Please take the whole "Hit Points and Regaining Hit points" back to the drawing board

[Mercule]

Notice the bolded and enlarged part. This means EVERY hit does some physical damage. And therefore requires healing, which requires either time, or magical aid.

Not so much. It means that, of 80 hps, some are physical and some aren't. Whether any particular hit took from one pool, the other, or a bit of both isn't really addressed.

That said, I've always assumed every "hit" resulted in at least a scratch, otherwise it'd be a "miss". So, I think your conclusion is correct. That quote just doesn't provide actual evidence of it.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I actually like the dying rules, except I think stabilizing should be a little less inevitable-- you should be able to linger at death's door for longer without either the certainty of death or stabilization.

On the other hand, I love that you can't predict exactly when death will occur because of the 1d6 roll.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Speaking of downed allies, I have to add, I do NOT LIKE that healing spells bring you from negative up to 0 and then heal for the rolled amount. Not. At. All. If they want to get away from having to heal all of the negative HP, I'd be alright with the first application of a healing spell bring someone up to 0 (no matter how much/little). I prefer a little more wobble to my PC weebles than the current healing rules provide.

Same here! I don't like that mechanic at all. If you are at -10 and you gain 11 then you are at 1hp. That is the way I like it.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm with you on Death saves; I tried that rule out in our 3.x campaign. It basically wound up being an excuse for party members to delay dealing w/ downed members. Something about the constant -1 HP/round while dying rules seem to light a fire under the PCs posteriors to aid downed allies.

I always found just the opposite. With -1/rd down to -10, they always knew exactly how long they had to act to save the fallen ally. "You're fine, you're only at -2!" At least with death saves there's an element of randomness, making a delay more risky.

 

[Stalker0]

I always found just the opposite. With -1/rd down to -10, they always knew exactly how long they had to act to save the fallen ally. "You're fine, you're only at -2!" At least with death saves there's an element of randomness, making a delay more risky.

I agree, and I think with the new 1d6 damage added in the death save is better than ever. It brings suspense and danger, and enough randomness that you can't just ignore it.

 

[The Little Raven]

I keep post-it notes in my old AD&D books on certain pages just for times like these... And I'll forego the annoying BIG FONT in lieu of bolding for emphasis.

Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. 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. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This IS the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic flghter can take that much punishment.

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.

In some campaigns the referee will keep this total secret, informing players only that they feel "strong", "fatigued" or "very
weak", thus indicating waning hit points.

As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned.

Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections.

For those who wonder why poison does either killing damage (usually) or no harm whatsoever, recall the justification for character hit points. That is, damage is not octually sustained - at least in proportion to the number of hit points marked off in most cases.

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! Why then the increase in hit points? 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 unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

Harkening back to the example of Rasputin, it would be safe to assume that he could withstand physical damage sufficient to have killed any four normal men, i.e. more than 14 hit points. Therefore, let us assume that a character with an 18 constitution will eventually be able to withstand no less than 15 hit points of actual physical damage before being slain, and that perhaps as many as 23 hit points could constitute the physical makeup of a character. The balance of accrued hit points are those which fall into the non-physical areas already detailed. Furthermore, these actual physical hit points would be spread across a large number of levels, starting from a base score of from an average of 3 to 4, going up to 6 to 8 at 2nd level, 9 to 1 1 at 3rd, 12 to 14 at 4th, 15 to 17 at 5th, 18 to 20 at 6th, and 21 to 23 at 7th level. Note that the above assumes the character is a fighter with an average of 3 hit points per die going to physical obility to withstand punishment and only 1 point of constitution bonus being likewise assigned. Beyond the basic physical damage sustained, hits scored upon a character do not actually do such an amount of physical damage.

Hit Points - The number of points of damage a creature can sustain before death (or optionally, coma), reflecting the creature’s physical endurance, fighting experience, skill, or luck.

50/50? Not according to Gary, who thought that hit points equating solely (or even significantly) to physical damage was silly. Taking Gary's example of 95 hit points with 23 being physical damage equals to 24% of that fighter's total hit points being related to physical damage, a percentage which will decrease with a higher hit point total.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I keep post-it notes in my old AD&D books on certain pages just for times like these... And I'll forego the annoying BIG FONT in lieu of bolding for emphasis.


















50/50? Not according to Gary, who thought that hit points equating solely (or even significantly) to physical damage was silly. Taking Gary's example of 95 hit points with 23 being physical damage equals to 24% of that fighter's total hit points being related to physical damage, a percentage which will decrease with a higher hit point total.

Where are you getting the 95 from?

Looks to me like Gary's example has PC's hit points more physical than anything else.

 

[The Little Raven]

What made it look to be 50/50 is when he said it was part physical and part luck.

So, what made it look 50/50 was reading one vague description and ignoring the rest of his statements, which went into far more detail?

Not a convincing argument.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

So, what made it look 50/50 was reading one vague description and ignoring the rest of his statements, which went into far more detail?

Not a convincing argument.

Actually the detail wasn't that very far. You still haven't proven the actual percentages as to what was physical and what wasn't.

You aren't putting forth anything that hasn't already been said. We have all stated that hit points have always been an abstract.

 

[The Little Raven]

Where are you getting the 95 from?

Looks to me like Gary's example has PC's hit points more physical than anything else.

Oops, referred to a quote from the book without actually putting in the post. Sorry.

Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5.5 hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points, per level, or 95 hit points!

This is immediately after he breaks down that the maximum number of "physical hit points" a character would have is 23.