How many Hit points does a sacred cow have?

[MortalPlague]

When it comes to recovering from this wound, oops sorry I mean hit point loss, how is it done? Does someone come to yell at character X to walk it off, or sing a cheerful song, or does someone try to stop the bleeding and patch a nasty hole? This is not something you hand wave and move on. Seriously, if this doesn’t matter, then does the rest of the narrative matter?

Magical healing is self-explanatory. Warlord healing? Look at Gladiator, where Maximus talks to some of the wounded, claps a soldier on the shoulder. That's an inspiring word right there. That soldier will fight beyond his capabilities, wounded or not. He'll keep going as he takes more punishment. When a warlord heals, he doesn't 'heal'. The wounds are still there. But he gives the character the resolve to keep fighting when they'd otherwise fall.

My alternative would be to have a defense that is used to avoid being hit with parry’s and shield blocks as well. And armor providing damage reduction. …it just make sense…

Now this I can agree on. I wouldn't mind seeing some options to parry or block, and armor as damage reduction makes a lot of sense. But I don't have a problem with the hit point model either.

 

[steeldragons]

Couple issues...I don't like fractional HP states like 50% HP = bloodied, because I prefer to think of a higher level character as having a "bigger tank of gas" rather than a "more efficient engine" if you get my meaning. I like the image of a high level character having the capacity to push themselves hard enough that they require 3 weeks rest afterwards, whereas a low level character can only push themselves enough to benefit from a few days rest.

Well sure. HP still increase with level don't they (I don't do 3 or 4e )? If you're getting dX + Con bonus each level, your going to have a larger "tank of gas", so to speak, as well as a "more efficient engine" i.e. be able to take more damage before you hit your "bloodied" mark.

Secondly, what does it to do to attacks forms that very obviously only affect morale/will and attack forms that very obviously only do physical harm?

Ah. Well, yeah. There's that. I suppose then, flavor it as physical damage occurs with the abstract stuff for the first half (or quarter or three-wuarters if you prefer!) of your HP. Glancing blows, minor cuts n' scrapes, bruising, etc...So yeah, makes sense you get SOME physical damage. A Melf's Acid Arrow isn't sapping your morale. lol. Also then makes sens that clerical/magical or mundane healing can be used, along with the abstract healing forms, to regain those hp. The main cruz of the proposition is that you can have multiple means to "heal/continue on" up to a point (I suggest 50% but you could make it any portion you like) after which it's all just physical damage that requires actual medical attention.

Like the bard's ability to insult people (and unintelligent creatures...ohh 4e) to death -- does this no longer work on characters in bloodied state?

The bardslutesezwutnow?! lmao! You're joking? This is an actual bardic ability?! Well, to answer the question, no, I suppose that wouldn't work. Below wherever you make your "bloodied" mark, damage must be physical...I suppose if you colored it as a magical "insult" attack...a "shout" spell or sonic force wave or some such that actually strikes the PC for damage, that'd do the trick...but I sinCEREly hope that the 5e bard has nothing of the sort in their class ability array. lol.

But it flavors pretty well that a bard could whittle down an enemies hit points to the point of 'bloodied" and then a few good hits from the fighter or rogue would take them down a lot easier.

But yeah. It wasn't entirely a fully fleshed idea. Just kinda came to me in a few moments. I suppose it doesn't work or wouldn't make as many sides as possible happy as I thought.

Oh well. I'll just stick to my standard "you're hit. you took damage. you're hurt." and screw the abstraction nonsense that's been with us since the beginning. HP are just physical damage. (I don't use warlords anyway and bards in my campaign world have a Cure Light spellsong, at least, if they have to.

--SD

 

[Fanaelialae]

The bardslutesezwutnow?! lmao! You're joking? This is an actual bardic ability?! Well, to answer the question, no, I suppose that wouldn't work. Below wherever you make your "bloodied" mark, damage must be physical...I suppose if you colored it as a magical "insult" attack...a "shout" spell or sonic force wave or some such that actually strikes the PC for damage, that'd do the trick...but I sinCEREly hope that the 5e bard has nothing of the sort in their class ability array. lol.

But it flavors pretty well that a bard could whittle down an enemies hit points to the point of 'bloodied" and then a few good hits from the fighter or rogue would take them down a lot easier.

But yeah. It wasn't entirely a fully fleshed idea. Just kinda came to me in a few moments. I suppose it doesn't work or wouldn't make as many sides as possible happy as I thought.

Oh well. I'll just stick to my standard "you're hit. you took damage. you're hurt." and screw the abstraction nonsense that's been with us since the beginning. HP are just physical damage. (I don't use warlords anyway and bards in my campaign world have a Cure Light spellsong, at least, if they have to.

--SD

Yeah, what [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] fails to mention is that what he's referring to is an arcane power (in other words, a spell).

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea that some attacks are defined as nonlethal and therefore cannot kill.

 

[dkyle]

An idea for some subtle changes from the 4E mechanics, that I think could lend a bit more concreteness, without significantly changing how the game plays:

At Half, Quarter, and Zero HP, if a character is not already Wounded, he becomes Wounded. Wounded would be a lot like Bloodied, and by default, would have no inherent effects. But many other things could trigger off it. However, the big difference from Bloodied would be that simply raising HP would not remove Wounded. An effect would have to specifically state that it removes Wounded, for it to go away. For example, Cure Light Wounds would remove Wounded, in addition to healing, while a Cleric might have a more frequently usable Healing Word that is solely HP recovery. A Warlord might have just as much HP recovery as a Cleric, but have better party buffs, in place of being able to remove Wounded.

In addition, at Zero HP, a character becomes Incapacitated. An Incapacitated character takes no actions, cannot regain HP, and makes 4E-style death saving throws unless stabilized as a Standard Action. It would require specific effects to remove that status, and get them back on their feet. For example, Cure Critical Wounds might remove Incapacitated, Wounded, and heal some HP. A high level Warlord might get a "Walking Wounded" ability that removes Incapacitated and recovers some HP, but imposes some penalties.

This way, the game can be clear in describing that HP are mostly intangible, and do not, themselves, represent injuries any more serious than some minor cuts and bruises (and HP recovery does not necessarily represent actual healing of injuries; "healing" a scrape could just be ignoring the pain). Wounded and Incapacitated would represent serious injuries, and act like it. They would take a while to recover from, unless magic is used. But, it shouldn't be such a major change that combat works a lot differently.

There could be some options to accommodate different styles:

1. For grittier games, Wounded might have inherent penalties (say, -1 to attacks and skill checks). Grittier still, the wounds taken at half, quarter, and zero might be tracked individually, and stack up.

2. For looser games, just use the 4E Blooded/negative-HP rules, and effects that deal with Wounded creatures would just apply to Bloodied creatures instead.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, something along those lines would be great. Maybe attacks specify, if they actually can wound. Or creatures can have resistances to beeing wounded by things. (Trolls can only be wounded and incapacitated by acid or fire)

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

There is a similar discussion on the AC/hit points thread. The problem with wounds is the famed death spiral effect, if you make wounds only treatable by certain magic (cure spells only), then the game becomes too gritty and you have maimed characters limping about and being chased off by Kobolds with butterknives.

You could come up with a separate wound threshold that is based on creature size (I mentioned this in the other thread) and apply various impeding conditions such as Daze or Stun that last until the character makes a save (as per 4th Ed). Say you inflicted 20 damage vs. a gargantuan sacred cow, the holy bovine has a threshold of 20, so in addition to losing 20 HP, the moo-nimal has 1 wound as is Dazed/save ends.

Any wound/damage effect system has to modular enough that you don't have to incorporate sub-stats or modifiy what exists for the monster/encounter descriptions. You simply use the existing details adapted to a modular table.

 

[Gryph]

Hit points are like money. Neither represents anything.

They are both highly abstracted mediums of exchange that are convenient mechanisms that streamline the operations of the systems they engage with.

But then abstract principles don't give me headaches.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There is no good reason to use this fossil of a concept other than laziness to improve or nostalgia (a powerful force indeed). The reason to use it because we have always used it is the same as not using electricity because we didn’t use to use it. (no offense to those cultures)
There is my issue with hit points and I so hope 5th edition offers a decent alternative for those of us that would like to see it.

My alternative would be to have a defense that is used to avoid being hit with parry’s and shield blocks as well. And armor providing damage reduction. …it just make sense…

The problem with proposing that hit points belong on the griddle is coming up with a better system. Because no one really has for non-entirely abstract cinematic combat. (If you want gritty realism sure you use direct wounds and impairment). If you go for the high-defence, low hit approach then it's more or less a win by lottery.

As for armour providing DR, that's a common idea. And not as realistic as it looks. Plate armour in particular provides such high DR from frontal assaults that other than in rare cases, the idea was to get at the joints. And breastplates were literally bullet proof - and a good one would have a small circular dent in it that demonstrated that it had indeed been shot by a pistol. Making the wearer harder to hit is a better model of good armour than DR would be.

 

[Gorgoroth]

"A DR full plate renders a lot of those themed characters inneffective. A d6 short sword can't pierce a DR 6 full plate.

There's where the problem arise.

Why is that a problem? Get a str bonus, weak fighter! get a masterwork weapon. Even better, pick up a longsword or warhammer to use against a heavily armored guy. Why on EARTH would short swords be considered good weapons to use against a knight?

Beyond that: when you have a system with armor as DR, some playstiles become better than other. A monk with two kamas that can attack 6 times for 1d6+6 might be on par with a raging barbarian who can charge for 2d6+40. But when they face a Plated Giant that happens to have DR 10, the monk is close to useless.

And this is bad...because?

The guy hitting lots of times for less damage should go against enemies that have less DR but more HP, or higher avoidance/defense. Imagine that, different PCs effective against different foes. That's a feature of DR, not a bug.

I want the monk to run away from me when I approach in glistening plate armor. That's why the barbarians should charge the heavy armored guy and kill him fast. It gives TWF and Two-handed weapon users different enemies to focus on optimally. I love it.

Give me DR please!!! even as a module. I HATE, HATE HATE the fact that hide armor wearers in 4e have the same AC as my paladin did. And that the rogue had a better AC. And so did the wizard. Suckage. Blowwy. Please, just make plate armor darn expensive, and half-plate and fullplate insanely expensive.

It'll give us a use for gold in mid levels when currently in D&D, if there isn't a magic shoppe in town or you play in a lower/rarer magic setting, masterwork mundane plate could give fighters and paladins something to look forward to purchasing for 10,000gp. If it's expensive, it'll be rarer. Most enemies wouldn't have it, and those that do, will usually be higher level, so you should be doing enough damage to hurt him and kill him eventually.

I think warhammers should bypass 1/2 the DR, but do less damage per die than swords and axes otherwise (and thus those are more effective against lower armored opponents). And why can't adamantine swords bypass DR too? Gives you more use for mundane metals used in masterwork swords.

Give us a reason to love you again, D&D!! something new and exciting to look forward to. DR will probably not work well unless it's baked into the system from day 1, sadly. At least put it in the PHB as an optional module. If it is, I will only play in games where that module is activated. I just like DR. It IS more realistic.

And if anyone tells me they'd rather a hammer blow to the head without a helmet on than with, I must go forth and puketh my disdain for such ...daft-itude

 

[billd91]

Any character with greater than zero hit points is not critically wounded. Being critically wounded implies some degree of incapacitation. A D&D character with 1 hp is not incapacitated (or at least, not as a result of his hp).

But he is partly incapacitated compared to his usual state. He's a lot less resilient with only 1% of his full hit points. His offense is not directly impaired, but his ability to survive another fight is significantly impaired.