Mearls: The core of D&D

[mmadsen]

Natural healing (in most editions) scales appropriately.

Well, it scales almost linearly: 1 hit point per level per day. So the small-hit die Wizard still heals relatively faster than the big hit-die Fighter, and low-Con characters heal relatively faster than high-Con characters.

This implies that physical damage is roughly proportional to hit points lost.

It's only the cure spells that are historically dissociated. And the reason for that basically boils down to "game balance" and "resource management".

If healing works the way it does for game balance reasons -- and I don't disagree with you -- then we should all admit that it doesn't really make sense, but that's a sacrifice we're willing to make in order to have a more playable game.

 

[Bluenose]

Natural healing (in most editions) scales appropriately. It's only the cure spells that are historically dissociated. And the reason for that basically boils down to "game balance" and "resource management".

The abstraction of the system is not "some hit points don't represent physical wounds". The abstraction of the system is "a 1 hp wound for character A might be a 6 hp wound for character B; the difference is due to character B being faster, luckier, tougher, blessed, or any number of other things". Like all abstracted systems, there are places where the abstraction breaks down. But, in general, the system works as intended.

See also Explaining Hit Points.

I have absolutely no objection to treating hit points that way, for purposes of damage. I've posted in this thread that I consider them a measure of how hard someone is to take out of a fight, which is a combination of a lot of things. I get it.

It's the recovery of hit points, particularly magically, that seems to me the point where hit points stop being a sensible way to handle conbat resolution and become something rather peculiar. If you're really not taking much physical injury, instead becoming slower/unlucky/feebler/cursed, then what does magical healing restore? Well, apparently it's "dissociated".

 

[Raven Crowking]

You keep telling people that you have already answered their questions, but they clearly don't see it that way.

Yes; I generally prefer not to have to cut & paste responses from upthread that clearly were not read (or ignored) by the person asking the question.

There is a thing on the InterWeb that goes like this:

Poster 1: If A then B, if not-A then C.

Poster 2: Ah, but what if D?

Poster 1: If D is not A, then C.

Poster 2: Ah, but what if A?

Poster 1: If A then B.

Poster 2: Ah, but what if not-A?

Poster 3: Since you are arguing that X is Y.....

etc.​

Some days, it seems that there is scant little else being posted in a thread.

So, walk us through how hit points work.

Our amazing swordsman -- with, say, 50 hit points -- cuts down numerous good-but-not-great swordsmen, taking "hits" and losing hit points to "damage" along the way.

The canonical pre-4E explanation is that he is indeed getting physically hit each time, but none of the blows lands quite true, so instead of costing him close to 100 percent of his hit points, each blow only costs him 10 percent of his hit points. He's getting battered, bruised, scratched up, etc.

So far, so good. You will note that the canonical pre-4e hit points are not, in fact, the hit points of 4e.

Also note that there is nothing in the canonical pre-4e hit point description that says a character is not wounded, should not role-play being wounded, whatever.

As he gets progressively tired and beat down, more and more of the blows land harder and harder, and they cost him proportionally more and more of his smaller and smaller pool of hit points. A 5-hp hit is more physically damaging when you only have 10 hp left than when you are fresh as a daisy with 50 hp left.

That's all fine and good -- if you've accepted the subtle plot-protection and predictability built in to hit points as a good thing -- but it doesn't ring true when it comes time to recover those hit points.

So you say.

This is not a new complaint.

That it is not a new complaint does not make it a good complaint.

Our master swordsman should be able to get his wind -- and thus half of his hit points? -- back in a matter of minutes.

Um.....Why should this be so?

Does a bruised and battered top athelete regain his top form with a quick swig of gin and a second to breathe? He gets better than I am, sure, but the system as written already accounts for that.

If he's just fatigued and bruised, a quick swig of elf wine or orc liquor should get him back in the fight. But, by the rules, the same miraculous healing magic that could bring his victims back from near death cannot even get him his wind back?

Considering that "his wind" is back when he has 10% of his hit points, in comparison to any ordinary person, this is clearly untrue.

Really?

No. Really not accurate at all.

Because even the slightest fatigue and bruising puts him at the level of his good-but-not-great foes?

"Even the slightest"?

Does 2 hp damage put our 100 hp hero at the level of his 25 hp foes? No.

Does 75 hp damage put our 100 hp hero at the level of his 25 hp foes? In terms of hp, yes (although probably not in terms of chance to hit, saving throws, or other things).

Does 95 hp damage put our 100 hp hero in dire straits against his 25 hp foes? Yes.

In real life, people who are great at what they do are noticably less good from minor things that wouldn't change how good I am. That hit points actually can and do reflect this is not a deficiency in the system.

YMMV.


RC

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.​

Except I disagree with you that the same Hit Chart can't be applied to something like Mutants and Masterminds 2nd Edition damage system. Fail your Toughness save, get a -1 on all Toughness saves until you heal. Fail by enough, stunned. Fail by even more, incapacitated. Fail by quite a bit, dying.

You can definitely augment this along the way with the same Hit Chart. And, you'd apply the same idea: if it doesn't apply, then it doesn't apply. If the chart says "Movement Appendage damaged" and you're fighting an ooze, then nothing happens other than the results of its Toughness save.

Why hit points are magical in this way I have no idea. I prefer hit points, personally. But they are by no means unique. The Toughness save system from M&M 2e would work just as well with my Hit Chart as hit points do (even if I wouldn't prefer it).

Are there systems out there that wouldn't work with my Hit Chart? Absolutely. However, saying that a hit point system is better than all others when dealing with "Special Effects" is, I believe, blatantly false, or just plain subjective preference, in which case, there's no real in debating it (as I prefer hit points as well).

So, it looks like our mileage has indeed varied.

As always, play what you like

 

[Celebrim]

...The canonical pre-4E explanation is that he is indeed getting physically hit each time, but none of the blows lands quite true, so instead of costing him close to 100 percent of his hit points, each blow only costs him 10 percent of his hit points. He's getting battered, bruised, scratched up, etc...

Ok, so far so good.

That's all fine and good -- if you've accepted the subtle plot-protection and predictability built in to hit points as a good thing -- but it doesn't ring true when it comes time to recover those hit points. This is not a new complaint. Our master swordsman should be able to get his wind -- and thus half of his hit points? -- back in a matter of minutes.

Why? This is only true if you've accepted the 4e trope that the non-physical part of his hits points than have been whittled down amount to no more than fatigue. If its just that he's getting tired out, then sure, once he gets his wind back he should get back perhaps 80% of his hit points. But until 4e came along it was not accepted that the metaphysical damage taken when hit points were reduced was merely being winded, but a loss of such intangible (but possibly real in a fantasy world) things as luck, divine favor, and so forth. He's bruised yes, but there is assumed to be more to it than that. Read Gygax's full explanation.

If he's just fatigued and bruised, a quick swig of elf wine or orc liquor should get him back in the fight. But, by the rules, the same miraculous healing magic that could bring his victims back from near death cannot even get him his wind back? Really? Because even the slightest fatigue and bruising puts him at the level of his good-but-not-great foes?

If this is your strongest remaining objection, then it can be easily handled. Simply make the hit points restored by healing magic be dependent on the level of the target rather than the level of the caster. This would parallel the existing assumption that the rate of natural healing depends on the level of the caster (a seriously wounded 4th level fighter and a seriously wounded 12th level fighter close their wounds at the same natural rate). Some changes might be required regarding the power and availablity of such spells and to the balance expectations of your game world, but if your principle problem is only that you don't think it fair that a cure light wounds heals most ills for a low level character but literally only light wounds for a high level one that change can be easily made. Besides which, if you only remaining complaint is that the magic doesn't make logical sense, I'm not sure you have a particularly strong remaining complaint. It's magic.

I don't think anyone here is going to try to defend the ideal that hit points are realistic. If I was go to design a hyper-realistic system, it probably wouldn't involve hit points in a traditional sense. However, the problems with them are not as great as all that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If this is your strongest remaining objection, then it can be easily handled. Simply make the hit points restored by healing magic be dependent on the level of the target rather than the level of the caster.

Yep. Then once you've got your basic math for that mechanic, abstract it a bit, and smooth of the rough edges for handling time. You'll end up with something very much like healing surges.

 

[Bluenose]

In real life, people who are great at what they do are noticably less good from minor things that wouldn't change how good I am. That hit points actually can and do reflect this is not a deficiency in the system.

YMMV.


RC

Really? People have ridden the Tour de France with a broken collar bone, including winning a stage. Boxers have won fights with broken fingers, cheeks, jaws. Rugby players have lost teeth and broken noses and carried on playing perfectly happily. I can point to medical articles describing the generally superior recovery powers and pain tolerance of 'elite athletes' (and/or elite military personnel). What you are arguing is not self-evident. It requires evidence.

 

[Bluenose]

If this is your strongest remaining objection, then it can be easily handled. Simply make the hit points restored by healing magic be dependent on the level of the target rather than the level of the caster.

Scaling it to the hit points rather than level of the recipient would seem to make the most sense. Which is what 4e does, as every healing surge or equivalent restores 1/4 of the hit points of the target.

 

[Celebrim]

Really? People have ridden the Tour de France with a broken collar bone, including winning a stage. Boxers have won fights with broken fingers, cheeks, jaws. Rugby players have lost teeth and broken noses and carried on playing perfectly happily. I can point to medical articles describing the generally superior recovery powers and pain tolerance of 'elite athletes' (and/or elite military personnel).

So what you are saying is that when you lose hit points, you don't necessarily suffer a penalty to your abilities?

 

[mmadsen]

So what you are saying is that when you lose hit points, you don't necessarily suffer a penalty to your abilities?

I can't speak for Bluenose, but I'm certainly willing to say that flesh wounds shouldn't force penalties. Does that surprise you?