Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4103758" data-attributes="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 great deal about how the game has historically been played. 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.</blockquote>

Verification