Why Not Just Call Them Stamina Points?

[Doug McCrae]

To me, the real problem is with "healing surge." It's grossly misleading, because it implies that all characters have the power to actually heal themselves mid-combat. Which I'm pretty sure is not the intent at all. It should have been called "heroic surge" or "vital surge" or something; it's your stamina and will to fight that are being renewed, not your battered flesh.

I think the name "healing surge" is probably responsible for half the arguments about 4E hit points.

When it's used in combat, it's called 'Second Wind' indicating that no wounds are being healed, it's just a restoration of energy. Outwith combat presumably all those shallow cuts and flesh wounds are being bandaged, so it becomes healing then.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Or "silver pieces".

Yeah, I've been playing too much Lost Odyssey lately.

 

[Elphilm]

Might as well call them "Cool Points"

Also known as the Dude Factor.

 

[Dausuul]

When it's used in combat, it's called 'Second Wind' indicating that no wounds are being healed, it's just a restoration of energy. Outwith combat presumably all those shallow cuts and flesh wounds are being bandaged, so it becomes healing then.

That still doesn't make much sense. Healing simply doesn't work that fast. Even if your only injuries are scratches and bruises, it'll be a day or two before they heal, minimum. A deeper cut could take weeks. Such injuries may not affect you once the fight is over, but they haven't healed.

...also, why are there two separate terms? What's the difference between a "second wind" used in combat, and a "healing surge" used out of combat?

 

[austinwulf]

I thought I read somewhere in one of the older editions to think of HP's as karmic points. Gods looking out for you and what not

Even now, when I DM, I try to describe hit point loss as being bruised, or straining yourself to deflect/avoid the blow.

I think its amusing when my players complain about high damaging arrow strikes as being "hi with trees/telephone polls" How many arrows should it take to drop a man to he knees?

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I'd just like to add another thought - most of the attacks that "miss" a heavily armored character actually hit him, as in make physical contact. They just aren't at the right angle, targeting the right spot, or powerful enough to have any effect on the character through the armor. That may seem a fine distinction, but when you're wearing protective wear it's quite easy to tell the difference between someone just hitting you and someone hurting you through it. Those are the attacks that are powerful enough to wind you through whatever-it-is-you're-wearing, or that hit a gap and leave a bruise or cut, etc...

 

[thatdarnedbob]

No matter what they're called, hits in my games will involve broken bones, exploding kidneys and skinned faces aplenty.

 

[eleran]

Maybe we need to go back to basics and re-discuss what hit points really are, and always have been.

If a fighter swings his word and hits the other fighters shield hard enough to make him stagger, or hard enough to lose his breath momentarily, he did damage. there isnt a mark on the other fighter, but he definitely felt it and took some damage. However, if that same swing had resulted in a glancing blow to the shield which was practically unfelt by his opponent we would say, in game terms, that he missed.

I seem to recall back in the salad days of my youth an article in some mag or another that made a system whereby you figured out where and how the blow struck based on the to hit roll and how much of a success over or under the AC it was. For instance the hit I described above might be a to hit of 17 vs an AC of 16, etc. But that kind of thing is WAY too simulationist for me and my group. I hope the game never goes in that direction.

Also keep in mind that from 1e on "hitting" and "attacking" are also abstract concepts. When 2 fighters square off in a 6 second round they arent dancing to the tune of 1 2 3 swing 5 6. Your attack roll represents the 1 or 2 good opportunities you get for a solid blow in on your opponent. Just as hitting doesnt mean sword ever met flesh as I demonstrated above.

 

[Pbartender]

And I agree - does "hit" necessarily mean that you take physical damage? If you "hit" the lich, but it doesn't do any damage, isn't this the same thing? If the fighter blocks a blow with a sword or shield, isn't that still being "hit"? It just doesn't actually hurt him, besides a few bruises and muscle fatigue.

Exactly... A "miss" could mean the blow never hit the fighter, or it could mean the fighter the fighter parried the blow with sword or shield, but the parry was so easy, that it took practically no effort. A "hit" could mean the exact same thing, but the blow was so swift, it took all his effort to dodge, sapping his reserves of energy, or the blow was so hard that it strained his muscles and rattled his bones when he parried it.

 

[Mallus]

That still doesn't make much sense.

The damage modeling system in D&D never did. Why break w/tradition now?