grazes, cuts and bruises as he crashes around, dodging each savage attack). He sustains an average of 4 hp damage per round. At this rate, it’s believable for the mage to survive a ten-minute fight, taking 40 or so hps damage, in which he managed to fend it off until he got his hands on his wand and blasted the werewolf, or his warrior friends arrived to despatch it or whatever. He ends the fight exhausted and bloody, on only 10 hps.
This same fight, for the toughest possible normal human with 8 hps, would see him killed in only two or three minutes and possibly in the first round e.g. round one, the beast leaps for his throat. [Your strongman would still be a normal human with no more than 8HP. Only adventurers can have levels.] He crashes to the ground with the beast tearing into his flesh, his hands trying to push its head away. He takes 6 hps of damage and manages to scream once for help. Round two: the man wins the initiative and manages to scramble to his feet; he tries to run for the door but the werewolf leaps onto his back and he falls. Before he is even able to scream again, the beast sinks its teeth into the back of his neck and he’s dead (with 3 damage on 2d4). Comparison: heroic mage of high level e.g. Gandalf, has a monumental fight of several minutes that he survives because of his years of adventuring in which he has had many occasion to run like the wind, dive and roll and stab desperately at eyes and throats, and seen many foes, much more terrible than a single werewolf, despatched to hell. He’s seen warriors make moves that would defy the belief of normal men and through these things, learned a thing or two about survival – hence his 50 hps.

If this scenario can work for a mage, it’s even more likely to be so for the priest, who is an active warrior. Priests are well capable of fighting, hence their weapon options and ability to wear armour, not to mention their combat spells.

In my campaigns, priests *do* command a great deal of respect, but also, I keep the numbers of high level priests down. As it would really be, most acolytes are normal folk. Only the big leader of a church in a particular region is capable of casting raise dead, and he or she is often away adventuring. Thus, adventurers must either keep their own priest alive to do such spell casting or travel a long way with their dead bodies and be prepared to pay a lot!

 

I guess it goes the same way then. If you don't like my posts, don't read them! Read that Oaz's stuff... Please, we already know you don't like them, stop naggin'!

Provide a point or don't post, some people seem to enjoy these debates.

Fun it may be, but I believe it could be more fun, or that something else is more fun, because I don't feel the need to complain about an unrealistic rule while playing them.
Hit points are all fine and all, but they should be made less, and instead have other things which show whether you get out of the road in time of the speeding arrow. It may be fun in its present form, but that doesn't mean it can't be better.

 

Well, there is another factor in seeing if you dodge an arrow: AC.

But if you wanted to make it more believable, why not add a third factor in? Or a fourth one? If you prefer to run it that way, then you have every right to do so if you're the DM.

Obviously, once this happens, other issues (which are just as serious) such as game balance and game complexity come up. Maybe the third and fourth factors are too favorable to Fighters and Wizards. Or maybe everyone is tired of making extra rolls. Now the fun starts to decrease a bit.

The point I'm making here is that you'll have to find some happy medium between making everything super-believable and everything easy to run. In my opinion, D&D is my happy medium.

Besides, I don't mind at all a little unrealism. If you can deal with flying tentacled orbs or Enchanters flinging fireballs, why bother complaining about HP?

If it's not broken, don't fix it. Don't reinvent the wheel. You get the idea. Or maybe you don't and D&D isn't for you. Whatever you enjoy.

 

Oaz, just for the record, the one doesn't necessarily follow the other. The monsters are accepted as a given in a fantasy setting. Within that setting, it is reasonable to expect the real-world laws of physics to apply, which is the basis for the argument about the 'realism' of the hp concept.

To all: Since hps clearly can't sensibly be interpreted as Swordaliser did, I would suggest the interpretation I have given is the 'correct' one.

 

@ keldor: " Since hps clearly can't sensibly be interpreted as Swordaliser did, I would suggest the interpretation I have given is the 'correct' one."

You seem to have mistaken my intention when commenting on hp - i wasn't stating that they are physical wounds, quite the opposite, i was stating how impossible it was for them to be physical wounds! i was commenting on the fact it is clearly wrong for hp to represent actual damage due to no penalties on low hp and the vast amounts characters have. i was merely stating that they are treated in almost all aspects of the RULES as if they are... and how the designers don't seem to have a clear picture of what hp represents. if they are the ability to avoid damage, DEX should increase them not CON. If they are some kind of luck or experience, fine, but how come they take weeks of NATURAL ( not magical, i wouldn't expect to need magic to cure a "dead leg") rest to recover.

I'm not suggesting you take the rules at face value, im pointing out how the designers give clearly misleading signals as to what things represent. As D&D is the "public" face of roleplaying, i think it should be accessible without being overcomplicated, but roleplaying is all in the mind. if i can't imagine a situation ( my fighter is on low hp) clearly, or the same as the DM, its going to be confusing and no fun.

 

Actually, if you look into some other books (like Fiend Folio), a lot of the monsters or things in there are just plain weird. I can think of at least one aspect of the Core Books that defies real world physics or other hard sciences (like how does a Roc fly?).

But like I said, I just try not to worry too much about it. Call me a sheep if you will.

 

Hit points are quite messy. They signify both how much you can take and how well you can avoid getting hurt. A bit as though automatically assuming a level 10 fighter will take scratches while a commoner would get killed outright. Sort of. You need a damn good hit (critical) to inflict a serious wound. Low level folks are meat. One swing and goodbye, sucker.

It's still beyond me how a level 10 wizard could be as good a fighter as level 5 ranger, barbarian or paladin - or fighter who has spent some of his lot of feats in a not-so-uber way.

 

What makes you think that an equal BAB will make him as good a fighter?
First of all, he cannot use martial weapons or armor unless he taken several feats.
Second he does not have class abilities to enhance his melee abilities.
Third he has fewer hitpoints by far.
Finally, even if he spends all his feats on combat abilities, the melee classes will still have better combat specific feats, unless the fighter is an idiot.
He may be able to swing a staff as well as a fighter half his level can swing a sword, but in a straight-up melee he'd still be hard-pressed to win.

 

Thats why wizards have spells.

But on this matter, it's just a GAME, where you have fun, regardless if follows all physical laws.

 

We all know it is just a game! Understand that! You do not need to tell us! But then, seeing as that that seems to be the central part of your argument, I suppose you don't have much else to go by

Some people can suspend their disbelief better (which makes for a more enjoyable GAME) if things are more realistic. Are thay not there to have fun too?

 

The Beast Within, that's why I so specifically stressed the "unless" part

Hit Points only matter when you actually get hit. Feats only matter when you're able to use them. For example cleave isn't really all that useful in one vs one combat. As a rule, a level 10 character will have access to better items than a level 5 character, and a few times as much gold to spend. If the wizard has dexterity high enough, he wouldn't wear above light armour, anyway - so the fighter gains no advantage here.

Then, if we don't limit to purely physical melee, the wizard has several spells such as shield that can protect him. Then goes bull's strength, cat's grace etc etc.