Disappointed in 4e

[pemerton]

Okay.

Let's review

<snip>

I'll ask again: do you have an example where one must ret-con wounds away?

LostSoul, that's a heroic effort!

 

[pemerton]

I find it absurd to be able to kill an opponent by making him lose confidence in himself (and being the attacker, it's pretty much my choice whether an attack is lethal or just knocks the creature out at 0 hit points as I'm understanding things).

Well, if your PC is the attacker, and uses an Intimidate check to reduce a foe to 0 hp, and you think that it is absurd that such things should be fatal, then presumably (in order to avoid absurdity) you would choose that the foe is knocked out.

Or are you worried that, despite your own sense of absurdity, you won't be able to stop yourself declaring that your PC's harsh words killed his/her foes?

 

[pemerton]

You are quoting what hit point increases reflect, now what the hit points themselves represent.

Fifth Element quoted the following passage:

"Why then the increase in hit points [from levelling]? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability to withstand damage...and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection."

The subject in the second sentence is "these". This is a plural subject. The reference of the pronoun is anaphoric on some plural noun (or noun phrase) in the preceding sentence. The preceding sentence contains one singular noun ("increase") and one plural noun phrase ("hit points"). It therefore seems likely that "these" in the second sentence refers to hit points and not to hit point increases, and thus that the second sentence is to be interpreted as follows:

"Because hit points, as they increase, reflect both . . ."

edit: Scales roughly, I should have said. The first 10 hp of damage the 10th level fighter takes is far less than 1 hp of the noobs, and the last hit point the 10th level fighter takes is far more than 1 hp of the noob's full total. This is also true for the noob; until he takes his last hp, his first damage taken scales differently than does the blow that kills him

This edit pretty much concedes the point that hit points are not simply an arithmetically simpler version of a level-divisor rule for damage.

Consider characters A & B, both 1st level Fighters, with 7 and 8 hit points respectively. Both suffer 7 hit points of damage. A is now incapacitated and (prior to 4e) either dead or dying (depending on which set of rules is in play). B has 1 hp left and is physically unimpeded, but is metaphysically in a bad way (as the next hit will be fatal, or nearly so). This example is enough to show that the ingame meaning of "lose 7 hit points" is in no meaningful way proportionate to the number of hit points a character has remaining. It's meaning varies from individual situation to individual situation, depending on whether or not it brings a character to zero hit points. The most that can be said is that, if a character has more than 7 hp remaining, than 7 hp never corresponds to a (near-)fatal wound. But that is not a claim about scaling or proportionality.

 

[pemerton]

FireLance, an excellent post.

One quibble, though:

Pre-4e, a character who has been brought to 0 hit points or less was either automatically dead or dying (in 3e, or if you used the dying optional rule pre-3e). If magical healing was available, a dying character that was restored to 1 hp or more continued to function normally.

In 1st ed AD&D the only magic that could achieve this was the Heal spell, or (in UA) the Death's Door spell. Otherwise the character still needed a week of bedrest.

 

[FireLance]

FireLance, an excellent post.

Thanks!

One quibble, though:

In 1st ed AD&D the only magic that could achieve this was the Heal spell, or (in UA) the Death's Door spell. Otherwise the character still needed a week of bedrest.

I guess it shows that it's been a long time since I played 1e.

 

[rounser]

I recall Arneson writing somewhere that the term and concept of "hit points" was borrowed from a naval game.

Therefore, the One True Way to use them is to shout things like "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" on a critical hit, "Conn, sonar! Crazy Ivan!" on a near miss, and "You sunk my battleship..." on reaching zero.

Hit points, therefore, represent your character's ability to survive conventional naval warfare. No more, no less. Any other interpretations are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The key similarity between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points is that any hit that does not reduce a character to 0 hit points or less is a non-threatening wound that does not hamper the character's ability to fight.

A high-level character who is low on hit points will look pretty much the same regardless of edition: covered with nicks, scratches and bruises, out of breath, and probably low on luck as well. The process of getting him to that point will also look pretty much the same, regardless of edition: due to skill, luck, and other factors, attacks that would have killed a normal man have been evaded and/or turned into minor injuries. In addition, the next time he gets hit, the same thing will happen regardless of edition: he will sustain a life-threatening wound that will kill him if he is unlucky or if he does not get help.

The first key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points is that the only way to recover hit points quickly pre-4e was to use magic. 4e hit points are more like vitality points in that they can be recovered quickly without magical assistance, e.g. being affected by a warlord's inspiring word, spending healing surges during a short rest, or recovering all healing surges after an extended rest. Pre-4e, a character's ability to convert a serious wound into a minor injury can only be regained slowly without the use of magic. In 4e, a character can replenish his skill, luck and the other "intangible" aspects of hit points more quickly without magical assistance. A 4e character who has been brought down to low hit points and then recovers all his hit points after a rest is still covered in nicks, scratches and bruises, but his ability to convert future serious wounds into minor injuries has been regained.

The second key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points happens when a character has been brought to 0 hit points or less. It is actually a subset of the first key difference. Pre-4e, a character who has been brought to 0 hit points or less was either automatically dead or dying (in 3e, or if you used the dying optional rule pre-3e). If magical healing was available, a dying character that was restored to 1 hp or more continued to function normally. Whatever serious, life-threatening injury he sustained was either healed or converted to a minor, non-threatening wound that does not hamper his ability to fight. If magical healing was not available, bed rest could achieve the same effect, but more slowly. Even so, for 3.5e characters of 10th level or higher, eight hours of rest was all that was necessary for them to go from almost dead (-9 hp) to functioning normally (1 hp or more). And at this point, we are back to the first key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points.

So, what happens when a 4e character has been brought to 0 hit points or less and then gets his hit points restored in a non-magical fashion? Somehow, that serious wound that he sustained is no longer life-threatening and no longer hampers his ability to fight. During a fight, this could be explained by a rush of adrenaline or being so inspired by an ally that the character functions normally despite his wounds. After a short or extended rest, it could be explained by treating and binding the character's injuries so that he functions normally despite his wounds. Alternatively, the character could be made of such stern stuff that after a short period of gritting his teeth, he just functions normally despite his wounds. Non-magical healing doesn't make a wound go away. It just allows a character to function normally despite his wounds.

Now, not liking that non-magical healing can allow a character to function normally despite his wounds is a valid complaint, and there are a number of possible sub-systems that can address it, e.g. lingering wounds (using the disease track mechanic), temporary reduction in the number of healing surges per day, temporary limits to the character's maximum hit points, etc.

However, I do believe that 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points handle damage to the character in pretty much the same way. The two key changes that 4e has made to hit points are that the "intangible" aspect of hit points that allow a character to turn a serious wound into a minor injury are recovered more quickly in 4e, and that 4e characters who have not received magical healing are still able to function normally despite their wounds.

I agree with most of this, an excellent post in general. However, it is the serious wound I have issues with. A week of bed rest, will allow one to recover from torn muscles and heavy bruising but if you get a couple of inches of steel shoved through you it will take more than a week before you are gadding about dirty dungeons.
That was part of my problem with D&D back in the day. Games like Rolemaster try to solve this with charts and tables but in my experiece they have their problems also.
A serious wound is something that no version of D&D attempts to simulate and most serious wounds would be career ending.
That is, I suppose, why I am happier with the 4e view of hit points because they are a little more abstract.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I will ask this again, because it got no reply earlier:

Does anyone here seriously think that Gary would have agreed that the 4e hit point paradigm is not a readical departure from the one he devised?

 

[billd91]

Well, if your PC is the attacker, and uses an Intimidate check to reduce a foe to 0 hp, and you think that it is absurd that such things should be fatal, then presumably (in order to avoid absurdity) you would choose that the foe is knocked out.

Or are you worried that, despite your own sense of absurdity, you won't be able to stop yourself declaring that your PC's harsh words killed his/her foes?

It would be my choice when I used a power like that to make the result non-absurd. But not everyone makes non-absurd choices, including DMs.

EDIT: But keep in mind the context we're looking at here. When the question came up about how a character reduced to 0 hp via a morale effect should be adjudicated, people were saying that's up to the DM. Really, if I'm not reading things wrong, it's mainly up to whomever the attacker is. Unless the DM is supposed to step in and tell PCs when their own attacks are lethal or not.

 

[LostSoul]

I will ask this again, because it got no reply earlier:

Does anyone here seriously think that Gary would have agreed that the 4e hit point paradigm is not a readical departure from the one he devised?

I think he would have agreed about that.

I will ask this again, because it got no reply earlier:

Can you give me an example where one must ret-con a description of a wound?