A Little Perspective

[DSRilk]

Well... That's the way hit points have always described in the rulebooks.

It's NOT the way hit points have always been described my most DMs.

I can't imagine that hit points have been described as literal damage by "most" DMs. I can't really imagine that "many" do. Regardless, "many" people spell rogue "rouge", but I don't believe we should change the spelling because of it.

Re: a simulationist approach...

Having multiple pools of hit point types has been tried in several games -- some people like it, some don't. Personally, I think it's more trouble than it's worth. What works for me is to treat the "hits" (and in 4e some "misses") as wearing down the opponent either via deflected blows, minor wounds, dodges, or whatever, but that changes when someone gets to 0 or less. That final blow (if it does little relative damage) is the final straw or the connecting blow that cuts the person from shoulder to sternum (see Rob Roy).

In 4e, my plan is to change the way healing works once you get to 0 or less hp. As long as you still have > 0 hp, you may be tired... one blow from death... but recovery is only one inspiring thought away. Once you hit 0 and drop unconcious though, you are "wounded." While wounded, you may only use one healing surge per day until you hit max hit points again, and whenever you are affected by healing (either by expending your own healing surge, someone expending one for you -- e.g. the paladin, or someone just using magic to give you hit points -- e.g. some cleric powers) you must make a death and dying save for it to take effect. This reflects (for me) the idea that once you are truly injured it's going to take at least 4 days (7 on average) for you to heal without some assistance. Wounds are real. I might even say that all actions are at -5 while bloodied and wounded and -2 while just wounded. Keep in mind, however, that my games are virtually all RP, so this doesn't slow down my game. It won't work well for all play styles.

 

[malraux]

I think that 4e, at least in contrast to 3e, runs into the problem because its the first system that makes the nature of healing and damage matter somewhat. Of course I think this is a good thing. Before, it was hard for the DM to give a sense of how hurt something was. Does it look bad? Or really bad? or really really bad? There's no real descriptive statement to put on any particular level of damage. Now in 4e, there's a specific level at which you can give clearer levels of damage. "Previously, you blows were connecting, but with that last hit, your sword punches a hole in the orc's breastplate, and he gives a yell of pain as the sword connects with his flesh. OOC, he's now bloodied, and he's looking mad."

All that said, I think its really best to recognize that HP and healing are really just fun mechanics that work really well in a fantasy context. Hong's law really applies here.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

a fighter is a mundane warrior.

How? I don't see why there needs to be a line.

And why is it dumb to believe that a fantastic hero couldn't take arrows to the gut? Why is it difficult?

 

[Mort_Q]

Damn. That horse has a lot of hit points.

LOL... thanks... I needed that.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I think it boils down to the fact that, while the "hit points isn't damage" concept has long been in the game as fluff, only recently did it begin to appear in the mechanics.

And to a lot of people, it isn't "real" until we can see it's impact in the mechanics.

The fact that healing now effectivly heals in percentages, and classes like the Warlord can grant non-magical "healing", really make it clear what hit points really are/aren't.

Long story short: Healing Surges, being based off a percentage of your HP, were a great idea that made this all possible.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Frankly, I don't understand all the fuss. Hitpoints are really no different than they were in past editions. Some 4e constructs (like minions) have brought some of the simulationist foibles to the forefront, nothing more. The mechanic is the same as it has always been, it's others who substitute their own definition for the rule.

 

[mmadsen]

Torg didn't have hit points. You took shock damage or wound damage, and it was pretty "static" - theoretically, you could die in one hit. But whenever you take damage, you spend a possiblity point to reduce the damage.

Is this approach more satisfying from a "simulationist" perspective?

Absolutely.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Absolutely.

Do you think it is also worth it from a total gameplay value? Or is it just to complicated?

(Personally, I am a fan of it. Maybe I'll write a short house rule treaty for it. I won't use it, because hit points work fine for me, too, but if I ever was to create my own system, I would certainly use something like that.)

 

[Pbartender]

I can't imagine that hit points have been described as literal damage by "most" DMs.

I didn't say that... I said most DMs don't describe hit point damage in an especially abstract manner, the way the rulebooks usually suggest.

To clarify... In my purely anecdotal experience with a multitude of DMs over the last twenty years or so, I've found most DMs simply don't describe damage most of the time. They usually say something like "The goblin attacks you and hits for 7 point of damage," and that's it.

When DMs do describe damage, I've found that they almost always describe it as some physical weapon damage of varying intensity, from a slight scratches for 20 hit point attacks on 15th level fighters, to gaping abdominal wounds for 5 hitpoints attacks on 1st level wizards.

In all that time, with all those scores of DMs, I personally can't remember a single instance of a DM describing hit point damage as something non-physical... near misses, luck, exhaustion, etc.

I myself have tried a few times to describe hit point damage in such a fashion, and I've gotten funny looks from the players almost every single time...

ME: "You manage to interpose your sheild just in time, but the strength of the blow makes you strain with exertion for several tense seconds, before you push the weapon aside... You take 10 points of damage."
PLAYER: "What? I thought you said he missed?"
ME: "No... Not exactly. I was just describing how you managed to turn what should have been a mortal wound into a near miss."
PLAYER: "But my shield is part of my AC... Why am I taking damage, if he hit the shield?"
ME: "Oh, for crying out loud. It's called narrative exposition of an abstract game mechanic. Just shut up, and take the damage already."

I can't really imagine that "many" do. Regardless, "many" people spell rogue "rouge", but I don't believe we should change the spelling because of it.

Neither do I... just because I understand the opposing point of view, doesn't mean I share it.

I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between de jure hit point description and de facto hit point description.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I've been using "no damage" hit point loss descriptions for years now. Works fine.