How does striking an opponent heal your allies?

[Brown Jenkin]

Like I sort of said earlier. I am ok with hit points being morale. The thing is though if you are going to use this system you need to have a wound/vitality system to separate the actual wounds from the morale. The old system of abstract hps worked fine as long as magic was involved in healing. Now that healing is considered unfun they are trying to give healing to all kinds of people as free actions, and the only way to do that is make everyone magical healers or to make hps into morale. The problem they seem to be getting though is the law of unintended consequences which breaks the suspention of disbeleif and make the entire premise of healing unfun.

 

[Midknightsun]

But why is the opponent affected by poison if he actually dodged the attack? Such effects inly that the attacker did in fact physically hit the opponent.

Now, obviously I'm just pulling theories out of the ether here, but dodging (I use the word because I really cant think of anything better right now) doesn't have to necessarily imply completely avoiding physical contact. The PC could still have been scratched. Say you get nearly cleaved in half by a giant's axe for 30 of your 40 hit points. The slice not only nearly separated you from your lower half, but managed to nick you as it slid by. However, the psychological effect has you going "oh crap! how am I gonna beat this thing?", knocking the proverbial wind out of your character's sails, in addition ot drawing some blood.

I don't think it necessarily has to be an either or thing. Hit Points could represent both physcal sturdiness and psychological fortitude to hang in there even when your getting nickled and dimed to the point of complete exhaustion.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The weapon itself missed (the PC had the actively dodge - thus the hp loss) but some of the poison (flying off because of the swing) landed on bare skin.

if the DMG didn't differentiate between contact and injury poisons, that would work. But DMG does, so the theory doesn't.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I don't think it necessarily has to be an either or thing. Hit Points could represent both physcal sturdiness and psychological fortitude to hang in there even when your getting nickled and dimed to the point of complete exhaustion.

Indeed, I'm ok with a component of hp loss being abstract, but every hit is some level of physical injury. Otherwise, the whole system falls to internally inconsistent pieces.

 

[allenw]

Now, obviously I'm just pulling theories out of the ether here, but dodging (I use the word because I really cant think of anything better right now) doesn't have to necessarily imply completely avoiding physical contact. The PC could still have been scratched. Say you get nearly cleaved in half by a giant's axe for 30 of your 40 hit points. The slice not only nearly separated you from your lower half, but managed to nick you as it slid by. However, the psychological effect has you going "oh crap! how am I gonna beat this thing?", knocking the proverbial wind out of your character's sails, in addition ot drawing some blood.

I believe you're exactly right, per Gygax. Anyone have a 1st-edition DMG handy? I recall a quote from (I think) there, discussing Hit Points and poison, saying that at high levels "damage" consisted of various abstract things, "and maybe a scratch. If that scratch happened to be venomous," you failed your save and the poison affected you.

 

[JohnSnow]

if the DMG didn't differentiate between contact and injury poisons, that would work. But DMG does, so the theory doesn't.

Let's say I prick my finger while testing the edge of a blade (like Boromir in the film version of FR). Have I even lost 1 lousy hit point? Maybe, or maybe not. But I've been cut enough that if that thorn or blade is poisoned, it's now in my system.

From that standpoint, there's no problem with the notion of hit points as mostly modeling "superficial" injuries.

Quite frankly, I could see a character sporting numerous half-healed scratches and bruises that is back up to "full hit points." But that's probably because my rationalization of hit points kicked into overdrive years ago.

 

[WhatGravitas]

From that standpoint, there's no problem with the notion of hit points as mostly modeling "superficial" injuries.

That's the way I see it, otherwise, I cannot digest the ability of people to withstand lava walking, getting fireballed several times in a row, surviving a disintegration. If hp only represents physical toughness, than you should build castles out of barbarians, instead of stone.

But seeing hp as "scratch wounds", "active dodging" or a similar resource - yeah, then I can grok the stuff above much better. And once I'm doing that, I'm not thinking too hard about it. And therefore I can also swallow healing hits.

Otherwise, I refer to hong's dude factor.

Certainly.

You will note that a dagger has only an eentsy little blade. The thing is that as characters advance in levels (sometimes termed "developing", or "maturing"; this is a process a bit like fruit ripening) they develop a protective force field around them. This force field is sometimes called the "dude factor". The dude factor is very thin for 1st level characters, in particular 1st level commoners, who are not dudes at all. 1st level PCs are by definition dudes, so they have more of a dude factor. As your level increases, so does your dudeness, and hence the thickness and strength of your protective dude field. A dagger, having only an eentsy blade, can only penetrate a certain thickness of dude field. A longsword has a bigger blade, and so can penetrate many more inches of dudeness (only dudes can wield a longsword, which is why it's a martial weapon, whereas any schmuck can wield a dagger, which is a simple weapon). Finally, a greatsword is the ultimate dude weapon, and has unsurpassed ability to penetrate dude fields. Even the most mojo dudes find it hard to control a greatsword, which is why it needs two hands to use.

Hope this helps!

EDIT: Or mojo points, according to a newer hong-post.

Cheers, LT.

 

[JohnSnow]

I believe you're exactly right, per Gygax. Anyone have a 1st-edition DMG handy? I recall a quote from (I think) there, discussing Hit Points and poison, saying that at high levels "damage" consisted of various abstract things, "and maybe a scratch. If that scratch happened to be venomous," you failed your save and the poison affected you.

I happen to have it here. It's a bit verbose, being written in a language I like to call "High Gygaxian."

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 befor being slain! Why then the increas in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses - and a commensurat 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).

Harkening back to the example of Rasputin, it would be safe to assume that he could withstand physical damage sufficient to have killed any four normal men, i.e. more than 14 hit points. Therefore, let us assume that a character with an 18 constitution will eventually be able to withstand no less than 15 hit points of actual physical damage before being slain, and that perhaps as many as 23 hit points could constitute the physical makeup of a character. The balance of accrued hit points are those which fall into the non-physical areas already detailed. Furthermore, these actual physical hit points would be spread across a large number of levels, starting from a base score of from an average of 3 to 4, going up to 6 or 8 at 2nd level, 9 to 11 at 3rd, 12 to 14 at 4th, 15-17 at 5th, 18 to 20 at 6th, and 21 to 23 at 7th level. Note that the above assumes the character is a fighter with an average of 3 hit points per die going to physical ability to withstand punishment and only 1 point of constitution bonus being likewise assigned. Beyond the basic physical damage sustained, hits scored upon a character do not actually do such an amount of physical damage.

Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5 1/2 hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points, per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm - the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will b e covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises. It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeon Master's Guide, Revised Edition, December, 1979, p. 82.

Whew! By the way, the punctuation and paragraph breaks are unchanged.

In recovery of hit points, Gary suggests that characters recover 1 point per day of rest (with the Con modifier affecting your weekly total). In any case, 4 weeks of rest will restore any character to full strength - regardless of the number of hit points he has.

The unconscious at 0 hit points and dead at -10 rules were also in the DMG. Same page.

Looking for the poison line. I'll append it when I find it.

EDIT: Found it. Previous page to the above.

Poison Saving Throws For Characters:

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 actually sustained - at least in proportion to the number of hit points marked off in most cases. The so called damage is the expenditure of favor from deities, luck, skill, and perhaps a scratch, and thus the saving throw. If that mere scratch managed to be venomous, then DEATH. If no such wound was delivered, then NO DAMAGE FROM THE POISON. In cases where some partial damage is indicated, this reflects poisons either placed so that they are ingested or used so as to ensure that some small portion does get in the wound or skin of the opponent.

As before, all the formatting and punctuation is as-written, including the lines of all caps. By the way, there's an equally verbose paragraph on Poison Saving Throws For Monsters (which includes the words "swine" and "apatosaurus"), but I'll spare you that one.

 

[Drammattex]

I guess my major question here is: will the 4e rules allow me to EASILY customize my D&D game for different settings, or will it take a lot of work and system restructuring?

Will I be able to run a "A Game of Thrones" type of game using 4e with slight adjustments, or will that require major modification (or Green Ronin)?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But why is the opponent affected by poison if he actually dodged the attack? Such effects inly that the attacker did in fact physically hit the opponent.

Grazing wound, not a mortal wound. Actually, that's a gimmick with poison that's often used in fiction: you're poisoned if so much as a drop gets under your skin. That's why you poison a dagger or a rapier or a needle, but not usually a broadsword. The blade is mostly a poison delivery vehicle, and all you need to do is nick your opponent with it.