does hit point loss = damage

[jdrakeh]

Conceptually, they represent a character's level of vitality. Mechanically, they represent capacity to sustain damage (i.e., fatigue alone cannot kill someone, but damage as the result of fatigue can and does). This divide between concept and execution results in many flamewars (as I'm sure you're fully aware).

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I was being somewhat anecdotal...snip...

...snip VP/WP comments...

I understand your position, but I have seen GMs that use this argument to an absurd level. I was also just trying to keep my arguments to standard hitpoints.

I agree with your comments regarding VP/WP (I am currently running True20, which uses the Toughness Save mechanic). Both of those systems (and others like them) do a better job of allowing characters to survive against the odds. Hit points are just too linear, to me. In fact, many of those cases that you refer to are common folk. In a hit point game, common folk aren't surviving those things, only high hit point folk. So, it becomes more of a math equation rather than a luck/miracle situation.

 

[Steel_Wind]

This debate was explained by Gygax very well in 1st edition and it remains true to this day:

What is repsented by the hit point of a PC does not equal what is represented by the hit points of a monster.

A PC's hit points represent luck, pluck, divine favour and cunning as much as it does physical damage; whereas the hit points of a monster are more directly related to its physical and magical properties.

They are dealt with conceptually in terms of game rules as being equivalent, but are not identical in terms of the realites that each abstracts.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

This debate was explained by Gygax very well in 1st edition and it remains true to this day:

What is repsented by the hit point of a PC does not equal what is represented by the hit points of a monster.

A PC's hit points represent luck, pluck, divine favour and cunning as much as it does physical damage; whereas the hit points of a monster are more directly related to its physical and magical properties.

They are dealt with conceptually in terms of game rules as being equivalent, but are not identical in terms of the realites that each abstracts.

I can't think of a single good reason for that to be so. I mean, all hail Gygax and such, but why?

 

[davidschwartznz]

You do know wrestling is fake right?

You do know D&D is fake right?

The hp system is a decent simulation of cinematic combat, it's no good if you're looking for realistism. Personally, I prefer cinematic stuff to too much realsim (besides, real life is way too random). If you want a combat system where a hit is a hit, AC and hps are not not for you.

 

[genshou]

From the SRD:
Contact
Merely touching this type of poison necessitates a saving throw. It can be actively delivered via a weapon or a touch attack. Even if a creature has sufficient damage reduction to avoid taking any damage from the attack, the poison can still affect it. A chest or other object can be smeared with contact poison as part of a trap.

....

Injury
This poison must be delivered through a wound. If a creature has sufficient damage reduction to avoid taking any damage from the attack, the poison does not affect it. Traps that cause damage from weapons, needles, and the like sometimes contain injury poisons.


So in the world of poisons, a hit is actually making contact, not getting tired from dodging and parrying, and a hit which is not negated by DR is one which causes an injury.

Sorry, I didn't read through your first post very carefully before replying. I thought you were only referring to injury type poison. The above, quoted text is correct in either edition if what you quoted is the 3.5 SRD.

 

[genshou]

I understand your position, but I have seen GMs that use this argument to an absurd level. I was also just trying to keep my arguments to standard hitpoints.

I agree with your comments regarding VP/WP (I am currently running True20, which uses the Toughness Save mechanic). Both of those systems (and others like them) do a better job of allowing characters to survive against the odds. Hit points are just too linear, to me. In fact, many of those cases that you refer to are common folk. In a hit point game, common folk aren't surviving those things, only high hit point folk. So, it becomes more of a math equation rather than a luck/miracle situation.

It's hard to avoid straining suspension of disbelief when a character survives 14 sniper rifle shots... Oh, well. If I want realism, I'll grab a shotgun and start shooting people.

Seriously, though, it's a fact that it's not realistic using any of the damage systems. You just have to pick which method of unrealism is right for you.

 

[Klaus]

But what if it is a poisoned arrow? If the damage from that arrow is so abstract that it is not a "wounding shot" then it shouldn't deliver the poison.

If this is the case, then the DM describes the hp loss in a way to allow the poison/effect to take place. Perhaps you parried the poisoned sword with your blade, losing 3hp due to the strength of the blow, but as you let the foe's sword slide it nicks your hand enough to deliver the poison, or whatnot.

 

[Saterus]

I always describe vivid pictures of the combat. And with my players at lvl 1, the 1dmg hits are quite powerful still. In the last session, a lizardman shield bashed the halfling wizard and completely obliterated him (-1hp). Its quite important that I paint a good picture though, because I dont ever tell them hit points. I make all the damage rolls behind the screen and just tell them how bloody they are. They like it quite a bit.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If I want realism, I'll grab a shotgun and start shooting people.

Man, you've convinced me! I now want realism!