HitPoints fluff and crunch in 4th ed d&d

[Dausuul]

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.

The fluff has sometimes claimed this (although never in 3E as far as I know), but the mechanics have never reflected it. The game has always been built on the presumption that hit points equals raw physical toughness. Otherwise you ought to lose most of your hit points any time you're paralyzed or unconscious.

I really hope the 4E fluff describes hit points as toughness, nothing more. When the game already includes an explicit system for how your training and experience improve your defenses (AC and saving throws based on level), it makes no sense to try to cram that into hit points as well.

 

[JohnSnow]

In my mind, AC & Reflex covers how difficult you are to get a solid hit on.

By contrast, hit points are an abstract way of representing a combination of your ability to "roll" with a hit, your "heroic luck" at avoiding significant damage when you are hit, and your ability to handle pain and injury, as well as your sheer physical toughness.

I dislike and disagree with any characterization of hit points as raw physical damage. And given that characters can "self-heal" to a degree, and that Warlords have the ability to "heal" damage, I have to conclude that the designers agree with my characterization. So I don't think you'll see the abstract nature of hit points done away with. If anything, I expect it'll be more directly called out.

Hit points work well from a gamist standpoint, and, the wonkiness of healing magic aside, they also work pretty well from a verisimilitude point of view.

My two cents.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

It seems to me that HPs in d&d represent one's resistance to hazards. Thus, it made perfect sense that warriors, being the ones mostly dedicated to this had more HPs than every other class.

But in 4th ed, it seems so far that every class is dedicated to have its equal share of involvement in combat. If this be the case, it does not make any sense for classes having a different distribution of HPs, at least as far as combat is concerned.

So will HPs in 4th Ed be explicitly linked to the various power sources aka martial, arcane, nature, etch? If this be the case, then why not have HPs for every power source? Wouldn't it make more sense in a combat balanced system?

What do you think?

I don't think hitpoints will be linked to power source. After all, I imagine the arcane defender (aka swordmage) will have hitpoints comparable to a fighter. However, the basic idea of every class having the same hitpoints doesn't strike me as a bad one at all. If they did this, it would be a lot like how they are using one progression for all the classes and using feats and talents to help differentiate characters. I'm sure something similar could have been done for hit points.

 

[Mistwell]

And here I thought "HPs fluff" meant "Harry Potter Fluff", and this was going to be a discussion of how wands became useful tools for general spellcasting in D&D!

Yet more evidence that acronyms are not a good tool for communication, unless dealing with a long and complex phrase, or lack of space.

 

[xechnao]

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.

IMO Mike Tyson's best placed shot or even yours best shot on the jawbone would KO anyone. Now, Mike Tyson would punch indeed with much more power than meself and you and a couple of his regular punches could get out of action a guy unfortunate to receive them. But so would a couple of regular sword cuts by my younger sister on Mike Tyson or myself. OTOH, a guy with many HPs that stands against Mike is not necessarily a big guy -it could easily be a halfling- but more generally a guy that can stay with him and threaten him while he can stand out against his threats.
This means that he could either be taking advantage of his agility or of his superior frame or even both. This is a question of style that D&D does not take into consideration IMO. D&D never explained how a halfling barbarian could get as many HPs as an Orc of same level.

BTW, I think that in D&D Mike Tyson and other sport boxers are characters that better share offensive and defensive powers of Monks.

 

[xechnao]

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.

In my mind, AC & Reflex covers how difficult you are to get a solid hit on.

I can easily think of as AC & Reflex your at will defenses and Hit Points your per encounter or per day defenses.

 

[glass]

I dislike and disagree with any characterization of hit points as raw physical damage. And given that characters can "self-heal" to a degree, and that Warlords have the ability to "heal" damage, I have to conclude that the designers agree with my characterization. So I don't think you'll see the abstract nature of hit points done away with. If anything, I expect it'll be more directly called out.

I agree. I'd like to see them go the whole hog and explicitly make hp nothing to do with injury, to the extent of renaming healing magic something else appropriate, and making hp 'per encounter'. Actual healing magic could still exist and could be put back to being the preserve of clerics since it would be much less needed -since you would only get actual injuries after you ran out of hp (or maybe on a crit).


glass.

 

[JohnSnow]

I can easily think of as AC & Reflex your at will defenses and Hit Points your per encounter or per day defenses.

Ditto, although I'd elaborate slightly on that.

AC & Reflex: At-will defenses.
Second Wind: Per-encounter defenses.
Hit Points: Per-day defenses.

 

[Kaisoku]

I agree. I'd like to see them go the whole hog and explicitly make hp nothing to do with injury, to the extent of renaming healing magic something else appropriate, and making hp 'per encounter'. Actual healing magic could still exist and could be put back to being the preserve of clerics since it would be much less needed -since you would only get actual injuries after you ran out of hp (or maybe on a crit).


glass.

Fighter gets stabbed in the stomach by the big bad guy. His response? Headbutts the guy, pulls the sword out and makes a witty reply through gritted teeth as he stabs down with the blade.

THAT'S Fighter training. A threat like that probably would have taken a massive amount of HP damage. Being a Fighter, he pulls through with most combat ability still there (effectively). A lesser trained person? Say.. a Medic or Expert? Probably drop to the ground screaming their guts out...


I'd like the game to still have a mechanic to apply this kind of damage without it suddenly disappearing between encounters.

Then again.. maybe Hitpoints could become "per encounter", and players could also get per encounter uses of Action Points to remain standing even after dropping to 0, with some negative effect (fatigued/exhausted or whatever). It would definately emulate such a situation better.

*shrug* Just tossing around some ideas for your proposed concept.

 

[Steely Dan]

As HD is gone, maybe classes will have fixed hp when levelling, it would stop the lameness of:


"Bummer, Hal, you've rolled nothing over a 3 for your paladin's hp the last 4 levels…"