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

[FireLance]

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?

Without going into specifics, I think the extensiveness of the changes required may be a factor. Fixing something like linear fighters, quadratic wizards (for those who saw it as a problem, that is) requires changes to class features, feats, spells, etc. In comparison, changing (say) the healing rate is much simpler.

 

[pemerton]

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?

What [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] said.

Changing the restoration rate from 1 day to 1 week, or (say) 1 day of rest in a safe and friendly place, etc is trivial, in at least two senses: (i) it is extremely easy to make the change; (ii) the change has no effect on any other part of the system.

What comparably trivial house rule for 3E do you have in mind?

 

[Doug McCrae]

The closest analog I can think of to hit points are ships' shields in Star Trek. That's what hit points do. They are a magical ablative force field. When they are up, you know you are safe. You know a goblin's spear, or whatever, can't kill you, though it can wear your shield away a little. But when they are down you know you're in a lot of danger.

Thinking of them in this way also explains why there are no penalties to other combat stats, such as damage or movement rate, for being low on hit points. In Star Trek, a ship's shields can be low, while its weapon systems and drives still function at peak capacity.

Now I know Gary says that hit points represent a whole bunch of stuff, physical and non-physical, and that they are healed by spells named Cure --- Wounds, and that they recover quite slowly prior to 4e, which suggests they are physical wounds.

But those are, I think, subsidiary to what hit points actually do. We could change all of that, we could change the textual explanation, we could rename the cure spells, we could change the healing rate. But we would still be left with the basic function of hit points, which is that they're points that stop you from being incapacitated or dead, until they've run out.

So that's what hit points really are. They're ships' shields in Star Trek.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

The latest blog post by Mike Mearls on monsters suggest that they will try to go a slightly different route than in 4E:

(Humanoid) monsters in 4E did have some special ability that all of the same race shared - stuff like the Kobold minor action shift or the Hobgoblins Phalanx Soldier thing. Instead, D&D Next will denote certain "leader/champion" type of NPCs that will have a similar flavour. Removing this champion will apparantly mean that his lesser allies will lose the special perks he provided.

So instead of a generic "morale loss" mechanic, each race of enemies would have its unique champions and leads with some group-benefitting feature. That is still somewhat close to a "moral loss", and it could definitely be interesting.

(Also cool: You could start doing this already now in 4E, or whatever else you're playing.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Now I know Gary says that hit points represent a whole bunch of stuff, physical and non-physical, and that they are healed by spells named Cure --- Wounds, and that they recover quite slowly prior to 4e, which suggests they are physical wounds.

For the record they recover really really fast prior to 4e. A distance athlete is advised to rest for one day per mile of race they just ran. So never mind physical damage, hit point loss tends to take less time to recover from than the fatigue from running a marathon (almost a month). A broken wrist takes several months.

 

[HeinorNY]

How do you actually think about hit points in the middle of a game; is hit point loss a matter of endurance or real physical damage?

Hit points loss = HP loss doesn't represent the physical harm itself, only its effects on the character's capacity to keep standing and functioning. These negative effects are called Damage, which is an abstract concept in the game.

Damage: All the effects a character endures from a physical harm. Damage can be physical (blood loss, weariness), mental (pain, loss of morale), etc. Damage always comes from a hit, be it from a weapon, spell or trap. A hit is always a hit.

Hit: Always causes some kind of physical harm, be it a cut, scratch, burn, frostbite, disintegration, bruise, hole, etc.

Physical harm = wounds, injuries, burns, cuts, etc. It can be roleplayed
but it isn't represented in the rules and is not tracked mechanically itself, only its negative effects(Damage) on the character.

Handling wounds/Damage: In my games healing Damage (HP recovering) does not necessarily mean that the wounds and injuries that caused it are gone.
A character can heal most of his Damage by resting or any other non-magical healing, which means his cuts are stitched, his bruises don't cause him pain anymore, he is not bleeding from that bite and he is well rested. All this is represented by HP gain, but going back to full HP doesn't mean all those wounds disappeared; the cut is still there and will be for some time, the bite will take some time to heal, but they don't affect the character anymore, so they are not relevant to the mechanical part of the game, maybe only for the roleplaying part.
Magical healing of course can be handled anyway we want. The Cure Wounds spells fit this interpretation of the rules nicely, because they actually do what the name says: they cure the wounds themselves (they are gone for good), and not only the Damage they caused.

This is how I handle this matter in my games.

 

[HeinorNY]

And yet people have comcluded that HP also represent morale. So why do you not loose HP when an outside event lowers it?

Because loss of morale may be represented by loss of HP when it is part of the Damage your character suffers from a hit, or attack or some type of physical harm.

Your king dying in battle is not a physical harm to your character. He may suffer some loss of morale but that specific loss would not be represented in the rules as HP loss because you can't die, or be disabled, by seeing your lieges dying. D&D would handle this as a penalty to attack rolls, maybe.

 

[Derren]

Because loss of morale may be represented by loss of HP when it is part of the Damage your character suffers from a hit, or attack or some type of physical harm.

Your king dying in battle is not a physical harm to your character. He may suffer some loss of morale but that specific loss would not be represented in the rules as HP loss because you can't die, or be disabled, by seeing your lieges dying. D&D would handle this as a penalty to attack rolls, maybe.

Which shows that the whole "HP represents moral" is just silly.
A nick with a sword in a fight hardly lowers morale at all. But seeing someone close to you dieing does. But as this does not lower HP we can safely conclude that morale has nothing to do with HP.

 

[Fifth Element]

Which shows that the whole "HP represents moral" is just silly.
A nick with a sword in a fight hardly lowers morale at all. But seeing someone close to you dieing does. But as this does not lower HP we can safely conclude that morale has nothing to do with HP.

Great! So this means HP is purely physical damage then?

Or, perhaps logical analysis of an inherently abstract mechanic is misplaced and tends to lead to wonky conclusions?

 

[HeinorNY]

Which shows that the whole "HP represents moral" is just silly.
A nick with a sword in a fight hardly lowers morale at all. But seeing someone close to you dieing does. But as this does not lower HP we can safely conclude that morale has nothing to do with HP.

You only really need "HP as moral" when you have non-magical healing abilites that work by "increasing morale", like Warlord powers from 4E, or if you just want to.
If a nick of a sword deals Damage, some of that damage may be loss of morale, even if a very little loss of morale.