The problem of low hit points on humans

[Zebion]

Why not give some heros, points of experience as their already gained,and boost them by that? Some of those heros have been fighting a long time

[Taqwus]

...in particular, it gives a way of distinguishing those that between veteran heroes who are unusually good mostly because of their experience (and thus who may not have that much room to improve, instead of getting 5 stars worth of additional experience and bonuses) versus those who have more innate potential (ex. the extremely lucky, the assorted spawn of philandering deities, et al).

But ordinary humans... are humans. Doesn't really matter how hardy they are when they've just been disemboweled with a trident or bitten in two by a dragon. High Defense, maybe even innate Air Shield (extreme skill at missile dodging) or if Luck were more granular rather than 50-50 always, perhaps lower encumberance reflecting staying power... most aren't walking around after being almost entirely dipped in the Styx, or bearing arms from the forges of Hephaestos, or walking around with god's blood.

[UninspiredName]

most aren't walking around after being almost entirely dipped in the Styx, or bearing arms from the forges of Hephaestos, or walking around with god's blood.

...And if they were, they'd be Pretenders. :P

At any rate, I suppose a line needs to be drawn between 'mundane' realism and 'suspension of disbelief' realism. In D&D HP is an abstraction, but just looking at the hitpoints of units in this game tells you they're not. The other RPGs people speak of are all centered on your party, so making them so vulnerable is a bad idea. In Dominions, between aging, afflictions, 'commander attack' spells, etc, it's obvious the 'characters' aren't meant to be constants to any extent.

...That's not to understate the effectiveness of an ordinary general on the frontlines with an attack-boosting item and a Wave Breaker. Just not alone. Also bring a backup general.

[Graeme Dice]

UninspiredName said:
...That's not to understate the effectiveness of an ordinary general on the frontlines with an attack-boosting item and a Wave Breaker. Just not alone.

It's effectiveness is decent until you run into a holy three priest who kills him in an average of two turns (For a commander with MR 10).

[CaptainGimpy]

Well it wouldn't be so bad for heroes like Conan the Barbarian who fit into dominions' setting to have some sort of ability to get into scraps and survive. Either through really high attack and defense skills or some sort of heroic ability that lets them get a stat boost when they're in a tough spot.

[Hullu]

I find it weird that people find this a problem.

If 10hp is the 'average human', I then personally know people in real life who have less than 5hp, and people who have way over 20hp.

Why don't our FANTASY heroes have the variety that is present even in our normal everyday life?

If someone failed to understand, I don't see any realistic, thematic, moral or balance reason why human heroes should have 15hp or so maximum. I just fail to see _ANY_ reason why they have to be so brittle.

[PvK]

Even for the fictional heroes who manage to defeat many enemies in direct combat, are there any pre-D&D examples of heroes who do so because of a non-magical/blessed heroic ability to survive wounds that would drop lesser men? "Wound Sustaining Man"? "Sir Hurtmenot?" "Captain Fleshwound"?

The only "high HP" genre that comes to mind is SE Asian martial arts fantasy, where semi-magic Chi powers give hyper-expert heroic martial artists the ability to survive many blows that would incapacitate lesser men, but also give them the ability to jump 30 meters in the air, and defy physics in various other ways. Edit: Still, those are mostly fights with bare hands and feet or blunt and improvised weapons. When swordsmen are defeated by martial arts masters in these films, for example, they almost always do so by avoiding getting chopped or skewered, not by shrugging off weapon injuries.

[Hullu]

PvK said:
Even for the fictional heroes who manage to defeat many enemies in direct combat, are there any pre-D&D examples of heroes who do so because of a non-magical/blessed heroic ability to survive wounds that would drop lesser men? "Wound Sustaining Man"? "Sir Hurtmenot?" "Captain Fleshwound"?

Any pre-D&D? Herakles and Achilles come to mind. I doubt they're the only ones. Oh you mentioned non-magical/blessed - the Dom3 heroes ARE blessed and/or magical and/or just HEROES.

They're NOT called militia for a reason, or are they?

[Taqwus]

Hullu said:
Any pre-D&D? Herakles and Achilles come to mind. I doubt they're the only ones. Oh you mentioned non-magical/blessed - the Dom3 heroes ARE blessed and/or magical and/or just HEROES.

They're NOT called militia for a reason, or are they?

Herakles was not human -- he was half-man, half-god... and was killed with a bit of poison, not by being repeatedly smashed into the ground. He overpowered his opponents with strength, not his damage-taking ability.

Achilles was killed with a single well-aimed blow -- he had high PROT everywhere else, not unusually high HP. And if you read the classics... well, the Iliad is littered with dead heroes.

[Epaminondas]

Taqwus said:


Herakles was not human -- he was half-man, half-god... and was killed with a bit of poison, not by being repeatedly smashed into the ground. He overpowered his opponents with strength, not his damage-taking ability.

Achilles was killed with a single well-aimed blow -- he had high PROT everywhere else, not unusually high HP. And if you read the classics... well, the Iliad is littered with dead heroes.

You are either factually off or misleading on some of your assertions.

1. While Herakles was indeed killed with poison, it was no ordinary poison but a superabundant dose of poison from a supernatural creature. Even then, he did not die immediately. Compare this to Paris, who died nearly instantly when he was shot with a poison-dipped arrow from Philoctetes--who had been Herakles' companion who had used a much smaller dose of the same poison that killed Herakles.

Further, while I am not sure if Herakles ever took a severe blow from many of his mythical enemies, my assumption is that he must have, given the number of his accounts. In this respect, perhaps it is important to emphasize that the legends usually emphasize Herakles' strength and hardiness, not his agility, in contrast to, say, Achilles, who is usually depicted as swift or fleet-footed.

2. Achilles' near invulnerability came from his mother Thetis dipping most of his body (except the notorious Achilles' "Heel") in the River Styx. One could say that that is an equivalent of his natural armor or "protection" but it could also said to represent his natural hardiness or constitution or--gasp!--HP. To insist on Achilles' near-invulnerability solely as a category of "protection" may be to try to interpret everything according to your convenience.

3. Yes, the "Iliad is littered with dead heroes." But so what? I don't know too many instances where heroes in the Iliad (I can't think of any at the moment) die due to causes other than the might of other heroes or divine interventions. That is, heroes do not die by a lucky stroke from an ill-trained militiaman. And that is the whole point with the dissatisfaction of some who have expressed concern about the human heroes' low HP. We do not mind if a human is killed by a full blow from a Niefel Jarl; but if Pathos--who like Herakles is half-god and half-man--dies by a few militiamen surrounding him getting a lucky thrust, then there is a problem.