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

[Redbadge]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know who used 'meat' first. But you may be taking it much more literally than intended.

I've never heard of anyone who imagines that high level PCs actually have denser bodies than they had ten levels ago. What I have heard, and this is my own preferred philosophy, is that PCs get [more] magical as they gain levels. D&D is a magical world, so it follows that even its most mundane denizens don't follow all of the rules we're accustomed to.

Namely, all D&D creatures have a certain amount of magic body mojo that protects and heals. And the more it's used, the better it works. And that's why the 1st level PC loses his head to the dragon, while the 10th level PC gets a hickey.

Still, that isn't what the OP suggested. He suggested HP as just "physical damage", not as increasing magical mojo, which is something I could get behind under the right scenarios.

 

[pemerton]

If you look at hp as purely physical, then hp are just meat. That makes sense if you compare a bear to a low level fighter, but not a high level fighter to a low level fighter. Obviously, then, hp are more than physical. If you want to always include some physical factor then, again, that's fine. But if the same attack and damage has a different outcome against a high hp/level fighter than a low hp/level fighter, then meta factors are implicit therein.

This is all fine, but is consistent with the OP's desire that hp loss only represent physical injury. It's just that the "meta factors" determine how much injury any given amount of hp loss represents.

Again, not my preferred take on hp, but roughly workable, I think, with some tweaking to healing (4e-style proportionate recovery) and some squinting at falling and AoEs (where it can be hard to explain exactly how the metafactors are working).

 

[Kynn]

So a 10th level character would be able to fight with 9 arrows in him, which is heroic but not completely unreasonable.

50 cent survived being shot 9 times.

Clearly 50 Cent is Epic Level.

 

[Kynn]

Trauma is another story, and that is where the "scars you for the rest of your life" side comes in. If current thinking is accurate, no one really bounces back from that without some kind of help. The difference is that sufficient "help" for some people is "told a buddy about it over a beer." These people seem to bounce back faster, because it is easier for them to get support. Of course, D&D is probably not going to measure the quality of each PCs' support network.

I see the potential for a healing module based on Streetwise rolls.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The only reason I keep talking about the issue of wounds versus energy/stamina/luck is because I just don't want to game to go back to the "old ways" which was the cleric being the ONLY worthwhile option as Main Healer (because of the belief that only divine magical healing should get a person back to full hit points.)

So long as bards / shaman / artificers / warlords / ardents etc. etc. are valid options as a potential Main Healer in addition to the cleric... then they can define hit points as 'percentage of skin flayed off' for all I care.

 

[Kynn]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but what I would like to see is a system where it's implemented that hit point loss in sections starts adding on different minuses or something equivalent. Let's say for example a PC has 40 hit points. Now he gets hit and takes 10 points of damage. Well what happens is he takes say a -1 to damage or -2 or something along those lines.

No, death spirals are crappy and don't actually improve D&D in any way.

 

[boredgremlin]

Just a side note: its a combination of conditioning and sideshow tricks. Anyone can bend a spear on their throat, or break a brick with a few weeks of training. During the Boxer's Rebellion, when monks rushed gunmen, they became dead monks just like anyone else.

Ahh but what level were those monks?

 

[boredgremlin]

Honestly, I think everyone is really agreeing with each other to some degree, but we haven't realized it yet. Your whole post here is something I might have written to you .

I agree that those monks have more HPs, and that alot of HP represents more bad-assery. I also agree that your fall-damage calculation is meta-gamey.

However, many people seem to say these things, but then go on to say that fatigue, luck, morale, or skill should not be factored into HP, and that it should be pure physical toughness. With your monk example here, I don't think any of those 115 lb monks are all that much physically tougher than your average man; they are just talented in other ways that aren't pure-meat. In other words, they don't have the ability to take more pure physical damage (to quote the OP), they are just much better at taking less physical damage.

Another example is from your other post: "he had one of those horror movie, panicked double takes trying to figure out what to do which caused him to get fried while the other guy got out of the way and survived." You called this less experience; I might call this less courage/morale. The thing is, I find that in D&D, both increase as you level. Both are represented in HP. And both represent increasing chances of survival when faced with the dragon's fire.

a fair and reasonable point. Perhaps then for me HP is about 60-75% meat up until level 10. After level 10 the whole game is wonky as hell in any edition so you almost have to go to something un-meatish or mystical like tequila sunrise suggests.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

No, death spirals are crappy and don't actually improve D&D in any way.

I disagree - I like death spirals a lot. This pretty much comes down to personal preference.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is all fine, but is consistent with the OP's desire that hp loss only represent physical injury. It's just that the "meta factors" determine how much injury any given amount of hp loss represents.

Again, not my preferred take on hp, but roughly workable, I think, with some tweaking to healing (4e-style proportionate recovery) and some squinting at falling and AoEs (where it can be hard to explain exactly how the metafactors are working).

Fair enough, I did get a bit off topic. Yeah, it's workable, but I think it's an unnecessary constraint. Why limit interesting design possibilities that way?

Now, don't get me wrong, I can see why people might oppose the approach that was taken in 4e. Some would certainly find it strange that a spell like Vicious Mockery might kill an enemy. I'd probably just describe it as the enemy losing all sense of reason, charging wildly, and impaling himself on the bard's blade, but I can see how some might not care for that.

However, you can have non-physical attacks that affect hp without the peculiarities of the above. In fact, non-physical hp are part of D&D tradition, in that psychic mental attacks could result in hp loss well before 4e.

There are any number of ways that this could be done.

Perhaps an attack might offer a choice; take X hp damage or flee in fear for X rounds. No one likes their supposedly brave fighter being routed by a Krenshar's howl, so morale damage might be preferable, even if it is on the high side. If that reduces the fighter to zero hp, he faints from fear.

Alternately, perhaps some abilities could have the Pacifying quality, indicating that they cannot reduce a creature below one hp. I suspect there might be less objection to the idea if non-physical attacks could only weaken enemies, rather than kill them outright.

I'm certain there are other possibilities as well. That is not to say that every attack must inflict hp damage. In fact, I doubt that that is even on the table, as the designers already abandoned that philosophy (albeit, a fair ways into the 4e production cycle).

My point is that you could limit damage to purely physical effects, but in doing so you limit the game unnecessarily. While early 4e may have gone overboard in making every attack deal damage, going to the opposite extreme isn't necessarily any better.