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

[El Mahdi]

I'm not sure how you make terminology fixes part of a module. As for the penalties for going to zero--sure, that's fine as an optional rule, although I hope the option is in the PHB.

Yeah, I think the modules should be in the PHB also. Or at least the most common ones that get playtested during the open test. I'd imagine that over time they and we might come up with other add-on module concepts that could be added to the game later - in a supplemental book or on DDI (or both). But Yeah, the primary ones need to be part of the PHB (or at least the DMG).

I guess as far as terminology, they're probably just going to have to go with the most common definitions that gamers use (the lowest common denominator) or the most common definition throughout the editions. That might still alienate a portion of the gamers, but I don't see any other way around it. But, hopefully in modules that might change the nature of something in the core, they should present or express the change in terminology and philosophy clearly. Like if one adds a Wound/Vitality/Condition Track type of mechanic (module), then the module should express how the definition or terminology of Hit Points changes to not include physical damage, etc. Or that fatigue/stamina/luck/energy aren't a part of Hit Points when there is a different mechanic added-on to express or track them (or ignore them...)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well Warlords suck for a lot of reasons but the healing option isnt high on my list of why.

I think the problem for a lot of us is that we dont like game mechanics that exist SOLELY to be a game mechanic. To a lot of us every rule in the game needs to either add to the flavor of dramatic storytelling adventure or not exist at all.

The idea of something thats there just to be there because its a game just doesnt sit right with us. To me the game should be modeled on collaborative, dramatic, storytelling adventure and tactical wargame rules like totally abstract HP should be an add on for people who want play that way.

I can see the gamist aspect, I like tactical games. I happen to think there are better ones then D&D to scratch that itch but theres nothing wrong with a good tactical fight in D&D. That shouldnt be the focus though.

I think thats where the 2 camps diverge.

Oh, believe me... I'm right there with you on why the camps diverge. We've been discussing this issue ever since 4E came out.

So long as you grant us the right to have our interpretation of hit points in the game right next to your interpretation of hit points (along with all the acoutrement that goes with it, like Second Winds, Warlords and the like), then we're all good. There's no reason why the book can't give us both what we want.

It'd only be when you tried to tell us that all our stuff shouldn't be in the game at all, that we'd have an issue. Some folks have tried to take the stance. And we've fought tooth and nail over it for years now.

 

[Hassassin]

The definition or the mechanics? The definition may not have changed much in 4e, but the mechanics changed a lot.

I don't care if they define HP as representing how good rap artist the character is, as long as the mechanics play out as if HP were related to physical damage to at least the degree they were in 3rd and before.

So... I didn't answer the poll, because none of the options fit. It isn't a deal breaker but the mechanics of HP and healing are one of the most important issues to me. The definition isn't.

 

[Dausuul]

I guess as far as terminology, they're probably just going to have to go with the most common definitions that gamers use (the lowest common denominator) or the most common definition throughout the editions.

Stop there a sec; I want to emphasize the difference between "definition" and "terminology."

The definition of hit points, the bit of the rulebook that tells you "This is what hit points are," barely changed at all from 3E to 4E. Rephrasing aside, it was pretty much the same Hit Points Are Not Physical Toughness Paragraph that Gygax wrote back in 1E. And it supports the 4E approach to hit points quite well.

The problem is that the names of things--"attack," "hit," "damage," "heal"--do not support the 4E approach to hit points, and the names are much more important than the book definition. The book definition gets read once, if that. The names get used multiple times a session, every session, reinforcing their implied meaning every time.

If I had to pick one single failure that I think really hurt 4E, it was not recognizing the vital importance of names.

But, hopefully in modules that might change the nature of something in the core, they should present or express the change in terminology and philosophy clearly. Like if one adds a Wound/Vitality/Condition Track type of mechanic (module), then the module should express how the definition or terminology of Hit Points changes to not include physical damage, etc. Or that fatigue/stamina/luck/energy aren't a part of Hit Points when there is a different mechanic added-on to express or track them (or ignore them...)

The problem is that you're talking about changing the definition, which few people read and fewer remember. I'm talking about the terminology. If hit point recovery is not healing, then every place the word "heal" is used for hit point recovery needs to be changed. And I don't see how that can be modular. You can't make the rulebook rewrite itself based on which optional rule is chosen.

 

[El Mahdi]

Stop there a sec; I want to emphasize the difference between "definition" and "terminology"...

Ahhhh. Got it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention, but it seems that this issue just cropped up in the last 5 years.

It's always been an issue imo. Gary Gygax discusses it in the 1e DMG -

It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points?​

It seems to me that Gary is here criticising a view, that hit points are real, that he has heard or seen expressed elsewhere. One could even say that what he is criticising is OD&D's view of hit points.

 

[CleverNickName]

It's always been an issue imo. Gary Gygax discusses it in the 1e DMG -

It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points?​

It seems to me that Gary is here criticising a view, that hit points are real, that he has heard or seen expressed elsewhere. One could even say that what he is criticising is OD&D's view of hit points.

Maybe he is criticizing the view of "real" hit points. Gary also wrote the following in the 1983 Player's Manual:

In the game, when any creature is hit (either monster or character), damage is caused. There is a way of keeping track of damage, called hit points. The number of hit points is the amount of damage that a creature can take before being killed. Hit points can be any number; the more hit points a creature has, the harder it is to kill. We often use an abbreviation for hit points: it is hp.

Your fighter starts with 8 hp (hit points) and still has all 8, since the goblin never hit you. He may have hit your armor or shield, but never got through your protection, so these attacks are still called “misses” - they didn’t actually damage your character.​

So maybe he is criticizing US for paying so much attention to it in the first place. I think he is saying that hit points are just basic, arbitrary numbers, a way of keeping track of damage in the game. That number is not the end-all, be-all measurement of your character's physical condition...more importantly, it never was intended to be.

 

[kitsune9]

Hit points is one of those mechanics that's been around for so long (since the beginning of rpgs and certain wargames) that I just accept it as is. I no longer think about the logic behind them or attempt to make any definition out what they represent. If my 1st level fighter has 6 hp, so be it. If they got 50 hp, I'm fine with that too. Time to roll dice and play.

 

[CleverNickName]

I was reading another thread on another message board, and it gave me a new point of view on this topic. The argument was something along the lines of, "why do they call them Hit Points," if they don't represent the number of times you get HIT? Why not call them Damage points, or Life Points, or something like that?" Now, I understand where they are coming from, but where do you draw the line?

How does an unarmored person have an "armor class"? Why not call it a "defense rating" like every other RPG out there?

How did "save throws" get their name? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call them "luck rolls" or "avoidance checks," or something? What are we supposed to be "saving" here?

How does a vampire suck out my experience points? Why not my hit points, or even my Constitution? I thought these things represented my "life force," not my level.

And so on.

The point is, game mechanics have names...very old names, at that. When you are in the game store and you overhear a conversation with the words "hit points," "armor class," and "save throw" mixed in, you know immediately that they are talking about D&D. These labels aren't just game mechanics anymore, they are part of the product identity.

Some people would like to make this argument more than what it is. They would like to believe that the definition of a game mechanic has a deep and profound impact on the way they play the game. *shrug* Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Honestly, I think this is only as big of an issue as you want it to be. Judging from this poll, most people don't pay all that much attention to such things.

I think the developers of 5E should just leave these things alone...especially hit points. They stand very little to gain, but a lot to lose.

 

[SteveC]

Hit points have been a debate and issue since day one. Runequest, pretty much the first "D&D done better," game uses HP equal to CON, hit locations, and armor that absorbs damage. Those rules came out of dissatisfaction with the way D&D handled combat and damage.

I was involved in many debates on the Internet in the Usenet days about the HP problem, and I can tell you those debates were furious. At the time, I found myself arguing for spells that healed a certain percentage of your hit points, but that option was largely too cumbersome to track. When WotC created a "surge" where one surge = 1/4 of your total hit points, I thought we were done with that discussion, but all it did was change people's focus. What you're seeing now is just the return of one of the oldest debates in RPGs.

To answer your question: HP isn't a deal breaker for me, but it is part of a symptom for a play style I don't like: Fantasy Vietnam. I don't care about the HP rules so long as they don't result in that style of play. From what I've heard about D&D Next's HP system, the default rules are for that playstyle, but if there are modules to make the game more heroic, I'll cheerfully play along.