Dragon 23

-

-

-

Dragon

The concept of “HP” is almost universal in all types of role
playing games. They are often used as a measure of how much damage
any given being can take in any given situation. In the case of a sword
duel with two high level (and thus, high hit point) players, it is easily
possible to see that thirty hits at 1-8 hit points per strike could happen on
each side. Logically, thirty such actual cuts would easily kill any real life
being in the same situation. It must therefore be assumed that many of
these lost hit points represent fatigue, damaged armor, the battle situation
itself, or the weapons used. With this being the case there should be
some method of determining the physical damage that finally occurs in
any given battle.*

When a person takes a great deal of physical damage in whatever
manner, it is highly possible that the effects will become permanent. It is
conceivable that a sword could sever a toe or finger causing a drop in
dexterity or a ray gun could puncture a lung, causing a drop in constitution.
The following charts will help judges curb the more active tendencies
of their players.

They are used when any given player is reduced to one or two hit points.

<Instead, these tables could be used for when a PC is at -6 HP or less.>

PERCENTILE

1-50	no permanent damage after healing
51-70	being requires magical aid in healing correctly
71-100%	being is maimed unless wish or 5th level or better clerical healing spell is used or device is employed.

AREA OF THE BODY DAMAGED PERMANENTLY

1-14	Head
15-49	Trunk
50-74	Arms
75-79	Legs
80-94	Hands
95-100	Feet

HEAD DAMAGE

1-12	Hearing Loss
13-24	Sight Loss
25-36	Speech Impaired
37-48	Charisma Impaired
49-60	Intelligence Impaired
61-72	Wisdom Impaired
73-88	Fighting Ability Impaired
89-100	Spell Ability Impaired

LEG DAMAGE

1-25	Speed Decreased
26-50	Strength Impaired
51-75	Dexterity Impaired
76-100	Fighting Ability Impaired

HAND DAMAGE

1-20	Dexterity Impaired
21-40	Fighting Ability Impaired
41-60	Magical Ability Impaired
61-80	Strength Impaired
81-100	Weapons Ability Impaired

TRUNK DAMAGE

1-25	Constitution Impaired
26-50	Fighting Ability Impaired
51-75	Resistance to Poison Changed
76-100	Speed Decreased

ARM DAMAGE

1-25	Fighting Ability Impaired
26-50	Magical Ability Impaired
51-75	Dexterity Impaired
76-100	Strength Impaired

FEET DAMAGE

1-33	Speed Impaired
34-66	Fighting Ability Impaired
67-100	Dexterity Impaired

*ED. Note: While this statement is true for the majority of role-playing
games, it is not true for D&D® and AD&D® and poses some contradictions.
The system holds true for games such as MA® and GW®, because
their systems use a set nuimber of hit points which are determined by
the number of hit dice the character is endowed with at his (the character’s)
paper birth. Normally, this maximum potential is seldom reached.
Game systems that set no upper limit on the number of hit dice
cannot accept this rationale. It is patently absurd to think that a fighter,
when advancing a level, is somehow enhanced: more muscles, more
mass, more blood. Were that rationale used, we must assume that first
level types all look like Herve Villechaize (Tattoo on Fantasy Island),
gradually acquiring the stature — assuming survival and advancement,
of course! — of Arnold Schwarzenegger (former Mr. Universe purported
to be playing Conan in the proposed movie).
In AD&D, the rationale behind the concept of hit points is decidely
different. Basically, hit points represent the ability/facility to evade a
fatal blow/injury. It is an abstraction that includes such considerations as
fatigue, armor durability, fighting technique, fighting “tricks” learned,
and so forth.

OUT ON A LIMB

Dear Editor:
In the new (March 79) Dragon I found two
distressing items. I will deal with them separately
and rationally — I hope.

The first deals with the article by James Ward
on damage permanency. In one comer you say
that the rationale for hit points in D&D is different
than in other games, because in D&D a character
increases in hit points. You say later on that in
AD&D that hit points represent the ability to avoid
a fatal injury or blow. This includes fatigue, armor
durability, fighting technique and fighting tricks
learned. Lacking the the DM book, I cannot speak for
AD&D, but in D&D characters increased in hit
points, too. And they healed at one point per day.

That method is an absurdity. Fatigue loss will
come back in minutes or hours. Fighting technique
will, if anything, get better with increased use.
Fighting tricks may be useless against the same
opponent twice (indeed, they should be), but they
are not forgotten when some ogre nails you with a
club.

Of course, your friendly cleric will come along
and heal you of four points of fighting technique —
a light wound.

Also, I see CON benefits for hit points. This
stems from fatigue and actual health factors. But
fighting technique of the thief surely is equal to or
better than that of a cleric (or more properly, a
member of a medieval fighting order). The cleric
might be haler, bigger or better fed, but the main
difference in fighting will be armor and weaponry,
not the amount of fatigue. Thieves in stories (discounting
Faf and the Mouser as exceptional) are
usually excellent swordsmen if armed. And AD&D
allows the sword to the thief; it isn’t as if they can
only wield daggers.

In essence, I am saying that the system needs a
major overhaul, something you have not given it.
For fighting technique one needs a viable way to
parry or dodge. D&D lacks this.

Marc Jacobs
[edit]
(The Dragon #28)
 

Gee, it’s always so much fun getting letters from
unproven critics who think they have some inner
track on “the way of things.”

As to what may or may not be absurd, let me
say this; if you don’t like it, why give me all of this
grief? D&D has always made a point of being
nothing more than guidelines for structuring a
game, and stating so. The point I made in the
Editor’s Note on the article in question is still valid.
In terms of D&D, hit points were a much simpler
concept. They were merely regarded as the
amount of sufferable damage before death ensued.
This was, admittedly, too simplistic. In a strict
interpretation, this meant that characters increased
in mass as they progressed, else how did they
achieve the increase in sufferable damage, without
more blood and tissue? Obviously, hit points
meant a lot more than “woundability”. Logically,
technique and skill had to account for the increases
in hit points that accompany progression, at least to
some extent. This meant that a “hit” no longer
could come to mean an actual blow. Realistically,
one opportunity to strike in a six second time span
is decidedly low. Therefore, it is assumed that in a
given six second segment, you will have one opportunity
to penetrate the other’s guard and actually
inflict damage or cause him to perform some extraordinary
evasive maneuver. This steady decrease
in hit points left shows how some ticks are only
effective once, as a given fighter runs through his
repertoire, finally running out of moves, being
whittled down to that killing blow, provided he has
not eliminated his foe.

Your argument that healing is too slow is specious,
and naive.

You obviously have never been in a combat
situation yourself, nor have you apparently even
participated in something such as the Society for
Creative Anachronism’s mock battles. A person is
capable of performing extraordinary feats when
the adrenalin is up that are virtually impossible
under normal stress situations. In some cases, the
person is entirely unaware of having performed
them until after the fact. Believe me, your body will
inform you the next day, upon awakening, of the
abuse you have burdened it with. (In two instances
in Nam, I did a couple of adrenalin-assisted acts
that dumbfounded me afterwards. I also felt the
strain they imposed on my muscles and joints for
days afterwards.)

Just as there is a diversity of authors, so too is
there a diversity of opinions regarding thieves. Expertise
in weaponry comes from, and is maintained
by, constant use and practice. It is much more
logical to assume that the cleric (from a medieval
fighting order if you wish) would spend time daily
to hone his skills, especially since he has an abundance
of sparring partners ready to hand.
— Ed. <Tim Kask> [edit]
 

‘Unfounded complaints’
Dear Editor,

. . . I’ll start with Marc Jacobs’ letter in the
August issue. The majority of his letter is complaints
about D&D, most of them unfounded. If he
doesn’t like the game, why doesn’t he write to the
Design Department so you can leave litter like that
out of Out on a Limb? He says he doesn’t like
random demons nor damage permanency. They
are VARIANTS. No one told him he had to use the
charts. And anyone who gives away a powerful
sword just because of a die roll shouldn’t talk
about DMs without imagination.

He also mentioned critical hits and fumbles
were needed. On one fumble chart there’s a
chance to hit yourself critically. That’s ridiculous.
Only a character with a dexterity of -6 is that
much of a klutz. And what about the monster that
needs a 20 to hit? Every hit will be critical (most
systems say a 20 is a critical hit). I haven’t seen a
good critical hit/fumbles system yet.

Eric Hoover—MI
(The Dragon #32)
 

"Expletive deleted"
Dear Editor,
 

We would just like to inform Marc Jacobs
(whose letter appeared in Dragon #28) that he is a
(expletive deleted!). The beauty of D&D is that it is
an open-ended game which may be interpreted in
a wide variety of ways.

Mony Link, Trevor Link,
Rick Caldwell, Dann Caldwell—PA
(The Dragon #32)