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 Not Just Call Them Stamina Points?
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="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4103758" data-attributes="member: 32164"><p>I posted this earlier in the thread. As I said, it's from the First Edition DMG (p. 82, if you want to read it). You can call it a "philosophical argument" all you want, but it says a <em>great deal</em> about <em>how the game has historically been played.</em> AND, moreover, it's wholly consistent with the Saga description of hit points.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>You do a fair amount of dismissing of this argument because it's, in your view, "the only way the designers could think of to account for level-based increases to hit points."</p><p></p><p>But the simple fact is that, once you get beyond 1st-level (and even at 1st level in 4e), those "level-based increases" (or points beyond what a normal human has) are responsible for the VAST bulk of the character's hit points. Moreover, when you consider that a character historically had a negative reserve down to -10 (also in that 1st Edition DMG, btw), we can reasonably assume that most "normal humans" have about 4 hit points (or less!). They can be easily killed (or dropped to "dying") by a single sword blow, a single arrow, or even a good stab with a dagger.</p><p></p><p>This is entirely consistent with what we know about people in the real-world. Gary's example of Rasputin just reinforces the point that even someone who was thought to be nearly superhuman "in the real world" could be described as having "about 14" hit points.</p><p></p><p>So, allow me to state, for the record, that if you want to decide that some fraction of a character's hit points represent "actual meat", I have no problem with that. Whether it's worth tracking the distinction is a whole other matter. However, that's the ONLY way to read what Gary wrote, game mechanics wonkiness of magical healing notwithstanding.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nonsense. The PCs and the NPCs are perfectly able to tell when their opponents are laboring, fatigued, and might even be able to be taken down. I can tell in a real fight when a guy's about to go down - not with absolute certainty, but I can certainly have the impression that I'm wearing down his defenses.</p><p></p><p>And that's what hit points represent - wearing down your opponents defenses. Yes, partially they represent the actual physical damage you're doing, and a tiny fraction might be considered to be related to serious injury. But when the average human can be killed by a single sword blow (and not a crit...just a good, solid, hit), the "meat total" of a "normal human" is about 5 hit points. Gary's allowance of 23 was absurdly generous, but is still well below even 20% of a high-level character's hit point total. In Fourth Edition, it probably should amount to about 4 points at level 1 and 1 per level thereafter. Hardly a significant fraction.</p><p></p><p>Which basically means that the average PC is always getting the bulk of his "hit points" from things other than his body's ability to absorb damage (by getting "wounded"). It is, in fact, such a small fraction that I don't think it's really worth tracking.</p><p></p><p>Although, as I've also said before, I could see a system being put into place for PCs getting "wounded" when they drop to negative hit points, to represent losing those actual "meat points." However, I think for most people, it adds too much complexity for too little reward.</p><p></p><p>But perhaps you're one of the 5% for whom the extra bookkeeping would be worth it. On the other hand, I don't think most people care that much.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 4103758, member: 32164"] I posted this earlier in the thread. As I said, it's from the First Edition DMG (p. 82, if you want to read it). You can call it a "philosophical argument" all you want, but it says a [i]great deal[/i] about [i]how the game has historically been played.[/i] AND, moreover, it's wholly consistent with the Saga description of hit points. You do a fair amount of dismissing of this argument because it's, in your view, "the only way the designers could think of to account for level-based increases to hit points." But the simple fact is that, once you get beyond 1st-level (and even at 1st level in 4e), those "level-based increases" (or points beyond what a normal human has) are responsible for the VAST bulk of the character's hit points. Moreover, when you consider that a character historically had a negative reserve down to -10 (also in that 1st Edition DMG, btw), we can reasonably assume that most "normal humans" have about 4 hit points (or less!). They can be easily killed (or dropped to "dying") by a single sword blow, a single arrow, or even a good stab with a dagger. This is entirely consistent with what we know about people in the real-world. Gary's example of Rasputin just reinforces the point that even someone who was thought to be nearly superhuman "in the real world" could be described as having "about 14" hit points. So, allow me to state, for the record, that if you want to decide that some fraction of a character's hit points represent "actual meat", I have no problem with that. Whether it's worth tracking the distinction is a whole other matter. However, that's the ONLY way to read what Gary wrote, game mechanics wonkiness of magical healing notwithstanding. Nonsense. The PCs and the NPCs are perfectly able to tell when their opponents are laboring, fatigued, and might even be able to be taken down. I can tell in a real fight when a guy's about to go down - not with absolute certainty, but I can certainly have the impression that I'm wearing down his defenses. And that's what hit points represent - wearing down your opponents defenses. Yes, partially they represent the actual physical damage you're doing, and a tiny fraction might be considered to be related to serious injury. But when the average human can be killed by a single sword blow (and not a crit...just a good, solid, hit), the "meat total" of a "normal human" is about 5 hit points. Gary's allowance of 23 was absurdly generous, but is still well below even 20% of a high-level character's hit point total. In Fourth Edition, it probably should amount to about 4 points at level 1 and 1 per level thereafter. Hardly a significant fraction. Which basically means that the average PC is always getting the bulk of his "hit points" from things other than his body's ability to absorb damage (by getting "wounded"). It is, in fact, such a small fraction that I don't think it's really worth tracking. Although, as I've also said before, I could see a system being put into place for PCs getting "wounded" when they drop to negative hit points, to represent losing those actual "meat points." However, I think for most people, it adds too much complexity for too little reward. But perhaps you're one of the 5% for whom the extra bookkeeping would be worth it. On the other hand, I don't think most people care that much. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why Not Just Call Them Stamina Points?
Top