Mearls: The core of D&D

[BryonD]

Things may have been different for those who didn't use those tables in their games.

That is a key point right there.

It was easy for magic items to become very ho-hum in prior editions of D&D. But in the end it was 100% up to how the DM ran the game.
Yes, the DEFAULT was ho-hum.

The "math works" of 4E changes things.

 

[Celebrim]

And the edition war is on...

Well, at least the thread had a pretty good run.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As someone who uses a d% Hit Chart for combat, I'd have to strongly disagree with you here. But that's because my solution was simple, even amongst humanoids: if the chart roll doesn't apply, then it deals purely "hit point damage."

Please note the context. It is a response to question askin why I believe that Special Effects systems, which do not use hit points, do not work. I am not saying that such a chart cannot be used -- I am saying that such a chart is unwieldy to use without a hit point component.

I am arguing that

Hit points + Special Effects works admirably.

Hit points alone work.

Special Effects alone are dismal.​

So, rather than saying "Our mileage has, very simply, varied", say perhaps that "Raven Crowking has, very simply, failed to communicate to me adequately."

Again, my main argument, stated another way:

Hit points systems beat beans over any system without hit points (or analogue thereunto).

Hit points + special effects beats beans over hit points alone.​

I don't recall anyone claiming that Conan never suffers flesh wounds.

I seem to recall a claim that nothing happens in the stories that could be best described by hit point attrition. In fact, Conan frequently suffers minor wounds that do not slow him down -- exactly what hit points model.

I could go back upthread and find the original quote, if needed. Or we could simply discuss the important bit: Hit points do model what happens in a REH extremely well.

How about a simple, abstract, non-hit-point system? (Or, rather, a simple, abstract, hit-points-optional system?)

For instance, in 3E, characters are either able (they have hit points) or disabled (they don't). We don't need to track hit points for that though. We just need the usual roll to-hit followed by a (new) roll to-hurt -- with success disabling the target.

I'm going to direct you to a link, which you may read or may not, but it contains a lot of my own blather which is important in understanding my response.

Raven Crowking's Nest: C is for Choices, Context, and Consequence (Part I)

If all you are interested in is a "fantasy novel" type game, where either (1) the GM determines the plot or (2) the players take a large part of the GM role while playing, then I will grant that such a system can work. However, I would still deem it inferior to hit points.

Moreover, if you are interested in a "fantasy world" type game, where the GM prepares the game setting, and the player choices drive the action in the game, then you have removed a portion of decision making from the PCs.

The hit point mechanic allows the players to determine what physical shape the characters are in, and allows them to role-play and make decisions accordingly. Removing that mechanic prevents the players from making decisions related to just how injured they are. Rather than have a textured state, rich in context, you have a binary state, with context stripped away.

Now, the logical response is that you can have a track that measures penalties or bonuses to that "roll to hurt" based on how injured it already is. But, then, that measure is really just hit points by another name.

And in previous editions of D&D, humans beings were capable of surviving physical damage that would kill an elephant without it affecting their ability to act at all. Which affects some people's suspension of disbelief just as much.

Are we referring to 3e's immersion in lava rules here? Because, certainly, in 1e the DM is empowered to just say, "The stone block crushes you. You die." or "You fall in lava. You die."

In combat, the hit point mechanic is not intended to be taken as 1 hp = 1 hp. The amount of damage taken by an actual hit is determined by comparing damage dealt to effect. If a 100 hp fighter and a 6 hp fighter both take 10 hp damage, the 6 hp fighter may be run through, while the 100 hp fighter has simply dodged to one side....perhaps taking the slightest of nicks from the blade as it glides past his ear.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

You see, when a human being has more hit points than an elephant, that human being is presumably harder to kill than an elephant.

I'm aware of the rationalisations, which have been around since 1st edition. But if someone is going to complain about "talking wounds closed" then they presumably have a responsibility to accept that all hit point loss is represented by actual physical wounds rather than fatigue.

I know that this road has been walked down many times before, but....

The first quoted bit is obviously true (assuming no major difference in AC, anyway, of that saving throws don't come into play).

However, the second quoted bit assumes that any 1 hp damage is equat to any other 1 hp damage.

If I was to fight a prizefighter who was injured, even in the slightest, it would make no difference to me that he was injured. He would clean my clock. The prizefighter, however, would be aware that he was a little off from the injury, even if I couldn't see it.

If I had the same injury, I may well still be at my "full potential" in the same fight, because my full potential is so much less than that of the prize fighter.

Pricking your finger with a needle causes less than 1 hp damage; it is possible to have injuries below that threshold. Full hit points =/= that there are no cuts, scrapes, or scabs anywhere on your body. Full hit points means that you are at your best potential for avoiding/taking additional damage.

My best potential sucks. The prizefighter's best potential is much higher. Things that don't throw me off my best potential might reduce his. Not because I am better than him, but because I am so much worse. Even reduced, his best potential is much better than I am.

To get down to my best potential, he has to suffer some serious injuries, ones that will take a long time to heal. Meanwhile, to reduce my potential, all I need is a sharp cuff to the head that'll be better by tomorrow.

And in any event the treasure type tables in the MM or Basic/Expert guaranteed a reasonable number of items across a reasonable range of weapons, scrolls, potions, miscellaneous etc, and the magic item tables in the DMG delivered a reasonable supply of +1 arrows and +1 swords.

Those tables guarantee placement. They do not guarantee acquisition. There can be a world of difference between the two.


RC

 

[Bluenose]

Are we referring to 3e's immersion in lava rules here? Because, certainly, in 1e the DM is empowered to just say, "The stone block crushes you. You die." or "You fall in lava. You die."

In combat, the hit point mechanic is not intended to be taken as 1 hp = 1 hp. The amount of damage taken by an actual hit is determined by comparing damage dealt to effect. If a 100 hp fighter and a 6 hp fighter both take 10 hp damage, the 6 hp fighter may be run through, while the 100 hp fighter has simply dodged to one side....perhaps taking the slightest of nicks from the blade as it glides past his ear.


RC

This is fine.

Of course, then you'e got someone being brought back from the brink of death - the 6hp fighter who was run through - requiring the use of perhaps a couple of castings of Cure Light Wounds. If the other Fighter is restored to full health, from the blow that just nicked him, he requires the same amount of healing. The same amount of healing suffices to heal someone who has just been nicked or someone who had been run through and is near death. That's perhaps not so fine, from a logical point of view.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is fine.

Of course, then you'e got someone being brought back from the brink of death - the 6hp fighter who was run through - requiring the use of perhaps a couple of castings of Cure Light Wounds. If the other Fighter is restored to full health, from the blow that just nicked him, he requires the same amount of healing. The same amount of healing suffices to heal someone who has just been nicked or someone who had been run through and is near death. That's perhaps not so fine, from a logical point of view.

It's only "the same amount of healing" if you imagine any 1 hp = any other 1 hp, which is not the case. Rather, the spell provides a variable amount of healing based on circumstance.

Our nicked 100 hp fighter doesn't really "need" healing. The spell could, presumably, do more for him, but he has nothing more that needs doing. Our 6 hp fighter is actually at death's door, and, if we follow the rules in the 1e DMG, he doesn't spring up hale and hearty after being healed -- he needs bed rest, and can only move along slowly in order to reach a place where he can get it.

So, no, the rules (in one edition, at least) have taken this into account.


RC

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I disagree Raven.

If you look at healing from rest versus clerical healing, I don't think that explanation flies.

I also don't fully "get" your example there.

 

[Remathilis]

Just thought I'd toss this in...

• Saving throws as a mechanic for evading danger.
• “Fire-and-forget” magic, with spellcasters expending a spell when casting it.

Neither of these effectively exist in 4e anymore, except for the 50/50 Save vs. effect and Dailies.

 

[Teataine]

Except that all D&D before 4E never suggested such nonsense, because all ways to heal were magical or natural healing. 4E is the only game that walks off the suspension of disbelief cliff by implying (with it's own jargon no less) that wounds are closing due to slick oratory.

"More 'realistic' combat systems could certainly have been included here, but they have no real part in a game for a group of players having an exciting adventure."
p.9
"As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage."
p.61
"It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain!"
p.82
-Gary Gygax, AD&D DMG

PC hit points never were the same as physical damage, but luck, morale, arcane and divine protection, combat skill, sixth sense etc. D&D is an extremely abstract game when it comes to combat. It doesn't simulate actual melee any better than it simulates naval warfare. Hit points are a game mechanic, an abstraction, a pacing mechanism.

So I don't see where the "wounds closing due to oratory" bit is coming from, since those lost HP don't represent wounds in the first place.

I don't even play 4E by the way, it's just that I find this argument rather moot. If you want swords that deal wounds instead of meta point loss there's still Runequest for example.

In fact I'd posit the opposite than you: that "such nonsense" was always inherent in the D&D combat system and that it was an oversight on part of early D&D to have omitted methods of HP recovery other than "wound closing".

 

[mmadsen]

So you've come up with a very simple wound track (with two states in this case).

I don't know why you'd call a system where combatants are either up or down a wound-tracking system. There's less to track than in a hit-point system.

And that way lies madness. Because now rather than tracking a single state on a progressive wound track, we are tracking a potentially long list increasingly complicated and potentially overlapping problems - crippled arm + can't move but can attack for example.

The proposed flavors of disabled aren't progressive, because you're not supposed to accumulate more than one crippling injury. Once the evil high priest of the dark gods cuts off your sword hand with his own flaming sword, you're supposed to take your chances falling off the cliff to someplace safer.

Also, perhaps the semi-colons weren't clear, but there were only a few simple disabled variants proposed:

• Generic disabled - as in 3E, can either attack or half-move
• Arm disabled - can't attack, can move
• Leg disabled - can attack, can't move
• Dying - but not disabled
• Unconscious - but fine later

If you find that list far too complicated, you can stick to generic disabled. If you find that list interesting, but you're attached to hit points, then you can use the disabled variants at 0 hp in your regular game.

So for example, how much weight can I lift in this condition, for example if I need to hold on to a rope to prevent my friend from sliding into a deep pit?

How much weight can you lift while disabled in 3E? Why is the alternative supposed to be more detailed and more complicated?