D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[Mannahnin]

From my perspective, and apologies if I'm retreading ground and this has been mentioned prior, I think the root of this discussion and the understanding of how hit points function within the game is the big divide between 3.x, 4e and 5e to the earlier editions of the game.

Editions prior to 3.x had hit points leaning primarily within the physical/injury category.

No, we just went around about this. Gary Gygax was really explicit in 1st edition AD&D (the most extensive explanation of hit points ever put into the rules) that they're mostly not physical.

From 3.x onwards where hit points became uncapped so-to-speak, we got hit points serving two functions (physical and vitality). 4e leaned much heavier on the vitality side, while 5e dialed it back slightly.

I think 2E and 3E are where it got a little unmoored, because those two editions decline to define the term or offer real explanations of what hit points are and mean. Both keep their explanations of hit points almost entirely free of reference to in-world fiction. They just tell you that damage reduces your hit points, and hit points are what means you're down and dying when they run out. In the 2E and 3E core books you're pretty close to it being a videogame-style health bar.

After 40 years of the game, 5e with all its status conditions, never reconciled hit points to any injured or wounded condition. This tends me to think that loss of hit points are predominantly understood as vitality and any physical component to be seen as cuts, scrapes and bruises - with cuts being enough for poison to be effective.

EDIT: Does hit point loss signify injury of some sort? Yes
Is the injury meaningful? Depends on the amount of the loss and that's why 5e has short rests.

Yes!

 

[pemerton]

Regarding the bold emphasis

PCs ask to rest in order to recover hit points. If they were not more vulnerable, why do you believe they break from adventuring to rest?

I suspect he means in terms of being poorer at defending

Yep.

 

[Aldarc]

Yep.

That was easy.

 

[Voadam]

Again, I don't believe that is the easiest explanation. Otherwise you end up in a situation like the one I pointed out before, where someone with 30 hit points takes 20 points of "fire damage" from a fireball (according to its keyword type), then recovers those hit points from inspiring word making him feel more inspired, and then takes another fireball later on that costs him those same 20 hit points again, which means that by now his injuries should have killed him, and yet he's still alive.

What is your easier explanation for why a higher level character can take more hp of damage than a lower level one?

The alternative seems to be that they get a 1st level character's worth of physical wound absorption stronger each time they level up.

The issue of trying to scale the "hit point loss/recovery" paradigm as in either absolute or relative terms (relative to the character's total) is certainly an issue; I've said that before. Nor is it the only issue. But it at least lets the players start at the same basic level of understanding (i.e. that some degree of physical damage has been received) and then work things out from there, which is a step forward from where you'd be if you need to figure out whether or not damage has been dealt in the first place (and if so, how much).

I disagree. Lancelot's ability to turn a well-placed killing blow into a glancing one means that a blow is still being taken, ergo there's no "dual" aspect to it.

Of course there is a dual duty issue, his hp are turning a well-placed killing blow into a glancing one that does less injury. Ergo hp are not just the amount of physical injury he can take.

Even if there's an issue of comparing the absolute value of the points of damage taken to the relative amount of the target's total, it's still an acknowledgment that some level of injury is what's being represented.

Yes assuming all hp damage are at least in part injury it cannot be injury alone. Increasing skill at avoiding serious injury from hits is part of it.

Which is, I suppose, a decent area where each model approaches its limits (also, thanks for confirming the lack of nonmagical morale healing before 4E!). To me, "different narrative explanations" strikes close to the core of the issue, insofar as playing an RPG goes, but YMMV.

The restoration of hp based on the description including stamina and skill and luck seemed a big unused design space in AD&D and 3e.

3.5 Unearthed Arcana reserve points seems consistent with the stamina aspect of hp, as does 4e long rest and healing surges in short rests, and 5e long rest and HD in short rests, and the second wind of all characters in 4e and fighters in 5e.

 

[Alzrius]

What is your easier explanation for why a higher level character can take more hp of damage than a lower level one?

The alternative seems to be that they get a 1st level character's worth of physical wound absorption stronger each time they level up.

I thought you mentioned before the idea that the higher-level character was better at turning the damaging blows into damaging-but-not-as-damaging-as-they-could-have-been blows. I won't say that's perfect (as noted before, none of these abstractions are perfect), but it seems to work well enough.

Of course there is a dual duty issue, his hp are turning a well-placed killing blow into a glancing one that does less injury. Ergo hp are not just the amount of physical injury he can take.

It's not double-duty if they're all one thing: damage. He's taken a bad hit, but not a deadly one, but bad-but-not-deadly hits can accumulate to the point where they're all deadly in aggregate even where none of them would be alone.

Yes assuming all hp damage are at least in part injury it cannot be injury alone. Increasing skill at avoiding serious injury from hits is part of it.

But not avoiding injury altogether, which means it's still injury. There's no need to determine whether or not there's any injury at all, or if it's all just exhaustion, etc.

The restoration of hp based on the description including stamina and skill and luck seemed a big unused design space in AD&D and 3e.

3.5 Unearthed Arcana reserve points seems consistent with the stamina aspect of hp, as does 4e long rest and healing surges in short rests, and 5e long rest and HD in short rests, and the second wind of all characters in 4e and fighters in 5e.

Unearthed Arcana was also where we got wound and vitality points (though I believe those were lifted from the Star Wars d20 RPG), which strike me as a much, MUCH better model for people who want hit points to be personal resilience and injury.

 

[Umbran]

@Aldarc

While I disagree very strongly with everything you've said, given that we've already both been warned by moderation and because I want this thread to remain open, I'm going to cease engaging with you on this topic.

Mod Note:
You don't post a long, line by line, kind of condescending reply to someone at 1:28 PM, and then say, "Oh, wait, I'm disengaging," at 1:32 PM, and not have it look like you wanted a last lick but to dodge consequences.

So, time for you to take a break from this thread. And next time you want to disengage, just do so without trying the parting shot technique, please and thanks.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Are we talking about D&D players in general, or 4e fans in particular? If the latter I agree with you. The former is far too broad a category to make the kind of assumptions you're making.

I'm not even just talking about D&D. And I can only go by my own (non-trivial) experience, and even 40 years ago how much anyone cared about simulation elements varied considerably, and I've no evidence but that its decreased to a pronounceable degree over time; if anything I probably care more than most players, and I care far less than I did in my 20's and 30's.

 

[Voadam]

I thought you mentioned before the idea that the higher-level character was better at turning the damaging blows into damaging-but-not-as-damaging-as-they-could-have-been blows. I won't say that's perfect (as noted before, none of these abstractions are perfect), but it seems to work well enough.

Yes, I consider that one of the aspects that hp can represent along with actual injury.

So your narrative explanation is that hp are both the ability to take actual injuries and also can represent the ability to reduce the severity of injuries?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is still closer to relevant than "you might be injured, or just demoralized," leaving you to pick between them.

Not enough to make any difference as far as I'm concened.

But which is still more information than if you were just feeling sort of demoralized, and someone could shout at you to lift your spirits.

If I was injured someone could lift my spirits and get me back in the fight, too.

I am, in fact, very curious at to what game operations in pre-4E D&D you feel indicate non-injury instances of hit point loss/recovery.

Again, I don't think any purely indicated non-injury, but I do think there are many that indicate other factors. Since you're curios:

1. Level-increasing hit points in the first place: unless you're operating on the Earthdawn principal that all characters are magically reinforced, increasing hit points by a factor of x8 to x10 only makes sense if defense skill is being rolled into that total too. This is reinforced by the fact that there's been no routine improvement in defense based on advancement in other ways throughout most of the history of the game.


2. Falling damage being mapped against hit points only makes any sense if luck is a factor.

3. The whole concept of accumulative hit points only makes real sense of fatigue is a factor, or a very arcane representation of blood loss. Injury doesn't work that way; if you're going to fall down or die from a given strike, its just as likely to be the first one as the tenth one. You are, however, less likely to be able to defend yourself adequately under the progressive strain of defending yourself.

I consider the luck add in irrefutable given how the system handles falling. I don't consider the other two much better.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ignore that comment about the Cleric, lol. I didn't actually play that far back, and when I posted that earlier this morning I was going off a hazy memory of an older player I know making the claim that, when he started, "Cleric wasn't even a class"! Obviously that's not correct (unless he was trying to make the claim he played the game before it's publication- sadly he's no longer with us so I can't clarify at this point).

I seem to have a hazy recollection that there was a period during OD&D's development when all there was was wizards and fighters, so the latter is possible. It was just in the rear view mirror by the time of publication, so the statement threw me.