Do the Game Rules Replace Physics, or Are They Just a Way to Adjudicate Actions

[Doug Lampert]

I think the best quick approximation I've seen for falling damage is to say that a character falling takes 1dX damage, where X is the number of feet you fall. Jumping deliberately or landing on a soft surface subtracts a certain fixed amount from this.

So if you fall 10 feet, you take 1d10 damage. Fall 30 feet, you take 1d30 damage. Fall 500 feet, you take 1d500 damage.

This makes falling much more scary, while still allowing for the freak cases where someone falls off a building and walks away with only a bruise. You can put in a terminal velocity cap as well if you're a physics geek.


You know, I don't mind this system too much. It's realistic (Which is what I assume people are going for) and it makes jumping an actual risk. I wouldn't actually use it myself but if a DM really wanted to change the falling rules I'd suggest this.

Ditto. I wouldn't say it's realistic, but it's better than what we've got for realism. I also wouldn't use it as I see no REASON to change the falling rules, but if I did that would work. Max out at 1d500 for terminal velocity and you are "close enough", and still potentially lethal to any reasonable non-epic character without magic.

Thing is, high level characters would still jump down 100' cliffs or towers and know they were safe baring death by massive damage (which is in the current system), and at 49' you're safe from massive damage, so it doesn't actually fix the alleged problem of superhuman heroes being able to survive such falls.

[Math_Mage]

That assumes you take 6th level as the top level of human. I don't. I assume that the average level of commoners in the world is 2-4.

You may need to recalibrate your expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). I mean, you must have heard the common refrain that D&D is a superhero game past level 10 (at the latest). Did it occur to you that this might be how the game is actually set up? That 1st-level characters with the average array might the basis by which to compare with reality? The falling damage rules seem unrealistic for high-level characters because high-level characters are unrealistic all around.

[The Cat Goddess]

Doesn't mean a PC shouldn't be allowed to successfully commit suicide if the player really wants it. Or would you seriously make a PC roll a CDG to kill themselves with a weapon?

The Samurai method of suicide translates as "the seven cuts". Why? Because, for a sufficiently mentally and physically tough person it takes more than just stabbing yourself in the gut to die. The reason for a "second" standing at the ready is not to kill the Samurai if he can't do it himself... it's to kill the Samurai if he starts to cry out from the pain, because that would be shameful.

There have been people stabbed in the eye who didn't die (bad angle, not deep enough, pure luck, etc.). There have been people who've had iron bars slammed through their brain and they didn't die.

It's been said in this thread before... there have been people who have survived terminal velocity falls. There have been people who have walked away from 100 ft falls.

Why are you complaining that a D&D character can do these things? Why is it so "unrealistic" to you that a man who can punch down a brick wall, cleave an oaktree in a single swing of a handaxe or make a standing jump over an 8' high barrier should say to himself "I can walk away from a 100 foot fall" and make the jump?

[Terraoblivion]

Except, you know, they had a guy to cut their head off. And that both seppuku and harakiri means "cutting the belly" or "belly cutting" and not "the seven cuts". For that matter a stab to the gut without sufficient treatment is pretty much guaranteed to be fatal, just not immediately instead yielding a slow, painful death of infection and organ failure.

[Math_Mage]

I think my biggest issue is that I don't have a problem fluffing the ability to not die from lots of melee attacks. I have been to fencing tournaments and met people who were nigh impossible to hit. Who could defeat ten foes in succession and only get a handful of touches against them.

Since skill in D&D doesn't translate very well into high AC, there's no real Parry mechanic, and even with a great AC, you get hit 5% of the time, I can accept that highly skilled fighter is represented by having a boatload of HP, and they reduce the attacks to scratches, bruises, near misses, etc. Cyrano couldn't survive multiple swordthrusts to the spleen, but he could pretty much avoid most of the damage form those attacks, turning a thrust that would have killed a lesser man into a scratch, remaining fully effective as he's above 0.

A good way to play this is with the AC as DR variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm), and the Vitality and Wound Points variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm)--both of which you probably know about. It doesn't translate well to the main system.


I don't have an issue with this. A really good swordsman can do this, in D&D terms, soaking say 50-70 points of damage from multiple attacks and treating is as a few cuts and bruises and being a bit winded.

Again, this isn't how the main system plays it. Unrealistic? Perhaps. But someone who takes the same hits at level 1 and level 10 isn't dead one way and bruised the other because he's better at dodging. He's dead one way and bruised the other because his body is simply tougher. Dodging is represented by AC, not HP, and the two aren't linked unless you play with the above variant.

Consider that under the D&D rules, Einstein, the 30-year-old level 5 Expert, could survive falls and sword stabs he couldn't take at 20 as a level 2 Expert. In D&D, leveling makes your body tougher. This is one point where the game world simply departs from reality, and realizing that isn't metagaming in any negative sense.

[valadil]

Why are you complaining that a D&D character can do these things? Why is it so "unrealistic" to you that a man who can punch down a brick wall, cleave an oaktree in a single swing of a handaxe or make a standing jump over an 8' high barrier should say to himself "I can walk away from a 100 foot fall" and make the jump?

Because D&D characters have trained for certain things. Swinging weapons and jumping walls are some of those things. If they get crazy good at those, okay. They don't train for falls off a cliff. (And yes I'm aware of parkour or stunt men. I feel that tumbling after a 20' drop is a different skill than landing after a 500' one would be).


The trouble with trying to make a rules model to cover the ONE recorded person in history who survived a 33000' drop is that it's simply far too fine a granulation for a roleplaying system to define. Unless you want to start modelling after FATAL and rolling D10,000,000? No? I thought not. First rule of good rule modelling: never try to model a whole system on one data point at the extreme, because it will usually be anomolous. I would hate to even guess the amount of people who have been killed falling at terminal velocity, and I bet it's huge compared to the number than have survived.


D&D attempts to model the real world. It stretches at times and it introduces fantasy. But it's still a model. Its level of detail varies depending on your focus. D&D is focused on combat and magic. Falling off cliffs just isn't worth a lot of effort to model. It looks like the designers went with an elegant rule for falling damage rather than something would be accurate. For a rule that doesn't come up often, having something quick and memorable makes sense. Nd10 damage, where N is tens of feet fallen is one such rule. The developers of the game did not mean to imply that the ground is softer or that gravity is weaker, such that you could fall and survive. They wanted a quick and dirty rule that usually worked.

If my players started cliff diving because they knew they could, that to me would indicate that the model needed more focus on falling damage. I'd change the model to better represent what it is that the players are doing. So far, the best rule I've seen is Saph's 1dN suggestion where N is the number of feet dropped. It's easy to remember, survivable, but also brutal.

To get back to the original question, I still say the game rules do not replace physics. They try to model it. In some places they work well. In others they don't. There are certain optimizations (and no, I'm not talking CharOps) where the model is made easy to run or game friendly rather than accurate. I maintain that a game that focuses on those corner cases that are not well ruled do in fact need better rules, rather than a departure from reality. However I recognize that that's just my opinion (and the opinion of everyone I've ever gamed with) and it's perfectly valid to run a game that goes by the book.

I think I'm done with this thread.

[Mr.Moron]

Because D&D characters have trained for certain things. Swinging weapons and jumping walls are some of those things. If they get crazy good at those, okay. They don't train for falls off a cliff. (And yes I'm aware of parkour or stunt men. I feel that tumbling after a 20' drop is a different skill than landing after a 500' one would be).


What if the PCs are pirates? Would that count as training for falling? I've got it on good authority that they can fall a million feet to the ground but survive because they're pirates! :smallcool:

[Mystic Muse]

What if the PCs are pirates? Would that count as training for falling? I've got it on good authority that they can fall a million feet to the ground but survive because they're pirates! :smallcool:

Bah. Ninjas can survive a septillion foot fall because they're ninjas.

[Math_Mage]

D&D attempts to model the real world. It stretches at times and it introduces fantasy. But it's still a model.

Fair enough. But there are gross differences between the D&D model and the real world that are simply inherent to the game. Increasing HP each level is one of those things, and it's the real culprit here. Falling damage is a bit player when compared to the spontaneous toughening of your body after casting Color Spray at a few dozen goblins.

So I suppose the real question is, why are we houseruling 500' falls to insta-gib when surviving such falls at high levels is an inherent feature of the D&D universe, rather than either accepting the universe as-is or trying to fix the broken feature (HP at level-up)?

Imagine what would happen if we instituted the Armor as DR variant for good, dropped the HP bonuses, and put together AC bonuses by level. You would end up with something much closer to reality--falls still kill, but a skilled fighter wins by parrying blows (or turning hits into scratches) rather than surviving 10 swords in his back (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4076/4768249182_6103459520.jpg).

I'm sure there are a hundred balance issues with such a system, most of them related to casting. But the point is that if you want D&D to model reality, you need to fix D&D.

[Gametime]

There have been people stabbed in the eye who didn't die (bad angle, not deep enough, pure luck, etc.). There have been people who've had iron bars slammed through their brain and they didn't die.



On that note, pulling a Gage is a great in-character excuse to start acting like a total jerk.

[Mike_G]

Again, this isn't how the main system plays it. Unrealistic? Perhaps. But someone who takes the same hits at level 1 and level 10 isn't dead one way and bruised the other because he's better at dodging. He's dead one way and bruised the other because his body is simply tougher. Dodging is represented by AC, not HP, and the two aren't linked unless you play with the above variant.



I'm gonna have to disagree on this one.

If dodging were strictly represented by AC, then increasing in Fighter levels should grant an AC bonus. A more experienced Fighter is simply better at dodging or parrying than an inexperienced one. The only mechanic that D&D provides for a 10th level Fighter to survive a blow that would kill a 1st level Fighter is that he has more HP. Since we need to assume he's better at avoiding blows, and the only mechanical representation we have is HP, then HP must be, at least in part, the ability to dodge or parry, at least enough to turn a thrust (for say, 18 damage) that would have gone clean through the heart of a novice (W 1, with 6 HP) into a scrape along the ribs that breaks skin, so poison can enter, but doesn't pierce any organs.

Or do you really think that a 5 HP wound, which will drop Farmer Jones in his tracks, is a solid blow to the head for everybody, just that PC heads are harder?

[Malificus]

Consider that under the D&D rules, Einstein, the 30-year-old level 5 Expert, could survive falls and sword stabs he couldn't take at 20 as a level 2 Expert. In D&D, leveling makes your body tougher. This is one point where the game world simply departs from reality, and realizing that isn't metagaming in any negative sense.

are you sure Einstein was level 5 when he was 30? Perhaps he reached that point after taking aging penalties and bonuses.

[Mystic Muse]

Or do you really think that a 5 HP wound, which will drop Farmer Jones in his tracks, is a solid blow to the head for everybody, just that PC heads are harder?

Given that 200-250 tons only deals 4d8 damage +strength modifier, I'd say yes. Higher level PCs are JUST THAT TOUGH.

In a game I was playing, a PC took 17 damage from two thrown axes. The DM fluffed it as hitting the PC square in the face despite the fact that the PC had more than enough health to survive the attack. Higher level PCs are just that tough.

[Math_Mage]

I'm gonna have to disagree on this one.

If dodging were strictly represented by AC, then increasing in Fighter levels should grant an AC bonus. A more experienced Fighter is simply better at dodging or parrying than an inexperienced one. The only mechanic that D&D provides for a 10th level Fighter to survive a blow that would kill a 1st level Fighter is that he has more HP. Since we need to assume he's better at avoiding blows, and the only mechanical representation we have is HP, then HP must be, at least in part, the ability to dodge or parry, at least enough to turn a thrust (for say, 18 damage) that would have gone clean through the heart of a novice (W 1, with 6 HP) into a scrape along the ribs that breaks skin, so poison can enter, but doesn't pierce any organs.

Or do you really think that a 5 HP wound, which will drop Farmer Jones in his tracks, is a solid blow to the head for everybody, just that PC heads are harder?

You can fudge together a fluff solution. But then you run into problems with things like...well, falling damage, which treats HP damage strictly as how hard your head is.

You will notice that I suggested granting an AC bonus as a variant rule. Maybe I posted while you were writing yours.

EDIT:

are you sure Einstein was level 5 when he was 30? Perhaps he reached that point after taking aging penalties and bonuses.

I base my estimate on the analysis in this essay (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html), which I previously posted. Since Einstein's most famous accomplishments were produced when he was 26-37 (1906-1916), I chose age 30 as a nice round number. But if he didn't reach level 5 until he was 60 years old, how much more unrealistic would it be for him to suddenly be able to survive falls that would have killed him in his younger years? That just exacerbates the problem.

[Zeful]

You can fudge together a fluff solution. But then you run into problems with things like...well, falling damage, which treats HP damage strictly as how hard your head is.

No it doesn't. One could describe the same 200ft fall three or four different ways, each accounting for things like Luck, Divine Intervention and Toughness (which are factors in HP along with morale). This game really doesn't have any form of HP damage which is treated solely as toughness.

[Ashiel]

No it doesn't. One could describe the same 200ft fall three or four different ways, each accounting for things like Luck, Divine Intervention and Toughness (which are factors in HP along with morale). This game really doesn't have any form of HP damage which is treated solely as toughness.

Guy 1 is under the effects of a hold person spell, bound, gagged, soverign glued and tied to a stake. He's a real person. He's only a 3rd level expert, and he's a tough as nails fellow that has been around the block.

Guy 2 is the same. He's a 20th level fighter. He's got more hit points than a block of solid steel three feet wide; otherwise more or less the same; except he has been chewed in a dragon's mouth while it was using its breath weapon that's capable of melting the aforementioned solid steel block; and he didn't get a reflex save to avoid it because that's how the Snatch feat works.

Guy 3 is angry and has a battleaxe. Guy 3 coup de graces both of them. Guy one takes 22 points of damage and dies on impact; taking the axe squarely aimed in his throat. Guy 2 however takes the axe just the same, and muses to himself on the inside that while this hurts pretty damn bad, at least he doesn't have to smell dragon breath while his captor is playing lumberjack with his throat.

EDIT: So go play E6 already and stop trying to make out like it doesn't work that way, because it DOES. This is what D&D is like. This is how D&D has always been. High level play means you take that axe and you keep smiling while all those other warriors are bleeding on the floor.

The system is wonderfully realistic for the levels where things are comparable to reality; but when you've pushed past reality, realism doesn't phase you, because you're not real; you're legend.

[dgnslyr]

Watch Advent Children. It's the only thing I can think of that has anything close to 20th level characters in. Look at how little respect they have for gravity. Because they know they can take that fall in stride.

Umm, do you know ANYTHING about Final Fantasy? Even JRPGs in general? Because it's a well known fact that the protagonists can survive falls of indefinite height, though the only time you can take advantage of it is when it's scripted. Or have you seen a Dragoon jump? They jump off the screen and stay in the air long enough to pass up a turn, and then slam down. All without magic.

And I wouldn't say that they were anywhere near 20th level. FF has a weird power curve that doesn't translate well to DnD; high level characters may be able to invoke powerful, primal magic that turns dragons into confetti, but still can't climb up a smallish ledge, kick down a locked door, or threaten a shopkeeper.

[Math_Mage]

No it doesn't. One could describe the same 200ft fall three or four different ways, each accounting for things like Luck, Divine Intervention and Toughness (which are factors in HP along with morale). This game really doesn't have any form of HP damage which is treated solely as toughness.

There are ways to mechanically represent factors other than toughness in a fall--Jump and Tumble rolls, modifiers for landing on something soft, and so on. When a 17th-level Fighter reliably survives a fall of any distance, it's not luck or constant influx of the divine that keeps him from dying. It's not morale that preserves his spleen. It's how tough his body is, how hard his head is. If that is not the case, then there is so much luck involved, or so much divine intervention, that discussion of physical practicality is fruitless.

EDIT: And Ashiel brings up a good point. When walls of steel have hit points, does that imply that they survive blows thanks to luck, morale, or divine intervention? How about their skill at dodging or minimizing blows?

[awa]

Think about fort saves as well a high level charecter with mettle is basical immune to real world poisons and diseases.

how about the xill implant attack where an ally needs to cut out the eggs how is he avoiding the damage of having the egg cut out of him? http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/xill.htm

how do you dodge a belkir riping you apart from the inside out.

A number of other excellent examples were already put forward and i wont bother repeating them here.

[PersonMan]

EDIT: And Ashiel brings up a good point. When walls of steel have hit points, does that imply that they survive blows thanks to luck, morale, or divine intervention? How about their skill at dodging or minimizing blows?

When attacking steel, you never actually hit a vital organ. The HP it loses are its stamina wearing down. The final hit actually does real damage.

Also, everyone knows that steel's morale is great. No matter what, it never surrenders.

[Zeful]

EDIT: So go play E6 already and stop trying to make out like it doesn't work that way, because it DOES. This is what D&D is like. This is how D&D has always been. High level play means you take that axe and you keep smiling while all those other warriors are bleeding on the floor.

By your logic then, a 5hp wound on a level 1 commoner is directly equivalent to a 5hp wound on a level 20 fighter. Quite frankly that's stupid, because that means that any HP after 14 or so is worthless because the wounds inflicted don't change in lethality across levels.

My logic has some problems, mostly around HP on inanimate objects, but quite frankly it's a non-issue for me because I don't expect the single most badly written system in gaming to model anything approximating a "real" world.

[Math_Mage]

By your logic then, a 5hp wound on a level 1 commoner is directly equivalent to a 5hp wound on a level 20 fighter. Quite frankly that's stupid, because that means that any HP after 14 or so is worthless because the wounds inflicted don't change in lethality across levels.

Wrong. Let's up to 15 for illustration. A 15hp wound on a commoner equates to cutting his head off at the neck. A 15hp wound on a Fighter 20 equates to hitting his neck and maybe getting through half an inch of flesh. The Fighter 20 is just that tough. That's what Ashiel is getting at, I think.


My logic has some problems, mostly around HP on inanimate objects, but quite frankly it's a non-issue for me because I don't expect the single most badly written system in gaming to model anything approximating a "real" world.

And HP damage on characters exposed to environmental effects, to falling damage, to poison, to internal damage (see awa's post)...and why? What is the massive benefit of treating HP as an oddball mix of sometimes-applicable luck/divine intervention/morale as well as inherent toughness of body?

[Optimystik]

I'm not sure whether this was mentioned yet, but Rules Compendium actually had a short sidebar discussing falling damage and the metagaming that could result. I'll just post it for discussion's sake.



DANGEROUS FALLS
Falling in D&D has always been a simplified business. The maximum of 20d6 points of damage goes back to the earliest edition of the game. The 3e rules allow Tumble and Jump checks to negate some damage, and make the first 10 feet deal nonlethal damage for deliberate jumps, but the rule has essentially remained the same for 30 or more years. Players have a tendency to metagame this limitation, deliberately having their characters hurl themselves from great heights to save time, confident that they’ll survive the fall.

My husband, Chris, developed a rather complex system for falling, in which the d6 rolls don’t represent absolute damage but a proportion of total hit points. A result of 6 requires a reroll for the possibility of a broken bone. Modifiers apply for special circumstances, such as landing on a soft or sloping surface (reducing damage), landing on a jagged surface (increasing damage), or falling into water. DM discretion might adjust these guidelines. This house rule requires more calculation but does put the fear of heights back into the game: A 15th-level fighter and a 1st-level commoner have the same chance to be hurt by a great fall.

—Jennifer Clarke Wilkes, editor


I thought it was interesting that falling damage is a 30-year old legacy rule, yet WotC left it alone anyway (and in fact made it easier to deal with in 3e via deliberate jumping, Tumble etc.)

[Heliomance]

Umm, do you know ANYTHING about Final Fantasy? Even JRPGs in general? Because it's a well known fact that the protagonists can survive falls of indefinite height, though the only time you can take advantage of it is when it's scripted. Or have you seen a Dragoon jump? They jump off the screen and stay in the air long enough to pass up a turn, and then slam down. All without magic.
Right. So if it doesn't break immersion that they can do it, why should it that a high level D&D character can? Incidentally, it's entirely possible to optimise jump checks enough to imitate a Dragoon. The rules say that if you move more than your movement with a jump check, you have to finish the movement next turn.


And I wouldn't say that they were anywhere near 20th level. FF has a weird power curve that doesn't translate well to DnD; high level characters may be able to invoke powerful, primal magic that turns dragons into confetti, but still can't climb up a smallish ledge, kick down a locked door, or threaten a shopkeeper.
That's not a weird power curve, that's a railroading DM.

[Aotrs Commander]

To get back to the original question, I still say the game rules do not replace physics. They try to model it. In some places they work well. In others they don't. There are certain optimizations (and no, I'm not talking CharOps) where the model is made easy to run or game friendly rather than accurate. I maintain that a game that focuses on those corner cases that are not well ruled do in fact need better rules, rather than a departure from reality. However I recognize that that's just my opinion (and the opinion of everyone I've ever gamed with) and it's perfectly valid to run a game that goes by the book.

I think I'm done with this thread.

That's exactly what I been trying to get at, only phrased with less meandering.

No sets of rules handles corner cases very well, because all rules have to be abstracted, and eventually, the abstraction breaks down a bit. The question is whether it breaks in down far enough to matter.

I personally consider falling rules to be one of the corner cases, but one who prevalence is sufficiently rare that I have not as of yet seen the need to fix it.


You may need to recalibrate your expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html).

Or not, since I've been playing 3.x that way for the last ten years (along with all the other people I play with.) You can play D&D with the assumption your are superheroes past level ten, or can play it with the assumption that superhero level is more like 20 or Epic. Either is equally valid.

I cannot recall in my quest in the last ten years anyone falling more than about 80', nor any incidents of lava. As these two tiny aspects of the rules (which I think are game constructs of simplicity, not accurate modelling) are the ones primarily which break a more "realistic" versimilitude, I have not felt the need to alter them. If I did, I'd simply up the damage (or in the latter case, simply tell the PC. "Dude. You fell in lava. If you're not immune to fire, you dead, regardless of your hit points.") But I do not consider two niche cases to define the whole system. As that's just as valid, given D&D's level of overall abstraction, as not.


I'm not sure whether this was mentioned yet, but Rules Compendium actually had a short sidebar discussing falling damage and the metagaming that could result. I'll just post it for discussion's sake.



I thought it was interesting that falling damage is a 30-year old legacy rule, yet WotC left it alone anyway (and in fact made it easier to deal with in 3e via deliberate jumping, Tumble etc.)

Thank you for that, I didn't recall that. Interesting indeed.

Mind you, WotC left massive damage alone too, despite the fact they'd basically doubled everything's hit points.

[Psyx]

It would be much easier to read if you could use the quote function, please? :smalltongue:

It's far too new-fangled technology. /grumble.

[Mike_G]

You guys do realize that page 145 of the actual PHB includes "the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one" as part of HP? It even says "Even of you have lots of Hit Points, a dagger through the eye is a dagger through the eye." The fact that it includes the ability to avoid damage rather than just soak it is why you do more damage to the guy who'd held/sleeping/unconscious.

[Heliomance]

And yet, at high levels, you can coup de grace a guy who's helld/sleeping/unconcious and he'll survive it.

[Gan The Grey]

And yet, at high levels, you can coup de grace a guy who's helld/sleeping/unconcious and he'll survive it.

Just as much as you can do that at low levels, and just as much as you could do the same at low and high levels and they'd die.

[The Rose Dragon]

Just as much as you can do that at low levels, and just as much as you could do the same at low and high levels and they'd die.

At low levels, you're less likely to survive both the damage and the Fortitude save a coup de grace will cause. At high levels, you might have a Fortitude save high enough that you can only fail on a roll of, say, 3 or lower, and you're probably not going to be bothered by the damage.

[Merk]

I'm pretty sure there was a passage in the Epic Level Handbook that said something to the effect of "Any epic level fighter worth his salt can survive at least a few rounds completely submerged in lava". So, if a player of mine had enough HP to reliably take a dip into a lava pool knowing that it wouldn't be fatal, I'd allow it as long as they come up with an explanation (they know they're tough, they're reckless, they think it's a hot spring, etc.) As long as their IC response isn't "20d6 damage < 150 HP" then it's cool.

[Gan The Grey]

At low levels, you're less likely to survive both the damage and the Fortitude save a coup de grace will cause. At high levels, you might have a Fortitude save high enough that you can only fail on a roll of, say, 3 or lower, and you're probably not going to be bothered by the damage.

I'm not really familiar with the CDG rules, but can't you power attack? 4x crit weapon?

Hell, Great Axe +3 with no other enchants on a PAing fighter with 20 strength.

3d12 +9(weapon) + 21(strength) +15(PA) = Average 56 damage = DC 66 Fort

That damage is regardless of attacker's level. That's no paltry save.

Even a 20th level fighter, 20 con, +5 resist item, +5 from somewhere else...has to roll a 20 to get that. I'm sure you could optimize your Fort save, but that's a 20 level fighter. What about the other classes?

Maybe I'm doing my math wrong somewhere, but me thinks you underestimate the power of CDG.

[Friend Computer]

Consider that under the D&D rules, Einstein, the 30-year-old level 5 Expert, could survive falls and sword stabs he couldn't take at 20 as a level 2 Expert. In D&D, leveling makes your body tougher. This is one point where the game world simply departs from reality, and realizing that isn't metagaming in any negative sense.
Under the rules, a 5th level expert with average constitution will have anywhere from 5 through to 30 hit points. So to say that is a little disingenuous.

[jseah]

Under the rules, a 5th level expert with average constitution will have anywhere from 5 through to 30 hit points. So to say that is a little disingenuous.
You mean 3 to 18 hp more than a level 2 expert. It's a comparison.

That's 3d6 more hp. Or about 1.5 greatsword hits.

[The Rose Dragon]

3d12 +9(weapon) + 21(strength) +15(PA) = Average 56 damage = DC 66 Fort

If you're gonna power attack, why stop at only sacrificing 7.5 of your BAB (how do you even manage that?). Go all the way with 20 of it with a 40 power attack damage. On the other hand, you're putting a supernaturally powerful attacker as the executioner, if you can power attack for that much, which requires a level of at least 7.5 (no, seriously, how?). At that point, the attacker is a superhero. Superheroes can beat other superheroes.

[Gan The Grey]

If you're gonna power attack, why stop at only sacrificing 7.5 of your BAB (how do you even manage that?). Go all the way with 20 of it with a 40 power attack damage. On the other hand, you're putting a supernaturally powerful attacker as the executioner, if you can power attack for that much, which requires a level of at least 7.5 (no, seriously, how?). At that point, the attacker is a superhero. Superheroes can beat other superheroes.

Lol! Every time I read this I can literally HEAR you asking me how I got this number.

Great Axe is x3 crit. I chose the numbers I chose because it doesn't take a very high level character to do that much damage.

I'm thinking, 8th level fighter taking out a sleeping level 20 fighter.

[Ashiel]

If you're gonna power attack, why stop at only sacrificing 7.5 of your BAB (how do you even manage that?). Go all the way with 20 of it with a 40 power attack damage. On the other hand, you're putting a supernaturally powerful attacker as the executioner, if you can power attack for that much, which requires a level of at least 7.5 (no, seriously, how?). At that point, the attacker is a superhero. Superheroes can beat other superheroes.

Pretty much what I was going to say.

It shows that normal people and normal things do not normally hurt the extraordinary in meaningful ways. In my last example, there is literally no way for the characters in question to dodge; being magically held immobile, glued to the stake, tied, etc, etc. The normal executioner guy with +2 strength wielding a battle-axe with 2 hands (1d8+3), instantly kills the 3rd level expert in a single coup de grace before he could even roll a fortitude save (22 damage vs 10 hp); while he slams the 20th level fighter for the same, and the fighter shrugs it off; wondering if the spell might wear off soon so he could rip the post out of the ground and kill the low-level executioner with the pole.

That's not DODGING. It's specifically impossible to dodge. There are attacks that are impossible to dodge. Like the aforementioned internal damage; which you can survive by virtue of having high hit points.

Yes, I generally describe attacks as glancing blows, or more staggering hits as the game progresses; but you can only go so far before you say "Ok, well you were completely immobile and just took a blow that also happened to level the stone walls around you". Because you at higher levels, a D&D fighter makes Hercules look like a lightweight.

[valadil]

So I suppose the real question is, why are we houseruling 500' falls to insta-gib when surviving such falls at high levels is an inherent feature of the D&D universe, rather than either accepting the universe as-is or trying to fix the broken feature (HP at level-up)?


(I thought I was done with this thread. I guess I was wrong. Boring day at work today.)

Because 500' falls are the most prevalent example. I have no intention to read through D&D and look for broken abstractions and corner cases to fix. I'll play it as written until my players find something that doesn't work. If they exploit it, I'll try and patch up the rules.

For all intents and purposes (by which I mean for my intents and purposes) this thread was full of players jumping off cliffs just because they could. They chose to focus the game on an area the developers did not expect. Since the players are putting so much focus on cliff landings, I'd like to write up less abstract rules for those.

My take on the game is that it's kinda like a fractal. You can calculate the general shape of it. Zoom in and you can recalculate that area. You can zoom in as far as you want and keep increasing the resolution. But you can't fit it all on one screen at the same time. When the players focus on falling off cliffs, I write better rules to handle that. While they're doing it, the rules for drowning are completely broken, but I don't give a damn because it's not affecting play.

[Gan The Grey]

Pretty much what I was going to say.

It shows that normal people and normal things do not normally hurt the extraordinary in meaningful ways. In my last example, there is literally no way for the characters in question to dodge; being magically held immobile, glued to the stake, tied, etc, etc. The normal executioner guy with +2 strength wielding a battle-axe with 2 hands (1d8+3), instantly kills the 3rd level expert in a single coup de grace before he could even roll a fortitude save (22 damage vs 10 hp); while he slams the 20th level fighter for the same, and the fighter shrugs it off; wondering if the spell might wear off soon so he could rip the post out of the ground and kill the low-level executioner with the pole.

That's not DODGING. It's specifically impossible to dodge. There are attacks that are impossible to dodge. Like the aforementioned internal damage; which you can survive by virtue of having high hit points.

Yes, I generally describe attacks as glancing blows, or more staggering hits as the game progresses; but you can only go so far before you say "Ok, well you were completely immobile and just took a blow that also happened to level the stone walls around you". Because you at higher levels, a D&D fighter makes Hercules look like a lightweight.

Actually, even in that situation, if you use my 20 fighter example from above, he still has a 25% chance to fail and flat out die. 22 damage is DC 32. And hey, it was fairly common for executioner's to need to take multiple whacks at someone before they cut through the head. Maybe he hits a bone on the first smack and bounces off. Maybe........

And of course actually toughness comes into player here, hence the fort save.

[Heliomance]

Fine. Take a first level rogue with a dagger as the executioner. With the fighter immobilised, the rogue has plenty of time to line up a nice angle and slide the dagger directly into his heart. And he does (1d4+strength)x2+1d6 damage, give him 12 strength, that's an average of about 10 damage. From someone that had all the time in the world to shove a knife through your heart. Gives a DC25 fort save. How are you rationalising the 20th level fighter surviving that?

[The Rose Dragon]

Great Axe is x3 crit.

OK, then you power attack for an extra 5 damage, which means you need to sacrifice 2.5 of your attack bonus. How do you manage that?

((You may have forgotten that you deal bonus damage equal to double the attack bonus sacrificed when power attacking with two-handed weapons. It's an easy mistake to make.))


From someone that had all the time in the world to shove a knife through your heart. Gives a DC25 fort save. How are you rationalising the 20th level fighter surviving that?

It's not easy to stab someone in the heart. There is that pesky ribcage in the way, after all. It's much easier to slit someone's throat.

[Gametime]

Umm, do you know ANYTHING about Final Fantasy? Even JRPGs in general? Because it's a well known fact that the protagonists can survive falls of indefinite height, though the only time you can take advantage of it is when it's scripted. Or have you seen a Dragoon jump? They jump off the screen and stay in the air long enough to pass up a turn, and then slam down. All without magic.

...Isn't that the point he was making? That Final Fantasy characters exhibit physics-smashing physical prowess? (Admittedly, in very limited ways, but still.)


And I wouldn't say that they were anywhere near 20th level. FF has a weird power curve that doesn't translate well to DnD; high level characters may be able to invoke powerful, primal magic that turns dragons into confetti, but still can't climb up a smallish ledge, kick down a locked door, or threaten a shopkeeper.

Final Fantasy characters can survive having the entire solar system destroyed, several times over. (Perplexingly, so can the solar system.) The guy who does that isn't even the hardest enemy they're likely to face. Their limited social interactions don't demonstrate limited social capabilities - only limitations of the games in which they appear.

[Heliomance]

OK, then you power attack for an extra 5 damage, which means you need to sacrifice 2.5 of your attack bonus. How do you manage that?

((You may have forgotten that you deal bonus damage equal to double the attack bonus sacrificed when power attacking with two-handed weapons. It's an easy mistake to make.))



It's not easy to stab someone in the heart. There is that pesky ribcage in the way, after all. It's much easier to slit someone's throat.

I can't imagine it's too hard when they can't move and you can take your time about it. But call it a slit throat, my point still stands.

[Optimystik]

World of Warcraft has falling damage scale with your level and stamina - perhaps too fast, in the opinions of many players.

I recall a popular joke among the playerbase - when some players were theorizing why falls became more fatal as they increased in level, a mage chimed in that all the conjured bread we ate on the way to level 80 stayed in our bodies and increased our mass :smalltongue:

[Gan The Grey]

Fine. Take a first level rogue with a dagger as the executioner. With the fighter immobilised, the rogue has plenty of time to line up a nice angle and slide the dagger directly into his heart. And he does (1d4+strength)x2+1d6 damage, give him 12 strength, that's an average of about 10 damage. From someone that had all the time in the world to shove a knife through your heart. Gives a DC25 fort save. How are you rationalising the 20th level fighter surviving that?

I claim Nirvana fallacy! Hey, man, not everything is perfect. My whole point was that high level characters aren't as protected from CDG's as people think.

And hey, maybe the fighter chin butted the dagger away, or woke up just in time to partially deflect it, or yelled and made the rogue jerk.


OK, then you power attack for an extra 5 damage, which means you need to sacrifice 2.5 of your attack bonus. How do you manage that?

((You may have forgotten that you deal bonus damage equal to double the attack bonus sacrificed when power attacking with two-handed weapons. It's an easy mistake to make.))

Doh. There it is. Yeah, I totally forgot. That just means that an even lower level character could do the job.

Neat. :smallsmile:

[The Rose Dragon]

Doh. There it is. Yeah, I totally forgot. That just means that an even lower level character could do the job.

Neat. :smallsmile:

A lower level character won't have a +3 Greataxe, though.

You don't really need a +3 Greataxe, either. But you do need a Greataxe. The same guy couldn't kill the same hero with a dagger instead.


And hey, maybe the fighter chin butted the dagger away, or woke up just in time to partially deflect it, or yelled and made the rogue jerk.

He is magically paralyzed. He cannot move at all. Or speak. How does he do all those things?

[Heliomance]

I claim Nirvana fallacy! Hey, man, not everything is perfect. My whole point was that high level characters aren't as protected from CDG's as people think.

And hey, maybe the fighter chin butted the dagger away, or woke up just in time to partially deflect it, or yelled and made the rogue jerk.


Nope. Helpless. Can't act at all.

[Ashiel]

And hey, maybe the fighter chin butted the dagger away, or woke up just in time to partially deflect it, or yelled and made the rogue jerk.

He can't. He's helpless, and is under the effects of a hold person spell; and specifically cannot move; and should that somehow fail, he's also tied up and glued to the post. Can't be too careful with these walking natural disasters we call heroes.

EDIT: Additionally, their ability to ignore a coup de grace also rises with their level based on heightened Fortitude saving throws; which along with HP represent increased durability.

People are jumping through hoops trying to justify high level play as gritty and semi-realistic; when it's not. It never has been. It never will be. It's not supposed to be. That sort of power level is back at 1st-5th.

[lesser_minion]

He's survived getting blasted in the face by a dragon's breath and getting chopped up by an ice giant's axe; a mere fall shouldn't even hurt much in comparison.

Happy?

He wasn't blasted in the face though, was he? He was attacked by a dragon's breath, and he survived it.

That's a very different thing.

I'll throw in a couple of pennies:

As far as I'm concerned, what the rules are saying when a character with 100 hitpoints takes 10d6 damage is that that attack had a 35% chance of killing him.

We use hitpoints as an abstraction to prevent players being killed by a lucky roll, but they don't correspond to anything more than "you had a 35% chance of dying, but I think rolling would be unfair, so I'll just assume you didn't die this time."

I have nothing against pulling out the percentile dice if players start to abuse that protection.

It's worth noting that the rules are extremely clear that a character gaining hitpoints as he gains levels is a result of them generally being luckier -- they saw the stab coming and it just scratched them this time round.

That's why the number of hitpoints you regain naturally is proportional to your hit dice -- it's not because you can keep fighting when you're missing both kidneys, your liver, most of your intestines, one arm, one leg, one eye, one nose, most of your lower jaw, and your larynx.

It's because a given threat isn't actually doing as serious an injury to you any more.

Don't define a light wound by "less than 13 damage", because that's not necessarily what it is. A light wound for a 13th level character is about that much. Not for anyone more powerful.


He can't. He's helpless, and is under the effects of a hold person spell; and specifically cannot move; and should that somehow fail, he's also tied up and glued to the post. Can't be too careful with these walking natural disasters we call heroes.

EDIT: Additionally, their ability to ignore a coup de grace also rises with their level based on heightened Fortitude saving throws; which along with HP represent increased durability.

People are jumping through hoops trying to justify high level play as gritty and semi-realistic; when it's not. It never has been. It never will be. It's not supposed to be. That sort of power level is back at 1st-5th.

Coup de grace is a combat action. It's only available when you're tracking initiative -- when there are several people currently trying to kill you. You're under a lot more pressure, and you might just screw things up.

Out-of-combat, an execution can -- and should -- fall squarely under "regardless of hitpoints, a dagger in the eye is a dagger in the eye".

[Gan The Grey]

He can't. He's helpless, and is under the effects of a hold person spell; and specifically cannot move; and should that somehow fail, he's also tied up and glued to the post. Can't be too careful with these walking natural disasters we call heroes.

EDIT: Additionally, their ability to ignore a coup de grace also rises with their level based on heightened Fortitude saving throws; which along with HP represent increased durability.

People are jumping through hoops trying to justify high level play as gritty and semi-realistic; when it's not. It never has been. It never will be. It's not supposed to be. That sort of power level is back at 1st-5th.

Beh, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. High level play is BORKEN. Hard core.

Alright then, if said fighter is as you say, he shouldn't have any of his pretties on him then. So, only a +12 from class and +5 from Con. Now he has to roll a 8 or better. Doable, but risky.

On another note, I'll stop being a jerk. :smallbiggrin: I have no problem with a high Fortitude saving throw representing increased physical toughness. That is LITERALLY, no ifs-ands-or-rears, exactly what it was designed to represent. HP is a little more vague.


He wasn't blasted in the face though, was he? He was attacked by a dragon's breath, and he survived it.

That's a very different thing.

I'll throw in a couple of pennies:

As far as I'm concerned, what the rules are saying when a character with 100 hitpoints takes 10d6 damage is that that attack had a 35% chance of killing him.

We use hitpoints as an abstraction to prevent players being killed by a lucky roll, but they don't correspond to anything more than "you had a 35% chance of dying, but I think rolling would be unfair, so I'll just assume you didn't die this time."

I have nothing against pulling out the percentile dice if players start to abuse that protection.

It's worth noting that the rules are extremely clear that a character gaining hitpoints as he gains levels is a result of them generally being luckier -- they saw the stab coming and it just scratched them this time round.

That's why the number of hitpoints you regain naturally is proportional to your hit dice.

Don't define a light wound by "less than 13 damage", because that's not necessarily what it is. A light wound for a 13th level character is about that much. Not for anyone more powerful.

Also, regarding coup de grace? It's a combat action. In combat, you have a lot more distractions to worry about -- it's hard to do properly.

A guy putting someone on a chopping block and cutting their head off is not handled by the same rules. The book recommends handling that situation using fiat -- i.e. if there's any way the attack could do damage at all, it's fatal, no questions asked.

On ANOTHER nother note, THIS. VERY VERY THIS.

[Gametime]

Coup de grace is a combat action. It's only available when you're tracking initiative -- when there are several people currently trying to kill you. You're under a lot more pressure, and you might just screw things up.

Out-of-combat, an execution can -- and should -- fall squarely under "regardless of hitpoints, a dagger in the eye is a dagger in the eye".

I'd support this interpretation, if only because any situation in which initiative is not required is a situation in which you are, by definition, unable to interfere in any way with the execution.

[Ashiel]

He wasn't blasted in the face though, was he? He was attacked by a dragon's breath, and he survived it.

That's a very different thing.
False. A dragon can actually bite you, pin you inside its mouth, and unleash its breath weapon on you and you get no save. That's how it happens. You can survive this by virtue of having a shiznikies load of hit points; which a high level fighter probably has.


Coup de grace is a combat action. It's only available when you're tracking initiative -- when there are several people currently trying to kill you. You're under a lot more pressure, and you might just screw things up.

Out-of-combat, an execution can -- and should -- fall squarely under "regardless of hitpoints, a dagger in the eye is a dagger in the eye".

I call BS on this one. If this were true, then no one could actually start a combat, because you have to be in combat to take a combat action. What kind of nonsense is that? Coup de grace is actually better taken outside of combat, since it provokes attacks of opportunity (likely due to the fact you're taking your time to strike a death blow).

Seriously; that has got to be the lamest reasoning I've seen for a while. I guess this actually means that adventuring just became a really safe profession; assuming you can get by the traps; because a monster cannot attack you, nor you it, unless it's combat! So if you're not IN COMBAT then neither of you can attack and initiate combat. It's brilliant. :smallamused:

[Gan The Grey]

I call BS on this one. If this were true, then no one could actually start a combat, because you have to be in combat to take a combat action. What kind of nonsense is that? Coup de grace is actually better taken outside of combat, since it provokes attacks of opportunity (likely due to the fact you're taking your time to strike a death blow).

Seriously; that has got to be the lamest reasoning I've seen for a while. I guess this actually means that adventuring just became a really safe profession; assuming you can get by the traps; because a monster cannot attack you, nor you it, unless it's combat! So if you're not IN COMBAT then neither of you can attack and initiate combat. It's brilliant. :smallamused:

I disagree. Somewhat because your tone is inappropriate in any sort of civil intellectual debate.

Moreso because lesser_minion's logic resonates with me in that nice, tingly sort of way. Like a fresh pouch of Pop Rocks, or that first sip out of a Dr. Pepper bottle. It's just...nice.

[awa]

i think vile darkenes had rules for executions wich used a skill check and if sucsesful resulted in instant death and if faliure was just a coup de grace

[Saph]

i think vile darkenes had rules for executions wich used a skill check and if sucsesful resulted in instant death and if faliure was just a coup de grace

It does. Under BoVD rules, a successfully performed execution means you are dead, full stop. If the executioner botches his Profession: Executioner check with his executioner's axe, it's "only" a CdG (which will still probably kill you - it's just messier instead of being a clean kill).

[Ashiel]

I disagree. Somewhat because your tone is inappropriate in any sort of civil intellectual debate.

Moreso because lesser_minion's logic resonates with me in that nice, tingly sort of way. Like a fresh pouch of Pop Rocks, or that first sip out of a Dr. Pepper bottle. It's just...nice.

How about this then.

Do you have to be "in combat" to take "actions in combat". The answer is no; because if you are not taking Combat Actions, then there is not Combat. "Attack" is a combat action. According to this logic, you cannot attack someone; unless you are in the heat of an already going combat.

Hence why it is faulty.

[Matthew]

Hence why it is faulty.

There is a specific passage regarding this:



Combat Actions outside Combat

As a general rule, combat actions should only be performed in combat—when you’re keeping track of rounds and the players are acting in initiative order. You’ll find obvious exceptions to this rule. For example, a cleric doesn’t need to roll initiative to cast cure light wounds on a friend after the battle’s over. Spell casting and skill use are often used outside combat, and that’s fine. Attacks, readied actions, charges, and other actions are meant to simulate combat, however, and are best used within the round structure.

[Gan The Grey]

There is a specific passage regarding this: + DMG STUFF

Yeah, I was gonna say, "Does the executioner need to roll Initiative before he chops off your head", but me thinks you put it most eloquently.

So. /ninja

[lesser_minion]

Do you have to be "in combat" to take "actions in combat". The answer is no; because if you are not taking Combat Actions, then there is not Combat. "Attack" is a combat action. According to this logic, you cannot attack someone; unless you are in the heat of an already going combat.

Wrong. You are in combat if the characters are acting in initiative order.

It's up to the DM to decide when the combat starts and ends, but the DM is explicitly not to allow combat actions outside of combat, because they represent things that usually happen differently when outside.


Hence why it is faulty.

No, you're forcing a definition on combat that isn't shared by the rules. I suggest you go back and read page 25 of the Dungeon Master's Guide.


And in any event, your hypothetical "held, bound, and gagged" scenario still falls under "best resolved by DM fiat". Not under "assume that a high-level character can survive having their throat cut, being disembowelled, etc, etc".

(This is obviously ignoring the fact that a character is unlikely to ever be taken to the block at full hitpoints).

[Ashiel]

There is a specific passage regarding this:


Attacks, readied actions, charges, and other actions are meant to simulate combat, however, and are best used within the round structure.

Best used in. However, if upon declaring you're taking an attack action, or in this case a coup de grace, then combat begins (and likely promptly ends). If you cannot take such actions outside of combat as a rule, then you cannot start a combat without meta-game intervention (such as the GM going, "Ok, we'll track combat in rounds as of this point, so your shackles are off").

[Matthew]

Best used in. However, if upon declaring you're taking an attack action, or in this case a coup de grace, then combat begins (and likely promptly ends). If you cannot take such actions outside of combat as a rule, then you cannot start a combat without meta-game intervention (such as the GM going, "Okay, we'll track combat in rounds as of this point, so your shackles are off").

It is pretty straightforward. Combat actions are not intended for non-combat situations. There may be some exceptions to this, in which case you should use your own best judgement to figure out what they are. D20/3e is a big mixed bag of abstract and specific mechanics and actions, declaring that it absolutely works conceptually one way and not another is just putting on blinkers to the facts at hand. If the game master feels that a coup-de-grace combat action is the way to go in a given situation, that is down to him.

[Gan The Grey]

Best used in. However, if upon declaring you're taking an attack action, or in this case a coup de grace, then combat begins (and likely promptly ends). If you cannot take such actions outside of combat as a rule, then you cannot start a combat without meta-game intervention (such as the GM going, "Ok, we'll track combat in rounds as of this point, so your shackles are off").

Doesn't this explanation just needlessly complicate things?

I hate to rule zero here, but combat begins when the DM says it begins. If the DM feels like you are in a position to flat-out kill someone and there is nothing they can do to stop you, this isn't really combat. Murdering an unconscious, defenseless opponent is not combat.

[lesser_minion]

Best used in. However, if upon declaring you're taking an attack action, or in this case a coup de grace, then combat begins (and likely promptly ends). If you cannot take such actions outside of combat as a rule, then you cannot start a combat without meta-game intervention (such as the GM going, "Ok, we'll track combat in rounds as of this point, so your shackles are off").

The point is that a coup de grace represents how an attempt to quickly finish someone off goes in combat -- when there may still be people around who don't really like you, when things are a lot more chaotic, and when there's a lot more to be worried about. That's the entire reason why the "in-combat" restriction exists for combat actions, and it's the reason why the DM is advised to use his best judgement about it.

Out of combat, it's left to the DM to decide what happens, and if the DM honestly feels that there is absolutely no way out of a situation, then he shouldn't give the character a way out.

Even ignoring that, your hypothetical execution survivor misses several things:

Executions aren't necessarily easy or clean, and the executioner gets more than one shot. People have been known to survive repeated axe blows to the neck, and even losing one's head isn't immediately fatal.
Executions aren't necessarily performed on people who are in any real condition. That 20th level fighter might only have 10 hitpoints left.
As awa and Saph pointed out, the game actually provides its own rules for out-of-combat executions.


The purpose of rules is to establish some sort of standard as to what should be considered reasonable -- instead of adjudicating everything by fiat.

That doesn't mean that the game has to be any more unrealistic than it needs to be, and the DM is still expected to apply her own best judgement to the situation.

[Ashiel]

Doesn't this explanation just needlessly complicate things?

I hate to rule zero here, but combat begins when the DM says it begins. If the DM feels like you are in a position to flat-out kill someone and there is nothing they can do to stop you, this isn't really combat. Murdering an unconscious, defenseless opponent is not combat.

That's right. It's a coup de grace (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#coupdeGrace).


Helpless Defenders

A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.

Regular Attack
A helpless character takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks, but no penalty to AC against ranged attacks.

A helpless defender can’t use any Dexterity bonus to AC. In fact, his Dexterity score is treated as if it were 0 and his Dexterity modifier to AC as if it were -5 (and a rogue can sneak attack him).

Coup de Grace
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).

[lesser_minion]

That's right. It's a coup de grace (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#coupdeGrace).

No, that is for combat. It's up to the DM whether or not it works the same way out of combat (the rules are silent beyond advising that you don't allow combat actions out of combat), and I've already explained several different reasons to assume that it would work otherwise.

And even if you do decide to use the CdG rules for it, those hitpoints add up -- we know people can survive at least three axe blows to the neck (average of at least 40 damage in D&D terms). Surviving significantly more than that is not particularly incredible.

And, for that matter, a hanging is not a coup-de-grace. How do you handle that?

[Gan The Grey]

That's right. It's a coup de grace (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#coupdeGrace).

Uh-huh, and in combat, that would be applicable. Sneaking into someone's camp while they are asleep and ganking them isn't combat. If they never detect you, combat never begins(as its kinda hard to be in combat when you are asleep and immobile), and, as they would only get a chance to detect you after you shank them, then whatever action you are using to shank them is NOT a combat action, and therefore coup-de-grace doesn't necessarily apply.

Cue long, involved argument over my logic. :smallsigh: It's all good. I can take it.

[Ashiel]

"A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy."

Declaring that you will attempt to kill your opponent is initiating combat. If they are sleeping, then they are Helpless; if they are Helpless you can either attack them or you can deliver a killing blow with a coup de grace. Players can declare combat as well; by choosing to take a combat action; in this case they're choosing to kill somebody who's asleep (say a guard).

Maybe an example of how this would work would be a good way to do this.

In the movie The Scorpion King, the main character is a very tough warrior who also has a really nice bow. Now during the movie, there's this kid who's about to get the axe by an executioner (IIRC, I believe he was going to get his hands chopped off). There was no rush of combat or the like, and the main character is waiting to start a combat by shooting the bad guy; but opts to shoot the weapon from the hands of the the guard about to give the boy a chop.

In D&D, you'll get a surprise round if you sneak up inside somebody's tent and decide to kill them; take a full-round action to coup de grace you opponent, completing the action on your 2nd turn (during the 1st round of combat), and your opponent eats it because coup de grace attacks tend to kill people.

An assassin's knife in a wealthy merchant's chest or throat is enough. They're low level. But the same trick isn't that likely to work on a high level demi-god powered warrior-man; because they're beyond the realm of normal mortals. They can be killed, but it's just not that easy.

[lesser_minion]

"A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy."

Declaring that you will attempt to kill your opponent is initiating combat. If they are sleeping, then they are Helpless; if they are Helpless you can either attack them or you can deliver a killing blow with a coup de grace. Players can declare combat as well; by choosing to take a combat action; in this case they're choosing to kill somebody who's asleep (say a guard).

Again, how you handle this situation is up to you. But by RAW, you aren't expected to call this a combat. You have plenty of time to dispatch the character and make sure, and there are no opponents.

And even if you do use the CdG rules, you'll never find that they make the character as super-resilient as you claim -- if three critical greataxe hits don't necessarily kill someone, then surviving several more is not justification for labelling someone a superhero.


In D&D, you'll get a surprise round if you sneak up inside somebody's tent and decide to kill them; take a full-round action to coup de grace you opponent, completing the action on your 2nd turn (during the 1st round of combat), and your opponent eats it because coup de grace attacks tend to kill people.

An assassin's knife in a wealthy merchant's chest or throat is enough. They're low level. But the same trick isn't that likely to work on a high level demi-god powered warrior-man; because they're beyond the realm of normal mortals. They can be killed, but it's just not that easy.

It will work -- and should work.

Yet again, coup de grace is a combat action because that's how that event unfolds in combat. Out of combat, the DM is free to -- and should -- pull fiat.

Not put blind trust in the game system in a place where even the rules admit that they don't handle the situation well.

[Tiki Snakes]

So if I declare in mid negotiation that I stab the merchant, I don't need to roll an attack or anything, I just stab him and he dies. Because we're not in combat, and when you get stabbed, you die?

Does it make a difference if it's a rakshasa merchant, I wonder? :smallwink:

[Ashiel]

Failing to cleave someone's head off generally resulted from dull blades that were more crushing than they were cutting; and broke the bones which led to painful agony, and often tore flesh and bone rather than severing it. D&D generally assumes a weapon is kept up and maintained with an edge.

Additionally, you're basically saying "Don't use the rules because the rules don't work like I want it to"; and you can replace "I want it to" with "gritty realism". But the fact of the matter is there aren't any core rules for sneaking into someone's room and putting a slitting their throat other that coup de grace; the same way that if you attack a sleeping dragon you're not going to auto-kill it with your weapon so easily (big dragon + big hp + big fortitude save, possibly with big damage reduction).

Or, you can do it like it's intended. The DMG even goes so far as to say normal people are low-level. It's a stated fact of the game. Normal people are low level, and rarely get to high levels; living their entire lives not being very special; while epic fighters can skinny-dip in a pool of Lava or Acid for a few rounds before being seriously wounded.

It's not my fault you don't like it, but that's the way it is. Accept it, because that's the way the game is designed; and that's the way the game works. You don't want players or characters being that amazingly powerful; then just play E6, or cap your levels, or spread out your low levels, or whatever; but making stuff up and passing it off as being the way it's supposed to work is getting old.

[Math_Mage]

Or not, since I've been playing 3.x that way for the last ten years (along with all the other people I play with.) You can play D&D with the assumption your are superheroes past level ten, or can play it with the assumption that superhero level is more like 20 or Epic. Either is equally valid.

You can play with those assumptions about the D&D world, sure. In a world where commoners are level 2-4, superheroes are higher-level than in a world where commoners are level 1. But the real world is the latter, not the former. D&D becomes inconsistent with our reality by level 10, at the latest. Whether or not it's consistent with itself before level 20 really isn't the issue, because the only reason to complain about falling damage and swords to the gut and so on is because it's inconsistent with what we expect of reality, where falls kill and one clean sword stroke is often fatal.


Under the rules, a 5th level expert with average constitution will have anywhere from 5 through to 30 hit points. So to say that is a little disingenuous.

What is disingenuous about noting that Einstein could take more damage at age 50 than at age 20? At the low end, maybe he takes one more dagger blow to the face before dropping; at the high end, maybe he can fall another 50 feet without getting knocked out, or get bitten by a leopard a few times, or take a bolt of lightning to the face. There is a high probability that a 5th-level Expert like Einstein can take more swords to the gut, fall farther, and so on than a 1st-level Fighter who's been training for combat and physical activities his entire life. A 10th-level wizard will usually take a beating better than a 1st-level fighter, too--even if you give the wizard realistically poor Con and the fighter unrealistically high Con. When did Einstein train to be more skillful in combat, such that his HP should rise because of it? When did that wizard train to be better at dodging swords?



It's worth noting that the rules are extremely clear that a character gaining hitpoints as he gains levels is a result of them generally being luckier -- they saw the stab coming and it just scratched them this time round.

The problem is that this definition is inconsistent with a great many things in D&D. I'll agree with the "it just scratched them" interpretation, but the question is why. Luck and skill, to me, do not seem to be appropriate reasons, due to the number of situations where luck and skill are taken out of the equation entirely, and the number of situations where the same character's 'skill' is interpreted in different ways according to the situation--see Einstein, above.


That's why the number of hitpoints you regain naturally is proportional to your hit dice -- it's not because you can keep fighting when you're missing both kidneys, your liver, most of your intestines, one arm, one leg, one eye, one nose, most of your lower jaw, and your larynx.

It's because a given threat isn't actually doing as serious an injury to you any more.

Because the guy inside the dragon's maw was luckier? Or because he was tougher?

I really don't understand this 'either HP represents the ability to keep going with identical wounds, or HP has an element of skill' false dichotomy. A character with as much HP as an iron wall will take less damage than a character with as much HP as a glass cannon, without needing to use skill as an explanation.

[Gametime]

What is disingenuous about noting that Einstein could take more damage at age 50 than at age 20? At the low end, maybe he takes one more dagger blow to the face before dropping; at the high end, maybe he can fall another 50 feet without getting knocked out, or get bitten by a leopard a few times, or take a bolt of lightning to the face. There is a high probability that a 5th-level Expert like Einstein can take more swords to the gut, fall farther, and so on than a 1st-level Fighter who's been training for combat and physical activities his entire life. A 10th-level wizard will usually take a beating better than a 1st-level fighter, too--even if you give the wizard realistically poor Con and the fighter unrealistically high Con. When did Einstein train to be more skillful in combat, such that his HP should rise because of it? When did that wizard train to be better at dodging swords?


This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but it made me think of how Iron Heroes gives the NPC classes (except warrior) delayed hit dice progression for that very reason. A 20th level Commoner, Expert, or Aristocrat only has 6d6 HD.

It doesn't fix the "getting tougher as you age" problem, but at least the issue is less pronounced, and the classes devoted to actually fighting get a vastly better progression.




Because the guy inside the dragon's maw was luckier? Or because he was tougher?

I really don't understand this 'either HP represents the ability to keep going with identical wounds, or HP has an element of skill' false dichotomy. A character with as much HP as an iron wall will take less damage than a character with as much HP as a glass cannon, without needing to use skill as an explanation.

Also, this. I don't think anyone is arguing that a 20th level character can have his intestines torn out and still function just fine; the argument is that an attack that would tear the intestines out of a lesser being will instead cause a severe gash on his belly, or maybe less than that. In order words, it takes vastly more effort to cause mortal wounds to a high level character, not that high level characters ignore mortal wounds.

[Malificus]

What is disingenuous about noting that Einstein could take more damage at age 50 than at age 20?

Being 50 would lower Einstein's con by 1, possibly lowering his health by 1 per level.

When he became 53, that would lower his health by at least 1 per level, possibly even 2.

so anywhere from 5 to 10 health gone, on a person who would otherwise have about 17 hp (5d6)

As opposed to a 20 year old Einstein with at least 2 (7hp) or 3 (10 hp) levels.

Suddenly the gap is much smaller. With lower hp rolls, he gets weaker, with higher rolls, the gap stays more.

[Math_Mage]

Being 50 would lower Einstein's con by 1, possibly lowering his health by 1 per level.

When he became 53, that would lower his health by at least 1 per level, possibly even 2.

so anywhere from 5 to 10 health gone, on a person who would otherwise have about 17 hp (5d6)

As opposed to a 20 year old Einstein with at least 2 (7hp) or 3 (10 hp) levels.

Suddenly the gap is much smaller. With lower hp rolls, he gets weaker, with higher rolls, the gap stays more.

*sigh* so a 50-year-old Einstein is only a little stronger than a 20-year-old Einstein, on the average. A 30-year-old Einstein, which is the example I started with, would have more. I have no complaints about aging penalties. But the leveling problem is still there, right? Nitpicking about the exact numbers in this one example to make it *slightly* less unrealistic doesn't change the base argument.

[Mr.Moron]

Something that just came to mind. Using magic, or maybe just some rope and a spring you build a simple device.

This device is nothing more than a flimsy arm with a pointy metal bit at the end, that can stab things.

In game terms, it'd look something like this.

HP 5; Hardness 20, Deals 1d10+25 piercing damage to the target standing in front of it. Being of shoddy construction (or having magical feedback) it deals damage to itself equal to the damage dealt to the target. Only actual damage dealt counts (damage dealt in excess of an amount needed to reduce the target to -10 is reduced to that amount).

You line up a bunch of folks in front of this. In nothing but their underwear.

When it runs into the level 1 commoner it impales them, they fall over dead and nothing happens to the machine, save for it getting very messy.

You put a level 6 Fighter in front of it, he gets stabbed the blade sinks in and the arm breaks off the machine. Leaving him alive, but with a blade in his gut.

You put a level 20 Warblade in front of it, the blade hits him, shatters, bounces off and falls to the ground leaving nothing but a small bruise on the target.


This is about what you get when you look at HP as Toughness. Personally, I've got no problem this. It fits with the sort of tone I like, one that tends towards over-the-top, high intensity action as levels get up there. I'm sure there are other people that don't have any problem with a world that works like this either. Heroes are beyond normal people, and are so by a huge margin. They don't interact with the world like the rest of us and they don't have to.

Now I can certainly see a game with a tone where that would be downright silly. I'd probably still argue that D&D probably isn't the best engine for a game of that tone. You're still free to use it if you want, but I don't think that makes people who are using it for a world where mundane blades shatter on heroes wrong in any way.

It isn't a matter of "Exploiting" the rules to do impossible things, it's just a matter of playing a game where the impossible (and beyond) isn't.

EDIT: Me no spel gud.

[Ashiel]

Something that just came to mind. Using magic, or maybe just some rope and a spring you build a simple device.

This device is nothing more than a flimsy arm with a pointy metal bit at the end, that can stab things.

In game terms, it'd look something like this.

HP 5; Hardness 20, Deals 1d10+25 piercing damage to the target standing in front of it. Being of shoddy construction (or having magical feedback) it deals damage to itself equal to the damage dealt to the target. Only actual damage dealt counts (damage dealt in excess of an amount needed to reduce the target to -10 is reduced to that amount).

You line up a bunch of folks in front of this. In nothing but their underwear.

When it runs into the level 1 commoner it impales them, they fall over dead and nothing happens to the machine, save for it getting very messy.

You put a level 6 Fighter in front of it, he gets stabbed the blade sinks in and the arm breaks off the machine. Leaving him alive, but with a blade in his gut.

You put a level 20 Warblade in front of it, the blade hits, him shatters, bounces off and falls to the ground leaving nothing but a small bruise on the target.


This is about what you get when you look at HP as Toughness. Personally, I've got no problem this. It fits with the sort of tone I like, one that tends towards over-the-top, high intensity action as levels get up there. I'm sure there are other people that don't have any problem with a world that works like this either. Heroes beyond normal people, so by a huge margin. They don't like the rest of us and they don't have to.

Now I can certainly see a game with a tone where that would be downright silly. I'd probably still argue that D&D probably isn't the best engine for a game of that tone. You're still free to use it if you want, but I don't think that makes people who are using it for a world where mundane blades shatter on heroes wrong in any way.

It isn't a matter of "Exploting" the rules to do impossible things, it's just a matter of playing a game where the impossible (and beyond) isn't.

Well said. :smallsmile:

[Aotrs Commander]

Now I can certainly see a game with a tone where that would be downright silly. I'd probably still argue that D&D probably isn't the best engine for a game of that tone. You're still free to use it if you want, but I don't think that makes people who are using it for a world where mundane blades shatter on heroes wrong in any way.

Right. I have never said (or at least not intentionally said, and hopefully not implied) that playing D&D with everyone above level 6 as super-human is wrong, and more than the reverse is wrong. I'm merely been suggesting that there is enough validity and leeway in the abstractions to interpret the rules as serving either interpretation (simply by looking at what bits of the model aren't fitting well and correcting it).

As a note, I will certainly agree that by 15-20th level, the PC are at superhero level. I personally don't quite see at level 7, myself. (But that doesn't make anyone who does do wrong either.)

Finally, I think D&D is the most mechanically superior system out there. Despite it many flaws. Simply because the pro far-out weigh the cons, even if I have house-rule it up to my personal standards. (Meaning mostly here the caster/noncaster adjustments more than anything!)

Though I will admit, D&D is really only good at modelling D&D,as opposed to without houserules. But then again, that's true of almost all rule-sets, with the [I]possible exception of maybe GURPS (which I'm not too familar with) and Rolemaster.

(It should be noted, by-the-by, that NO system, RPG, wargame or otherwise I have ever played has not been houseruled to a light to extensive extent! From HeroQuest to Rolemaster to Warhammer to Full Thrust to De Bellis Multitunidous to BattleTech... So the fact D&D is not perfect is of no consequence, because it's starting from a higher bse to wrok from. And if, for some reason, 3.x fell into a crack in time or something, I'd play Rolemaster instead!)

[Gametime]

You line up a bunch of folks in front of this. In nothing but their underwear.

When it runs into the level 1 commoner it impales them, they fall over dead and nothing happens to the machine, save for it getting very messy.

You put a level 6 Fighter in front of it, he gets stabbed the blade sinks in and the arm breaks off the machine. Leaving him alive, but with a blade in his gut.

You put a level 20 Warblade in front of it, the blade hits him, shatters, bounces off and falls to the ground leaving nothing but a small bruise on the target.



I support this sort of imagining, although personally I'd just have the blade deflect off the level 20 Warblade rather than shattering, which has the benefit of a) not needing to explain why weapons aren't always getting auto-sundered, and b) being more likely unless the blade hit perfectly perpendicularly to the Warblade's stomach.

[lesser_minion]

Additionally, you're basically saying "Don't use the rules because the rules don't work like I want it to"; and you can replace "I want it to" with "gritty realism". But the fact of the matter is there aren't any core rules for sneaking into someone's room and putting a slitting their throat other that coup de grace;

If you can't hurt something at all, then obviously you aren't going to auto-kill it, are you? But that's a different issue.

I'm saying not to follow the rules if they suddenly completely divorce themselves from what they claim to model -- or, in this case, where they don't cover the situation at all, and whatever you do is fiat.

What I am not saying is to ignore the rules whenever you feel like it.

You can't argue that the game is completely and utterly unrealistic at all levels on the basis of an example that is a bug.


Because the guy inside the dragon's maw was luckier? Or because he was tougher?

I really don't understand this 'either HP represents the ability to keep going with identical wounds, or HP has an element of skill' false dichotomy. A character with as much HP as an iron wall will take less damage than a character with as much HP as a glass cannon, [I]without needing to use skill as an explanation.

We can tell that. If he has a higher con score, he's tougher. If he doesn't, he's luckier.

It'll probably be a combination of both.

Higher level characters generally take less serious wounds. But that's not because they have a wolverine-esque healing factor, or because they're tougher. It's because they just take less serious wounds.

The whole thing is an abstraction -- the only constants are that someone who survives survives, and that someone who takes damage could have been killed.

[Mystic Muse]

We can tell that. If he has a higher con score, he's tougher. If he doesn't, he's luckier.

It'll probably be a combination of both.

He is physically incapable of avoiding the blast in any way. The only way you can get lucky at that point is if the dragon rolls really low. At that point there is no skill or luck involved. You are just that resilient.

[lesser_minion]

He is physically incapable of avoiding the blast in any way.

No, he isn't. He had quite a bit of warning -- he could have easily covered his face, curled up into a ball, and made sure he was at least partially shielded from the blast.

There are ways he could have prepared -- jumping in a lake beforehand wouldn't guarantee that you get off scott free, but it would mitigate the damage. It's not like it's a particularly long blast.

If everything that isn't toughness has been arbitrarily fiatted or narrated away, then you aren't making a case for the bonus hitpoints for levelling up being anything to do with toughness.

[Ashiel]

If you can't hurt something at all, then obviously you aren't going to auto-kill it, are you? But that's a different issue.
Assuming this is a response to the dragon comment, more than likely you can deal damage to it; so unless there is a double standard, then killing a dragon while it's helpless is just as easy.


I'm saying not to follow the rules if they suddenly completely divorce themselves from what they claim to model -- or, in this case, where they don't cover the situation at all, and whatever you do is fiat.

What I am not saying is to ignore the rules whenever you feel like it.

You can't argue that the game is completely and utterly unrealistic at all levels on the basis of an example that is a bug.

Emphasis mine. The problem is, they're not meant to model real life at higher levels; and have never claimed to. In fact, the core books actually mention that normal people are generally 1st level commoners, experts, adepts, or warriors, and do not get maximum HP for their HD; leaving them with an average of 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 hit points before applying constitution modifiers; which most people only have a +1 in their highest stat; as explained.

So a sudden 10ft fall can seriously injure or even kill this people if they don't get immediate help. A fall from 20ft can result in near instant death. A fall from 50ft is almost certain doom for any of them. Mind you all of these individuals can be seriously wounded by a solid hit from any weapon.

The problem is people trying to act like the game is supposed to stay this way, where goblins and arrows are so life threatening, and making stuff that sounds completely ridiculous like "Even though he was pinned between the Dragon's Jaws, denied a reflex save, and engulfed in fire that is hot enough to melt steel; he's alive because he's lucky, that's all". Seriously, that breaks the verisimilitude so much worse than "He's inhumanly strong".

The game does model stuff incredibly well for stuff that is on a realistic scale. Now the "problem" that is being mentioned is that it doesn't model stuff realistically on an unrealistic scale. That's not a problem! That's how it's supposed to work.

Why do you think these things even deal damage? Because the game assumes that you can survive them if you're an appropriately high level; otherwise it would be "You die". You people are complaining that you can survive 20d6 damage from falling or Lava; but you can't. In fact, no one in any range of realistic levels of power, skill, and endurance can. However, they can; they being higher level adventurers and monsters.

[Saph]

On the hit points thing, the 3.0 PHB had a fairly specific explanation of what hit points represent.


Hit points mean two things in the game word: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. A 10th-level fighter who has taken 50 points of damage is not as badly hurt as a 10th-level wizard who has taken that much damage. Indeed, unless the wizard has a high Constitution score, she's probably dead or dying, while the fighter is battered but otherwise doing fine. Why the difference? Partly because the fighter is better at rolling with the punches, protecting vital areas, and dodging just enough that a blow that would be fatal only wounds him. Partly because he's tough as nails. He can take damage that would drop a horse and still swing his sword with deadly effect . . .

A 10th-level fighter who has taken 50 points of damage may be about as physically hurt as a 10th-level wizard who has taken 30 points of damage, a 1st-level fighter who has taken 5 points of damage, or a 1st-level wizard who has taken 3.

So 3rd-ed hit points seem to be designed to represent both sheer physical toughness and also skill and ability to minimise attacks. I usually lean more towards the toughness end of the scale, but I think the best way to visualise them is to use both to some degree.

[Mystic Muse]

No, he isn't. When he was grabbed, he had every chance to cover up his face and curl up into a ball to minimise the damage.


I don't think curling up into a ball will do much against breath that's on average as hot as lava. That's assuming a huge sized creature even has a big enough mouth to curl up into a ball in the first place. (Adult red dragon in this situation.)

While sometimes HP can represent luck, I'd say most of the time, you're just that tough. Saving throws and AC are what I consider skill.

[Ashiel]

On the hit points thing, the 3.0 PHB had a fairly specific explanation of what hit points represent.



So 3rd-ed hit points seem to be designed to represent both sheer physical toughness and also skill and ability to minimise attacks. I usually lean more towards the toughness end of the scale, but I think the best way to visualise them is to use both to some degree.

I agree with this. I've never hesitated to describe a blow as glancing or particularly brutal; generally in relation to how much damage they're suffering in relation to their HP; but the system makes it clear that HP also represents some innate ability to withstand physical (or metaphysical) punishment, regardless of skill. :smallsigh:

[Math_Mage]

We can tell that. If he has a higher con score, he's tougher. If he doesn't, he's luckier.

It'll probably be a combination of both.

The problem with luck is that it isn't reliable the way HP is. Like I said, there's too many situations that just take luck out of the equation.

A level 1 Fighter with inhumanly high CON (18) has 14 hp. A level 12 Fighter with average CON (10) has ~70 hp, assuming no exceptional rolls.

The first will almost always be taken out completely by falling off a 10-story building. The second will always survive. The first will always die in lava; the second has a 1/2 chance to walk away, albeit severely burned. The first will always die to a level 7 Fighter power attacking with a greatsword for 2d6+14 damage; the second will always laugh off that same blow, even if it's a critical hit.

Luck? No.


Higher level characters generally take less serious wounds. But that's not because they have a wolverine-esque healing factor, or because they're tougher. It's because they just take less serious wounds.

The whole thing is an abstraction -- the only constants are that someone who survives survives, and that someone who takes damage could have been killed.

I agree that less serious wounds are taken. It's perfectly possible to explain the lesser seriousness of the wounds differently according to circumstance (environmental damage? luck; combat damage? skill; unavoidable dragon breath? toughness). But many explanations simply don't hold up in the translation to the game world. Do I replenish my luck by sleeping? Too, the "someone who takes damage could have been killed" argument doesn't correspond to the mechanic at all, as demonstrated above.

HP is simply how hard someone has to hit you before you go down. I'll buy that skill can be an element of it sometimes, a la rolling with the hammer blow. But most of the time, the most solid explanation is simply that the character's body is tough enough to take it without breaking.

[olentu]

One can stretch luck really far and I mean basically as far if you want to. But that level of luck constantly is probably worse then just toughness for many people. You know too many dead god sneezes from a million years in the past randomly deflecting swords and lava is something I could easily see getting a bit grating after a while.

[lesser_minion]

Assuming this is a response to the dragon comment, more than likely you can deal damage to it; so unless there is a double standard, then killing a dragon while it's helpless is just as easy.

If you can deal damage to the dragon, you have the means to kill it, and you can apply them here.


The problem is people trying to act like the game is supposed to stay this way, where goblins and arrows are so life threatening,
and making stuff that sounds completely ridiculous like "Even though he was pinned between the Dragon's Jaws, denied a reflex save, and engulfed in fire that is hot enough to melt steel; he's alive because he's lucky, that's all".

People survive being hit by lightning. And lightning is surprisingly close to what's happening here.

So no, there's no need to be superhumanly tough. It merely helps.


Seriously, that breaks the verisimilitude so much worse than "He's inhumanly strong".

Even if I hadn't pointed out that it is actually realistic for someone to survive that situation by luck alone, it would still have been dismissible as a corner case.

The rules aren't perfect, they don't claim to be, and they can't be. Every now and then, you can feed some inputs into the system and find it come up with a divide by zero.


The game does model stuff incredibly well for stuff that is on a realistic scale. Now the "problem" that is being mentioned is that it doesn't model stuff realistically on an unrealistic scale. That's not a problem! That's how it's supposed to work.

All I am disputing here is the claim that characters must become tougher as they gain levels. I am not arguing that the game must be realistic at all levels.

What I can and will note, however, is that that's just as reasonable as arguing that the rules must be perfect in all cases. If not more so.


You people are complaining that you can survive 20d6 damage from falling or Lava; but you can't. In fact, no one in any range of realistic levels of power, skill, and endurance can. However, they can; they being higher level adventurers and monsters.

I am complaining about no such thing.

Lava isn't handled realistically at any level, and 200 foot falls are survivable in real life.

So at least in the latter case, you still don't need preternatural toughness.


The problem with luck is that it isn't reliable the way HP is. Like I said, there's too many situations that just take luck out of the equation.

Hitpoints don't correspond to what is happening in the game world. They correspond to the fact that being able to die in one hit from a bad dice roll is unsatisfying.

Beyond that, it's mostly up to the DM to explain why someone survives -- but the answer is never superhuman toughness. The only place where toughness improves with level is the place where toughness overlaps with luck.


A level 1 Fighter with inhumanly high CON (18) has 14 hp. A level 12 Fighter with average CON (10) has ~70 hp, assuming no exceptional rolls.

The first will almost always be taken out completely by falling off a 10-story building. The second will always survive. The first will always die in lava; the second has a 1/2 chance to walk away, albeit severely burned. The first will always die to a level 7 Fighter power attacking with a greatsword for 2d6+14 damage; the second will always laugh off that same blow, even if it's a critical hit.

Luck? No.

Don't over-simplify the issue.

The 12th level fighter is:

luckier -- stick the 12th level guy and the 1st level guy in an ICU, and the 1st level guy is more likely to have a line infection.
More important. It's easier to see the will of the gods, or the ebb and flow of magic occasionally bending the rules to help him out.
More skilled. Even when he does get hit, he's better at catching the blow on a less important body part.

Those cover easily enough ground that even if a situation comes up that appears to be toughness, it can be dismissed as a corner case.

[Mike_G]

OK, I will explain how HP can reasonably be seen as skill.

If you have ever fought, boxed, fenced or sparred in any martial art, you will understand this.

There are times that you can launch an attack, that you can pretty much guarantee will score a point on a novice. That same attack is very unlikely to tag a veteran opponent in a vital area. It may be deflected to a lesser hit, or a glancing hit, or an "off target" hit depending on the style and rules. In any case, what would have been a Touche, a "kill," a knockout, becomes an off target hit, an arm wound, a graze.

And these nationally rated fencers, professional boxers, blackbelts in Karate etc are not 10 level supermen. They may be 3rd-5th level, they may have slightly above average stats and a few feats. With no magic, and pretty much no armor, they will have an AC of no more than 15. They certainly don't just ignore the hit

So how is it that you have to throw four times as many attacks at them to get a result that would drop them?

They have a lot more HP, so you either need a brilliant move (a critical hit) or a series of moves that would have dropped a novice (average damage hits) to wear them down or get them to make a mistake.

Consider a well delivered but basic attack to be a hit for 10 damage. That will fatally wound a Commoner, Expert, Warrior, your average Goblin, Kobold, Orc or most 1st level PC's other than a Fighter, Ranger, Paladin or Barbarian. It will give a low level PC some concern, but be shrugged off by a mid or high level PC. It's not that "10 damage =Axe in the Face," but you grow a tougher face by 3rd level. It's a stroke that would have hit the newbie in the face just glances off the veteran's helm or shoulder, leaving a cut or a bruise.

Look at the not-a-superhero 3rd level Fighter. On average, he has 21 HP plus 3x Con bonus, so lets call it 27. Now, he's not a superhero. He can't swim in lava, or split an iron wall with his forehead. Without his gear he's no harder to hit than he was at 1st level, when he had 12 HP. Why is it that 13 points of damage, when would have let him unconscious on the floor bleeding out in a minute when he was 1st level now less than half the abuse he can take?

It's not that his heart can take two or three swordthrusts. It's that his skill turns that attack that would have put a foot of steel in the heart of a rookie into a glancing blow, a flesh wound that doesn't slow him or keep him from attacking.

Sure, maybe a 20th level Barbarian can fall so hard the ground says "ouch" without breaking every bone in his body, but the idea that HP represent nothing but the ability to parry battle axes with your chin is madness.

[Mystic Muse]

Sure, maybe a 20th level Barbarian can fall so hard the ground says "ouch" without breaking every bone in his body, but the idea that HP represent nothing but the ability to parry battle axes with your chin is madness.

So is the thought that it's all skill. Unless you can explain how a pinned fighter in a dragon's mouth can use his "Skill" to avoid dying from breath that can be hotter than lava and at higher levels is hotter than lava.

Some of HP is skill but it's mostly Toughness.

[Saph]

OK, I will explain how HP can reasonably be seen as skill.

If you have ever fought, boxed, fenced or sparred in any martial art, you will understand this.

There are times that you can launch an attack, that you can pretty much guarantee will score a point on a novice. That same attack is very unlikely to tag a veteran opponent in a vital area. It may be deflected to a lesser hit, or a glancing hit, or an "off target" hit depending on the style and rules. In any case, what would have been a Touche, a "kill," a knockout, becomes an off target hit, an arm wound, a graze.

*nods* It's a good point. Something you notice quickly when going up against a skilled opponent is that it's very very hard to land a direct hit. They'll always either half-block or move away from the worst of it.

Since D&D doesn't give any sort of AC bonus from levelling up, you pretty much have to factor this sort of thing into hitpoints.

[olentu]

So is the thought that it's all skill. Unless you can explain how a pinned fighter in a dragon's mouth can use his "Skill" to avoid dying from breath that can be hotter than lava and at higher levels is hotter than lava.

Some of HP is skill but it's mostly Toughness.

Clearly you punch the fire away.

[Math_Mage]

lesser_minion, there is a difference between "200 foot falls are survivable in real life" and "this guy will survive a 200 foot fall every time, and maybe do it again the next day." There is a difference between "people survive being hit by lightning" and "this guy will always survive being hit by lightning." There is a difference between "people have survived a sword in the face" and "this guy will always survive a critical sword in the face." One might be luck. The other cannot be.

Mike_G, if you view HP-as-pure-toughness interpretations as madness, I could say the same about your disregarding toughness upgrades entirely in previous complaints about environmental damage and the like. There's a middle ground, I'm sure. The fact is that the 10th-level Fighter takes less physical damage from the same HP damage than a 1st-level Fighter. Part of it is probably that he can roll with the blow. Part of it is probably that he's simply tougher. Different situations would call for differing ratios of skill to toughness, such as the unavoidable dragon breath discussed in previous posts.

[olentu]

lesser_minion, there is a difference between "200 foot falls are survivable in real life" and "this guy will survive a 200 foot fall every time, and maybe do it again the next day." There is a difference between "people survive being hit by lightning" and "this guy will always survive being hit by lightning." There is a difference between "people have survived a sword in the face" and "this guy will always survive a critical sword in the face." One might be luck. The other cannot be.

Mike_G, if you view HP-as-pure-toughness interpretations as madness, I could say the same about your disregarding toughness upgrades entirely in previous complaints about environmental damage and the like. There's a middle ground, I'm sure. The fact is that the 10th-level Fighter takes less physical damage from the same HP damage than a 1st-level Fighter. Part of it is probably that he can roll with the blow. Part of it is probably that he's simply tougher. Different situations would call for differing ratios of skill to toughness, such as the unavoidable dragon breath discussed in previous posts.

Well the person will not always survive the fall it depends on how lucky they are feeling.

[Mystic Muse]

Well the person will not always survive the fall it depends on how lucky they are feeling.

I have 130 HP and my DM doesn't use massive damage rules. Even if he did I have a 15 in Fortitude.

at max hp, Short of rolling a one, I will always survive a fall of any height. In his campaign, at max HP I will always survive a fall no matter the height.

[Raum]

The concept of hit points as skill starts to break down once characters get to the point where they're essentially immune to attacks by lower level characters even in situations where the lower level character should have a significant advantage. Take a level one character with a dagger and give him a surprise stab to an unprepared higher level opponent. If the chance of death is minuscule due to high hit points, that's not skill.

[lesser_minion]

So is the thought that it's all skill. Unless you can explain how a pinned fighter in a dragon's mouth can use his "Skill" to avoid dying from breath that can be hotter than lava and at higher levels is hotter than lava.

He can prepare -- either by having done so before the fight (jumping in a lake) or by quickly covering any exposed skin.

And he can get lucky. The "comparable to lightning" point comes in here.


Some of HP is skill but it's mostly Toughness.

No.

HP is a combination of all of the factors that would allow you to survive something that could prove fatal.

The game already incorporates the possibility of characters becoming superhumanly tough through constitution, which improves with level.

But there are enough factors that aren't 'preternatural toughness' out there that I don't see a character ever running into a reasonable situation where that's the only thing that explains their survival.

[olentu]

I have 130 HP and my DM doesn't use massive damage rules. Even if he did I have a 15 in Fortitude.

at max hp, Short of rolling a one I will always survive a fall of any height.

"this guy will survive a 200 foot fall every time" means even after having been beaten by dragons. This means even after doing it 700 times. This means every time. I disagree barring damage immunity or falling immunity or something of the sort.

[Mystic Muse]

He can prepare -- either by having done so before the fight (jumping in a lake) or by quickly covering any exposed skin. Being covered in water isn't going to do much when a dragon is breathing the equivalent of lava. Also, good luck covering exposed skin when you can't move. When you can't move and the dragon is breathing the equivalent of lava skill won't save you.



And he can get lucky. The "comparable to lightning" point comes in here.


I'm aware that he can get lucky. But you can only get lucky so many times before it becomes standard procedure.


"this guy will survive a 200 foot fall every time" means even after having been beaten by dragons. This means even after doing it 700 times. This means every time. I disagree barring damage immunity or falling immunity or something of the sort.

After being beaten by dragons? Unlikely. Doing it after doing it 700 times? If I have the time to heal up why not? If I don't, then that situation seems a bit odd. Also, I can heal on the way down unless there's something that prevents me from doing so. I can't seem to find the falling rules.



No.

HP is a combination of all of the factors that would allow you to survive something that could prove fatal.

The game already incorporates the possibility of characters becoming superhumanly tough through constitution, which improves with level.

But there are enough factors that aren't 'preternatural toughness' out there that I don't see a character ever running into a reasonable situation where that's the only thing that explains their survival.

Being completely immobile in a dragon's mouth while it breathes on you, swimming through lava, being crushed by the Tarrasque.

[Mike_G]

Mike_G, if you view HP-as-pure-toughness interpretations as madness, I could say the same about your disregarding toughness upgrades entirely in previous complaints about environmental damage and the like. There's a middle ground, I'm sure. The fact is that the 10th-level Fighter takes less physical damage from the same HP damage than a 1st-level Fighter. Part of it is probably that he can roll with the blow. Part of it is probably that he's simply tougher. Different situations would call for differing ratios of skill to toughness, such as the unavoidable dragon breath discussed in previous posts.


I never said disregard toughness completely. I can grasp that a high level PC can take a 100 foot fall and roll to his feet. I just feel that there is a view here of "HP is toughness, AC is skill" when gaining skill (levels) has no effect on AC at all but does grant more HP.

[olentu]

After being beaten by dragons? Unlikely. Doing it after doing it 700 times? If I have the time to heal up why not? If I don't, then that situation seems a bit odd. Also, I can heal on the way down unless there's something that prevents me from doing so. I can't seem to find the falling rules.

Healing makes you more lucky if HP is luck. My point being that is it not "always" it is when you are lucky enough to survive which if going with this fluff is determined by your HP.

[Math_Mage]

"this guy will survive a 200 foot fall every time" means even after having been beaten by dragons. This means even after doing it 700 times. This means every time. I disagree barring damage immunity or falling immunity or something of the sort.

If I wake up hale and hearty in the morning, and jump off a 200-foot cliff, I will survive. I might even be tough enough to do it again.

If I wake up barely alive in the morning, I'm not going to do something so stupid as jumping off a 200-foot cliff.

Precise enough?


The concept of hit points as skill starts to break down once characters get to the point where they're essentially immune to attacks by lower level characters even in situations where the lower level character should have a significant advantage. Take a level one character with a dagger and give him a surprise stab to an unprepared higher level opponent. If the chance of death is minuscule due to high hit points, that's not skill.

Meh, it's just an Offhand Backhand (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OffhandBackhand) scenario. Instinctive avoidance of an attack is skill, to some degree. But the ratio favors toughness more than usual, I'll give you that.


He can prepare -- either by having done so before the fight (jumping in a lake) or by quickly covering any exposed skin.

And he can get lucky. The "comparable to lightning" point comes in here.

Jumping in a lake before the fight would result in a mechanical modifier to the damage taken, not anything to do with your HP total.

As for getting lucky, what's lucky about knowing that if you wake up healthy in the morning, one full-on dragonfire blast won't be enough to take you out? 100% probability of survival isn't 'luck'.


No.

HP is a combination of all of the factors that would allow you to survive something that could prove fatal.

The game already incorporates the possibility of characters becoming superhumanly tough through constitution, which improves with level.

But there are enough factors that aren't 'preternatural toughness' out there that I don't see a character ever running into a reasonable situation where that's the only thing that explains their survival.

Anything can be explained away by luck once, or twice, or several times--but not every time. I can buy that most scenarios will combine skill and toughness to explain HP-based survival, but luck? Is rarely a useful or interesting explanation, in or out of game.


I never said disregard toughness completely. I can grasp that a high level PC can take a 100 foot fall and roll to his feet. I just feel that there is a view here of "HP is toughness, AC is skill" when gaining skill (levels) has no effect on AC at all but does grant more HP.

That's how it should be. Isn't how it is, sadly.

[lesser_minion]

lesser_minion, there is a difference between "200 foot falls are survivable in real life" and "this guy will survive a 200 foot fall every time, and maybe do it again the next day." There is a difference between "people survive being hit by lightning" and "this guy will always survive being hit by lightning." There is a difference between "people have survived a sword in the face" and "this guy will always survive a critical sword in the face." One might be luck. The other cannot be.

In fluff terms, the character won't always survive being hit by lightning, or getting hit by a sword, or falling 200 feet.

Hitpoints aren't reliable because that's how they are in the world. They're reliable because if they weren't, players would be too cautious with their characters. The heroics the game is intended to portray would become impossible.

Furthermore, killing the dragon in six seconds with a spear to the palette is somewhat anticlimactic.

Yes, repeatedly subjecting a character to lightning and having them survive will break verisimilitude.

But this is a game about heroics and adventures. Not about standing on a mountaintop in a thunderstorm shouting "all gods are bastards".


As for getting lucky, what's lucky about knowing that if you wake up healthy in the morning, one full-on dragonfire blast won't be enough to take you out? 100% probability of survival isn't 'luck'.

And, again, hitpoints as a mechanic are only loosely tied to what is happening in the game world.

You don't have a 100% chance of surviving in the fluff, only in the crunch.


Anything can be explained away by luck once, or twice, or several times--but not every time. I can buy that most scenarios will combine skill and toughness to explain HP-based survival, but luck? Is rarely a useful or interesting explanation, in or out of game.

I am not arguing for things to always boil down to luck. I'm pointing out that toughness never needs to be involved.

Divine favour and instinctive magic cover everything that preternatural toughness does.

[olentu]

If I wake up hale and hearty in the morning, and jump off a 200-foot cliff, I will survive. I might even be tough enough to do it again.

If I wake up barely alive in the morning, I'm not going to do something so stupid as jumping off a 200-foot cliff.

Precise enough?

It is better but you are not fluffing the luck the way I would should I be doing so. Health would only come into play when one actually gets downed or perhaps just slightly before that. Outside of that you were lucky enough to avoid the injury. So waking up healthy would be having perhaps 4 hp. You are healthy but you don't feel as lucky as you would with 200 HP.

[Math_Mage]

In fluff terms, the character won't always survive being hit by lightning, or getting hit by a sword, or falling 200 feet.

Hitpoints aren't reliable because that's how they are in the world. They're reliable because if they weren't, players would be too cautious with their characters. The heroics the game is intended to portray would become impossible.

Furthermore, killing the dragon in six seconds with a spear to the palette is somewhat anticlimactic.

Yes, repeatedly subjecting a character to lightning and having them survive will break verisimilitude.

But this is a game about heroics and adventures. Not about standing on a mountaintop in a thunderstorm shouting "all gods are bastards".



And, again, hitpoints as a mechanic are only loosely tied to what is happening in the game world.

You don't have a 100% chance of surviving in the fluff, only in the crunch.

*sigh* I suppose if there's no way to reliably tie the actions in the campaign world to the mechanics on the charsheet, you can interpret HP however you want and I can't argue.


It is better but you are not fluffing the luck the way I would should I be doing so. Health would only come into play when one actually gets downed or perhaps just slightly before that. Outside of that you were lucky enough to avoid the injury. So waking up healthy would be having perhaps 4 hp. You are healthy but you don't feel as lucky as you would with 200 HP.

Ugh, not this again. Lucky enough to avoid injury? How are we going to reconcile that with, say, HP damage in combat? Poison from HP damage? If you want to play by distinguishing actually getting hurt from some kind of luck supply, use vitality and wound points.

But then again, see above.

[Matthew]

Ugh, not this again. Lucky enough to avoid injury? How are we going to reconcile that with, say, HP damage in combat? Poison from HP damage?
Surprisingly easily. If you are suffering damage from effects, then it follow that you must have been hit. If you are not, then you may or may not have been hit, depending on the narrative desires of the combat. Abstract combat mechanics lend themselves to, perhaps even require, post facto rationalisation.

[lesser_minion]

*sigh* I suppose if there's no way to reliably tie the actions in the campaign world to the mechanics on the charsheet, you can interpret HP however you want and I can't argue.

All I'm saying is that you never have to rely on some notion of preternatural toughness. I don't expect players to exclusively attribute things to luck, because that would be unreasonable.

There are many different factors, and attributing a character's survival in every instance to just one of them is wrong.

If you want to fluff your character as the toughest bastard ever to have lived, you can. Hitpoints can represent that.

But if you don't want to play the game that way, you don't have to. There is no reasonable situation that can arise in game where the character's survival can only be explained by some notion of preternatural toughness. Divine favour and instinctive magic will always work.

[olentu]

*sigh* I suppose if there's no way to reliably tie the actions in the campaign world to the mechanics on the charsheet, you can interpret HP however you want and I can't argue.



Ugh, not this again. Lucky enough to avoid injury? How are we going to reconcile that with, say, HP damage in combat? Poison from HP damage? If you want to play by distinguishing actually getting hurt from some kind of luck supply, use vitality and wound points.

But then again, see above.

I already covered damage in combat and poison is already (so far as I can remember) removed from HP damage by at least one step but perhaps you were only lucky enough to avoid all but a section of abraded skin. Sure vitality and wound points could represent this in a more pleasing way than an arbitrary HP barrier but then again that falls to aesthetics.

In either case I did present a method that reliably ties HP in the sheet to actions in the game world as the character will always have a reliable way to express their HP and can make choices based upon that expression of HP.

[Math_Mage]

Surprisingly easily. If you are suffering damage from effects, then it follow that you must have been hit. If you are not, then you may or may not have been hit, depending on the narrative desires of the combat. Abstract combat mechanics lend themselves to, perhaps even require, post facto rationalisation.

The problem with post-hoc analysis is that it justifies anything, thus there is no use trying to argue against anything. In this case, you can justify considering HP as just about anything, since you can concoct a scenario to justify anything. I'm tired of dealing with this. Might construct a basic set of houserules to try to align the statistics of combat and injury more closely with the intuitive considerations of combat and injury, but I'm not going to talk about the RAW anymore.

[lesser_minion]

The problem with post-hoc analysis is that it justifies anything, thus there is no use trying to argue against anything.

As far as I'm aware, that was always how the rules were expected to work, unfortunately.


Might construct a basic set of houserules to try to align the statistics of combat and injury more closely with the intuitive considerations of combat and injury, but I'm not going to talk about the RAW anymore.

Hitpoints are nothing more than a giant glob of glue smoothed over a really ugly join.

If you want to look for a better way of handling things, I'd be happy to lend a hand.

[olentu]

The problem with post-hoc analysis is that it justifies anything, thus there is no use trying to argue against anything. In this case, you can justify considering HP as just about anything, since you can concoct a scenario to justify anything. I'm tired of dealing with this. Might construct a basic set of houserules to try to align the statistics of combat and injury more closely with the intuitive considerations of combat and injury, but I'm not going to talk about the RAW anymore.

Wait you were talking about only what is defined by the RAW and nothing else. Well there is the disconnect. I had though I was quite clear that I was talking about fluff but it seems now that I was not.

[Matthew]

The problem with post-hoc analysis is that it justifies anything, thus there is no use trying to argue against anything. In this case, you can justify considering HP as just about anything, since you can concoct a scenario to justify anything. I'm tired of dealing with this. Might construct a basic set of house rules to try to align the statistics of combat and injury more closely with the intuitive considerations of combat and injury, but I'm not going to talk about the RAW any more.

The rules as written expect you to post hoc rationalise; that is kind of the point, it is inherent in the way D&D is set up as an abstraction of an imagined reality for the purposes of playing a game. However, there are limits as to what hit points can justifiably represent, which are set out in the rulebooks. It certainly can be tiresome if it is not desired, and many dissatisfied players certainly went on to write RPGs (or modified versions of D&D) with substantially less abstract combat mechanisms (including myself). :smallwink:

[Ashiel]

Lightning deals 1d10 * 1d8 damage; according the the environment weather rules. This means that it varies in strength greatly, the but the most damage it can cause is 10d8 (an average of 45 points of damage). An ancient red dragon's breath deals 20d10, or an average of 110 points of damage; to the fool that is currently pinned between the dragon's jaws. That's hot enough to completely destroy an entire suit of full plate by melting it into slag (dealing 45 damage to steel full plate that has 40 hp, even accounting the 1/2 damage vs objects rules).

No, it's not the same. The warrior is pinned in the dragons maw, pressed down, and specifically denied a reflex save against these hellish flames. There is no dodging, or covering your skin (hey, I'm sure keeping your flesh covered with armor against a heat that can completely slag a hundred suits of full plate lined up in under 3 seconds will do just fine); or you luckily rolled out of the dragon's mouth (you don't). You sit there, and you take it, and if you're not a super-human hero with more than 110 HP, then you DIE; just like ANY NORMAL PERSON.

Dem's the facts.

The fun part? I haven't stepped outside the rules or had to make up stuff to justify anything I've said. I haven't had to say "you can just kill them 'cause you're not in combat", even though the rules don't say you can. Everything I've said works, and it works in the context of the power level that it is representing. I'm not having to some-how find excuses for how you managed to find a soft patch of granite when that wyvern dropped you from 200 feet in the air; or trying to justify how "training and skill" keep you alive while a dragon is chewing on you and covering you in flames that make magma look cool; nor am I resorting to saying you can't take combat actions unless the GM says you can (because the moment you declare a combat action, well you're initiating combat - maybe a very 1 sided combat, but combat in game terms).

I've not had to resort to trying to justify, change, switch, or work around the way the game works. I've mentioned that if you're looking for a specific power level, where things have a level of realism, you can play E6. But you don't reach level 20 and complain that falling down the stairs isn't dangerous enough. :smallannoyed:

[Raum]

It's worth pointing out that the abstraction of "hit points as health" by itself isn't as problematic as the level-based escalation of toughness and general ability. Compare D&D to classic Unisystem - they very similar except for levels. (And d10 vs d20 as the central resolution die, but that's fairly superficial.) A Unisystem character's hit points won't increase much, if any, as the character gains experience. This helps avoid everything from commoner killing house cats to dagger immune heroes.

Unisystem has its own set of quirks, I'm recommending a comparison for learning purposes and not saying 'switch'.

[Ashiel]

It's worth pointing out that the abstraction of "hit points as health" by itself isn't as problematic as the level-based escalation of toughness and general ability. Compare D&D to classic Unisystem - they very similar except for levels. (And d10 vs d20 as the central resolution die, but that's fairly superficial.) A Unisystem character's hit points won't increase much, if any, as the character gains experience. This helps avoid everything from commoner killing house cats to dagger immune heroes.

Unisystem has its own set of quirks, I'm recommending a comparison for learning purposes and not saying 'switch'.

Well that's actually the idea of the E6 variant, you see. Your HP and similar level based benefits are capped at 6, but you continue gaining XP and levels, which you can use to diversify and improve yourself via feats and what-not; and it has some feats to help you gain stuff such as extra spells per day; though you never get higher than 3rd level spells / powers. It supports enemies up to CR 12; and gives a lot of mythical creatures (chimera, hydras, dragons, manticore, and so forth) more bite.

Basically, you continue improving but the game stays at a reasonable level of power without growing into god-like beings by real-life standards; and you really are a godlike being in real-life standards.

[Matthew]

A dragon can actually bite you, pin you inside its mouth, and unleash its breath weapon on you and you get no save.

Out of interest, what is this actually from? I assumed it was some D20/3e dragon special ability, but I am not seeing it in the Monster Manual. Is it from some supplement or a general purpose rule I am missing?

[lesser_minion]

I've not had to resort to trying to justify, change, switch, or work around the way the game works. I've mentioned that if you're looking for a specific power level, where things have a level of realism, you can play E6. But you don't reach level 20 and complain that falling down the stairs isn't dangerous enough. :smallannoyed:

Don't accuse people of doing things they aren't doing.

All I said is that you never have to assume that characters are preternaturally tough.

And you don't. Divine favour works whenever, as does instinctive magic. The entire point of hitpoints is that you rationalise why a character survives when they do. You don't have to stick to one thing every time.

Or ignore the rule that magical gear is invulnerable to magical attack except under certain circumstances, which dragon's breath isn't.

There is never a reasonable situation where you have to call something toughness (oh, by the way, by RAW? Any magical gear you're carrying is immune to harm).

You can posture all you want, but yours isn't the only way to play the game at any level, and you have no right to be offended when that is pointed out.


The fun part? I haven't stepped outside the rules or had to make up stuff to justify anything I've said. I haven't had to say "you can just kill them 'cause you're not in combat", even though the rules don't say you can.

Remember the original scenario? Because it was repeatedly pointed out that there's no deadline, and the rules do say you can. You just need a skill check.

Stepping outside of the rules is not necessarily unreasonable -- in this case, I didn't really need to. Accidentally waking the sleeping merchant is both viable, and more interesting than "his throat is diamond-hard, you can't cut it".

[Ashiel]

Out of interest, what is this actually from? I assumed it was some D20/3e dragon special ability, but I am not seeing it in the Monster Manual. Is it from some supplement or a general purpose rule I am missing?


Feats
All dragons have one feat, plus additional feats based on Hit Dice just like any other creature. Dragons favor Alertness, Blind-Fight, Cleave, Flyby Attack, Hover, Improved Initiative, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Snatch, Weapon Focus (claw or bite), Wingover, and any metamagic feat that is available and useful to sorcerers.


Snatch [General]
Prerequisite: Size Huge or larger.
Benefits:

The creature can choose to start a grapple when it hits with a claw or bite attack, as though it had the improved grab special attack. If the creature gets a hold on a creature three or more sizes smaller, it squeezes each round for automatic bite or claw damage. A snatched opponent held in the creature’s mouth is not allowed a Reflex save against the creature’s breath weapon, if it has one.

The creature can drop a creature it has snatched as a free action or use a standard action to fling it aside. A flung creature travels 1d6 × 10 feet, and takes 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet traveled. If the creature flings a snatched opponent while flying, the opponent takes this amount or falling damage, whichever is greater.


Don't accuse people of doing things they aren't doing. I'm not. People (not necessarily you) have complained that falling damage, lava damage, lightning damage, and so forth isn't realistic because it doesn't kill high level characters; and one guy even suggested making it deal 32d6 for a 60ft fall as a "fix". But it's not broken.


All I said is that you never have to assume that characters are preternaturally tough.
And you don't. Divine favour works whenever, as does instinctive magic. The entire point of hitpoints is that you rationalise why a character survives when they do. You don't have to stick to one thing every time.

I'm don't have to assume. Whether physical toughness, magical toughness, or just that god likes you; there's something that makes you far tougher and more resilient against harm than mortally possible.


Or ignore the rule that magical gear is invulnerable to magical attack except under certain circumstances, which dragon's breath isn't.
Think you could point me to that one? Because last I checked, items targeted or left unattended received saving throws as normal; using a bonus based on their caster level. Additionally, they can be damaged on a roll of 1 on your saving throw.


There is never a reasonable situation where you have to call something toughness (oh, by the way, by RAW? Any magical gear you're carrying is immune to harm).
I never said it wasn't; unless you roll a natural 1 on your saving throw; in which case something of yours might have just got slagged. Magic items aren't immune to damage; they're just more resistant than normal items.


You can posture all you want, but yours isn't the only way to play the game at any level, and you have no right to be offended when that is pointed out.

I never suggested that it was. However, I am playing the game. You see, I'm not trying to change rules or bypass them (such as the coup de grace thing; which is exactly what you do to kill someone in their sleep; or cast a save-or-die since they're helpless and thus considered willingly auto-failing their save). I've only addressed the topic from the game, as the game is written, functioning as the game does, and shown that it isn't broken this time. It works for what it's supposed to work at.

I don't expect everyone to play my way. I don't generally play E6; but I've mentioned several times that this is what you play if the usual super-powered PCs are grating you the wrong way; because that is a variation that works.

As for how you describe HP loss; that doesn't matter to me. Wanna say the flames just magically bubbled around the fighter so he ended up out of harm's way; or that Pelor placed his divine hand around the fighter to protect him from the fiery blaze; go right ahead. But I will say that would get kind of old fast. :smallconfused:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

or cast a save-or-die since they're helpless and thus considered willingly auto-failing their save

Nitpick: I'm fairly sure the "always counts as willing" clause only makes helpless creatures count as willing for spells or abilities requiring a willing target, rather than making them auto-fail all saves (otherwise there would be no reason for CdG to allow a save at all).

[Ashiel]

Nitpick: I'm fairly sure the "always counts as willing" clause only makes helpless creatures count as willing for spells or abilities requiring a willing target, rather than making them auto-fail all saves (otherwise there would be no reason for CdG to allow a save at all).

Maybe so. Though it's always been my understanding that you may willingly forgo/fail a saving throw; and I've always been under the impression that if specifically targeted with a spell or similar, then you auto-fail it when helpless; since you are considered a willing target (whereas you're only targeting them with a coup-de-grace which triggers the fortitude save, similar to how you can still make a reflex save versus a fireball cast in a room while you're helpless).

I could see it being ruled either way; so I don't really have any desire to debate it. It's just always been the easiest way to place curses, mind control, turn into bunnies, or the like; since they're considered willing.

YMMV. :smallsmile:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Maybe so. Though it's always been my understanding that you may willingly forgo/fail a saving throw; and I've always been under the impression that if specifically targeted with a spell or similar, then you auto-fail it when helpless; since you are considered a willing target (whereas you're only targeting them with a coup-de-grace which triggers the fortitude save, similar to how you can still make a reflex save versus a fireball cast in a room while you're helpless).

You can indeed auto-fail saves voluntarily; however, the "unconscious targets are willing" clause comes under the Spell Descriptions section discussing targeting spells that require willing targets:


Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

That rule is really meant to allow you to teleport or heal or otherwise aid unconscious allies, not nuke a sleeping dragon or the like.

[/derail]

[Douglas]

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets)

That is the only rule that allows bypassing a conscious choice of whether you're willing or not, and it is specifically concerned with the "willing only" targeting restriction, not with voluntarily failing a saving throw. Even an unconscious creature would still get a save if applicable, it's just that it is possible to use a "willing only" spell at all rather than it automatically failing.

As for helpless/paralyzed/etc., those conditions don't even do that much.

[Math_Mage]

Wait you were talking about only what is defined by the RAW and nothing else. Well there is the disconnect. I had though I was quite clear that I was talking about fluff but it seems now that I was not.

:smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh: How to interpret the fluff in the context of the game mechanics. I would hope that much got through from all my previous posts, at least.


The rules as written expect you to post hoc rationalise; that is kind of the point, it is inherent in the way D&D is set up as an abstraction of an imagined reality for the purposes of playing a game. However, there are limits as to what hit points can justifiably represent, which are set out in the rulebooks. It certainly can be tiresome if it is not desired, and many dissatisfied players certainly went on to write RPGs (or modified versions of D&D) with substantially less abstract combat mechanisms (including myself). :smallwink:

What did you write? *curious*

[Ashiel]

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets)

That is the only rule that allows bypassing a conscious choice of whether you're willing or not, and it is specifically concerned with the "willing only" targeting restriction, not with voluntarily failing a saving throw. Even an unconscious creature would still get a save if applicable, it's just that it is possible to use a "willing only" spell at all rather than it automatically failing.

As for helpless/paralyzed/etc., those conditions don't even do that much.

Works for me. Thanks Pair o' Dice, and Douglas.

[olentu]

:smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh: How to interpret the fluff in the context of the game mechanics. I would hope that much got through from all my previous posts, at least.

Well I suppose if you were restricting the discussion to only the fluff specifically allowed by WotC it would have been useful to know that. This is since as I recall only divine favor and inner power are specifically allowed. And so while luck can easily fit an ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one the only things that can be allowed to explain the ability to take punishment and keep going and to turn a serious blow into a less serious one are divine favor and inner power. But yes if restricting all fluff to only what is provided by WotC there is only divine favor and inner power.

Edit: On the other hand the favor of the god of luck could manifest in the way I presented and so I suppose that would not really resolve anything. Well never mind then luck works fine as an explanation so long as one says it is due to divine favor or some sort of inner power.

[Math_Mage]

Well I suppose if you were restricting the discussion to only the fluff specifically allowed by WotC

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

You just go back and show me where my remarks were stuck on WotC. I dare you.

[olentu]

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

You just go back and show me where my remarks were stuck on WotC. I dare you.

Well you mentioned you were discussing the RAW and that only comes from WotC. Since you were in fact discussing fluff and saying that there is only one way that could ever be correct the only way that could make sense to me is if you were discussing the WotC provided fluff and taking that as the only thing allowed.

[Gametime]

Well you mentioned you were discussing the RAW and that only comes from WotC. Since you were in fact discussing fluff and saying that there is only one way that could ever be correct the only way that could make sense to me is if you were discussing the WotC provided fluff and taking that as the only thing allowed.

I don't want to speak for Math_Mage, but if I understood correctly, he was actually saying that there is only one way to interpret the fluff of damage that is maximally internally consistent, and that applying outside notions of what humans "should" be able to withstand as a veto on what the rules say harms verisimilitude if you continue to follow those rules.

For example, claiming that hit points are mostly due to skill, but still keeping lava at 20d6 damage without providing any explanation for how you are dodging or parrying the lava while immersed in it. I don't think that restricts the discussion to WotC fluff; only to fluff that interacts consistently and believably with the rules (which, admittedly, are WotC-riffic).

[olentu]

I don't want to speak for Math_Mage, but if I understood correctly, he was actually saying that there is only one way to interpret the fluff of damage that is maximally internally consistent, and that applying outside notions of what humans "should" be able to withstand as a veto on what the rules say harms verisimilitude if you continue to follow those rules.

For example, claiming that hit points are mostly due to skill, but still keeping lava at 20d6 damage without providing any explanation for how you are dodging or parrying the lava while immersed in it. I don't think that restricts the discussion to WotC fluff; only to fluff that interacts consistently and believably with the rules (which, admittedly, are WotC-riffic).

Well then I don't understand the RAW reference. In either case something is either internally consistent or it is not but the real question it would seem is personal opinion on verisimilitude as it were. I mean I could make up something that involves chi force field that would be just as internally consistent as supernatural toughness while still allowing for characters to not exceed the limits of human toughness when their force field and cell fixing generator is depleted.

[Math_Mage]

Well you mentioned you were discussing the RAW and that only comes from WotC. Since you were in fact discussing fluff and saying that there is only one way that could ever be correct the only way that could make sense to me is if you were discussing the WotC provided fluff and taking that as the only thing allowed.

"there is only one way that could ever be correct"? You have an...odd opinion of what I said. Discussing the WotC-provided fluff? Where did I ever reference WotC fluff?

I was trying to interpret the HP mechanic in a way that is consistent and maintains verisimilitude. Looking at the various ways HP changes due to level-ups, attribute scores, damage, and so on--looking at what HP represents under the rules as written--and relating those mechanics back to how the real world works, I came to the conclusion that the primary characteristic determined by HP was toughness, the ability to withstand powerful blows without sustaining much damage. Skill has a place in that, since one can adjust one's body to minimize the impact of an otherwise forceful blow; but factors like luck are both inconsistent with how HP functions, and represented elsewhere (for example, by luck feats).

However, I've realized that my premise was flawed. There's no point in trying to come up with a consistent interpretation of the HP mechanic, because it's an extremely simplified representation to begin with. Due to this simplification, one can attach any post-hoc interpretation to HP in any scenario. Luck, skill, toughness, divine favor, the number of Wheaties that character had in his breakfast that morning, whatever; all that matters is that for a given scenario, you come up with some interpretation that maintains verisimilitude, no matter if it is consistent with your interpretation of HP in other scenarios--or even in previous incarnations of the same scenario. If the same goblin does the same damage to you with the same weapon twice, the fluff can be totally different for each blow. Then you step backwards and fall off a cliff, and you can use yet a third interpretation if you like. It doesn't matter. So I decided to stop arguing about it.

Nowhere in my reasoning does WotC's fluff get involved. I really can't imagine why you would come to that conclusion from reading my posts. For pity's sake, I was arguing against people who were citing WotC's fluff (though their arguments weren't all about the fluff either).

[olentu]

"there is only one way that could ever be correct"? You have an...odd opinion of what I said. Discussing the WotC-provided fluff? Where did I ever reference WotC fluff?

I was trying to interpret the HP mechanic in a way that is consistent and maintains verisimilitude. Looking at the various ways HP changes due to level-ups, attribute scores, damage, and so on--looking at what HP represents under the rules as written--and relating those mechanics back to how the real world works, I came to the conclusion that the primary characteristic determined by HP was toughness, the ability to withstand powerful blows without sustaining much damage. Skill has a place in that, since one can adjust one's body to minimize the impact of an otherwise forceful blow; but factors like luck are both inconsistent with how HP functions, and represented elsewhere (for example, by luck feats).

However, I've realized that my premise was flawed. There's no point in trying to come up with a consistent interpretation of the HP mechanic, because it's an extremely simplified representation to begin with. Due to this simplification, one can attach any post-hoc interpretation to HP in any scenario. Luck, skill, toughness, divine favor, the number of Wheaties that character had in his breakfast that morning, whatever; all that matters is that for a given scenario, you come up with some interpretation that maintains verisimilitude, no matter if it is consistent with your interpretation of HP in other scenarios--or even in previous incarnations of the same scenario. If the same goblin does the same damage to you with the same weapon twice, the fluff can be totally different for each blow. Then you step backwards and fall off a cliff, and you can use yet a third interpretation if you like. It doesn't matter. So I decided to stop arguing about it.

Nowhere in my reasoning does WotC's fluff get involved. I really can't imagine why you would come to that conclusion from reading my posts. For pity's sake, I was arguing against people who were citing WotC's fluff (though their arguments weren't all about the fluff either).

Ah well I suppose it really came down to that RAW reference that I can not explain. I mean the only thing that I can think up that could be RAW fluff is WotC proved fluff but since it was apparently not that then I suppose I will have to chock it up to as an unexplained mystery due to my complete misunderstanding.

But in any case if things aside from that are in accord there is nothing left to discuss I suppose.

[Aotrs Commander]

However, I've realized that my premise was flawed. There's no point in trying to come up with a consistent interpretation of the HP mechanic, because it's an extremely simplified representation to begin with. Due to this simplification, one can attach any post-hoc interpretation to HP in any scenario. Luck, skill, toughness, divine favor, the number of Wheaties that character had in his breakfast that morning, whatever; all that matters is that for a given scenario, you come up with some interpretation that maintains verisimilitude, no matter if it is consistent with your interpretation of HP in other scenarios--or even in previous incarnations of the same scenario. If the same goblin does the same damage to you with the same weapon twice, the fluff can be totally different for each blow. Then you step backwards and fall off a cliff, and you can use yet a third interpretation if you like. It doesn't matter. So I decided to stop arguing about it.

I think you are spot-on. You can legitimatley interpret hit points in whatever manner is appropriate to your game, in whatever combination of skill, toughness, luck, sheer orneriness (etc etc) seems most appropriate for that particular instance of damage. You just have to interpret some types of damage in a different combination to others (falling verses arrows) if you aren't going to assume toughness every time. It's merely changing the fluff, which I do all the time anyway.

(I have a Cleric/Monk based off Naruto, whose entire healing repatoire I refluffed as him shouting out stupid inspiring friendship speech-nonsense, with out of combat healing being Hinata Hyuuga's healing medicine (refluffed Wands of Lesser Vigour). It works.)

[Psyx]

"Luck, skill, toughness, divine favor, the number of Wheaties that character had in his breakfast that morning, whatever"


That's sparked an interesting idea:

Instead of fixed HP being rolled each level, players record the total dice pool, and roll it on a daily basis to represent how lucky they are that day, and how many Wheatabix they've had.

I'd quite like to give that a try in a game and see how it goes.

[Math_Mage]

"Luck, skill, toughness, divine favor, the number of Wheaties that character had in his breakfast that morning, whatever"


That's sparked an interesting idea:

Instead of fixed HP being rolled each level, players record the total dice pool, and roll it on a daily basis to represent how lucky they are that day, and how many Wheatabix they've had.

I'd quite like to give that a try in a game and see how it goes.

Yeah, that's the intuitive way to represent the fluff concept that HP corresponds to luck in some form. Should be interesting. Combine this with the suggestion that the DM keep players' HP secret for maximum pants-wetting terror fun!

[Mike_G]

We played a campaign where the DM tracked our HP, just telling us things like "You're starting to feel battered and worn out" It definitely made us more cautious, because we couldn't just do the math and know we'd survive a given action.

[Matthew]

Snatch

Ah, the snatch feat, yeah that is not too surprising. A lot of feats have very specific combat actions in mind, and very often are exemplary of the mixed bag of abstract and specific mechanics earlier referred to. It does not necessarily follow that the character is at all times in the mouth of the dragon, however, it all depends on how you narrate the ongoing action.



What did you write? *curious*

Nothing of note, just a home-brewed "gritty skill-based" RPG that we played for about five years. It was largely inspired by Role Master, which of course itself started off as variant rules for D&D combat.

[Doug Lampert]

Ah, the snatch feat, yeah that is not too surprising. A lot of feats have very specific combat actions in mind, and very often are exemplary of the mixed bag of abstract and specific mechanics earlier referred to. It does not necessarily follow that the character is at all times in the mouth of the dragon, however, it all depends on how you narrate the ongoing action.

And being denied a Reflex Save is definitely NOT the same as being totally helpless and unable to shift so as to avoid some or all of the breath.

If he were totally helpless and unable to move so as to minimize damage then the damage the dragon does every round could be a CdG, it can't be. Hence we KNOW this character is not in fact being held helpless and unable to avoid the flame. Maybe he's managing to get most of his vitals under the dragon's tongue at the instant it breaths, maybe he's squirmed to one side of the mouth and the flame is shooting out the other due to the effect his body has on the airflow, maybe something else is happening.

But claiming that the posted text of the snatch feat indicates that he's unable to defend himself misses the point that he still CAN and DOES defend himself against a great many attacks while in that situation. It's just that the defense against the bite and flame CAN'T be effective enough to entirely eliminate the effect baring some sort of special feat or power by the snatched character.

[El Dorado]

Apologies if this has been addressed. This is more of a general question.

If hit points are supposed to represent luck and skill as well as health, how do you rationalize a cure spell restoring all of your hit points (assuming that cure spells restore only health)?

I've always disliked the concept of hit points representing something other than health. The game already has mechanics for defensive skill: saving throws, armor class and, to a lesser extent, damage reduction.

For those who go with the hit points is not just health rationale, have you made any changes in your games to reflect this concept (e.g. impose limits on how many hit points a cure spell will affect)?

[Math_Mage]

And being denied a Reflex Save is definitely NOT the same as being totally helpless and unable to shift so as to avoid some or all of the breath.

If he were totally helpless and unable to move so as to minimize damage then the damage the dragon does every round could be a CdG, it can't be. Hence we KNOW this character is not in fact being held helpless and unable to avoid the flame. Maybe he's managing to get most of his vitals under the dragon's tongue at the instant it breaths, maybe he's squirmed to one side of the mouth and the flame is shooting out the other due to the effect his body has on the airflow, maybe something else is happening.

But claiming that the posted text of the snatch feat indicates that he's unable to defend himself misses the point that he still CAN and DOES defend himself against a great many attacks while in that situation. It's just that the defense against the bite and flame CAN'T be effective enough to entirely eliminate the effect baring some sort of special feat or power by the snatched character.

With enough "ifs" and "maybes" you can let HP represent whatever you want, and then let it represent something completely different in the next action. If you want to develop a consistent interpretation of HP, such nitpickery over unlikely-but-possible ways to factor in luck or what have you into the example do not in any way invalidate the point that toughness is the most reasonable interpretation for that scenario and many others. But as I wrote previously, there's no point in trying to interpret HP consistently.

[Mike_G]

Apologies if this has been addressed. This is more of a general question.

If hit points are supposed to represent luck and skill as well as health, how do you rationalize a cure spell restoring all of your hit points (assuming that cure spells restore only health)?

I've always disliked the concept of hit points representing something other than health. The game already has mechanics for defensive skill: saving throws, armor class and, to a lesser extent, damage reduction.

For those who go with the hit points is not just health rationale, have you made any changes in your games to reflect this concept (e.g. impose limits on how many hit points a cure spell will affect)?

So what is the game mechanic for defensive skill? The Dodge feat? Combat expertise?

A Ftr 20 without gear has the exact same AC he had at level 1. There is no in game defense bonus for experience.

Unless you count having more HP as being able to turn the 10 HP axe in the face (which kills a Warrior 1 dead) to a 10 HP mostly parried scratch (which mildly inconveniences a Fighter 10.)

[Matthew]

If hit points are supposed to represent luck and skill as well as health, how do you rationalize a cure spell restoring all of your hit points (assuming that cure spells restore only health)?

It is positive energy (whatever that might be), and a cure spell restores the positive energy (life energy, if you will) that has been lost. It also heals any actual wounds suffered, which is its chief purpose and function.

[Gametime]

So what is the game mechanic for defensive skill? The Dodge feat? Combat expertise?

A Ftr 20 without gear has the exact same AC he had at level 1. There is no in game defense bonus for experience.

Unless you count having more HP as being able to turn the 10 HP axe in the face (which kills a Warrior 1 dead) to a 10 HP mostly parried scratch (which mildly inconveniences a Fighter 10.)

This (among other reasons) is why I favor a scaling, level-based bonus to AC. I think hit points is too finicky to really work as defensive skill. Well, that and I hate the static nature of most character's ACs, especially for touch attacks.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I've personally never been a fan of bringing the rules of the real world into D&D. The game is by definition unrealistic. If you want realism you should go for a game where people can't turn bat poop into fireballs with a couple of words and finger gestures.
+1. I'd be irate with a DM who broke my character's leg because he didn't like my reason for jumping off a building.

I was actually in this situation once. My mystic theurge was alone, and facing some kind of advanced mind flayer. I didn't have any directly useful spells at the time, but the mf and my mt were both flying above a deep moat. So I said "Frak it, I'm grabbing the flayer and flying us both into the moat bottom. I've got more of a chance of surviving that than of getting my brains sucked out." And I did.

Others might say that "hp are abstract!" and bend over backwards to come up with explanations for how PCs can survive terminal velocity and swim through lava. Me, I just say "PCs are demigods, and they know it!"

[Mike_G]

This (among other reasons) is why I favor a scaling, level-based bonus to AC. I think hit points is too finicky to really work as defensive skill. Well, that and I hate the static nature of most character's ACs, especially for touch attacks.

In my low magic campaign, I give an AC bonus equal to 1/2 BAB to represent skill in defense.

But D&D RAW, without gear, the 1st level Fighter and the 10th level Fighter are equally tough to land a hit on. That's nuts. That basically means that you can take a swing at me, or at an olympic gold medalist in fencing, or Mike Tyson, or Jackie Chan, and so long as they don't have their Ring of Protection or Amulet of Natural Armor, they aren't more than 5 or 10% harder to hit than I am.

Now, if you consider me a 3rd level NPC, with a level of Warrior from the Marines, and a level or two of Expert from being a Paramedic, then I'm much easier to kill than a 20th level Fighter, but no easier to hit. The fact that I drop dead from 20 points of damage, but a 20th level Fighter hardly notices it supports the idea that he dodges a blow that would have killed me better than it supports the idea that we both took a thrust through the left ventricle, but he's too tough to care about sissy crap like a foot of steel in the heart.

[Tedesche]

Haven't read the thread (WAY too long), but if you want realism, play GURPS. Even that system is insanely breakable, but if played as intended, you won't have players jumping off of buildings, running into machine gun fire, or even presuming they can shrug off a standard fireball spell without having to worry about losing a limb.

[Gametime]

But D&D RAW, without gear, the 1st level Fighter and the 10th level Fighter are equally tough to land a hit on. That's nuts. That basically means that you can take a swing at me, or at an olympic gold medalist in fencing, or Mike Tyson, or Jackie Chan, and so long as they don't have their Ring of Protection or Amulet of Natural Armor, they aren't more than 5 or 10% harder to hit than I am.

Now, if you consider me a 3rd level NPC, with a level of Warrior from the Marines, and a level or two of Expert from being a Paramedic, then I'm much easier to kill than a 20th level Fighter, but no easier to hit. The fact that I drop dead from 20 points of damage, but a 20th level Fighter hardly notices it supports the idea that he dodges a blow that would have killed me better than it supports the idea that we both took a thrust through the left ventricle, but he's too tough to care about sissy crap like a foot of steel in the heart.

I think the idea isn't that the fighter shrugs off a stab through the heart, but that the fighter is OMG SO TOUGH that the blade that would have pierced your heart barely scratches his skin. Even though you both take the same "damage," he suffers less effect from it.

Admittedly, this interpretation has it's own problems, mostly with how you envision damage reduction. But I chalk up most of the weirdness to D&D just being D&D, rather than assuming it needs to be explained away. That's what houserules are for. :smalltongue:

[Mike_G]

I think the idea isn't that the fighter shrugs off a stab through the heart, but that the fighter is OMG SO TOUGH that the blade that would have pierced your heart barely scratches his skin. Even though you both take the same "damage," he suffers less effect from it.

Admittedly, this interpretation has it's own problems, mostly with how you envision damage reduction. But I chalk up most of the weirdness to D&D just being D&D, rather than assuming it needs to be explained away. That's what houserules are for. :smalltongue:

The problem with that is if all damage represents the same hit, at very low level you have axes bouncing off your chin. A basic Kobold Warrior drops from a mere 5 points, so we have to consider 5 points of damage to be a fatal wound - a thrust in the body, a broken skull, a cut throat. But even a 2nd level Wizard can take that. Heck, a 3rd level commoner with average Con can take that, so are we saying that 3 levels of shovelling cow manure makes you so metal that the axe bounces off your skin?

I like the idea that 5 points of damage represents a strong but simple attack. It will kill someone who doesn't know how to fight very well, like a CR <1 humanoid or a 1st level Wizard, but someone with some experience knows how to partially deflect or dodge it, losing a chunk of HP. Someone very experience knows how to mostly deflect it, losing only a tiny fraction of his HP.

Have you ever fought, fenced, boxed etc? It's hard to land a solid hit on an experienced opponent. That same blow would have nailed a neewbie.

[Kami2awa]

To clarify my position on falling, if the PC is thrown off a tower by a Swordsage, or Bullrushed off or whatever, I'll roll the 10d6, apply the damage, and use some kind of narrative plot armor explanation. You landed in something soft, you hit an awning on the way down, something.


Or is abducted by aliens halfway down.

[ScionoftheVoid]

A basic Kobold Warrior drops from a mere 5 points, so we have to consider 5 points of damage to be a fatal wound - a thrust in the body, a broken skull, a cut throat. But even a 2nd level Wizard can take that. Heck, a 3rd level commoner with average Con can take that, so are we saying that 3 levels of shovelling cow manure makes you so metal that the axe bounces off your skin?

I like the idea that 5 points of damage represents a strong but simple attack. It will kill someone who doesn't know how to fight very well, like a CR <1 humanoid or a 1st level Wizard, but someone with some experience knows how to partially deflect or dodge it, losing a chunk of HP. Someone very experience knows how to mostly deflect it, losing only a tiny fraction of his HP.

5 hp makes a basic Commoner or Kobold Warrior fall unconcious, though they could die if left untreated. 5 hp is not necessarily a fatal wound, but would drop many people and leave them hospitalised at best. I think some of your example wounds are a bit much considering that.[/nitpick]

I personally think that the game world has different laws, our laws of physics apply unless contradicted. People are eventually just tough/skilled/[however the player wants it fluffed] enough to consistently survive falls of fifty feet or more. They know this, and will use it when necessary. Otherwise it devolves into situations where characters run away from any ambush by armed opponents, almost any magical creature and most other threats they are expected to face because they would probably not survive those situations in real life. If you can suspend your disbelief when a party runs into a fight with a Manticore why is a jump from a height that would probably kill a normal human in real life so jarring? Doing so for no reason at all might be odd, the fall still hurts, but most of the time there is a reason. Even if it is "this is faster than the stairs and hardly more painful". I may have written this earlier in the thread, but oh well.

[Serenity]

To my mind, there is probably a small skill component to hit points, rolling with a blow to make it hit somewhere less vulnerable. But the verisimilitude (which means internal consistency, not realism) suffers if hit points are not interpreted primarily as immense preternatural toughness. If you fall, you don't dodge the ground, and slowing your fall or rolling with it are separate mechanics. If the attack carried poison, disease, energy drain, if it tripped you, grappled you, or inflicted any secondary effect whatsoever--you were hit. If it was an attack spell, it hit you. If you failed a Reflex save against a fireball, or are denied one, you didn't dodge the fireball. You took the brunt of it, and if you survived, it means you are tough as nails If a dragon sits on you, you were just crushed beneath 250 tons, and are pinned. You didn't survive that through dodging, you survived through being a BAMF. You describe a near miss, and tell the player they lose hit points, and they'll be demanding how that makes sense.

Past the first 6 levels, you are superhuman. E6 gives you relatively realistic fantasy heroes. Higher than that, and you are increasingly playing an action hero. You are Samuel Jackson, Bruce Willis, Harrison Ford, Xena the Warrior Princess, James freakin' Bond. You dive off dams if you have to. That gunshot was a flesh wound. Your eye may be swelling shut from the beating, but it doesn't slow you down.

[Matthew]

I think that as soon as you try to define hit points as definitely being something you are in trouble in terms of verisimilitude, internal consistency, believability, or whatever. The only thing necessary for hit points to function is the rationalisation of their effects, and if it makes sense to somebody that they represent the ability to be stabbed X number of times, then great. That is the trouble with defining them, that people have completely different conceptions of what is abstractly being represented because they have different ideas of what is probable, verisimilar, internally consistent, and so on. In short, it is a very subjective concept.

[okpokalypse]

There's a cap on falling damage of 20d6 due to terminal velocity. Most 20th-level characters can easily survive that provided they're not too injured already.

Bear in mind that a 7th-level character is equivalent to the greatest humans who ever lived, guys who break Olympic records and do crazy stuff on Youtube, and that every two levels added on is a doubling of power. Even mid-level fighters regularly break the laws of physics.

A 1st Level Ardent (Freedom Mantle) w/ Speed of Thought moves at 50', and if you add the Run Feat, he has a 5x Move when Sprinting. That's a run-speed of 28.8 MpH - which is just about the peak speed that Michael Johnson was running when he set the 200m record.

Add 1 more level of Cleric (Celerity Domain) and another of Barbarian and you're at a 70' Speed. That's a 39.7 MpH Run speed - at LEVEL 3! Hell, lets put it in more interesting terms. That's moving 58.3 Feet per Second. That's the equivalent of running a 40-yard dash in 2.05 Seconds (The best athletes do it in around 4.3 to 4.4). That's running a 100m in about 5.7 Seconds!!! Nearly 4 Seconds off the time Usain Bolt just put up in the past Olympics.

This is a Level 3 Character.

Thinking of the Physics of Weapons, a high Level fighter with all the right specs, PrCs and Buffs could get 10 Main-Hand Attacks in a Turn. If he was Large Sized wielding a Large Weapon and following the concept of swinging arcs and such, his weapon would be moving at a ludicrous speed. I don't have the exact number calculated for this, but I'm thinking close to 200 MpH.

[Serenity]

I think that as soon as you try to define hit points as definitely being something you are in trouble in terms of verisimilitude, internal consistency, believability, or whatever. The only thing necessary for hit points to function is the rationalisation of their effects, and if it makes sense to somebody that they represent the ability to be stabbed X number of times, then great. That is the trouble with defining them, that people have completely different conceptions of what is abstractly being represented because they have different ideas of what is probable, verisimilar, internally consistent, and so on. In short, it is a very subjective concept.

I can see no problems of internal consistency that inherently arise from considering hit points as toughness. There's problems of realism, all right, but that's not the same as problems of verisimilitude/internal consistency. Interpreting them that way requires assuming that characters suffer grievous stab wounds many times over, swim in lava, or jump down the Grand Canyon with a parachute, and keep going, but hit points represent precisely what they seem to represent.

It's when you try to say that hit points represent not getting hit, despite innumerable circumstances in which you definitely are, that internal consistency suffers.

[Matthew]

I can see no problems of internal consistency that inherently arise from considering hit points as toughness. There's problems of realism, all right, but that's not the same as problems of verisimilitude/internal consistency. Interpreting them that way requires assuming that characters suffer grievous stab wounds many times over, swim in lava, or jump down the Grand Canyon with a parachute, and keep going, but hit points represent precisely what they seem to represent.

It's when you try to say that hit points represent not getting hit, despite innumerable circumstances in which you definitely are, that internal consistency suffers.

It basically comes down to this: "How much damage does having your head cut off cause?" In D&D that question is silly, because the game uses a post facto system that only works by making the question: "You suffered X amount of damage, what does that represent?"

When you say "hit points are preternatural toughness", you might as well be saying "hit points are magic", because it amounts to the same thing. If a cure light wounds spell cures light wounds and hit points are directly related to representations of wounds, then it follows that people are frequently killed by being lightly wounded. The whole thing is a load of nonsense as soon as you try and put any sort of absolute definition on it. All that hit points represent is how long until a character is dead, trying to make out that one rationalisation is superior to another just ignores the subjectivity inherent in an abstract system.

You could equally argue that because in D&D there is almost no consequence for taking damage that limbs are impossible to sever and organs immune to damage as long as a character is alive, and that would be a fair assessment of the D&D system as a model of the imagined physical reality. The reason that does not happen, though, is because it is not fun to play a character with one arm and leg (or so it is argued), not because it is physically impossible to chop off limbs.

[Gametime]

The problem with that is if all damage represents the same hit, at very low level you have axes bouncing off your chin. A basic Kobold Warrior drops from a mere 5 points, so we have to consider 5 points of damage to be a fatal wound - a thrust in the body, a broken skull, a cut throat. But even a 2nd level Wizard can take that. Heck, a 3rd level commoner with average Con can take that, so are we saying that 3 levels of shovelling cow manure makes you so metal that the axe bounces off your skin?



Part of it could be your tolerance for pain. A kobold goes unconscious after 5 points of damage; this could just mean a kobold goes into shock pretty easily. Blood loss is pretty easy to use for the damage you take by failing to stabilize, so a kobold who takes 5 damage just bleeds to death.

A stronger character would take the 5 damage - maybe a gash in your side; painful, deadly if untreated, but not going to slow down your average adventurer - and ignore the pain. They'd suffer less blood loss, because they're just that awesome.

Beyond that, though, hit points don't make a whole lot of sense. Representing them as skill sort of works, and it works much better if you use wounds and vitality. Your interpretation isn't one that I favor, but it works most of the time.

"Twists out of the way to better absorb the impact of the blow" also resonates with me a lot more than "better at dodging due to experience," even though they're practically identical; the former just words it in a way that more clearly preserves the hit/miss delineation. There's certainly some value to be gained from imagining a difference between your palpable hits and your touches.

[Math_Mage]

The problem with that is if all damage represents the same hit, at very low level you have axes bouncing off your chin.

But it doesn't. And you don't think so either, since you represent the same amount of damage as a fatal stab or a glancing blow depending on how much HP the opponent has.

To-hit represents the accuracy of the blow. Damage represents the power of the blow. AC represents the ability to negate the blow, either by dodging or by blocking with shield and armor. HP represents resistance to the blow. Whether that resistance comes in the form of skill (rolling with the blow, pivoting so that fatal stab is just a belly graze, etc), or toughness (a blow that would decapitate a 1st-level Fighter only cuts an inch into the neck of a 10th-level Fighter), or some combination of the two, doesn't really matter.


A basic Kobold Warrior drops from a mere 5 points, so we have to consider 5 points of damage to be a fatal wound - a thrust in the body, a broken skull, a cut throat. But even a 2nd level Wizard can take that. Heck, a 3rd level commoner with average Con can take that, so are we saying that 3 levels of shovelling cow manure makes you so metal that the axe bounces off your skin?

Are you saying that three levels of shoveling cow manure makes you skilled enough to be able to skillfully minimize sword stab damage? This is why I, like Matthew, said that trying to define HP damage fails in the general case.


Have you ever fought, fenced, boxed etc? It's hard to land a solid hit on an experienced opponent. That same blow would have nailed a neewbie.

Generally, the more experienced opponent is also tougher than the newbie. Again, we see a *mix* of skill and toughness.


I think that as soon as you try to define hit points as definitely being something you are in trouble in terms of verisimilitude, internal consistency, believability, or whatever. The only thing necessary for hit points to function is the rationalisation of their effects, and if it makes sense to somebody that they represent the ability to be stabbed X number of times, then great. That is the trouble with defining them, that people have completely different conceptions of what is abstractly being represented because they have different ideas of what is probable, verisimilar, internally consistent, and so on. In short, it is a very subjective concept.

+10.


I can see no problems of internal consistency that inherently arise from considering hit points as toughness. There's problems of realism, all right, but that's not the same as problems of verisimilitude/internal consistency. Interpreting them that way requires assuming that characters suffer grievous stab wounds many times over, swim in lava, or jump down the Grand Canyon with a parachute, and keep going, but hit points represent precisely what they seem to represent.

It's when you try to say that hit points represent not getting hit, despite innumerable circumstances in which you definitely are, that internal consistency suffers.

I don't think anyone is saying hit points represent not getting hit. You and Gametime and Mike_G are all saying that hit points represent the ability to take more blows. For you and Gametime, it's because the character is tougher; for Mike, it's because the character is experienced in taking blows without being debilitated, because he sets himself to minimize the impact, because he rolls with the punch, etc. I see no reason why these concepts cannot be combined.

[olentu]

Are you saying that three levels of shoveling cow manure makes you skilled enough to be able to skillfully minimize sword stab damage? This is why I, like Matthew, said that trying to define HP damage fails in the general case.

Apparently shoveling cow manure is a very competitive business.

[Mike_G]

Part of it could be your tolerance for pain. A kobold goes unconscious after 5 points of damage; this could just mean a kobold goes into shock pretty easily. Blood loss is pretty easy to use for the damage you take by failing to stabilize, so a kobold who takes 5 damage just bleeds to death.


Which is exactly what happens to you if I hit you with a mace and fracture your skull. You take a few minutes to die, and the Kobold bleeds out in ten rounds, which is one minute.

So, 5 Hp of damage to a 1st level commoner, or a bog-standard MM kobold is a wound that leaves them unconscious and bleeding to death.

We in the Emergency Medical field call that a "fatal wound." Sure, your head's still attached, but...



A stronger character would take the 5 damage - maybe a gash in your side; painful, deadly if untreated, but not going to slow down your average adventurer - and ignore the pain. They'd suffer less blood loss, because they're just that awesome.


For a Fighter 20, 5 HP is like slamming your finger in the car door. Less, even, since that kind of penalizes you. Like cutting yourself shaving. It's not "deadly if untreated." A 5th level character, well within the range of "badass normal" recovers 5 HP in a day.

5 hp is both something a new recruit dies from and a veteran shrugs off.

That is not a "gash in the side" since that makes no sense for either. It may well be a simple attack that will skewer a noob, wound a slightly experienced guy but only mildly inconvenience a veteran.




Beyond that, though, hit points don't make a whole lot of sense. Representing them as skill sort of works, and it works much better if you use wounds and vitality. Your interpretation isn't one that I favor, but it works most of the time.

"Twists out of the way to better absorb the impact of the blow" also resonates with me a lot more than "better at dodging due to experience," even though they're practically identical; the former just words it in a way that more clearly preserves the hit/miss delineation. There's certainly some value to be gained from imagining a difference between your palpable hits and your touches.

I think that's exactly what the skill interpretation does. Guy Redshirt takes the thrust in the gut and bleeds out, Sal the Sidekick takes a cut and gets staggered, Hal the Hero deflects it and has only a tiny, macho looking cut on the cheekbone, that drips a single line of blood that he can wipe off and come back to the fight with renewed determination.

[Math_Mage]

For a Fighter 20, 5 HP is like slamming your finger in the car door. Less, even, since that kind of penalizes you. Like cutting yourself shaving. It's not "deadly if untreated." A 5th level character, well within the range of "badass normal" recovers 5 HP in a day.

5 hp is both something a new recruit dies from and a veteran shrugs off.

That is not a "gash in the side" since that makes no sense for either. It may well be a simple attack that will skewer a noob, wound a slightly experienced guy but only mildly inconvenience a veteran.

Which leaves the reason *why* it does so open to consideration.

Skill isn't enough to keep you from being splatted on a 100' fall. Skill isn't enough to keep you from being incinerated if caught inside the dragon's mouth. Skill isn't enough to explain why a Fighter 10 who fails his Reflex save is still standing after a Fireball, while a Fighter 1 is toast. There are minor ways to factor skill into those things, but they aren't enough.

Similarly, toughness can't be the only reason why the same sword stroke that would kill a Fighter 1 only leaves a cut on Fighter 10. It can factor in, but it can't be the only explanation because it breaks verisimilitude for the latter to be no better at defense than the former.

Ergo, skill and inherent toughness each play a role in HP.

[Mike_G]

Ergo, skill and inherent toughness each play a role in HP.

I've been agreeing with that for 12 pages.

I just have to keep refuting "10 HP is always the same hit. Swords just bounce off your jugular by third level."

The book even calls HP a combination of "luck, skill, divine favor" and so on. I don't know the page, but I cited it earlier.

[Gametime]

I've been agreeing with that for 12 pages.

I just have to keep refuting "10 HP is always the same hit. Swords just bounce off your jugular by third level."

The book even calls HP a combination of "luck, skill, divine favor" and so on. I don't know the page, but I cited it earlier.

I've always interpreted that line to refer more to the random resolution of damage (dice rolling and all that) than to the actual effects of damage, at least for the parts about luck and divine favor, since damage, healing, and the like really don't mesh well with some abstract concept of "luck." I figured the luck comes in when your opponent rolls all 1's on his sneak attack dice, not in how well you take the damage thereof.

[Psyx]

I really don't see too much point in over-rationalising a system that allows every warrior to be beaten with a sword within an inch of passing out without any impairment to their abilities...

[Gametime]

I really don't see too much point in over-rationalising a system that allows every warrior to be beaten with a sword within an inch of passing out without any impairment to their abilities...

Considering hit points also exist in systems that do incorporate penalties for injuries, it's not such a waste of time as you'd expect.