L&L 5/21 - Hit Points, Our Old Friend

[nnms]

From Mike Mearls' interview with Wired:
Where Is D&D Headed Next? An Update with Mike Mearls ... And the Public Playtest Begins | GeekDad | Wired.com

For instance, monsters still need some work, and the starting character hit points are a bit inflated to account for that.​

and

For instance, we just talked today about a rule that lets DMs hand out bonus hit points at first level. The DM gets to determine if adventurers in the campaign are lucky, blessed by the gods, or otherwise destined for greatness.​

We could infer a lot from this. Here are some possibilities (that may contradict one another).

- Hit Point progression will be flatter than previous editions which allows for a wider range of monsters and threats to be level appropriate.
- Monster design will be relative to PC abilities like 4E
- Level 1 survivability might be a dial that gets turned to where you want it
- Monsters use the same framework as PCs and are a bit too lethal as a result.

Despite loving 4E's departure from the 3.x reference-to-zero framework in favor of relative-to-PC-level game-centric concerns, I have since fallen out of love with it and desire a system where the mechanics represent the narrative and its internal consistency. So I'm hoping monster math is not merely tied to the capabilities of the PC without connecting it to the characteristics of the monsters in the fiction.

AD&D added more flexibility to characters, 3e created a logical framework of rules, and 4e created a math framework for the game. All of those things are steps forward for D&D and every edition has contributed to this new iteration.​

I think 4E's math framework can work for a more exploration based game (in contrast with a tactical encounter based game) as long as something is done about encounter and daily refresh cycles.

 

[Libramarian]

Some would like hit points to more closely emulate the real-life aspects of a person's health and resilience in combat: a mix of endurance, durability, and luck. Let's call this group the Simulation Camp, since they want hit points to simulate real life as much as possible.

Others would like hit points to be as abstract as possible, a value in the game that has about as much to do with real life as skill ranks, save throw bonuses, or any other numerical value on the character sheet. Let's call this group the Gamist Camp, since they want hit points to be an abstraction in a game. (I'm in this camp.)

Abstract hitpoints are only a Gamist design technique if by their abstraction they better facilitate Step on Up -- the metagame interpersonal agenda of challenging and judging the players' game skill and risk tolerance.

The abstraction itself is not the point.

AFAICT the only reason to like abstraction in itself is if you think it's some kind of impressive cognitive feat to mentally separate meta number crunching from in-game reality, but this is not impressive at all. I think we start performing mathematical operations without relating the numbers to physical objects in like first grade.

There may be an amazonian tribe incapable of doing this. Their limited language and/or generations of incestuous breeding makes it difficult. I believe I read that once, but I didn't really look into it so it may be apocryphal.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is that for people in our culture it is not a difficult thing to do, so explicitly abstract hp is not in any way cool.

In fact insofar as the indie/forgie dudes are the arbiters of RPG design coolness, I'm pretty sure lazily abstract mechanics are now seriously uncool. At least the Vincent Baker circle considers them to be so.

 

[pemerton]

Damage and HP are game score devices translating danger to players, not a scale of medical severity for characters.

The biggest problem with hit points (ie - "points for tracking hits") is that people naturally infer that the biggest damage roll against a character = biggest wound. I'm not sure there's any fixing that inclination to conflate player-reality and character-reality.

The 20-point hit that brought you to 2 HP over bloodied is more game damage. The 3-point hit that brought you below bloodied is the one that actually busted you open. It did more physical damage to the character than the attack that did more Hit Points in damage - because Hit Points represent the ability to avoid or mitigate physical damage. That's the difference between the game-world reality of the characters and the game-system reality of the players. I guess the confusion comes from the word "damage," really.

<snip>

Even if they are just damage and it doesn't reduce a monster to the bloodied / injured state the dramatic narrative doesn't need to be spiked by talk of "scratches" and the like. A barely parried blow that drive an opponent to its knees or leaves them reeling and gasping for breath as death begins to circle them like a vulture works pretty well too.

Also, there's no rule requiring that monsters with a 1-encounter lifespan follow the same HP narrative path that PCs do. If that 20-foot tall spider takes a crit, feel free to have one of her 8 legs come off - no module or rules adjustment necessary.

Great post - can't XP you, sorry. I especially agree with your last para - disposable enemies lend themselves well to over-the-top crit narration!

 

[pemerton]

I need to take another look at the AD&D/2E monster manual, but I think high HP non large monsters were largely those of a more mythological or supernatural bent.

Devils, demons, rakshasas, mind flayers. But also pirate kings, bandit princes, etc. As well as big things, obviously.

Pre-3e D&D had early access to great AC. With a decent money roll or the ability to survive a good solid delve, any fighter could get their hands on good armour relatively quickly. And if you use the terrain to block people getting to your squishies, you could have entire combats where the PCs don't take any damage.

I can't remember how frequent damage to PCs was in my B/X and AD&D games - too long ago!

Frequent hits vs PCs are important in 4e - management of PC hp recovery in combat, and of conditions inflicted on PCs, is part of what makes the combat interesting. I came over to 4e from RM, and these features of 4e combat (which are different from my memories of B/X and AD&D) occupy the same "mechanical space" as management of active defences, stuns etc in RM.

If you get back all your HD with a sleep, then the rate of non magical recovery will be the same for everyone (barring low rolls representing more serious injuries).

Yes, but a lot of posters in this thread were speculating that slower recovery would be part of making non-magical healing take longer.

Where was this addressed? I think you may be making an assumption.

I was extrapolating from this:

It's important to note that Hit Dice come into play to represent mundane healing. Potions and spells restore hit points and ignore Hit Dice. If a character relies on natural healing, it takes quite a while to recover.​

Warlords aren't potions or spells. Admittedly, they may not be entirely mundane either.

 

[CleverNickName]

My, what big words you use.

Abstract hitpoints are only a Gamist design technique if by their abstraction they better facilitate Step on Up -- the metagame interpersonal agenda of challenging and judging the players' game skill and risk tolerance.

So in other words, abstract gaming is best used for games? I think we agree.

AFAICT the only reason to like abstraction in itself is if you think it's some kind of impressive cognitive feat to mentally separate meta number crunching from in-game reality, but this is not impressive at all. I think we start performing mathematical operations without relating the numbers to physical objects in like first grade.

There may be an amazonian tribe incapable of doing this. Their limited language and/or generations of incestuous breeding makes it difficult. I believe I read that once, but I didn't really look into it so it may be apocryphal.

So in other words, only a primitive, genetically-damaged mind would like abstract expressions for physical things? Pollock disagrees.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is that for people in our culture it is not a difficult thing to do, so explicitly abstract hp is not in any way cool.

In fact insofar as the indie/forgie dudes are the arbiters of RPG design coolness, I'm pretty sure lazily abstract mechanics are now seriously uncool.

So abstract ideals are undesirable for our culture? Now, the entire Renaissance Movement disagrees with you.

But in the immortal words of You Just Now, "that's neither here nor there." The point, I think, is that you don't think abstract ideals are cool. And here is my response: Whatever, dude.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Or at the very least, I'd want a module that talks about designing monsters and challenges based on their characteristics rather than the PC's current abilities (as well as optional rules to explain the best way to excise the pacing mechanic bonuses from the PCs). I'd settle for that.

D&D has some very non-simulationist monsters in its murky past. Rust monsters exist because the PCs have too many magic items. And ear seekers because they listen at doors.

But it did get more sim in the 2e-3e period, to be fair.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Abstract hitpoints are only a Gamist design technique if by their abstraction they better facilitate Step on Up -- the metagame interpersonal agenda of challenging and judging the players' game skill and risk tolerance.

So in other words, abstract gaming is best used for games?

I think I can sort this out. Gamist has two separate meanings on ENWorld. Libramarian is using one, the Forge sense, which as he says means challenging the players. CleverNickName is using the other meaning - a non-simulationist mechanic, either abstract or not representing anything in the game-world.

 

[nnms]

D&D has some very non-simulationist monsters in its murky past. Rust monsters exist because the PCs have too many magic items. And ear seekers because they listen at doors.

But it did get more sim in the 2e-3e period, to be fair.

It's not just about monster design as simulation though. Even these meta-game level designs of treasure control and giving a "screw you" to people listening at doors, the monster stats themselves were still based relatively on their fictional description. Rust monsters have the HP and AC they do because they have tough hides (but not too tough) rather than because the PCs happen to be level 7 or something when they finally fight one.

Devils, demons, rakshasas, mind flayers. But also pirate kings, bandit princes, etc. As well as big things, obviously.

Right, there were pirate kings and the like that were higher HD than other humans much like PCs can be. The older games also talked about PC leveled NPCs being present based on town sizes and whatnot.

Frequent hits vs PCs are important in 4e - management of PC hp recovery in combat, and of conditions inflicted on PCs, is part of what makes the combat interesting.

It can create problems when you don't have tactical combat as a discrete game mode that you enter and exit. Replaying through Keep on the Borderlands with BECMI has definitely been an eye opener. Between wandering monsters and staying the exploration game mode for much of the build up to combat means managing HP across multiple encounters becomes the focus rather than within the individual tactical combats.

Before I switched to playing BECMI, I had done some serious rules hacking of 4E to get it to produce the type of play I was looking for. Given the difficulty of excising the pacing mechanic and revamping the refresh rates based on encounter or daily power usage, healing surges, etc., I'm not sure D&D Next can support both a OD&D/BECMI/1E style approach to resources and a 4E one, even with modules added or removed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Despite loving 4E's departure from the 3.x reference-to-zero framework in favor of relative-to-PC-level game-centric concerns, I have since fallen out of love with it and desire a system where the mechanics represent the narrative and its internal consistency. So I'm hoping monster math is not merely tied to the capabilities of the PC without connecting it to the characteristics of the monsters in the fiction.

Y'know, I think we can split this hair.

Monster math is tied to PC numbers. A LV 13 beastie is an adequate challenge for a LV 13 party. But, there are not really LV 13 goblins. If you come up against some goblins when you're LV 13, you mop the floor with them -- they are LV 1 monsters, and they don't magically get better because the party does. Similarly, the critters your fighting at LV 13 may or may not be LV 13 themselves, but if they are, you couldn't face them at LV 1, and by LV 20, they'll be cakewalks.

So monster math is tied to PC numbers, but a monster's level is something that is assumed to be a specific number.

FWIW, this is the way my experience with 4e has gone, and I'm pretty content with it.

The rougher hair to split is if you want PCs to increase in power against creatures of their own level (so that a LV 13 monster fought by a LV 13 party is an easier (or harder) challenge than a LV 1 monster fought by a LV 1 party), but I am not sure people really want that as much as they want things in the world to stay consistent.

 

[Sunseeker]

Y'know, I think we can split this hair.

Monster math is tied to PC numbers. A LV 13 beastie is an adequate challenge for a LV 13 party. But, there are not really LV 13 goblins. If you come up against some goblins when you're LV 13, you mop the floor with them -- they are LV 1 monsters, and they don't magically get better because the party does. Similarly, the critters your fighting at LV 13 may or may not be LV 13 themselves, but if they are, you couldn't face them at LV 1, and by LV 20, they'll be cakewalks.

So monster math is tied to PC numbers, but a monster's level is something that is assumed to be a specific number.

FWIW, this is the way my experience with 4e has gone, and I'm pretty content with it.

The rougher hair to split is if you want PCs to increase in power against creatures of their own level (so that a LV 13 monster fought by a LV 13 party is an easier (or harder) challenge than a LV 1 monster fought by a LV 1 party), but I am not sure people really want that as much as they want things in the world to stay consistent.

And I think it's reasonably fair to consider that not all creatures will be a specific level. Depending on the world populations of the creature there could be very high variances, like with dragons in that you could fight whelplings or elders, or with oozes of which there may be few, and they could only be +/-2 their expected level.

Personally I find it reasonable that there could be a sampling of any creature at any level. Perhaps there is an elder gnoll shaman who utilizes their ties to the world to extend their life and end up with 20 class levels.

I think all creatures should be given a level range of X to Y, with Y being their maximum expected potential. The monster that you actually encounter would then be somewhere within that range. Even the CR9 Drider had to presumably start out as a fledgling drider just getting a feel for their spidery limbs after their transformation and would at best be a CR2 creature. CR12 Gelatinous Cube would likely have had to start out somewhere as a CR 1/2 jello pudding.

I think part of what bothers me about much of monster math is that the obvious progression that a creature must have undergone to get to their current state is entirely disregarded with the exception of a few monsters(such as dragons). In order to have big, mean beasties, they must have at one time been small, squishy beasties, yet we never see any of those even though rationally, they must exist.



---certainly there's probably a few exceptions just as evil souls that manifest into demonic entities such as Maraliths, but I'd imagine even if a Maralith is a CR17, when it first formed it may have only been a CR13. A powerful entity to be sure, but perhaps not so powerful as her more experienced sisters.