The title refers to the multiple hits people take in John Woo movies before--or while--they go down. It's never enough to shoot a guy once. No, you better unload six to twelve bullets into him, just to make sure. Of course, if you're living in the world of RPGs, that may very well be the prudent thing to do. I mean, how many sword strokes would it take to kill even Arnold?

Realistic combat and Dungeons and Dragons really don't go together too well. I mean, you've got this fighter with 40 hit points and a strike by a sword is going to do, in most cases, 8 points of damage maximum. So you've got to his this guy 5 times, hard with a sword before he goes down. Oh, and even when he's hurt bad, down to less than half of his hit points, it doesn't affect his capabilities at all.

Well, I think I've mentioned before that I've always considered D&D on the 'ease' side of the scale measuring ease of use against realism. The combat system in D&D is pretty simple. If you play with miniatures, then a lot of the tactics become useful. Now in my group, we don't use miniatures. A lot of it comes down to a 'he's about 10 feet away' and 'I guess two of the attackers would be flanking'. Maybe we've got great imaginations, or maybe even with the tactics and attacks options presented with 3E (or d20, whatever), it still doesn't make it that much more realistic while increasing the amount of calculations necessary.

For those of us in groups that aren't really combat-happy, where it's a once a session (if that) occurrence, this lack of realism really isn't a concern. Also, in low-level campaigns, things don't get too carried away. However, even a fifth level fighter is an unbelievable tank. With just average hit points, and we aren't even going to consider the Constitution bonus here, you've got a guy that could take three dead-on sword hits from your average Joe and still keep on trucking. Heck, even a critical hit from another fighter for maximum damage won't put this guy down (unless you get two in a row).

Maybe my math is faulty (never was a strong suit). I'm using the above just to attempt to illustrate the insanity of the D&D combat system. And, yes, this is fantasy, but imagine Conan, high level dude that he must be, getting hit 10 times by a sword before he goes down. Not 10 glancing hits, or 10 hits that bounce off his armour, 10 dead-on, head-severing, holy-cr#p-that-was-a-great-hit hits. Even for Conan, that's nuts.

So, how do you get around this? Well, the official line is that hit points aren't just the ability to take damage, but also stamina and luck. Wonderful, but why then does the character only get tired when they get hit? And if they get hit, did they really, or did their luck pull them through? It's a great explanation that isn't so easy to implement.

The way I look at it, you've got a few options that can help to make it more believable. If the DM keeps track of the hit points, hits might not be noted. So, you'd take the 8 points off from a hit, but you wouldn't tell the player their character was hit. Something like:

"You hear the orc's sword careen off your shield. You raise your sword and intercept the attack of the other orc. Your arms are starting to feel heavy, even so soon into the fight."

Now, in that example, the code words are there. The player should realize that the character has lost hit points. Still, the image isn't one of the pincushion with multiple arrows, sword blows, what have you. This follows the spirit of the rules while maintaining a pretence of reality. This is more work for the DM, and calls for more on the spot creativity, but if you can pull it off . . .

The other option is House Rules. I'm not an advocate for House Rules. I think a player should be able to leave my game and take their character into your game and--save for things like languages, background and such--continue to play without any interruption or inconsistencies. That's not going to happen, but it's a nice thought. And, in this case, if your group wants more realism, other than going to another FRPG, House Rules are the only thing that might satisfy them.

One House Rule would be to divide hit points gained after first level into stamina, luck and damage sustainability. Perhaps time in a fight drains stamina, while points are taken from luck in order to save hit points, the rationale being that the character would have been hurt much worse, but luck saved him/her. Also, the DM could adopt the vitality points, wound points I've heard about associated with d20 Star Wars. That might work well. A really mean DM could just allow an addition of 1, 2 or 3 hit points a level, still building tanks, but smaller, less noticeable tanks.

For many people, the response to this will be: 'it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.' I'm lined up against those people. I want more realism in my campaigns. Sometimes the DM just doesn't see it my way, and that's fine, but given the choice, I'd do something about combat and hit points in D&D. I mean, I'd like to do something about armour as well, but that's a whole other story. I will say that I haven't instituted any House Rules, but if I do, it's going to have something to do with combat.