From the pages of 1e

[Raven Crowking]

Until 4e, it WAS always about damage. At first level, an 8 point hit from a long sword, is a sword through the belly. Only the hardiest of warriors survives that. At 10th level, the same 8 point hit, is only a scratch - the warrior is more skilled, and manages to - almost - turn the sword thrust away, it's merely a painful, but superficial wound - but it's still damage. This is why the 4e mechanics bother me. I can't help but visualize any hit point loss as physical damage, so, healing surges and martial healing powers ruin the entire game for me.

Thank you for providing an example.

You are correct about how earlier hit points worked, but surely you must realize that "the warrior is more skilled, and manages to - almost - turn the sword thrust away" is modelled with hit points.

Therefore, (pre 4e) all hit points are about damage, but not all hit points are *only* about damage.


RC

 

[Scribble]

Therefore, (pre 4e) all hit points are about damage, but not all hit points are *only* about damage.RC

In your opinion I guess?

 

[Raven Crowking]

In your opinion I guess?

If you like.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

You know, sometimes I do wish I were a moderator so I could stop people entirely from taking discussions down certain paths. I can see where this is going.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Thank you for providing an example.

You are correct about how earlier hit points worked, but surely you must realize that "the warrior is more skilled, and manages to - almost - turn the sword thrust away" is modelled with hit points.

Therefore, (pre 4e) all hit points are about damage, but not all hit points are *only* about damage.


RC

I agree completely. I hastily posted before reading all of the thread.

 

[MarkB]

Until 4e, it WAS always about damage. At first level, an 8 point hit from a long sword, is a sword through the belly. Only the hardiest of warriors survives that. At 10th level, the same 8 point hit, is only a scratch - the warrior is more skilled, and manages to - almost - turn the sword thrust away, it's merely a painful, but superficial wound - but it's still damage. This is why the 4e mechanics bother me. I can't help but visualize any hit point loss as physical damage, so, healing surges and martial healing powers ruin the entire game for me.

I think the mental leap needed here isn't to think that hit points are not always about damage, but to accept that expenditure of healing surges also represents damage. A 4e character who is at full hit points, but has used up five of his eight daily surges, is not uninjured - he is simply as recovered as he can be, and ready to face another fight. His injuries have been bound with bandages or knitted together with magic, but it won't be until he tends them properly during an extended rest that they actually heal.

Likewise, when a martial (or even divine) character 'heals' another character by allowing them to restore hit points by expending a healing surge, he's not making them unwounded - he's simply allowing them to tough it out or bind their wounds temporarily, converting an injury that's immediately hazardous to health (represented by expended hit points) into one that can be dealt with on a longer-term basis (represented by expended healing surges).

Once you realise that a 4e character's state of health is measured by a combination of two scales - hit points and healing surges - and that only a character who has a full set of both is truly uninjured, the abstraction becomes a lot less jarring.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know, sometimes I do wish I were a moderator so I could stop people entirely from taking discussions down certain paths. I can see where this is going.

My apologies.

Insofar as I am concerned, this side excursion is done.


RC

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You know, sometimes I do wish I were a moderator so I could stop people entirely from taking discussions down certain paths. I can see where this is going.

That'd be pretty boring. If we were to meet in person, and I asked you about your health, must the conversation stay there? Could I not also ask about your D&D game or how you liked the weather, or how many times you injected Mark McGwire with steroids?

 

[N0Man]

There were most definitely people arguing that hit points not only should include actual physical injury but that was pretty much entirely what they were. And for them, it may have made sense, particularly if they started with 3e rather than 1e/2e. From the 3.5 Player's Handbook glossary:

...

Note that there isn't the expansive description of what hit points are that you saw from the 1e quote. I would submit that for a player who started with 3e, their view of what a hit point is was a lot narrower than those of us who started with earlier editions.

I honestly didn't remember what 3.0 / 3.5 had to say about Hit Points at all. I probably didn't even bother to read how they were defined in those books, so it's interesting to see that here as well.

There most certainly was arguing here, on Gleemax, and other forums regarding representing real damage. Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say that there were outspoken critics of 4E who claimed all healing did healing on physical damage, to mock it.

Stuff like, "the Warlord shouts at your wounds and they close up!", or "now everyone has the magical ability to heal themselves", which was a total mischaracterization.

However, I'm not really interested enough tonight to prove myself right on the internet that I'm willing to dig through 2 year old forum posts from here, Gleemax, and other forums. ;-)

Anyway, there is still some great advice in those original quotes.

 

[Kannik]

For myself, what I found most striking about the quotes were:

• How the game styles of certain DMs I’ve played with tie in or don’t tie in with the advice. For example, while DM fiat and authority is mentioned on the player’s end, it also directs the DM to recognize that wonton fiat and destruction makes for a very poor game. Even certain rules/conventions should be forgone if it makes for a less fun experience!
  
• That even from the get go (A)D&D was seen as a gamist system, and not a simulationist one. Design was done to function as an adventure enabler.
  
• That even from the get to (A)D&D was interested in game balance (even if that balance was set within a certain framework/mindset, ie, mages should be uber powerful at high levels and weak at low levels).
  
• That the description of Hit Points is one of the most effective ever, even despite (or perhaps because of) the snarky nature of the sentence that begins “it is ridiculous to assume...”
  
• That players are advised on certain things that are argued will make it a better game for all.
  
• That for the purposes of ‘tradition’ we end up with fun Order of the Stick comics.

Reading this over the break was one of the greatest “accidents” I’ve had in a long time – it really offered up new perspective to me and grounding in how the game was actually envisioned.