Disappointed in 4e

[UngainlyTitan]

This just makes me think that there should be an entirely separate mechanic for rating and undermining morale. It may make sense for a unit to have a morale score that gets whittled down, but that score should be separate from determining the resilience of the individuals in the unit, who may well react differently when cornered as individuals and, more importantly, are recoverable after the encounter.

Something like SWSE's condition track would be a better choice for individuals. Start with Good Order as the default, allow one or two statuses above that for special bonuses, and have a few status below. Then you could attack that track with certain powers directly and not have the possibility of a horde of minions killed by an intimidate check.

I'd agree with you if I was tracking morale in every fight. The example I gave was where some rare event allowed an intimidate check that had to potential to end the fight in that instant. That is the player had done something exceptional in terms of damage or something that would cause the enemy to go 'Oh God, we're all gonna die'

 

[Fifth Element]

Please find any quote that suggests that hit point damage is not always at least partially physical damage and you will have demonstrated that this stupid concept has been a part of D&D since the beginning.

Otherwise, please stop blaming Gary for 4e's faults.

Who's blaming? I'm crediting. I think having hit points representing a variety of things is great - it allows for a goodly amount of abstraction. I don't see it as a fault, and am therefore thankful for Mr. Gygax's interpretation.

I'm not going to type out the passages from page 82 of the 1E DMG (the 1974 edition of D&D does not seem to discuss hit points in any depth at all). But here's the first line from the "Hit Points" section: "It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place." It then goes on to discuss hit points being more than just physical damage.

You may be right in that the passage implies that any "hit" will always cause at least a tiny bit of physical damage, but it can be jut a scratch. So if you want to be pedantic about it, sure. The phrase "grazes the character" is used. So the physical component of any one hit can be insignificant to the character.

But of course, I've never argued that hit points do not at least partly represent physical damage.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, Gygax never, ever used the word "morale" in the context of hit points.

No, that would have been a bad idea given the existence of actual "morale" rules in the system. But he did use terms like skill, luck and experience with similar life-or-death situations. So it is far less of a stretch to include morale in that than to exclude it by arguing that hit points represent only physical damage.

Or are you arguing "yes, hit points do represent some vague things other than physical damage, just not that specific thing!"

 

[Delta]

No, that would have been a bad idea given the existence of actual "morale" rules in the system. But he did use terms like skill, luck and experience with similar life-or-death situations. So it is far less of a stretch to include morale in that than to exclude it by arguing that hit points represent only physical damage.

Or are you arguing "yes, hit points do represent some vague things other than physical damage, just not that specific thing!"

You're playing word games. You said for Gygax, "some part of hit points is morale", and that's not true. In AD&D each hit must cause some amount of actual physical harm.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

For that matter, I always have had the opposite problem with fireballs. If you take significant fire damage from a fireball, how are you still able to fight with heavy burns and why don't you die from blood poisioning due to infections of the burns. In every edition I have had to ignore that to make the game work for me. And it has always helped to regard hit points as something not entirely physical.

Yes, it often bothers me in not just D&D, but many games in general, that characters/units do not become weakened and less dangerous as they become wounded. That said, D&D is heroic fantasy, so in general, if anything a character is stronger when injured! Can't really be helped, and I don't particularly want to "help" the problem with houserules. Mainly for mechanical reasons -- I fear it would make the all to common "tactic" of firing off the bazookas on the first round even more enticing, since it would now not only possibly end the fight but ensure crippling the foe afterwards if the salvo doesn't finish him.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Who's blaming? I'm crediting. I think having hit points representing a variety of things is great - it allows for a goodly amount of abstraction. I don't see it as a fault, and am therefore thankful for Mr. Gygax's interpretation.

Then you are miscrediting.

I'm not going to type out the passages from page 82 of the 1E DMG (the 1974 edition of D&D does not seem to discuss hit points in any depth at all).

Wise, as because after the bit you did quote, the discussion does not support your contention.

EDIT: To be clear, Gygaxian hit points -- the hit points of all previous editions -- allow a hit to always represent damage. Hit point loss is always damage. However, the amount of damage 1 hit point represents is not on an absolute scale, but corresponds instead to the hit point total of the being hit. Thus, 8 hp of damage might be a 1st level character run through with a sword, but is only a nick to a 10th level character.

This is a simple, elegant system that has served the game well until we were given Schroedinger's Wounding in 4e.

RC

 

[Mallus]

Yes, it often bothers me in not just D&D, but many games in general, that characters/units do not become weakened and less dangerous as they become wounded.

And this is why I don't always think of hit points as physical injury.

That said, D&D is heroic fantasy, so in general, if anything a character is stronger when injured!

This is also why I don't always think of hit points as physical injury, and consider them more as the will to keep fighting. Note that the sentence you wrote also nicely explains how Inspiring Word/healing surges in 4e work.

 

[justanobody]

And this is why I don't always think of hit points as physical injury.

That is because people don't want to do the extra simple math to turn HP into only physical injury while playing, and don't want to be weakened by a loss of HP.

10 HP = 100%
8 HP = 80%, so anything relying on STR only gets 80% of the damage dealt, and only has an 80& chance to hit because of the lowered DEX, etc...

I have used it before, and showed real promise for use IF people were willing to do the math, including the DM for monsters.

Crit hits and misses always do full damage for luck. So a crit miss REALLY hurts when you are already weakened and hit yourself by missing your opponent.

 

[Shazman]

Because only a part of them represent morale. No one is suggesting they're supposed to be 100% morale. But as Mr. Gygax himself explained, some part of hit points is morale. (And some part is physical damage, and combat skill, etc). You're arguing against an assertion that has not been made.


Hilarious. All previous editions of D&D would like to have a word with you. The parts that explain what hit points represent, specifically.

I was responding to the comment that suggested that commoners run from a dragon because fear of it somehow drops their hp to zero instead of them just being frightened of it. In that case hp would equal 100% morale. I'm okay with morale being a very small part of hp or tempopary hit points representing increased morale, but it seems like some people want it to be all about morale. It may be that way in 4E, since it's the only way warlords can "heal" people. I just don't like it. The main component of hp has always been and always should be physical damage. 4E can't really decide what hp are. It has terms like bloodied that suggest all physical damage, and then it has healing surges and "healing" from the non-maigical warlord which suggest it being completely morale. For the sake of versimilatude, I wish they would leave the morale mostly out of the hp equation. If you want morale to be the end all and be all of hp, play chainmail of DDM instead of D&D.

 

[xortam]

I think of the Warlord healing other party members like the PT instructor pushing you beyond the boundaries of what you were physically capable of - hence pumping up your HP.