Commentary....
Through the editions, it seems that some aspects of D&D have become watered down. Gone is the fact that, given the same number of experience points, an AD&D mage would level slower than an AD&D fighter. By 3rd edition, classes all level at the same rate.
Gone are rate of fire statistics so that now each weapon gets one attack only, and multiple attacks are the realm of character ability.
Gone are weapon vs. armor type modifiers. Now, each weapon has the same chance to hit and penetrate all types of armor.
Gone are weapon speed factors, so that all weapons, regardless of size, are wielded at the same speed.
And, hit points, too--now, are watered down so that zero means Disabled, and a negative number means the character is dying.
I'm partial to the way Gygax originally envisioned hit points (or, really, his revised position on hit points when he wrote Advanced D&D). Not every negative number meant the same thing--that a character was unconscious and dying--as it does in later editions of the game.
Let me draw your attention to the AD&D DM's Guide, page 82, under the subsection "Zero Hit Points"....
Gygax writes: When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious.
Well, that's pretty much what we do now, right? In 3.5E, when a creature reaches 0 HP, he's Disabled. And, at -1 HP or worse, the character is unconscious.
But, keep reading the old AD&D DM's Guide. Gygax goes on to explain a bit about what low hit points mean--and this is some of the stuff that's gotten watered down over the editions.
Gygax continues, writing: If any creature reaches -6 or greater negative points before being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member, if you so choose. For example, a character struck by a fireball and then treated at -9 might have horrible scar tissue on exposed areas of flesh--hands, arms, neck face.
What is Gygax telling us here? He's saying to use the scale of -1 to -9 to grade a wound taken by a character. And, he's saying to be sure to limit the most serious wound effects to wounds of -6 or worse hit points.
How many times have you had a PC go to -8 hp, get healed, and he's as good as new once he's back to 1+ HP?
And, another thought: I feel that critical hit charts have it backwards. Most charts inflict wounds on a Critical Hit, when the character still has hit points. I think that, as long as a character still has 1 hit point, he hasn't taken more than superficial damage from any wounds.
It's the realm of -1 HP or worse where Critical Hit charts should be used. Don't roll on them until a character is reduced to -1 HP or less (Failed Massive Damage checks count), and even then, the most grisly effects shouldn't be applied to a character unless he was reduced to -6 or worse.
I'd also use this as a guide when, in combat, the DM describes the effect on an enemy when a PC reduces that foe to 0 or less hp.
So, as rules of thumb:
Also use the same consideration when describing wound effects on NPCs or player characters even when critical charts are not used.
Through the editions, it seems that some aspects of D&D have become watered down. Gone is the fact that, given the same number of experience points, an AD&D mage would level slower than an AD&D fighter. By 3rd edition, classes all level at the same rate.
Gone are rate of fire statistics so that now each weapon gets one attack only, and multiple attacks are the realm of character ability.
Gone are weapon vs. armor type modifiers. Now, each weapon has the same chance to hit and penetrate all types of armor.
Gone are weapon speed factors, so that all weapons, regardless of size, are wielded at the same speed.
And, hit points, too--now, are watered down so that zero means Disabled, and a negative number means the character is dying.
I'm partial to the way Gygax originally envisioned hit points (or, really, his revised position on hit points when he wrote Advanced D&D). Not every negative number meant the same thing--that a character was unconscious and dying--as it does in later editions of the game.
Let me draw your attention to the AD&D DM's Guide, page 82, under the subsection "Zero Hit Points"....
Gygax writes: When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious.
Well, that's pretty much what we do now, right? In 3.5E, when a creature reaches 0 HP, he's Disabled. And, at -1 HP or worse, the character is unconscious.
But, keep reading the old AD&D DM's Guide. Gygax goes on to explain a bit about what low hit points mean--and this is some of the stuff that's gotten watered down over the editions.
Gygax continues, writing: If any creature reaches -6 or greater negative points before being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member, if you so choose. For example, a character struck by a fireball and then treated at -9 might have horrible scar tissue on exposed areas of flesh--hands, arms, neck face.
What is Gygax telling us here? He's saying to use the scale of -1 to -9 to grade a wound taken by a character. And, he's saying to be sure to limit the most serious wound effects to wounds of -6 or worse hit points.
How many times have you had a PC go to -8 hp, get healed, and he's as good as new once he's back to 1+ HP?
And, another thought: I feel that critical hit charts have it backwards. Most charts inflict wounds on a Critical Hit, when the character still has hit points. I think that, as long as a character still has 1 hit point, he hasn't taken more than superficial damage from any wounds.
It's the realm of -1 HP or worse where Critical Hit charts should be used. Don't roll on them until a character is reduced to -1 HP or less (Failed Massive Damage checks count), and even then, the most grisly effects shouldn't be applied to a character unless he was reduced to -6 or worse.
I'd also use this as a guide when, in combat, the DM describes the effect on an enemy when a PC reduces that foe to 0 or less hp.
So, as rules of thumb:
- Any hit does some sort of real damage for the simple fact that hit points take a long time to heal naturally. If no magic is used for healing, and it takes several hours or a day to heal even 1 hp, then the character has real, if light, damage that is being healed. It doesn't take that long to catch one's breath.
- Though a character takes real damage on every hit that reduces his hit points, any damage that leaves a character with at least 1 hp can only be superficial damage. The reason is that, although this damage can take a long time to heal naturally (depending on the character's starting hit points), there is no impairment to the character's abilities. Thus, there can be no serious wound without a wound effect.
- More serious wounds are indicated when the character reaches -1 hp or below. The character has taken a wound that could potentially kill him. But, since the likelyhood of the character self-stabilizing is high when the character is at the top of this scale, consider, as Gygax suggests through his writing in the 1E AD&D DMG, that a wound is considered worse the higher negative the character's hit points.
- The most serious wounds, with possible permanent effects should the character survive, are indicated when the character is reduced to -6 to -9 hit points.
Also use the same consideration when describing wound effects on NPCs or player characters even when critical charts are not used.
