In the heat of battle, is hit point loss a wound?

[Mercutio01]

One issue is that, per Gary's 1e definition, hit points for high level characters don't mean exactly the same thing as hit points for most monsters. Character hit points are mostly a variety of non-physical properties such as sixth sense, skill, luck and magical protection. Reading between the lines, I think Gary intends this to be class dependent - fighter hit points = skill, thief hit points = luck, magic-user/cleric hit points = magic. The hit points of a large creature, such as an elephant or bulette, are, I think all physical, going by Gary's contrast in the 1e PHB between a high level fighter and a warhorse. So a hit point and a hit point aren't the same thing. It depends whose hit point it is! Stranger and stranger.

This is also true in 3e. By the SRD, "Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one." Obviously characters have both. But inanimate objects in 3e also have hit points. Presumably a wall has no ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one, so again, its hit points mean something different.

Yes, and I think we agree on that piece. A 10 point sword slash against a piece of wood would be narrated differently from one against a PC. Which would be narrated differently than one against a monster. And is different still depending on how many hit points are left from the maximum, etc.

My objection is to the idea that a hit is a miss and should be narrated as such, and then that taking a nap fixes the cuts and bruises. A 10 point sword hit when something has 10 hp is described as a killing blow. Against a 20 hp creature, it's a tough hit that opens a pretty significant cut. Against a 100 HP elephant it's a tiny cut that barely penetrates its tough hide. Now, if that elephant is down to 10 HP, that 10 point sword cut slashes across its abdomen and disembowels the elephant.

But you'll note that in all of my descriptions above, each hit is a hit. It actually connects. It is never a miss in my game. That's what "misses" are for.

 

[Doug McCrae]

That is indeed the implication. There's nothing to indicate otherwise, and in the absence of another definition, the dictionary default is the correct one, no? But there is no definition at all. And, as I just said, in the absence of another definition, we should default to the real definition, as in the one that Merriam-Webster or Oxford has as the default.

Yes, I suspect Gary and Dave never thought about it much, early on. So one could either see OD&D's hit points as being undefined, not needing to be defined, allowing for whatever definition is put on them, or, the 'naive interpretation' of hit points as being 100% physical.

 

[Mercutio01]

the 'naive interpretation' of hit points as being 100% physical.

Please, if you're going to go for the personal attack crap, be a man about it. Own it. Don't pussyfoot around with backhanded snide personal attacks.

To hit something is to make physical contact with it. The definition of points in this case is a measure of something. What are those points measuring? The number of hits something can take? I wonder how a textbook definition, one literally out of a dictionary, becomes naive.

The first two definitions of "hit" from Merriam-Webster:

1. a : to reach with or as if with a blow
b : to come in contact with <the ball hit the window>
c : to strike (as a ball) with an object (as a bat, club, or racket) so as to impart or redirect motion
2. a : to cause to come into contact
b : to deliver (as a blow) by action
c : to apply forcefully or suddenly <hit the brakes>​

 

[avin]

In my mind a loss of HP should always represent damage on body. I understand that in Dungeons & Dragons that's not the case.

But OP asked what's in my head, so...

 

[Doug McCrae]

Please, if you're going to go for the personal attack crap, be a man about it. Own it. Don't pussyfoot around with backhanded snide personal attacks.

I apologise, I certainly didn't intend the term as a personal attack. It's actually my own preferred interpretation of hit points, and I've used the phrase for a while now.

The word naive is intended to refer to this being, in my view, the interpretation most commonly held by D&Ders when they first start playing. It's an unexamined interpretation. It's only with experience that one starts to worry about stuff like whether a high level fighter is as tough as a warhorse, just as it only began to concern Gary Gygax after years of play.

 

[Mercutio01]

Thanks for the clarification. The word "naive" is often used as denigration.

In any case, here's the closest thing to a definition of a hit point that OD&D provides. It's in the third LBB, page 35.

HEALING WOUNDS:
As noted previously, energy levels can only be regained by fresh experience, but common wounds can be healed with the passage of time (or the use of magics already explained). On the first day of complete rest no hit points will be regained, but every other day thereafter one hit point will be regained until the character is completely healed. This can take a long time.​

Which, to me, clearly indicates that hits provide wounds.

EDITED to add: But I think those who insist on hits that don't actually hit will obviously stick with the 1E definition, since that's the Gary they choose to believe. And that's fine, but it's a fallacy to suggest that hits have never meant hits (only 2 editions seem to support that definition - 1E and 4E, and even 4E has recommendations for narrating a hit as a hit). I'd be willing to bet that 1E's DMG has similar advice for describing combat, but I don't have that handy. (The older games like Basic and OD&D I bought after my move, and thus are not in storage.)

 

[Dannager]

Now, for consistency, extrapolate that thinking to non-poisoned weapons and bingo - every hit represents at least some sort of minor physical injury.

There is nothing about this that requires extrapolating to non-poisoned weapons for the sake of consistency.

 

[Dannager]

I posted in another thread 2E's definition of hit points and OD&D's definition, both of which are not the same as 1E's and are no less valid. Indeed, I'd posit that OD&D's are more definitive, if we're going to play that "Gary said" game. The definition is a combination of luck, skill, endurance, and physical damage. It's always been that way.

That's what we've been saying, this entire time. What we haven't been saying is that every single hit point is represented by all of these things at once. Some hit point loss can be chalked up to loss of endurance. Some hit point loss can be chalked up to pushing your luck. Some hit point loss can be chalked up to demoralization (see: psychic damage). And yes, some hit point loss can be chalked up to physical injury.

4E DMG, page 22 under the "Narration" headline has this bit of advice - "Instead, use such statistics, along with your knowledge of the scene, to help your narration. If 26 is barely a hit, but the 31 points of damage is a bad wound for the enemy, say: “You swing wildly, and the dragonborn brings his shield up just a second too late. Arrgh! Your blade catches him along the jaw, drawing a deep gash. He staggers!”

It's a little weird that you think this runs counter to any of our ideas of what hit points represent. Why do you think this is a counter-example to anything?

We can play quote the books and rules all day, and for every insistence you guys have that hit points never represent wounds and a hit is never a hit,

I don't think anyone has insisted that, at all, in this entire thread. Is this what you think you're arguing against?

 

[Naszir]

To me a "hit" just represents a successful attack. I've even gone so far as to change the wording when I DM. No longer do I describe a good combat roll as a "hit", instead it is now a "successful attack". It is amazing that simple wording from back when the game was in its infancy now turns into heated debate because the game has grown.

"Hit Points" to me represent a variety of different things (endurance, luck, skill, the ability to withstand punishment). It makes the most sense to me when it comes to characters. Depending on what makes the attack, or how the character loses hit points will let me know whether or not I can say it was actual physical damage or a character using up some energy or using some skill to narrowly avoid an attack.

In this sense it completely is believable that a character should be able to regain SOME hit points back from a short rest or a long rest without magical healing. However, I do not want to track every single hit to decide what was physical damage and what wasn't. Micro-managing hit points is not my idea of fun.

 

[Mercutio01]

It's a little weird that you think this runs counter to any of our ideas of what hit points represent. Why do you think this is a counter-example to anything?

Because the admonition from hits/=hits crowd invariably points to "stop narrating the hit as a hit, and all your problems are solved."

I don't think anyone has insisted that, at all, in this entire thread. Is this what you think you're arguing against?

Yes. Whenever anyone like me expresses an intense dislike for super-fast mundane healing, the answer is invariably along the lines of "stop describing every hit as a hit" or "hits are near-misses, and the only hit that's a hit is the last one." Both of those phrases have indeed been said, if not in this thread specifically, definitely in other threads on HP and D&D.

This comes particularly to the foreground whenever warlord martial healing in 4E is discussed. Or when we talk about sleeping for 8 hours without magical assistance and being perfectly healed the next day.

The only other argument against "hits = hits, damage = damage, and healing = healing" is the gamist (little "g" not Ron Edwards') one, and that's one I just reject out of hand. I'm not interested in treating hit points completely as a game mechanic, and, indeed, the rules and narrative descriptions in the rules books actually discourage me from treating them as out of game constructs.

To me a "hit" just represents a successful attack. I've even gone so far as to change the wording when I DM. No longer do I describe a good combat roll as a "hit", instead it is now a "successful attack". It is amazing that simple wording from back when the game was in its infancy now turns into heated debate because the game has grown.

And the wording continued for 30 years. The term hasn't changed. As I said above, I'm not interested in changing how I've played since I was a kid. For that, I've got other games to play.

In this sense it completely is believable that a character should be able to regain SOME hit points back from a short rest or a long rest without magical healing. However, I do not want to track every single hit to decide what was physical damage and what wasn't. Micro-managing hit points is not my idea of fun.

Mine either. And I also agree that some hit points could be returned without magical healing. But not all of them.