Why rename HP & Saves?

[Moon-Lancer]

Well, it's not just intent and subjective interpretation but what the game mechanics model. After all, you lose hit points after being hit, and the amount of hit points you lose is a function of the amount of damage done, and that amount of damage depends on the size of the weapon and the strength of its wielder. Further, the amount of hit points you get is increased by increased Constitution, not increased Dexterity or Wisdom. Further, these hit points are ablative and used up, but they can be recovered via healing magic. And so on.

Hit points aren't particularly abstract -- but to make them work we have to hand-wave a lot of things that don't make sense.

if a character has 10 hit points and takes 12 damage, i see that as a solid hit that to the chest or head. if the character has 90 it points and takes 12 damage, I see that as a hit to a non vital body part. The con is represented in the ability to time after time avoid deadly blows and continue fighting with minor or even serious wounds that would have felled another fighter. If anyone is in sca or a larp, you know that fighting is hard work. hence con. Its endurance in a fight.

 

[RangerWickett]

In my game, players collect gold coins, and whenever they take damage, they lose gold.

 

[RangerWickett]

Actually, my justification for hit points in D&D is that, as you adventure, you've been healed so often that you get sorta desensitized to trauma. You know that there's a good chance you'll survive this, and even a horrible, disfiguring wound can be healed without too much trouble. So that 12-hp sword blow does just the same amount of visceral damage at 1st level and 20th. You just don't care at high levels.

Rather, that's one justification. Different types of characters get to use different styles of hp. The rules are all the same, but high level Bruce Willis just walks through the injuries whereas high level Jackie Chan dodges like crazy.

 

[Lackhand]

Given that the game uses the term "damage" whenever an attack lands, I think the rename should be "Damage Threshold".

Instead of having a HP total that's reduced by damage, the paradigm is that you start with 0 damage and accumulate damage as you're hit. Surges and other healing reduce your damage. Temporary hit points are renamed to temporary threshold increases.

So if you're hit in combat and the DM says "take 5 damage", you don't reduce your total HP by 5. Instead, you literally take 5 damage--you add 5 to your total amount of accumulated damage.

This is more intuitive, and negates the whole "what are hit points?" question. "What is damage threshold?" is self-evident; damage threshold is your threshold for soldiering on despite accumulated damage. Exceed it, and you drop.

The question "what is damage" is answered by the game itself. The game already uses the terms "weapon damage", "radiant damage", "poison damage", and so on. Take fire damage and you're burned. Take poison damage and your brain is fried. If you take too much damage, you drop.

When you're sorely wounded, you don't call out "Guys! I'm low on hit points!" Instead, you yell "Guys! I can't take much more damage!"

Makes sense to me!

Quoted For Truth.

 

[ThirdWizard]

In my game, players collect gold coins, and whenever they take damage, they lose gold.

Smash Bros. RPG FTW!!

 

[billd91]

Considering that attackers are rolling to hit a target number, retaining the name hit points still works for me. It tells me how many points those "hits" have to accumulate to take the character out of the fight. Plus, since they are still doing the exact same thing they did in earlier editions, I see no reason to change them term.

I can see getting rid of the term Saving Throws since you are no longer making a "throw" to save the character from an effect. They are now defenses.

 

[DreamChaser]

I can see getting rid of the term Saving Throws since you are no longer making a "throw" to save the character from an effect. They are now defenses.

Except to deal with virtually ever status or ongoing effect (including some positive ones). 1d10: 1-10 = still going 11-20 = beat it.

I'm not sure why saving throw is even part of this discussion. They are now more "saving throws" then they have ever been and defenses are a-whole-nother thing.

DC

 

[Dragonblade]

I can see getting rid of the term Saving Throws since you are no longer making a "throw" to save the character from an effect. They are now defenses.

Except there is still a saving throw mechanic in 4e. It is just used to save you from ongoing effects.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Hit points have been abstract from day one. And yes you've always had to hand-wave a lot of things to make them "work".

Ah, yes. The lost blogs of Gary Gygax. That proves that hit points have been totally abstract since Chainmail.

The only handwaving going on is the constant attempts to ret-con the definition of 'hit points'.

 

[DM_Blake]

Given that the game uses the term "damage" whenever an attack lands, I think the rename should be "Damage Threshold".

Instead of having a HP total that's reduced by damage, the paradigm is that you start with 0 damage and accumulate damage as you're hit. Surges and other healing reduce your damage. Temporary hit points are renamed to temporary threshold increases.

So if you're hit in combat and the DM says "take 5 damage", you don't reduce your total HP by 5. Instead, you literally take 5 damage--you add 5 to your total amount of accumulated damage.

This is more intuitive, and negates the whole "what are hit points?" question. "What is damage threshold?" is self-evident; damage threshold is your threshold for soldiering on despite accumulated damage. Exceed it, and you drop.

The question "what is damage" is answered by the game itself. The game already uses the terms "weapon damage", "radiant damage", "poison damage", and so on. Take fire damage and you're burned. Take poison damage and your brain is fried. If you take too much damage, you drop.

When you're sorely wounded, you don't call out "Guys! I'm low on hit points!" Instead, you yell "Guys! I can't take much more damage!"

Makes sense to me!

OK, but reversing all the math doesn't change the core mechanic.

Whether you calculate 0 + x < y (0 is no damage, x is damage taken, y is damage threshold) or y - x > 0 (y is HP with no damage, x is damage taken, 0 is damage threshold), the end result is still the same mechanic with the signs reversed.

The problem is that it is still possible to be killed by taking lots of morale losses, or be nearly killed by morale losses then have that damage repaired by using healing spells. And it is still possible to take real damage, then be "healed" by inspiring words.

But, you are on to something.

What if we expand on your idea by adding up real damage, and subtracting down your non-physical damage (morale, exhaustion, fatigue, etc.)?

When the two meet in the middle, you have run out of HP (just like going to zero in the RAW).

But, magical healing that heals wounds can only repair the physical damage, and inspirational words that inspire you to overcome your fatigue can only repair lost non-physical damage.

So, if you fall out of a tree and smack your head, you add physical damage. A warlord then could not heal you with his encouraging words, but a cleric or paladin could heal you with their magical healing powers.

Of course, there are probably very few things in the game that actually say "This monsters special ability doesn't damage your flesh, but causes you to lose HP due to fatigue". So, probably, just about all damage you are ever likely to take is from crushing objects, or sharp pointy things, or flesh-destroying fire or acid, etc. So almost everything that damages a character looks like physical wounding.

So we would need some mechanic for determining how to apply certain damage as wounds and certain damage as fatigue.

When you're first level, and a kobold stabs you with a spear, you probably have a wound. But when you're 20th level, and a kobold stabs you with a spear, you probably have a tiny scratch that is barely even bleeding (otherwise it would take 30 wounds from kobold spears to kill you, which we've agreed isn't what is happening at all). But, in both cases, that spear did 6 HP damage. So why is it a wound at level 1 but a scratch at level 20? What mechanic says the damage is HP when you're level 1, but fatigue at level 20? And what if you're level 3, shouldn't some of that damage be wound and some be fatigue?

This ends up complicating the damage model. The combat gets bogged down as players and the DM have to calculate what percentage of each wound is damage, and what percentage is non-physical. It also bogs down healing (et. al.) when each potential healer has to first figure out what kind of healing the wounded individual needs.

Probably too much of a hassle. And if we want this kind of hassle, there are better systems for handling it, anyway - we could just use one of the good ones.

But if we're not doing all that, then what do we gain by reversing the math (other than the fact that most people are better at doing addition in their head than they are at subtraction)?