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

[JRRNeiklot]

Except it didn't, which has been quoted from books 74 ways 'til Sunday. The closest HP EVER got to being defined as representing wounds is the indexed blurbs in 2E. The full write-ups have never represented them as such.

Except where they did.

I'll not repost it here, but it's been shown in a number of threads quoting various passages of a half a dozen or more books that hit points have always been a combination of many things, one of those being actual damage. It's been that way from day one until 4e threw a wrench in things. Whenever you deduct from your hit points, you have sustained an injury. Period.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'll not repost it here, but it's been shown in a number of threads quoting various passages of a half a dozen or more books that hit points have always been a combination of many things, one of those being actual damage. It's been that way from day one until 4e threw a wrench in things. Whenever you deduct from your hit points, you have sustained an injury. Period.

Isn't there a difference between "Hit points are a combination of many things, one of those being actual damage" and "Each hit point is a combination of many things, one of those being actual damage"?

If I have a handful of tokens, which can be spent on a combination of items including food, beverages, and clothing... and I undertake a transaction which deducts from my handful of tokens... does that mean that I have purchased food, beverages, and clothing? Or, in other words, can it be said that "Whenever I deduct from my handful of tokens, I have purchased food"?

Even though the handful in total represents the potential to purchase any of those things, can't any given transaction omit one or more of the elements, without changing the definition of the total handful?

-Hyp.

 

[HeinorNY]

Whenever you deduct from your hit points, you have sustained an injury. Period.

I agree completely. But just because the loss of HP is caused by some type of injury, it doesn't mean the loss of HP represents that injury.
The loss of HPs represents other things caused by the injury, and the recovering of HPs represents mitigating them.

 

[Mercutio01]

Isn't there a difference between "Hit points are a combination of many things, one of those being actual damage" and "Each hit point is a combination of many things, one of those being actual damage"?

If I have a handful of tokens, which can be spent on a combination of items including food, beverages, and clothing... and I undertake a transaction which deducts from my handful of tokens... does that mean that I have purchased food, beverages, and clothing? Or, in other words, can it be said that "Whenever I deduct from my handful of tokens, I have purchased food"?

Even though the handful in total represents the potential to purchase any of those things, can't any given transaction omit one or more of the elements, without changing the definition of the total handful?

-Hyp.

The problem with this line of thinking is that everyone who argues from this point ignores that damage is part of that equation. In point of fact, just about everyone who argues for the HP = Mix has said that only that last hit point is actual damage, and even that is questionable in 4E since anyone can be healed non-magically from even negative HP.

Even if we allow for the idea that HP are a mix (as Gary noted in AD&D, but not, interestingly, in OD&D), when pressed, not a single one of the mix proponents has agreed to what the ratio is/should be, and, in a great many cases, thinks that even that is too complicated, and thus no hit point represents damage, at least by 4E's standards. Again, because any hit ever in 4E can be healed non-magically instantaneously, something that couldn't happen in any other edition of D&D.

Edited to add: It's a playstyle difference. 4E wants to allow for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "The Avengers" as default game modes. That's not my playstyle. It hasn't been my preferred playstyle for D&D ever. There are other systems for me when I do want to go gonzo Looney-Tunes-Daffy-Duck-shotgun-to-the-face-instant-healing. D&D wasn't that for me, until 4E forced that playstyle (among other things, such as separating player actions from character actions--AEDU for example). Which is why I abandoned 4E after salivating during the run up, being a part-time player in the power card design mock-ups, buying the core books, and playing for a year. I found that 4E's prescribed gameplay wasn't what I wanted. If 5E is to get my money, it needs to provide the ability to play the way I have since I first started gaming. That means creator-designed rules, not Rule 0 corrections on my part. If it's going to rely on house rules, I'll play a version of the game where I don't have to do that and save myself the time and trouble.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The problem with this line of thinking is that everyone who argues from this point ignores that damage is part of that equation. In point of fact, just about everyone who argues for the HP = Mix has said that only that last hit point is actual damage, and even that is questionable in 4E since anyone can be healed non-magically from even negative HP.

ainatan above you doesn't appear to be arguing that, and I think ainatan's position is similar to mine:

I don't mind someone being on maximum hit points without all evidence of physical damage they previously sustained (along with lost hit points) having vanished.

If I lost ten hit points, narrated as cuts and bruises from a skirmish with goblins, and then the Warlord gives me a pep talk which game-mechanically restores ten hit points, then a/ I'm at max hit points, and b/ I have a bunch of cuts and bruises.

-Hyp.

 

[Mercutio01]

ainatan above you doesn't appear to be arguing that, and I think ainatan's position is similar to mine:

I don't mind someone being on maximum hit points without all evidence of physical damage they previously sustained (along with lost hit points) having vanished.

Then what, exactly, does being at full HP really mean? I think it, again, is a playstyle preference difference. I'm not interested in changing the way I play/narrate D&D. You are fine with HP not representing wounds. I'm not. I'm not changing my preferences just because one (and only one so far) edition of D&D says I have to. I'll play one of the others (and there's no lack of those) where I can continue to play the way I always have. Again, this is about whether or not WotC can win my money by providing a product I want to support (and, in all honesty, I'm pretty positive I'll pick up the core three no matter what) but keeping the playstyle that 4E created is not the way to get my money. It's not my playstyle. I don't like it.

If I lost ten hit points, narrated as cuts and bruises from a skirmish with goblins, and then the Warlord gives me a pep talk which game-mechanically restores ten hit points, then a/ I'm at max hit points, and b/ I have a bunch of cuts and bruises.

-Hyp.

See, that's a situation that's ripe for temporary HP, in my experience and my opinion. You can ignore the pain for awhile, but after awhile, the cuts and bruises are still there, probably after the adrenaline has worn off.

That's how I'd have handled the Warlord. And I think you'd have avoided a great portion of people pissed off at Warlord shout-heals.

 

[jadrax]

(as Gary noted in AD&D, but not, interestingly, in OD&D)

I don't believe they realised anyone would really interpret them any other way.

As Tim Kask put it, 'Hit points are not bruises and slices and contusions and fractures causing you to stagger and your knees to turn to 3-day-old celery stalks. HP’s are the number of those whacks you can take before being kayoed. HP’s are the cat’s nine lives, the number of times it can do something horribly dangerous and not die. HP’s are a quantification of the number of times you can keep Marcus Mercenary from piercing you in that fatal spot. 2 HP’s No problem, no staggers no reeling on your pins; you’re just that much closer to running out of luck and feeling 10 inches of finely-honed steel stab into your vitals.'

And he was sat at the table when Hit Points were created.

 

[Mercutio01]

I don't believe they realised anyone would really interpret them any other way.

As Tim Kask put it, 'Hit points are not bruises and slices and contusions and fractures causing you to stagger and your knees to turn to 3-day-old celery stalks. HP’s are the number of those whacks you can take before being kayoed. HP’s are the cat’s nine lives, the number of times it can do something horribly dangerous and not die. HP’s are a quantification of the number of times you can keep Marcus Mercenary from piercing you in that fatal spot. 2 HP’s No problem, no staggers no reeling on your pins; you’re just that much closer to running out of luck and feeling 10 inches of finely-honed steel stab into your vitals.'

And he was sat at the table when Hit Points were created.

Oh, gee, silly us. I mean, how else would people define "hit" "hit point" "damage" "heal"? It would be totally absurd to use the standard agreed upon dictionary definition of those words, wouldn't it?

 

[Mercutio01]

I've just found the single best post on hit points in D&D that I've ever read.

Hitpoints just don't make sense. Gygax's description of what they represent is not an explanation of how they work, it's a justification after the fact. And it's a lousy justification.

I think that's probably the best description of what happened, so I'll just continue to use my justification that fits my preferred playstyle, and to not play the games that don't fit my playstyle.

Link

 

[Uller]

Even if we allow for the idea that HP are a mix (as Gary noted in AD&D, but not, interestingly, in OD&D), when pressed, not a single one of the mix proponents has agreed to what the ratio is/should be

Because that's the point of abstraction (for HP, round length, position, monetary systems, etc). It frees the DM and players to imagine the game in a way that makes sense at the moment and keep it manageable.

What proportion of a round does a character actually spend in the square he is in on the grid (or how far does he wander from his space in TotM if you prefer that)? Surely there is no agreement on that because just like HP it's an abstraction that people vary the answers for as needed.

Is a round always exactly 10 seconds (or whatever it is) or is it just an abstraction of a small increment of time that is convenient for modelling turns that varies? If it is always really 10 seconds you are saying that all characters every where have the same rate of attacks, spell casting, etc. Really?