Quote from: Narf the Mouse;491187Hit Points and Vitality split would seem to solve the "Did I just heal all those bloody cuts and bruises, or did I just restore my energy?" question.

I think that wounds should be handled by a separate system that does not involve points. If for no other reason than I'm averse to using points any more than absolutely necessary.

If I were to want more detail for injuries I would probably import something like the Major Wound Table from Stormbringer and iirc King Arthur Pendragon.

Any downright blow would be considered a Major Wound, if it didn't kill you outright it would leave a permanent mark. Results ranging from a nasty scar to amputated limbs with resultant Attribute loss.

Any roll of 6 for damage could inlfict a wound requiring an extra d6 days Ned rest to recover.

A couple of ways to handle it there.

OE D&D included hit location tables, and hit points by location in Blackmoor iirc. Hit points by location is too fiddly and record keeping bothersome, but a simple hit location table and note that a limb is out of commission for a period would be workable.

It all comes down to how much detail do you want in your game, and do you want that detail spelled out in game mechanics or left to narration and role play.  Recognizing that most of us want neither pure game mechanics for everything nor pure narration for everything.

And why am I so tempted to draw up a tavern whose sign is a rooster perched on the back of an ox?

Quote from: DavetheLost;491191It all comes down to how much detail do you want in your game, and do you want that detail spelled out in game mechanics or left to narration and role play.  Recognizing that most of us want neither pure game mechanics for everything nor pure narration for everything.

This is more or less how I deal with it; when a character reaches zero hp, takes a critical hit or is hit with a bullet or arrow.  The PC gets a saving throw and if it fails they roll on this table.

Roll 1d4

1. Minor Wound: 1d4 days to heal [-1 to all die rolls and - 1d4-1 to movement rate during the recovery period].

2. Major Wound: 2d8+2 days to heal [-3 to all die rolls and -1d6+1 to movement rate during recovery period].

3. Grievous Wound: d30 +10 days to heal. [-6 to all die rolls and movement reduced to 1 during recovery period]. Note: A character with a grievous wound must be stabilized within 10 rounds or make a successful saving throw otherwise the wound becomes a mortal wound, and all related conditions apply.

4. Mortal wound: Save or die. A successful save reduces the damage to a Grievous Wound with doubled recovery time. A failed save results in death in 1d6-1 rounds. AT THE REFEREE'S DISCRETION dead character may be healed by miraculous means (super science or magic) for 1d100 rounds after death.

 Characters with Major or Grievous Wounds who engage in strenuous activity (e.g. combat) prior to the end of the recovery period must make a saving throw. A failed save resets the recovery period back to the beginning, and in the case of a grievous wound the character immediately becomes unconscious.

As far as the actual location of the actual location of the wound I fall back on fit  influenced by circumstances.

Quote from: kregmosier;491137i wouldn't say "odd", but seemingly quite lethal.  (which again may be entirely accurate..)

melee weapons do 1d6...ranged weapons do 1d6 per level of the attacker.
obviously, the bows and crossbows changed the course of warfare and missile weapons are crazy powerful, so maybe it's just a nod toward realism.

"Downright Blows" are the result of causing an opponent to go to 0 HP.  You roll 1d6 in this case, and if you get a "1", the wound is instantly fatal.

In the second book, they do make a point of stating that, Yes, the game can be lethal, but that's by design.  The guys I play with would be totally cool about this and just whip up another "Basterd" and be done with it, but I can understand that some people might mince around the table like their old sweet auntie just died, railing at the DM about unlucky dice and the unfairness of it all.

tl;dr i think it's awesome, but I imagine that others may not.

The gross difference in ranged vs. melee weapon damages seems absurd.

Quote from: RPGPundit;491355The gross difference in ranged vs. melee weapon damages seems absurd.

Depends on how you conceptualize hit points and melee combat.

See my post above for my thoughts on this very issue.

I do not see this as a problem with the game rules.

Quote from: Aos;491358Depends on how you conceptualize hit points and melee combat.

This.  If the concept of Hit Points is scratches, bruises, near misses, etc. until you're too tired/disadvantaged whatever to ward off the killing blow which is the last few Hit Points, then that doesn't seem to mesh well with the idea of missile weapons that are very hard to dodge.

Quotemelee weapons do 1d6...ranged weapons do 1d6 per level of the attacker.

This is moronic.

QuoteIf the concept of Hit Points is scratches, bruises, near misses, etc. until you're too tired/disadvantaged whatever to ward off the killing blow which is the last few Hit Points, then that doesn't seem to mesh well with the idea of missile weapons that are very hard to dodge.

The rules are retarded.  First of all, from a balance perspective.  Second, from an in-game perspective.  (If a bow is so much better than a sword, why would sword guys ever exist except as low-level mooks?)  Third, from your own explanation.  You can get a flesh wound/near miss from a crossbow just as with a knife.

First, the concept of game balance is an outmoded fossil that no longer belongs in RPGs.

Second, do. You have. Personal experience with missile and/or melee weapons and combat?

Ask ankh hunter if the missile weapon rules in this game are "retarded". They quite accurately depict reality. If you do not miss your shot entirely it will most likely be fatal.

Why would swords persist over bows if bows are so much better?  Ever tried to use a bow indoors? Especially in a room with a low ceiling?  Ever tried to use a bow in the pouring rain?  You are aware that you cannot carry a bow for long periods of time strung? Carrying a bow with an arrow ready fully occupies both hands, a sword may be kept on your hip and quickly drawn when needed.

Ever tried to use a bow for defense when the enemy is closing to melee range? One shot if that is all you get. Better hope he doesn't have friends.

Bows are fragile, expensive, specialized pieces of equipment, and require training to use.  If you really want to know about the sword vs the bow, read some history. Or read Paradoxes of Defense by Silver. It is quite an eye opener.

In short, RPG trolls whose only experience comes from Hollywoetd movies and too much D&D as opposed to real world experience with the things modeled in RPGs are retarded.

If you want to persuade me that the rules are broken, let's talk real world, hands on, life experience, not armchair theory....

Also BT your use of the words moronic and retarded is as offensive as tossing around the word nigger.

Do you personally know anyone with an IQ below 70? This is the current clinical standard for "retarded", I do. They are fine peole.

It is not so much that I care one way or the other about the game. But I do care about civil discourse, and you sir, have crossed the line.

Quote from: DavetheLost;491486First, the concept of game balance is an outmoded fossil that no longer belongs in RPGs.

Ask ankh hunter if ...

First, I just wanted to say that 'ankh hunter' is an awesome typo.  I want an ankh-hunter in my game, something a little Egyptian-themed.  Maybe a monster?  A profession?  Anyway...

DavetheLost, I think you're coming down on the side of 'realism' in this, and the cult-of-realism angle isn't going to fly very well.  I want my game to emulate a vision in my head, not reality.

Could be I am coming down too far on the side of gritty realism. That is the picture in my head for this genre.

Curiously for Three Musketeers, less than a century later, I go all cinematic.

I do wonder how many people arguing about the rule have actually read the game and the rule in question in context.

At the same time, its simply not true that bows did that much more damage than swords. It just isn't.

RPGPundit

How best to model combat?

A sword scratch to the arm, vs a sword thrust through the gizzard?

An arrow likely to either cleanly miss or nail the vitals?

Those long drawn out death speeches in Shakespeare which were a realistic representation of how long it actually takes someone to die after being run through with a rapier. They can talk, but they can't fight.

Bruises and exhaustion that heal with a good night's sleep vs pulled muscles, strained joints, and cuts and stabs that take longer to heal, and may even lead to infection.

Add to the mix that we play games for fun.

For me the problem rule in B&B is how fast and easy healing is. That which doesn't kill you is healed when you wake up. Even if hit points are 98% bruises and luck, there still should be some residual effects from being beaten up in a dark alley, especially if that involves swords and arrows too.

1d6 per level damage may be balanced by increasing hit points by. 1d6 per level, and of course Fighting Men getting attacks equal to their level in melee combat. On the flip side it also means that Goody Jenks the local Wise Woman is not only a skilled herbalist and mid-wife, she is a crack shot as well. Or maybe she just draws a heavier bow, she still can't hit the broadside of a barn, but when she does.....

The basic concept of missile weapons getting more effective as characters increase in level does not bother me, nor does the increased likelihood of a successful hit in combat, it is the implementation in this case that may need tweaking. I want to give it a trial in actual play and see what happens. Lots of rules look very different in play than they do on paper.

It would make a great rule for a Robin Hood type Ranger class variant.