Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 4101480" data-attributes="member: 58197">To me, at least, an actual hit is required to remove hit points.&nbsp; This is something that is very heavily reinforced by terminology and concepts throughout the game.&nbsp; If you attack me with a sword, and the result is to remove some hit points, that's called a &quot;hit,&quot; not a &quot;near miss.&quot;&nbsp; If there's poison on the sword, I risk being affected if and only if I lose hit points.&nbsp; It's both horribly counterintuitive and not well supported by the rules to have hit points lost to blows that don't actually connect.That said, a hit does not have to mean significant damage.&nbsp; I figure that until you reach Bloodied, you're taking just scratches and bruises.&nbsp; The wound that takes you into Bloodied is a flesh wound or a superficial cut.&nbsp; When you go below zero, you just took a really serious injury, potentially mortal.&nbsp; If you get dropped below the &quot;instant death threshold&quot; (negative one-half hit points), you were decapitated, stabbed through the heart, et cetera.So, &quot;hit points&quot; is actually not a bad term.&nbsp; They're points that let you survive being hit.&nbsp; I can dig that.&nbsp; I'd probably have picked &quot;vitality,&quot; myself, but &quot;hit points&quot; has a long and storied tradition and it's really not worth the grief that would ensue from changing it.To me, the real problem is with &quot;healing surge.&quot;&nbsp; It's grossly misleading, because it implies that all characters have the power to actually heal themselves mid-combat.&nbsp; Which I'm pretty sure is not the intent at all.&nbsp; It should have been called &quot;heroic surge&quot; or &quot;vital surge&quot; or something; it's your stamina and will to fight that are being renewed, not your battered flesh.I think the name &quot;healing surge&quot; is probably responsible for half the arguments about 4E hit points.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 4101480, member: 58197"] To me, at least, an actual hit is required to remove hit points. This is something that is very heavily reinforced by terminology and concepts throughout the game. If you attack me with a sword, and the result is to remove some hit points, that's called a "hit," not a "near miss." If there's poison on the sword, I risk being affected if and only if I lose hit points. It's both horribly counterintuitive and not well supported by the rules to have hit points lost to blows that don't actually connect. That said, a hit does not have to mean significant damage. I figure that until you reach Bloodied, you're taking just scratches and bruises. The wound that takes you into Bloodied is a flesh wound or a superficial cut. When you go below zero, you just took a really serious injury, potentially mortal. If you get dropped below the "instant death threshold" (negative one-half hit points), you were decapitated, stabbed through the heart, et cetera. So, "hit points" is actually not a bad term. They're points that let you survive being hit. I can dig that. I'd probably have picked "vitality," myself, but "hit points" has a long and storied tradition and it's really not worth the grief that would ensue from changing it. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification