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

[Raven Crowking]

Ignoring what actually happened in the past - could that be called historical revisionism I wonder?

I am obviously going to have to go pull quotes from the 1e rules myself.

For example, the 1e rules specifically allow the DM to rule that certain weapons/attacks cannot harm creatures with thick hides.

Although this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4544606-post499.html) does a fantastic job of answering your question, IMHO.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I am obviously going to have to go pull quotes from the 1e rules myself.

For example, the 1e rules specifically allow the DM to rule that certain weapons/attacks cannot harm creatures with thick hides.

Yes, the "rules" also allow the DM to rule that reaching 0 hit points does not mean death but merely unconsciousness.

In this case, Hussar was talking about what was actually done at game tables, not what's in the DMG.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In this case, Hussar was talking about what was actually done at game tables, not what's in the DMG.

So, what in essense you are saying is that, so long as you don't actually follow the rules, hit points in 1e behave the way Hussar claims?

I suppose I can agree with that.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

So, what in essense you are saying is that, so long as you don't actually follow the rules, hit points in 1e behave the way Hussar claims?

Not at all, and this is the crux of our disagreement. You believe the rules say one thing and one thing only about what hit points represent. I believe it's open to interpretation, and I think the fact that there have been so many discussions about it over the years support that idea.

If the rules are so clear, why can't we get any agreement on what they say?

 

[Mallus]

For me, hit points stop being a problem when I shift my perspective from what I presume to be "realistic" (as in, what I think happens in real life), to what happens in fantasy novels, movies, and comic books. The characters are heroes, it's a fantasy story, disconnect solved.

This is why I think of D&D as a fantasy fiction simulator rather than a fantasy world simulator. I prevent a lot of headaches by doing this.

 

[mmadsen]

For me, hit points stop being a problem when I shift my perspective from what I presume to be "realistic" (as in, what I think happens in real life), to what happens in fantasy novels, movies, and comic books. The characters are heroes, it's a fantasy story, disconnect solved.

Giant red text -- which I've removed -- does not make it so.

Hit points are terrible for emulating action and adventure stories. They're certainly terrible for emulating Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings stories, in which Bard kills Smaug with a single arrow, Legolas kills a fell beast in the night with a single arrow, the Witch King of Angmar dies from one stab from a lowly hobbit and a follow-up by Eowyn, etc.

As some kind of luck points, they make perfect sense for the heroes of the story though. They just don't make sense as a universal measure of toughness, since tough men and beasts can be killed by a single well-placed shot -- especially a single well-placed shot from our heroes.

 

[Cadfan]

Yes, since I don't recall any specific pre-4e effects that targeted luck, resolve or some other intangible aspect of hit points that did not also have some potentially lethal component.

Can you name three effects in 4e that have those criteria? I can name only one.

There are a LOT of powers in 4e that deal damage. Hundreds. Surely someone can name three that deal damage in this way? Or better yet, name one per page of this thread. That's only fair, it makes things proportional with the amount of verbiage expended.

In my opinion, 4e really doesn't do much with the "hit point loss can represent loss of luck" idea. There's a general call to make hit points more intangible, but nothing requires you to assume that intimidation or resolve can be attacked as a means of attacking hit points. The REVERSE is true. You can regain hit points by regaining resolve- but that makes decent sense. One person might go down after a certain amount of injury, but another more determined person won't.

Third edition often gave you temporary hit points or temporary con score increases that represented increased resolve. But no permanent increases that I can think of. In spite of designer statements to the contrary, hit points did seem to represent meat points. The only reasoning that was consistent with 3e magical healing was that a low level person might die from a small stab wound, but a high level person could stand tall with 30 or 40 arrows sticking out of his chest. Of course, 3e non magical healing was the opposite- no matter what level you were, and no matter how serious your wounds, a week of bed rest healed you completely. So, I don't know that its worth getting into too much of a fight about relative realism. But if you ARE going to get into a fight about relative realism, can we please keep in mind the fact that, as of this post, only one person in this entire thread has been able to come up with one attack in all of 4e that targets luck, resolve, or any of the other matters discussed?

 

[Mallus]

As some kind of luck points, they make perfect sense for the heroes of the story though. They just don't make sense as a universal measure of toughness, since tough men and beasts can be killed by a single well-placed shot -- especially a single well-placed shot from our heroes.

That's a good distinction.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hit points are terrible for emulating action and adventure stories. They're certainly terrible for emulating Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings stories, in which Bard kills Smaug with a single arrow, Legolas kills a fell beast in the night with a single arrow, the Witch King of Angmar dies from one stab from a lowly hobbit and a follow-up by Eowyn, etc.

Nah.

Everyone dies from a single attack, in the end.

Go back and reread The Hobbit or LotR, and you will find that Smaug was engaged in a combat in which hundreds of arrows were fired at him without doing significant damage, and likewise the Witch King of Angmar was involved in the Battle of Pellinore Field. We don't actually know that Legolas killed the fell beast with a single arrow, nor do we know how many "hit points" such a creature has in Tolkein's world.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Can you name three effects in 4e that have those criteria?

All of them.

Because the "damage" can be "talked away" from any attack, any attack can be retroactively discovered to have "targeted luck, resolve or some other intangible aspect of hit points that did not also have some potentially lethal component."


RC