HitPoints fluff and crunch in 4th ed d&d

[xechnao]

Ah. I see the problem.

Really, the basic classes were always about adventuring. You could pin some fluff background on a wizard and call him a scholarly shut-in, but really, the class has always been about dungeon-crawling, killing things and looting the bodies, just like everyone else.

Then why did classes have a different distrubution of HPs? If a class is about dungeon-crawling and then HPs are helpful just the same in their career, it makes sense everyone should have the same HPs.

Now, one may argue that HPs are less helpfulf to a wizard than a warrior. However, why is that I may then ask? I guess the answer is because wizards rely on warriors to fight ahead and stop the hazards. But having an approach to dungeon-crawling like this, does not make you a fighting dungeon crawler. It makes you a "special partner" of a said warrior, contracted to help him in some tasks. It is the warrior that as a class knows he will directly be facing more risks in dungeon crawl, rather the wizard that his role is to stay in the back.

Enter 4th Ed:
With the unification of resource mechanisms and balance of classes for a combat career different HPs makes no sense. It makes a bit of a sense though on roles such as defender to be harder to bring him down on his defending position. However, I find it far more reasonable, at least fluff wise, that if they stay on a position and are set to defend it they will enjoy a better AC than say more HPs. Which means that they are harder to hit while defending a place- not that they are tougher for combat- since everyone is made for it the same.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I have another issue about HPs.

In previous editions, hit points represent physical toughness, but also to some extent training, luck, an ability to turn a hit into a near-hit, etc.

Some of those things are also (better) represented by Action Points.

In previous editions, actions points weren't core, now they are. So I'm wondering if there is a chance that HPs no longer represent anything else than toughness and characters have less of them, but they also have actions points and are supposed to actively spend them every (other) fight to turn deadly blows into grazing hits?

I think I'd like that. At the very least it means each pool of points has a clearer definition, and other game elements that react with those rules are easier to design.

Mechanical aspects in D&D do not have a direct real life representation, many cover multiple things, less common, but still there, are that many real life things are covered by multiple representations, D&D has always been more gamist than simulationist, and since they are moving further in that direction, it's very unlikely for them to do something like that, in fact, since they're including multiple morale based healing effects, it's more likely that they will move further away from "hit points equal toughness".

 

[small pumpkin man]

Enter 4th Ed:
With the unification of resource mechanisms and balance of classes for a combat career different HPs makes no sense. It makes a bit of a sense though on roles such as defender to be harder to bring him down on his defending position. However, I find it far more reasonable, at least fluff wise, that if they stay on a position and are set to defend it they will enjoy a better AC than say more HPs. Which means that they are harder to hit while defending a place- not that they are tougher for combat- since everyone is made for it the same.

Fighter types get more HP because they've have more practice at getting punched in the face, thus they are better at it. (being punched in the face) In fact they apparently have abilities designed to "persuade" opponents to punch them in the face instead of their allies, as opposed to Wizards, who have abilities related to not getting punched in the face by anyone ever.

I can't see it changing much. I'd like them to move to the Starwars or D20 modern version of d6-d10 as opposed to d4-d12, but that's as far as I'd like to go.

 

[xechnao]

Fighter types get more HP because they've have more practice at getting punched in the face, thus they are better at it. (being punched in the face) In fact they apparently have abilities designed to "persuade" opponents to punch them in the face instead of their allies, as opposed to Wizards, who have abilities related to not getting punched in the face by anyone ever.

I can't see it changing much. I'd like them to move to the Starwars or D20 modern version of d6-d10 as opposed to d4-d12, but that's as far as I'd like to go.

IMO, a nicely blown punch should always be a nicely blown puch -no matter who soaks it, he should always go down. And this idea exists in D&D: the rogue backstabing. Rogues get the same damage multiplier regardless who they are hitting.

I still am not convinced. I just find it much more reasonable in 4th Ed philosophy to give fighters a boost in AC rather than HPs in regards to other classes.

 

[Lucius Drake]

I don't think I've ever heard someone argue that hit points are less useful to a wizard than to a fighter. If anything one would argue that without the benefit of heavy armor and melee skill the wizard would get more out of a higher hit point total.

It still doesn't change the fact that not every class is intended to be soaking up damage. Sure the wizard is a dungeon-crawling, doom-slinging, spellcaster of repute but that doesn't mean that he should be standing toe to toe with an ogre and letting it hit him! Far from it. Having a lower hit point total reinforces the optimal tactics while playing a wizard: stand back, blast until foe is dead. Repeat.

(No I am not saying that a wizard should feel locked into ONLY that one role, he can multiclass to fulfil others with more or less success too I'm sure)

If everyone had the same, or even similar, hit point totals the classes would start to lose definition in relation to one another. Wizardly stereotypes tend towards the frail, I don't see any reason to change that.

For those who want a good hit to level someone no matter the role, I might suggest a different roleplaying system. D&D is very much a simulation of heroic fantasy. GURPS would certainly model the idea of armor and skill keeping you alive more than sheer toughness.

 

[xechnao]

It still doesn't change the fact that not every class is intended to be soaking up damage.

But it should be according to 4th Ed's philosophy as of each class being regarded as a role on the tactical combat map. Now combat damage is a base factor in the carreer of every class.

Sure the wizard is a dungeon-crawling, doom-slinging, spellcaster of repute but that doesn't mean that he should be standing toe to toe with an ogre and letting it hit him! Far from it.

Same thing is true about the warrior: neither the warrior should allow an ogre to hit him. HPs do not represent how hard one is to break when being helpless, but rather how he copes with physical stress on the move. A study door is harder than any PC, yet it has fewer HPs.

Having a lower hit point total reinforces the optimal tactics while playing a wizard: stand back, blast until foe is dead. Repeat.

AoO: Casting spells while in combat and not standing back to do so costs HPs allready. OTOH, fighters while striking in melee do not provoke AoO.

If everyone had the same, or even similar, hit point totals the classes would start to lose definition in relation to one another. Wizardly stereotypes tend towards the frail, I don't see any reason to change that.

For 4th Ed I disagree. The roles can and should be fullfilled with one's special abilities on the tactical map, rather than with the most general term of toughness or survivability for combat which is HPs.

For those who want a good hit to level someone no matter the role, I might suggest a different roleplaying system. D&D is very much a simulation of heroic fantasy. GURPS would certainly model the idea of armor and skill keeping you alive more than sheer toughness.

Put this way seems out of context. The point is, that IMO a wizard should not be penalized with fewer HPs in 4th Ed - why is such a premise not in terms with heroic fantasy?

 

[Lackhand]

The logic in here seems a little bit biased by personal taste.
I don't mean that in a bad way: a game that used the definitions of the OP for how hit points should behave would not be a bad game. But D&D doesn't use hit points for that.

I had a big long post trying to build this game system. But it was unnecessary for my point, which is this: If you model hit points with defenses, people will miss more.
Missing isn't as much fun as hitting, especially for players with limited availability options.

Hit points represent a trend towards a final goal.
Statistics don't: After flipping a coin and getting heads, the probability of the next flip being heads doesn't change from 50%.

So, while more realistic, fighters should have more hit points than wizards do because it's their job to be masochists and chewed on by monsters, and to be able to be consumed by this treatment in an ablative fashion. This goes double when fair is fair -- they're going to be facing beasties that work similarly, and they don't want to whiff all the time.

The dynamic of the game would change if you changed this fact. That would be okay, but the change is neutral (not better, not worse), so doesn't justify changing the model, as modeling realism for the sake of modeling realism is best done by realism.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

IMO, a nicely blown punch should always be a nicely blown puch -no matter who soaks it, he should always go down.

Professional boxers would disagree. One shot from Mike Tyson, for instance, would knock out pretty much anyone, and kill some people. In contrast, boxers are able to take quite a few hits from someone of his size and power.

 

[Kaisoku]

Something I always found odd was that the average farmer (usually considered what a Commoner would be) would be MORE frail than a scholarly wizard. In fact... the only class to best represent a scholarly type NPC was an Expert or Adept... which both have more HP.

I can't think of a single "farmer type" person I know personally that wouldn't be best represented as having at least a d6, and a 15+ Con score.

I dunno.. maybe I just never liked the d4s in general, never rolls right, heh.


Back on topic...
D&D needs a mechanic to represent attacking and surviving those attacks.

Doing damage from a successful hit is simply a rating in how much threat to kill a person you are doing. Any attack that was aimed well enough (lands) could potentially kill a person. Your hitpoints simply represent how much threat you can handle before you die (or fall unconscious at least).

This can be taking the hit and shrugging it off... or it can be turning a blow that would normally hit your lung into just hitting your shoulder. Or it can be handling the aftereffects of being smacked (you don't fall unconscious or whatever), or it can be knowing in how to position yourself so that you aren't as vulnerable. Or, it can just be luck.

The loss of hitpoints simply indicates that over time, all those hits add up and you get worn down. Eventually you let that one hit get through...


In this way... a Fighter has better training at dealing with physical combat situations, while a wizard doesn't. Whether he's adventuring or not, he's just not training on how to take physical hits, etc.

Now.. IF they had some mechanic for mental combat, such as breaking down your willpower or driving you insane, etc... the case should be the opposite.


An adventuring Wizard has the advantage over the normal person because they have levels. Someone that's been dungeon crawling for years will be in their teens, and have over 30 hitpoints likely (even in 3e). That dagger thrust from a lvl 1 thug is no longer a major threat even against a wizard with no magical defenses whatsoever. What does that tell you? He HAS to have learned how to take a hit at least a little bit over the course of his adventuring right?

Difference between adventuring Wizard and regular scholar = Hitpoints from Levels
Difference in training between Fighter and Wizard = Hitdice differences

 

[Incenjucar]

Wizards are fantasy "nerds."

If you pitted a stereotypical farmer against a stereotypical nerd, who do you think would win?

Prior to the nerd casting Burning Hands, I mean.

However, throw that nerd into a few dungeons... they'll either be dead, or beefed up considerably by the time they leave.