Hit points & long rests: please consider?

[The Little Raven]

We've now shown contradictory pieces of Gygaxian prose from several different locations in the same book. At this point, Gygax has done more to confuse the issue than clear it up because he was wishy washy on a clear definition (see my comment way earlier in the thread about Mearls definition being the first clear one in the game's history).

Nothing contradicts. Hit points are an abstract representation of the combination (A) your ability to withstand physical damage, (B) the skill involved in avoiding serious physical damage, (C) protection from supernatural sources, and (D) luck. He then clarifies, several times, that withstanding physical damage itself is probably the smallest part of the abstraction that is hit points, because it's silly to assume that just by leveling up, a dude becomes more resistant to stabs in the heart.

First, how on earth are you calculating Con 18 as only giving 2 HP per level? Con 18 would give HP per level, so you'll have to double all your Physical HP per level, and also incorporate all the initial HP from starting out (which always represent physical damage. At least, they do if you consider Gygax's prose about the 1st level fighter who dies after one hit.

I'm calculating it with the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook, which states on page 12 that only Fighters get a +3 or +4 bonus to hit points per level for Constitution, and all other classes get a +2 maximum.

If 2 hit points is physical damage, then one "real" hit is pretty likely to kill the fighter given the average damage values.

Next, now you're going to argue percentages? Cool with me. At least you're willing to admit that some hits will be actual honest-to-god hits that do honest-to-god damage. That's a step in the right direction. that means that ~30% of hit points for all the characters except the fighter (whose stats don't change) are actual physical damage.

ForeverSlayer claimed that 1e (Gygax) made the split between hit points being physical/metaphysical was a 50/50 split. So, I looked in the actual 1e books that Gygax wrote and found that this was not the case if you compile all of the information and break it down methodically and logically. He meanders and he's bad at organizing an instructive text, but all the information is there and it doesn't contradict anything.

Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses(1) - 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. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness)(2).

Here's my methodology:

Hit Points = Hit Die + Constitution modifier (fact)
(1) tells us that your ability to actually withstand comes from your Constitution bonus since it explicitly interjects that it is indicated by the Constitution bonus, with no indicatition that it is represented by Hit Dice. (fact)
(2) tells us that the bonus to hit points from Constitution is composed of both the ability to withstand physical damage and the ability to avoid physical damage through sixth sense/luck/so on. (fact)

None of that is contradictory in any way. And here are my assumptions based on those facts.

(A) Hit Dice are not mentioned as the ability to withstand physical damage when Constitution is explicitly mentioned because they do not represent that, they represent the skill/luck/divine protection/etc that hit points also represent. There is nothing else in the 1e books about Hit Dice that counter this assumption.

(B) Since Constitution bonus hit points are composed of 2 disparate elements, and for the majority of characters the maximum bonus they can get each time they gain hit points is 2, then each of those factors (physique and fitness) must be worth 1 hit point for those characters. If you wished, you could adjust the fighter's Constitution bonus to be weighted to one side or the other if you wished, but it's just as reasonable to assume they hold equal weight.

Thus, my conclusion: Constitution hit points are the sole source of physical damage hit points, but Constitution hit points are not exclusively physical damage hit points.

 

[Mercutio01]

You'e demonstrated that you can cherry pick quotes from AD&D that are ambiguous. You've given me nothing unambiguous from 1e. There's a huge difference here.

2e I'll grant is unambiguous.

Which means that my claim is that the definition of hit points changed between 1e and 2e.

Um... because it's the clear one? Because it's the one that specifically deals with the issue and when used as a lens doesn't contradict anything else? Because it was what he said to clarify exactly that point?

And then contradicted later on. Again, people argue this crap about religious texts all the time. They cherry pick the one rule that they say is clear as day and completely unambiguous, and ignore the rest. That's what you've done. Besides, if we're really going to be pedantic about it, use the hit points rules from OD&Dil, since that's where it actually all started. 1E was a modification from the original, which was in turn a modification from Chainmail. Let's leave Chainmail out since it's not a roleplaying game but rather a tabletop fantasy wargame. OD&D has 1 hit doing 1d6, and 1 level grants 1d6 hit points plus maybe a constitution modifier. Obviously the intent here was that hit points meant actual damage. The higher the roll on the damage dice, the more grievous the wound, the more likely the death of the character. It's clear and unambiguous. It only becomes ambiguous with 1E.

But since that doesn't fit the narrative, let's ignore it and pretend that the one cherry-picked quote which is never repeated in the book is the onetrueway.

 

[Wiseblood]

I would prefer a more hard core approach within the rules as the default. 1/4 to 1/2 hit Dice per long rest. The returning of full HP would be fine by me. Changing it to easier or harder is fairly easy to suit the taste of a table.

 

[The Little Raven]

WHICH IS NOT THE SAME.

So, your argument is that turning a sword thrust to the chest into a graze is not an example of turning a serious blow into a less serious blow.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And then contradicted later on.

You keep saying this. You have yet to present one single clear and unambiguous contradiction - the closest you've got is hit point bonusses.

Again, people argue this crap about religious texts all the time. They cherry pick the one rule that they say is clear as day and completely unambiguous, and ignore the rest.

Look in a mirror. And one of the reasons there's such arguments about religious texts is that most of them have a multitude of authors. 1e has a pretty clear authorial voice.

That's what you've done. Besides, if we're really going to be pedantic about it, use the hit points rules from OD&Dil, since that's where it actually all started. 1E was a modification from the original, which was in turn a modification from Chainmail. Let's leave Chainmail out since it's not a roleplaying game but rather a tabletop fantasy wargame. OD&D has 1 hit doing 1d6, and 1 level grants 1d6 hit points plus maybe a constitution modifier. Obviously the intent here was that hit points meant actual damage. The higher the roll on the damage dice, the more grievous the wound, the more likely the death of the character. It's clear and unambiguous. It only becomes ambiguous with 1E.

Don't give me your paraphrase. Give me the text please. And I'd say it becomes unambiguous with 1e. Everything is consistent with the idea that hit points are the way Gygax described them.

But since that doesn't fit the narrative, let's ignore it and pretend that the one cherry-picked quote which is never repeated in the book is the onetrueway.

As you have precisely no cherry picked texts that hold up your end - all of them being utterly ambiguous, and there being a clear authoral voice to AD&D, I think there is one true way that the one mind produced. And that others later disagreed with. I believe that a common house rule in 1e got made the official rule in 2e.

I'm not saying that the 1e rules are the one true way. I'm saying that the 1e rulebook says what it does and isn't self-contradictory. It's occasionally ambiguous - but even people who are clear in their own minds can be ambiguous in speech some times and clear that up in other places.

 

[darjr]

I think I've had an epiphany. I don't like the overnight full hp healing. But I think my issue with it is more fundamental than the specific mechanic or what HP represent. It goes to how D&D is expected to be played by WotC designers.

I want to have games without a cleric required, but I don't want mechanics to replace that cleric, I want to play games in a different way than if the party had a cleric or lots of mundane overnight healing.

I want to, sometimes, play a game of nothing but rogues instead of a balanced party BECAUSE I want to play that game differently than I would in a balanced party with a cleric or it's standin healing mechanic. I want adventures that support that flexibility and a game that does, not one that goes out of it's way to support that balanced party style of play.

In AD&D if you had a party of rogues those players played B2 differently than players of a balanced party. I think that WotC is still stuck with an idea of how people should play, and that play style requires either a cleric or this overnight healing mechanic. And that isn't what I want. It's part of the issue I had with 4e and early wotc 4e adventures. It was fun, but eventually not satisfying.

 

[Tovec]

So, your argument is that turning a sword thrust to the chest into a graze is not an example of turning a serious blow into a less serious blow.

I gave the best comparison I could using your examples, if you still don't understand my meaning I suggest we just drop it.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

And yes, in my game people are not always at the peak of health when they set off in the morning.

Which system/edition? In most, your healer isn't doing his job right. Or is "not always" the same as "rarely"?

================
And on a few other topics...
================

On any healing when below 0 auto-getting you up to 0: No. It should stabilize you, yes; but at whatever h.p. amount the spell or effect leaves you at. So if the cure gets you up to -4 you're stable there...for a while, then if not tended further you'll start bleeding out again.

??? don't understand your need to make healed characters unstable again? The first preference depend on your definition and use of HP (the time until the character expires or really blood lost and wounds continuing to open.

On fixed-rate overnight healing: Bad idea. As someone already pointed out, any sort of fixed rate (e.g. Con bonus + level) is going to heal a wizard much faster than a fighter. The answer is to base the heal rate on a flat percentage of your normal maximum, so everyone recovers at roughly the same rate.

Lanefan

How is a fixed healing time based on con and HD heal the wizard faster? Because he took less damage???

 

[nnms]

One thing I haven't heard anyone mention is that the kept the 4e rule that any healing from negatives immediately puts you to 0 hp.

How do people generally feel about that rule?

I'm fine when it's magic, because magic can do whatever.

I'm not fine when it's not magical. I don't like a warlord shouting "It's not so bad!" and then having to retroactively re-narrate the injury that caused the dying in the first place into one that actually wasn't that bad.

 

[Walking Dad]

I'm fine when it's magic, because magic can do whatever.

...

This is my most hated sentence in all D&D discussions...
It is the excuse to not limit the power of magic, instead as the freedom to lower its power to achieve a balance between magical and non-magical characters. (I like gaming balance in games. Never destroyed the fun for me, made anyone a worse DM or reduced the role-playing possibilities.)