Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why do we really need HP to represent things other than physical injuries?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5827840" data-attributes="member: 59082"><p>To be honest, I'm always surprised when I read comments to the effect of "Hit Points only represent physical damage." No offense, but this is patently absurd - and in any edition.</p><p></p><p>Take, for instance, AD&D 1E. An ancient red dragon, one of the most feared opponents in any edition of D&D and a creature presumably weighing many tons, has 88 HP. A 7th level fighter (yes, <em>7th)</em> with an 18 CON can have 98 HP. Think about that for a moment. There is simply <em>no way </em>that a medium (mortal) humanoid of any level can withstand more physical damage than an ancient red dragon. I would suggest that in all but the rarest of instances, a medium sized creature shouldn't be able to withstand more physical damage than a large creature, that physical damage capacity is a function of a variety of factors, including size, body density, muscle mass, thickness and hardness of skin, etc - most of which simply doesn't factor into a humanoid creature, and certainly would not increase (much) with level.</p><p></p><p>Later editions of D&D improved this monster-to-character HP ratio somewhat but in <em>every </em>edition, the ratio of character HP to monster HP has been absurd (if we take it to be merely physical damage capacity, that is).</p><p></p><p>I am not saying that in D&D Next, HP should not more closely represent physical damage and even physical damage only, but that is not how any edition of D&D was designed. Or, if it was designed that way, it was a flaw in the simulationism of the game.</p><p></p><p>To answer the OP, I think the reason it has represented things other than physical injuries is that it is simply a gamist mechanic that allows for a kind of epic, cinematic quality that has always been part of D&D combat. In reality, taking maximum damage from an attack would imply death - if an orc critical hits someone with an axe, doing the most damage it can possibly do, <em>anyone </em>should die - that is, if we're going for a realistic game. But in actuality, HP are an abstraction that represents the <em>capacity to withstand attacks before dying, </em>which of course includes the bodily element<em>.</em> AC, then, represents the capacity to <em>prevent</em> attacks, but once they "get through," HP are there to buffer actual mortal damage.</p><p></p><p>In truth, the AC/HP mechanic is awkward and rather unrealistic - they over-lap a bit and AC really should go with something more akin to body points. But the bottom line is that they work; they are <em>fun.</em></p><p></p><p>This is not to say that it is "badwrongfun" to consider HP to be body damage only, but that it is an incorrect interpretation of the rules-as-written, and thus akin to a house rule, and one that actually makes very little sense. Hey, but we're talking about a fantasy game, so have fun with it! Let's just call a spade a spade and recognize that it is incredibly unrealistic <em>and </em>not what the rules intend.</p><p></p><p>All that said, there is no reason that the abstract nature of HP couldn't also include a physical component that represents at what point a character actually sustains physical damage. There are a couple ways to go about this without adding undue complexity to the game, one of which would look like this:</p><p></p><p>Have some kind of "physical damage threshold" that represents at what point, of a character's total HP, they start taking physical damage. This could be similar to 4E's "bloodied" but really mean it and, I would think, be much lower than half. Depending upon what 5E's HP scale looks like, I'm thinking the Constitution score X a size multiplier (e.g. x1/4 for tiny, x1/2 for small, x1 for medium, x2 for large, x5 for huge, x10 for gargantuan...or something like that). </p><p></p><p>In addition to the above, as a deadlier variant of the core game, critical hits could always do damage to the physical body. This could obviously be quite deadly, so I would suggest that it be an optional rule. Perhaps, also, it could include some kind of saving throw to see if the damage actually "gets through."</p><p></p><p>So, for example, a 1st level fighter with a 16 CON would have 16 Body Points and, say, 17-26 total Hit Points (or d10 above that, although I would suggest that if HP are rolled, there should be some rule that allows a player to "take half" of their max HP increase if they roll low, so the range at 1st for this fighter would actually be 21-26, or CON + 5-10). Let's say that at 11th level, CON has been increased twice to 18, so the character has 18 BP and 73-128 total HP.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5827840, member: 59082"] To be honest, I'm always surprised when I read comments to the effect of "Hit Points only represent physical damage." No offense, but this is patently absurd - and in any edition. Take, for instance, AD&D 1E. An ancient red dragon, one of the most feared opponents in any edition of D&D and a creature presumably weighing many tons, has 88 HP. A 7th level fighter (yes, [I]7th)[/I] with an 18 CON can have 98 HP. Think about that for a moment. There is simply [I]no way [/I]that a medium (mortal) humanoid of any level can withstand more physical damage than an ancient red dragon. I would suggest that in all but the rarest of instances, a medium sized creature shouldn't be able to withstand more physical damage than a large creature, that physical damage capacity is a function of a variety of factors, including size, body density, muscle mass, thickness and hardness of skin, etc - most of which simply doesn't factor into a humanoid creature, and certainly would not increase (much) with level. Later editions of D&D improved this monster-to-character HP ratio somewhat but in [I]every [/I]edition, the ratio of character HP to monster HP has been absurd (if we take it to be merely physical damage capacity, that is). I am not saying that in D&D Next, HP should not more closely represent physical damage and even physical damage only, but that is not how any edition of D&D was designed. Or, if it was designed that way, it was a flaw in the simulationism of the game. To answer the OP, I think the reason it has represented things other than physical injuries is that it is simply a gamist mechanic that allows for a kind of epic, cinematic quality that has always been part of D&D combat. In reality, taking maximum damage from an attack would imply death - if an orc critical hits someone with an axe, doing the most damage it can possibly do, [I]anyone [/I]should die - that is, if we're going for a realistic game. But in actuality, HP are an abstraction that represents the [I]capacity to withstand attacks before dying, [/I]which of course includes the bodily element[I].[/I] AC, then, represents the capacity to [I]prevent[/I] attacks, but once they "get through," HP are there to buffer actual mortal damage. In truth, the AC/HP mechanic is awkward and rather unrealistic - they over-lap a bit and AC really should go with something more akin to body points. But the bottom line is that they work; they are [I]fun.[/I] This is not to say that it is "badwrongfun" to consider HP to be body damage only, but that it is an incorrect interpretation of the rules-as-written, and thus akin to a house rule, and one that actually makes very little sense. Hey, but we're talking about a fantasy game, so have fun with it! Let's just call a spade a spade and recognize that it is incredibly unrealistic [I]and [/I]not what the rules intend. All that said, there is no reason that the abstract nature of HP couldn't also include a physical component that represents at what point a character actually sustains physical damage. There are a couple ways to go about this without adding undue complexity to the game, one of which would look like this: Have some kind of "physical damage threshold" that represents at what point, of a character's total HP, they start taking physical damage. This could be similar to 4E's "bloodied" but really mean it and, I would think, be much lower than half. Depending upon what 5E's HP scale looks like, I'm thinking the Constitution score X a size multiplier (e.g. x1/4 for tiny, x1/2 for small, x1 for medium, x2 for large, x5 for huge, x10 for gargantuan...or something like that). In addition to the above, as a deadlier variant of the core game, critical hits could always do damage to the physical body. This could obviously be quite deadly, so I would suggest that it be an optional rule. Perhaps, also, it could include some kind of saving throw to see if the damage actually "gets through." So, for example, a 1st level fighter with a 16 CON would have 16 Body Points and, say, 17-26 total Hit Points (or d10 above that, although I would suggest that if HP are rolled, there should be some rule that allows a player to "take half" of their max HP increase if they roll low, so the range at 1st for this fighter would actually be 21-26, or CON + 5-10). Let's say that at 11th level, CON has been increased twice to 18, so the character has 18 BP and 73-128 total HP. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why do we really need HP to represent things other than physical injuries?
Top