Do you describe HP abstractly?

[Glyfair]

I base my description of hit point loss on idea that an average man could be killed with a single damage roll from just about any weapon. IMC, an average "normal man" would have 1-6 hit points. Thus 4-6 points of damage means a potentially mortal wound for most people. A PC with many hit points beyond the 6 point range is picking up additional points from luck, determination, skill, increased endurance, etc.

Which leads to the interesting observation that Cure Light Wounds isn't as effective on some people as others, For most people a Cure Light Wounds can bring them back from a nearly mortal wound. However, the big bad monster slayer just seems a little less bloody after the spell.

Of course, this is true of regardless of how you describe hit point damage.

On player demand, we play with the abstract description, where wounds besides bruises and scratches only happen after you lost roughly 3/4 of your HP total.

Which leads to different observation about the spell. Cure spells might clean up most of their wounds if cast when they are close to 0 HP and seem to do next to nothing if they are only halfway down.

 

[EP]

I use something from Earthdawn called wound threshold to actually describe true "damage" to PCs. Each character starts with a base of 4 + Constitution modifier + level modifier based on their class (so fighters/paladins and the like get a higher modifier than wizards/sorcerers due to their exposure to physical harm). This wound threshold is used to determine how much harm a single blow can inflict and actually wound them.

For each single hit that exceeds their wound threshold in damage, they suffer a wound, which inflicts a -1 penalty to all physical actions, including attacks, damage, Reflex saves, and the like. Basically, anything that uses Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution suffers this penalty. Descriptively, I have the wound be something serious that they must deal with: greater difficulty in swinging their weapon, a need to wrap the wound or suffer more blood loss, and more. If an injury falls just below their wound threshold, I'll still say they've been hit, but that they're tough enough to ignore it as a grazing blow.

I used to have a list of all the wounds each character suffered with updates on how well it healed. Some of them have developed some rather nice scars as a result, so it's a nice little system that adds to the hit points and clarifies the hp question for us.

 

[kensanata]

My players are much more interested in "Does he look hurt?" (and what they really want to ask is "Can I finish him with my next attack?") – to which I reply with a smirk that "you know how hit points are an abstract measure and that even with a single hit point left he'd fight like at the very beginning." But I think I will have to change this. I really like the following:

If they're hitting a lot and doing decent damage, but I'm still describing near misses and blocked thrusts "that would have run through a lesser warrior," they know that this guy has some serious hit points.

I'll think about something like that. The problem of "curing" people that have blocked all these near misses remains. Perhaps I'll keep scratches, bruises, and general exhaustion for the first half of hp loss.

 

[Gez]

Don't get me wrong, I follow this paradigm myself. Nonetheless, when I'm running a game and describing a battle, all this abstraction sort of flies out the window and I describe every blow as actually connecting and drawing blood.

Yeah, I know. My own theory is that people are only really hurt when their remaining hit points are less than their hp total (duh) and less than their (normal, unmodified) Constitution score*. At low levels, when the hit points have not yet outgrown the Con score, every hit hurts. After, they're sufficiently battle-hardened to be able to dodge attacks, and so the "excess" hit points represent these dodges.

Of course, during games, I don't keep track of this kind of things and the theory flies by the window! I wing it, ignore the actual numbers and the only remaining part of that theory is that I only say the foe is hurt if his remaining hit points seem "low enough". I.e., the difference is "okay, you deal 12 damage" vs. "he winces and cringes in pain as you deal him 12 more damage."

(* Problem arise for creatures that aren't people. Very large creatures, or inherently magical creatures, ought to have more "real hit points" than their Con score; and similarly the decaying undead, ooze, and other shambling mindless things only have real hit points 'cause it's funnier that way. There's no way I'm going to claim a gelatinous cube "dodged most of the blow and only get a bruise"...)

 

[S'mon]

Hits always hit IMC, at least a scratch or bruise. A PC with 8/100 hp will be covered in bruises and cuts.

 

[Drowbane]

Abstract.

Only the fatal (or dropping) blow is actually a solid hit (of course, this depends on what the foe is... a Juju Zombie, for example, with high HP + DR may actually get described as taking several "mortal" blows, but it continues to advance anyways).

I like Vitality / Wound more than HP though.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

A hit is always a hit.

Some time ago, I actually came up with a way to think about hp that meshes nicely with d&d's non-incremental wound system and the idea that healing spells result from positive energy. Being part of a fantasy world, d&d's living creatures are all infused with "life-energy" (positive energy in game terms). This store of energy can be called upon to heal life-threatening injuries. Those accustomed to pain, suffering and death (levelled creatures) and many of the varied monsters of the world (being extra special and magical) have an enhanced capacity to use this life-energy to restore themselves.

As much as I like this idea, I've never actually used it to describe hps in game, due to a stunning lack of support from those that I originally proposed the idea to.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Do I describe HP abstractly? Well, last time I ran some d20, no.

This is because I had in place some pretty weird house rules, let's just say. Including divisions of HP into states of health.

Oh, it worked fine. A bit messy, but yeah, fine. At the moment, I'm not using HP at all.

I agree that there are many, many inconsistencies in the HP system. So it's just something you either embrace, ignore, fix, or shun.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Which leads to the interesting observation that Cure Light Wounds isn't as effective on some people as others, For most people a Cure Light Wounds can bring them back from a nearly mortal wound. However, the big bad monster slayer just seems a little less bloody after the spell.

Of course, this is true of regardless of how you describe hit point damage.

They way I describe the effect of the cure light wounds spell depends on how damaged the PC is, so it's much like how I describe the effects of damage. That is, if the 10th level fighter was taken down to 2 hp, he's sporting at least one significant and obvious wound. In that case, a cure of 6 points has a very visible effect on him, much as it would on a normal man that was down to 1 or 2 hp from 6 (or whatever). After that, cure light wounds still restores his hit points, but the effects are less visible: bruises fade, scratches disappear, muscle aches vanish, etc. Note that those scratches, etc. are effects from damage that would have killed the normal man outright and then reduced him to a crimson smear, so I don't have any problem with it not being "fair" that it's easier to restore the normal man to 100%.

Problem arise for creatures that aren't people. Very large creatures, or inherently magical creatures, ought to have more "real hit points"

Yes, many monsters don't really "fit the model" -- often, monster hit points are more directly related to how much physical damage they can take. My descriptions of damage to monsters often take a more "it's physical damage" approach, unless it's a monster that is operating as a classed character. This is what I had in mind when I said the approach wasn't perfect; the DM needs an understanding of how hit points "work" and how they can mean different things for different creatures. It's not an "exact science."

Some relevant quotes from the 1E rulebooks, which is the basis for my approach to hit points:

Each character has...hit points, just as monsters do...a certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of the hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors...Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points...This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment...Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck..., and magical forces.

Although it doesn't state it outright, the assumption that hit dice "for creatures" are more about actual "physical damage capacity" is clear. Of course, earlier editions didn't have monsters built exactly the same way as PCs are built; instead, monster stats often made assumptions that weren't always explicitly stated with rules. Still, much of this would still apply to 3E, IMO.

[Increasing hit points]...reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage -- as indicated by constitution bonuses -- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat..."sixth sense"...sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment...(physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).
...
Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution...[and] 95 hit points. Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm...However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises. It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points.

 

[Whimper3]

I've never been a fan of how hit points are described in D20. So many spell effects describe gruesome consequences, whereas the damage mechanic only drains HP. If a spell says "the target's body explodes, sending blood and veins everywhere" or something, and it drains half their hit points, how am I supposed to tell the player that "Oh, that just means you rolled with the punch, narrowly avoided the hit, it's something that'll patch up by morning, etc etc"

If your insides are on the outside, you are hurt, not just tired!