Not allowed to talk about current HP and dying

[KarinsDad]

Further, the text suggests that hitpoints are an abstraction of factors that a character would know.

Actually, the text suggests the opposite.

Since hit points are an abstraction of luck, skill, resolve, and physical endurance, it doesn't make sense that one character would know that another character is "at 12 hit points out of 47".

How does a character know that another character is running out of skill? Or out of luck? Or out of resolve?

On top of that, knows it to the nth degree (i.e. 12 out of 47)?

The DMG explicitly states the player should know information that the character would know.

Additionally, the DMG has an entire section on metagaming thinking and how it should not be allowed.

Knowing that the Wizard is at 12 hit points and the Paladin is at 15 and making a decision on who to heal based on this is metagaming thinking.

The DMG states that players should not use metagaming thinking.

So you're advocating a game where the players don't talk to each other?

You are taking my words out of context. I stated that they should not communicate certain metagaming concepts, not that they should not communicate. Try to stay on topic.

I'll ignore the rest of your tangential comments which have nothing to do with what I wrote.

As a final note:
The DMG does specifically list, under "table talk" that a decision as to whether players can share certain information must be taken. It specifically lists hitpoints as an example of such information.

Yup. A decision should be made. It's up for grabs per gaming group, but there is information on the next page on Metagaming Thinking which indicates that metagaming decision making should be discourage.

Since one section in the DMG says to make a decision on this and the next section discourages metagaming thinking, I make a decision to discourage it. For my game. This more closely follows the suggestions in the DMG. IMO.


Final note: Does your DM tell the players how many hit points the monsters have remaining or total? If a given character should know how many hit points his allies have, why not the monsters?

Answer: Because hit points are a rules concept, not an in character piece of information.

 

[Shabe]

In my games, I let my players do what they want, but because we play several games it ends up as
Unharmed 100%
Scratched 90%-100%
Wounded 51%-89%
Bloodied 25%-50%
Looking quite bad 11%-24%
Staggering 1%-10%
On the floor 0

While we don't use quite those terms every time we give a general indication of those kinds, I as the DM also relay the condition of the monsters to the players in those general terms. Out of battle they can talk about hp till the cows come home though.

In my opinion its up to the group who is playing, I don't find one method inherently more correct than another, characters should know how hurt other characters are and monsters for that matter, if they give out a hp value as opposed to a description i don't find that metagamey, its just how different groups choose to relay the status of their characters, if you say your character is on 5hp your character isn't saying out loud "oh no, forsooth I have but 5 hit points left I am not long for this mortal coil" no the characters and quite probably monsters are eyeing up the character and seeing him staggering around gritting his teeth in pain with blood flowing from various wounds. The only difference really (especially in 4e where exact hps don't really matter) is the amount of translation that needs to be done.

 

[Jhaelen]

This is not rules.

Sooo, you think it's unreasonable that someone trained in Healing will be able to judge how injured someone is?

The Heal skill states nothing about the character knowing about hit points.

It also doesn't state a character knows anything about 'second wind', yet you can use the skill to allow a character to use it.
It doesn't say you can detect if someone is suffering from a disease, yet you can use the skill to treat it.

What's a healer in 4E?

For all intents and purposes in 4E it's anyone making a Heal skill check.

 

[mlund]

I almost think Insight would be more appropriate, since loss of hit points does not directly translate into physical injuries in all cases. "Bloodied," is typically a physical cue but that's about it. A character has been driven to his knees by repeated blows to his shield and sword by a bugbear's great axe isn't showing huge injuries but he's still 1 hit away from having his head split open like a ripe melon.

Knowing whether a character is capable of still defending himself in a fight is what is really at issue with hit points. That's the kind of thing you expect a boxing referee to discern even if he has no medical or even first aide training.

Calling for aide is definitely something players should get into the habit of having their PCs do in character.

In the same respect, characters with combat experience should have good judgment as to whether a comrade in arms is overwhelmed, out matched, or overtaxed in combat. Cues like: "That last attack came too close to something vital. It looks like Liddia's luck has just about run out," or "Tordek's movements have grown sluggish. It seems like it is all he can do to interpose his shield between himself and the ogre's killing blow."

If you need to make a detailed judgment, I'd let you take a minor action to spot actively on your turn. You'll make a skill role and I'll let you know which of your allies seems closest to death's door.

Just using basic descriptive language can get your player's the information they want without breaking into pure HPs.

"Jozan is in fine fighting form," - 100%-76% HPs
"Mailee's starting to look a little worse for wear," - 75%-51%
"Tordek's been bloodied in the melee," - 50%-26%
"Liddia is struggling as the tide of battle tries to pull her under," - 25%-1%
"Redgar has been felled, but he still draws breath," - Down

I like to narrate deteriorating conditions on the "save vs. death," chart as well - coughing up blood, choking, convulsing, losing perilous amounts of blood, etc.

What should the audience be seeing to convey the scene to them if you were writing a dramatic screen-play? That's my guideline when dealing with the players.

- Marty Lund

 

[zillah]

I would disagree about it being an MMO. I believe that it is in fact at this point an MMO style RPG. Teamwork anyone?
So, when I play, or when a monster is low, the DM would say "he looks pretty bad"
This would be after bloodied. When anyone is bloodied it is announced. That is the rules. And I disagree with not telling the player how much HP he lost...thats just wrong.

How does he look, and who looks worse are usually the questions that help the most.

 

[conanb]

When I DM I don't give players a definite amount of damage done but we have phrases that we use consistently that allow players know sort of where an enemy is. That way looking at two enemies side by side they can tell to attack enemy A rather than B because he's hurt more. We were using this in 3.5 anyway and it works just as well in 4E.

Lightly Wounded ~ Enemy is in their 1st 1/4 hit points.
Moderaterly Wounded ~ Enemy is in their 2nd 1/4 hit points.
Bloodied (Previously Seriously Wounded) ~ Enemy is in their 3rd 1/4 hit points
Heavily Injured, Still Bloodied ~ Enemy is in their last 1/4 hit points
Reeling ~ Enemy is one stroke from death, usually less than 10 hit points.

We still use these and players can get a quick survey of those they have line of sight on to see who's most injured and who's unscathed. It also lets them know who's really tough. If 4 attacks on enemy have only caused it to be lightly wounded, then they know the thing has a ton of hit points, while one hit on another moves it to heavily injured they know another hit will probably finish it off. No direct numbers, but they get a quick feel for how strong a monster is still.

Just my suggestion of what we do that I find works well at the table.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sooo, you think it's unreasonable that someone trained in Healing will be able to judge how injured someone is?

I said it was not the rules. I said nothing about reasonableness. He stated that it was a low DC heal check and that is not true. Heal checks do not discuss judging how much luck or skill or physical endurance is remaining in an individual. At least not according to the rules.

I do think that Insight or Perception is a better skill to use to judge how injured someone is, not Healing. These skills are for discerning an external situation based on observation. Healing is not.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Actually, the text suggests the opposite.

Since hit points are an abstraction of luck, skill, resolve, and physical endurance, it doesn't make sense that one character would know that another character is "at 12 hit points out of 47".

How does a character know that another character is running out of skill? Or out of luck? Or out of resolve?

Because the second character communicates such information to the first.

On top of that, knows it to the nth degree (i.e. 12 out of 47)?

Since damage is random, he doesn't know it to the nth degree. That 12 is one or two bites from a guard drake, more if the drake doesn't have friends nearby. It's 3-6 stabs from a kobold skirmisher... unless the skirmisher has combat advantage, in which case it could be 1-4. There's a pretty massive range of variance in there even if you know the exact hit point total.

The DMG explicitly states the player should know information that the character would know.

And the PHB explicitly hands the entire task of tracking hitpoints to the player. Does that not suggest that this is information that the character has access to? Did the designers really deliberately hand all tracking for a stat that should be concealed from players to the players themselves?

Additionally, the DMG has an entire section on metagaming thinking and how it should not be allowed.

Knowing that the Wizard is at 12 hit points and the Paladin is at 15 and making a decision on who to heal based on this is metagaming thinking.

The DMG states that players should not use metagaming thinking.

So - would you accuse a player who retreats from combat because his hitpoints are low of metagaming? How about one with no healing surges left? Or one who doesn't waste his turn trying to cast a daily spell that he's already cast today?

These are all things that are firmly and rigidly within the game. Discussing them in terms of mechanics may not be flavourful, but it's not metagaming.

You are taking my words out of context. I stated that they should not communicate certain metagaming concepts, not that they should not communicate. Try to stay on topic.

I'll ignore the rest of your tangential comments which have nothing to do with what I wrote.

I was defending the idea that communication in the game was a basic state, whereas you seem to be approaching things from the point of view that noone should be talking to anyone without an explicit sanction on the topic of conversation.

The rest of it basically covers the idea that the quickest and most effective communication occurs when there is a concise, unique way to express something, which means that if you're expressing something quantitative that your best bet is with a number.

Yup. A decision should be made. It's up for grabs per gaming group, but there is information on the next page on Metagaming Thinking which indicates that metagaming decision making should be discouraged.

Since one section in the DMG says to make a decision on this and the next section discourages metagaming thinking, I make a decision to discourage it. For my game. This more closely follows the suggestions in the DMG. IMO.

Final note: Does your DM tell the players how many hit points the monsters have remaining or total? If a given character should know how many hit points his allies have, why not the monsters?

Answer: Because hit points are a rules concept, not an in character piece of information.

And yet your characters hitpoints are plainly written on your character's sheet, along with what powers he has, how strong he is and so on. It's information that is explicitly given to the player in a game where it's also explicitly suggested that the player should only know information that his character knows.

 

[Krensus]

How does a character know that another character is running out of skill? Or out of luck? Or out of resolve?

Moreover, how does a character themself know that they are running out of skill, luck or resolve? I can see that they would know when they are demoralized, but an abstract quality like luck?

They know exactly how much "luck" they have remaining because the game calls for it. I tell my players exactly how much "skill" that ogre swinging the club took off of their total in a numeric value because it makes the game flow smoother. Players who don't know how resolute they can remain tend to feel their deaths are beyond their control.

Now if I can arbitrarily allow one person to know that they are getting close to surrender, I have no problem arbitrarily allowing another person who's chosen the responsibility of keeping the party in fighting condition to know it as well.

 

[eamon]

I don't think it actually matters that much. Clearly, it's in-game knowledge to know the difference between a healthy individual and one that's dying. It seems to me that the difference between a bloodied and unscratched individual is too. There's a limitation to the amount of detail that you know, but knowing in which quartile someone is, and knowing he's 100% or almost down are still reasonable.

At that point, it's just not that important exactly what amount of hitpoints someone has. Does it matter if it's 43% or 47%? Not really. I'd say, let the player's use rough guidlines, but if they occasionally use a number, then don't bother, it's not important - it's just a bit less flavorful. You can hardly abuse knowledge of current hit-point totals, so I wouldn't be too worried about it. Player's should be able to communicate rough totals, and how they do this is up to the gaming group. Some will just use totals, some will prefer a more roundabout but maybe more flavorful method.