Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grell" data-source="post: 5877997" data-attributes="member: 6692542"><p>So, to further best this horse... I agree with the original poster. I've argued this point a number of times including against some real WotC debs and designs, and ultimately things probably won't change for number of reasons. I'm ok with that; as the OP stated, it does work mechanically very well for HP to be ambiguous, and as others have said, it first within the traditions of DD mechanics that hit points be ambiguous in their meaning.</p><p></p><p>The real problem with hit points isn't that they are an admixture of physical damage, mental resolve, and stain, but that the terminology involved in their loss implied physical damage. When you roll, you roll "to hit", not "to cause a near miss". When you actually succeed, you are said to "hit" not to "cause strain". When you roll for the affect, you roll "damage" not "fatigue" or "loss of morale". The words used to describe the combat help create the narrative of that combat; even though we KNOW that real combat is misses and parries and shield blocks and weapons sliding off of armor, we seldom describe D&D combat that way, instead simplifying it down to hits and misses. Not everyone does this, but I think it's probably ok to say that the majority of us don't describe every combat round in exacting detail.</p><p></p><p>The combat narrative as it is spelled out with rules is a binary hit or miss with a hit causing a roll for damage, and e subsequent loss of hit points based on that damage. This creates a narrative where the damage the ax inflicts is the loss of hit points, IE physical damage. If a priest heals that damage, it's the divine power closing the wounds. I a warlord does it.... What happens? The guy realizes that wound isn't as deep as the thought and just shakes it off?</p><p></p><p>That doesn't work for me, but the alternatives are worse; if you want HP to be more than physical, then weapons and combat need new terms to remove the implied physicality of their usage into something that reflects that accurately. If you want HP as damage only, then you close off a lot of options mechanically... It's tough to decide.</p><p></p><p>Oh, some one mentioned the idea that hit points had to be mental because of various mind affecting spells that delt damage... To me, that's where 3rd Ed's nonlethal damage worked nicely; psionics and fatigue could go play with nonlethal, no leave HP to the swords and fireballs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grell, post: 5877997, member: 6692542"] So, to further best this horse... I agree with the original poster. I've argued this point a number of times including against some real WotC debs and designs, and ultimately things probably won't change for number of reasons. I'm ok with that; as the OP stated, it does work mechanically very well for HP to be ambiguous, and as others have said, it first within the traditions of DD mechanics that hit points be ambiguous in their meaning. The real problem with hit points isn't that they are an admixture of physical damage, mental resolve, and stain, but that the terminology involved in their loss implied physical damage. When you roll, you roll "to hit", not "to cause a near miss". When you actually succeed, you are said to "hit" not to "cause strain". When you roll for the affect, you roll "damage" not "fatigue" or "loss of morale". The words used to describe the combat help create the narrative of that combat; even though we KNOW that real combat is misses and parries and shield blocks and weapons sliding off of armor, we seldom describe D&D combat that way, instead simplifying it down to hits and misses. Not everyone does this, but I think it's probably ok to say that the majority of us don't describe every combat round in exacting detail. The combat narrative as it is spelled out with rules is a binary hit or miss with a hit causing a roll for damage, and e subsequent loss of hit points based on that damage. This creates a narrative where the damage the ax inflicts is the loss of hit points, IE physical damage. If a priest heals that damage, it's the divine power closing the wounds. I a warlord does it.... What happens? The guy realizes that wound isn't as deep as the thought and just shakes it off? That doesn't work for me, but the alternatives are worse; if you want HP to be more than physical, then weapons and combat need new terms to remove the implied physicality of their usage into something that reflects that accurately. If you want HP as damage only, then you close off a lot of options mechanically... It's tough to decide. Oh, some one mentioned the idea that hit points had to be mental because of various mind affecting spells that delt damage... To me, that's where 3rd Ed's nonlethal damage worked nicely; psionics and fatigue could go play with nonlethal, no leave HP to the swords and fireballs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things
Top