Describing Non-Physical Hitpoint Loss?

Calion

Explorer
To summarize the article, Gary adapted a mechanic from wargames, because he didn't actually care about internal consistency or how the world worked, and he rationalized it by calling it plot armor.

Later, people actually started caring about consistency and how the world worked, at which point the game mechanics proved woefully insufficient. Reactions to this involve figuring out a new definition of Hit Points and/or extensive house ruling.

I mostly agree with you. However, that article did reveal to me how hit points could be used to model fantasy scenarios where the hero can take a huge beating and still fight (without having to picture a warrior being able to take twelve sword thrusts to the gut and survive).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Calion

Explorer
That's how I'd describe most actual combat hits that deal damage. If the Ogre just missed, narration is easier because I just describe how the beast wildly swings its great club into the table next to you, shattering it into pieces.

But how does that jibe with, you know, Armor Class?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

I mostly agree with you. However, that article did reveal to me how hit points could be used to model fantasy scenarios where the hero can take a huge beating and still fight (without having to picture a warrior being able to take twelve sword thrusts to the gut and survive).
To its credit, sure, it can do that. What it can't do is explain why it takes three weeks of bed rest to recover your luck and plot armor, or how the characters know how badly off they are, or why anyone would spend a noble's ransom worth of gold on a potion which has no observable effect.
 

Calion

Explorer
To its credit, sure, it can do that. What it can't do is explain why it takes three weeks of bed rest to recover your luck and plot armor, or how the characters know how badly off they are, or why anyone would spend a noble's ransom worth of gold on a potion which has no observable effect.

Except that in 4e and 5e, you heal all wounds overnight. And I think I disagree with you on the potion. It cures your bumps and bruises, and makes you feel much better and ready to fight again. That the magical effect is subtle and not miraculous is actually in keeping with most fantasy narratives.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Except that in 4e and 5e, you heal all wounds overnight. And I think I disagree with you on the potion. It cures your bumps and bruises, and makes you feel much better and ready to fight again. That the magical effect is subtle and not miraculous is actually in keeping with most fantasy narratives.
In 4E, you heal overnight. In 5E, different DMs describe HP loss in different ways, and you may not be able to heal anything at all unless you use a medkit.

A healing potion is equally capable of fixing the potentially-lethal injury that drops someone to zero, and the "no signs of injury" that's given as an example of someone who is still above half. It may be consistent with some fantasy narratives, but it's not terribly consistent with someone in a marketplace who is deciding between eight more potions or a new breastplate. Healing potions aren't usually available for mass purchase in fantasy narratives.
 
Last edited:

discosoc

First Post
But how does that jibe with, you know, Armor Class?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's mutually exclusive unless you want it to be otherwise. For me, I use whatever description has the most cinematic flair to it. If someone hits you and does damage, there's nothing stopping you from describing the attack as one that found a weak spot in the armor, slashing you in the process. Maybe it was the AC saved your life or maybe it was your HP pool; either way, you live to fight another round.

I guess if you really wanted to get all detailed about it, you could just figure out what caused an attack to miss and narrate it accordingly. So if the attack only missed because the defender had a shield, then you know to describe it as a deflected attack. If the attacker only missed because of armor, then you know to describe it that way. But really, misses don't matter so much here. Hits that deal damage do, and you can describe that however you want, but if you describe all hits as being actual wounds then you'll have trouble suspending disbelief.
 

There are two explanations of hit points that I like.

The first is from AD&D, by Gygax, himself... (page 82 of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide)

HIT POINTS

It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

Harkening back to the example of Rasputin, it would be safe to assume that he could withstand physical damage sufficient to have killed any four normal men, i.e. more than 14 hit points. Therefore, let us assume that a character with an 18 constitution will eventually be able to withstand no less than 15 hit points of actual physical damage before being slain, and that perhaps as many as 23 hit points could constitute the physical makeup of a character. The balance of accrued hit points are those which fall into the non-physical areas already detailed. Furthermore, these actual physical hit points would be spread across a large number of levels, starting from a base score of from an average of 3 to 4, going up to 6 to 8 at 2nd level, 9 to 1 1 at 3rd, 12 to 14 at 4th, 15 to 17 at 5th, 18 to 20 at 6th, and 21 to 23 at 7th level. Note that the above assumes the character is a fighter with an average of 3 hit points per die going to physical ability to withstand punishment and only 1 point of constitution bonus being likewise assigned. Beyond the basic physical damage sustained, hits scored upon a character do not actually do such an amount of physical damage.

Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5% hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points, per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm - the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises. It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points.

Apparently, metaphysical hit points take just as long to heal as physical hit points.

And, the second can be found, here...
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1034/roleplaying-games/explaining-hit-points
 

Caliban

Rules Monkey
Which leaves me in the aforementioned pickle. How should we distinguish between hits and misses in combat descriptions, in a system in which many "hits" are in fact misses?

As a DM, you distinguish between them as much or as little as you care too. Whatever feels right at the moment. There are no rules or guidelines governing this, other than "at half hit point you are taking visible damage".

If you want to figure out if the hit missed due to dodging, parrying, blocking with a shield, glancing off armor, or plain dumb luck...then you need a system other than D&D because all those factors are abstracted into AC and Hit Points, with the description of what actually happened left up to the DM and/or player. (Palladium actually covers most of those. You can have multiple rolls to determine if you actually got hit or not.)
 

Calion

Explorer
I guess if you really wanted to get all detailed about it, you could just figure out what caused an attack to miss and narrate it accordingly. So if the attack only missed because the defender had a shield, then you know to describe it as a deflected attack. If the attacker only missed because of armor, then you know to describe it that way.

Yes, and I do just that, as I described upthread.

But really, misses don't matter so much here. Hits that deal damage do, and you can describe that however you want, but if you describe all hits as being actual wounds then you'll have trouble suspending disbelief.

Yes, that's exactly my problem. I need to find a narrative technique that neither describes hits as wounds, nor as misses, nor even as impacts on armor or near misses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Calion

Explorer
There are two explanations of hit points that I like.

The first is from AD&D, by Gygax, himself... (page 82 of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide)



Apparently, metaphysical hit points take just as long to heal as physical hit points.

And, the second can be found, here...
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1034/roleplaying-games/explaining-hit-points

But like almost every other resource I've seen on this subject, these givesno examples or advice on how to actually narrate non-lethal hits.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Remove ads

Top