Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things

[Shadeydm]

There is another way to view it, kinda along the way that Firelance talks about. Every HP is vitality/luck/mojo except for your last one.

Would fit how HP's are described rather well.

Does this mean we are only bloodied when we reach 1 HP lol.

 

[wrightdjohn]

One thing is for sure. We all agree we are two camps and we hate the others playstyle. For 30 years, we had D&D and it suited one playstyle. Then 4e came along and it suited the other playstyle. I believe for tradition if nothing else that D&D should stay D&D. I'm all for a 4e style game getting created to suit the other side.

I've never failed to buy an edition of D&D but if it looks like 4e this will be the start for me.

I just wish WOTC would keep publishing 4e and make 5e a game that is an improvement synergy between 2e and 3e.

 

[wrightdjohn]

Also D&D has always from the beginning defined hit points as a mixture of real physical damage and other intangibles. It was NEVER absolutely NEVER the case that real physical damage only occurred on the last hit point.

Also with magical healing everyone can choose to interpret what is happening however they want, it's magic. With martial healing it destroys all viewpoints except 4e's.

 

[FireLance]

Does this mean we are only bloodied when we reach 1 HP lol.

I see "bloodied" as the kind of wound you get when you are duelling "to first blood": a solid hit that leaves a visible injury, but which is still non-hindering and in a non-critical area. Yes, it's a visible, physical wound that still hasn't caused 1 hp of physical damage. Chew on that.

 

[FireLance]

Also D&D has always from the beginning defined hit points as a mixture of real physical damage and other intangibles. It was NEVER absolutely NEVER the case that real physical damage only occurred on the last hit point.

Oh certainly, characters are taking physical damage, but in the form of minor cuts and bruises and other non-hindering, non-critical wounds. My point is not that the characters are not taking physical damage. My point is that the rules imply that it is never serious and life-threatening until the last hit point of damage.

Also with magical healing everyone can choose to interpret what is happening however they want, it's magic. With martial healing it destroys all viewpoints except 4e's.

As I posted in another thread:

I think what you are grappling with is the idea that a character could mechanically be at full hit points but be narratively wounded. This has not been an issue previously because the only way to restore hit points quickly was to use magic. However, the fact that the previous narratives for rapid restoration of hit points can no longer be applied to rapid non-magical hit point recovery does not make it illogical. It simply means that a new narrative is needed.

So, if a 100 hp fighter who has been reduced to 1 hp has sustained no serious, life-threatening, incapacitating injuries (since he is otherwise treated as if he is uninjured), and is only covered with cuts, scratches and bruises, then hit points can be defined as any intangible factor that can keep him from being killed, such as vigor or luck, and can be quickly and easily restored, even through non-magical means.

If a 100 hp fighter who has been reduced to 1 hp has sustained serious injury but is somehow able to ignore it (since he is otherwise treated as if he is uninjured), then hit points can be defined as any intangible factor that allows him to function at (mostly) full effectiveness despite serious injury, such as willpower or determination, and quick, non-magical recovery of hit points simply represents a renewal of those factors, leaving the underlying injuries unchanged.

In short, depending on which view of hit points you prefer, you can narrate the non-magical recovery of hit points as either the restoration of the ability to avoid future wounds or the ability to keep going despite having sustained serious wounds.

 

[Hussar]

Also D&D has always from the beginning defined hit points as a mixture of real physical damage and other intangibles. It was NEVER absolutely NEVER the case that real physical damage only occurred on the last hit point.

Also with magical healing everyone can choose to interpret what is happening however they want, it's magic. With martial healing it destroys all viewpoints except 4e's.

Why not?

What in the rules, in the actual text of the game, actually defines what the mixture is? All that the rules say is that HP are a mixture.

Granted, you and many others might have interpreted that in one way, but, your interpretation doesn't actually match what's in the game. And, in fact, runs contrary to how HP are presented. After all, the example of the chained fighter surviving the fireball is a perfect example of only the last HP counts.

The chained fighter gets hit with a fireball, does not die, yet has no plausible means of avoiding the fireball. How do you reconcile that with the idea that significant portions of your hit points are "meat"? After all, it's far less believable that you can stand at ground zero of a fireball that can instantly kill a giant (1ed Hill Giants in the G1 module had 42 HP) that will not in any measurable way, impair you.

See, the problem is, it's not that 4e made some new interpretation to hit points. It really didn't. What it did was make the interpretation that best fits how HP are described actually matter. Previous editions, this discussion never occured because virtually all healing was done by magic.

Which is great if you want every D&D game to be a high magic game. Not so great if you don't.

 

[Shadeydm]

I see "bloodied" as the kind of wound you get when you are duelling "to first blood": a solid hit that leaves a visible injury, but which is still non-hindering and in a non-critical area. Yes, it's a visible, physical wound that still hasn't caused 1 hp of physical damage. Chew on that.

I took it as a signal from 4E's designers that at half hitpoints the physical component of hitpoint damage had started to kick in. I am not claiming that i'm right it might very well be another example of 4e terminology getting in the way of intent.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why not?

What in the rules, in the actual text of the game, actually defines what the mixture is? All that the rules say is that HP are a mixture.

Granted, you and many others might have interpreted that in one way, but, your interpretation doesn't actually match what's in the game. And, in fact, runs contrary to how HP are presented. After all, the example of the chained fighter surviving the fireball is a perfect example of only the last HP counts.

The chained fighter gets hit with a fireball, does not die, yet has no plausible means of avoiding the fireball. How do you reconcile that with the idea that significant portions of your hit points are "meat"? After all, it's far less believable that you can stand at ground zero of a fireball that can instantly kill a giant (1ed Hill Giants in the G1 module had 42 HP) that will not in any measurable way, impair you.

See, the problem is, it's not that 4e made some new interpretation to hit points. It really didn't. What it did was make the interpretation that best fits how HP are described actually matter. Previous editions, this discussion never occured because virtually all healing was done by magic.

Which is great if you want every D&D game to be a high magic game. Not so great if you don't.

But hussar, you just said the best design is the one that is most flexible to different styles. Hp as damage is a popular style of play and not easy to achieve with surges and second winds. Hp as mojo and hp as damage are both easily achieved through traditional HP. Therefore Traditional HP is the most flexible and (according to you) objectively superior to 4e hp and surges

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why not?

What in the rules, in the actual text of the game, actually defines what the mixture is? All that the rules say is that HP are a mixture.

Granted, you and many others might have interpreted that in one way, but, your interpretation doesn't actually match what's in the game. And, in fact, runs contrary to how HP are presented. After all, the example of the chained fighter surviving the fireball is a perfect example of only the last HP counts.

The chained fighter gets hit with a fireball, does not die, yet has no plausible means of avoiding the fireball. How do you reconcile that with the idea that significant portions of your hit points are "meat"? After all, it's far less believable that you can stand at ground zero of a fireball that can instantly kill a giant (1ed Hill Giants in the G1 module had 42 HP) that will not in any measurable way, impair you.

See, the problem is, it's not that 4e made some new interpretation to hit points. It really didn't. What it did was make the interpretation that best fits how HP are described actually matter. Previous editions, this discussion never occured because virtually all healing was done by magic.

Which is great if you want every D&D game to be a high magic game. Not so great if you don't.

To answer your question seriously this time, if the last hp was where the damage happened that would have been stated in the book. The fact is if you examine combat examples in core books and supps over the years, it is pretty clear that physical damage is a substantial part of hp loss at all levels.

 

[Hussar]

But hussar, you just said the best design is the one that is most flexible to different styles. Hp as damage is a popular style of play and not easy to achieve with surges and second winds. Hp as mojo and hp as damage are both easily achieved through traditional HP. Therefore Traditional HP is the most flexible and (according to you) objectively superior to 4e hp and surges

Umm, haven't you been paying attention?

There's multiple examples in this thread of using surges to get exactly what you want.

But, Traditional HP don't give me what I want. They don't achieve HP as mojo because the healing rates don't make any sense if HP are mojo. Why on earth does it take me a week to get my mojo back? Or, rather, any period of time is equally understandable - be it short or long.

To answer your question seriously this time, if the last hp was where the damage happened that would have been stated in the book. The fact is if you examine combat examples in core books and supps over the years, it is pretty clear that physical damage is a substantial part of hp loss at all levels.

When I look at the combat examples in the books, I see lots and lots of numbers with virtually no attention paid to the idea of how serious a wound actually is. I'll have to dig up my Mentzer Basic book again, but, IIRC, the "actual play" example doesn't really dwell too terribly much on the details of hit point loss.

And, let's be honest here, considering the amount of verbiage we're talking about, I'm very, very sure that we could play dueling quotations for a LONG time without resolving anything. I mean, heck, people have been pretty content entirely ignoring the AD&D DMG definition of HP throughout this thread, why would people start paying attention to what's actually in the books now?