In the heat of battle, is hit point loss a wound?

[Ratskinner]

Well, I selected Peanut Butter and Jelly. I kinda would like the first option, but D&D healing/recovery mechanics usually get in the way of that. I'm a big fan of the playtest version so far, because its a system that I can easily modify to fix all my issues with the simple HP system. (I think. I haven't tried it yet.)

I really want to change the way healing spells work, though. That whole thing with the peasant vs the fighter getting the healing spells reversed drives me a little bonkers. I know, I know, probably too much, but still....I don't like quantum-mechanics in my game mechanics.

 

[Quickleaf]

I voted for peanut butter and jelly because the upper end of the poll didn't have enough abstraction for me.

Exactly this. Plus, it depends on the damage vector.

 

[Hussar]

Right, and my point in posting in this thread was explaining why they don't work for me, and what it would take for them to work for me.

Hopefully the modularity buzzword that gets bandied about makes it so that I don't have to work too hard on fixing them to my preference, but if not, if they stay as written, then I'll house rule them.

I think what causes such consternation Mercutio01, is that there is really very, very little difference in any d20 D&D. Yup, in 4e you get your full hp back in 24 hours. In 3e, it was a couple of days. Neither of them are even remotely realistic. Other than a couple of head wounds, there are no potentially lethal wounds that you can fully recover from in a week, even with modern medical care, let alone sleeping outside in a tent with no medicine.

Which is why, I think, a lot of people just don't see your point. You have no problem believing one impossible thing, but, apparently the other impossible thing is just "too impossible"?

IOW, there are no narrations that you can do in 3e that you cannot do in 4e.

Now, earlier D&D with its somewhat longer healing times? Sure. Even then, it wasn't that long. You were fully healed in a couple of weeks from near death. Again, completely and utterly unrealistic. Again, there are very few narrations that you can do in 1e that you cannot in 4e and still be believable.

And, honestly, this is ludicrously easy to fix. Eject the full healing after a complete rest rule. Done. Simply slow it down to 3e levels, or 1e levels if that's your preference.

Where's the problem?

 

[Dannager]

So, what you're saying, is that those of us who have a "hit" and "damage" follow the actual dictionary definitions of the real words are playing D&D wrong? Because that's complete and utter BS.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and it's weird that you've decided to see it that way.

What I'm saying is that the game of D&D defines - and has defined, for literally decades now - certain terms according to certain guidelines. If you choose to reject those definitions, as you have clearly been doing, it seems silly to imagine that the game will continue to function optimally. In other words, you've been told what the game assumes in terms of how hit points work. You have rejected those assumptions, and then complain that in that rejection you have lost immersion. Well of course you have.

D&D is not a magic box that can be anything you want it to be equally well. It is a game, and it has its strong points, its not-so-strong points, its focuses, its areas that are glossed over, and it actually takes stands on some important gameplay issues. The idea that D&D can be all things to all people is a bad idea, and one that is not grounded in reality. It isn't possible to play D&D wrong (since right and wrong are issues of morality and really have no place here) but it is very possible to play D&D in a way that is contrary to the stated intentions of its design.

See? A hit that's a hit. Wounds that need to be taken care of. The hit points lost are simultaneously representing a mix of luck, skill, endurance, and physical wounds. Which is what the rules say.

That's not what the rules say. The rules say that hit points can represent any of those things, but it says nothing about every hit point representing every one of those simultaneously, and it certainly doesn't say that every hit point must represent a physical injury of some sort. That's your personal take on hit points, and it is not reflected in the game's design or in the game's evolving explanation of what hit points are.

Now, you're free to argue that hit points should be physical wounds, but that's a harder argument because there's really no support for it as far as I can tell; it's just an opinion, with nothing concrete in terms of value-added to gameplay that isn't just as adequately applied in the opposite direction.

 

[Lanefan]

That's not what the rules say. The rules say that hit points can represent any of those things, but it says nothing about every hit point representing every one of those simultaneously, and it certainly doesn't say that every hit point must represent a physical injury of some sort. That's your personal take on hit points, and it is not reflected in the game's design or in the game's evolving explanation of what hit points are.

Until poison gets lobbed into the equation.

Because when using a poisoned weapon every hit - even if for only 1 h.p. damage - *is* a physical injury, even if only a small nick; as that's how the poison gets in. (one could easily argue that a made save means the skin didn't break, but my point remains)

Now, for consistency, extrapolate that thinking to non-poisoned weapons and bingo - every hit represents at least some sort of minor physical injury. And note the use of the word "minor" here - a tiny cut on the upper arm is still a physical injury.

Lan-"the answer, of course, is to make sure they're dead before they ever get a swing in"-efan

 

[Mercutio01]

That's not what I'm saying at all, and it's weird that you've decided to see it that way.

What I'm saying is that the game of D&D defines - and has defined, for literally decades now - certain terms according to certain guidelines. If you choose to reject those definitions, as you have clearly been doing, it seems silly to imagine that the game will continue to function optimally. In other words, you've been told what the game assumes in terms of how hit points work. You have rejected those assumptions, and then complain that in that rejection you have lost immersion. Well of course you have.

I posted in another thread 2E's definition of hit points and OD&D's definition, both of which are not the same as 1E's and are no less valid. Indeed, I'd posit that OD&D's are more definitive, if we're going to play that "Gary said" game. The definition is a combination of luck, skill, endurance, and physical damage. It's always been that way. In fact, since it doesn't list what that portion is at all, everyone along the entire continuum is correct.

it is very possible to play D&D in a way that is contrary to the stated intentions of its design.

I would point you to the descriptions of play sections in the various editions, including the 3.5 DMG (which I read through again last night) that encourages DMs to specifically narrate hits as being hits. Seriously, read it again. Unfortunately, my 1E D&D DMG is in storage, so I can't look through that. But 2E has the same kind of advice. So, tell me again how I'm playing contrary to the intentions.

That's not what the rules say. The rules say that hit points can represent any of those things

I'll stop you there because you're wrong. It doesn't say "can represent." That's your interpretation. It does say that hit points represent all those things, not that it's possible to do so.

Now, you're free to argue that hit points should be physical wounds, but that's a harder argument because there's really no support for it as far as I can tell; it's just an opinion, with nothing concrete in terms of value-added to gameplay that isn't just as adequately applied in the opposite direction.

Again - if you want proof that hits are supposed to be hits, look at the DMG advice on narration, as recently as 3E. Example of Play, page 8 of the 3.5 DMG. And then read through "Describing the Action" starting on page 16.

Look to BD&D the 1978 edition page 7. "[Hit points] represent the amount of damage a character can take...if a character receives a blow, a dice roll will be made to determine the number of damage points inflicted."

And further down the same page when talking about healing, "Otherwise he must continue on in his wounded state until the game is over and he returns to the surface. Each day of rest and recuperation back 'home' will regenerate 1 to 3 of his hit points for the next adventure."

4E DMG, page 22 under the "Narration" headline has this bit of advice - "Instead, use such statistics, along with your knowledge of the scene, to help your narration. If 26 is barely a hit, but the 31 points of damage is a bad wound for the enemy, say: “You swing wildly, and the dragonborn brings his shield up just a second too late. Arrgh! Your blade catches him along the jaw, drawing a deep gash. He staggers!”

We can play quote the books and rules all day, and for every insistence you guys have that hit points never represent wounds and a hit is never a hit, I can find something that says differently.

So, quit telling people who narrate hits as hits that they're playing D&D wrong or not as intended, because as far as I can tell, that's just not the case even in 4E.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I posted in another thread 2E's definition of hit points and OD&D's definition, both of which are not the same as 1E's and are no less valid.

What is OD&D's definition? Is it that hit points are purely physical?

 

[jadrax]

What is OD&D's definition? Is it that hit points are purely physical?

I can't actually find a definition in OD&D...

 

[Mercutio01]

What is OD&D's definition? Is it that hit points are purely physical?

That is indeed the implication. There's nothing to indicate otherwise, and in the absence of another definition, the dictionary default is the correct one, no? But there is no definition at all. And, as I just said, in the absence of another definition, we should default to the real definition, as in the one that Merriam-Webster or Oxford has as the default.

A first level fighter has 1d6 hit points and a first level orc does 1d6 damage. The implication is that 1 solid hit or 6 minor nicks will kill the fighter. And none of this negative hit point stuff either. 0 and below is dead. As you level up, you gain 1d6 hit points. Assume a 3rd level fighter who's maxed his hit points at each level, unlikely though that may be. With 18 hit points, three solid hits kill him. 18 minor cuts and bruises build up and do the same thing. There's nothing to indicate otherwise.

 

[Doug McCrae]

One issue is that, per Gary's 1e definition, hit points for high level characters don't mean exactly the same thing as hit points for most monsters. Character hit points are mostly a variety of non-physical properties such as sixth sense, skill, luck and magical protection. Reading between the lines, I think Gary intends this to be class dependent - fighter hit points = skill, thief hit points = luck, magic-user/cleric hit points = magic. The hit points of a large creature, such as an elephant or bulette, are, I think, all physical, going by Gary's contrast in the 1e PHB between a high level fighter and a warhorse. So a hit point and a hit point aren't the same thing. It depends whose hit point it is! Stranger and stranger.

This is also true in 3e. By the SRD, "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." Obviously characters have both. But inanimate objects in 3e also have hit points. Presumably a wall has no ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one, so again, its hit points mean something different.