Play-Testing Hold Person

[eamon]

My problem with HP thresholds is twofold:

- They risk reducing everything down to one number; this is going to be grindy.
- They strongly focus player attention on one of the most metagame aspects of a monster: its current hit points. AC, Dexterity etc - those have some pretty clearly imaginable in-game counterparts. But hitpoints?

I think I can live with the first issue. It's not great, but it can help avoid absurd scenarios whereby a supposedly dangerous foe is very vulnerable to a trivial, well-known spell (or other combat technique, for that matter).

But I really don't like the second issue. Hitpoints have always been a really jumbled concept; it's like some transformers power level thingo - a necessary mechanic, but not one I want to focus attention on by making people play a constant guessing game of "how many hitpoints does it have?" Thesholds are much worse than damaging spells in this way. Higher damage is better; it's easily understood that some blows are stronger than others - you're not focusing too much on the current total of the monster, more on your contribution to slaying it. Thresholds really require constant metagaming.

 

[MarkB]

This is one respect in which 4e's Bloodied condition is useful. If Hold Person were "immobilises a non-bloodied target, or paralyses a bloodied target", you'd still avoid the "instant-win" problem and still have to beat down tough opponents in order to use it to full effect, but without the awkwardness of having to track or estimate its actual hit point total.