Hit Point Representation Poll

[UngainlyTitan]

I think this poll asks the wrong questions. There are several views of what hit points repersented in D&D, some people view it as physical damage and penetrating wounds and so forth. I have never been able to view them that way because,
a) you heal too fast in all editions of D&D (using natural healing only) for hit points to be penetrating wounds and organ damage. Though I could be persuaded that healing surges could fill this role in a variant where you do not get back all healing surges overnight.
b) You never get any long term effect from loosing all your hitpoints.
c) It all leads to thinking too hard about fantasy.

So I have always views hit points as ablative toughness and plot protection for PCs.
That said I voted as that they are the same and its a good thing but as I said my value of the same is not necssarily some one elses value of the same.

 

[fanboy2000]

I didn't answer the poll on the grounds that the only other edition I've played enough to compare it to is 3.x. I would say that in 4e and 3e hit points represent the same thing. I'm neutral on the subject of whether or not that's a good thing.

I do like the hit point system in both editions.

 

[JackSmithIV]

I like and appreciate the thorough way in which 4th Edition mechanics treat hit points as a cinematic abstraction. I don't believe this was as clear in the mechanics of previous editions.

"Different/Good"

 

[FireLance]

I've posted a longer and more detailed response elsewhere, but it boils down to:

1. Hit points in every edition have been composed of both physical toughness and intangible aspects such as skill, stamina, luck, divine favor, etc., mixed in indeterminate amounts. It could be argued that 4e introduced new intangible aspects related to morale or the will to fight, but the basic idea of hit points being more than just physical toughness is retained.

2. The key change made by 4e is that the intangible aspects of hit points can be recovered faster, and separately from the physical aspects of hit points. In previous editions, the physical and intangible aspects of hit points were depleted and recovered in equal proportions and at the same rate. In previous editions, a high-level character who was low on hit points would be covered with scratches, bruises and other minor wounds, be out of breath and possibly out of luck. In 4e, a high-level character could be covered in minor wounds but still be at full hit points because his intangible reserves of skill, stamina, luck, etc. have been replenished.

As a side point to the above, the intangible aspects of 4e hit points can fully compensate when a character's physical toughness has been compromised. A 4e character could have sustained a life-threatening wound, i.e. brought to 0 hit points or less, and still be at full hit points after a short five-minute rest.

In short, the key changes to hit points have been to the intangible aspects: depending on what you had previously lumped under the intangible aspects of hit points, the definition of hit points may have been broadened for you. In addition, the intangible aspects of hit points can now be recovered more quickly, in a manner not proportionate to the recovery of the physical aspect of hit points, and can compensate for a reduction in physical toughness, too.

Of course, all of the above pretty much only affects the narration of what happens when a character loses hit points. When it comes to hit points as a game mechanic for telling me whether my character can keep fighting, 4e hit points are no different from hit points in any previous edition.

 

[Studio69]

Healing Surges makes hit points a different beast in 4E! I like that and am completely okay with it.

 

[Zsig]

To me it's the same thing (which is indeed a good thing), except that in 4E it seems to be more "clear" what they represent.

 

[Starglim]

Same as previous editions, and that's .. a choice that designers and players make.

D&D is not the appropriate rule set for every game, or possibly for any other game, and that's OK.

Time has proved that it's not difficult to make the d20 mechanic somewhat more generic or differently scaled than in D&D if that's what the designer wants.

 

[pemerton]

They are different to previous editions. They are meant to be interpreted a little more loosely than previous editions - particularly in regards to what is considered "damage" and how it is healed or overcome.

Agreed - in practice they are different, even if in many theoretical respects they are similar. I think this is a good thing.

 

[Runestar]

To me it's the same thing (which is indeed a good thing), except that in 4E it seems to be more "clear" what they represent.

I will say that rather, you are forced to represent them in a very narrow and specific manner to reconcile them with the concept of healing surges.

It is very wuxia-like. The martial artist gets injured (as in really physically injured, not just stress or depleted luck), then sits down to meditate for a while and channel his ki. A while later, he gets better. Maybe not as good as new, but still in better shape than before.

 

[firesnakearies]

More or less the same, and largely a good thing.