Nonexistent/underrepresented RPG roles

[rusty_shackleford]

Hit points have always been intended to be the character's supple yielding flesh and absolutely do not represent "luck", but they're also abstract and nonlinear so characters aren't supposed to be trading axe blows to the face without obvious harm either.

-

I see, this definitely proves that you found an image of some text that says it, for sure.

I think AD&D's definition of hit points is rather definitive as to its original intent.

[Stack of Turtles]

-

I see, this definitely proves that you found an image of some text that says it, for sure.

I think AD&D's definition of hit points is rather definitive as to its original intent.

Why would I accept AD&D as an authority?

[rusty_shackleford]

I see, this definitely proves that you found an image of some text that says it, for sure.

I think AD&D's definition of hit points is rather definitive as to its original intent.

Why would I accept AD&D as an authority?

Because it was created by the person who created RPGs

[Stack of Turtles]

I think AD&D's definition of hit points is rather definitive as to its original intent.

Why would I accept AD&D as an authority?

Because it was created by the person who created RPGs

Who, Gaygax? I don't take his word for anything.

[rusty_shackleford]

https://rpghq.org/gygax-enworld-qa.html

3) How do you explain hit points, or do you even bother?

3) That's easy. HPs represent not only the physical person, but that one's luck, skill in avoiding damage. As luck runs low, muscles tire, and reflexes slow their measure, HPs. are lost to reflect this. The last few remaining are the actual physical body being harmed. Okay, its rationalizing, but it works pretty well, I think ;-)

It was meant to partially represent a person's luck.

ergo,
vampires drain luck

[Norfleet]

The real question is why we still need this clunky and awkward abstraction in a modern vidya game which can easily represent things very explicitly.

[Stack of Turtles]

He may be saying "luck", but what he describes is clearly stamina, not luck. Which makes more sense.

Especially given that a creature can be at 0 HP and nonfatally downed.

[Oyster Sauce]

It's strange that bleeding is considered a non-factor the vast majority of the time if losing hp=getting poked by a sword in a simulation-heavy environment.

[rusty_shackleford]

It's strange that bleeding is considered a non-factor the vast majority of the time if losing hp=getting poked by a sword in a simulation-heavy environment.

D&D is both simulationist and non-simulationist. It depended entirely on how much extra bookkeeping it would add. Combat already had a lot of bookkeeping as-is so it was mostly non-simulationist.

[Acrux]

Why would I accept AD&D as an authority?

Because it was created by the person who created RPGs

Who, Gaygax? I don't take his word for anything.

In this house, Gary Gygax is a hero.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I quite liked The Banner Saga's "hitpoints" called strength. It represented how much blood or strength your character had left. At max strength (aka max HP), they can deal the most damage. But as they take hits, are wounded, are bleeding, are bruised and losing strength (like how a boxer loses strength the more he gets beaten and is then eventually unable to continue), your strength ("HP") dwindles, which reduces how powerful your attacks are. Eventually at 2 or 3 strength left, your character will be barely able to heft their axe and it won't swing with much force. And then at 0 strength they keel over unable to continue. It feels much more coherent than a knight being at 1/36 HP but he can still deal feel damage, but then he takes 1 more hit and inexplicably can't do anything.

[rusty_shackleford]

I quite liked The Banner Saga's "hitpoints" called strength. It represented how much blood or strength your character had left. At max strength (aka max HP), they can deal the most damage. But as they take hits, are wounded, are bleeding, are bruised and losing strength (like how a boxer loses strength the more he gets beaten and is then eventually unable to continue), your strength ("HP") dwindles, which reduces how powerful your attacks are. Eventually at 2 or 3 strength left, your character will be barely able to heft their axe and it won't swing with much force. And then at 0 strength they keel over unable to continue. It feels much more coherent than a knight being at 1/36 HP but he can still deal feel damage, but then he takes 1 more hit and inexplicably can't do anything.

People, animals, whatever, tend to become more dangerous when wounded, not less, tho.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I quite liked The Banner Saga's "hitpoints" called strength. It represented how much blood or strength your character had left. At max strength (aka max HP), they can deal the most damage. But as they take hits, are wounded, are bleeding, are bruised and losing strength (like how a boxer loses strength the more he gets beaten and is then eventually unable to continue), your strength ("HP") dwindles, which reduces how powerful your attacks are. Eventually at 2 or 3 strength left, your character will be barely able to heft their axe and it won't swing with much force. And then at 0 strength they keel over unable to continue. It feels much more coherent than a knight being at 1/36 HP but he can still deal feel damage, but then he takes 1 more hit and inexplicably can't do anything.

People, animals, whatever, tend to become more dangerous when wounded, not less, tho.

That can be represented with an adrenaline mechanic, or something like Banner Saga's willpower mechanic where you can expend Willpower charges on a character to make them hit harder that turn, beyond their current strength. But you only have so much Willpower to spend and can't keep people constantly juiced up past their strength.

[Tweed]

I quite liked The Banner Saga's "hitpoints" called strength. It represented how much blood or strength your character had left. At max strength (aka max HP), they can deal the most damage. But as they take hits, are wounded, are bleeding, are bruised and losing strength (like how a boxer loses strength the more he gets beaten and is then eventually unable to continue), your strength ("HP") dwindles, which reduces how powerful your attacks are. Eventually at 2 or 3 strength left, your character will be barely able to heft their axe and it won't swing with much force. And then at 0 strength they keel over unable to continue. It feels much more coherent than a knight being at 1/36 HP but he can still deal feel damage, but then he takes 1 more hit and inexplicably can't do anything.

People, animals, whatever, tend to become more dangerous when wounded, not less, tho.

Until you wound them too much, then they become less dangerous, and then not at all.

Well, I mean after awhile I suppose they start to become dangerous again in a different way.

[TKVNC]

"hitpoints don't represent life!!!!"

ok so why can vampires drain them and gain HP then

It's not life it's izzat. Vampires have rizz because they have high izzat.

It's all rather simple.

[Norfleet]

It's not life it's izzat. Vampires have rizz because they have high izzat.

[DemoGraph]

vampires drain luck

Also, Clay Golem (Hit Dice: 11d10+30 (90 hp)) has as much luck as dozen people. Much sixth sense in that mudpile. Totally banned from Las Vegas.

[Rand]

Bards have a level 1 ability that is mechanically equivalent called Majestic Word:
"You utter words laden with preternatural inspiration, restoring your ally's stamina and making wounds seem insignificant."

Bards, like monks, are cringe and gay and all text related to them in all rulebooks should be scribbled out using permanent markers.

[J1M]

Bards have a level 1 ability that is mechanically equivalent called Majestic Word:
"You utter words laden with preternatural inspiration, restoring your ally's stamina and making wounds seem insignificant."

Bards, like monks, are cringe and gay and all text related to them in all rulebooks should be scribbled out using permanent markers.

We can agree about monks.

[Rand]

Bards have a level 1 ability that is mechanically equivalent called Majestic Word:
"You utter words laden with preternatural inspiration, restoring your ally's stamina and making wounds seem insignificant."

Bards, like monks, are cringe and gay and all text related to them in all rulebooks should be scribbled out using permanent markers.

We can agree about monks.

You're free to be wrong about bards (and the usually disgusting fucktards that play them), but you are.
I banned bards and monks in the 80s. Best decision ever. Every year, especially after Critical Role douchetards invaded, I have further entrenched my disgust for them and their players because it was objectively correct and repeatedly proven.

"Let's play a fantasy swords and sorcery game!"
"I wanna play the ****** that strums his lute in combat and exhaustively roleplays all in-game discussions until the other players want to slap me IRL."

Me: "Get the **** out, you ******* ******!"

[Stack of Turtles]

Bards, like monks, are cringe and gay and all text related to them in all rulebooks should be scribbled out using permanent markers.

We can agree about monks.

You're free to be wrong about bards (and the usually disgusting fucktards that play them), but you are.
I banned bards and monks in the 80s. Best decision ever. Every year, especially after Critical Role douchetards invaded, I have further entrenched my disgust for them and their players because it was objectively correct and repeatedly proven.

"Let's play a fantasy swords and sorcery game!"
"I wanna play the ****** that strums his lute in combat and exhaustively roleplays all in-game discussions until the other players want to slap me IRL."

Me: "Die ******!!!"

Okay, but you seethe at the idea of a drill sergeant inspiring soldiers to get back on their feet and fight through their wounds, so maybe your opinions aren't that great?

[Rand]

Okay, but you seethe at the idea of a drill sergeant inspiring soldiers to get back on their feet and fight through their wounds, so maybe your opinions aren't that great?

I laugh at the idea of whether or not you agree or disagree with my opinions having any validity to me.
Even if you are right, I assume it is by accident.

[rusty_shackleford]

rand is coping because he doesn't have a cool scop to follow him around and record his adventures

[J1M]

Bards, like monks, are cringe and gay and all text related to them in all rulebooks should be scribbled out using permanent markers.

We can agree about monks.

You're free to be wrong about bards (and the usually disgusting fucktards that play them), but you are.
I banned bards and monks in the 80s. Best decision ever. Every year, especially after Critical Role douchetards invaded, I have further entrenched my disgust for them and their players because it was objectively correct and repeatedly proven.

"Let's play a fantasy swords and sorcery game!"
"I wanna play the ****** that strums his lute in combat and exhaustively roleplays all in-game discussions until the other players want to slap me IRL."

Me: "Get the **** out, you ******* ******!"

It sounds like you are a lot more familiar with critical role than I am. I like the idea of music-based magic, I like auras, I like classes that affect their team, and I liked being a dragon disciple in Neverwinter Nights because it gave you +4 STR, fire resistance, and wings.

Also, there's a Bard in The Hobbit so the idea is directly adjacent to the source of western fantasy tradition.

[Rand]

Also, there's a Bard in The Hobbit

Another data point in my favor.