• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Narrating Hit Points - no actual "damage"

Ratskinner

Adventurer
I always find it interesting that people can read that passage and come to conclusions that are exactly the opposite of what is stated in the text.

The bolded part explicitly states that a certain amount of hit points represents damage the character is capable of sustaining. The part you don't quote makes it clear that every hit normally depletes a combination of both the physical and non-physical proportion of a character's hit points, and therefore always produces some sort of nick, cut or bruise as well as depleting the character's luck, provenance, destiny, prowess and stamina (or whatever the non-physical points are made of).

Its because that text is not actually as clear as you seem to think. It does not specify that the physical damage is concentrated in a few final HP or evenly distributed amongst them all. For example: "a portion of" is less explicit and clear than "a few of", "some number", or "a portion of each". Applying the idea of a "a portion" to a collection of objects could mean any of those. A portion of 12 cans of soda could mean 3 cans, 3 or 6 cans, or half of each can. Saying "A portion of these twelve points represent actual physical damage." Can equally be read as saying that: "some of the points, but not the others, represent physical damage" or "some fraction of each point is physical damage".

The fact that one can easily imagine other language that does explicitly determine which is the correct reading is telling.

For example, even the sentence: "Every hit point represents combination of both the physical and non-physical proportion of a character's hit points, and therefore a hit always produces some sort of nick, cut or bruise as well as depleting the character's luck, provenance, destiny, prowess and stamina." would make it perfectly clear. Gygax doesn't bother to grace us with such a sentence, and in other places seems to argue the opposite point. In part, this is because he using a lot of confusing and unclear language.

I've got a text document with just about all the official AD&D language (or at least all from Gygax) on HP collected in it (I didn't do the work, and I don't know who did.) I can only tell you one thing for certain: The text resolutely avoids any language that would actually make it explicit how HP are supposed to be treated in this regard. AFAICT, the words "each HP" or "every HP" or "every hit" don't even occur to him to write. In fact, even the quotes that I think lean most heavily in the direction you favor...actually don't, when looked at closely. When he discusses what saving throws mean, it gets particularly unclear. He even gives a Rasputin example which refers to individual HP explicitly as being physical and non-physical, but in other places seems to feel that every hit does at least some physical damage, but doesn't say a minimum of 1 point.

Whether this "fuzziness" is intentional to permit flexible narrative at the possible expense of coherent narrative or not is, I think, unclear. His love of writing in purple prose doesn't help any, either. It makes it more like analyzing Biblical text, and makes it too easy for people to read into it whatever they are predisposed to want to see. My personal suspicion is that he knew that the whole shebang was a hot mess for the narrative end of things, but wanted to keep it for the sake of mechanical simplicity and chose to dress up that decision in flowery language as a distraction. The language necessary to make it explicit is just too readily available for me to believe otherwise.

Some choice Quotes:
HP apparently come in two distinct flavors, physical and non-physical:
"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... "

Physical Damage is not proportional to HP marked off...:
"For those who wonder why poison does either killing damage (usually) or no harm whatsoever, recall the justification for character hit points. That is, damage is not octually[sic] sustained - at least in proportion to the number of hit points marked off in most cases."
(Bonus points because he doesn't specify in proportion to what....like, does he mean that a 12-point hit doesn't do twice as much physical damage as a 6-point hit? or that a 6 point hit doesn't mean the same thing to a 12 point character as it does to a 100 HP character? Both? Something else?)

...but maybe some of it always is?:
Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections.

Anyway, there's that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
I think this sort of rigidity in interpretation undoes some of the benefits of the fact that a given episode of hp loss can be whatever you need it to be at the moment of narration.

Agreed (which is why I used "if").

I've long stopped caring about trying to define hp, or even thinking about them as anything but a game element because ultimately it doesn't matter in the slightest. :D
 



Celebrim

Legend
Its because that text is not actually as clear as you seem to think. It does not specify that the physical damage is concentrated in a few final HP or evenly distributed amongst them all...For example, even the sentence: "Every hit point represents combination of both the physical and non-physical proportion of a character's hit points, and therefore a hit always produces some sort of nick, cut or bruise as well as depleting the character's luck, provenance, destiny, prowess and stamina." would make it perfectly clear. Gygax doesn't bother to grace us with such a sentence...

Each hit score 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 six sense ability which cause 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 that physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points.
-- Gary Gygax, 1st edition DMG

I don't see anything remotely unclear about that at all. The statement, particularly in the context of the discussion, seems absolutely clear and in fact does seem to meet the standard you are demanding.

Yes, I know that there are area elsewhere in the text that can have readings that complicated or contradict the clarity which is otherwise present in the discussion of hit points, but when he actually sets out to discuss what a hit point is, he is very clear indeed and there is a straight forward non-convoluted reading.
 

MechaPilot

Explorer
What is the likelihood that the OP is a fan of DoaM?

(ducks)

What does that matter? A save is a defensive roll, which is just the reverse of an attack roll, and it's no different than using a static to hit number and having the target roll to defend. Therefore, DoaM is already baked into the game in a reverse fashion though the half damage on a successful save mechanic.
 

Jacob Lewis

Ye Olde GM
I treat hit points like some obscure game mechanic trivializing the brutality and violence of mortal combat. Like they do in movies or wrestling where you watch people take crippling blows and tremendous amounts of abuse with hardly a scratch or bruise to show for it. Adventurers are like that, even when you swing sharpened vorpal blades and hammering destructive blows on them between naps when they miraculously make their boo boos disappear. And how do they not get sick drinking so many potions of health like Irish hooligans after a soccer game? What was I saying? Oh, yeah.

I treat hit points like hit points. My players have enough imagination on their own to facilitate whatever translation the numbers require to make their game feel less like a game. Or more, if they prefer. I don't tell them how to have fun. They just do. Also, we don't play games with gross numbers of "hit points" anymore, if you get my meaning. Solved that issue real fast!
 


MechaPilot

Explorer
Hit points are what we need them to be to tell the kind of stories we want to tell.

To use any one definition of what HPs are and apply it to all editions is a fools errand, even if you're using the words of Gygax, because HPs have changed with the various editions:

In 2e, poisons do HP damage and heal naturally at a rate of only 1 a day.
In 3e, poisons generally do ability score damage; meanwhile 3e forced marching can cause HP loss from exhaustion alone, and you regain several times as many HPs as you do in 2e (assuming you were level three, your daily natural recovery would be three times that of 2e).
In 4e (and 5e), you have a portion of your actual maximum HPs sequestered in your Healing Surges (or Hit Dice), and you recover fully overnight.
 

MechaPilot

Explorer
It doesn't. Sigh.

Okay. Sorry. I was just asking because I've seen a lot of people online (though never in real life) using things like enjoying DoaM, inspirational healing, overnight recovery, martial powers (both of the 4e and Bo9S varieties), etc. as litmus tests for whether or not someone is a "true" fan of D&D.

I'll admit it's made me a little skeptical and cynical about people's motives when they ask online if someone likes that stuff.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top