D&D General What “hit points” is?

[Lanefan]

The narrative of the resolution doesn't matter one whit. Whether you are narrating wounds, or numbers springing out of the character's forehead, the game doesn't care. The combat mechanics of D&D in no way guide the narrative of what happens during combat

The question is, should they (I say yes, at least to some extent) and how (I don't exactly know).

outside of "you die".

Or you're knocked unconscious, or prone, or you're disarmed...

But I'd like to see hit point level (as a relative fraction between full and 0) reflected in the narrative somehow.

 

[CubicsRube]

Hitpoints are what I lose when I see another thread about hitpoints.

 

[Hussar]

That's not true, either. The combat mechanics say this...

"When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."

So it's clear that the mechanics are guiding you to describe bodily damage based on what percentage of hit points are left. 100-50%, 49-1%, and 0%.

It can state that all it likes, but, it doesn't make it true. And, heck, even in that statement, there's a pretty wide gap between a bleeding injury and something that simply knocks you unconcious.

So, when I take a wound that drops me to 0 HP, describe that wound. Using the mechanics, give me a definitive description of the wound that my character.

The answer is, you can't.

 

[Maxperson]

It can state that all it likes, but, it doesn't make it true.

It's the rules of the game, which literally does make it true. Even if it once upon a time wasn't true, it is true now as this edition is the only one that counts when figuring out hit points for this edition. Things change. If they didn't change, we'd still be playing 1e.

And, heck, even in that statement, there's a pretty wide gap between a bleeding injury and something that simply knocks you unconcious.

This is true.

So, when I take a wound that drops me to 0 HP, describe that wound. Using the mechanics, give me a definitive description of the wound that my character.

The answer is, you can't.

The answer is that there are a variety of ways to describe it, but they have to involve enough trauma of some sort to knock you unconscious. The game does guide(not force verbatim) the narrative.

You made the claim that the mechanics "in no way guide the narrative," and that's an incorrect statement. I have proven that they do.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Excelling post!

I will expand on this, if I may, to say that this is why the narrative of the resolution becomes so important. The fortune mechanic doesn't care how the combat happens, only the result at the end: life or death.

I disagree.

The narrative of the resolution doesn't matter one whit. Whether you are narrating wounds, or numbers springing out of the character's forehead, the game doesn't care. The combat mechanics of D&D in no way guide the narrative of what happens during combat outside of "you die".

No, no I'm not.

You are saying that the "the narrative of the resolution becomes so important". I'm saying that the narrative of the resolution doesn't matter at all.

So, since I'm apparenlty missing something, what do you mean that the narrative becomes so important? Important to what or to whom?

You're missing the fact that the two bold sentences are in agreement, yet you began your post with "I disagree."

Since you seem to be hung up on the narrative aspect instead, the narrative of the resolution is important to how it is played out in the narrative to the players. The narrative is not important to the fortune mechanic of hit points, it doesn't care. The fortune mechanic can be whatever you want (taking the damage, avoiding a lethal blow, etc.). What does it mean in the narrative when your attack roll succeeds against the target's AC? Did you "hit" them? Did your attack "threaten" them? What about the damage? If you do 5 damage to a creature with 20 hp, did you lob off an arm? Gut them? Make them expend a lot of luck to avoid your "hit"? What about when the attack roll fails against the AC? Did you miss them completely? Did you make contact physically but fail to penetrate their armor or hide or even their clothes?

All that matters is that you are in a fight, normally for your life, and when your HP reaches 0, you are out of the fight (i.e. dead in older versions, unconscious in later ones). I say "The fortune mechanic doesn't care how the combat happens, only the result at the end: life or death." and you say "The combat mechanics...in no way guide the narrative...outside of 'you die'."

So, the narrative is important to the players but doesn't impact the resolution of the fortune mechanic. If the narrative doesn't affect how the players feel about the game and the enjoyment they get out of it at your table, that's fine, but it plays a huge role at my table. The narrative is a big part of what makes the game fun.

 

[Maxperson]

Since you seem to be hung up on the narrative aspect instead, the narrative of the resolution is important to how it is played out in the narrative to the players. The narrative is not important to the fortune mechanic of hit points, it doesn't care. The fortune mechanic can be whatever you want (taking the damage, avoiding a lethal blow, etc.). What does it mean in the narrative when your attack roll succeeds against the target's AC? Did you "hit" them? Did your attack "threaten" them? What about the damage? If you do 5 damage to a creature with 20 hp, did you lob off an arm? Gut them? Make them expend a lot of luck to avoid your "hit"? What about when the attack roll fails against the AC? Did you miss them completely? Did you make contact physically but fail to penetrate their armor or hide or even their clothes?

All that matters is that you are in a fight, normally for your life, and when your HP reaches 0, you are out of the fight (i.e. dead in older versions, unconscious in later ones). I say "The fortune mechanic doesn't care how the combat happens, only the result at the end: life or death." and you say "The combat mechanics...in no way guide the narrative...outside of 'you die'."

So, the narrative is important to the players but doesn't impact the resolution of the fortune mechanic. If the narrative doesn't affect how the players feel about the game and the enjoyment they get out of it at your table, that's fine, but it plays a huge role at my table. The narrative is a big part of what makes the game fun.

Almost. The fortune mechanic does care about the narrative a little. At under 50%, the fortune mechanic(because the side bar mechanic on describing hit points are part of it) requires the narrative to include visible signs of damage, such as bruising, minor cuts, etc. It's not a large connection, but it's not completely divorced, either.

 

[robus]

Hit points are fine as an abstraction, however DMs trying to narrate combat need to be able to describe the outcome in terms of the character and that‘s where the disconnect lies and everyone does it their own way:

”You take a nick“, “You get stabbed”, “you just manage to block that blow”.

Those who lean more to actual wounds being received by the PCs are most likely the ones who then feel like a long rest is a ridiculous way for the damage they described just disappear.

Healing potions add to the confusion for those of us who lean on the lighter damage side. If you’re not grievously wounded then what is being healed.

The other key abstraction in the game XP doesn’t suffer from this as it is always kept on the player side of the game.

 

[neogod22]

To put it simply, it is a measure of how hard something is to kill.

It doesn't explain why something might be hard to kill. If that thing is a Brontosaurus, the mass of the creature is a fairly large part of why one might think it ought to be hard to kill, and in turn why you might assign to a Brontosaurus a large number of hit points. If that thing is Conan or John Carter, then there are a number of other reasons why you might think it hard to kill, be it agility, cunning, skill, luck, or hardiness and so assign Conan or John Cater a large number of hit points.

But the system doesn't really care.

This only starts to go awry when someone starts defining the hit point in a concrete manner, and says that the hit point is some simple concrete thing rather than saying its the mechanical implementation of any number of different reasons why something should be hard to kill. This is why the two sides of the "meat" and "not meat" argument are both wrong.

The only really baffling thing is how often this keeps coming up.

I agree, hit points represents a combination of creature's toughness and combat prowlness. A sword is almost always lethal in combat, but the difference between needing one strike and ten to bring someone down is usually determined by how trained the opponents are.

 

[Maxperson]

Hit points are fine as an abstraction, however DMs trying to narrate combat need to be able to describe the outcome in terms of the character and that‘s where the disconnect lies and everyone does it their own way:

”You take a nick“, “You get stabbed”, “you just manage to block that blow”.

Those who lean more to actual wounds being received by the PCs are most likely the ones who then feel like a long rest is a ridiculous way for the damage they described just disappear.

It doesn't require viewing hit points purely as meat to get here, though. Through the first half of hit points, it's primarily just being winded, unlucky or whatever. Unless poison or another attack type that requires physical damage to happen, nothing in the first half is really physical. The second half is where it gets problematic. The damage is represented physically now, per RAW. There are cuts and bruises involved and those don't heal overnight. Further, once you hit 0, not only is it a serious physical injury, sufficient to not only cause unconsciousness, but also sufficient to cause you to have at least the potential to die. No potential to die, no death saves. THAT'S the really major disconnect. You've gone from wounded to the point of being able to die, to running marathons no problem with 8 hours of sleep.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree, hit points represents a combination of creature's toughness and combat prowlness. A sword is almost always lethal in combat, but the difference between needing one strike and ten to bring someone down is usually determined by how trained the opponents are.

To make sure we are all on the same page, while this may be true, the system on its own doesn't tell us that. It doesn't tell us if the reason you need one strike or ten is that, in the scene, Inigo Montoya is parrying the lethal blow aside but not quite enough to avoid serious injury, or if on the other hand in the scene this is Achilles and because his skin was magically hardened as a child by the river Styx, weapons don't bite him the way you'd expect them to.

What it does tell us with certainty is that the target took some sort of damage, but that that damage was not lethal. The picture that the original designers had in their mind was I think very much one conjured up by pulp writers like Edgar Rice Burroughs, where the greatest swordsman of two worlds stands there covered with minor scratches and hurts from the over whelming horde of swords he is facing against, but owing to his preternatural skill no foe has been able to land a lethal blow upon him.

And this is precisely what I mean by both "meat" and "no meat" don't really capture the situation. All the language of the game is meant to be descriptive. So "hits" are really hits, and "damage" is really damage. What's abstract is the quality and nature of the hit, which can only be determined narratively after the results of the fortune role are applied and considered in this situation. That is to say, 17 damage means entirely different things depending on the target and the context. We can usually come up with a plausible narration to explain what 17 damage could have meant in this context. On the other hand, the system doesn't demand this of us, because narrative generation is not one of the foremost goals of the system. It's not hostile to the idea of narration, but it doesn't require it.