Quote from: Christopher Brady;933766It's a binary all or nothing, which is not how armour works.  I could go through my example of what happens when you strap a body into a chair with varying levels of armour, but I won't.  Let's just say that armour doesn't avoid damage, it also doesn't stack with your innate dexterity, as it does in D&D.

I've gone back and forth on this.  I'm willing to accept the abstraction that AC represents how hard it is to hurt a character.  The edge case for me is a giant swinging a tree trunk at an armored knight.  In such cases, the plate-wearing knight probably doesn't deserve a better AC than an unarmored character, since the plate probably won't be significantly protective.

I've done damage-reduction rules, but they are harder to get right, and they are more fiddly.  For my money, it's easier just to make on-the-spot rulings to cover situations like those.

Quote from: Pat;933979Hit points are definitely abstract, but the system makes more sense if every hit draws blood. Otherwise, poison gets a little weird.

This is one of those areas where the hit point abstraction is an awkward fit for reality.  I have a solution for these situations.  When physical contact causes a distinct effect, I give the character a Reflexes save to determine whether or not actual contact occurred.  If he fails, then he must make a Fortitude save to avoid effects, taking lesser effects (typically half) on a success.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933752The stupidest, most ignorant thing about these asshats' constant attempts to make 'guy in a doublet with a rapier' or 'girl in black pajamas with a nunchaku' equivalent to 'plate armored knight' in D&D is seeing that 'plate armored knight' as slow, clumsy, and relying on "brutes [sic] force."

Are we falling into the realism trap here?  I think the class is perfectly fine because it doesn't break the game.  People around here take some stuff to extremes.  It's OK to occasionally give players something they enjoy when it doesn't have any significant game impact - even if it violates your idea of "realism."  As far as I'm concerned, once you're playing a game with magic and you've accepted the D&D rule abstractions, you've got no business demanding believability.

Quote from: Edgewise;934021Are we falling into the realism trap here?

No, we're falling into the 'understanding how the rules of the game work' trap here.

Quote from: Edgewise;934021As far as I'm concerned, once you're playing a game with magic and you've accepted the D&D rule abstractions, you've got no business demanding believability.

As far as I'm concerned, waving your hands and saying ''cause MAGIC!' as an excuse for trite, sloppy thinking is pathetic.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934033No, we're falling into the 'understanding how the rules of the game work' trap here.

The article you're linking to is besides the point.  If you look at how the rules get applied, in practice, over the years, you can see that both hit points and armor class are used at different points to represent defensive ability.  Insisting on some kind of purity here is ahistorical and needlessly pedantic.  Why does dexterity provide AC bonuses and constitution provide hit point bonuses?  You could make an argument for reversing this.  The important question is whether something like the lightly armored fighter is disruptive to game balance, which he is not.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934033As far as I'm concerned, waving your hands and saying ''cause MAGIC!' as an excuse for trite, sloppy thinking is pathetic.

If that's what I was doing, I suppose I'd agree, although I think this kind of invective over protective underwear in a magic game is pretty silly.  Some folks are taking this topic so seriously that it's actually kind of funny.

Quote from: Edgewise;934021Are we falling into the realism trap here?  I think the class is perfectly fine because it doesn't break the game.  People around here take some stuff to extremes.  It's OK to occasionally give players something they enjoy when it doesn't have any significant game impact - even if it violates your idea of "realism."  As far as I'm concerned, once you're playing a game with magic and you've accepted the D&D rule abstractions, you've got no business demanding believability.

That's one of those arguments that comes up all the time, but makes absolutely no sense.

Reality is our framework for dealing with fiction. We can accept violations of that framework, but we tend to question them, want to know their extent, how it's supposed to work, and we expect some rationale. While these exceptions don't have to be realistic, and can follow things like emotional or dream logic, they do need to be coherent and somewhat consistent, or it just turns into random noise.

Just because one element of a work of fiction violates a tenet of reality doesn't mean you throw away the concept for everything else. It's not just throwing away the baby with the bathwater, it's throwing away the whole planet.

Quote from: Edgewise;934046Some folks are taking this topic so seriously that it's actually kind of funny.

Lemme guess, you are posting with just enough care and seriousness...and anyone who disagrees with you or points out your weak logic is making it "SRS Business".


Yeah. :rolleyes:

Quote from: CRKrueger;934087Lemme guess, you are posting with just enough care and seriousness...and anyone who disagrees with you or points out your weak logic is making it "SRS Business".

I don't know where you are getting that.  Disagreement is dandy, and I don't think I have the Ultimate Point in this (or any) discussion.  I just don't think it's worth getting in anyone's face over how to represent armor in an RPG.  It sounds like you think I was referring to you, but I don't think I was (I'd have to look your posts over again, and it's not a big deal either way).  

Yeah, it's crazy, I really don't think any of this stuff is a big deal.  It's actually possible to feel that way.

Quote from: Pat;934084Reality is our framework for dealing with fiction. We can accept violations of that framework, but we tend to question them, want to know their extent, how it's supposed to work, and we expect some rationale. While these exceptions don't have to be realistic, and can follow things like emotional or dream logic, they do need to be coherent and somewhat consistent, or it just turns into random noise

That's a valid point.  If I thought the OP was suggesting anything so outlandish, I might be inclined to side with you.  But in a lot of places, games like these operate with more of a movie logic or dramatic logic than realism per se.  I don't see "realism" as necessarily representing the baseline sensibility of something like D&D.  It's not well-settled; some parts are realistic, some are cinematic, and let's face it, some are nonsensical.

For instance, people reasonably talk about hit points representing defensive ability.  That's fine and dandy, but if that's what they are, it makes no sense that all characters regain HP at the rate of one per day.  If you've taken a level one fighter from five to one HP, that SHOULD take a lot longer to recover than taking a fifth level fighter from twenty-five to fifteen.  And in either case, shouldn't defensive ability recover much more quickly that that?  This obeys neither realism nor any sort of dramatic logic.

Honestly, it's a matter of taste.  If something like this class offends your sensibilities so much as a GM that you just can't allow it, then don't.  But if you're players has all sorts of cinematic swashbuckling fantasies that you want to enable with a bit of light mechanics, it seems to do the job.

Quote from: Edgewise;934143For instance, people reasonably talk about hit points representing defensive ability. That's fine and dandy, but if that's what they are, it makes no sense that all characters regain HP at the rate of one per day. If you've taken a level one fighter from five to one HP, that SHOULD take a lot longer to recover than taking a fifth level fighter from twenty-five to fifteen. And in either case, shouldn't defensive ability recover much more quickly that that? This obeys neither realism nor any sort of dramatic logic.

Honestly, it's a matter of taste.  If something like this class offends your sensibilities so much as a GM that you just can't allow it, then don't.  But if you're players has all sorts of cinematic swashbuckling fantasies that you want to enable with a bit of light mechanics, it seems to do the job.

"Offends your sensibilities"? I think you're reading too much into other people's posts. I certainly wasn't offended, I'm just discussing the pros and cons of a proposed class, and more recently making tangential point about the nature of fiction. And I don't think anyone else is taking it as seriously as you think they are. You're taking bare text, which is notorious for not conveying tone and intent well, and reading emotions that may or may not exist into it.

But generally, I do think the concept of this class clashes a bit with the rest of B/X's assumptions. And even if you want more of swashbuckling rather than a light foot feel (the class seems torn), it doesn't really doesn't do that, either. And those are the real questions -- does the class work with the existing assumptions behind the game? If it doesn't, is the new thing something worthwhile? And do the specifics convey the new thing that's being introduced?

And yes, hit point recovery is another area where the abstraction breaks down. The 1 hp/day (or whatever) healing means the super tough hero takes weeks or even months to mend, while the frail peasant is almost instantly up and at 'em, and cleric spells are equally silly. Even if we treat hit points as totally abstract measure of heroism rather than a physical injury of any kind (i.e. nobody's really injured until they're in the negatives), why do heroes take so long to recharge their heroic batteries?

Though the flaw there is the healing mechanic, not hit points per se. Rolling dice equal what you rolled for hp in the first place as the basic unit of healing, or using some fraction of your hp total, and maybe making a save or Con check (for half or full healing, so the tougher types heal faster), etc. can make it more reasonable.

Quote from: Pat;934150"Offends your sensibilities"? I think you're reading too much into other people's posts.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest you are reacting strongly, here.  That's a whole separate side point I was making, not pertaining to you.  Just a colorful way of saying that it would be something that rubs you as wrong.

You are assuming that Max HP is "unwounded," and that being "unwounded" matters.

You only need 1 HP to adventure. Any extra is cushion. That HP cushion shows more than just wounds and luck, it also shows resilience and technique due to experience.

A 0-th lvl Fighter with 8 HP of 8 Max is not better off than a 5-th lvl Rogue with 12 HP out of 16 Max (randomized d6 Hit Die rolls).

Quote from: Edgewise;934151

Quote from: Pat;934150"Offends your sensibilities"? I think you're reading too much into other people's posts.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest you are reacting strongly, here.  That's a whole separate side point I was making, not pertaining to you.

Pat, Edgewise is passive-aggressively referring to me because s/he is a delicate fan sponge for whom derision and mockery is a rogue wave.

It's a shame this site doesn't have the "go back to EN World" smiley anymore.

Quote from: Edgewise;934046The article you're linking to is besides the point.

Or the 'rolling on floor' smiley.

Quote from: Edgewise;934046If you look at how the rules get applied, in practice, over the years, you can see that both hit points and armor class are used at different points to represent defensive ability.

Yes, the history of D&D is rife with game designers who wrote for the game without understanding how the game works.*

This is true of many other roleplaying games as well, but they're especially visible when they shit all over The World's Most Popular.

* Or what oni are, for that matter.

Quote from: Edgewise;934046Why does dexterity provide AC bonuses and constitution provide hit point bonuses?  You could make an argument for reversing this.

You could, and that might be an interesting argument, but it's not an argument which proves that using the bonuses as written is 'wrong.'

Quote from: Edgewise;934046The important question is whether something like the lightly armored fighter is disruptive to game balance, which he is not.

And this is where you go completely full-frontal stupid.

Or course it's horribly unbalanced, at the moment the game world asks the guy with armor to ditch it, for any of the many reasons already offered in this thread.

Quote from: CRKrueger;934087

Quote from: Edgewise;934046. . . I think this kind of invective over protective underwear in a magic game is pretty silly.  Some folks are taking this topic so seriously that it's actually kind of funny.

Lemme guess, you are posting with just enough care and seriousness...and anyone who disagrees with you or points out your weak logic is making it "SRS Business".

Yep.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934540Pat, Edgewise is passive-aggressively referring to me because s/he is a delicate fan sponge for whom derision and mockery is a rogue wave.

"A rogue wave"?  That's really evocative.  You're a good writer.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934540Yes, the history of D&D is rife with game designers who wrote for the game without understanding how the game works.*

You're welcome to pat yourself on the back for having the Complete and Singularly True Interpretation of D&D.  I'm not sure if you're right about that, but it's a conversation I can't be bothered to have.  Whether or not it's the case, it doesn't make you a good DM/GM/player/person to talk to.  When you say things like this...

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934540This is true of many other roleplaying games as well, but they're especially visible when they shit all over The World's Most Popular.

...it's obvious that you take this kind of orthodoxy way too seriously.  You sound crazy.  Get some sunlight or something.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934540Or course it's horribly unbalanced, at the moment the game world asks the guy with armor to ditch it, for any of the many reasons already offered in this thread.

Ah, finally after your weird ranting and raving about people pissing all over your sacred little hobby, you have a point to make.  It's not very well-argued, but it's not stupid.  So let me address it.

It's true that the light-fighter will be at an advantage over the normal fighter when they are both unarmored.  However, I think the normal fighter has the edge when they are both armored, until later levels.  Whichever type of fighter is "better" will probably depend on the balance of urban vs. dungeon crawl adventures you have.  If you have a lot of urban stuff going on, you might want to disallow this class, or if you want to play a cinematic swashbuckling campaign, go the other way and replace the normal fighter with this one.  But in most dungeon crawls, the normal fighter is going to have better protection.

I'm sure that was all just a long blather of idiocy to you.  Be that as it may, I figured I'd give it a whirl.

Quote from: Opaopajr;934474You are assuming that Max HP is "unwounded," and that being "unwounded" matters.

You only need 1 HP to adventure. Any extra is cushion. That HP cushion shows more than just wounds and luck, it also shows resilience and technique due to experience.

A 0-th lvl Fighter with 8 HP of 8 Max is not better off than a 5-th lvl Rogue with 12 HP out of 16 Max (randomized d6 Hit Die rolls).

This makes total sense.  But that just makes it stranger that natural recovery is takes so much longer when you're high level.  My 5th level fighter is walking around with his one hit point, feeling absolutely dandy...but it takes another month of rest before his survivability is back up to max?  You'd think you'd recover most of that during a single night of sleep.

I think Crypts and Things has a good approach.  Hit points for PCs represent defense and survivability.  Once those are depleted, you lose Constitution, and you can suffer critical hits and incapacitation.  Hit points recover very quickly, but Constitution comes back at a much slower rate.

But we're getting really off-topic, and it's my fault, so I'll leave it at that.

Again, you are fixating on "Topped Off HP" meaning something. It doesn't. The only truism involved is "more survival (bloat) cushion is better," but have always been able to play from 1+ HP.

The rate of recovery does not change by level in AD&D. Only the presence of Full Day Rest, and possibly the presence of Healers & Herbalists, changes the rate of natural healing. And it was never that hard to refill, especially with rolled Hit Dice HP as bloated out max HP was not standard.

e.g. (AD&D 2e) Given 1 HP Travel w/ Rest or 3 HP per Full Day Rest, +1 for Healer (up to six patients,) and +1 for Herbalist w/ herbs, (plus HP bonus for Full Week Rest,) it was never that hard to refill. At max, convalescing in town with optional skills Healer & Herbalist was 5 HP/ day. You get no added benefit for "topping off" besides your full HP; further, there is no added penalty for "not topping off" besides less than your full HP.

Again, you are trying to latch onto something that is a conceptual misunderstanding.

There will continue to be arguments about hit points until the end of days.

WOTC D&D and TSR D&D are different animals and hit points have different meanings between them. Hit points were originally a strategic resource. Exploration was the key focus and adventuring could continue as normal even at the shallower end of the hp pool.

WOTC D&D being heavily focused on strings of hostile encounters, treats hit points as a tactical resource. With an adventuring day being equal to X (mostly combat) encounters, hit points become more important to keep near optimum levels.  This is apparent in the rules for healing and recovery rates.

Its important to define which D&D is being discussed before a meaningful discussion of hit points can take place.