4e Hit Points and pre-4e Hit Points: A Comparison

[Runestar]

So, do hit points badly model reality, or do they cleverly model luck, divine favor, etc.? If the latter, why can't that luck help against anything except damage from attacks that hit?

It would say it is the former. It is all too easy to come up with some sort of damage track table, where a PC starts accumulating all sorts of penalties when his hp dips below a certain percentage, but it would just not be fun to be always fighting at a fraction of your actual prowess, plus all the bookkeeping can get tedious fast.

Wotc briefly touched on this in Rules Compendium. Basically, a balance has to be struck between realism and ease of gameplay. Hp clearly favours the later. Just keep taking damage until your hp goes below zero. Then something bad happens to you. Easy and straightforward. No need to worry about what happens when you have 10 arrows sticking out of your body, or when a giant bonks you on the head with his greatclub.

People started coming with all sorts of alternative explanations to try and rationalize the supposed abstract nature of hp, but I feel that this is one area where you should just close one eye and not think/worry too much about it. Too much effort for too little benefit, IMO.

 

[mmadsen]

So, do hit points badly model reality, or do they cleverly model luck, divine favor, etc.? If the latter, why can't that luck help against anything except damage from attacks that hit?

I would say it is the former. It is all too easy to come up with some sort of damage track table, where a PC starts accumulating all sorts of penalties when his hp dips below a certain percentage, but it would just not be fun to be always fighting at a fraction of your actual prowess, plus all the bookkeeping can get tedious fast.

I don't understand how a tedious, detailed combat system relates to whether D&D badly models reality or cleverly models luck, divine favor, etc.

 

[FireLance]

So, do hit points badly model reality, or do they cleverly model luck, divine favor, etc.? If the latter, why can't that luck help against anything except damage from attacks that hit?

It may be semantics, but I don't think hit points are intended to model anything. Rather, they are an abstraction of how long a character can last in a fight.

To a lesser extent, a similar abstraction could be made for other aspects of the game as well: the half level bonus to defenses, attack rolls, skill checks and ability checks are usually explained as increasing skill on the part of the character. However, part of the increase could also be attributed to divine favor or luck if the player wants to narrate it that way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't understand how a tedious, detailed combat system relates to whether D&D badly models reality or cleverly models luck, divine favor, etc.

Both. Divine Favor and Luck can't be modeled. Luck means a degree of uncertainty you can't predict. Divine Favor doesn't exist in the reality.

But it models them in a very clever way, by staying very abstract and creating a system that is very easy to use.

 

[Hussar]

This thread is starting to sound familiar.

It's all about what you are willing to give up when playing the game. Are you willing to forego a detailed damage track in order to speed up game play? Then go with hit points. There are other systems that can better model combat in a more realistic way. But, they are slower.

Trying to argue what a hit point actually is ignores the purpose of hit points. The sole purpose of hit points is to measure how long you can fight as Firelance so rightly points out. The only reason we use hit points and not something more complicated is speed of play. It has zero to do with trying to model anything and everything to do with game play.

 

[Mallus]

Rather, they are an abstraction of how long a character can last in a fight.

I think this is the only definition of hit points that can hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Bluenose]

The key similarity between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points -- one that's so obvious it's invisible -- is that they're both hit points, which means that damage is cumulative and toughness is ablative. Nicks and scratches -- individually so inconsequential that they do not hamper the character's ability to fight -- add up to impalement.

In real life and in fiction, a human or exotic creature -- be it dragon or bull elephant -- might drop from one arrow in the eye or might soldier on despite dozens of arrows in its armor or armored hide.

So, do hit points badly model reality, or do they cleverly model luck, divine favor, etc.? If the latter, why can't that luck help against anything except damage from attacks that hit?

Hit points are a bad model of "reality", but so are most of the more detailed models that are more "realistic". That's because reality has the nasty habit of throwing up really strange events every so often, which the rules aren't going to repeat. I don't think there's many sets of rules which can cope with Alexander the Great surviving a ballista bolt in the chest while other people are being killed by one lucky hit with an arrow. And rules which allow someone to be struck through the eye slit of their helm with a sword, turn on their attacker and strike them down, and then collapse and die aren't easy to find.

 

[Delta]

I wanted to check my books before replying to this. Page 293 of the 4e PH states:

"Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve - all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.
​

Thanks for quoting that. So it seems like "resolve" is newly added in 4E, do you agree with that? (It's not in 1E or 3E from my lookup.)

However, if you accept the premise that hit points are composed of more than physical endurance and also include intangibles like luck and resolve, effects that curse a character (reducing luck) and demoralize him (reducing resolve) should arguably also be able to lower hit points. Whether this could actually result in death is another matter. If you don't want such intangible damage effects to result in death by themselves, you could add a clause that they cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1. Alternatively, you could find some way to narrate how running out of luck or resolve could kill a character. Perhaps a character who is out of luck loses his balance and happens to hit his head on a rock, and a character who is out of resolve is simply frightened to death.

You say "should arguably" and "you could add a clause" and "you could find some way to narrate", etc. But you agree that's not part of RAW pre-4E, right?

 

[justanobody]

I tried not to comment on this thread, but couldn't resist putting forth my opinion.

4th edition HP = emotional scaring.

pre-4th HP = physical damage.

Bloodied means nothing as there is no bleeding. a PC or monster that is "bloodied" is only half-assed trying anymore because they are butt sore from being picked on by the mean PCs/whatever.

"Hit" Points.

"Stick and stones may break my bones, but words can neveer hurt me."

If 4th edition PCs are so frail then they need tougher skin.

HP should represent physical damage as it started as.

That's it. I am done in here now that I said my bit.

 

[billd91]

It may be semantics, but I don't think hit points are intended to model anything. Rather, they are an abstraction of how long a character can last in a fight.

If you limit your conception to fights, I believe you are missing a significant element of what hit points are, at least in editions prior to 4e.

Since other events and conditions cause the loss of hit points, they've pretty much always been the character's ability to endure physical stress, whether that stress be through being wounded in a fight, be caused by deprivation of food and water, or be caused by hazards such as falls, fires, and landslides. Fights are merely the most common way this resource is depleted in a typical adventure.