L&L 5/21 - Hit Points, Our Old Friend

[DMKastmaria]

I guess we'll know for sure after Thursday, but I think the Hit Point (clearly defined, for once!) and Hit Dice recovery mechanic might just be the way to do it.

It's been clearly defined, before:

AD&D PH by Gary Gygax page 34:

"These Hit Points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors."

"Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."

"Rest also restores hit points, for it gives the body a chance to heal itself and regain the stamina or force which adds the skill, luck, and magical hit points."

AD&D DMG by Gary Gygax page 82:

"Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses - and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As I've said, Mearls indicates bulk and mass as only one component of hp. After all, high level PCs presumably get more hp, without necessarily putting on weight!

Of course it is only one component.

Fighters always had hp calues equal to those of dragons, when they were higher level.

But goblins did not. 4e monster design works fine, and if you bother to look at Monster Vault monsters and early articles, you will notice, that the solo template was meant to be used with big creatures. Elite templates were more or less used for classed oponents etc.
The problem is that the solo template was used for some creatures that should either be higher level and elite or even, in the worst applications for creatures that happened to be encountered alone.

Also it was problematic, that an enemy that should have just been higher level was instead made an elite... easier to hit, but beeing able to take more punishment. For a tactical fight that seems reasonable, but the same result could have been achieved with combat maneuvers against weaker creatures (double attack as an option for monsters by default, if you encounter foes of much lower level accompanied with a -x to attacks and defenses... add in damage reduction against lower level foes and it should work out ok)

But hitting a goblin for 100 damage or so and it still stands feels just wrong.

 

[Mercutio01]

It's been clearly defined, before:

AD&D PH by Gary Gygax page 34: <snip>
AD&D DMG by Gary Gygax page 82: <snip>

That's not clear the way Mearls made it clear. There's no delineation, and it's left up to a mushy glop to determine what THIS particular "hit" means in terms of HP. Is THIS hit just a lucky turn avoiding a cut, or is THAT hit actually a puncture wound?

He says "a certain portion" and then leaves it completely muddy. The hit points in D&D have until now been a bowl of mashed potatoes. (The metaphor also works with gruel or other comestibles made into a mush.) You scoop some out, and it's up to the narrator to describe whether a hit is actually a hit or not, which leads to "If it's a miss, then how did I get poisoned?" or "If it's a wound, you can't shout it closed." And then you fill up the mashed potatoes and did you close a wound, or just catch a quick breath?

Mearls actually defines that portion. The top half of your hit points are luck, exhaustion, etc. The bottom half are physical damage. This is more like a shepherd's pie. To get to the meat, you have to get through the mashed potato crust. If you're hit in the mashed potato layer, it's a near-miss. If you're hit in the meat layer, you got cut. If you're healed in the mashed potato layer, you catch a breath. If you're healed in the meat layer, your wound stops bleeding.

Gygax's hit points definition is as clear as a bowl of mashed potatoes. Every hit could be narrated in any way possible, which leads to one person on the internet narrating a hit as actual damage, and someone else on the internet telling him he's wrong and that it's not damage, just exhaustion. Mearls' hit points definition says that any hit before first blood is near-misses, and any hit after the first blood is actual damage.

[sblock]Gygax -

[/sblock]
[sblock]Mearls -

[/sblock]

 

[Neonchameleon]

The part, that bulk and mass equals hp was something lost in 4e. A creature beeing a solo, just because it is the only enemy right now makes no sense.

A dragon, designed as a solo monster. Yes, everyday. But a goblin? In the game, I find it difficult to estimate the power of something in 4e. You have no clue, which level something is... when you don´t take into account, that you are expected to encounter similar level foes in general.

I'm trying to work out who and why someone would stat a monster as a solo just because he was the only monster around. Certainly doesn't fit any of the monster manuals I own.

There were times, when players actually though about feigning death, or running away... long long time ago...

Four sessions ago for my PCs was the last time they ran away. And they've had one combat since - with one of their allies being an Invoker on home ground.

Of course it is only one component.

Fighters always had hp calues equal to those of dragons, when they were higher level.

But goblins did not. 4e monster design works fine, and if you bother to look at Monster Vault monsters and early articles, you will notice, that the solo template was meant to be used with big creatures. Elite templates were more or less used for classed oponents etc.
The problem is that the solo template was used for some creatures that should either be higher level and elite or even, in the worst applications for creatures that happened to be encountered alone.

Can I have some examples please? (I've generally avoided 4e modules - was Irontooth one?)

But hitting a goblin for 100 damage or so and it still stands feels just wrong.

I don't think I've ever seen a goblin that could take that much damage. And you've illustrated why. I think I've once seen a kobold take that much damage - but in this case the kobold was a PC and it took the entire party's healing to keep him on his feet.

 

[DMKastmaria]

Gygax's hit points definition is as clear as a bowl of mashed potatoes. Every hit could be narrated in any way possible, which leads to one person on the internet narrating a hit as actual damage, and someone else on the internet telling him he's wrong and that it's not damage, just exhaustion. Mearls' hit points definition says that any hit before first blood is near-misses, and any hit after the first blood is actual damage.

See the AD&D DMG by GG page 82. The section titled Hit Points. Second and third paragraph.

Too long to type and I'm not sure how much "Fair Use" the EnWorld mods are comfortable with.

Mr. Gygax gives a formula for determining the amount of "physical hit points," which allows for creative narration. And which is obviously the Source of Mr. Mearls' article! Notice how Mr. Gygax also describes a Fighter down to about Half his Hit Points as having sustained appreciable physical damage.

DM's certainly have some leeway, there, but that's by design. GG's definition and intent are crystal clear.

 

[Libramarian]

I just don't want to see the illusion of leveling. Like in 4E where you gain 10% more HP, but monster damage mysteriously goes up by the exact same amount. Where you gain +1 to your skills every second level, but DCs mysteriously go up the exact same amount. +1 to attack rolls? Monster defenses go up the same. Leveling in 4E was pretty much about fooling people into thinking their numbers were getting better and allowing them to add on more option in terms of more encounter, utility and daily powers.

Agreed. This is much more important to me than the particular way the game handles hitpoints.

 

[Mercutio01]

See the AD&D DMG by GG page 82. The section titled Hit Points. Second and third paragraph.

Too long to type and I'm not sure how much "Fair Use" the EnWorld mods are comfortable with.

Mr. Gygax gives a formula for determining the amount of "physical hit points," which allows for creative narration. And which is obviously the Source of Mr. Mearls' article! Notice how Mr. Gygax also describes a Fighter down to about Half his Hit Points as having sustained appreciable physical damage.

DM's certainly have some leeway, there, but that's by design. GG's definition and intent are crystal clear.

My copy is in storage (with most of my gaming books), so I'll have to take you at your word. I don't remember it ever being that granular before. If it is, that's excellent. I'm glad we're moving back in that direction rather than the slop of mashed potatoes that hit points have traditionally been.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Can I have some examples please? (I've generally avoided 4e modules - was Irontooth one?)



I don't think I've ever seen a goblin that could take that much damage. And you've illustrated why. I think I've once seen a kobold take that much damage - but in this case the kobold was a PC and it took the entire party's healing to keep him on his feet.

Krayd the Butcher
Medium natural humanoid, orc
Level 1 Solo Brute XP 500



Sinruth, Hobgoblin Chieftain
Medium natural humanoid , goblin
Level 2 Solo Soldier XP 625


as I and you said: in the Monsterous manuals, there were no such unflavourful solos. But in Modules, there were those things, where 4e haters rightfully objected...

Solo status and size should not be divorced in 5e and hopefully solo as a status is not needed anymore.

 

[I'm A Banana]

During my 4e game yesterday, I had another thought:

Crits need to work differently in this system.

You can describe > 1/2 hp as scuffs and fleshwounds, but a CRIT shouldn't just be a scuff or a fleshwound.

 

[DMKastmaria]

My copy is in storage (with most of my gaming books), so I'll have to take you at your word. I don't remember it ever being that granular before. If it is, that's excellent. I'm glad we're moving back in that direction rather than the slop of mashed potatoes that hit points have traditionally been.

Don't take me at my word! When you get a chance, I urge you to get the book and re-read the whole thing!