Abstract HP

[SteveC]

It is silly, silly, silly.

Before moving to True20 and Runquest I instituted a WP/VP system and that made for a much more believable system. And yes, believable and fun, for many players and DMs, are on good terms with one another.

Wyrmshadows

The thing is, the D&D HP system is only silly if you're looking to do something with it that it's not designed to do. Both Runequest and True20 are designed with different simulation goals in mind, so the people who play and like them are looking for that kind of game in the first place. When you play either of those games you're not looking for a "kick in the door heroics" style campaign, and the games support that fact.

Both Runequest and True20 have odd quirks about them as well, that grate on people who play them. Runequest has the "limbs a flyin'" issues, plus the fact that weapons get stuck and people have disastrous fumbles way more than would ever happen in reality. And while I like True20, I have come to despise it's damage save system, as I've had more than a few characters or NPCs get "stun locked" by the game into uselessness.

In both cases, those are my preferences showing. I don't want to bag on either of these games because people play and enjoy them quite a bit. When they're playing them, they're enjoying the differences in the combat system because that's what they were looking for in the first place.

My only problem comes when the discussion turns to how those systems are somehow "better" than classic HP. This is only true when you find that the classic HP model has enough flaws that merit changing it in a radical way.

Historically, and at the present time, the majority of gamers have stuck with D&D and its simple, abstract HP rather than go for something more realistic.

--Steve

 

[xechnao]

It is healing, the gods are stingy with high HP people that shouldn't be getting themselves hurt . It's more healing for the low HP fellows and less for the high HP fellows not the same healing. Cure Light wounds can be a 100% of a 1st level charcters hp but is easily less then 10% for a 7th or 8th level character. Surley these aren't all the same points.

Or that such a level of divine favor you once got is not such a big deal for you the way it was.
So d&d makes less sense on playing adventurers and more as of some guys seeking godhood by living as adventurers.
Does this make any sense to you?

 

[Corinth]

First of all, because it's a crappy definition. It's a vague handwavey thing. You can't sum it up in one quick sentence the way you can with virtually any other key statistic (except Armor Class, but that has its own problems); which means that when people are first learning D&D, they're apt to boil hit points down to their most obvious meaning, which is, "Hit points are how tough you are."

Second, they fluff it as representing all these abstract things, but then they go ahead and treat it like pure physical injury in the actual rules. Examples:

"Rider" effects on attacks, that only trigger if the attack inflicts damage (e.g., poison, energy drain). This implies that any attack which inflicts damage has actually connected and caused a wound--none of this "near-miss" business.
Environmental hazards which do a given amount of damage per round. This implies that damage is independent of character; that is, 10 points of damage to Joe Commoner and 10 points of damage to Thorzod Tarrasquebane means they're taking the same amount of "punishment." Thorzod may soak it better, but he's getting hit just as hard.
Healing magic which heals a given amount of damage. This implies that 10 points of damage represents the same degree of injury regardless of whether Joe or Thorzod suffered it. Plus, of course, it's called "heal," not "restore your mystical defense abstraction."
Natural healing is on a daily basis. This implies that hit points represent real injury, since you don't recover any hit points by taking a five-minute rest break.
Hit points do not change regardless of character status. If you're paralyzed or unconscious, you keep all your hit points. This implies that the ability to consciously dodge and defend is not a factor in your hit point total.
Constitution affects your hit points, but Wisdom and Dexterity do not. This implies that being physically durable is important to determining your hit point total, but willpower, perception, and quick reflexes are irrelevant.

Some of these are "corner cases," but many of them are not. True, you don't encounter poison in every fight, or even in most fights. How many fights do you encounter healing magic in or after? Oh, yes--all of them (at least for a typical 3E game). How often do you apply your Constitution modifier when calculating hit points? Every time you calculate your hit points. If you don't want to think about what hit points mean, that's fine, but as soon as you start taking a serious look at them, you'll run into huge problems.

Ultimately, it is far, far simpler to explain hit points as "your character is crazy tough" and ignore all the half-assed efforts to cram other stuff in there. Everything in the rules, from 1E through 3.5E, has supported that view. (In fact, as far as I know, 3E has never even tried to claim that hit points mean anything other than raw toughness.)



I just hope the mechanics are consistent with whatever definition they settle on. If they want hit points to represent all this other stuff, then that needs to be factored into the rules.

WOTC got pwned.

Dausuul wins the thread.

Stop lying; HP are nothing more than literal physical damage capacity.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Or that such a level of divine favor you once got is not such a big deal for you the way it was.
So d&d makes less sense on playing adventurers and more as of some guys seeking godhood by living as adventurers.
Does this make any sense to you?

The first part makes perfect sesne, the rest baffles me.

 

[Dausuul]

Once in a LARP tossed a javelin at someone, they dodged and bashed their head into a cabin wall, my attack was a success but my javelin didn't inflict any damage.

That's my point. In D&D, if your javelin had been poisoned, that person would have taken poison effects as a result of that attack.

Somone with 9 hp is a goner where as somone with 100 hp is going to survive, this means tough guys can take the punishment because of grit and determination.

Whatever the reason you can take the punishment, the fact remains that you're taking it. You aren't somehow avoiding it.

It is healing, the gods are stingy with high HP people that shouldn't be getting themselves hurt . It's more healing for the low HP fellows and less for the high HP fellows not the same healing. Cure Light wounds can be a 100% of a 1st level charcters hp but is easily less then 10% for a 7th or 8th level character. Surley these aren't all the same points.

The gods are stingy with healing for their high-level champions, but toss it around like candy for the low-level neophytes...? How does that make sense? A far more logical explanation is that the 8th-level character has taken enough wounds to kill the 1st-level character ten times over, so there's more damage to be healed.

Hp are recovered by character level something is going on here besides the same physical damage regardless of HP total.

High-level characters are quicker to recover from injury, as part of being more bad-ass than low-level characters.

If you are paralyzed or unconscious you are a dead duck if someone wants you dead...coup de grace anyone?

And if you fall off a cliff, or get set on fire, or any sort of damage source that doesn't allow for a coup de grace?

Concentration is tied to CON also. CON is a measure of "toughness" not simply health and endurance.

"Toughness," sure. Resistance to pain, even. But not willpower (since it doesn't boost your Will save), and not reflexes (since it doesn't boost your Ref save).

 

[JDJblatherings]

WOTC got pwned.

Dausuul wins the thread.

Stop lying; HP are nothing more than literal physical damage capacity.

Except for the pesky little bit in the rules (which were in 1st AD&D also) wherein anyone could kill you shoulld they render you helpelss or discover you in a helpelss condition. 3e added a complicated coup-de-grace rule but in 1st you get wrestled to the ground and pinned down...you're dead as per the combat example given.

 

[JDJblatherings]

That's my point. In D&D, if your javelin had been poisoned, that person would have taken poison effects as a result of that attack.

Not if he makes his save.

Whatever the reason you can take the punishment, the fact remains that you're taking it. You aren't somehow avoiding it.

but the impact of that damage is far less signifigant. 10 pts of damage is 111% of 9 where as it is 10% of 100. There is a decidely different experience for the 100hp character as compared to the 9 hp character.

The gods are stingy with healing for their high-level champions, but toss it around like candy for the low-level neophytes...? How does that make sense? A far more logical explanation is that the 8th-level character has taken enough wounds to kill the 1st-level character ten times over, so there's more damage to be healed.

I'd say the 8th level character already burnt up a lot of divine favor in not being killed. Where as the gods didn't really give much aid to the 1st level charcter until the healign spell came into play.

High-level characters are quicker to recover from injury, as part of being more bad-ass than low-level characters.

Absolutley and "Bad-Ass" is an abstract concept, reflectd in part by ones HP.

And if you fall off a cliff, or get set on fire, or any sort of damage source that doesn't allow for a coup de grace?

Someone sets you on fire while you are helpless, you are dead, get thrown off a cliff yuo are dead. If you don't die, well surley the fates/gods are on your side. There is a metaphyscial reality behind HP also, not justa physical one.

"Toughness," sure. Resistance to pain, even. But not willpower (since it doesn't boost your Will save), and not reflexes (since it doesn't boost your Ref save).

And "toughness" is abstract.

 

[Dausuul]

Except for the pesky little bit in the rules (which were in 1st AD&D also) wherein anyone could kill you shoulld they render you helpelss or discover you in a helpelss condition. 3e added a complicated coup-de-grace rule but in 1st you get wrestled to the ground and pinned down...you're dead as per the combat example given.

Sure. This represents the fact that when your opponent is at your mercy, you can set yourself up to deal a lethal blow no matter how physically powerful that opponent is. Whether he's a two-month-old baby or the Mountain That Rides, if you can walk up and stick a knife in his neck, he dies.

 

[Glyfair]

That's my point. In D&D, if your javelin had been poisoned, that person would have taken poison effects as a result of that attack.

Actually, in D&D he would have had a saving throw. It's been a while since there have been poisons that automatically affected you. As I mentioned earlier, a successful save against the poison can just as easily have been the attack didn't hit, but still caused non-physical "damage."

I do agree that D&D has never been consistent about this concept. However, that doesn't mean that hit points were non-abstract before. It's just that there were weird exceptions.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Sure. This represents the fact that when your opponent is at your mercy, you can set yourself up to deal a lethal blow no matter how physically powerful that opponent is. Whether he's a two-month-old baby or the Mountain That Rides, if you can walk up and stick a knife in his neck, he dies.

Which puts HP into the ball park of Abstract and not always actual physical damage.