Salvageable Innovations from 4e for Nonenthusiasts

[Nagol]

The important thing here is that by expanding the scope of what hit points represent, you expand the number of things that can help restore them. I think this is a good thing for hit points.

The major issue of expanding the scope of hp is when they are used to indicate an actual telling blow without regard to their expqanded role: the poison dart that inflicts its payload if any daamge is scored, for example. Hard to figure how the poison gets into someone's system when the dart was a clean miss that only shakes the target's morale.

If you expand the range of what hp represent, you have to make sure that any consequences of hp loss make sense under the new definition. If the description for hp loss is in the hands of the player and can range from morale, exhaustion, bruise/pull, or actual telling blow then the effects of rider powers, extra defenses like DR, incorporeal, etc. need to be rethought.

 

[Lanefan]

The major issue of expanding the scope of hp is when they are used to indicate an actual telling blow without regard to their expqanded role: the poison dart that inflicts its payload if any daamge is scored, for example. Hard to figure how the poison gets into someone's system when the dart was a clean miss that only shakes the target's morale.

So turn it around.

Yes the dart did a couple of points of fatigue damage, but making your save vs. the poison narrates that the dart never broke your skin at all!

Lanefan

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The major issue of expanding the scope of hp is when they are used to indicate an actual telling blow without regard to their expanded role: the poison dart that inflicts its payload if any damage is scored, for example. Hard to figure how the poison gets into someone's system when the dart was a clean miss that only shakes the target's morale.

This is not a problem of interpretation, it is one of the many problems, issues, paradoxes of combining physical damage in with all the other things that hit points are designed to represent (sorry to keep hammering this in all my posts - I'm sure you guys are sick of it by now). If your character takes hit point damage then the poison obviously does not work. If they take physical damage then their body has to fight the poison; best represented by a suitable "save" mechanic.

If you expand the range of what hp represent, you have to make sure that any consequences of hp loss make sense under the new definition. If the description for hp loss is in the hands of the player and can range from morale, exhaustion, bruise/pull, or actual telling blow then the effects of rider powers, extra defenses like DR, incorporeal, etc. need to be rethought.

Not only do you have to make sure that the consequences of hp loss make sense, you also have to (and in some respects more importantly) have to make sure the way how hit points are restored makes sense - this is where every single edition of D&D in my opinion has got it wrong.

A thought exercise:

Imagine that you do separate physical damage from everything else hit points represents. Now imagine that my character loses hit points as the result of having a greataxe swung at him; what has happened?

Luck
He got lucky - something that you can't rely on every time and so the loss of hit points makes sense. In terms of restoration - who can say how luck works? As such it is at the will of the narrative and most particularly how the dice roll in the first place so I'm not thinking there is an issue here with hit points as luck. Interestingly, I could see several feats or features growing out of luck impacting hit points with this interpretation. A halfling rogue just seems to get lucky more often (and thus may have more hit points because of it).

The ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one
This would seem to encompass skill and combat experience and thus this element of hit points represents keeping one's head in battle. I suppose it is as much the mental side of things in battle. It makes sense that an experienced character would have more hit points than a novice because of this. It makes sense that as a combat goes on, a combatants capacity to maintain their highly-skilled abilities will be tested. A quick rest and the adrenaline is back on tap for the next encounter.

The ability to take physical punishment but keep going
This is something that reflects the endurance and toughness of a character. What would have some character's screaming like a girl is just an inconsequential flesh wound for others that will need to be stitched when opportunity presents itself sometime later. Where as the previous interpretation would seem to reflect willpower, this one seems to reflect fortitude. More hit points represents a tougher character well but in terms of interpretation, the complexity is now starting to add up. You might have a lucky skillful rogue and a tough as guts barbarian with equal hit points. When the rogue takes hit point damage, it is their skill and luck that is helping them avoid the worst of the blows while for the barbarian it is as much toughness and a seemingly infinite well of endurance as raw skill that keeps them going. The DM/GM is given a measure of scope here in describing the resolution of actions - and in fact, how a character gets their hit points neatly informs them how to explain the combat narrative to their players. And so this burgeoning complexity of interpretation seems to be manageable. As for getting one's toughness back, again I know of no metric that can measure this and so the restoration of hit points due to this will make sense. A rest, a kiss on the bruise and we're back into the action.

Divine Power
The 3e example of a paladin staring down the wizard as the paladin is engulfed in arcane flames, only to remain unsinged is perhaps divine influence represented most overtly. The higher the level of the paladin, the greater their relationship with their deity and so the more sense that hit points could be derived from such. Now their deity is not going to protect them all the time but here and there, the divine character can be safe in the knowledge that their god will keep them safe. The restoration of such divine providence again is completely unknown, and so dropping it into the hit point pot would not seem to cause an issue.

Morale
This is the will to keep going, even if it means a character sacrificing themselves for something they believe in (be that belief foolish or not). In some ways this ties in with the 2nd and 3rd points underlining them and so as such, they form this neat triumvirate of capabilities that all characters will share. Again, there is an expression of desire here which may or may not be appropriate to the character but, a higher level character's morale is not going to be as sorely tested as a novice because they would have more confidence in their skills versus the same opponent than the novice - as such more hit points makes sense. The restoration of morale is interesting though. Perhaps it helps define what a short rest entails. It is a chance to deal with one's dire situation as much as it is to catch one's breath. A character who is under the extreme influence of fear may not get as many hit points back as normal from a short rest.

Inner Power
Is perhaps connected to morale but would seem to be the province of certain classes such as the monk. That such inner power may be as quickly restored as luck, divine favor or anything else so mentioned would seem to mean that again, this would be a suitable addition into the hit point melting pot.

And so, my point is that all of these things seem to make a sort of sense in the fantasy world without breaking the internal logic that is accepted when entering that fantasy world. It is only physical damage of which our ideas are so firmly rooted in our own real world that causes the issues of logic. The disbelief that a character could be at death's door one day and then barely 24 hours later is at full and maximum capacity.

In terms of other defenses such as DR, incorporeality, regeneration and so on, I'm not too sure that there is a problem - if physical damage is taken separately, then everything seems to easily follow what is logical in my opinion. DR becomes something that is applicable to both hit point loss as well as physical damage as it is a protection; a measure of the threat in the first place. Incorporeality is interesting as their is no body to do physical damage upon. There would seem to be a reliance on positive or radiant energy to combat such creatures which would make them quite deadly. I suppose the usual process of magical weaponry being partially effective is reasonable too. Regeneration only works on physical damage, not hit point damage. If anything, I think this provides a definite clarity to the equation which has strained interpretations of previous versions of D&D.

Perhaps though where things get interesting and that hit points and physical damage cannot immediately cover is:
- Consciousness and getting dazed, stunned or knocked out.
- Fatigue and Exhaustion (although one could be 0 hps equals the fatigued condition which can then get worse, exhausted, then debilitated, then incapacitated).
- Fear effects (again, this is close with fear effects doing hit point damage that is not reduced by DR as much as by will defense).
- Drowning effects: linked to Consciousness I suppose but would seem to be independent of hit points and physical damage).

Anyway, thank you Nagol for the thought-provoking post - it provoked a lot of thoughts from me.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Bluenose]

If we look at how classic hex-map war games work, movement takes the place of hit points as a way to provide momentum. Instead of hitting and doing damage, attacking units force defending units to retreat. If the defender can't retreat -- because it's backed up against a river -- then the unit is (effectively) destroyed.

If you're going to look at things to see how movement works in combat, then combat sports and re-enactment groups would seem a good place to start. And they're full of people moving around, in small scale combat. Less so on a larger scale, where a solid shieldwall is an extremely valuable tactic. I'm not sure the second is what D&D represents.

Incidentally, while your example of hex wargames does reflect how some do it, it's not universal. Some treat a forced retreat in a situation where a unit can't do so as having no effect. Which also reflects historical reality, sometimes. Sun Tzu says why.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Ya know, reading the last few post, it occurs to me that a long term injury system could be easily added to 4e keying off the healing surges (they should really be called vitality reserves or something) and the death save mechanics)
So if you make death save one gains the concussed condition and cannot regain healing surves without an extended rest and if you run out of healing surges then you have a long term wound and start on the disease track to determine the progress of you injury.

I think that something like the disease track mechanic would be better for long term wounds for all editions.

In my opinion though, long term injury systems should be optional for those that want them rather than part of the core.

 

[Nagol]

So turn it around.

Yes the dart did a couple of points of fatigue damage, but making your save vs. the poison narrates that the dart never broke your skin at all!

Lanefan

How about an example of play:

The DM: A dart wizzes out of the wall. <Rolls dice> Take 4 hp piercing damage.
The player: My boots of dancing maneuvers DR 3 drops that to 1 so I only have 100 left. I guess the sight of the dart passing that close is enough to get the heart going!

<An hour of play later>

The DM: OK since you're camping for the night, I need a roll from The Player!
The Player: OK 2
The DM: You're afflicted by the horrible disease of limbs-falling-off. So far you've lost your right foot.
The Player: How did that happen!?!
The DM: You were exposed when the dart trap hit you.
The player: Gee. So much for my ability to choose the form of hp loss. I suppose I need to retcon that flustering miss into being nicked despite the elegant movement. I wish I knew that earlier! I would have had the combat medic look at the prick for poison/disease/magical possession agents

 

[Nagol]

This is not a problem of interpretation, it is one of the many problems, issues, paradoxes of combining physical damage in with all the other things that hit points are designed to represent (sorry to keep hammering this in all my posts - I'm sure you guys are sick of it by now). If your character takes hit point damage then the poison obviously does not work. If they take physical damage then their body has to fight the poison; best represented by a suitable "save" mechanic.


Not only do you have to make sure that the consequences of hp loss make sense, you also have to (and in some respects more importantly) have to make sure the way how hit points are restored makes sense - this is where every single edition of D&D in my opinion has got it wrong.

I was mostly agreeing with you that the expansion of hp into less tangible realms increases the need for the player group to track physical damage differently. This is a sensible design path for an RPG. It trades complexity for a more "simulationist" feel for the toll of combat.

A thought exercise:

Imagine that you do separate physical damage from everything else hit points represents. Now imagine that my character loses hit points as the result of having a greataxe swung at him; what has happened?

Luck <snip>
The ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one <snip>
The ability to take physical punishment but keep going <snip>
Divine Power <snip>
Morale <snip>
Inner Power <snip>

And so, my point is that all of these things seem to make a sort of sense in the fantasy world without breaking the internal logic that is accepted when entering that fantasy world. It is only physical damage of which our ideas are so firmly rooted in our own real world that causes the issues of logic. The disbelief that a character could be at death's door one day and then barely 24 hours later is at full and maximum capacity.

The simplest way to expand hp to fill these roles that helps serve narrative sense is to give each one its own bucket. Running out of any particular bucket has a grave consequce tied to the bucket type (unconsciousness, despair, incapacitation, chronic conditions, curses, etc.). The player gets to choose which bucket to draw from whenever combat indicates a toll (previously termed damage). Each bucket has a different form of refresh -- some of which are mutually exclusive like physical therapy for "Physical Punishment but Keep Going" versus days of meditative introspection for "Inner Power".

That allows the player and the DM to narrate the action consistently when damage is applied and to sensibly apply consequence where and when it is appropriate.

In terms of other defenses such as DR, incorporeality, regeneration and so on, I'm not too sure that there is a problem - if physical damage is taken separately, then everything seems to easily follow what is logical in my opinion. DR becomes something that is applicable to both hit point loss as well as physical damage as it is a protection; a measure of the threat in the first place. Incorporeality is interesting as their is no body to do physical damage upon. There would seem to be a reliance on positive or radiant energy to combat such creatures which would make them quite deadly. I suppose the usual process of magical weaponry being partially effective is reasonable too. Regeneration only works on physical damage, not hit point damage. If anything, I think this provides a definite clarity to the equation which has strained interpretations of previous versions of D&D.

Perhaps though where things get interesting and that hit points and physical damage cannot immediately cover is:
- Consciousness and getting dazed, stunned or knocked out.
- Fatigue and Exhaustion (although one could be 0 hps equals the fatigued condition which can then get worse, exhausted, then debilitated, then incapacitated).
- Fear effects (again, this is close with fear effects doing hit point damage that is not reduced by DR as much as by will defense).
- Drowning effects: linked to Consciousness I suppose but would seem to be independent of hit points and physical damage).

Anyway, thank you Nagol for the thought-provoking post - it provoked a lot of thoughts from me.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

My point about defensive abilities like DR and incorporeality is they should only apply to specific types of hp "damage". The djinni may be immune to normal metal, but he can still be flustered, lose divine favour, abuse his luck, and so on. Currently, the defenses are globally applied.

 

[mmadsen]

Yes the dart did a couple of points of fatigue damage, but making your save vs. the poison narrates that the dart never broke your skin at all!

That's an excellent answer to the question of what to do while at the table playing the game, but that doesn't address the poor design of the game rules, which are meant to model the situation.

If I want to poison someone with a dart, how should I increase my chances, and what might decrease my chances? I need to achieve a (game-mechanical) hit vs. his AC, and he needs to fail a Fort save. Wearing him down and using up his luck, divine favor, etc. reduces his ability to dodge blows and turn them into lesser blows, but somehow it doesn't reduce my ability to hit him in an unarmored spot with my poisoned dart, and it doesn't affect his resistance to the poison.

If we actually treated hit points as luck points rather than toughness points, we could avoid this problem by letting such luck points be usable against the to-hit roll, against the damage roll, and to boost the saving throw. But that way lies heresy.

 

[Nagol]

That's an excellent answer to the question of what to do while at the table playing the game, but that doesn't address the poor design of the game rules, which are meant to model the situation.

<snip>

I'd suggest it's not an excellent answer since it presumes the dart actualy hit and precludes "simple" morale damage, divine favour/luck depletion, and all the other justifications put forward as to why a hit need not be a palpable hit when martial healing, overnight recovery, or other game constructs are critiqued.

If the dart didn't impact, the secondary effect can't occur. If the scondary effect occurs, then there was a palpable iimpact. It may seem nitpicking when used on a dart, but consider a poisoned long sword. If the poison strikes, there had to a palpable hit that affected the character. The player can't choose the narrative option for hp depletion until all consequence is known and that can be much later in the session and the player's narrative choice is not recognised and validated by the game engine since even if the player chooses X, secondary consequences both good and ill ignore his choice.

 

[GSHamster]

My feeling on hit points is that, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, "It has been said that hit points are the worst form of adjudicating damage except all the others that have been tried."

Hit points are terribly flawed. But at the same time, they just work.