Schrodinger's HP and Combat

D'karr

Adventurer
Why can't inspiring words heal HPs lost by being wounded? Nowhere in the book it says that when a character recovers HPs it means his wounds just vanished.

That is a good question. Mechanically there is nothing preventing it. If you look at HP as the capability to stay in the fight, then inspiring word can easily be seen as recovering HP, but the "wound" is now "transferred" to the Healing Surge mechanic. The "wound" still exists. This is part of the methodology I implemented for having short and long term injuries in the game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That is a good question. Mechanically there is nothing preventing it. If you look at HP as the capability to stay in the fight, then inspiring word can easily be seen as recovering HP, but the "wound" is now "transferred" to the Healing Surge mechanic. The "wound" still exists. This is part of the methodology I implemented for having short and long term injuries in the game.

Inspireing word always seemed to me to be pushing past wounds, not closeing them
 

D'karr

Adventurer
Inspireing word always seemed to me to be pushing past wounds, not closeing them

Correct, and since D&D has always used hp to show a capacity to stay in the fight then it makes sense that anything that recovers hp allows you to stay in the fight (push through) despite "wounds".
 

Why can't inspiring words heal HPs lost by being wounded? Nowhere in the book it says that when a character recovers HPs it means his wounds just vanished.

I think the logic goes something like "if you're at full hit points, then you MUST be in the best possible state you could be in, and having any sort of wound is clearly not the best possible state". This is again part of thinking of game mechanics as rigidly mapped to narrative in an invariant way, there can only be one state that is described by full hit points.

Of course this begs the question of things like when you don't recover to full hit points, in which case there's no issue. It also begs questions like "well, I have less healing surges than I had before" which in 4e you would perforce have to take into account (and yet IME the focus of the argument never strays to HS).

Nor, finally is it clear to me that what a Warlord does cannot heal physical damage. It may be 'inspiration', but in a fantastical world the concept of "mind over matter" sure isn't a big reach. If I believe I'm all set to go, then by gosh maybe I really am!
 

HeinorNY

First Post
I think the logic goes something like "if you're at full hit points, then you MUST be in the best possible state you could be in, and having any sort of wound is clearly not the best possible state". This is again part of thinking of game mechanics as rigidly mapped to narrative in an invariant way, there can only be one state that is described by full hit points.

This logic is flawed because Hit Points are not a wound tracker, they "measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle." Being at full HP doesn't mean your character is "intact", it means he has all of his capacity to stand, be at his feet functioning and not down and dying.

A boat's Hit Points represent its ability to float and not sink. If I burst a hole in its hull, it loses HPs, it loses some of its ability to float. If I fix the hole, it regains Hps. But if instead I throw away some of its extra cargo, or if I attach some barrels to his sides, the boat heals because it recovers its ability to float. In D&D if an intact boat and a boat with holes and barrels attached to it have their maximum float-ability, they are both at full Hit Points.

Nowhere it says in 4E, and I think not in any D&D edition ever, that the effect that recovers Hit Points must "counter" the effect that made the character lose Hit Points. They are independent things, adding or subtracting to the same abstract variable. The character loses HPs because he was wounded by a sword, and then regained some Hps because his friend gave him some encouraging words, or he had some adrenaline or morale burst, or whatever effect that increases his ability to keep up on his feet fighting.
 

This logic is flawed because Hit Points are not a wound tracker, they "measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle." Being at full HP doesn't mean your character is "intact", it means he has all of his capacity to stand, be at his feet functioning and not down and dying.
What you say is true for 4E, but may or may not be true for other editions. The wording and rule interactions, especially during AD&D and 3.x, left it ambiguous that your current state of Hit Points might be used to track wounds.
 

This logic is flawed because Hit Points are not a wound tracker, they "measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle." Being at full HP doesn't mean your character is "intact", it means he has all of his capacity to stand, be at his feet functioning and not down and dying.

A boat's Hit Points represent its ability to float and not sink. If I burst a hole in its hull, it loses HPs, it loses some of its ability to float. If I fix the hole, it regains Hps. But if instead I throw away some of its extra cargo, or if I attach some barrels to his sides, the boat heals because it recovers its ability to float. In D&D if an intact boat and a boat with holes and barrels attached to it have their maximum float-ability, they are both at full Hit Points.

Nowhere it says in 4E, and I think not in any D&D edition ever, that the effect that recovers Hit Points must "counter" the effect that made the character lose Hit Points. They are independent things, adding or subtracting to the same abstract variable. The character loses HPs because he was wounded by a sword, and then regained some Hps because his friend gave him some encouraging words, or he had some adrenaline or morale burst, or whatever effect that increases his ability to keep up on his feet fighting.

I completely agree with you. IMHO your logic is perfectly sound. I was just pointing out that there is a very vocal and fairly numerous school of D&Ders for whom there can be but one mapping of mechanics to narrative and for that group of people there can be only one way to explain healing. Its possible there are subsets of that group that have DIFFERENT explanations, but they all share the common element that multiple narratives mapping to the same mechanical outcome (or vice versa for that matter) is not something they want to countenance. 4e was thus clearly and explicitly not their cup of tea, and the OP's post here was obviously a response to that sort of opinion.

Honestly, there are games in which I agree with them. Traveler for instance, while it doesn't EXACTLY have hit points per-se has effectively the same mechanic, and its pretty clear that in that game its MEAT. There is no component of luck, morale, etc. Damage is physical wounds (maybe extreme exhaustion might count).
 

pemerton

Legend
there are games in which I agree with them. Traveler for instance, while it doesn't EXACTLY have hit points per-se has effectively the same mechanic, and its pretty clear that in that game its MEAT. There is no component of luck, morale, etc. Damage is physical wounds (maybe extreme exhaustion might count).
There are lots of games where I agree with them - that loss of "hit points" (or whatever analogue is standing in for them) equates to physical wound and/or extreme exhaustion. Not just Traveller but Runequest and all the other BRP games; HARP and RM (although these are more complex systems that combine "hit points" to measure some injury and exhaustion with condition-imposition via critical rolls to model other injury and exhaustion); Burning Wheel (which in some way resembles Traveller, with injury penalties being applied as deductions to stats and skills); and I'm sure many others that I'm not remembering at present.

Another thing most if not all of these systems have in common is a "death spiral": losing hit points, or accruing penalties to stat and skills, means that a character who is being worn down also becomes less able to function effectively.

It's the absence of the death spiral from D&D's hit point system, plus the extreme propensity of character hit points to grow with level, that create the obstacles for me interpreting its hit point system in the same way.
 

There are lots of games where I agree with them - that loss of "hit points" (or whatever analogue is standing in for them) equates to physical wound and/or extreme exhaustion. Not just Traveller but Runequest and all the other BRP games; HARP and RM (although these are more complex systems that combine "hit points" to measure some injury and exhaustion with condition-imposition via critical rolls to model other injury and exhaustion); Burning Wheel (which in some way resembles Traveller, with injury penalties being applied as deductions to stats and skills); and I'm sure many others that I'm not remembering at present.

Another thing most if not all of these systems have in common is a "death spiral": losing hit points, or accruing penalties to stat and skills, means that a character who is being worn down also becomes less able to function effectively.

It's the absence of the death spiral from D&D's hit point system, plus the extreme propensity of character hit points to grow with level, that create the obstacles for me interpreting its hit point system in the same way.

Well, BRP pretty much lacks anything like a death spiral. OTOH characters are pretty fragile, I think it tends to try to be realistic basically. You can if you are lucky survive a small number of hits, but then you die, so there's not a huge reason to have a death spiral. I think Traveller is basically the same, there's a 'wounded' threshold, an 'incapacitated' one, and then dead. Generally Traveller weaponry is so lethal that only fairly benign situations 'only' damage you. A PGMP for instance dishes out I think around 9 dice of damage (its been a while). Even a revolver will generally incapacitate most people that get shot with it.
 

pemerton

Legend
Well, BRP pretty much lacks anything like a death spiral. OTOH characters are pretty fragile, I think it tends to try to be realistic basically. You can if you are lucky survive a small number of hits, but then you die, so there's not a huge reason to have a death spiral. I think Traveller is basically the same, there's a 'wounded' threshold, an 'incapacitated' one, and then dead.
In Classic Traveller there is a death spiral: injury deducts from your stats, and minimum stats are needed to gain bonuses, or avoid penalties, on making attacks; and losing END reduces your number of non-weakened blows and swings.

I can't remember how/if RQ handles death spirals - I'll look it up when I get home!
 

In Classic Traveller there is a death spiral: injury deducts from your stats, and minimum stats are needed to gain bonuses, or avoid penalties, on making attacks; and losing END reduces your number of non-weakened blows and swings.

I can't remember how/if RQ handles death spirals - I'll look it up when I get home!

I don't even remember the END part TBH. You're right though, STR and DEX damage can reduce you to penalties. The truth is though you have 7 on average in each stat, and damage is usually on the order of at least 2-3 d6, and IIRC you cannot 'split' damage, you have to take it all on one stat (your choice which one) until it overflows onto a 2nd one. So the vast majority of the time in Traveller you get hit and you now have 0 in usually STR, and maybe you can still move around, sort of, but combat is right out anyway. The spiral isn't much of a spiral, its more of a steep ramp! Combat with primitive weapons is a bit less outright lethal than old-school D&D at low levels, but its still pretty brutal. Armor would help of course, but being a sci-fi game its sort of like "Oh, you have ARMOR, and the space pirates have PGMPs, RPGs, and Gauss Rifles...."
 

Bluenose

Adventurer
I can't remember how/if RQ handles death spirals - I'll look it up when I get home!

Arguably the most "death spiral" aspect is that if you're injured badly enough to disable a body part, that body part stops functioning. Bad if it's the arm you hold your sword with, worse if it's your head and you'r enow unconscious on the floor.
 

pemerton

Legend
[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] - I looked up Book 1 (Characters & Combat) when I got home.

On the END issue: wounds taken to END in a given combat encounter do not reduce the number of available blows/swings in that combat, but do reduce the number of available blows/swings in the next combat.

On the damage dice issue: the first wound comes all of one randomly-determined stat (creating the "ramp" you describe); if the character survives that, then damage dice can be split and allocated to stats as the player chooses.

On Runequest - yep, as you said there is no death spiral other than bleeding.

EDIT: Though, as [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] points out, there is body-part dysfunction which is a type of death spiral.
 

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] - I looked up Book 1 (Characters & Combat) when I got home.

On the END issue: wounds taken to END in a given combat encounter do not reduce the number of available blows/swings in that combat, but do reduce the number of available blows/swings in the next combat.

On the damage dice issue: the first wound comes all of one randomly-determined stat (creating the "ramp" you describe); if the character survives that, then damage dice can be split and allocated to stats as the player chooses.
Huh, my recollection is that the player chose from STR, DEX, or END and allocated each wound entirely to one of those 3, with any excess spilling over. I'm still playing with the original LBBs from 1977 though, so perhaps things have evolved since then! Honestly we haven't broken out Traveller in a few years now. It was always a fun system, but I think perhaps nowadays I'd use something like 'Strike!' for the game mechanics, and just pilfer Traveller for a lot of the tech and whatnot.

On Runequest - yep, as you said there is no death spiral other than bleeding.

Yeah, BRP IIRC doesn't really have any at all since it lacks the detailed wound placement rules of RQ. Maybe they're in there somewhere as an option. Honestly I find BRP to be too cumbersome these days. It was a nice system circa 1980, but its terribly dated. Again, something like Strike! would seem like it would be a lot cooler way to play something like CoC and would almost drop in. CoC always BEGGED to be a story game, but it was always saddled with the very mechanistic simulation driven BRP mechanics. Never was a good match. The material made it a fun game, but it kind of succeeded despite the rules.
 

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] On Runequest - yep, as you said there is no death spiral other than bleeding.

EDIT: Though, as [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] points out, there is body-part dysfunction which is a type of death spiral.

Chaosium RQ also featured shock. A body part taking twice its HP in damage not only renders that body part unusable, but also incapacitates you with shock and you are unable to do much more than heal yourself (if you could).

An human arm in RQ typically had 3-4 HP. A human with a sword could comfortably be doing 1d8+1+1d4 damage. A troll or scorpionman could be doing 2d8+2d6 with a maul.

So the death spiral went down pretty steep. First solid hit usually defeated an opponent, certainly until high initiate/early rune level where players' magic could begin to compensate for the lethality.

Bear in mind that the RQ magic system was also a kind of death spiral, where using your power to cast spells made you more vulnerable to enemy magic!

Great game.
 

pemerton

Legend
Huh, my recollection is that the player chose from STR, DEX, or END and allocated each wound entirely to one of those 3, with any excess spilling over. I'm still playing with the original LBBs from 1977 though, so perhaps things have evolved since then!
The rule I described is from the 1977 edition. (The first RPG I owned.)
 

Bluenose

Adventurer
Huh, my recollection is that the player chose from STR, DEX, or END and allocated each wound entirely to one of those 3, with any excess spilling over. I'm still playing with the original LBBs from 1977 though, so perhaps things have evolved since then! Honestly we haven't broken out Traveller in a few years now. It was always a fun system, but I think perhaps nowadays I'd use something like 'Strike!' for the game mechanics, and just pilfer Traveller for a lot of the tech and whatnot.

Each dice of damage could be allocated independently, although different versions of the combat system took a slightly different approach. 12d6 from an FGMP-15 still hurts just a little.

Again, something like Strike! would seem like it would be a lot cooler way to play something like CoC and would almost drop in. CoC always BEGGED to be a story game, but it was always saddled with the very mechanistic simulation driven BRP mechanics. Never was a good match. The material made it a fun game, but it kind of succeeded despite the rules.

Trail of Cthulhu uses the same rules as Gumshoe, and there are several Fate conversions. In my opinion an adaptation of the Pendragon rules could have been a really good fit.

Bear in mind that the RQ magic system was also a kind of death spiral, where using your power to cast spells made you more vulnerable to enemy magic!

Though using someone else's Power...

Now where did I bind that spirit?
 


Each dice of damage could be allocated independently, although different versions of the combat system took a slightly different approach. 12d6 from an FGMP-15 still hurts just a little.
Well, then there's space combat where if your anti-missile laser turret software doesn't work you get to eat a 20 kiloton nuclear tipped gift package. Generally speaking its a pretty deadly game. I used the original Striker! (heh, just noticed the name clash with the kickstarted RPG) supplement and ran a few mercenary army scenarios with tanks and really heavy weapons. It was silly deadly. Even a pintel mounted fusion cannon is pretty much instant death, even if your clad in the nastiest power armor available.

Trail of Cthulhu uses the same rules as Gumshoe, and there are several Fate conversions. In my opinion an adaptation of the Pendragon rules could have been a really good fit.

Yeah, I've heard all about ToC, but never played it. I think maybe I'll do a Striker! game, they have already put out a sample Lovecraftian adventure. Once the kickstarter finishes up it should be a reasonably nice system. I think the analogies to 4e are a bit strained, but it does present an interesting hybrid of different rules systems. Definitely reading their free rules preview has given me a few things to think about...

One of the interesting things is they use hit points as purely a temporary thing. You go into combat with N hit points, every combat (I think, some things were a bit unclear, its only a draft of the final rules, and not complete). Whether or not the stakes include the possibility of death is decided before the encounter starts, so going to zero means you are 'knocked out' of the fight, but could be interpreted various ways, and you can spend APs both as something like an HS or to get a kind of plot coupon, again its somewhat unclear, but the point is hit points are more like 4e's THP, and their APs can act like HS. There are also healing powers ala 4e and I think you can maybe invoke a plot complication to get out of some damage or something. In any case the end result is you get 'wounded' conditions, which impose penalties on your checks, and possibly other conditions. If you get 2-3 wounds you're pretty much non-functional, though again you don't really explicitly die at any specific point.
 

jodyjohnson

Adventurer
I think a more forthright presence of a Lingering Wounds mechanic or a more prominent position for the Disease Track would have been something that I would have used in 4e.

If we could have gotten over the 'Play the Game RAW' mindset earlier. I think the Character Builder was the biggest barrier for that.

It took 4e to really bring what bothered me in earlier editions into focus with respect to the definition of HP.
 

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top