Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things

Derren

Hero
If shouting at you gets you on your feet, then you weren't bleeding out and about to die in seconds. Negative HP in 4E means you are unconscious, and if you fail enough death saving throws, you will die. Being unconscious does not mean you cannot be jarred awake by sound. And death saving throws do not necessarily represent bleeding.

Even in 3.X, the only way to be "bleeding to death and will die in seconds" was to be at exactly -10. In old editions, there was literally no such thing as "bleeding to death". You were either fine (1 HP or more), or dead (0 HP).



What mechanical outcome are you referring to, where that is the best story explanation for what is going on?

Just because some HP loss can be represented as Morale loss, doesn't mean that the HP loss that represents the killing blow is Morale loss. If a hit kills something, then it is entirely logical to describe that as a physical hit dealing mortal damage.

Thats the point. You can't know how injured a PC is before you know how will he be healed.

Following example:
A Orc critically hits a PC with a greataxe and the PC goes down and has to start doing death saves.

Is this a serious, life threatening physical wound or not?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Even in 3.X, the only way to be "bleeding to death and will die in seconds" was to be at exactly -10. In old editions, there was literally no such thing as "bleeding to death". You were either fine (1 HP or more), or dead (0 HP).

Whether it's technically bleeding or non-respiration, shock, or whatever were also included in 1e's description, I think, is largely immaterial. The specifics could be up to player/DM interpretation and none of them in 1e are non-dire. The PC is unconscious and dying in both 1e and 3e (it's an optional rule in 2e). So yes, there literally is such a thing as bleeding to death in older editions, including editions before 3e.
 

Kannik

Hero
The real problem with hit points isn't that they are an admixture of physical damage, mental resolve, and stain, but that the terminology involved in their loss implied physical damage. When you roll, you roll "to hit", not "to cause a near miss". When you actually succeed, you are said to "hit" not to "cause strain". When you roll for the affect, you roll "damage" not "fatigue" or "loss of morale".

Indeed, the terminology used misdirected many...

That doesn't work for me, but the alternatives are worse; if you want HP to be more than physical, then weapons and combat need new terms to remove the implied physicality of their usage into something that reflects that accurately. If you want HP as damage only, then you close off a lot of options mechanically... It's tough to decide.

Or, instead, we recognize that, like the term Hit Point, the terms hit and damage are just abstract terms used to represent that you have damaged the character's hit point value (in whatever manner is appropriate for the type of attack). Defences are abstract; hitting means you got past these abstract defences to affect a character's overall combat/action capacity, known as hit points, which is itself an abstracted entity that has no effect until it hits 0 (except in 4e, where at 50% value it can trigger certain things). Yes, you did damage -- to hit points.

The terms are all used to represent the abstract notions, and have a meaning specific to the game of D&D. (Queue the old "level" terminology humour...) When a player says "hit me" in blackjack, it has a meaning that has nothing to do with being physically smacked in the face (well, I dunno, maybe there are kinds of blackjack like that :p).

Can it be confused? Yes, sure, by many including myself. Should we alter the meaning of HP because of it? I say no, read on...

bedrockgames said:
It isn't like this is some bizarre personal explanation of HP i have come up with on my own. It is very widespread and is one of the major reasons lots of people dont like healing surges. I think you are dismissing how common it is for people to treat 10 points of damage as actual physical harm to the character that shouldn't just be blown off by a pep talk.

And I think you are dismissing how "common" (a subjective term) it is for people to find it very odd that someone can take 10 points of physical damage (your chest wound example) 10 times in a fight and keep whistling merrily along. At the end of any encounter, the average party would look like they've just fallen through a box of rusty razor blades, that were moving, and on fire. And that 50 point critical... did the person lose an arm? Ouch! Amazing that they can keep swinging that two handed sword so easily.

If instead we say "well, those cuts are all superficial, it's all flesh wounds due to their experience in turning the blows away," ok then, no problem -- but then the pain of bruises and nicks can be overcome by a pep talk just fine, adrenaline is an amazing thing. Not to mention this matches the fiction quite well, no shin bones showing in sight.

You yourself are saying "Hp has always been a combo of real damage and other things." But then it appears to me that you turn around and say "but don't get other things in my HP, it's gotta be all physical wounds, all the time!" So I'm not sure where the confusion lies. It is both physical and other things, and as Gary wrote in the source document: the majority of HP at higher levels is not physical capacity but those very other things. And given that, other things therefore can be "healed" by other things than bandages, ointment and divine radiance.

Note that this doesn't mean that I don't think there isn't some oddity with how an Inspiring Word interacts with the hard rule of 0 HP = unconscious and dying saves. That I would like to see resolved. :)

peace,

Kannik
 

Kannik: Gary got the ball rolling for the hobby but that doesn't mean his definition of HP was universally embraced. And I am not trying to be dissmissive of other approaches. i get that some people prefer things abstract and say "you take twenty points pf damage" instead of "the wolf's bite rends your leg". I also get that my approach isn't gritty realism. For me it is a good believable medium that allows for fun and interesting combats, makes some kind of sense and makes for heroic game play.
 

I think that one big problem with the 'Hit Points as abstract concept' issue is that the way hit points are defined by the writers of the game are often not at all the way that hit points are described during gameplay.

If I am running a fight between a giant and a group of players, when I describe damage, I don't say, "The giant scared the poop out of you with his club for 17 points of damage, you're going to need new underwears." I say, "The giant knocked your liver out of your body for 17 points of damage, you're going to need to stop at the convenience store and get another one."
 

I think that one big problem with the 'Hit Points as abstract concept' issue is that the way hit points are defined by the writers of the game are often not at all the way that hit points are described during gameplay.

If I am running a fight between a giant and a group of players, when I describe damage, I don't say, "The giant scared the poop out of you with his club for 17 points of damage, you're going to need new underwears." I say, "The giant knocked your liver out of your body for 17 points of damage, you're going to need to stop at the convenience store and get another one."

Not to mention a lot of GM advice in official products over the years has suggested describing HP loss as you do here (physical damage).
 


BryonD

Hero
Again, quality for you.
No this is flat out wrong and if you would pay attention to comments I've made over and over you would know that.

If they make a game that a lot of people like and I happen NOT to be one of them, then that will be quality.

Going back to 3e and earlier style healing would be a huge step backward for me. You keep insisting that your taste has some sort of objective value. Sorry, like BRG, your tastes in no way are superior to mine.
Again, it is YOU talking about *your* individual taste.
If you truly mean what you say then you should instantly concede that they should accept that you taste is valid but not nearly as marketable as other options available.

The simple truth of person A's opinion being worth the same as person's B's opinion is little more than a worthless red herring when the question at hand is how does the dollar generating value of an opinion held by a lot of people compare to the dollar generating value of a few people.
 

FireLance

Legend
If I am running a fight between a giant and a group of players, when I describe damage, I don't say, "The giant scared the poop out of you with his club for 17 points of damage, you're going to need new underwears." I say, "The giant knocked your liver out of your body for 17 points of damage, you're going to need to stop at the convenience store and get another one."
If I was to be excruciatingly honest, I would normally say, "The giant hits. You take 17 hit points of damage." :p

However, on the infrequent occasions that I did want to add a bit more description, I would say something along the lines of, "The giant deals you a glancing blow with his club" (if the PC still had quite a few hp left) or "The giant's club catches you in your side. You think you might have cracked a rib" (if the PC was quite low on hp afterwards). As long as the PC was high on hp, arrows "graze", swords and stingers "nick", "cut" or "scratch", blunt weapons leave "bruises". If the PC was low on hp, I might describe something more serious, e.g. a deep wound in a non-vital part or cracked bones, but again, nothing life-threatening or that could significantly impact the PC's ability to make attack rolls without penalty. It's only when the PC dropped to 0 hp or less that I actually described life-threatening wounds, but again, nothing that a PC could not recover from completely in time (no decapitatons or loss of limbs).

I guess I had gotten into the habit of describing hit point loss in this manner even before 4e because because hit points have always been presented to me as more than physical - a high-level fighter low on hit points would be covered in nicks and scratches, but the sum total of all those nicks and scratches wouldn't even be enough to cause an actual hit point worth of damage. A normal man, or even a frail and weak man with 1 hp, covered in those same nicks and scratches wouldn't be dead, or even significantly hindered. So, while there was always a physical component to hit point loss, it was miniscule.

So, fast forward to 4e. What changed for me?

1. Hit point loss can be entirely non-physical. Magic can frighten a man to death, depress him to death or insult him to death. Fine. I can deal with that. It's magic. If a magic ray of green light can kill a man even though he is completely fine physically, I can accept that magically-induced fear, depression and anger can also kill.

2. Hit points can be restored more easily through non-magical means. Not an issue for me since I've never gotten into the habit of describing gory wounds. I just pile on the nicks, scratches and bruises.

3. A character can drop below 0 hp, be in danger of death, and recover back to full hit points within 5 minutes by non-magical means. This part is more tricky, but fortunately, I've never gotten into the habit of describing dropping below 0 hp as anything that could cause permanent impairment. What I have to be careful about now (when there is no magic healer in the party) is to ensure I don't describe dropping below 0 hp as anything that could cause temporary impairment, either - no broken bones, for example. These days, on the occasions when it happens, my preference is for profuse bleeding. It's possible that a character could die from it, but it's also plausible (at least to me) that once the wound is bandaged up and the blood loss is stemmed, a character could ignore the pain and press on.
 

Hussar

Legend
If HS and 4e power are in the core, no I probably wouldn't make the switch. I just see it as more work to port them out than port them in. Like i said HS are built on top of HP, so it is a lot easier to us Hp as the base system. But I have to ask why it is such a bad thing for me to want the game to exclude aspects of the previous edition I strongly disliked? I mean would you want overpowered wizards as core if they could be optionally removed?

Honestly? If they could be removed as easily as the changes to the HP mechanic and with the same lack of effect? Not a problem in the slightest.

Then again, I have no real problems with taking stuff in D&D and then changing it to suit my tastes. I've been doing it for 30+ years, I don't know why it would change now.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top