How Hit Points Ruin SoD

Tequila Sunrise · Jun 15, 2009

(Suspension of Disbelief)
This story is about 4e, but it applies to just about any game that uses HP. I was playing a warlord in an Eberron dungeon. During a fight, the avenger gets hit with an ice lance thing, making him bloodied. The DM describes the hit as the ice lance impaling his chest. On my next action I use Inspiring Word to heal him, with role play something like "Tough it out buddy, you've seen worse! Put some ice on it, you'll be fine!"
Can DMs describe non-fatal hits as purely near-hits and flesh wounds? Sure. Can falls into lava rivers be described as last second handholds? Usually. Can we think of creative reasons why undead take extra damage from positive/radiant attacks that hit according to the rules, but don't hit in-game? Yeah.
But ya know what? Every DM I've ever played with [including myself], in the heat of a tense battle, has a tendency at least once in a while to describe hits as hits. This often leads to patently absurd situations where my brain trips head-over-heels, gets up and then says "Oh yeah, this just some doofy game."

Dice4Hire · Jun 15, 2009

Tequila Sunrise said:
(Suspension of Disbelief)
This story is about 4e, but it applies to just about any game that uses HP. I was playing a warlord in an Eberron dungeon. During a fight, the avenger gets hit with an ice lance thing, making him bloodied. The DM describes the hit as the ice lance impaling his chest. On my next action I use Inspiring Word to heal him, with role play something like "Tough it out buddy, you've seen worse! Put some ice on it, you'll be fine!"
Can DMs describe non-fatal hits as purely near-hits and flesh wounds? Sure. Can falls into lava rivers be described as last second handholds? Usually. Can we think of creative reasons why undead take extra damage from positive/radiant attacks that hit according to the rules, but don't hit in-game? Yeah.
But ya know what? Every DM I've ever played with [including myself], in the heat of a tense battle, has a tendency at least once in a while to describe hits as hits. This often leads to patently absurd situations where my brain trips head-over-heels, gets up and then says "Oh yeah, this just some doofy game."

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that description ruins your SoD, not hit points themselves.

Yes, I would agree it would and could. If the first hit is a solid blow to the character's midsection, and takes away 15% of thier hit points, it is absurd with how D&D has worked in any edition. If that solid blow is the last 15% of the hit points, then it makes sense.

And honestly, warlords who think that their words are giving back the hit points are pretty deluded. It is the magic.

wingsandsword · Jun 15, 2009

Tequila Sunrise said:
(Suspension of Disbelief)
Can we think of creative reasons why undead take extra damage from positive/radiant attacks that hit according to the rules, but don't hit in-game? Yeah.

Why do we even need to explain it's a near miss with undead?

For Suspension of Disbelief purposes, we describe game-mechanical hits as storyline near-misses or grazing minor blows a lot with humans, and animals, and other beings that can't plausibly take constant hammering with swords and arrows and axes and such.

Undead don't have that limitation, neither do elementals or constructs. Go ahead and say that beam of light hit it square in the chest, burned a big hole in it's ribcage, but it's still up and fighting because it doesn't need pesky anatomy or anything and it's going to have to be destroyed totally. It makes undead scarier without changing stats and doesn't push Suspension of Disbelief at all.

Rechan · Jun 15, 2009

I've never really sat at a table* where any hit besides the kill-blow was described. It's always 'You hit, you do x damage'. From both player and DM.

*Text based games have been different, as everything is described.

Also, I'm sitting at a table with other people with pieces of paper and polyhedrians in my hand. I've never been so suspended to not forget it's a goofy game.

So posts like this are rather confusing to me.

Shroomy · Jun 15, 2009

Rechan said:
I've never really sat at a table* where any hit besides the kill-blow was described. It's always 'You hit, you do x damage'. From both player and DM.

*Text based games have been different, as everything is described.

Also, I'm sitting at a table with other people with pieces of paper and polyhedrians in my hand. I've never been so suspended to not forget it's a goofy game.

So posts like this are rather confusing to me.

I agree, its a peril of narration. At first, when I DM'd long ago, I described every hit and miss, and it worked pretty well when you're fighting monsters with only a handful of hit points. But it began to breakdown when opponents increased in power. Soon after, I really only described the final killing stroke or major points in the battle.

Kunimatyu · Jun 15, 2009

If this *really* bugs you, try Savage Worlds, which uses 3 Wounds and a Shaken condition to simulate impairing wounds vs. minor grazes.

Note that a lack of HP can result in BBEGs and giant dragons getting oneshotted. This is often very dramatic, but it's not to everyone's taste.

Aberzanzorax · Jun 15, 2009

I agree with the OP to a degree.

As in the "justify martial dailies" thread, I think that it is just a matter of finding the RIGHT fluff for you.

Personally, I have always been of the opinion that hits, well, actually hit...for a number of reasons.

I'll give just one: sword with poison on it. It has to at least have been a glancing blow, or how did the poison affect the enemy?

So, in our game, we describe the hits as (at least) injuries, but are more careful to make them injuries that one can get back up from with healing magic. Only injuries that make someone "dead" are described as "right near your heart" or "piercing your head".

Bringing someone to bloodied? How about opening an artery somewhere? In the neck/shoulder or under the arm would work.

I have never bought the idea that hp represent "how much more fight you have in you" in terms of exhaustion and such. Even healng has to be "refluffed" if you go this way. Healing heals injuries. I've never seen fluff that healing heals "tiredness" except for those few rare spells that actually do remove exhausted or fatigued as conditions.

Krensky · Jun 15, 2009

Well, my game of choice uses a Vitality/Wound system, so anything that doesn't do wounds is a graze, shot to the body armor, near miss, etc.

Fanaelialae · Jun 15, 2009

In a game where being impaled through the chest only takes you to bloodied status, I think "hey buddy, walk it off" is perfectly fine for 'healing'.

In my games, bloodied represents having taken a painful but nonlethal blow (a flesh wound). I reserve serious impalement, like what the OP describes, for attacks that actually might prove deadly (a coup de grace).

If I were in that game I'd have said something like, "Tough it out buddy, you've seen worse! You're lucky that thing glanced off your ribs". Meaning no offense, but if the fact that the avenger continued fighting (unpenalized) after taking an ice lance through the chest didn't break your SoD, I don't see why convincing him to "walk it off" was a problem.

Tequila Sunrise · Jun 15, 2009

Relax folks, I'm not losing sleep over losing my SoD. I like D&D for the same reason I like action flicks; it's a thrill ride of vicariously violent absurdity.

Aberzanzorax said:
I'll give just one: sword with poison on it. It has to at least have been a glancing blow, or how did the poison affect the enemy?

So, in our game, we describe the hits as (at least) injuries, but are more careful to make them injuries that one can get back up from with healing magic. Only injuries that make someone "dead" are described as "right near your heart" or "piercing your head".

Bringing someone to bloodied? How about opening an artery somewhere? In the neck/shoulder or under the arm would work.

I have never bought the idea that hp represent "how much more fight you have in you" in terms of exhaustion and such. Even healng has to be "refluffed" if you go this way. Healing heals injuries. I've never seen fluff that healing heals "tiredness" except for those few rare spells that actually do remove exhausted or fatigued as conditions.

Well said, sir!

PS to General Public: 'Near miss' is a pet peeve of mine, so please consider what it actually means before using it. A near hit is a narrow escape; a near miss involves large amounts of blood and/or flaming wreckage. Thank you.

How Hit Points Ruin SoD

Tequila Sunrise

Adventurer

Dice4Hire

First Post

wingsandsword

Legend

Rechan

Adventurer

Shroomy

Adventurer

Kunimatyu

First Post

Aberzanzorax

Hero

Krensky

First Post

Fanaelialae

Legend

Tequila Sunrise

Adventurer

Similar Threads