The Definition of Hit Points--is it really a deal-breaker?

[CleverNickName]

There is a lot of discussion about how we define "hit points" and "damage" in our games. In at least half a dozen threads, people have discussed the topic a hundred times from a hundred different angles. Sometimes these discussions get so heated that people lose their sense of civility, forget they are talking to a fellow human being, and get kicked out for rudeness.

Come on, guys. Is it really that big of a deal?

We have been playing this game for years. Decades, even, for some of us. The believability of hit points has never been so hotly contested. (Personally, I think a lot of these "debates" are merely thinly-veiled Pro-4E/Anti-4E sentiments. But that's just my opinion.) Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention, but it seems that this issue just cropped up in the last 5 years.

So, really. Look deep inside your heart and ask yourself: does it really matter?

 

[herrozerro]

It really doesn't matter to me, but I would probably be more against it if it was strictly physical damage. I prefer a system where HP is completely abstract, where a batman-esque character can go through an adventure and at the end of it look half dead but is still heroic and the character who never hets "hit" until the blow that puts them at or below 0

 

[Grydan]

While I honestly don't care what they say about HP, and what they represent, as long as they work (and so voted "Who cares?"), it can have an impact on the design of the game in ways I do care about.

I like Warlords. I like that I don't need divine magic or potions to recover from the depletion of a metagame resource that doesn't really represent anything in any logical way, whether it be luck, skill, physical health, heart containers, or the number of guardian angels you have left.

Is it a dealbreaker for me? Probably not. Especially because it's one area where I fully expect we'll see lots of adjustable options in place.

 

[boredgremlin]

I prefer a gritty low HP system but I have no problem houseruling something like that into effect so i dont really care what they do with it out of the box.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I voted No, but I think there's no chance whatsoever that they will radically alter HP. Not only is it in every edition of D&D, it's the key wound component of just about every non-paper RPG in the world. Including FPS, when you think about it.

There might be some sort of long-term injury rule, but we'll have to wait and see what that entails.

 

[jshaft37]

I have no idea how to implement this to be fun in a tabletop game, but ideally, i'd rather have combat and essentially work like this.

If you have two equally matched combatants in a sword fight, the fight may last a few seconds to a few minutes. The bulk of the fight will be parrying, dodging, and trying to get an advantage over your opponent. There will probably be a few times when an opponent makes a swing, you dodge, and deliver a kick to the chest, or perhaps trip your opponent. Eventually you capitalize and deliver a debilitating strike or kill your opponent with a devastating blow.

A sword slash to the throat, being run through, etc = death. Along the way you can punch, kick, burn, maim, your opponent dealing "minor" damage.

it seems like that that is more dramatic, possibly more realistic, and also takes care of some of the issues of level creep. a PC doesn't getting better at dealing damage, the sword does most of the work, rather the PC gets more precise at striking, and much better at defending (consider that "battle awareness/intelligence"?)

on the other hand, I can see this being very boring, as in a combat, it would be mostly misses. It could also be very swingy, as a player or DM who has hot dice, might wipe the floor with their opponents. You'd definitely have to rely on strategy pre-fight to make sure you have given yourself all the advantages you can.

 

[billd91]

For my money, it's never been the definition of hit points that is the problem. It's the rest of the stuff around it that I may not like. I like taking a Second Wind, great stuff there. Not every fight, though, and not more than once a fight. I preferred the Star Wars Saga Edition take on it. Once a day, a feat and a talent may each add one more per day, but no more than one may be taken in any encounter. 4e, as far as I'm concerned, took something decent and overdosed on it. If 5e persists with that, it's going to figure into my assessment of the game in a negative way.

I'm content to allow PCs to regain hit points quickly and easily, to a point, and see hit points as more than physical, to a point. We're currently experimenting with a house rule in Pathfinder in which PCs taking a 5 minute rest can regain half the hit points lost in the last encounter (basically, since the last 5 minute rest). In effect, I'm treating half of all damage as being longer-term physical and half being easily recoverable.
For anyone curious about how we're handling combat healing, in any cases involving receiving healing after taking the damage but before the 5 minute rest, recent damage must be healed first.

And no, though we are using the 5 minute rest idea from 4e, extended rests do not restore all hit points. I'm definitely NOT using that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'll buy the game regardless, because I usually never get so tied up in making sure game mechanics = flavor/reality. If the game mechanics work as game mechanics and are fun to play... then I'm happy. And hit points as a game mechanic in ALL its previous forms have worked as game mechanics for me... even if the "description of reality" they were trying to mirror was more often than not rather dodgy.

 

[Dausuul]

The book definition of hit points is not the issue here. Except for BD&D, every edition of D&D has defined hit points pretty much the same way. It's the terminology and interactions surrounding hit points that matter.

5E can define hit points however it likes. Few people will read the definition. Even fewer will care. The question is how hit points will work, and that's something people do care about. Combat is a big part of D&D, always has been, always will be, and the hit point mechanic stands at the very heart of combat. So I don't think it's overreacting to say that if hit points don't work the way you want/expect them to, it's a deal-breaker. It isn't a deal-breaker for me, but it is a major concern.

 

[Li Shenron]

Come on, guys. Is it really that big of a deal?

No, it's not a big deal. It's an unsolvable problem anyway.

But it may become a big deal if a definition of hit points very different from what comes natural to me leads the game design to make it too integral part of the mechanics (*cough* healing surges *cough*). But hopefully modularity will take care of such problems.