The problem of low hit points on humans

[PvK]

Turin said:

May I ask which heroes you feel bend the system? I felt that I was pretty stingy with giving hp boosts and I think noone has more than 2 times as much as the base unit after which he is modelled, which was my upper limit.

Sorry Turin, I wasn't specifically criticising anything in Worthy Heroes mod. I was talking about the suggestion in this thread to multiply the HP of human units that players would like to use as thugs.

[curtadams]

Even if you insist on "realism" Dominions human thugs are far too fragile. Alexander the Great fought in the front of his army almost every battle and survived dozens of battles, even without the high-end equipment that won't save a human commander on the front lines in Dom. That would be essentially impossible in Dominions. There would be more variety from a game interest viewpoint if human could be made into worthwhile low-end melee thugs. More realistic, more to play - what's not to like about toughening up at least human heros a bit?

[UninspiredName]

Yes, but Alexander the Great didn't survive those battles by taking a direct hit from a halberd or javelin, and didn't really turn the tide of battle (Aside from morale, I guess) by being on the frontlines. I half-think the guy had a lot of luck as well as his combat prowess that kept him alive.

And remember, even in most fantasy, a hero rarely manages to alter the outcome of a battle by killing a ton of enemies in pitched combat. Usually they use some sort of magic, use the terrain, (say, triggering a rockslide) or take out an enemy commander, usually the last of the three. Rarely do you get a hero that can stand up to even ten enemies on his own. I'll also point out that these heroes are also rarely targetted by hostile magic and that, when they are, it's frequently a struggle to survive.

[Shovah32]

And your also forgot to add that alexander the great wasnt fighting huge dragons, undead monsters and lightning bolts coming down from the sky.

[Epaminondas]

Shovah32 said:
And your also forgot to add that alexander the great wasnt fighting huge dragons, undead monsters and lightning bolts coming down from the sky.

Yes, but Alexander also didn't have all those magical trinkets and other magical boosts to help him either.

[curtadams]

Shovah32 said:
And your also forgot to add that alexander the great wasnt fighting huge dragons, undead monsters and lightning bolts coming down from the sky.

I don't have a problem with much of that (other than of course many Dom3 undead are pretty pathetic) but the problem is that it doesn't take anything like that to kill a melee commander. 20 hp heros will accomplish your idea quite nicely as a dragon will still shred them.

[Taqwus]

One way in which Dominions is a bit weird regarding the interplay of strength and skill is that the effectiveness of a weapon parry / defense skill isn't affected by relative strength.

For instance, to take a fairly extreme case: if a Hoburg with two Main Gauches of Parrying is fighting a Niefel Jarl with a Hammer of the Mountains, is the Hoburg going to bother to block the massively strong attacks, or is he going to rely on ducking and dodging? Unless he's got some incredible strength for a Hoburg... he'd be better off with Vision's Foe.

If relative strength affected defense skill somewhat (just as attacker's strength now impacts shield parries -- against the Niefel Jarl with that Hammer, even a decent shield may not be a great deal of help), then it'd be possible for a hero to have very high defense, turning away opposing blades with ease (until he fatigues...) but still have a rough time against giant-strength opponents.

[B0rsuk]

Increasing HP would be redundant, because we already have 'burning out' mechanic. It's called Fatigue. Fatigued enemies are easier to hit, and after certain point can no longer fight.

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

Translation: I like the legend about Achilles, but not that part about magical origins of his power. The part about hero is right, the part about magical protection is wrong. Because I say so.

Some quotes from wikipedia:

When Achilles was born, Thetis tried to make him immortal by dipping him in the river Styx. However, she forgot to wet the heel she held him by, leaving him vulnerable at that spot

In another version of the story, Thetis anointed the boy in ambrosia and put him on top of a fire to burn away the mortal parts of his body. She was interrupted by Peleus and abandoned both father and son in a rage.

Homer does not make reference to this invulnerability in the Iliad. To the contrary, he mentions Achilles being wounded. (In Book 21 the Paeonian hero Asteropaeus, son of Pelegon, challenged Achilles by the river Scamander. He cast two spears at once, one grazed Achilles' elbow, "drawing a spurt of blood.")

So, in two first quotes Achilles is said to be nearly immortal. Styx is no ordinary river, and ambrosia is food of the gods. There's also mention of burning away mortal parts of his body.
We see Homer didn't mention Achilles' invulnerability, and there's one case of him being wounded. His elbow was grazed by a thrown spear. You don't easily die from a hit to elbow, much less a graze. If anything, it could be said that Thetis' Blessing gave him heroic defence/reflexes. Because the worst wound he received (before the final one) was grazed elbow.
Doesn't sound like he had a lot of hps, does it ? It's either Protection, or reflexes (Defence) if you listen to Homer.

As predicted by Hector with his dying breath, Achilles was thereafter killed by Paris — either by an arrow to the heel, or in an older version by a knife to the back while visiting Polyxena, a princess of Troy. In some versions, the god Apollo guided Paris' arrow.

Both versions conspicuously deny the killer any sort of valor owing to the common conception that Paris was a coward and not the man his brother Hector was, and Achilles remains undefeated on the battlefield.

So in one version he was hit in the heel and it was enough to kill him. In another(never saw this one), he was killed (one shot !!!) by knife in the back.
Even if you assume totally realistic point of view and support the idea that Achilles' tendon was crippled, it seems to imply that it made him lose his Defence and dodging ability.
I'd also like to note that Greeks considered all ranged weapons, especially bows, cowardly. Their military was really centered around heavy infantry. Most probably because bows tend to ignore target's Defence, and you can't show your skill in melee combat.
Either way, Achilles died from a single blow.

As to Herakles, the only instance of him being wounded I remember was a crab that cut into his feet while he was wrestling with a legendary monster, don't remember which one.

Achilles' armor was the object of a feud between Odysseus and Telamonian Ajax (Achilles' older cousin). They competed for it by giving speeches on why they were the bravest after Achilles and the most deserving to receive it. Odysseus won. Ajax went mad with grief and vowed to kill his comrades; he started killing cattle or sheep, thinking in his madness that they were Greek soldiers. He then killed himself.

Because there's mention of Odysseus, I assume it was Homer who wrote this. It seems to imply that Achilles' power at least partially came from his armor - or so the two Greeks believed. What it doesn't do is support the HP hypothesis.

Let's face it, HP is a crude, old oversimplification in an old and flawed system like D&D. And if I remember correctly, the way AC works in D&D comes from pen&paper Mechwarrior games. (Just to support the idea that D&D). D&D says futuristic giant walking robots have more in common with ancient/medieval combat than history. That's guilty enough for me. And let's not forget D&D was optimised for humans - that is, GM had to be able to calculate everything quickly without help of computers.

[Endoperez]

Taqwus said:
One way in which Dominions is a bit weird regarding the interplay of strength and skill is that the effectiveness of a weapon parry / defense skill isn't affected by relative strength.

For instance, to take a fairly extreme case: if a Hoburg with two Main Gauches of Parrying is fighting a Niefel Jarl with a Hammer of the Mountains, is the Hoburg going to bother to block the massively strong attacks, or is he going to rely on ducking and dodging? Unless he's got some incredible strength for a Hoburg... he'd be better off with Vision's Foe.

If relative strength affected defense skill somewhat (just as attacker's strength now impacts shield parries -- against the Niefel Jarl with that Hammer, even a decent shield may not be a great deal of help), then it'd be possible for a hero to have very high defense, turning away opposing blades with ease (until he fatigues...) but still have a rough time against giant-strength opponents.

Actually, that might be doable. Horned Helmet is both a helmet (adds a new piece of armor to the unit) and a weapon (adds a Gore attack). If Main Gauche of Parrying added a weapon (Main Gauche of Parrying, dam 3, att 0, def 0, lngth 0) and a shield (Main Gauche of Parrying, def 0, parry 5, prot 20), high strength could be used to over-power it. I statted the shield named Main Gauche of Parrying after Shield of Valor, which combines E1 (shield) and A1 (Air shield) items into one. They're at the same level of construction.

Of course, it's a bit far-fetched to do this for ALL weapons of ALL units - but it could work for some of the magical items.

[Cainehill]

UninspiredName said:
And remember, even in most fantasy, a hero rarely manages to alter the outcome of a battle by killing a ton of enemies in pitched combat. Usually they use some sort of magic, use the terrain, (say, triggering a rockslide) or take out an enemy commander, usually the last of the three. Rarely do you get a hero that can stand up to even ten enemies on his own. I'll also point out that these heroes are also rarely targetted by hostile magic and that, when they are, it's frequently a struggle to survive.

Really??? I wonder what fantasy it is that you've read, because I can remember a _lot_ of fantasy heroes who butchered armies (Elric of Melnibonea being a classic example, or at least slaughtering warbands of well over 10 enemies ( Aileron and Arthur at different times in Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Tapestry, said trilogy having made it to "best 100 works of fantasty" status, the Morigu trilogy, a number of heroes from the late lamented Paul Edwin Zimmer's books, even the classic "The Worm Ouroboros" from 1922 ).

As far as surviving magic goes, I could give similarly long lists of fiction in which they do just that - some of Glen Cook's works, David Gemmell's, Moorcock, Tanith Lee, etc, etc, etc.

Kindly note that some of those are considered to be amongst the great, seminal, writers of fantasy. And then there's also mythology and fable.