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

[Mercutio01]

They're both called hitpoints, and they both represent the same thing, but that's where the similarities end.

I wasn't comparing just hit points to just hit points. I was comparing the relative hit points of a 1st level character to a regular commoner in each edition. By taking into account the fact that 4E characters even have more HP than actually listed (since Second Wind is a fact, and adds another quarter HP to any single encounter without fail), that ratio is even more inflated for 4E than 35:1 it is based on face value.

I should try narrating all hit point loss as wounds. I want to describe my PCs as walking slabs of shredded beef by the end of the session.

I love this argument because it's such a ridiculously stupid strawman. But then, it also shows no ability to actually think critically.

 

[Campbell]

This comparing a PC to a commoner business seems weird to me. I've never seen the need to mechanically represent commoners.

 

[Nytmare]

I wasn't comparing just hit points to just hit points.

Which one of these is bigger:

A 10 pennies

B 3 quarters

C 500 Botswanan 20 Thebes

D 1 navel orange

 

[Lanefan]

This comparing a PC to a commoner business seems weird to me. I've never seen the need to mechanically represent commoners.

Your PCs must be the best-behaved party in all of D&D in that case, as they have clearly never:

- attacked an innkeep after being shortchanged
- captured a street urchin picking pockets
- started (or tried to stop) a town riot
- been involved in (or, as happened in my game, been the quarry of) a torch-and-pitchfork brigade
- participated in a bar brawl with the locals
- needed to neutralize a town guard in order to sneak in
- needed to neutralize some prison guards in order to reach someone and free him
- been involved on either side as a local farm gets raided
- etc.

All of these require at least some mechanical representation of the commoners involved, even if their only further contribution is to flee, die, or do nothing.

Lanefan

 

[Mercutio01]

This comparing a PC to a commoner business seems weird to me. I've never seen the need to mechanically represent commoners.

My point in all this is what power level the characters start at. In AD&D 2E and previously, characters started out as commoners with a bit more skill or blessed with some magic, but weren't really all that much more powerful and couldn't really risk pissing off a few people in the bar. 3E increased starting PC power, but also made class levels for starting commoners to kind of even it out so that it did roughly the same thing as AD&D and before did. 4E increased power even further, such that PCs start out already way ahead of commoners. The point of comparison is about relative starting levels. I think the numbers show that the average power level of 1st level PC in 4E is probably closer to what a 4th level PC would have been in AD&D and before, and a 3rd level PC in 3rd edition.

My problem with that is I generally like starting out not already a hero who can wipe his ass with the common people in the town. I like the idea that the character while maybe a little smarter or stronger, really isn't all that much better than the people he grew up with in town. If he picked a fight in a bar, he might get his butt thoroughly kicked. I don't think that holds true in 4E.

Which one of these is bigger:

A 10 pennies

B 3 quarters

C 500 Botswanan 20 Thebes

D 1 navel orange

If I compare the relative hit points of characters versus commoners WITHIN EACH EDITION to determine what the starting power level of a character is, that is a fair measure of starting power. Regardless of how much you really want that not to be true. Does a 4E PC start out relatively way stronger than a commoner than in previous editions? Does this then mean that PCs are actually starting out with a higher level of power than in previous editions?

If not, give me a legitimate measuring stick. I know that kobolds vs PCs is a common one, but that's not what my initial point was. In all editions prior to 4E, player characters were slightly above average. In 4E they start out already powerful heroes. I don't think there's really any denying that fact.

Again, thankfully, 5E appears to have pared down the relative ability of PCs versus the people they grew up with.

 

[Campbell]

Your PCs must be the best-behaved party in all of D&D in that case, as they have clearly never:

- attacked an innkeep after being shortchanged
- captured a street urchin picking pockets
- started (or tried to stop) a town riot
- been involved in (or, as happened in my game, been the quarry of) a torch-and-pitchfork brigade
- participated in a bar brawl with the locals
- needed to neutralize a town guard in order to sneak in
- needed to neutralize some prison guards in order to reach someone and free him
- been involved on either side as a local farm gets raided
- etc.

All of these require at least some mechanical representation of the commoners involved, even if their only further contribution is to flee, die, or do nothing.

Lanefan

I've handled the street urchin stuff outside of the combat rules. Simple checks to see if they notice. Set an Athletics DC to tackle the guy. Bar fights are not well modeled by rules that assume violent confrontations where you're trying to kill someone. Town guards and prison guards are not be commoners. No to your other examples.

 

[Griego]

I wasn't comparing just hit points to just hit points. I was comparing the relative hit points of a 1st level character to a regular commoner in each edition. By taking into account the fact that 4E characters even have more HP than actually listed (since Second Wind is a fact, and adds another quarter HP to any single encounter without fail), that ratio is even more inflated for 4E than 35:1 it is based on face value.

I love this argument because it's such a ridiculously stupid strawman. But then, it also shows no ability to actually think critically.

Oh please, it was just a joke, a silly one-liner. Don't take yourself so seriously.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your PCs must be the best-behaved party in all of D&D in that case, as they have clearly never:

- attacked an innkeep after being shortchanged

Quick roll to see whether the inkeeper dies or flees. Now what?

- captured a street urchin picking pockets
- started (or tried to stop) a town riot
- been involved in (or, as happened in my game, been the quarry of) a torch-and-pitchfork brigade

Skill challenges based on the difficulty of what's being attempted. How well the Urchin knows the streets isn't in any statblock I'm aware of.

- participated in a bar brawl with the locals

Athletics counts more than swordsmanship here.

- needed to neutralize a town guard in order to sneak in
- needed to neutralize some prison guards in order to reach someone and free him

Skill challenges.

- been involved on either side as a local farm gets raided

Is the farmer fighting?

All of these require at least some mechanical representation of the commoners involved, even if their only further contribution is to flee, die, or do nothing.

Most of them require a represnetation of the mob or the city rather more than the individuals.

 

[Mercutio01]

Quick roll to see whether the inkeeper dies or flees. Now what?

Surprise attack, roll for initiative, as I'm fairly sure killing the innkeeper won't be the end of this conflict.

Skill challenges based on the difficulty of what's being attempted. How well the Urchin knows the streets isn't in any statblock I'm aware of.

Combination of skills and combat depending on how things happen. If NPCs try to fight and skills don't convince them not to, then it's roll initiative and go to combat.

Athletics counts more than swordsmanship here.

Combat. Maybe with nonlethal damage being rolled until the first guy draws a dagger, but it's definitely a combat scenario.

Skill challenges.

Skill rolls to avoid being seen/heard. Attack/damage rolls if the PC attacks the NPC (including spells). If neutralizing via other means (trickery) skill checks.

Is the farmer fighting?

If he is, combat. If not, there's still combat with the other people involved, and the farmer still has to take actions to avoid getting skewered while he runs away.

Most of them require a represnetation of the mob or the city rather more than the individuals.

Different playstyles completely.

Here's the thing, I avoid combats as a necessity if I can avoid doing so (unless I'm running a straight dungeon crawl for the hell of it, as I am now). But players pick fights, frequently when they don't really need to do so. And then fights require the rules for fighting.

 

[billd91]

Skill challenges.

Yeah, yeah, skill challenges, blah blah. But you're basically having to come up with all of those on the fly or otherwise putting the situation into your favored mechanic and setting the difficulty. Why not use the mechanic that's already there and been there since the beginning? Combat rules.

Shouldn't the game be designed to handle both methods effectively?