The problem of low hit points on humans

[Taqwus]

Epaminondas said:
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.
[/b]

As noted, he was also not human -- he was half-god, and not just any god, but the leader of the pantheon known for direct divine intervention. He's therefore not a great example of what should be achievable by humans.

[/b]
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.
[/b]

That is the textbook definition of protection. He could not be harmed save by a blow to the one vulnerable location. When he was struck there by an enemy who was forewarned, Achilles died. That's protection, not hp -- hp reflect being hurt. He was simply not hurt when hit elsewhere. His ability to not be hurt when hit elsewhere, was completely irrelevant when he was hit in his one vulnerable location. That is not consistent with any explanation that relies on a global stack of hit points, not protection + critical hit.

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.

...as if a soldier who killed a hero wouldn't be treated as one in the tales, at least tales written by his own side?

Also, consider this: was Patroclus considered a hero in his own right, until he demonstrated the skill of fighting as Achilles did, to the point that his opponents believed his armor? Or was it his (not special!) damage-taking ability that fooled them?

Pathos gets godly protection, just like Achilles. In fact... unless it's been reduced, he's BETTER protected than the average mage who just cast Invulnerability, if memory serves. Like Achilles, if he takes a well-aimed critical hit, he can die. If he gets tired and his skills effectively degrade, he can easily die -- just as, say, Zhang Fei died to two lowly, common soldiers.

[PvK]

Hullu said:
... Oh you mentioned non-magical/blessed - the Dom3 heroes ARE blessed and/or magical and/or just HEROES.

Only the ones marked as such, and therein lies part of the problem. Many of the heroes in Dom 3 are only somewhat better than typical commanders. I and others enjoy them that way, but they really start as people with hero potential, rather than fully-fleged heroes. Once they have experience and heroic abilities and items, they can be quite powerful, if still mortal. But with some exceptions, most of them don't appear from the start at "quite powerful" level. You have to build most of them up, and unless you embrace the challenge and risks of doing so, it's not particularly worth the time and attention, especially from a competetive standpoint when there are more powerful summons you can blink up for a small pile of magic gems.

I think the "Worthy Heroes" mod is really the right approach. The designers offer a built-in set of heroes, many of whom are just somewhat better than national commanders, and many of us find them interesting and nicely restrained in their abilities. If you want more super heroes, you can mod them in and/or use mods than do so. It's far easier to do so now in Dom 3 too because there are much nicer mod commands for heroes than there were in Dom 2.

[Twan]

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"?

One more time : the D&Dian original definition of hit points was "capacity to survive" *including all non conventional ways to avoid being hit*. To resume the original hit points are an abstraction representing not only endurance but luck, skill and fate of the character. D&D was based on miniatures strategy game rules, unlike the following RPGs made once they were a specific genre. In a miniature game you would have paid hundreds of budget points for your heroe, so you prefer "the better he is the longer he will survive, but he won't be able to survive without limit if you use him too much" (to resume : he worth his budget) over "he may dodge or be one shoted, if you have luck he will survive for eternity, if you have not... ahah you lose" (to resume : he may worth 0 or ten times his cost). I still can't understand how some strategy gamers may be so convinced that the D&D approach is only a weird RPG thing, and the second the best for strategy games, when it's very clearly the contrary IMHO.

[PvK]

Twan said:
...
One more time : the D&Dian original definition of hit points was "capacity to survive" *including all non conventional ways to avoid being hit*. To resume the original hit points are an abstraction representing not only endurance but luck, skill and fate of the character. D&D was based on miniatures strategy game rules, unlike the following RPGs made once they were a specific genre. In a miniature game you would have paid hundreds of budget points for your heroe, so you prefer "the better he is the longer he will survive, but he won't be able to survive without limit if you use him too much" (to resume : he worth his budget) over "he may dodge or be one shoted, if you have luck he will survive for eternity, if you have not... ahah you lose" (to resume : he may worth 0 or ten times his cost). I still can't understand how some strategy gamers may be so convinced that the D&D approach is only a weird RPG thing, and the second the best for strategy games, when it's very clearly the contrary IMHO.

I already knew the history, and I accept that some players are OK with (or even prefer) massive-HP characters for various reasons. Personally, I find it an unsatisfactory and tired abstraction which is far overused in far too many computer games for my tastes. To me, it makes the tactics very artificial and annoying (i.e., I'm pretty invulnerable until I wear out, and then after getting steadily whittled down, I'm almost sure to die unless I withdraw and heal...). I think it's unfortunate how many games rely on high-HP-based damage systems, because I tend to find them really bland and uninteresting, because they tend to just be about wearing down enemies at constant and predictable rates, and don't model situations in a very accurate or interesting way. They tend to remove risk and unpredictability. And so, I tend to cherish the few games like Dominions that model combat results in more detailed and unpredictable ways, that are more like the actual situations they say they represent - more about risk and cause and effect, and less about "my hero can't die on turn one - that's not supposed to happen - he's a hero!" etc.