HitPoints fluff and crunch in 4th ed d&d

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

From a purely gamist point of view:
Wizards need low hit points to enforce their role "in the back" and the role of fighters to defend them. The Wizard needs protection, and the Fighter provides it. The Fighter needs the hit points to take all the damage that would normally go for the Wizard.

From a more simulationist point of view:
Fighters train their physique a lot. They get hit more often, and learn to shake of injuries or even evade blows that would have hit a lesser man - it costs them some effort (that's why they still take damage), but they don't go down easily (their hit points stay positive).
Wizards really don't train their physique much. They get some training due to the fact that they go around adventuring and are still hit, but even if they might be able to turn a few blows into less serious ones, or even evade them fully, it takes a bigger toll on them and they go down a lot easier than a Fighter.

 

[Leatherhead]

So let me see if I follow you:

In 3.X, encounters were designed around four PCs Vs one monster, there were a few guys down in point blank range getting smacked around, and that is where most of the damage was going, so they had more hit points. However 4th edition, every PC has their own monster to fight, and theoretically get hit by. I assume you are trying to say that if everyone is taking damage, everyone needs defensive capabilities, namely hit points.

I can see the logic in that, especially now that monsters have roles and at least one of those roles is a ranged damage dealer.

On the other hand, giving power sources differing amounts of hit points doesn't make that much sense, as power sources are supposed to fill multiple roles.

 

[kennew142]

I heard one of the designers (I can't remember which one, but I think it was on the most recent podcast) use this analogy:

hit points = per encounter hit points
healing surges = daily hit points

Wherever I heard it, I like it.

I believe that hit points will be distributed to character classes based on role, not on power source. It's necessary to have differing hit point formulas in order to model the different roles of the classes. Defenders are expected to soak damage. Controllers are expected to avoid it.

As far as I know, hit points in D&D have never been described as raw physical toughness. They've always been a combination of things that include toughness, luck, combat skill, divine favor, etc.... While the mechanics of earlier editions have never actually reflected the flavor, 4e appears to have finally come up with a mechanic that accurately models hp as described. IMO this is a good thing.

BTW, I have no problem with games (even D&D games) in which hp reflect only physical toughness. I just don't think that D&D (by the RAW) has ever been that game.

I ran RQ and GURPS for years. Those games require a mechanic for avoiding hits (parrying/dodging/etc...) in order for a character to survive. They also used armor as DR. Combat (IMO) became boring with experienced characters. The attacker hits, and the defender parries - ad nauseam. Once the attacker does get past the defender's defenses, armor subtracted from the damage done.

In one RQ battle, I saw five melee rounds go by before anyone ever landed a blow that damaged an opponent. Then, one character scored a critical hit with an impaling weapon to the BBEG's head and the battle was over. In other words, damage became binary. The first one to actually land a good blow won the fight. It may have been more realistic, but it got boring pretty quickly.

Despite its lack of realism, and wonky mechanics, I'll take the D&D combat system any day. It is just more fun to hit and do damage (winning through attrition) than it is to have every action negated until that one lucky blow.

The HERO system was better (although no more realistic), but the complexity of the system was a drag for our group.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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 think you are looking at too high a level to notice the forest contains different kinds of trees. Repeating my argument from another thread...

At a practical level, Fighters are required to get hit to be effective, or, to be more precise, stand where getting hit is practically inevitable in order to be effective.

Leaders or Strikers will often not have the luxury of always avoiding melee and still be effective, even if they may (or may not) prefer to do so.

Wizards generally are allowed to completely avoid melee and still be entirely effective.

When you look at it this way, differences in HPs are the obvious way to go. There are other theoretical possibilities (e.g. purely differentiate defenses by AC), but I would politely suggest the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate those are likely to give better results.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Okay, let's take an extreme example. Walk up to Stephen Hawking and punch him as hard as you can in the face. What happens? He goes down (well, he would if he weren't already in a wheelchair). Probably some broken bones. Certainly he's going to be a hurting unit.

Now walk up to Mike Tyson and punch him as hard as you can in the face. What happens? You give him a bloody nose. He grunts and then punches you in the face... and you better believe you'll go down.

Wizards are not as frail as Stephen Hawking, of course. But a fighter of any decent level is tougher than Mike Tyson. A lot tougher. We're talking Batman, Beowulf, Lancelot here.

 

[hong]

Okay, let's take an extreme example. Walk up to Stephen Hawking and punch him as hard as you can in the face. What happens? He goes down (well, he would if he weren't already in a wheelchair). Probably some broken bones. Certainly he's going to be a hurting unit.

Now walk up to Mike Tyson and punch him as hard as you can in the face. What happens? You give him a bloody nose. He grunts and then punches you in the face... and you better believe you'll go down.

Wizards are not as frail as Stephen Hawking, of course. But a fighter of any decent level is tougher than Mike Tyson. A lot tougher. We're talking Batman, Beowulf, Lancelot here.

The question is to what extent hit points really are just hero factor, as opposed to physical toughness/combat skill/some other explicable quantity.

In 4E, the balance has swung more towards hero factor than in previous editions (cf all those threads about injuries, healing and whatnot). There is no reason to suppose wizards are less heroic than fighters, all other things being equal. There is still some element of physical toughness (starting hp uses Con) and combat skill (fighters get more hp) but their relative importance is much smaller. Perhaps in 5E it will purely be hero factor and everyone will get the same hp regardless of class.