Excuse me all, but I have a question about HP and I'm having a bit of trouble remembering where I read this information. I seem to recall info that gave somewhat of a breakdown on hit points. It was saying that only a certain percentage of hit points actually accounted for the amount of physical damage a person could take. Its been a while so I'm not even sure if I'm citing the info correctly. But I think it was saying a great deal of HP basically stood for ego and self-assurance. Such as taking 10 points of damage, say 4 or 5 of those points were actual physical damage and the rest was "Great googa mooga! This guy's gonna eat my lunch" damage.
Does anyone happen to recall this information and where it was? Is it somewhere like in a DMG, that's going to make me feel rather silly for asking here, or was it in a Dragon or some such?
In 1E, in addition to actual physical damage, hit points represented luck, skill, divine favor, etc. This was primarily for PCs. For large monsters, HP were closer to a measure of the physical damage the critter could take. There is just no way a human, even a well conditioned, high level fighter, could take as much physical punishment as a huge, ancient red dragon.
I believe a characters starting HPs, and accumilated con bonus points were closer to the actual physical damage a character could take.
Scott
Just a note to clarify. ScottG is right in his description, hp do represent a combination of toughness, skill, luck, divine favor, etc. But nowhere is a specific percentage given of how much comes from what.
This can result in weird circumstances - like if a character has his head on a chopping block, does it take an executioner several whacks to get it off? In these cases, where you want pure toughness and no luck, skill, etc, I go with the 1sted DMG table for assassinations, that has a chance for instant kill. This table is more properly used for any attack on a "helpless" or "unsuspecting" target. _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
1E assassination tables, gotta fear them. I would just like to add for the 3E set, that for quick execution rules, go grab a copy of the Book of Vile Darkness. Essentially it comes down to a profession (executioner) skill check against the type of method used.
It has been a very long time, but I seem to remember that 1E AD&D had a rule to cover this. It read something like: "Victims who are unconscious or otherwise helpless may be trussed and slain in one round."
It has been a very long time, but I seem to remember that 1E AD&D had a rule to cover this. It read something like: "Victims who are unconscious or otherwise helpless may be trussed and slain in one round."
Magically sleeping or held opponents can be automatically killed at the rate of 1/round if the attacker is unhindered. If the attacker is in a melee involving other opponents then his attacks against the sleeping/held opponent automatically hit, do max damage, and his number of attacks/round are doubled. Attacks against a normally sleeping opponents are made using the assassination table.
Scott
...I think it was saying a great deal of HP basically stood for ego and self-assurance. Such as taking 10 points of damage, say 4 or 5 of those points were actual physical damage and the rest was "Great googa mooga! This guy's gonna eat my lunch" damage.
You may also be recalling parts of the section in the 1st edition DMG on intelligent swords. There, to balance the sword's int. and ego, a character figured a "personality score" that included intelligence, exp. level, and charisma (if I recall correctly, no books around right now...it could be wisdom, instead)...this score decreased as hit points were lost. A 5th level fighter with 40 hp would find his "personality score" decreasing with each cumulative loss of 8 hp. Because both character and sword possess an intelligence rating, the calculation of a character's [charisma + (exp. level - ratio of hp loss)] is what counters the sword's ego rating.
Of course, ScottG's right on that in other places, the 1st edition DMG spells out other factors that contribute to hp...but this is the only place I'm familiar with hp being related to "ego" in any manner.
Thanks for the replies guys. It may have been from the 1e DMG that I saw something to this effect. Not sure. I'll have to look. Just one of those things that nags at the mind.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
