The Healing Paradox

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I wouldn't have any issue with calling "wounds" or "wound points" hit points and coining another term for the ablative luck/fate/training/stamina points.

But I think Ridley's Cohort (I would really like to meet this Ridley guy, if his cohort is already that smart) has made the crucial point

The Healing Paradox exists because it is a Sacred Cow to not add any complexity to the Hit Point system. It is an easily solvable problem as game design issues go. But it is an impossible problem to solve to everyone's satisfaction at zero cost.

We can do all these nice things, but they will make damage and healing more complex, if not more complicated. ANd people don'T want this. D&D Next is not the edition to slay many sacred cows, and most likely not this one. At least not in the Core.

Maybe it's okay if the Core is inconsistent and wishy washy about hit points? It was okay for OD&D and AD&D, wasn't it? So yes, the Core may contain all these inconsistencies that are revealed on closer inspection. But if you care, there will be a rules module that does the wound point / vitality point or hit point / fate point split for you. Or the "hardcore" module where hit points are totally flesh points and there ain't any Warlords shouting you to full health. The core stays wishy-washy about what hit points really represent, but rules modules will give you the tools to expand.

Obviously, having several alternate modules to handle and fine-tune hit points, damage, health and injuries will open its own can of worms. D&D Next may become the most house-ruled and modded game system since... GURPS? D&D SRD?

 

[pemerton]

So, why does Constitution add to your Plot Armor? Why not Charisma?

Why not DEX (given that hit points represent dodging/mitigation abiity"? Because it's a somewhat unstable melange.

And why do you die so that you're dead and not just die so that you are "unconscious?"

Well, this depends a bit on edition and options. The wounded state defaults to death only in pre-3E D&D, and in AD&D their are options to move away from that default.

why take hp to mean "fate peanuts" and not to mean "the dividing line between fighting and dying?"

HP damage has always been able to kill you.

As was pointed out upthread, losing plot armour can also be fatal. "Fate peanuts" are the dividing line between fighting and dying. When you run out of plot armour, then a hit will kill you. That's the very definition of plot armour (whether it takes the form of hit points, or HARP-style Fate Points that mitigate the results your PC would otherwise suffer, or whatever else).

falls and swords deal HP damage and being insulted and unlucky does not

Huh? Being unlucky (ie having the GM roll hits against you) does lead to hit point damage. Being insulted in a context where that makes you more likely to be killed can also reduce your hp (eg various categories of psychic damage in 4e, and hit point loss from the Ego Whip in AD&D), although sometimes D&D has instead modelled this by an AC penalty representing your enraged (and therefore less self-protecting) state.

people have played D&D using HP as more-or-less wounds just fine until (and even through) 4e. D&D has a wound system. It's called Hit Points.

<snip>

D&D needs a system to represent sword attacks that can kill you in order to be playable and recognizable as D&D. That's essential. D&D doesn't need a system to represent plot armor.

But D&D's system whereby swords kill you is via the ablating away of plot armour. It's like the fights in REH Conan - dodging and "flesh wounds" until the fatal blow is struck. The wound system in D&D isn't hit point depletion, it's the binary state "hp >0 and therefore unwounded", "hp < 0 and therefore wounded, perhaps mortally".

It's not necessary that wounds mechanically affect a character's performance.

<snip>

not everyone who wants HP to represent actual damage actually wants a realistic simulation of that damage.[/qupte]What does it mean to say that hit point loss represents wounding when the game has no mechanic for debiliation, maiming, bloodstaining of clothes, infection, surgery, etc? How would the play of the game be different if hit point loss represented ablation of plot armour rather than "wounding" as you conceive of it? Not one jot, as far as I can tell.

people who have been having fun using HP as mostly-wounds were actually having fun like that. Legitimately. Maybe even without your permission.

I'm not sure what this proves. That "hp as meat" is the default way the game should be played, despite at least two editions (Gygaxian AD&D and 4e) explicitly denying this?

If hit points are wounds, what is happening when a high level fighter is "hit" by 20 arrows from minion archers? Pincushioning? Dodging? (But in that case, hp aren't wounds, they're DEX.) Arrow cutting? (But in that case, hp aren't wounds, they're DEX.)

The artwork for the game has never suggested anything like this, and I don't think it's how most players envisage the fiction, even if they otherwise play hp as meat and hate warlord healing.

D&D has never actually had a meaningful wound system

<snip>

Thus, it makes sense to keep HP as what they've always been and add a new wound module for those who like that sort of thing.

Quite.

 

[jrowland]

Why is it necessary to deplete hit points to achieve this, rather than, say, medical supplies and ammunition? And why would diseases or poisons be tied to HP (since they haven't been before)?

To answer your question: It isn't necessary to deplete HP. My example was for illustrative purposes, for the concept of attrition itself. Sir Henry's expeditions are a classic. I think you are arguing against the example rather than the concept of attrition. But if not:

For strategic attrition, yes supplies matter, but there is also tactical attrition. Escaping from the headhunters cooking pot and running through the jungle over many days with headhunters chasing you like game, HP attrition works. Holing up in the tree bole during the rainstorm might give you some respite (a few hp) but not the whole enchilada (full hp). If the story involves numerous skirmishes the character has to avoid/defeat, then being at "full strength" by RAW mechanics stretches believability.

DM fiat could dictate a lesser HP recovery (and I am fine with it), but for a lot of people, HP recovery is one aspect where DM fiat bristles. Imagine if it was HP loss rather than gain that was DM fiat!
DM: "The orc mook hits for 28 damage"
player: "What?!?!? Thats more than its max damage!"
DM: "It fits the story better if it does more damage"

So having the rules reflect healing in a way that allows for attrition helps the DM-player contract

 

[Mercutio01]

What does it mean to say that hit point loss represents wounding when the game has no mechanic for debiliation, maiming, bloodstaining of clothes, infection, surgery, etc? How would the play of the game be different if hit point loss represented ablation of plot armour rather than "wounding" as you conceive of it? Not one jot, as far as I can tell.

It is different in the healing side of the equation. HP = meat doesn't allow for inspirational healing. Those types of non-magical healing are usually represented by temporary hit points, which disappear after a time, indicating their momentary inspiration effects rather than a permanent healing of the body.

I'm not sure what this proves. That "hp as meat" is the default way the game should be played, despite at least two editions (Gygaxian AD&D and 4e) explicitly denying this?

And there were several editions where HP was meat. Appeal to tradition doesn't work here

If hit points are wounds, what is happening when a high level fighter is "hit" by 20 arrows from minion archers? Pincushioning? Dodging? (But in that case, hp aren't wounds, they're DEX.) Arrow cutting? (But in that case, hp aren't wounds, they're DEX.)

The 20 arrows variously scratch any bare skin (on the hand, maybe leaving a small line of red on the face?), or hit barely penetrate the armor leaving a small scratch or bruise (maybe the padding behind the armor manage to prevent the actual penetration of the arrow) behind, maybe the arrows hit the armor abd bend the metal back into the body which creates a small cut, or maybe the arrows hit a nonvital area like the thigh but not deeply enough to be a concern in battle.

 

[pemerton]

It is different in the healing side of the equation. HP = meat doesn't allow for inspirational healing. Those types of non-magical healing are usually represented by temporary hit points, which disappear after a time, indicating their momentary inspiration effects rather than a permanent healing of the body.

I can see how some mechanics are excluded. What I am wondering is what changes about the play of the game other than the exlcusion of the mechanics. For example, suppose I'm playing AD&D with "hp as fate" and you're playing with "hp as meat" - how does the play of the game differ? I can't see any signicant difference. So why does the rulebook have to take a stand?

And there were several editions where HP was meat. Appeal to tradition doesn't work here

I'm not arguing that hp is not meat. I'm arguing that it does not default to meat either.

My broader view is that I think it would be a significant change for D&D to suddenly change its mechanics to make "hp as meat" the default.

The 20 arrows variously scratch any bare skin (on the hand, maybe leaving a small line of red on the face?), or hit barely penetrate the armor leaving a small scratch or bruise (maybe the padding behind the armor manage to prevent the actual penetration of the arrow) behind, maybe the arrows hit the armor abd bend the metal back into the body which creates a small cut, or maybe the arrows hit a nonvital area like the thigh but not deeply enough to be a concern in battle.

Why? Because the fighter is lucky? In which case, hp look like fate to me. Or because the fighter dodges them with great skill (turning what would otherwise be direct hits into almost-misses)? In which case, why CON and not DEX.

Is there another reason why the arrows almost miss the high level fighter, but not the low one, that I haven't thought of?

 

[Mercutio01]

Why? Because the fighter is lucky? In which case, hp look like fate to me. Or because the fighter dodges them with great skill (turning what would otherwise be direct hits into almost-misses)? In which case, why CON and not DEX.

Is there another reason why the arrows almost miss the high level fighter, but not the low one, that I haven't thought of?

Here is 3E's definition of hit points, and it's the one I like the best:

Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.​

I've italicized the important part. The hit is still a hit, which is what I value in HP = Meat, but a killing stroke turns into a scratch strictly because the fighter is better trained in the art of combat (and this would be true of any class, imo). Simply through fighting more often in life-or-death situations, characters are able to fight better going forward. I liken it to martial arts training. One black-belt versus a white belt is a one-hit KO for the white belt. But by training over time, he learns blocks and counters. The bodies of the combatants still make contact (and blocking a kick or punch can hurt a lot), but the blow is turned aside enough to prevent a KO.

I don't really like Kamikaze Midget's solution for Fate points or whatever, but he does provide the dial which is something I can adjust. I fully expect, based on the latest Playtest Feedback post by Mearls, that something much like what KM proposes here might come into play in some fashion.

It is important to me that a hit roll actually means hit and that damage means damage. That's how I've played since I learned to play D&D. That's my playstyle preference.

 

[Sadras]

We are never going to solve the problem without overhauling the entire public health system of DnD and distressing a large portion of the fanbase which D&DNext is supposed to unite. As many others have correctly stated before me, an optional Wound Module would serve the majority of the fanbase.

In our group's 4E campaign we have introduced such a Wound Module as we wanted to strive for a grittier system. One of our system mechanics is that Wounds can only be healed by non-surge Healing. i.e. Utility Powers of the Cleric, therefore generally no one else is able to cure Wounds but Priests/Clerics and everyone elses restores Vigour/Vitality/Hit Points. This seems to work for us and allows Churches/Temples as well as healing practitioners to become somewhat critical within our campaign.

If 5E creates a Wound Module we like, or the base system is flexible for us to design and incorporate one in (which I think it does) then that is all I want and I believe that is what most players here would like to see.

 

[pemerton]

Here is 3E's definition of hit points, and it's the one I like the best:

Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.​

I've italicized the important part. The hit is still a hit, which is what I value in HP = Meat, but a killing stroke turns into a scratch strictly because the fighter is better trained in the art of combat (and this would be true of any class, imo).

I hope it's not out of line for me to push just a little bit harder: "turning a serious blow into a less serious one" surely means dodging, parrying, arrow cutting or something similar.

Which makes me ask: why do we need a hp mechanism in addition to AC - because AC also represents the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one?

I'm not expecting you to seriously answer that - I mean, that would be the opposite of flatter math, and the problems that scaling causes seems to be one of the less controversial issues around here - but to me it illustrates the odd place that hit points occupy in the game design.

(And why do hit points apply to falls, on this model - how does fighting skill turn a fall into something less serious? Whereas hp as metagame/fate peanuts can handle this fine - in the extreme case, you landed on a pile of feathers!)

Anyway, relating this back to KM's posts a page or two upthread: hit point loss, on your model, signifies wounding, but unless I've misunderstood it there is no correlation between hp lost and wounds suffered - hit points aren't a measure of wounds taken. For example, on your model the wound suffered when the first 6 hp are lost by a high level fighter is very different from the wound suffered when the last 6 hp are lost.

So I don't think your approach is "hp as wounds" in KM's sense - it's more "hp as fighting skill".

Correct me if I've misunderstood you!

 

[Mercutio01]

I hope it's not out of line for me to push just a little bit harder: "turning a serious blow into a less serious one" surely means dodging, parrying, arrow cutting or something similar.

Well, a dodge that didn't quite get completely out of the way, or experience in combat giving the fighter the presence of mind to turn sideways to battle rather than face forward.

Which makes me ask: why do we need a hp mechanism in addition to AC - because AC also represents the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one?

I don't see it as that. AC is the threshold it takes to actually make physical contact, not to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. Meeting or beating AC means you make physical contact, and HP/damage is a measure of how solid the contact is.

(And why do hit points apply to falls, on this model - how does fighting skill turn a fall into something less serious? Whereas hp as metagame/fate peanuts can handle this fine - in the extreme case, you landed on a pile of feathers!)

Yeah, that's one spot where HP completely fails at all levels: fate points, meat, skill, training, etc. Falling is a weird case that doesn't satisfy any model that I'm aware of (do Vitality/Wounds systems address falling better? I hadn't noticed any specifics dealing with it.).

Anyway, relating this back to KM's posts a page or two upthread: hit point loss, on your model, signifies wounding, but unless I've misunderstood it there is no correlation between hp lost and wounds suffered - hit points aren't a measure of wounds taken. For example, on your model the wound suffered when the first 6 hp are lost by a high level fighter is very different from the wound suffered when the last 6 hp are lost.

Well, sort of. The loss of HP themselves is indicative of wounds suffered. It doesn't apply penalties to attacks and skills, but the mere fact that you have less HP means that your ability to take further hits is lessened. One scratch can't kill you, but a severe-enough road rash (a lot of scratches) very well might.

So I don't think your approach is "hp as wounds" in KM's sense - it's more "hp as fighting skill".

Correct me if I've misunderstood you!

I suppose if you had to boil it down, it's that I still adhere most to "HP is a mix" and every hit that does damage is also a mix. I think in all honesty, that's where I diverge with HP is Fate people. Every hit that does damage is represented by the loss of HP that is a mix of all the different elements. I don't see a tier with some HP only being fate points and some only being meat. I see a mix where each HP is representative of the entire mix of what makes up HP. Every 1 HP is simultaneously meat, fate, luck, skill, ability, training, etc. That means every hit is a hit, but it leaves me completely free to describe hits as everything from a scratch or bruise to an arrow to the knee to a hacked off limb (usually only applied to NPCs when they die -- like when you play the Fallout CRPG and have Bloody Mess checked).

 

[Campbell]

I hope it's not out of line for me to push just a little bit harder: "turning a serious blow into a less serious one" surely means dodging, parrying, arrow cutting or something similar.

Which makes me ask: why do we need a hp mechanism in addition to AC - because AC also represents the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one?

I'm not expecting you to seriously answer that - I mean, that would be the opposite of flatter math, and the problems that scaling causes seems to be one of the less controversial issues around here - but to me it illustrates the odd place that hit points occupy in the game design.

I don't think that it's necessary for hp to represent the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. Among traditional RPGs D&D is actually fairly unique in its level of abstraction. Even a superhero game like Mutants and Masterminds represents wounds directly. The issue is how do you make avoiding blows interesting and make missing not seem pointless? How about making multiple opponents scary to even a supremely skilled swordsman? Most games use a combination of having a more complex action economy that elicits some cost for avoiding attacks and the use of limited explicit meta game mechanics to add mechanical interest.

Note: I would be remiss if I didn't point out how odd I find it that AD&D is so abstract in its general combat mechanics (to the point of not even allowing explicit targeting in earlier versions) but highly specific in other parts (namely spell casting, wealth down to the last copper, tracking ammunition and food stuffs).