Hit points & long rests: please consider?

[Mercutio01]

I actually sort of agreed with that bit from 4E. Negative hit points means you are actively dying. You're in shock, bleeding out, and laying in the dirt/muck/blood/waste filth/etc. This means 0 HP = not dying = stable. Any kind of healing means patching up wounds. In the case of magical healing, it's a potion that's wending its way through your blood stream and mending wounds from the inside out, or a prayer granted by a god that is working through that god's grace (or what have you). It brings you to 0 first (stabilizes), and then starts closing wounds. In the case of mundane healing, it's a cauterized cut, or an ace bandage around a sprain, or a healing poultice or medicinal concoction (aspirin, for instance).

 

[Meophist]

One thing I haven't heard anyone mention is that the kept the 4e rule that any healing from negatives immediately puts you to 0 hp.

How do people generally feel about that rule?

I don't really have any problems with that. Aside from healing automatically bringing you up to that level.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I just hope everyone realizes that we'll never get to the various "dials" and get them correct until the very first dial gets set and works right.

So even if you don't like this first bit of fluff and its connection with hit points... just play and test it as-is anyway so that they can make sure the mechanics work. Because the sooner they can get past this first set of rules, the sooner they can start introducing the other dials for you. The foundation has to be solid before you can start futzing with everything else.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh, looking at other threads, [MENTION=10095]The Little Raven[/MENTION] has just added much more about the way hit points were according to Gygax

Bringing some material across to this thread:

Originally Posted by AD&D 1e DMG, page 61As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned.
​

Originally Posted by AD&D 1e DMG, page 61
Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections.
​

Originally Posted by AD&D 1e DMG, page 81
For those who wonder why poison does either killing damage (usually) or no harm whatsoever, recall the justification for character hit points. That is, damage is not octually sustained - at least in proportion to the number of hit points marked off in most cases.

​

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Oh, looking at other threads, @The Little Raven has just added much more about the way hit points were according to Gygax

Bringing some material across to this thread:

Originally Posted by AD&D 1e DMG, page 61As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned.
​

Originally Posted by AD&D 1e DMG, page 61
Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections.
​

Originally Posted by AD&D 1e DMG, page 81
For those who wonder why poison does either killing damage (usually) or no harm whatsoever, recall the justification for character hit points. That is, damage is not octually sustained - at least in proportion to the number of hit points marked off in most cases.

​

Everyone has pretty much already acknowledged that hit points have always been abstract but not to the point that they have now. Gary said they were a combo of physical damage and other things.

What D&D never had before 4th edition was a mechanic that took advantage of the so called "exhaustion" part of hit points, AKA Healing Surges.

If you look at the spells they talk about the closing of wounds and making people feel better.

 

[Kzach]

EVEN the lead designer and the creator of D&D have said that hit points represent some portion of physical damage.

Some PORTION. Not, "OMG HE JUST HAD HIS HEAD CHOPPED OFF!"

Again, I fear you are arguing from personal viewpoint rather than objectively from the way the game is actually written.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

I'm defending the way it IS; I'm not the one here trying to argue how it SHOULD be. You're on the side of having ALTERNATE rules. And that's fine. That's how you want to play your game. I have no problem with that whatsoever. My issue is that I believe that the DEFAULT way of doing things, the very core of the system, should remain as it is and that modular options should be presented for people like yourself who want a grittier system.

Think about that, please. You're saying I'm arguing from a personal viewpoint and not objectively from how the game is written, and yet I'm trying to keep the mechanics UNCHANGED.

What's more is that what I'm asking gives everyone what they want. I get the core system to remain intact, and how it has always been (as Neonchameleon has pointed out), and you get your modular rules so that you can play the game the way you want. Why argue against that?

 

[Mercutio01]

Some PORTION. Not, "OMG HE JUST HAD HIS HEAD CHOPPED OFF!"

Reductio ad absurdum much? No one narrates a head being chopped off unless that is literal death to the character. But a wound that drops a character below 0 is absolutely a hit that does real damage. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be death saving throws. There wouldn't be mechanics for stabiliziing (ie not bleeding to death).

What portion of HP are you conceding are actual damage? So far your ONLY argument has been that I must change the way I've played D&D since I started gaming, a way that is backed up by the rules (some portion of hit points are physical damage, after all). So, what portion of hit points are actual damage? Is it 1 hp? You seem to be arguing that even those hits are just scratches, so honestly: what portion of Hit Points are actually physical damage? Remember that the rules say there is a portion thereof, and that every edition of D&D ever written says something along the same lines.

You might be content to ignore the terms and actual rules and advice of the game to house rule that every hit is actually a near miss, but that's all it is: A house rule. It's not RAW. It's not RAI. It's not supported by the actual terminology of the game since 1974 (hit, miss, damage: these are terms that actually mean something), and it's not supported even by the playtest rules we're discussing.

What the rules do say is that your method of play is as valid as mine, not that I'm having badwrongfun because I actually use the rules as written and narrate that some hits do damage. So kindly quit trying to do the one-true-way garbage. If you'd even stoop so low as to acknowledge the legitimacy of the view point of a lot of gamers that "A hit is a hit," you might come off better.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What portion of HP are you conceding are actual damage?

Just jumping in, I'll let E. Gary Gygax answer that with a quote I've already posted.

Originally Posted by AD&D 1e DMG, page 61
Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections.
​

So far your ONLY argument has been that I must change the way I've played D&D since I started gaming, a way that is backed up by the rules (some portion of hit points are physical damage, after all).

No it isn't. See above. "A mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered" - the proportion of hit points being physical changes drastically, and the actual rules of D&D stated this as both RAW and RAI. My argument is that this is the only way that hit points make any sense at all. I think [MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION] is onthe same page.

 

[The Little Raven]

Gary said they were a combo of physical damage and other things.

Gary was very explicit in the many passages I quoted that hit points were far more "other things" than physical damage. And Gary also suggests that if the DM is going to track hit points to keep things secret from the players, it be described in terms of fatigue.

Your character's class will determine which sort of die you will roll to determine hit points. In some campaigns the referee will keep this total secret, informing players only that they feel "strong", "fatigued" or "very weak", thus indicating waning hit points.

Note that he doesn't recommend the usage of "injured," "wounded," "hurt," or descriptive terms that apply to physical damage.

You are almost obsessively fixated on the description of healing spells as your sole justification for hit points and completely ignoring the multitude of explanation and advice he gives that runs entirely counter to your point. Fireball, despite talking about fire, isn't the source for the actual rules about how fire functions in the game, and Cure Light Wounds is not the source for the actual rules about how hit points function in the game.

 

[Mercutio01]

Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution

Gary isn't arguing 50%/50%, sure. But he's arguing 35%/65% based on his own words there.

Rest also restores hit points, for it gives the body a chance to heal itself and regain the stamina or force which adds the skill, luck, and magical hit points.

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 is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these 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 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. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

Hit Points - The number of points of damage a creature can sustain before death (or optionally, coma), reflecting the creature’s physical endurance, fighting experience, skill, or luck.

Just because you can cherry pick stuff doesn't make your case, because I can cherry pick stuff right back.