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

[CleverNickName]

I have said it in nearly every thread on this topic: I prefer the definition of "hit points" from the 1983 Basic Rules set. It is the one I've always used, it's immediately intuitive.

I did not like the fuzzy description of hit points in 4E, and I still think that healing surges are laughably absurd...but they weren't a deal-breaker for me. I still gave 4E a shot. I ended up staying with 3.5E, but it wasn't because of the way that hit points were described in 4E.

This is a complete non-issue for me. I will participate in the 5E playtests, I will give feedback, I will play the game a handful of times, I will buy the core rulebooks...because I am a fan of the game. But our interest in 5E doesn't depend on their definition of hit points...if we don't like it, we can always write our own. It's just vocabulary and flavor text. We will be focused on other aspects of the game mechanics, like talent trees and spell points. Those are more of a deal-breaker for us.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't care what definition they use, as long as it's explained. Have an up-front definition of what damage represents, what attacks represent, what saves represent, and how those things change as level increases.

 

[Grazzt]

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.

Same here, so I voted 'who cares'. The text is just the text. I don't really care how they explain it.

 

[hanez]

I could care less about the definition of hitpoints. Its been like it is long enough and I see no reason to change it. I voted who cares, with one caveat, if it is expanded to put even more emphasis on combat, tactics and minis, I probably wont play because thats not the type of game I run.

 

[the Jester]

Since hit points have always been a mix of physical hardiness, endurance, luck and skill, I don't think they've changed much over the years; it's just that 4e is the first edition to really play off the way they're defined.

Regardless, as I am a total whore for D&D, I'll buy it (at least the initial release/big 3/basic set/what have you).

 

[Plane Sailing]

My preferred RPGs have hp that clearly represent physical toughness (e.g. Runequest).

However, for D&D (of all stripes) it is one of my areas of 'suspension of disbelief'. HP is a D&Dism that has been with us for ever. I might try plugging in one of my past variants (e.g. wounds plus fatigue - hp is your fatigue, CON is your wounds. fatigue recovers quickly, CON damage recovers slowly. Take CON damage when fatigue is all gone or under other specific circumstances)

Who knows, it might even have modular definitions in the future.

 

[BobTheNob]

Time.

4e was the greatest edition they could have designed, yet for all that it was the best design to date, there was one thing about which will see me never playing it again.

How much time combat took up. I know I know, there was all sorts of things you could do to speed it up, but short of undermining player options, it was still, far and away, the bulk of play time. It just took too long and ended up being a deal breaker.

What does this have to do with this thread? HP are a nice simple staple, not the best model for representing damage, but simple. Coming out of 4e the one thing I want to see if : "Preserve that which was simple and simplify the rest".

Everything coming out of 4e we should be asking how we can trim the fat off it, make it a lean mean gaming mechanic. HP is about as lean and mean a mechanic as you can get.

To me, focusing on it as something you can "make better" is a waste of development energy. Better focus on other aspect and leave this sacred cow alone.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As long as there is no death spiral, i am fine.

I actually like 4e´s definition, but i would like to have more meaning behind bloodied status and botched death saving throws.

Even if it is just as simple as a healing check after combat to remove a mechanical penalty, which would otherwise take effect.

 

[marleykat]

I don't care given no matter what they do it's just an abstraction anyway. Just give a me hit points for both the monsters and characters more near the 1e/2e baseline and either -10 or -constitution no adjustment for dying and I am fine. Whatever is done just keep it simple please.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I voted yes, which is probably an overstatement, but it is a big issue.

The definition and implementation of a health system impacts all kinds of things. The level of lethality affects balance between classes. The level of attrition ("death spiral") affects campaign balance. Healing is affected, including whether healing magic is "necessary" and whether healing surges are "appropriate". Most combat-related rules are affected by how hp are defined and implemented.

Hit points have become to be treated more and more like a metagame resource, and less and less like an abstraction of health and injury. This is a bad thing.

It follows to me that it's really hard to improve any of those aspects of the game that involve hp without making a clear and consistent definition of what it means to be hurt, and to have mechanics that support that.

***

To be fair, 3e does not fit my idea of a hit point system, but using UA and my own inspiration I have solved some of its issues. I would not play 3e with the hit point system as it is written. Of course, since I have my houserules, this is not a choice I have to make; so I'm sort of in the "I don't care" camp as well.

If a 5e were really fantastic, I might buy it and port in some of my health stuff, but I have a hard time imagining it being fantastic without a better conception of health and injury underlying all the other rules and having more explicit options to reflect the variety of individual preferences and playstyles.