Disappointed in 4e

[SteveC]

So here in 2008 we're still discussing how hit points work. This discussion has been going on for over 30 years, and it's never going to end. Why is that? Because we're really discussing game fluff rather than crunch.

How do hit points work? As long as you have them, you can keep doing stuff. When you run out, you can't until you're healed. It's always been that way.

Once you start discussing the "whys" you're attaching meaning to the system that it's never had, and you start to see logical inconsistencies. Are hit points physical damage? If so, how can a high level fighter take as much damage as an elephant? Are hit points luck? How can a high level fighter die from a poisoned wound that inflicted 1 HP out of his 100? Are hit points drama/screen time? If so, why does your Con determine how much screen-time you get? Those are only a small sample of the hundreds, if not thousands of questions you can raise about the "fluff" of hit points.

Here's the thing: as long as you're debating fluff, you'll never satisfy everyone in 4E or any earlier edition of the rules, because what's acceptable to you won't necessarily be to me, and vice versa.

It's really not that hard, once you stop trying to find some sort of perfect Platonic ideal of what hit points are, because it doesn't exist.

Except in my house rules, of course.

--Steve

 

[billd91]

The hit point system is abstract. You may find it silly that a creature could be defeated by "morale damage" alone, but that is a consequence of an abstract system. Corner cases will seem strange. But the vast majority of the time, the damage caused to a creature will not come from a single source, and the abstract system works well.

I think you'll find that the main problem some of us are having isn't that morale failure shouldn't defeat an opponent, it's that the hit point mechanic doesn't feel like the right mechanic for it. I find it absurd to be able to kill an opponent by making him lose confidence in himself (and being the attacker, it's pretty much my choice whether an attack is lethal or just knocks the creature out at 0 hit points as I'm understanding things). So for us, it's not just the corner cases that seem strange. We may want to be able to get a whole bunch of otherwise healthy opponents to surrender and submit to our will (to bend them to our own nefarious purposes without having to repair them all), and for that a single pool, even an abstract one, does not work well at all.

 

[Fifth Element]

We may want to be able to get a whole bunch of otherwise healthy opponents to surrender and submit to our will (to bend them to our own nefarious purposes without having to repair them all), and for that a single pool, even an abstract one, does not work well at all.

And I understand that, and that's fine. I should clarify: I am not interested in debating what hit points "should" be. That's up to each group (or individual) to decide, since it's an abstract system.

I am just responding to specific claims like "Gary says hit points are only physical damage, therefore your morale-as-hit points idea is just silly." Which can be refuted on at least two levels.

If you want hit points to only be physical damage in your game, fill your boots. Just don't claim that that's how it has always been, and it's the only right way to do it. Because that it false.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You want me to type from page 82 again, don't you? Very well, here's what Mr. Gygax wrote.

"Why then the increase in hit points [from levelling]? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability to withstand damage...and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection."

"However, the amount of damage 1 hit point represents is not on an absolute scale, but corresponds instead to the hit point total of the being hit."

You are quoting what hit point increases reflect, now what the hit points themselves represent. IOW, why hit points do not scale absolutely. Mr. Gygax is not saying that hit points themselves represent intangible things, but that the hit point system, while representing tangible damage, scales on the basis of intangibles.

Three feet of steel through the guts of 10th level warrior or first level noob is the same amount of "damage" within the context of the game world. The 10th level warrior, however, is hit less severely by the same strike that would impale the noob because he avoids most of the blow. That he can do this is, indeed, the result of intangibles. It does not, however, make the damage itself, intangible.

The fighter's hit points themselves do not represent intangibles. That hit points can increase represents some intangible qualities.

To better illustrate, let us say that Mr. Gygax designed a system wherein everyone had 8 hp, but in which every time you took damage you got a roll to avoid taking damage. The 8 hit points would always mean the same thing, and the roll would represent intangibles. However, one would then wonder why, if you took no damage, you could be poisoned by a hit. Such a system would have many of the same problems as 4e's system does.

Instead, Mr. Gygax designed a system in which hit points are not absolute. The 1st level noob has, say 8 hit points, and the 10th level fighter 80. In this specific case, every 10 of the 10th level figher's hit points scales to 1 of the noob's (edit: Scales roughly, I should have said. The first 10 hp of damage the 10th level fighter takes is far less than 1 hp of the noobs, and the last hit point the 10th level fighter takes is far more than 1 hp of the noob's full total. This is also true for the noob; until he takes his last hp, his first damage taken scales differently than does the blow that kills him). Just as the noob's are not intangible, neither are the 10th level fighter's.

Which is why, as you note, Gary makes certain to tell us llater in the passage you quote that each "hit" does inflict some amount of physical damage.

You conflate hit points with the explanation for hit point scaling. The passage you quoted gives no "intangible, non-physical sources of hit points".

You may find it silly that a creature could be defeated by "morale damage" alone, but that is a consequence of an abstract system.

Actually, that doesn't bother me. I call it "fainting".

It just has nothing to do with hit points are they were used from OD&D through 3.5e.

"[t]he balance of accrued hit points are those which fall into the non-physical areas already detailed." This spells out in quite plain language that some of a character's hit points do not represent the physical capacity to withstand damage.

It points out that there is a difference between what damage totals mean for different characters/creatures, based upon their hit point capacity. It explains scaling of hit points, and should not be taken to mean that hit point damage ever occurs without real damage also occurring. As you also noted that Gary said.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, by "total" you meant "remaining"?

Your hit point total is how many hit points you have at any given time. Your maximum hit points are how many hit points you are capable of having.

My point was not that a nick was intangible.

<snip>

Since a high-level fighter's hit points are 90 percent intangible

If a nick is not intangible, a high-level fighter's hit points are not 90 percent intangible.

Rather, hit points do not scale absolutely. It is not that the five points of damage clearly don't represent five points of physical damage, because that's enough to cripple a healthy man, but that the five points of damage do not represent the same amount of damage to both characters.

RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

The description of the Intimidate skill does not allow it to cause damage. DM fiat is required for that. It can force a bloodied target to surrender, but that's not the same thing as reducing it to 0 hp.

Keep in mind that morale is a measure of resolve and was never intended for PC's. PC's always get to make thier own decisions about what to do. If morale becomes a part of the HP pool that freedom of choice is being reduced somewhat. Reserving certain types of damage for NPC's only is kind of wonky and not what I want from D&D.

I don't think a skill check should force someone to do anything in a compulsory manner. A successful intimidation should influence the chance to either flee or surrender depending on the situation but not automatically cause either one.

 

[Fifth Element]

You are quoting what hit point increases reflect, now what the hit points themselves represent.

If you think that's a meaningful distinction, we can see why this discussion is going nowhere. Since hit point increases are included in total hit points, some portion of total hit points reflects what is reflected by hit point increases.

Three feet of steel through the guts of 10th level warrior or first level noob is the same amount of "damage" within the context of the game world. The 10th level warrior, however, is hit less severely by the same strike that would impale the noob because he avoids most of the blow. That he can do this is, indeed, the result of intangibles. It does not, however, make the damage itself, intangible.

I don't see this as a meaningful distinction either. Damage and hit points are two sides of the same coin. Intangibles reduce the effective damage.

But once again, we're going nowhere in a discussion. We're getting into hair-splitting and semantic arguments. All based on interpretation. So I'm out.

 

[Mallus]

I don't do the whole extremes/black & white thing - especially on a D&D messageboard.

You may be on to something here...

 

[Fifth Element]

Keep in mind that morale is a measure of resolve and was never intended for PC's. PC's always get to make thier own decisions about what to do. If morale becomes a part of the HP pool that freedom of choice is being reduced somewhat. Reserving certain types of damage for NPC's only is kind of wonky and not what I want from D&D.

Well yes, when I use the term "morale" here I mean it in the everyday sense, not in the pre-3E rules-specific sense.

 

[mmadsen]

Three feet of steel through the guts of 10th level warrior or first level noob is the same amount of "damage" within the context of the game world. The 10th level warrior, however, is hit less severely by the same strike that would impale the noob because he avoids most of the blow. That he can do this is, indeed, the result of intangibles. It does not, however, make the damage itself, intangible.

Can we agree that "damage" can mean, to the characters within the game world, actual physical harm, and, to the players rolling the dice, the numbers involved?

When a high-level fighter takes a 5-hp sword wound, he's nicked. When a first-level fighter takes a 5-hp sword wound, he's disabled. In each case, the damage roll was the same, 5 hp, but the physical harm was vastly different.

Very, very little tangible physical harm was done to the high-level fighter. In fact, we know he could take, say, nine such hits before falling. But we know that's not because he's nine times as hardy. He's no more resistant to sword blades than before; he just has luck, divine favor, magic, etc. on his side now.

Something got damaged or used up though, it would appear, since the high-level fighter lost hit points, and that something was largely intangible.

Or, as I suggested earlier, the fighter's skill, luck, etc. allows him to systematically reduce the damage he takes from hits, in which case hit dice are just easier to handle than dividing all damage by his level.

To better illustrate, let us say that Mr. Gygax designed a system wherein everyone had 8 hp, but in which every time you took damage you got a roll to avoid taking damage. The 8 hit points would always mean the same thing, and the roll would represent intangibles. However, one would then wonder why, if you took no damage, you could be poisoned by a hit. Such a system would have many of the same problems as 4e's system does.

I don't think that would be a challenge at all. "No damage" would simply mean a nick or graze that did no serious damage.