Disappointed in 4e

[Delta]

But as Mr. Gygax himself explained, some part of hit points is morale. (And some part is physical damage, and combat skill, etc).

No, Gygax never, ever used the word "morale" in the context of hit points.

 

[Remathilis]

So...does that mean you do think hit points should be tied to physical damage? Your reply wasn't very informative.

Silly, don't you know that as you gain levels, your skin gets tougher and more resistant to cuts, burns, and crushing blows? How else can a 200 hp fighter wade into a field of spear-armed kobolds and be able to walk out and jog a marathon?

 

[Grazzt]

No, Gygax never, ever used the word "morale" in the context of hit points.

Yep. I dont recall Gygax using the word morale either. IIRC, the 1e PHB defined HP as physical punishment, skill, luck, and magical factors.

 

[justanobody]

Yep. I dont recall Gygax using the word morale either. IIRC, the 1e PHB defined HP as physical punishment, skill, luck, and magical factors.

Indeed you do "IIRC".

"represent how much damage (actual or potential) a character can take before being killed."

Morale was for henchmen reactions.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm with you here. All these things should be able to influence morale. I would use it as fear effect rather than hp damage though. They tend to make you run away rather than wear you down.

Using hp damage for this would be like watching a barbarian screaming in the face of his opponent who casually ignores him until 0 hp is reached and he finally faints from the fear.

Morale is something that just kind of holds or breaks. I don't see it as ablative.

Yes and no, I remember reading quote from a French officer in the Pennsular war, could have been quoted in Chandler's Campaings of Napoleon, then again it could have been anything, I read a lot of that stuff.
Back to the French Officer, his batallion charged a British regiment while deployed in Column of Divisions (2 company frontage as far as I recall) anyway at 300 yards the men were yelling insults, cheering and in good morale at 150 yards they had fallen silent because the British line had not reacted visiblly to their advance. They were silently in line leaning on their muskets and because the Brits had only 2 ranks in line the French could see through the British line. At 75 yards the Brits shouldered arms and at 40 they fired. The French column broke.

My point is that by standing there and not reacting for the 125 yards that the French were within musket range and not reacting the Brits were making an intimidate check and the French were leaking morale because this was unprecidended in their experience and were wondering what did these guys know that they did not. By shouldering arms and not firing for another 35 yards, that another intimidate check and then the morale effects for the first volley.

In D&D terms, I doubt I'd allow a regular use of intimidate to knock off hit points but if say a someone did damage equal or greater than a the creatures bloodied value in a single attack and them made an intimidate on the rest of the enemies then I would allow damage from that and if say the damage made a majority of other creatures bloodied then I would have them flee the combat.

 

[billd91]

In D&D terms, I doubt I'd allow a regular use of intimidate to knock off hit points but if say a someone did damage equal or greater than a the creatures bloodied value in a single attack and them made an intimidate on the rest of the enemies then I would allow damage from that and if say the damage made a majority of other creatures bloodied then I would have them flee the combat.

This just makes me think that there should be an entirely separate mechanic for rating and undermining morale. It may make sense for a unit to have a morale score that gets whittled down, but that score should be separate from determining the resilience of the individuals in the unit, who may well react differently when cornered as individuals and, more importantly, are recoverable after the encounter.

Something like SWSE's condition track would be a better choice for individuals. Start with Good Order as the default, allow one or two statuses above that for special bonuses, and have a few status below. Then you could attack that track with certain powers directly and not have the possibility of a horde of minions killed by an intimidate check.

 

[Mister Doug]

Methinks the words: healing, damage, cure, hit points, wounds etc should be revamped.
There is another thread about the bard and some guy mentioning that the bard
heals you.. That just sounded wrong..

The idea of treating hit points, damage, healing etc. being literal in any edition of D&D involves a huge suspension of disbelief. (If I'm a Lord with lots of experience, my experience in combat allows me to be hacked by a greatsword 10 times before I die? Or fall ten stories without dying? That's silly... unless we assume hit points never meant literal wounds beyond first level....)

And bards healing seems wrong? The 1e bard had that included healing, and the 3e bard had healing spellls (and I forget about the 2e bard).

 

[LostSoul]

Well if the henchmen flee because their hit points are at 0 from fear of the dragon, they drop dead instead of running for the hills. The dragon's frightful presence made them flee because they couldn't resist it, not because their hit points dropped to zero. If hit points are morale, why are in you in a dying state when your hp drop below zero?

Hit points don't have to represent morale, and they are not the only way to represent someone fleeing.

0 HP can mean unconcious. That's RAW, I guess. I don't have a problem with 0 HP also meaning - well, anything else that means the guy won't fight any more, at least not for 5 minutes.

In a game where I could theoretically see the faces of all the combatants off the field, I'm happier with keeping morale mostly out of hit points, which is how it's been done previously, simply because I want anything with zero hit points to have sustained a mortal wound. I prefer the game to be sort of precise that way. In a wargame dealing with hundreds or thousands of combatants, the greater abstraction is welcome.

The cool thing about 4e is that you can go both ways with it. If you're like me, you can deal damage with the Intimidate check. If not, you can keep playing like you always have.

 

[Remathilis]

And bards healing seems wrong? The 1e bard had that included healing, and the 3e bard had healing spellls (and I forget about the 2e bard).

2e bards did not; they had access to ALL wizard spells 1st-6th level (starting at 2nd level and advancing slowly, so that that got 3rd level spells around 7th level and 6th level I think at 15th). Coupled with their caster levels = character level, bards were potent casters and really could sub for a wizard about 3 levels lowers (not bad, considering they rose on the thief XP chart). Add on any weapon choice they wanted, d6 hp, 4 thief skills (pick pockets, hear noise, climb walls, read lang), rogue Thac0, and a 5% chance/level of identifying magic items, 2nd ed bards weren't the weaklings most people placed them as.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes and no, I remember reading quote from a French officer in the Pennsular war, could have been quoted in Chandler's Campaings of Napoleon, then again it could have been anything, I read a lot of that stuff.
Back to the French Officer, his batallion charged a British regiment while deployed in Column of Divisions (2 company frontage as far as I recall) anyway at 300 yards the men were yelling insults, cheering and in good morale at 150 yards they had fallen silent because the British line had not reacted visiblly to their advance. They were silently in line leaning on their muskets and because the Brits had only 2 ranks in line the French could see through the British line. At 75 yards the Brits shouldered arms and at 40 they fired. The French column broke.

My point is that by standing there and not reacting for the 125 yards that the French were within musket range and not reacting the Brits were making an intimidate check and the French were leaking morale because this was unprecidended in their experience and were wondering what did these guys know that they did not. By shouldering arms and not firing for another 35 yards, that another intimidate check and then the morale effects for the first volley.

In D&D terms, I doubt I'd allow a regular use of intimidate to knock off hit points but if say a someone did damage equal or greater than a the creatures bloodied value in a single attack and them made an intimidate on the rest of the enemies then I would allow damage from that and if say the damage made a majority of other creatures bloodied then I would have them flee the combat.

Sure the morale situation got slowly worse. In game terms thats better represented by penalties to defenses from an attack on Will. If the Brits were tossing fireballs as the French adavanced it would be doing HP damage and at the same time morale would begin to fail.

If HP are used as morale damage then what determines who is wiped out, knocked out, or merely soiling thier breeches. Knockouts from fireballs are silly enough. Fireballs that just make someone sit down and cry makes my wizard want to sit down and eat his own magic missile.