However, part of the hit point "combat skill" involves how easily someone wears themselves out. In combat, often the fighter with the most conservative movements lasts through the battle. I have seen seasoned fencers dominate younger, faster fencers simply because of reserved movement. Eventually, the younger fencer, who has been throwing themselves at the older, more experienced fencer left and right, tires and leaves themselves open for a simple attack. Other times, the quickness of an experienced fencer's blade work tires his opponent for him, as the inexperienced one overcompensates his parry too often and starts to slow down. Constitution, then, isn't about how thick the body is, but how it conserves its energy in a fight. This is why characters receive a Constitution bonus for every level, rather than only once. Similarly, fighters have more benefits from higher scores because that is what they are trained to do - manage their energy for combat. Thieves, magic-users, and clerics, while gaining some experience in combat, do not have this focus.
So if hit points do not reflect simple physical damage, why does Dexterity offer bonuses to Armor Class instead of hit points? If not every hit point reduction is due to a real and authentic 'hit' on the character, Dexterity could be used to represent that, instead. However, considering Constitution bonuses partially represent how easily a character tires out, and level increases partially represent a learned conservation of movement, adding hit points because of movement is contradictory. Instead, the bonus goes to Armor Class because someone does not need to train to have fast reflexes. In combat, a reaction is rarely unexpected. The strategy of sword fighting is to cause the opponent to act or react in a way that the attacker has already planned. Even when attacks are expected, it is difficult for someone to respond to them if they have allowed their actions to be dictated for them. Dexterity, though, represents that last-ditch untrained response to an attack - jumping back out of range at the last second, ducking or turning to the side to avoid a blow. This is something that anyone with a high Dexterity can do, not just those trained specifically in fighting, thus Dexterity affects Armor Class.
Strength, though, is a raw ability that comes into play fairly often in combat, which is why only fighters have the benefit of exceptional scores in that ability. Part of this is due to learning how to hold and use a weapon. The rest, though, comes from someone bearing down on an opponent with sheer brute force. More than once, I have had my blade knocked out of attack range, even when I was anticipating - or encouraging - a parry to my attack, simply because my opponent was a gorilla. Other times, I've given up points or have been stung by a slapping blade because my parry against that gorilla wasn't forceful enough. Sometimes, just fencing someone twice my size has worn me out because a) their bulk makes them slow, so I rely on my speed and move around more, or b) their attacks and parries are so strong my arm is wrenched left and right during the bout. Now imagine someone with a rapier, an elegant and quick weapon, trying to parry a mad barbarian's bastard sword. It can be done, but even a successful deflection is still going to result in some damage.
Other game systems I have seen, especially those that simulate direct play-by-play exchanges, do not take these factors into account. A parry means a parry, simply, and no side-effects result from that parry. Hit points are directly a representation of how much punishment someone can take, and fatigue, learned conservation, or the rigors of being in combat with someone twice the size of the attacker are ignored. Worse is when dodging is regulated purely for defending against missile weapons, while parries are used only for melee weapons. Where, then, is the side-step or retreat-step? Besides, each and every attack made at an opponent is not necessarily intended to connect or cause damage; they're intended to bring the opponent into a rhythm of parries and counter-attacks, leaving them open to an attack on a different quarter. If one of these attacks lands, great! But there is no game system that accurately relates this idea in a blow-by-blow simulation. It requires a generalization.
This system, of course, relies on imagination on the part of the players and GM. They don't rely on a series of dice rolls to recount the scene for them. Instead, they take generalities and use them to tell an exciting story, as they interpret the dice.
Related Links
Mark Damon Hughes: RPG: What's Wrong with AD&D?
Fencing.Net
Posts
