This has bothered me for a long time, too. I've thought about differentiating the effects of cure spells more, but that's no good. Ultimately, I go with fluff about the strength of a person's life-force requiring greater magic to produce the same effects. Kind of like DBZ power levels (or what I gather of them from the parodies on youtube, being my only exposure to the series); but it also seems to work in things like OotS. There are literally such things as "lesser men;" some people are just "better" or "more" than others, and they require stronger magic. At least, that's the only way I can wrap my head around it in-game. Hope that helps.
Meh I'm lazier than Saern -- it's magic would be my answer.
Also: An athlete (a professional athlete) takes more care and attention to keep in shape than someone who isn't. If someone sprains their ankle the doctor will give them a splint, keep them off it a bit, maybe some pills for the pain and swelling but that's it. If a professional athlete sprains their ankle you might be looking at some minor surgery to repair it faster, and more completely.
The better someone can use their body the closer they run to the maximum limits of their body -- at those limits when damage does appear it is usually more catastrophic and must be repaired with a higher degree of skill in order to let it function like it did before.
If I can lift so much weight and hurt myself it only takes so much before I'm back to lifting that much weight again.
If someone else lifts much more than I can and gets the same injury it takes much more to get them back to where they were (due to more muscle, higher stress needs, etc).
|
Yeah, HP is the ultimate realism killer.
A friend of mine has an interpretation that he likes:
Thus, the more experienced you are the better you are at not getting "hurt" when the other guy swings his sword -- and at how "tough" you are at dealing with it.
So, 10 points of damage isn't really the same injury for a 1oth level fighter as it is for a 1st level fighter.
Meh I'm lazier than Saern -- it's magic would be my answer.
That typically works for my players, too, but I can never be personally comfortable with that answer in a system which touts internal consistency. Not that always, or hell, even often lives up to it. But I try to justify the stuff anyway. :)
Yeah however with actual thinking behind a response I stick with what I put after that.
|
A health / vitality system, such as the one in Star Wars, or Unearthed Arcana, or Monte Cooks 'Health / Grace' mechanic from the Book of Experimental Might, tend to feel a little more 'versimilitudinous' than abstract hit points, but it's been twenty some years, and I've pretty much just learned to shrug and accept that it doesn't make sense that a cure light wounds won't cure a 20th level fighter that, technically, wasn't even physically injured, having 'only' taken fifty hit points of damage, which just represents being 'winded' or 'shaken up' at his level.
A way of not changing the hit point system would be to tweak the cure spells. Arduin Grimoire suggested that 'heal light wounds' would cure 10% of damage, to anyone, 'heal serious' 25%, 'heal critical' 50% and 'heal grievous' 75%, etc.
Another way would be to base it on the HD of the recipient. Cure light wounds heals 1 hp / HD you have. So if a 5th level Cleric casts it on his 5th level buddy, he gets 5 hp back. If he casts it on a 20th level barbarian he's trying to suck up to, the barbarian gets 20 hp back. Cure moderate wounds would heal 2 hp / HD, cure serious wounds would heal 3 hp / HD, etc. Higher HD / level people would get way more of their hit points back, with this sort of system.
The usual +1 hp / caster level rider would be added on, so that the 5th level recipient in the above example would actually receive 10 hp (five hp for his own 5 HD, +5 hp for the clerics five caster levels).
Alternately, instead of basing extra hit points cured off of the clerics caster level, if using a HD based mechanic, it might be preferable to base it on his wisdom bonus, so that a cleric with an 18 Wisdom cures 4 hit points plus +2 / HD of the recipient, with a cure moderate wounds. This would make a 1st level clerics cure light wounds on his 1st level friends better than a paltry two hit points. (Granted, it would still be 1 hp + his wisdom bonus, which is probably three-ish...) Swap wisdom bonus for Cha bonus for Bards, Paladins, Oracles, Favored Souls, etc. and it's pretty much good to go, without mucking with the actual hit points themselves.
Still, it's change for the sake of a fairly small bump in versimilitude. I'm a big fan of stuff 'feeling like it makes sense' (even if it doesn't), but I usually require more than just that to go for a house rule (unless the players themselves bring it up!).
|
|
Actually, that looks pretty good Set, considering how worthless healing in combat usually is. Unfortunately, it still falls flat in terms of versimilitude (at least in my mind) considering how much better it heals weaker people (those with smaller hit dice) than stronger ones (those with larger hit dice)
That is a good point. On the one hand, maybe a d12 HD barbarian should be able to actually take more physical harm than a d6 HD wizard, and should therefore require more actual curative magic to close those wounds that would have left the wizard on the ground.
On the other hand, it would be possible to add some sort of bonus for those classes with the larger d10 and d12 HD. Use the standard system for someone with a d6 or d8, and either add a flat bonus for anyone using a d10 or d12, or count d10s and d12s as the equivalent of two dice. (So a cure light wounds would cure 5 hp (+whatever) for a 5d6 wizard, or 10 hp (+whatever) for a 5d12 barbarian.)
I've always viewed magical healing (and damage for that matter) as always going up against a sort of inherent "toughness/secondary fortitude/resistance" effect. A 20th level/hd anything is simply tougher than its 1rst level counterpart, right? Be it commoner, fighter, wizard, dragon, or whatever. The weight of their experiences, determination, will to live, physical mass, etc is vastly improved.
So to me it makes sense that a level 1 fighter hit with CLW can be almost totally healed with a good roll, while it barely removes a bruise from the 20th level fighter. Mr. 20 has shrugged off much more powerful magic than that, his very being simply resists incoming magic so much that what was once "powerful" healing is simply "band aid" healing. Same with damage. 14d6 disintegrate damage might kill the 7th lvl fighter outright, but against the 20th it is unlikely to be fatal. The 20th is just that much more resistant against its effects, able to hold his body together through sheer will to live, rather than being torn apart by the magical forces as he might have earlier in his career.
Does my description use words like fortitude, resistance, etc, that are part of gaming jargon? Yes, but I am not using them in their mechanical capacity, I am using them in a more fluff sense to describe what is happening "behind the mechanics". Could a charachter make a will save to take 1/2 healing? Sure. That, to me at least, doesn't change that his body's instinctual, subconcious, and uncontrollable reflex is to resist a foreign force as it begins to work upon him.
Sure you can; the thing to consider is the source of the spells if they are by Divine channel. If that is the case; then it is the Diety who decides who gets healed and who doesnt; depending upon your mechanics; now some people play you pray for your spells at the beginning of the day and have to guess what you need for spells; and your diety gives you those and it is up to the priest to use them correctly or the diety doesnt give you spells the next day. For this I would suggest using intermediaries who bring the spells; servents of the dieity; say a Shedu or Deva or whatever is appropriate.
The problem here is that the priest can offend by using the spells say on the horse in question rather than to help a person. So; if your playing say a Greek Campaign; whereas horses are holy to Neptune; well; I would expect a priest of Neptune to heal a horse; but if your playing something else; it may not be appropriate to heal a holy creatues of an opposing diety.
Now if your playing that when a priest casts a spell ;that divine request goes out and is granted or refused case by case; well the priest gets immediant feedback and should atone for his unfulfilled request; either the priest is lacking faith; the subject at hand is not to the dieties liking; or something of that sort.
on non diefic healing, like cell adjustment and various named mental healing abilities; is just cell damage; the heal rebuilds so many cells. So if you considering the human vs your horse and how hit points are a mechanic and the higher level priest perhaps dodges or turns to absorb the damage and how that looks as scenery, consider anguish; a horse isnt going to have to much anguish over a cut to the flank; but a human, having a bigger brain and perhaps spirit/soul that is more connect to various realms; while the cell damage of the injury might not be so big for a human as a horse; you could call part of the heal as healing the spiritual and mental anguish of the wound which would have a much bigger impact upon a person. Some cultures, such as the Greeks; go so far as to say you need the weapon that did the damage to restore harmony to the wound; the is a clear example in the Aeneid; if your interested.
so; i suggest you look for your answer in the pc's are more than mundane put spiritual or soul bearing beings that need to have that damage healed as well. The higher the being; the more complicated the system. Did you know that in 1st and 2nd ed; a cure light wounds wouldnt even heal a person or being from a plane other than originating on the prime material, food for thought.
Curing a set number of hit points per level/HD rather than a random die actually mimics the 3.x rules for heal fairly well, though the magnitude is based off the target rather than the caster. Still, there is a nice symmetry. And adding in the relevant ability modifier is also a great idea; one of the main functions of healing is, particularly at low levels, to get someone back on their feet and into the fight. However, if they get back in with only 1 or 2 hp, they'll be out again very quick, and possibly in worse shape than before. Adding in the ability bonus would give a small but significant boost to the effectiveness of the spell. It would certainly be enough to stop PCs from bleeding out in combat. I think it has possibilities as an effective mechanic that is somewhat more justifiable fluff-wise. Healing somewhat closer to a percentage of total hit points could be described as the depth to which the magic takes effect; flesh wounds, internal organs, down to the bone, etc. There's still the corner issue of why a cure light wounds would be able to save someone bleeding out on the floor (a presumably deep wound), but the DM can always render the description such that the healer can physically get closer to the wound via the gaping hole in the chest, and thus the magic can reach the damaged area.
I would be tempted to back this up with a boost to the Heal skill, making it capable of actually significant healing with sufficiently difficult checks. It could be rendered a non-combat ability by simply requiring a minute or more to perform such a skill check (similar to actual battlefield or surgical medical procedures), aimed at letting parties heal up between fights more; or, if the DM thought that unbalancing, making the check deal damage instead of healing it if the check is botched by 5 or more would stop the party from taking 20. Actual surgical medical care still carries that risk in the modern era, and even moreso if the setting has medieval physicians in mind.
I know it is just the mechanics, but I need to have some attempt at understanding to portray it to the players. Does anyone have any ideas as to how to represent the mechanics of the cure spells so they are internally consistent?Any advice/ideas are appreciated.
They are internally consistent. They aren't in line with a simulationist view of the game world, but this is one of many times when attempting to simulate a believable world becomes a bit of a hindrance rather than a help. When a player heals in my games, I simply say, "Ok." I don't worry about attempting to describe the mechanics every time.
Just admit that characters above first few levels are superheroes and therefore have a certain amount of super-toughness, that grows with their general mojo. Voila, done.
Crane - that's very similar to how we handle things in our campaigns for recovery of hit points. Weird.
We stick with hit points as hit points, but using those rules all characters recover in about the same amount of time across the whole level range.
As far as death, we use -10 -(con modifier if positive). So, con of 20 gives -15 for death. Con of 5 results in -10 for death.
We use the regular massive damage rules.
All of the players in our campaigns (except my daughter and my friend's daughter) have been playing D&D in one incarnation or another for at least 15 years (I've been playing for 30) so we've long learned to ignore this question. As good as the question is, the answer does nothing for the game. More powerful healing spells are provided (as part of the reward for becoming a high level cleric) to take care of the greater need for healing at higher levels. "The Gods deem it is good, so who are we to question it?" LOL
|
|
Condition: Injured
A character that has suffered even a single point of hit point damage gains the condition, “Injured.” An injured character may take a standard action or a move action, but not both, nor can they full attack. In addition, an injured character suffers a -4 penalty to their Strength and Dexterity. This penalty results in a -2 on Attack, Damage, AC and Reflex saving throw rolls.
I like this idea. I remember seeing it in Mutants & Masterminds, and thinking that it was a neat idea, since hit points in D&D have always been all or nothing, with a character being on his last hit point having no bearing at all on how effective he is at fighting or spellcasting. The 4e 'bloodied' condition similarly adds this idea, and I like it.
Condition: Injured
A character that has suffered even a single point of hit point damage gains the condition, “Injured.” An injured character may take a standard action or a move action, but not both, nor can they full attack. In addition, an injured character suffers a -4 penalty to their Strength and Dexterity. This penalty results in a -2 on Attack, Damage, AC and Reflex saving throw rolls.
Seems like a great way to say, "Only play spell casters" to me.
|
|
Seems like a great way to say, "Only play spell casters" to me.Condition: Injured
A character that has suffered even a single point of hit point damage gains the condition, “Injured.” An injured character may take a standard action or a move action, but not both, nor can they full attack. In addition, an injured character suffers a -4 penalty to their Strength and Dexterity. This penalty results in a -2 on Attack, Damage, AC and Reflex saving throw rolls.
+!
Dear heavens, what it says is that the people most likely to take HP damage, the guys who step up toe-to-toe in melee, lose their best option for damage (full attack) AND take a -2 on everything related to melee because they took too much HP damage. Meanwhile, if the wizard takes too much HP damage, he can just take a standard action that does not require attack or damage rolls.
|
|
These rules are very generous to fighters.
I disagree heavily. They are generous to the party as a whole in that they do not have to spend resources healing the fighter unless he gets down to Injured status.
But to fighters, they are a slap in the face. By merely being in melee he is threatened with losing nearly all his combat effectiveness, requiring severe medical attention to get him back in the game if it happens.
On top of that, his high HP is no longer a defense against traps, because they are a save or die that ignores his HP. Even if it does not kill him outright, he is dependant on the caster to heal him back to full again.
And now, he is more likely to die when put into negatives. He no longer gets multiple chances to stabilize, he gets a single save versus death after a timer goes off.
These rules make melee combat incredibly more lethal. And making combat more lethal makes it harder on fighters, not easier. If you want a deadly E6 game, these rules accomplish that goal well. But it is only generous to casters that don't need full attack actions to perform their job.
|
|
All spells require full round actions. Full round spells require two full rounds. Casters struck anytime during their turns lose their spell automatically, no saving throw.
No complaints here. We can agree on something! :)
I still disagree with you. For one, the -2 on everything isn't that bad most of the time. Sure, if they need an 18 normally, suffering a -2 is horrible. On the other hand, if they need a 12, a -2 is hardly noticed. Likewise, if the fighter deals 1d8+2 normally, his average damage is 6.5. If he is fighting 8 hp orcs, he will probably have to swing twice to kill one with or without the -2 to damage.
The -2 is just the kicker on top of 'no full round actions, only one standard or move'. That cripples the fighter. And yes, I know it doesn't mean as much at levels 1-5 when they only have one attack. I'm talking high levels, where the fighter really has problems.
That said, Pathfinder is too easy. A fighter (10) vs. a monster (cr10) is a cake walk assuming the monster doesn't have a power that makes it impossible for the fighter to fight back. Making a cake walk a little challenging doesn't really twinge my conscience.
The problem is that most monsters have powers that do that. The others tend to have better numbers than the fighter, meaning they get him to Injured faster than he gets them there.
As far as traps go, there is no point in a trap if it can't kill people. No one would bother building them. I've never heard of a trap in real life that didn't kill people. Arrows kill people, pits break bones, mines kill people, neck level razor wire really kills people -- there isn't any such thing as being blind sided by a trap and being ok. Watching a fighter with his 100 hp walk through a bunch of arrow traps getting surprised this way and that irritates me.
Yeah, you want realism in your fantasy roleplay. Pathfinder and D&D do not support that in high level play. High level characters are like Superman, able to take a punch with enough force behind it to pulverise boulders without even losing a tooth. You've recognized this, and adjusted your game to suit. But don't act like you're doing the fighter a favor in doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hiya.
Huh, lots of different ideas. :)
Me? I treat HP's as HP's. A 1st level charcter has less than a 10th level character. The 10th level character *can* take multiple stab wounds and keep going, while the 1st level'er can't.
Lets say the 1st level guy ("A") has 10hp, and the 10th level character ("B") has 100hp. Both take a sword to the gut for 8hp damage. Now A is clutching at his guts, trying not to simultaneously pass out and soil himself. Next to him is B, who looks down, pokes an entrail back into the wound and says "Tsss....eee..yeah. Kinda stings.", then steels his brow for the counter attack. Both took the *same* wound for the same amount...but B is so used to this kind of thing he doesn't panic or anything, and he uses his inner resolve, training and experience to keep his blood pressure up and also positions himself so as to lessen the pain and potential to injure himself more.
The cleric heals them both...for 9hp each. Both wounds close and bleeding ceases. Same wound, same healing, same effect.
Pro boxers can take a solid hit to the jaw...but Melvin Smelnick the 98lb accountant takes the same hit and drops to the ground like a bag of mouldy tangerines. The both take the same "damage", but the pro boxer is used to it and knows what to expect and how to compensate. He isn't surprised or panicked when it happens.
That's how I look at at anyway.
I like this idea. I remember seeing it in Mutants & Masterminds, and thinking that it was a neat idea, since hit points in D&D have always been all or nothing, with a character being on his last hit point having no bearing at all on how effective he is at fighting or spellcasting. The 4e 'bloodied' condition similarly adds this idea, and I like it.
Trust me, this is a really bad idea in systems with actual HPs, instead of a condition track (if not in general). That I can say from my extensive experience with White Wolf games, which all feature some sort of wound penalties. Either penalties are so insignificant as to only add much extra accounting. Or they are actually crippling, and so characters suffer from the death spiral syndrome, when taking a major wound drastically reduces your chances to do anything about an enemy who managed to inflict this wound upon you, so you most likely have lost, but must roll some more dice before the loss becomes official. 4E actually had a good idea, trying to introduce a reverse death spiral in the game, with benefits that activate once a creature is down to half HPs.
Pro boxers can take a solid hit to the jaw...but Melvin Smelnick the 98lb accountant takes the same hit and drops to the ground like a bag of mouldy tangerines. The both take the same "damage", but the pro boxer is used to it and knows what to expect and how to compensate. He isn't surprised or panicked when it happens.
Except that even a professional fighter can be felled by one punch, and that is impossible to replicate with high level D&D characters.
Except that even a professional fighter can be felled by one punch, and that is impossible to replicate with high level D&D characters.
It is. You just should punch hard enough to take out a demigod, because that's what a high level DnD character is. Mere human strength of course will fail, big news, of course humans can't do jack to entities that are supposed to not merely take down T-Rexes in melee, but to consider this a non-challenge.
It is. You just should punch hard enough to take out a demigod, because that's what a high level DnD character is. Mere human strength of course will fail, big news, of course humans can't do jack to entities that are supposed to not merely take down T-Rexes in melee, but to consider this a non-challenge.
Except that even a professional fighter can be felled by one punch, and that is impossible to replicate with high level D&D characters.
I'm not advocating for a more realistic system. I've dealt with the hp system for over 20 years and can accept that it's an abstraction and it doesn't interrupt my enjoyment of the game. My point is there is no system that is going to perfectly replicate real combat. Some come close, but in a lot of cases the more realistic you get the less fun it will be. In a combat based game like D&D, it isn't a lot of fun to know that one hit will kill you. I can appreciate the discussion in the hopes of finding the elusive perfect hp system, but the lack of such a system isn't ruining my game.
And since when did 10th level human fighters become demi-gods? And if they are, shouldn't another 10th level character be able to lay them out with one punch, in the name of realism, of course?
I've dealt with the hp system for over 20 years and can accept that it's an abstraction
Why anyone should accept that HPs are abstraction, when they quite clearly indicate in-setting superhuman toughness? Because how you are supposed to melee kaijus, like, say, a Gargantuan monstrous scorpion, without superhuman tougness? Even if you by some miracle avoid getting squashed when it as much as brushes you, the power necessary to actually wound the thing, will tear your muscles and turn your bones to powder, unless you are superhumanly tough.
And since when did 10th level human fighters become demi-gods? And if they are, shouldn't another 10th level character be able to lay them out with one punch, in the name of realism, of course?
Since the dawn of DnD. In fact, they were even more of demigods then, because you were supposed to kill full gods at level 14. But even in 3.X, which is quite bad about keeping PCs down, at level 10 you are as good as Hercules (fiendish dire lions and nine-headed regenerating hydras with breath weapons are fair battles to you).
And a 10th level character in 3.X is perfectly able to lay another 10th level out with one punch, of course. But just like in RL taking out people as good as you with one punch is not easy and will take some effort (in DnD 3.X, effort of building your character for that).
[Hit points] quite clearly indicate in-setting superhuman toughness?
Except, begging your pardon and no offense, they don't. They might. But hit points are not "clearly" anything, which might be the source of a lot of debates like this. There are numerous ways to interpret what hit points represent, as the 3.x PHB makes clear.
Since the dawn of DnD. In fact, they were even more of demigods then, because you were supposed to kill full gods at level 14. But even in 3.X, which is quite bad about keeping PCs down, at level 10 you are as good as Hercules (fiendish dire lions and nine-headed regenerating hydras with breath weapons are fair battles to you).And a 10th level character in 3.X is perfectly able to lay another 10th level out with one punch, of course. But just like in RL taking out people as good as you with one punch is not easy and will take some effort (in DnD 3.X, effort of building your character for that).
If I had more time, I'd link to another thread where I discuss the peril and ultimate futility of trying to compare power levels of D&D characters to the "real world." So, in summation: it is perilous and futile.
Everyone has a different idea of what they represent. Some compare literal abilities ("No one can long jump that far! Therefore, you are a demigod.") Others compare between NPCs ("No, I'm pretty sure that would require some kind of template. My sheet just says plain old human.") It will also depend on the power-level of the world ("Dude, this is the Realms! There are 10th level NPCs under every rock; they cannot ALL be demigods!" - "Fine, then, it's like a Supers game.")
It's a fantasy game. Each of those terms are important. It isn't bound to simulate "our reality," nor is it fully meant to. Look at OotS. High level characters like O-Chul take multiple meteor swarms at damn-near point-blank range, and are okay. They aren't demigods in that setting. One might be able to argue it's like a Supers world. But it's also just itself. In whatever setting that place is called (OotS world, I guess), some people are just stronger and can do stuff like that. Others, not so much.
To base an argument off what the game is supposed to represent is far too subjective. We can talk about representations we like, about what we prefer, but to say, "This is right and that is wrong because of my subjective view of what an Xth level character is supposed to be" is, I repeat, perilous and futile.
No offense to anyone, not trying to call people out or step on any toes. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Except, begging your pardon and no offense, they don't. They might. But hit points are not "clearly" anything, which might be the source of a lot of debates like this. There are numerous ways to interpret what hit points represent, as the 3.x PHB makes clear.
DnD characters, if we strive for any sort of immersion, need to be super-tough because they are seriously expected to be able to chop Godzilla into bits in a fair and square combat. Just period. Even if they would have been expected to dodge every single actual attack. But they aren't. And hit points do in fact them super-tough. So, it's not difficult to connect the dots. Various "different interpretation" of hit points are nothing more than appease the crowd that has the utterly bizarre idea of vanilla action heroes being able on stone giants* or similarly strong monsters and actually winning without trickery or plot cheating in their favor.
*Stone giants are my favorite example because they are faster than average human, stronger than a normal human can ever be, have skin that is harder than any mundane armor, wear armor on top of that, throw rocks as big as a human, and, well, are damn big, with an appropriate reach, and so on.
If I had more time, I'd link to another thread where I discuss the peril and ultimate futility of trying to compare power levels of D&D characters to the "real world." So, in summation: it is perilous and futile.
So, I'm supposed to accept your possition just because you've declared it? How about... no?
Everyone has a different idea of what they represent. Some compare literal abilities ("No one can long jump that far! Therefore, you are a demigod.") Others compare between NPCs ("No, I'm pretty sure that would require some kind of template. My sheet just says plain old human.") It will also depend on the power-level of the world ("Dude, this is the Realms! There are 10th level NPCs under every rock; they cannot ALL be demigods!" - "Fine, then, it's like a Supers game.")
Of course if you accept both meaningful and meaningless methods of comparison as equally valid, you won't get any consistent results. You've already stated one of the two meaningful methods (literal abilities), another is looking at challenges the characters are supposed to overcome.
Oh and 10th level NPCs under every rock means exactly that there are demigods under every rock. Deal with it, or make your world saner.
It's a fantasy game. Each of those terms are important. It isn't bound to simulate "our reality," nor is it fully meant to.
Why are you confusing simulating our reality, which wasn't even mentioned by me, with a minimal standards of internal consistensy and verissimilitude?
Look at OotS.
How about... again, no. I don't want to look at it just to confirm already-obvious fact that high-level DnD characters are demigods (or superhumans, or whatever, are you picking on the term because you have no better arguments?) GM of that story is a railroading, moralizing a#@!+*+, character are as powerful as the plot demands, and the author even admits to nerfing the hell out of spellcasting PCs so that they won't make the rest of the party useless. So it's less than useless in discussions on DnD power level.
To base an argument off what the game is supposed to represent is far too subjective. We can talk about representations we like, about what we prefer, but to say, "This is right and that is wrong because of my subjective view of what an Xth level character is supposed to be" is, I repeat, perilous and futile.
There is nothing particularly subjective in CR. Well, there is a subjective element in situational adjustments to CR, but when the game tells you that at 10th level a T-Rex is an easy fight for you, then you are officially supposed to be strong enough to easily destroy a T-Rex.
Why are you confusing simulating our reality, which wasn't even mentioned by me, with a minimal standards of internal consistensy and verissimilitude?
I'm just going to reply to this, because it seems to get to the root of the problem. I think we're really getting into semantics; not that I think semantics are useless arguments. They are fundamental to establishing a baseline for further discussion.
Calling someone a demigod inherently makes a comparison to "our reality" and expectations about what "normal people" can do. The reason I take issue with it is, because in most D&D settings and certainly every published one I know of, a demigod is an actual thing which exists and can be encountered. The nature of that thing will differ VASTLY depending on the nature of the setting. In one, a demigod may be well within the non-epic challenge range, because epic characters are meant to fight the real gods right from level 21 on up. In others, demigods won't even start popping up as creatures of appropriate CRs until level 30+. It depends on what you think of as a demigod.
Calling someone a demigod also implies to me a certain rarity which, in my conception, is far exceeded by the number of 10th (or even 20th) level characters in the world.
My point isn't that PCs aren't super powerful. They are. They can do incredible things. Except they aren't incredible in a fantasy D&D world, because there are a lot of people running around who can do those things. It's certainly above average, and what high level characters can do is certainly amazing even by the standards of most game worlds. But comparing anything D&D to non-D&D seems fraught with too much subjectivity to be meaningful, because
I fear that the problem is that the rules don't intentionally model anything. They don't model gods coming into their own or Conan type warriors or realistic fighters. The rules are all over the place.
Excellently said, sir. My point exactly. The rules are calibrated at the low levels to represent "realistic" abilities, but also game balance and "fun," whatever that means, which destroys most attempts to render them as good (or even decent, in some cases) simulations of reality. Some making comparisons between the two "systems" is extremely difficult, and often impossible.
It gets worse at later levels, which become calibrated purely on the powers of previous levels with ever decreasing nods toward simulations of "reality."
I'm reminding of a conversation I once had on the boards about including physics in D&D (another thing I believe to be an absolute no-no, because it also just doesn't work). They argued that one could construct a non-Newtonian model of physics that explained the game world. And I replied that the very next book released (though perhaps pointless now with 3.0 and 3.5 D&D) would destroy that model, because the game designers don't care about physics, or even realistic simulation very often.
If there is a DMing stopping someone from doing something normally allowable by the rules because it's "unrealistic," there is indeed a problem. However, I think arguing the PC's case based on "he's a demigod" is the wrong way to go about it. That gets into a realm of too much subjectivity, and subtly enforces the erroneous DM's position that physics, as we study them in the modern world, etc., etc., do have a place in the game world. Better to excise them entirely, don't make comparisons between what happens in game and what can happen "IRL" on any kind of serious basis; and, yes, the RAW allow for some crazy $^%& to happen, which is cool, because it's all fun, because it's a game and that's what it's meant to be.
Why anyone should accept that HPs are abstraction, when they quite clearly indicate in-setting superhuman toughness? Because how you are supposed to melee kaijus, like, say, a Gargantuan monstrous scorpion, without superhuman tougness? Even if you by some miracle avoid getting squashed when it as much as brushes you, the power necessary to actually wound the thing, will tear your muscles and turn your bones to powder, unless you are superhumanly tough.
It's an abstraction because D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game based on heavy combat and a rule system is necessary to determine how long combatants can stay in the fight. When bigger things do more damage it's an abstraction of the fact that they're strongerthan the little things that do less damage. This is in place because it's not fun to say "Well, it's the size of a house and steps on you so you die." Nothing in the rules on hp's in any edition say anything about super-human or demi-god toughness.
Since the dawn of DnD. In fact, they were even more of demigods then, because you were supposed to kill full gods at level 14. But even in 3.X, which is quite bad about keeping PCs down, at level 10 you are as good as Hercules (fiendish dire lions and nine-headed regenerating hydras with breath weapons are fair battles to you).
Hercules had a far easier time than any characters I've ever seen when battling hydras. But the rules laid out in Deities and Demigods inform me that my 10th level fighter is not a demi-god, no matter how easy the fight.
And a 10th level character in 3.X is perfectly able to lay another 10th level out with one punch, of course. But just like in RL taking out people as good as you with one punch is not easy and will take some effort (in DnD 3.X, effort of building your character for that).
My point was that in real life any experienced fighter can be felled by a lucky punch, and as an avid fan of MMA I can say it happens pretty frequently. The rules of D&D aren't designed to mimic this because it's not fun. My tenth level fighter has no realistic chance of being felled by a single unarmed strike from any other 10th level character. Cranewings has come come up with house rules that come closer to simulating that level of reality, but it's just a tighter level of abstraction.
Bringing mythology into the discussion isn't going to prove anything about the D&D rules. Look at what killed any of the gods and demi-gods. I can't think of any that died of sheer hit point damage.
And as to kaiju and t-rexes, it's a fantsy game and they're fantasy monsters. I, as a normal person, may in fact be able to knock out a gargantuan scorpion with one punch, but we'll never know because they're make-believe. D&D has rules to cover them because it's fun to pretend to kill Godzilla and there needs to be rules to govern such an event. The rules are not intended to simulate how that fight would realisticly take place.
If you want the misery of a realistic system, check out Living Steel (or their Vietnam combat sim). Can't remember the publisher, but they went to great lengths to research injuries and survival rates and ballistics and what not. There are pages of tables. It is a very detailed and interesting system, but I'd rather see it on a computer - it takes too long to deal with at the table. And you do not under any circumstances want to be injured - you stand a good chance of dying.
Hiya
If you want the misery of a realistic system, check out Living Steel (or their Vietnam combat sim).
I think it was Phoenix Command (and the company was "Leading Edge" games iirc).
If you really want realism though, check out the World of Synibaar. Now *that's* realism turned up to 11!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
PS: That last part was a joke, just in case someone missed it. :)
Yes! Leading Edge, and Phoenix Command! I have my books packed at the moment and can't look them up without digging through several boxes.
Anyway - I always laugh when people talk about D&D's "complex combat system." It's about as simple as I can stand....