In 2007, how did you see hits and hit points?

[Sword of Spirit]

Roll back your memories to 2007--before 4E came out. Answer the question as you would have back then please.

1- Being “hit” by a weapon attack and losing hit points always included at least a scratch or a bruise.
2- Being “hit” by a weapon attack and losing hit points didn’t necessarily mean you took even a scratch or a bruise—the attack could have been a complete *whiff*.
3- I’ve never thought about it, but now that you mention it, I prefer #1 .
4- I’ve never thought about it, but now that you mention it, I prefer #2 .
5- I hadn’t played D&D (any version) before 4E came out.

 

[Sekhmet]

I wonder, exactly how can you be "hit" without being hit? #2 doesn't make any sort of logical sense whatsoever.

 

[James the Newbie]

The way I see it is hitpoints are obviously incredibly unrealistic, and so I like to keep in mind basically everyone in D&D is a little superhuman and that it is a game (and a good game too), so we have to treat it as such. I guess I view it more like an anime, where almost every blow is practically fatal, but it represents your tolerance to pain and ability to soldier on. (I guess a bit like warhammer for those who play it)

I very rarely think of anything as a scratch or a bruise, or if it is, I am more likly to view it as non lethal damage, or a 1 damage attack.

Edit: That said, to the none being hit one, I give it a great deal of credence, and accept that players or DM's can view it as the characters luck or fighting skill through the battle. But when describing a battle I notice my players much prefer 'You swing across his chest splattering blood across the fighter beside him' to 'He nimbly dodges your blow, but you can see his luck wears thinner'. Also when it comes to things like magic missile, slash tongue, and lots of area effects explaining hit points becomes a lot harder.

Also there is nothing more amusing to our party than zombie guts spewing over a bard, who is in on the joke, with every hit.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

@Sekhmet

A lot of 4E players view it exactly like #2 . There are also people who have been playing since OD&D who have always seen it that way. I've personally never played with anyone who has indicated or played like they saw it that way.

There wasn't as big of a discussion of it before 4E, and especially before 5E had to start deciding how it was going to do it. I'm trying to figure out how people were actually seeing it before the dialogue got started about it, since I think there have probably been people who have switched back and forth both ways. I also want to see how many people never really thought about it (ie, didn't imagine attacks in a lot of detail).

@James the Newbie

When I watch Bleach, I always think 4E D&D, lol.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted #1 ...which is how I've viewed it since 1977, and still do today.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I voted #1 , though it is not entirely an accurate description. In our games hit points have always been a gamist abstraction - there just isn't a whole lot of in-combat narration. So, the idea of there being a scratch or bruise just never came up. However, a hit has always been a hit and has always resulted in hit point loss.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Could be a light hit, but yes, I view(ed) any weapon hit as indicating that the weapon physically contacted the target and inflicted some amuont of physiological harm. A miss indicates that the strike either missed entirely or touched the target but inflicted no harm.

As vague as the hp system is, I think it's important to define it inasmuch as we can.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I haven't touched 4e, on purpose.

How does one have a Whiff lower hitpoints?

 

[anest1s]

Without blood flowing after every hit, what is the in game excuse for someone to use healing?

Actually 4th e healing surges? I always felt they work like

 

[delericho]

Same as I do now: being hit for even 1 point of damage represents at least a scratch. This is why things like poison trigger on a hit, and are prevented if you have sufficient damage reduction to reduce the damage to 0.

However, attacks that do more damage do not necessarily mean a more telling blow was landed - whether that's more damage as a percentage of the whole or in absolute value. All you can say for certain is that there was at least a scratch.

I believe that that's the standard 3e interpretation from the books, but I may be wrong about that - I may just be repeating the explanation one of the designers gave at the time.

Edit: as a radical idea, I looked up the relevant section in my 3.5e PHB... and my interpretation isn't there. I guess it came from one of the designers, then.