And yet people have comcluded that HP also represent morale. So why do you not loose HP when an outside event lowers it?
In the heat of battle, is hit point loss a wound?
- Thread starter Blood & Bones
- Start date
And yet people have comcluded that HP also represent morale. So why do you not loose HP when an outside event lowers it?
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
That's where I came up with the idea. I was attempting to modify the FATE rules to accommodate a more D&D-style combat system... and then, because of the specifics of how combat functions in FATE, it occurred to me that Rolemaster-style criticals could be easily incorporated.
Imagine a system like FATE, in which your total bonus for a skill check was the sum of two 'skills'-- essentially an ability score + skill system, in which the bonus and the number of Fudge dice you rolled was determined by your total ranks. You would inflict Stress normally, but characters would have much longer Stress Tracks. However, for each minus on the successful attack you would roll one Fudge die on a critical chart; the more total plusses and minuses rolled on the critical chart, the more severe the degree of critical injury, which would function as a Consequence.
There would be no upper bound to the number of Consequences, but you'd have an Injury Track-- get taken out on the Stress Track it's 'lights out', and any Stress overflow gets added to the critical check dice on the attack that floors you.
Get taken out on the Injury track and it's not so much 'lights out' as it is 'going into the light'.
It's a lot less FATE-like at that point, but it retains the core elements of the system with a more viscerally satisfying combat system.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
I think this particular way of looking at hit points (morale as one of the many metaphysical components) is pretty cool and from a 4e perspective is central to the concept of the warlord. I would love the fighter to kill the warlord and steal his stuff in fact. I think this would overcome one of the key hurdles of the fighter: affecting multiple enemies with a single action.
A fighter who has just taken out the opposition leader is in a position to truly demoralize the surviving enemies. If you incorporate an element of morale into the metaphysical aspects of hit points, then you can see a demoralizing attack affecting most of the opposition (the Fighter's Fireball so to speak). However, because hit points uncomfortably also incorporate physical damage, you end up with all the usual anomalies and the whole thing becomes quite unbelievable (as in lack of believability). Again, this works best if you split physical damage out of hit points and track it separately.
As for the dog running away, or a character having their heart broken or mourning the death of a loved one, I can see a hit point total cap being appropriate (half hit points or even quarter hit points). To balance this, I could imagine that the characters gets access to a number of surges that could be used in certain appropriate circumstances. I'm not the greatest fan of mechanics forcing certain roleplaying options but this could be a fun idea for some. Again, this only really works if you split physical damage out of hit points so you can play the metaphysical aspects of hit points to the hilt without breaking believability.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
There's no reason in principle why you couldn't - see @Herreman the Wise's post. But as I said, 4e's approach to action resolution mechanics tends to require some affirmative action (attack, skill check) to deplete hit points.
If you're looking for an ingame reason why PCs don't lose the will to live when their dogs die? Maybe they're stronger than that. Maybe it's the same reason why they never get attacked while taking a leak (at least at any table I ever played at).
Here's the description of "cackle fever" from the d20 SRD:
Symptoms include high fever, disorientation, and frequent bouts of hideous laughter.
Yet it doesn't cause any hit point loss, nor penalty to attack and defend. And there are plenty of other diseases that make you sick, yet don't make you easier to kill. Why not? Whatever story you tell, tell that about how PCs endure some burdens on their morale without losing hit points.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I think it would work better if you completely split morale out of hit points, frankly. Forcing a morale check once you kill the leader would be a fine element to the game - AD&D had it back in the day. It should be quite effective at breaking up a group's cohesion as a group. But I would never consider that as something that would potentially, directly harm an individual. Picture the situation: The fighter kills the raiding group's leader. The raiders quail at the event and scatter. The fighter or some of his allies pursue and manage to corner one. He fights like a, well, cornered animal because now he has to or die. The unit is no longer much of a threat, but the individuals, if not allowed room to flee, are because they're now fighting for their very lives.
tomBitonti
Hero
All and none
From the beginning, hit points were an abstract resource system derived from managing unit cohesion coupled to a role playing framework.
Hit points are and always have been a fantasy resource that role players could use without the distraction of actual wounds, and the consequences there-of.
Hit points have always been weakly coupled to physical damage, but only weakly. They can be mapped to any of actual damage, morale, exhaustion, mental fatigue, ablated luck, or none of those, under the control of the players and the game master. The abstraction, I believe, was never meant to necessarily map to any of the preceeding, but could be, if that is what you wanted.
Put another way, hit points, to stay useful, have to stay only very roughtly mapped to any actual damage system.
What hit points become, as used, is a means of narrative control: A player can operate toe-to-toe to a physical adversary for so long, but for only so long, but they can keep going when they share the narration with the other folks in the party.
TomB
From the beginning, hit points were an abstract resource system derived from managing unit cohesion coupled to a role playing framework.
Hit points are and always have been a fantasy resource that role players could use without the distraction of actual wounds, and the consequences there-of.
Hit points have always been weakly coupled to physical damage, but only weakly. They can be mapped to any of actual damage, morale, exhaustion, mental fatigue, ablated luck, or none of those, under the control of the players and the game master. The abstraction, I believe, was never meant to necessarily map to any of the preceeding, but could be, if that is what you wanted.
Put another way, hit points, to stay useful, have to stay only very roughtly mapped to any actual damage system.
What hit points become, as used, is a means of narrative control: A player can operate toe-to-toe to a physical adversary for so long, but for only so long, but they can keep going when they share the narration with the other folks in the party.
TomB
Hussar
Legend
I'm just picking bill91's quote out of the shuffle because it was at the top of the page. It does nicely capture the essence of the argument though. Which, basically, boils down to a taste issue. It has nothing to do with realism or anything like that. It's all about personal taste. It's flying snowmen (to quote John Scalzi).
Which is totally fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their own tastes.
What my problem is, though, is why can't you make a very simple adjustment and get what you want? You want 9 day healing rates? Ok. Add the following rule:
Characters do not heal any HP after an extended rest. Characters regain 1 healing surge after an extended rest. Characters can regain 2 healing surges if attended by someone with a DC 15 Healing check.
There. Voila. End of problem. Now everyone gets what they want.
Many 4e players, over the past few years, have pointed out this sort of completely trivial house rule option. Several posters on this board - at least LostSoul and Neonchameleon - have implimented some version of it.
In D&Dnext, at least as per the playtest, it seems that it might be at least a little bit trickier: because the number of surges (sorry, Hit Dice) is level dependent, a one-HD-per-day mechanic would reintroduce the "low levels heal easier than high levels" wonkiness of classic D&D (and 3E's magic healing). Although admittedly that is a wonkiness that many seem to have coped with over the years!
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Are you saying that WotC should add this as one variation of the healing rules module or that we should personally add it as a house rule?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
And when 3e fans (or even older edition fans) said that critics could fix their games with house rules rather than resort to the drastic changes WotC added to the game, we were told that was unacceptable. What makes it acceptable now?
Similar Threads
