Why do we really need HP to represent things other than physical injuries?

[Nebulous]

And D&D damage and hit points HAVE NEVER made any real logical sense on EITHER side. So without making massive changes to the hit point system... there's no reason to default to either one.

Hit points are a game mechanic. Let's keep them that way.

Yes, i think this is the best route. There is no way to appeal to all camps of players who want it simpler, or want it grittier. I think if the core keeps it simple, modules can more easily be added to make the game into what particular groups want, if that's Wound Points/Vitality and Stamina or whatever.

Hit Points will always, always, always be metagame. The fact that you cannot stab someone with a dagger and kill them in one hit...it's not realistic but it was never meant to be.

 

[El Mahdi]

Wounds are what surges generally are, underneath all the dust, in 4th ed.

Generally, Yes. More accurately though, I'd say that Surges themselves are more like Adrenaline Surges or something along that line, but the Attrition of Surges are a form of wound modeling.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If HP were simply physical damage there would never be character "advancement" in being able to take on foes and foes would all be the same without constant TPKs. IOW, Kobolds would be just as dangerous as Dragons otherwise a single dragon hit kills a character and Magic Missile would be the most powerful spell needed.

In my mind, kobolds are not as dangerous as dragons (from a realistic perspective). Just as a knife isn't as dangerous as a sword. Get a kitchen knife. That can kill you, sure. Get a sword. That can kill you, sure.

Now, get a random sampling of 100 people, and see which they'd rather get hit with. The knife, of course, will be chosen by people that want to live. This means that a dragon's bite > magic missile (if we're going by damage from past editions), and magic missile wouldn't necessarily kill anyone in one hit (someone mentioned 50 cent and being shot nine times as an example earlier... and he don't walk with a limp!).

The same goes for kobolds and dragons. Dragons are obviously more dangerous to you physically.

Additionally, I don't see why you can't advance to more powerful foes, as long as your other defenses advance as well.

Can you explain what you mean here? Because I thought I knew what you meant, but it's so strikingly different from my experience that I feel like I must be misinterpreting you somehow. As always, play what you like

 

[Bluenose]

If HP were simply physical damage there would never be character "advancement" in being able to take on foes and foes would all be the same without constant TPKs. IOW, Kobolds would be just as dangerous as Dragons otherwise a single dragon hit kills a character and Magic Missile would be the most powerful spell needed.

There are a rather large number of games where HP advancement does not exist or is very small compared to D&D; Runequest and Dragon Warriors are the first examples to come to my mind. It's wrong to say that there's no character advancement in terms of what they can take on. You get better at not being hit, but when a blow does land it is a problem. Now, that might encourage a different approach to combat, but it doesn't mean the Sword of Humakt can't go toe-to-toe with a great troll, merely that he can't totally ignore the trollkin that are swarming about.

 

[Libramarian]

You are absolutely correct on what you say here. The only real issue though is one of amount.

50 cent getting shot nine times and surviving or a heroic fighter being embedded by nine arrows and continuing on are possible... but rare. However, in D&D the way the game itself works is that a fighter takes nine arrows to the chest, survives, gets touched on the head by a Cure Light Wounds wand 15 times, then gets back up and within 15 minutes gets into another fight where he gets embedded by nine arrows again and somehow survives it again.

And this happens over and over and over.

It's ironic that for all the talk of finding ways to cut back on the '15 minute work day'... the game instead sets up a situation where it expects warriors to get wounded and on the verge of death 2, 3, 5, 10 times in a single day. How ridiculous is that? I mean, just think about the psychological issues of being severely injured and in unimaginable pain several times a day (even if you then get 'healed' right afterwards.) Ever been burned alive? I haven't... but I imagine that if I was once... I'd never want to go through that agony again. And yet our D&D characters sit right in the middle of fireballs that drop them to 0 how many times during the course of a campaign? They get caught up in traps that make the Saw movies look quaint... and yet right before they die the cleric runs up, pats him on the head, and removes all the physical injury in a few seconds and the guy somehow says "Whoa! Glad that's over! Okay, onto the next room with the 15 orcs with battleaxes!", completely forgetting how much pain and suffering he was just in.

This is why we make the claims that hit points shouldn't be actual physical wounds (ones that require magical healing or week-long bedrest.) Because just as 'immersion-breaking' the healing surge mechanic is... the 'attack damage cause physical wounds' concept is just as ridiculous (if not ten times worse).

Well I think playing with probability is "where the magic happens" in D&D.

I mean obviously we're not going for strict realism. So instead of blatantly absurd outcomes, we simply play with the probabilities of possible outcomes.

Then we have an unrealistic overall situation that still has a bloody visceral feel in the moment. That works for me. I think it is a good solution considered generally. I'll take macro level unrealism for micro level bloodiness.

I like to get the PCs beaten up like the Doom Guy.

 

[Rhenny]

I think Bluenose has a point. I know that hit points and hit points per level is D&D from 70s through today, but if hit points were just based on con (with maybe a small addition per level), and most of the combat mechanics just revolved around trying to avoid being hit rather than getting hit and subtracting from Hp total, then we'd have an interesting and deadly combat system...and maybe combats would not take so long (another bonus).

If 5e made more use of passive defense with DR (armor type and damage resistance) and active defense (dodge or parry), and kept hp lower...this might make a game that plays well at all levels. Of course, it would be much more dangerous, and probably not D&D, but it is an interesting option.

With a system like the one I described, it wouldn't be necessary to explain what hp represent. They would be basically tied to the amount of damage a creature can take, period.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think Bluenose has a point. I know that hit points and hit points per level is D&D from 70s through today, but if hit points were just based on con (with maybe a small addition per level), and most of the combat mechanics just revolved around trying to avoid being hit rather than getting hit and subtracting from Hp total, then we'd have an interesting and deadly combat system...and maybe combats would not take so long (another bonus).

If 5e made more use of passive defense with DR (armor type and damage resistance) and active defense (dodge or parry), and kept hp lower...this might make a game that plays well at all levels. Of course, it would be much more dangerous, and probably not D&D, but it is an interesting option.

With a system like the one I described, it wouldn't be necessary to explain what hp represent. They would be basically tied to the amount of damage a creature can take, period.

Wouldn't work for everyone. I know, personally, I dislike swingy systems, which is exactly what you're suggesting.

Besides, with the designers' comments about the math being flatter, this clearly isn't (or at least wasn't at the time of DDXP) being considered. If you want creatures to be relevant for a longer stretch of levels then you need attack and defenses to scale more slowly than they traditionally have. Damage and hp can still scale fairly quickly since it's fine for a lower level creature to be less deadly so long as those creatures can still pose a threat in large numbers.

Of course, anything's possible as a module, and this certainly wouldn't be difficult to implement. A little too deadly for general consumption, I think.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think Bluenose has a point. I know that hit points and hit points per level is D&D from 70s through today, but if hit points were just based on con (with maybe a small addition per level), and most of the combat mechanics just revolved around trying to avoid being hit rather than getting hit and subtracting from Hp total, then we'd have an interesting and deadly combat system...and maybe combats would not take so long (another bonus).

If 5e made more use of passive defense with DR (armor type and damage resistance) and active defense (dodge or parry), and kept hp lower...this might make a game that plays well at all levels. Of course, it would be much more dangerous, and probably not D&D, but it is an interesting option.

With a system like the one I described, it wouldn't be necessary to explain what hp represent. They would be basically tied to the amount of damage a creature can take, period.

Personally i prefer lethal systems where combat is fast, but when I play d&d i play it partly because i am looking for something less lethal.

My guess is hp isn't something they should mess with too much. As much as it causes disagreements over what it represents (or should represent), it is one of those things that make D&D what it is. If they want to include healing surges as an optional module that is fine (and probably a requirement for 4e fans), but the core should be the same simple system from e first three editions. My only suggestion is they lean on 1e or 2e so the fighter's edge in that department has more weight.

 

[Hassassin]

Wouldn't work for everyone. I know, personally, I dislike swingy systems, which is exactly what you're suggesting.

Static HP does not mean swingy if the game is balanced for it. It just means damage must also be static.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Static HP does not mean swingy if the game is balanced for it. It just means damage must also be static.

It all depends on how low the ceiling for hp is and the potential damage range. If you use con score as hp, that is potentially swingy since many characters could die from a single blow. This is what most lethal systems are after, they assume many weapons should have achance to kill in one blow (to avoid the whole getting stabbed through the heart sixteen times thing). I make lethal systems for my own games. We actually want swingy because 1) it makes characters think twice before choosing combat and 2) it keeps combat fast and intense. But that isn't what I want from D&D. I still say keep hp as it has been in the first three (making more fundamental changes will not help wotc achieve its design goal), but if they were to do static hp just go for a middle ground average number like 50 or so. Maybe con and a multiplier based on class.