Re: D&D hit points

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:03:23 -0000, "David Meadows"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"Wayne Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:29:07 -0000, "David Meadows"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> And yet you find shotguns knocking out supers acceptably believeable.
>> >
>> >Umm... yeah...
>> >
>> >Or, let me put it this way: I would expect Batman to survive a shotgun
>hit
>> >to the chest (Kevlar costume) but be knocked flat and stunned by it; I
>would
>> >expect Superman to laugh at it. The analogues of those characters in my
>> >campaign would react similarly.
>>
>> But you apparently expect people who are literally incapable of being
>> hurt by the Body to be able to be knocked out by the stun.
>> Alternatively, you use a much large ration of regular defense to
>> resistant than has been in the case in any campaign I've ever seen,
>> since it require a ration of 5:1.
>
>But the damage ratio isn't *guaranteed* to be 5:1. There's always an

And that's my point; someone who is completely unconcerned about the
Body of the attack shouldn't be worried they're going to get flattened
by a single hit from the Stun of the weapon, and with moderate sized
killing attacks that's exactly what the standard rule does threaten to
do.

>uncertainty, meaning the player has to think about how much risk he's
>willing to accept when he designs the character. This is no difference, in
>principle, to deciding whether to buy 12 rPd and be completely bullet-proof
>or gamble on 8 rPD being bullet-proof *enough*. There's always a random
>factor in incoming damage. I don't see why the random factor inherent in the
>stun multiplier is so objectionable to people.

Because it's _too_ random and linear.  No other effect in the game
turns so much on the roll of single D6.