Rant on d20

[LostSoul]

HP gains by levels are more representative of an accross the board effect of luck, skill, and sheer heroism (or "script immunity," if you will) than they are of sheer toughness.

What MutantHamster is getting at is that, if Hit Points don't represent physical strength or toughness, then why are they tied to Constitution?

He's saying that it should be one way or the other: tie hit points to Level or tie it to Con. Not both.

But you can say that the same amount of damage (say 8 points done to your 100 total vs. 8 points to your 10 total) is just a scratch, so your higher physical resistance has more of an effect. Because you're so tough, you don't notice the scratch. Which is kinda wierd, because a high Con guy is going to take more scratches and scrapes than the low Con guy - until the low Con guy is dropped.

 

[Psion]

What MutantHamster is getting at is that, if Hit Points don't represent physical strength or toughness, then why are they tied to Constitution?

I understand what he is getting at, and I answered that. He obviously didn't internalize what I wrote. If he had at least read it and still thought it wasn't a good way to do it, great. But he obviously doesn't get it.

But you can say that the same amount of damage (say 8 points done to your 100 total vs. 8 points to your 10 total) is just a scratch, so your higher physical resistance has more of an effect. Because you're so tough, you don't notice the scratch. Which is kinda wierd, because a high Con guy is going to take more scratches and scrapes than the low Con guy - until the low Con guy is dropped.

It's not wierd at all. The increased HP has the effect of scaling down the damage proportionally. A 2nd level warrior with twice as many hp only takes half as much damage compared to his total from a hit as compared to a first level fighter, because he's more skillful, more lucky, more heroic. Since he is only effectively taking half as much damage, the effect of his con is TWICE as significant.

 

[LostSoul]

It's not wierd at all. The increased HP has the effect of scaling down the damage proportionally. A 2nd level warrior with twice as many hp only takes half as much damage compared to his total from a hit as compared to a first level fighter, because he's more skillful, more lucky, more heroic. Since he is only effectively taking half as much damage, the effect of his con is TWICE as significant.

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this for some reason. Let me think about it using an example.

A: Fgt2 (10 Con) vs. B: Fgt2 (18 Con). A hits B for 8 points of damage. B takes nothing but a scrape because he's so tough. Then he hits A for 8 damage. A dodges it because he's skilled.

Yeah, that's my problem: I guess I'm seeing bonus HP from Con being whittled away with the rest of the HP - that is, each hit is taking 1 HP (or more) from Con. But the guy with the same amount of skill, just lower Con, doesn't have those bonus HP from Con, thus he's not even getting scratched...

...but if you say they both get scratched, it's just that low Con guy is bleeding worse, or whatever, then it makes sense. Cool, gotcha.

I'm just used to running it differently in my game.

 

[Psion]

But the guy with the same amount of skill, just lower Con, doesn't have those bonus HP from Con, thus he's not even getting scratched...

...but if you say they both get scratched, it's just that low Con guy is bleeding worse, or whatever, then it makes sense. Cool, gotcha.

Precisely. Some see this as fatigue as well, but I prefer to think of it as scratches, elsewise why would poisoned weapons deliver poison regardless of level?

Of course where the model really falls down is healing... but as I said in the other thread, it's just a matter of what you are willing to put up with. Out of a slightly quirky damage system or a complicated one, I lean towards the former.

One thing I wasn't willing to put up with was the "never feel the effects of a fight the next day" and "don't feel it until you go down" aspects, so I instituted a "side effect" rule that gives the characters such things as penalties and ability damage if they take a lot of HP in one hit compared to their total.

 

[CWD]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

In my campaign Hit Points represent ACTUAL physical toughness. Adventurers are effectively superheroes. If you accept this, all the strangeness about hit points vanish. Its also perfectly logical: fighters have magical powers just like mages, they just manifest them in physical buffness rather than spell-flinging.

 

[Psion]

In my campaign Hit Points represent ACTUAL physical toughness. Adventurers are effectively superheroes. If you accept this, all the strangeness about hit points vanish.

I'm sure some would debate that...

I dunno, it's easiest to me to see it as a conflation of the two, with a much heavier leaning towards the "action movie luck" paradigm. But some fantasy supports this sort of thing. For example, I seem to recall a Frazetta painting of a muscle-bound warrior pelted with arrows and surrounded by (and thrashing) a bunch of orc-like creatures.

 

[LostSoul]

Regarding Con affecting Hit Points:

You could make an argument that another ability might affect hit points, such as Dexterity (that's the easiest one, but other attributes might work as well). I think that would make a good justification for a Feat that swaps Con for another ability.

Whoops, house rule...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Nightfall mate!

*cheers on his mate Krusty* You tell em my mate!

(Don't mean to hijack this thread but did you submit to the WotC competition mate?)

Hi Colonel Hardisson mate!

I don't think your comments were directed my way specifically, though I will address them anyway.

Each edition of D&D has tried to explain what hit points represent. Still, there are people that have continually failed to grasp the concept. Or, they either refuse to accept it or dislike it.

Speaking personally; I understand the concept; have accepted it for nearly 17 years and admire its simplicity.

However, they are inherantly flawed (see my previous post) in key areas.

I've become aware that it's useless to try to explain the concept each time the argument comes up, because those who dislike hit points simply won't accept them no matter how they're explained.

You yourself have intimated that many people fail to grasp the concept, even though the mechanic itself is simple.

But should we blindly accept them without investigating superior methods!? No, of course not.

Same thing with classes. Or armor class. Or saving throws. Or Vancian magic systems. Or whatever.

Its a lot easier to apply verisimilitude (and equally, spot flawed logic) with regards real world concepts - like armour; as opposed to magic systems; classes and saving throws.

The difference between an objective argument (as with armour and injury) and a subjective one (as with magic systems; classes and saving throws).

While we could be a decade or more away from witnessing 4th Edition; there are certain concepts (like hp; armour; attack skill equated with Hit Dice; and proper strength) I would like to see addressed. After all there would be no point (from a consumer point of view) to release a new edition without changing major elements of contention...that said T$R got away with it in 1986.

Perhaps some of the above elements will be addressed in forthcoming supplements (D20 Modern handles armour as Damage Reduction), or as variant rules (I wonder has any d20 product so far decided to use a wound system rather than hit points - if so I haven't yet seen it?).

 

[ColonelHardisson]

No, I didn't submit. I didn't have the time to devote to coming up with a proposal that I felt would be necessary.

Regarding hit points - I don't think that people who don't "get" the concept of hit points can't grasp it due to complexity or an inherent illogic. I think they simply refuse to "get" the concept because they don't like it. That's fine, but the whole argument has been beaten to death. d20 Star Wars introduced a different way of handling hit points by way of a type of wound system, but beyond that I don't know what people want. Critical hit charts? Is that what is needed? I'm sure a d20 publisher will get to it eventually if they haven't already.

But it seems that some actually want the core of d20 - D&D itself - to discard hit points and go to whatever system they prefer. It's not going to happen. I doubt it'll happen in a 4th edition, if there is one. There are probably millions of people out here who are perfectly happy with hit points. Those who aren't can House Rule a new system (or maybe convert the system from the 2e skills & powers book) or wait until a d20 publisher comes up with one - or switch to any of a number of games out there that don't use hit points (although they actually do, in a manner of speaking).

Regarding flawed logic - I think there is flawed logic in thinking that a game system will be able to ever achieve any kind of verisimilitude. For any concept I say is realistic and models something from the real world precisely, someone else will rail about how unrealistic that concept is, and vice versa. I see an inherent logic in hit points. I see an inherent logic in how armor is used in D&D. Criticals and the Star Wars Vitality/Wound system provide ways to modify the system without slowing down the game.

Regarding superior ways to handle the issue of hit points - a lot of people have pondered this over the years. Good, smart folk. The problem isn't rocket science. At the risk of sounding too conservative on the issue, I'll say that if there was really a way to perfectly handle hit points, someone would likely have hit on it by now. And, actually, they have - they designed new game systems, which were superior, to them.

I have no problem with people wanting to come up with variant ways to handle all these different issues - hit points, armor class, classes, Vancian magic, etc. What I'm reacting against is the possibility that a vocal faction could get the game changed fundamentally, in areas that I have no problems with. So I'm providing another viewpoint to help balance the discussion.

 

[Vaxalon]

Its a lot easier to apply verisimilitude (...) with regards real world concepts...

No it's not! Versimilitude is very hard to obtain, especially when it comes to combat. Combat is a very complex environment and even very, very complex systems like GURPS fail to achieve it on a regular basis.