PDA

View Full Version : 4E and the Power of Hit Points



Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 10:14 AM
One of the things I like about 4E is the way that they've really embraced the abstract nature of HP, with things like Healing Surges, second wind, and most "healing" being not-explicitly-magical it makes them feel a lot more like the "hero points" or "karma armour" they've always been at least partially described as.

This is also, incidentally, why I like the removal of save-or-die from the system. It doesn't make sense to me that a sufficient quantity of hit points renders you immune to decapitation by sword, but not immune to death by spell.

And finally, it's why I like the fact that every single Power does damage. Once again it enforces the idea that anything which messes up your ability to fight (including getting confused or scared or distracted) effectively constitutes "damage".

This gets even more interesting when you realize that 4E removes the concept of "non lethal damage" and instead just assumes that when an enemy is reduced to 0HP the player can knock them unconscious if they want.

This idea has a lot of very interesting possibilities if it is interpreted, shall we say, liberally.

If you interpret Hit Points as a nebulous ability to resist having Bad Stuff happen to you, and Damage as an erosion of this resistance, then HP damage suddenly becomes extremely interesting, because it makes what happens to "defeated" foes a matter of GM choice.

A lot of people are lamenting the loss of Charm and Domination effects in the Wizard skill list, what few effects there are basically just do damage and slap a status effect on the target. If, however, damage represents any negative effect applied to the target, and being reduced to 0HP does not necessarily mean death, but instead means "whatever the hell the DM thinks it should mean" you can put all those sorts of powers back in in a very straightforward way.

Simply: there is nothing stopping the DM from ruling that an NPC "killed" by a particular spell is, instead, subject to a permanent or long-lasting "story" effect. Want to let your Wizard have his mind-control back? Rule that a character "killed" with a Mesmeric Hold can instead be bound to the will of the Wizard. Want zombies? Rule that an enemy "killed" with a Ray of Enfeeblement rises from the dead.

Just to be clear, I'm not committing the Oberoni Fallacy here: I'm not saying "4E does have these effects, they're just not in the rules", I'm saying "it is interesting, and consistent with the rules of 4E, to interpret 'death' in a variety of ways, depending on the manner in which a target was reduced to 0HP".

Of course for a lot of people, this won't offer any significant utility over just having the damned Charm spells in the first place, for me, though, it has significant advantages:

- Because the possibilities aren't explicit, there's never an issue of whether you are or are not allowed to do a particular thing by RAW, it's a purely subjective, purely judgment-based way of running things.
- Because the possibilities aren't explicit, it encourages players to come up with interesting uses for powers based on what they're supposed to do in-character, rather than their mechanical effects.
- It preserves the abstract nature of hit points.
- Just a personal preference thing, but it also highlights the fact that mind controlling somebody is actually quite extreme action (since it uses the same mechanics as combat).

Again, I'm not trying to convert any 3.Xers, I'm trying to suggest to people who are already 4E converts some interesting ways to give their casters a little bit of their awesome back.

Frosty
2008-06-26, 10:26 AM
I still want my Beguilers darn it!

Kurald Galain
2008-06-26, 10:33 AM
Just to be clear, I'm not committing the Oberoni Fallacy here: I'm not saying "4E does have these effects, they're just not in the rules", I'm saying "it is interesting, and consistent with the rules of 4E, to interpret 'death' in a variety of ways, depending on the manner in which a target was reduced to 0HP".

That's a very funny way to weasel out of the Oberoni Fallacy. But no, while your text is an interesting idea, it is still clearly Oberoni because where the rules clearly say "death", you choose to replace this with "mental domination, knockout, broken limbs or anything else that sounds nasty".

Yes, your honor, the defendant is clearly guilty of murder, because he confesses to having coerced my client to stand on his head for an hour.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-26, 10:47 AM
Just to be clear, I'm not committing the Oberoni Fallacy here: I'm not saying "4E does have these effects, they're just not in the rules", I'm saying "it is interesting, and consistent with the rules of 4E, to interpret 'death' in a variety of ways, depending on the manner in which a target was reduced to 0HP".

Depends upon how wide the variety is really.


Of course for a lot of people, this won't offer any significant utility over just having the damned Charm spells in the first place, for me, though, it has significant advantages:

- Because the possibilities aren't explicit, there's never an issue of whether you are or are not allowed to do a particular thing by RAW, it's a purely subjective, purely judgment-based way of running things.
- Because the possibilities aren't explicit, it encourages players to come up with interesting uses for powers based on what they're supposed to do in-character, rather than their mechanical effects.
- It preserves the abstract nature of hit points.
- Just a personal preference thing, but it also highlights the fact that mind controlling somebody is actually quite extreme action (since it uses the same mechanics as combat).

It's an interesting notion, but a bit of a stretch and one I'd be very careful with. One of the reasons those type of effects got removed in the transition in the first place is that they are quite powerful. Adding the additional effect of 'gets a minion' to ray of enfeeblement for example, could be potentially game breaking. This is particularly the case since powers, as opposed to ritiuals, are pretty much designed not to last past combat.

That said, I think you could create interesting spells that function similarly or that straddle the line between the two. For example, you could create a short ritiual to make the fallen foe into a mind slave or zombie that only works if you have taken them out with a specific power.

hamishspence
2008-06-26, 10:50 AM
thats what mind flayers get: a create thrall power.

Dausuul
2008-06-26, 10:57 AM
That's a very funny way to weasel out of the Oberoni Fallacy. But no, while your text is an interesting idea, it is still clearly Oberoni because where the rules clearly say "death", you choose to replace this with "mental domination, knockout, broken limbs or anything else that sounds nasty".

Yes, your honor, the defendant is clearly guilty of murder, because he confesses to having coerced my client to stand on his head for an hour.

No, this is not the Oberoni Fallacy. For it to be the Oberoni Fallacy, Dan_Hemmens would have to state that there is nothing wrong with the system as written, because it can be house-ruled. He does not state this; he merely proposes a house-rule, suggests that it can remedy a perceived flaw in the system, and argues that, in this area, 4E plus house rule actually works better than 3.X as written, and that 4E facilitates house rules of this type.

House rules are not inherently fallacious.

Saph
2008-06-26, 11:13 AM
Simply: there is nothing stopping the DM from ruling that an NPC "killed" by a particular spell is, instead, subject to a permanent or long-lasting "story" effect.

Dan, there's nothing stopping the DM from ruling anything. Of course the system can be modified - what system can't be?

Also, while you can decided to interpret Hit Points as a 'nebulous ability to resist Bad Stuff', that's not what the books say. The 4e PHB defines Hit Points as following:


Hit points measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle.

And in terms of strict mechanics, hit points give you no defence at all against a wizard's Sleep spell, or a succubus' charm. So . . . yeah. The books don't really support your argument.

The 'you can always choose to knock the enemy unconscious' clause, on the other hand, is a perfectly accurate reading of the rules, but it's also so ridiculous that I can't take it seriously. (I shoot the orc with my crossbow, but I do it in a nondamaging way!)

- Saph

hamishspence
2008-06-26, 11:18 AM
way around it: Assume that all previous hits were placed in very painful but not immediately lethal locations. Its not that the last one wasn't damaging, its that it was damaging, but not in a deadly spot, and the target passes out from wear and tear.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-26, 11:28 AM
The 'you can always choose to knock the enemy unconscious' clause, on the other hand, is a perfectly accurate reading of the rules, but it's also so ridiculous that I can't take it seriously. (I shoot the orc with my crossbow, but I do it in a nondamaging way!)

- Saph


You shoot the bolt into a leg or arm instead of chest or head. Its still damaging, but rarely fatal.

Saph
2008-06-26, 11:34 AM
You shoot the bolt into a leg or arm instead of chest or head. Its still damaging, but rarely fatal.

And, apparently, knocks them out for exactly 5 minutes, whereupon they wake up with no penalties.

Like I said, it's pretty hard to take seriously. :)

- Saph

hamishspence
2008-06-26, 11:37 AM
3rd anmd 3.5 didnt do penalties either. 99 HP guy knocked to 1 hit point by arrows, and whacked over the head with a sap, wakes up not long afterward, with no mechanical penalties (only 1 HP though)

nagora
2008-06-26, 11:39 AM
And, apparently, knocks them out for exactly 5 minutes, whereupon they wake up with no penalties.

Like I said, it's pretty hard to take seriously. :)

- Saph

"I got better!" :smallbiggrin:

Really, the major changes are the heal surges and the fact that the reset button is pressed every night. Neither of which is any easier to take seriously than the "knocked out by a heavy crossbow bolt" rule. They're all seem very "D&D Jnr" rules to me.

Indon
2008-06-26, 11:39 AM
He does not state this; he merely proposes a house-rule, suggests that it can remedy a perceived flaw in the system, and argues that, in this area, 4E plus house rule actually works better than 3.X as written, and that 4E facilitates house rules of this type.

House rules are not inherently fallacious.

The only thing that makes that an actual argument, would be the thought that 4'th edition facilitates houseruling compared to other systems. And I don't at all see that.

Hit points are silly. Wound systems work better to actually model combat, but if you're going to use the hit point system, just embrace it - your game will be silly, you can either live with it or use a better system.

Duke of URL
2008-06-26, 11:40 AM
he merely proposes a house-rule, suggests that it can remedy a perceived flaw in the system, and argues that, in this area, 4E plus house rule actually works better than 3.X as written, and that 4E facilitates house rules of this type.

But this is a fallacy as well, comparing system 1 + house rule to system 2 with no house rules. There's nothing inherent to 4e that make having a house rule any more or less effective than any other system.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 12:12 PM
It's an interesting notion, but a bit of a stretch and one I'd be very careful with. One of the reasons those type of effects got removed in the transition in the first place is that they are quite powerful. Adding the additional effect of 'gets a minion' to ray of enfeeblement for example, could be potentially game breaking. This is particularly the case since powers, as opposed to ritiuals, are pretty much designed not to last past combat.

No, true. The thing is, though, that you *should* be able to get minions by perfectly conventional means (by, say, hiring them) anyway. The advantage of it being non-system mandated means that it's always an extra, never something the players can rely on or feel entitled to.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 12:15 PM
Hit points are silly. Wound systems work better to actually model combat, but if you're going to use the hit point system, just embrace it - your game will be silly, you can either live with it or use a better system.

Hit points aren't silly, they're just abstract. Which is why I like the way they work in 4E which totally embraces that.

Of course a lot of Wound systems are really Hit Point systems in disguise. Unless Exalted has changed radically since the last edition, it still uses Hit Points, you just get *less* of them.

Indon
2008-06-26, 12:20 PM
Hit points aren't silly, they're just abstract. Which is why I like the way they work in 4E which totally embraces that.
Wizard: "Quick, Fighter, use your battleaxe to weaken the goblin so that I can charm him into fighting on our side!"


Of course a lot of Wound systems are really Hit Point systems in disguise. Unless Exalted has changed radically since the last edition, it still uses Hit Points, you just get *less* of them.

You actually get weaker in Exalted (and other White Wolf games) as you bleed to death, you know (Also? You can bleed to death!). Meanwhile... what's the negative effect of being bloodied, again? You end up tripping some form of spore trap, I recall. You also get extra powers.

Oh, also, 'bloodied' - the status your illusionist is going to put your opponents into by critting with his Illusionary Illusion of NotActuallyHurtingAnything.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 12:34 PM
Wizard: "Quick, Fighter, use your battleaxe to weaken the goblin so that I can charm him into fighting on our side!"

"Quick, Fighter, use your battleaxe to distract the goblin so he lacks the mental composure to resist my mental domination".

Hit points are totally stupid if you assume that they literally involve physical damage.


You actually get weaker in Exalted (and other White Wolf games) as you bleed to death, you know (Also? You can bleed to death!). Meanwhile... what's the negative effect of being bloodied, again? You end up tripping some form of spore trap, I recall. You also get extra powers.

Oh, also, 'bloodied' - the status your illusionist is going to put your opponents into by critting with his Illusionary Illusion of NotActuallyHurtingAnything.

You get weaker, but unless they've changed their system a lot you can't - for example - get their sword arms disabled. That's all abstracted out.

Indon
2008-06-26, 12:42 PM
"Quick, Fighter, use your battleaxe to distract the goblin so he lacks the mental composure to resist my mental domination".

Hit points are totally stupid if you assume that they literally involve physical damage.
Except that obviously, many attacks do literally involve physical damage. Many martial powers in 4'th edition are explicitly flavored that way (how do you flick the blood from your blade into a creature's eye if your blade isn't covered in blood?).


You get weaker, but unless they've changed their system a lot you can't - for example - get their sword arms disabled. That's all abstracted out.

Yeah, a damage system with hit locations (ala Battletech) would be the next step up in accuracy from just a wound system.

And you know, in manga the only time you ever get a specific limb injured is when you're just going to regenerate it anyway. :P

Saph
2008-06-26, 12:43 PM
"Quick, Fighter, use your battleaxe to distract the goblin so he lacks the mental composure to resist my mental domination".

I'm bursting out laughing just imagining you saying that seriously. :)

But anyway, it's irrelevant. Your quote is impossible for two reasons:

a) 4e Wizards have no charm powers.
b) Charm attacks in 4e play off your Will save. HP is no defence against them.

This idea of yours that HP gives you a defence against special attacks like mental domination is a complete invention, as far as I can tell. It's not supported anywhere in the rules at all.

- Saph

nagora
2008-06-26, 12:53 PM
THit points are silly. Wound systems work better to actually model combat,
Generally all they do is model combat just as badly but in more tedious detail - the difference between precise and accurate. Anyway, we're trying to model story combat here not actual combat. Hit points are a far better system than hit locations and all the rest of that pseudo-realistic stuff in this context at least.


but if you're going to use the hit point system, just embrace it - your game will be silly, you can either live with it or use a better system.
You can take it too far - as 4e shows. Once the abstraction is not actually abstracting anything the players can relate to it falls apart.

There's no basis, for example, for characters to be back to full hit points after a bad nights sleep: there's no source-world "reality" to hang that on. No hero in anything except cartoons gets over all their injuries from a battle to near-death by lying down and having 6 hours sleep. The abstraction has vanished up it's own backside at that point.

The fact that you can treat most hit points as pure luck does not mean that you can treat all hit points as pure luck in all situations and not have the players go "Wha?"

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 01:03 PM
I
a) 4e Wizards have no charm powers.


I am aware of this fact. They do, however, have mesmerism powers which one would think should have some variety of charm application.


b) Charm attacks in 4e play off your Will save. HP is no defence against them.

This idea of yours that HP gives you a defence against special attacks like mental domination is a complete invention, as far as I can tell. It's not supported anywhere in the rules at all.


Hit Points, in D&D in general are a kind of abstract insurance against bad stuff happening to you. That's why your fighter's skill with a blade and ability to withstand physical punishment protects him from "psychic" damage. Yes, some things get around it, but very few in 4E directly incapacitate you.

Again, I'm not arguing that this is RAW, or RAI, just that it's an interesting consequence of the abstract nature of Hit Points.

To put it another way: yes, technically the rules say that a character reduced to 0HP is either dead or unconscious, and therefore technically incapable of performing any action (including free actions). That very seldom stops DMs from having the mortally wounded old mentor croak out a few last words.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-26, 01:05 PM
This idea of yours that HP gives you a defence against special attacks like mental domination is a complete invention, as far as I can tell. It's not supported anywhere in the rules at all.

Precisely.

It is not a bad invention, in that it can lead to nice situations and isn't inherently sillier or more disattached than other 4E rules (which are plenty silly and disattached already, of course) but to claim that what you say is in any way supported by the core books is simply false.

batsofchaos
2008-06-26, 01:14 PM
On the subject of the silliness of being back to full strength after a night's sleep breaking reality: when was there ever an instance of this NOT happening in older additions? The cleric burns up remaining spells healing everyone, and finishes up in the morning if the spells run out before done. Having everyone start the next day healed removes the tedium of cure spells. The RAW don't say that this is what happens, but it's hardly that difficult of a handwave to say "and the cleric does blah-blah-blah, everyone's healed let's get going."

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 01:24 PM
Precisely.

It is not a bad invention, in that it can lead to nice situations and isn't inherently sillier or more disattached than other 4E rules (which are plenty silly and disattached already, of course) but to claim that what you say is in any way supported by the core books is simply false.

Not "supported by" so much as "consistent with", if you see the distinction.

Just like I think it's consistent with the way HP work to rule that (say) the "knockout" crossbow bolt pins your clothes to a tree.

Unless you have a wounds system, the idea that HP damage has to represent bits of metal physically passing through your flesh is obviously incorrect.

Indon
2008-06-26, 01:42 PM
Generally all they do is model combat just as badly but in more tedious detail - the difference between precise and accurate.
How is going from "Being hurt does nothing to impair you," to "Being hurt does something to impair you," not becoming more accurate of what being hurt does?


Anyway, we're trying to model story combat here not actual combat. Hit points are a far better system than hit locations and all the rest of that pseudo-realistic stuff in this context at least.
Well, 4'th edition's about tactical combat (with story elements)- and there are perfectly fine tactical combat games that use hit locations. But it is a workable system, I'll agree.

Tormsskull
2008-06-26, 01:49 PM
On the subject of the silliness of being back to full strength after a night's sleep breaking reality: when was there ever an instance of this NOT happening in older additions? The cleric burns up remaining spells healing everyone, and finishes up in the morning if the spells run out before done. Having everyone start the next day healed removes the tedium of cure spells. The RAW don't say that this is what happens, but it's hardly that difficult of a handwave to say "and the cleric does blah-blah-blah, everyone's healed let's get going."

Buy you are looking at mechanics only. Anyone who plays the game for the story reasons would have a hard time just saying "blah blah everyone's healed". In order to stay immersed in the world (which is already difficult) things have to make sense.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 01:59 PM
Buy you are looking at mechanics only. Anyone who plays the game for the story reasons would have a hard time just saying "blah blah everyone's healed". In order to stay immersed in the world (which is already difficult) things have to make sense.

Not so.

If you can accept that you can take a sword to the head and survive (Coup de Grace) then you'll have to accept that you can get back to full health after a night's sleep.

Why? Because if a sword to the head doesn't kill you in the rules, then HP can't just be physical integrity. It has to encompass some sort of spiritual/mental toughness that leads you keep fighting even though your braincase has been split open. In such a case, it is easy to imagine, via fluff, that a good, long rest is enough to restore your spirit to face the new day. Your wounds do not necessarily vanish as they did with 3e cure spells - you may (and should!) still have scars and such, but they no longer bother you.

See? It's not that hard to accept that fluff, it's just different from the way you healed previously. BTW, if you disagree with HP = spiritual/mental toughness (tenacity) then please explain why a Coup De Grace doesn't kill you - and why that didn't bother you in 3e.

Kletian999
2008-06-26, 02:03 PM
I'm bursting out laughing just imagining you saying that seriously. :)

But anyway, it's irrelevant. Your quote is impossible for two reasons:

a) 4e Wizards have no charm powers.
b) Charm attacks in 4e play off your Will save. HP is no defence against them.

This idea of yours that HP gives you a defence against special attacks like mental domination is a complete invention, as far as I can tell. It's not supported anywhere in the rules at all.

- Saph

Better example: Fighter! Twack that goblin in the head so he isn't thinking as straight and falls for my charms.

Reading the monster manual, the MindFlayer's Charming power requires them to reduce their target to 0 hp with a certain move. The Aboleth's have a more traditional dominate effect, which becomes the more permanant "enslave" when the target is reduced to 0hp by the reoccuring damage from the dominate effect. His scenario is actually close to the RAW for monsters.

batsofchaos
2008-06-26, 02:06 PM
There's nothing stopping someone from going through the motions of the old system so instead of "blah-blah healed" you say "the party cleric prays, relinquishing the remainder of their divinely imbued magic for the day to allow the party's wounds to knit and heal over night. When they wake up the next morning, they will be refreshed and fully healed. Coincidentally, the cleric will have restored magic for the new day."

It's certainly not the most sensical ruling, but from a mechanical consideration it's great for removing tedium.

Merlin the Tuna
2008-06-26, 02:14 PM
And you know, in manga the only time you ever get a specific limb injured is when you're just going to regenerate it anyway. :PWhy stick with Manga? When I was reading the first Dragonlance book, I was continually amused with how characters were struck with glancing blows and minor gashes right up until they get the power to heal, at which point limbs start getting removed and faces start getting melted off.
The 'you can always choose to knock the enemy unconscious' clause, on the other hand, is a perfectly accurate reading of the rules, but it's also so ridiculous that I can't take it seriously. (I shoot the orc with my crossbow, but I do it in a nondamaging way!)Spin-off thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84062)

And on a side note, couldn't you deal nonlethal damage with a crossbow in 3E, as well?

Lapak
2008-06-26, 02:19 PM
There's no basis, for example, for characters to be back to full hit points after a bad nights sleep: there's no source-world "reality" to hang that on. No hero in anything except cartoons gets over all their injuries from a battle to near-death by lying down and having 6 hours sleep. The abstraction has vanished up it's own backside at that point.You are quite right that there is no 'real' example to hang it on. You are wrong that it is paralleled only in cartoons. As I pointed out in another thread, it is paralleled precisely in some of the fantasy fiction that D&D was partially inspired by: the sword-and-sorcery and adventure stuff written by Howard and Lieber and their contemporaries. There's a Conan story where he gets in a fight on a beach, is bloodied and battered and finally takes a club blow to the head that's so serious his opponents think he is dead and leave him there. He's picked up by slavers, and immediately upon awakening - from half a night of unconsciousness, mind you, not even proper sleep - he is full of power and fury and single-handedly kills the captain and leads a revolt among the slaves.

This was written well before the first version of D&D was published. Conan, John Carter of Mars and Fafhrd did that kind of thing on a fairly regular basis. That's what 4E is modeling; high-adventure heroes who bounce back from near-death with a few scars and a clenched fist in the face of their enemies.

EDIT: On-topic, I think the house rule is an interesting idea, and it is in line with several monster powers. I think that it would want a new set of powers rather than houseruling side effects on established powers if you want it to be balanced properly.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 02:20 PM
There's nothing stopping someone from going through the motions of the old system so instead of "blah-blah healed" you say "the party cleric prays, relinquishing the remainder of their divinely imbued magic for the day to allow the party's wounds to knit and heal over night. When they wake up the next morning, they will be refreshed and fully healed. Coincidentally, the cleric will have restored magic for the new day."

It's certainly not the most sensical ruling, but from a mechanical consideration it's great for removing tedium.

Actually, it makes a good amount of sense. Clerics can do a ritual before sleeping that asks their god to bless the party and give them the strength and vitality to face the new day.

I mean, it doesn't work so well if you don't have a Cleric or Paladin, but it's pretty solid fluff.

batsofchaos
2008-06-26, 02:25 PM
I should clarify, I meant the RAW didn't make a lot of sense, not my handwave explanation which does.

Tormsskull
2008-06-26, 02:28 PM
If you can accept that you can take a sword to the head and survive (Coup de Grace) then you'll have to accept that you can get back to full health after a night's sleep.


Do the 4e books say Coup de Grace = sword to the head? I don't recall reading that part (but to be honest I have not read them incredibly in depth yet).



BTW, if you disagree with HP = spiritual/mental toughness (tenacity) then please explain why a Coup De Grace doesn't kill you - and why that didn't bother you in 3e.

Coup de Grace in 3e, IIRC, required a fort save of 10 + damage dealt or you are dead, right? And since every CdG is an auto crit, the fort save to live is typically quite high. So in nearly all circumstances, the CdG DID kill you in 3e.

Jeramiahh
2008-06-26, 02:29 PM
You can take it too far - as 4e shows. Once the abstraction is not actually abstracting anything the players can relate to it falls apart.

There's no basis, for example, for characters to be back to full hit points after a bad nights sleep: there's no source-world "reality" to hang that on. No hero in anything except cartoons gets over all their injuries from a battle to near-death by lying down and having 6 hours sleep. The abstraction has vanished up it's own backside at that point.

The fact that you can treat most hit points as pure luck does not mean that you can treat all hit points as pure luck in all situations and not have the players go "Wha?"

Actually, probably the best example I can think of seeing the 4e rules in 'live action' would be Indiana Jones. In the most recent movie, he survives something he really, really shouldn't, and not only walks away, but is full 'health' once again... a day later! If you ask me, that kind of fighting is the style 4e was going for, and it's clearly there, if you look just a little past the surface and have an imagination. =P

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 02:35 PM
Coup de Grace in 3e, IIRC, required a fort save of 10 + damage dealt or you are dead, right? And since every CdG is an auto crit, the fort save to live is typically quite high. So in nearly all circumstances, the CdG DID kill you in 3e.

So, why not just say "you killed him" like they did in 2e? Why put a system in at all, if you're not supposed to survive? Is it because they didn't want a kobold to be able to slit the throat of Hrothgar the Mighty? And why is that?

Also: Coup de Grace is not literally "sword to the head" but it's generally assumed to be the most efficient attack you can make with the weapon on a helpless target. Swords to the head, daggers in the eyes, etc.

Tormsskull
2008-06-26, 02:45 PM
Also: Coup de Grace is not literally "sword to the head" but it's generally assumed to be the most efficient attack you can make with the weapon on a helpless target. Swords to the head, daggers in the eyes, etc.

But as you say in your other thread, since it is not specifically mentioned, it can be whatever the DM wants it to be. And as such, since we don't have to accept that you can take a sword to the head and survive, the rest of your argument:




Why? Because if a sword to the head doesn't kill you in the rules, then HP can't just be physical integrity. It has to encompass some sort of spiritual/mental toughness that leads you keep fighting even though your braincase has been split open. In such a case, it is easy to imagine, via fluff, that a good, long rest is enough to restore your spirit to face the new day. Your wounds do not necessarily vanish as they did with 3e cure spells - you may (and should!) still have scars and such, but they no longer bother you.

See? It's not that hard to accept that fluff, it's just different from the way you healed previously. BTW, if you disagree with HP = spiritual/mental toughness (tenacity) then please explain why a Coup De Grace doesn't kill you - and why that didn't bother you in 3e.



is invalidated.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 03:01 PM
But as you say in your other thread, since it is not specifically mentioned, it can be whatever the DM wants it to be. And as such, since we don't have to accept that you can take a sword to the head and survive, the rest of your argument:

is invalidated.

Clever, but not clever enough.

By your argument, 3e did not allow you to chop off someone's head or send a dagger into their eye, even if they were completely helpless. Did this not bother you? You have not answered this central question, and it is a long-standing one.

That you have failed to even address the central conceit (that HP is not a measure of physical integrity alone) leaves me confident that you don't like the change because that's not how healing used to work. That's fine, but it certainly doesn't strain one's credulity more than HP alone.

veilrap
2008-06-26, 03:33 PM
I'm bursting out laughing just imagining you saying that seriously. :)

But anyway, it's irrelevant. Your quote is impossible for two reasons:

a) 4e Wizards have no charm powers.
b) Charm attacks in 4e play off your Will save. HP is no defence against them.

This idea of yours that HP gives you a defence against special attacks like mental domination is a complete invention, as far as I can tell. It's not supported anywhere in the rules at all.

- Saph

Level 27 Wizard Spell: Confusion

Effect: 3d10 Psychic Damage + etc

With out HP this effect is leathal and is in the spirit of what Dan_Hemmens is talking about. House rule a spell like this to mentally dominate (instead of killing when HP below 0).

Tormsskull
2008-06-26, 03:41 PM
By your argument, 3e did not allow you to chop off someone's head or send a dagger into their eye, even if they were completely helpless.


Where did you get that I was saying that from?



That you have failed to even address the central conceit (that HP is not a measure of physical integrity alone) leaves me confident that you don't like the change because that's not how healing used to work. That's fine, but it certainly doesn't strain one's credulity more than HP alone.

I think you have been in one too many of these discussions and are assuming many of my points.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 04:05 PM
I think you have been in one too many of these discussions and are assuming many of my points.

Y'know what? Forget it.

You're not responsive to my arguments, and you're evasive in response (such as saying "I didn't say that" without saying what you meant).

I'll stand by my argument that, since HP is not merely a measure of how intact your physical body is (as shown by the Coup de Grace mechanic, which is designed to be the most lethal attack you could deliver with a weapon) that it must measure some amount of mental perseverance, will to survive, and fighting spirit. Since this concept of HP at least existed in 3e and 4e, I do not see how you (or anyone) can claim that resting bringing you up to full HP is any more "immersion breaking" than no being able to auto-kill a helpless individual by using a big axe.

If you don't like it because it's changed (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks), that's fine, but I just don't see how, if you accept HP to start with, you would complain about this recovery mechanism on grounds of it not being "realistic."

Seriously, man, what's the deal? :smallannoyed:

Roderick_BR
2008-06-26, 04:07 PM
Yes, your honor, the defendant is clearly guilty of murder, because he confesses to having coerced my client to stand on his head for an hour.
OBJECTION!

Sorry, I had to...


Also, while you can decided to interpret Hit Points as a 'nebulous ability to resist Bad Stuff', that's not what the books say. The 4e PHB defines Hit Points as following:

I'd say that HP really is 'nebulous ability to resist Bad Stuff', but, as the PHB states, restricted to phisical damage only. It at least admits HP to be abstract and hollywoodian.


The 'you can always choose to knock the enemy unconscious' clause, on the other hand, is a perfectly accurate reading of the rules, but it's also so ridiculous that I can't take it seriously. (I shoot the orc with my crossbow, but I do it in a nondamaging way!)
You can? I didn't get to the combat chapter yet. That gotta be fun. "I shot him with my boxing glove arrow"
Does 3.5 forbids you from doing non-lethal (subdual?) damage with ranged weapons? It allows at least thrown weapons, like smacking a person in the head with a thrown stone?

Prophaniti
2008-06-26, 04:09 PM
The HP system is something I tolerate in my D&D campaigns, because as I explained in another thread, D&D 3.5 is all I really have a chance to play. 4E's embracing of the more abstract nature of HP causes me to dislike it further, and the OPs houserule idea would quickly drive me up a wall. Absolutely hate it. Save or die spells work because they're spells. It's magic. HP shouldn't protect you from compulsion or domination or death effects or other non-physical attacks. Thats what saves are for. Hell, I've always been pissed (and changed the rules to them) that RAW Sleep, Symbol, and similar spells are rendered useless if the target has more than so much HP. That just seems really stupid to me. That's just my two cents.

nagora
2008-06-26, 04:19 PM
If you can accept that you can take a sword to the head and survive (Coup de Grace)
Nope. You don't get to counter a stupid rule with another stupid rule. In 1e, coup de grace (not under that name) killed you regardless of HP: if you're magically sleeping then the lamp-bearer can slit your throat automatically, no save.

The 4e rules are perhaps the logical end point of bending the hp abstraction in the fashion your CdG example shows, but that just demonstrates that there are limits on the usefulness of an abstraction.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 04:20 PM
The HP system is something I tolerate in my D&D campaigns, because as I explained in another thread, D&D 3.5 is all I really have a chance to play. 4E's embracing of the more abstract nature of HP causes me to dislike it further, and the OPs houserule idea would quickly drive me up a wall. Absolutely hate it. Save or die spells work because they're spells. It's magic. HP shouldn't protect you from compulsion or domination or death effects or other non-physical attacks. Thats what saves are for. Hell, I've always been pissed (and changed the rules to them) that RAW Sleep, Symbol, and similar spells are rendered useless if the target has more than so much HP. That just seems really stupid to me. That's just my two cents.

You, sir, sound like a good candidate for Shadowrun.

Not only is it silly-easy to get your head blown off, but even if your survive such a terrible wound, there's a good chance you suffer limb or organ damage! Or you could go GURPS... they still have hit charts, don't they?

Like I say: play the game that suits you the best, not just whatever you have lying around. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:

Nope. You don't get to counter a stupid rule with another stupid rule. In 1e, coup de grace (not under that name) killed you regardless of HP: if you're magically sleeping then the lamp-bearer can slit your throat automatically, no save.

The 4e rules are perhaps the logical end point of bending the hp abstraction in the fashion your CdG example shows, but that just demonstrates that there are limits on the usefulness of an abstraction.

Woah there. I'm not saying that Coup de Grace 3e is the best way to do things (I mean, I do think that) but what I'm saying is that the folks who are happy with 3e healing shouldn't be complaining that 4e healing is somehow "less real," considering the abstraction that is HP.

(Why I like Coup de Grace v. Insta-kill)
If you're going to allow a PC to survive being dipped in lava or burninated, it seems kind of anti-climactic to allow the same PC to be offed by a dagger to the throat. This is particularly bad with the charm spells like Sleep or even Charm Person that would allow you to incapacitate a villain (or PC) and then insta-kill them. Charm Person, BTW, works great - "Hey buddy, can you watch that door while I check behind you?" *slit throat*.

This was always a problem I had with 2e (and, also, being forced to make armies filled with powerful fighters even when adventurers are supposed to be rare), which helped me decide to move onto 3e. If you want a game with gritty rules like that, take a Shadowrun, but it hurts the system to mix heroic fantasy with insta-kills like that.

Saph
2008-06-26, 04:31 PM
Actually, it makes a good amount of sense. Clerics can do a ritual before sleeping that asks their god to bless the party and give them the strength and vitality to face the new day.

I'd actually be fine with this, just as long as there was some sort of justification, even "it's magic". What I can't take seriously is when you're so critically wounded that you're only seconds away from death, but then someone does an untrained Heal check and fifteen minutes later you're as good as new, just by sitting around. Magic? Sure. High-quality medical technology? Sure. Healing by resting a few minutes? Not so much.

This is the problem with over-abstract mechanics; it's really hard to make sense of what's happening in-character.

- Saph

Artanis
2008-06-26, 04:34 PM
I always find threads like this hilarious.

One side thinks that HP should only represent physical punishment, leading to a character being totally unfazed by having three claymores in his spleen. The other side thinks that HP should represent ability to avoid Bad Things, leading to being fully healed from the brink of death simply by taking a quick breather.

...and both sides argue over which one is more realistic.

*grabs popcorn* This oughtta be fun.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 04:42 PM
I'd actually be fine with this, just as long as there was some sort of justification, even "it's magic". What I can't take seriously is when you're so critically wounded that you're only seconds away from death, but then someone does an untrained Heal check and fifteen minutes later you're as good as new, just by sitting around. Magic? Sure. High-quality medical technology? Sure. Healing by resting a few minutes? Not so much.

This is the problem with over-abstract mechanics; it's really hard to make sense of what's happening in-character.

- Saph

Well now, it's not quite that bad. First of all, it isn't the untrained Heal check that heals you, it's taking 5 minutes to catch your breath. Secondly, it's not costless - to do a full heal from near death requires spending 4 Healing Surges, which is probably half of most people's daily allotment. Healing Surges are a new stat, but they are still a stat, and one that measures your durability with more granularity than mere HP.

Hey, this probably is just a fluff problem too.
Why don't you think of your current HP like your "short run stamina" - the amount of damage you can take in a short period of time before you're completely overwhelmed. Healing Surges count as your "long run stamina" - the extra reserves you have to get over the wounded leg or the arm wound. When someone runs out of Healing Surges, they literally can't take more punishment; they don't have the heart to go on.

After a good night's sleep, their fighting spirit was recovered so that, even if they still have the scars of the previous day, they have the gumption to keep fighting on.

If that's still too "soft" for you, I guess you could make the game more brutal. Only recover N Healing Surges sleeping in the field, but with a more comfortable camp (or an inn) you can recover more. Or someone needs to make a trained Heal check to allow wounded soldiers to recover Healing Surges. All of these will limit the flexibility of the party and make live more brutal for the PCs, but hey, that's not really the concern here.

EDIT:

I always find threads like this hilarious.

One side thinks that HP should only represent physical punishment, leading to a character being totally unfazed by having three claymores in his spleen. The other side thinks that HP should represent ability to avoid Bad Things, leading to being fully healed from the brink of death simply by taking a quick breather.

...and both sides argue over which one is more realistic.

*grabs popcorn* This oughtta be fun.

Alright smart guy - what's your argument.

I'm sticking with the "HP is unrealistic, but essential to flavor. The new healing system allows for more flexible party structure, smoother flowing battles, and greater granularity" line.

batsofchaos
2008-06-26, 04:44 PM
I'd adjudicate a CdG that didn't kill the target as "not doing it right." The blow glanced off, missed ever so slightly, etc. Depending on whatever shape the target is in HP-wise afterwards would partially dictate what the end result would be. If they're not even half-way to bloodied, it missed in some way. If they're at one or two HP remaining, it did it's job most of the way but the target isn't quite dead yet. It's fairly realistic; when executions were performed with an axe there would be many times that the executioner would need to swing multiple times to kill the condemned; it's one of the main reasons the guilliotine was invented.

nagora
2008-06-26, 04:45 PM
Woah there. I'm not saying that Coup de Grace 3e is the best way to do things (I mean, I do think that) but what I'm saying is that the folks who are happy with 3e healing shouldn't be complaining that 4e healing is somehow "less real," considering the abstraction that is HP.
Sure, and I'm just saying that I'm NOT happy with 3e healing, but that doesn't mean I think it should get worse.


(Why I like Coup de Grace v. Insta-kill)
If you're going to allow a PC to survive being dipped in lava
Which I'm not.

or burninated, it seems kind of anti-climactic to allow the same PC to be offed by a dagger to the throat. This is particularly bad with the charm spells like Sleep or even Charm Person that would allow you to incapacitate a villain (or PC) and then insta-kill them. Charm Person, BTW, works great - "Hey buddy, can you watch that door while I check behind you?" *slit throat*.
In 1e terms, I'd give a roll on the assassination table rather than a straight insta-kill.


This was always a problem I had with 2e (and, also, being forced to make armies filled with powerful fighters even when adventurers are supposed to be rare), which helped me decide to move onto 3e. If you want a game with gritty rules like that, take a Shadowrun, but it hurts the system to mix heroic fantasy with insta-kills like that.
To an extent I agree, but if someone is magically held or slept or intentionally walks into something that the character knows would kill them, then I'm happy to lift the protection of hp.

For a character with 100hp, the vast majority are skill and luck, some are physical and mental toughness from training and the adventuring life and some are their innate physical and mental toughness. For a first level character with 8hp, most are in the latter class.

As I said elsewhere, in 1e it took any character a month of rest to fully recover to being beaten and stabbed to just short of the point of death; I feel that was generous but workable.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 04:48 PM
I'd adjudicate a CdG that didn't kill the target as "not doing it right." The blow glanced off, missed ever so slightly, etc. Depending on whatever shape the target is in HP-wise afterwards would partially dictate what the end result would be. If they're not even half-way to bloodied, it missed in some way. If they're at one or two HP remaining, it did it's job most of the way but the target isn't quite dead yet. It's fairly realistic; when executions were performed with an axe there would be many times that the executioner would need to swing multiple times to kill the condemned; it's one of the main reasons the guilliotine was invented.

I mean, you could but I think the PCs would complain "what do you mean I cut his throat wrong?" I would.

Plus, when an executioner "missed" with a swing, it wasn't going to result in a target that was going to survive very long, unless the executioner missed entirely. I wouldn't want to use such fluff myself, but if it floats your boat...

EDIT:

As I said elsewhere, in 1e it took any character a month of rest to fully recover to being beaten and stabbed to just short of the point of death; I feel that was generous but workable.

So, like I said, if you love rolling on tables or whatnot, and think that some things should be insta-kill, while others are not, that's cool. It's a way to do things, but, as I said before, it can be disorienting to switch from a HP-based system to an arbitrary system (in the sense that some things will always kill you, while others do not).

Re the quote above: may I suggest picking up an old copy of Shadowrun 2e or 3e and reading the Recovery Rules? By far some of the grittiest recovery rules I've seen, and they work out pretty well if you want 'em gritty. I'm sure you can homebrew it in so that the PC who's laying in bed recovering will have some lasting effects from his terrible mauling.

Artanis
2008-06-26, 04:54 PM
Alright smart guy - what's your argument.

I'm sticking with the "HP is unrealistic, but essential to flavor. The new healing system allows for more flexible party structure, smoother flowing battles, and greater granularity" line.
My argument is that different HP systems have different advantages, with many of the advantages of both 3e's and 4e's being espoused in this thread. Those advantages can be debated. BUT:

No matter what the HP system is, it's still going to be ridiculously unrealistic, period. And as such, saying "system A is better than system B because it's more realistic" is such a horrifyingly terrible argument that it goes past worthless all the way around to hilarity.

nagora
2008-06-26, 05:03 PM
So, like I said, if you love rolling on tables or whatnot, and think that some things should be insta-kill, while others are not, that's cool. It's a way to do things, but, as I said before, it can be disorienting to switch from a HP-based system to an arbitrary system (in the sense that some things will always kill you, while others do not).
The trick is to switch when the players would expect a switch. As soon as a player says (or is about to say) "I don't care how many hit points you have: that's going to kill you" it's time to think about changing abstractions. Slitting the throats of magically held prisoners is one.

batsofchaos
2008-06-26, 05:10 PM
If my players CdG'd an enemy to 2 HP, it's not going to be alive very long, either.

When looking for methods to add realism to damage (something that I don't think is entirely necessary in DnD but HAVE done before), I devised a fairly simple system for outlining hit-points versus real damage. (This was for 3.5, so it's not directly applicable to 4ed but could be modified to match)

A character's hit-point total remains unchanged. However, a set number of hit-points equaling the player's constitution score are "wound-points." If the character takes the feat "toughness," one of the HP gained is considered a wound-point as well. While the character has taken damage, but still has a total number of hit-points higher than their wound-points, all damage has been lucky scrapes, near-misses, superficial, etc. Damage that takes the character to their wound-point total or lower results in actual, grievous wounds. Healing these wounds may be more difficult (to be adjudicated to taste), or just serve as cues for describing the damage dealt. CdG attacks and the like basically by-pass all hit points above the wound-point total. If the attack does enough damage to kill the target (read: reduce them to -10), they're auto-dead. If not, they roll a saving throw as per RAW.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 05:27 PM
I'd actually be fine with this, just as long as there was some sort of justification, even "it's magic". What I can't take seriously is when you're so critically wounded that you're only seconds away from death, but then someone does an untrained Heal check and fifteen minutes later you're as good as new, just by sitting around. Magic? Sure. High-quality medical technology? Sure. Healing by resting a few minutes? Not so much.

Continuing my unbroken record of being unable to agree with Saph about anything, ever, I have pretty much the opposite reaction. I hate justifications for abstractions, not least because they then force you to change the entire gameworld by introducing easy magical healing.

Also, as another poster points out, this sort of thing happens in the original source material all the damned time.


This is the problem with over-abstract mechanics; it's really hard to make sense of what's happening in-character.

I tend to find that to be a problem with under-abstract mechanics. My problem with pre-4E incarnations of "Hit Points" was that because they explained all recovery of HP in terms of magical "healing", it supported the notion that a 12-point blow from a greatsword really was a mighty thwack that should by all rights have taken your arm off. Justifying HP-recovery in terms of magical healing, to me, highlights how ludicrous it is to be able to take that amount of damage in the first place.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 05:32 PM
Save or die spells work because they're spells. It's magic. HP shouldn't protect you from compulsion or domination or death effects or other non-physical attacks.

That's the thing, though. Why do Hit Points magically protect you from physical weapons, but not from magical effects? Why is it okay for PCs to have a magical aura of karma that makes it literally impossible for them to be hit in the eye by an arrow (even if it's fired by Archy McArch, greatest archer who ever arched, and he's using a magical eye-seeking arrow), but not okay for that same aura to protect them from the Wizard's blue laser beams?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 06:14 PM
The trick is to switch when the players would expect a switch. As soon as a player says (or is about to say) "I don't care how many hit points you have: that's going to kill you" it's time to think about changing abstractions. Slitting the throats of magically held prisoners is one.

See, you can just do that, but then you have to ask yourself "couldn't something survive that?" Like, if you dipped a demon with fire resistance in lava, would it survive? Would it take any damage? How about dropping a cave-in on a giant? This is why it's sometimes nice to have damage effects even for "obviously" lethal situations - particularly if your PCs have magical resistances.

Yes, I know in 1e they didn't have all these "resistances" - things either were immune or not. Um, maybe there were some resists, but I can't remember them right now. Anyhow! Not having resists has other problems.

I'm not here arguing why you shouldn't play 1e or 2e (obviously, if you haven't been convinced by now, you just like it as it is, so there) but after looking at the convoluted "fixes" people are trying to put on these things, wouldn't it be better to accept that HP is an abstraction, and that if you're going to use it at all, use it in a fashion that strengthens what you're going for in the system.

And if you say "realism" you're playing the wrong game. :smalltongue:

Indon
2008-06-26, 06:17 PM
Why? Because if a sword to the head doesn't kill you in the rules, then HP can't just be physical integrity.

Alternately: Guts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserk_%28manga%29#Characters).


So in nearly all circumstances, the CdG DID kill you in 3e.

Unless you're Guts.

To make my point: Berserk (and honestly, other animes) use HP straight up as the gallons of blood interpretation. And the characters are seven different kinds of awesome (though admittedly, "unrealistically awesome" is one of those kinds).


That's the thing, though. Why do Hit Points magically protect you from physical weapons, but not from magical effects? Why is it okay for PCs to have a magical aura of karma that makes it literally impossible for them to be hit in the eye by an arrow (even if it's fired by Archy McArch, greatest archer who ever arched, and he's using a magical eye-seeking arrow), but not okay for that same aura to protect them from the Wizard's blue laser beams?

Well, it does protect them from laser beams. Just not, say, the wailing of a siren.

And I'll have you know, Guts would get shot in the eye, pull out the arrow, then show Archy McArch that HP's aren't an abstraction in his universe (more than likely by killing him, really, really hard).

Tormsskull
2008-06-26, 06:24 PM
You're not responsive to my arguments, and you're evasive in response (such as saying "I didn't say that" without saying what you meant).


Uh, what do you expect? I make a point, and then you respond by attacking a point that I didn't make.



I'll stand by my argument that, since HP is not merely a measure of how intact your physical body is (as shown by the Coup de Grace mechanic, which is designed to be the most lethal attack you could deliver with a weapon) that it must measure some amount of mental perseverance, will to survive, and fighting spirit.


Sounds almost the same as mine, though I don't think the CdG is really all that telling. I always thought HPs were a combination of your ability to deflect/avoid attacks and your physical, bodily health.



Since this concept of HP at least existed in 3e and 4e, I do not see how you (or anyone) can claim that resting bringing you up to full HP is any more "immersion breaking" than no being able to auto-kill a helpless individual by using a big axe.


Well, assuming that HP represents as I said above, and a character was reduced to negative HP, it means they are incredibly exhausted, and their body is in intense pain. They are on death's door so to speak.

When a character is healed to 1 HP, does that mean they are suddenly full of vigor, all of their wounds vanish, and they are good to go? I don't think so. I think they are badly hurt, and need time to recover. So the idea of a person using a healing surge is odd to me. In the heat of battle, getting a burst of adrenaline, I can sort of see that as a healing surge.

But barely alive, laying the ground, and suddenly...? Seems very strange to me, and that is why I believe it breaks immersion.



Seriously, man, what's the deal? :smallannoyed:

I'm completely willing to discuss various points with you, but when you try to tell me what point I am trying to make, and then ask me to defend that point, what am I supposed to do?



When looking for methods to add realism to damage (something that I don't think is entirely necessary in DnD but HAVE done before), I devised a fairly simple system for outlining hit-points versus real damage. (This was for 3.5, so it's not directly applicable to 4ed but could be modified to match)


You devised? You mean you lifted the system that is in Star Wars d20, and in the 3.5 SRD somewhere and slightly modified it?

lol. Don't get me wrong man, that system is great, and I have used it a lot. But to say you devised it seems very disingenuous.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 06:33 PM
Well, assuming that HP represents as I said above, and a character was reduced to negative HP, it means they are incredibly exhausted, and their body is in intense pain. They are on death's door so to speak.

When a character is healed to 1 HP, does that mean they are suddenly full of vigor, all of their wounds vanish, and they are good to go? I don't think so. I think they are badly hurt, and need time to recover. So the idea of a person using a healing surge is odd to me. In the heat of battle, getting a burst of adrenaline, I can sort of see that as a healing surge.

But barely alive, laying the ground, and suddenly...? Seems very strange to me, and that is why I believe it breaks immersion.

But... that's 3e. In 3e all you need is a CLW to get back from -2 to 4 out of 100 HP and then you'll be stomping around like a madman. Hell, it makes more sense that, when you're riding an adrenaline surge you'd be able to fight at full-power - that's what they're for.

Didn't you find 3e "broke immersion," if you believe this to be true?

Saph
2008-06-26, 06:34 PM
Also, as another poster points out, this sort of thing happens in the original source material all the damned time.

And people mock it there, too. At length.


I tend to find that to be a problem with under-abstract mechanics.

OK, since 4e's over-abstract system is apparently so good at this, explain to me: what exactly does having negative HP (with two failed death saves) mean?

Because it simultaneously has to be an injury so deadly that the player is literally six seconds away from death, but it also has to be an injury so trivial that one Heal check can put him back into the fight and killing things - also within six seconds.

In practice, when players have to repeatedly deal with these sort of mechanics, they usually just stop bothering to give them in-game explanations anymore. Otherwise you get caught in so many contradictions that your head explodes.

- Saph

batsofchaos
2008-06-26, 06:40 PM
Seeing as I've never played or read really anything about Star Wars d20 and I came up with that idea on my own, I'd say devised would be an apt description. Whether or not it or a similar system was created by someone else before me is irrelevant.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 06:53 PM
Because it simultaneously has to be an injury so deadly that the player is literally six seconds away from death, but it also has to be an injury so trivial that one Heal check can put him back into the fight and killing things - also within six seconds.

Alright, so here's how it works:
1) Negative HP exist to give a range of damage that is pretty bad, but not totally lethal. If you are reduced to your negative bloodied HP, then you have taken enough damage that the shock to your body kills you outright. This is "massive trauma" death.

2) Should you be within the negative HP range, then there's still a chance that your spirit gives out. Things are bad, and you're fading fast - so your "good fortune" roll (a Death saving throw) is there to see how plucky you are. If you suffer 3 crises of faith ("I'm not going to make it") then you literally give up the ghost. At this point, further damage to your body is only relevant if it is enough to absolutely violate any chance of you coming back.

3) The Heal roll is someone trying to stabilize your condition, only. You're not getting back on your feet without some incredible luck (natural 20 on your Death Check) or with someone calling down divine magic to get you back to 0, and then maybe bringing you above. The only way someone can get up to 0 with a Heal Roll is if they pass a DC 15 check which involves them trying to rouse your spirit enough to spend your Second Wind. If you already used your Second Wind, you're out of luck, and need divine healing.

4) At 0 HP (through magic or other effect) you are conscious but prone. If you have a Second Wind, you can use to pull yourself together and get back into the fight. Otherwise, you're stuck there until someone magics you up some healing. If you're out of Surges, then you're pretty much stuck - your spirit is absolutely drained, and while you're not dying, you just can't pull yourself together.

All the mechanics there are in RAW, I just added the fluff. Is that fluff really so outlandish, considering the base of HP we're working off of?

Tormsskull
2008-06-26, 07:07 PM
But... that's 3e. In 3e all you need is a CLW to get back from -2 to 4 out of 100 HP and then you'll be stomping around like a madman. Hell, it makes more sense that, when you're riding an adrenaline surge you'd be able to fight at full-power - that's what they're for.


Cure Light Wounds magically removes some of the wounds that the target had. I can easily comprehend healing magic that restores vigor to a target, probably because it has been a staple in nearly every roleplaying game I have ever played.



Didn't you find 3e "broke immersion," if you believe this to be true?

Yes I did. Hit Points can be a very hard concept to incorporate with immersion. However, I think more gamers can swallow magical healing. I mean, its MAGIC! But when a person can just pull on a resevoir of power to heal themselves, I have a hard time with that.

In my head when I visualize a cleric healing an injured ally, I can see the cleric calling on the power of his/her god. I can see a bluish energy radiate through his/her body, centalize on the cleric's hand, and then wash over the target when the cleric touches them. That bluish energy mends the wounds, closes open cuts, and replenishes vigor.

When I try to visualize a character using a healing surge while they are laying on the ground at 1 HP, I can't come up with much. For some reason in my head I keep seeing a Final Fantasy Tactics character use the ability "Accumulate". The "doot doot" sound occurs and + Attack shows over his head.

The first scene fits perfectly in with an immersive D&D world, but the lack of visualizng the other (or visualizing it like a video game) does not.



Seeing as I've never played or read really anything about Star Wars d20 and I came up with that idea on my own, I'd say devised would be an apt description. Whether or not it or a similar system was created by someone else before me is irrelevant.


Dude, you devised a system that uses the exact same terms (Vitality & wound points), uses the exact same rules (Vitality is non-bodily injury, Wound points are bodily injury, and CdG's bypass vitality and go straight to Wound) as a system that you apparently have never heard of?

I call shananigans.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 07:12 PM
Cure Light Wounds magically removes some of the wounds that the target had. I can easily comprehend healing magic that restores vigor to a target, probably because it has been a staple in nearly every roleplaying game I have ever played.

There we go.

Alright, makes total sense now - but considering that, to get up from negative HP, you need someone to "cast" on you in 4e, is it really that bad? I went into this more in depth in the post before this one, but it seems pretty reasonable for me.

But hey, if you like 3e because it fits better with your understanding of RPG mechanics, then that's cool.

Indon
2008-06-26, 07:24 PM
Because it simultaneously has to be an injury so deadly that the player is literally six seconds away from death, but it also has to be an injury so trivial that one Heal check can put him back into the fight and killing things - also within six seconds.

As part of a curse from an Ancient Fallen Empire, all members of sentient species have time bombs magically implanted in their brains, set to explode 18 seconds after they become too tired to fight.

The saves to avoid death involve the individual concentrating really hard to convince the time bomb that they're still fighting - whenever they slip, a few more seconds tick away.

Edit: When you roll a 20, you manage to convince not only the time bomb that you're still fighting, but yourself, psychosomatically putting you back in the fight!

The heal check is emergency brain surgery to cut the Yellow wire (it regenerates really fast, though, 'cause it's magic, so it's only a temporary fix).

Obviously, once you fail three saves against death, *BOOM!*

(This is, obviously, for humor purposes)

Tormsskull
2008-06-26, 07:24 PM
There we go.

Alright, makes total sense now - but considering that, to get up from negative HP, you need someone to "cast" on you in 4e, is it really that bad?


It can be. A Warlord could say "Get up my friend" to an unconscious character (uses Inspiring Word), and that character jumps up. That seems odd. Or in the example of a character using the heal skill on a downed character and the downed character getting a good roll.

Now, when I read through the classes, Warlord immediately looked cool as hell. It's a class that can do some melee fighting, some healing, and is mostly a support character. Sounds perfect for the type of character I like to play. But visualizing the healing abilities without magic can sometimes be really difficult



But hey, if you like 3e because it fits better with your understanding of RPG mechanics, then that's cool.

Not at all. I haven't had enough time playing 4e to say, but 3e was my least favorite of all the editions so far.

Indon
2008-06-26, 07:26 PM
But visualizing the healing abilities without magic can sometimes be really difficult
WARLORDS YELL VERY VERY LOUDLY.

Heh.

dyslexicfaser
2008-06-26, 08:36 PM
As part of a curse from an Ancient Fallen Empire, all members of sentient species have time bombs magically implanted in their brains, set to explode 18 seconds after they become too tired to fight.

The saves to avoid death involve the individual concentrating really hard to convince the time bomb that they're still fighting - whenever they slip, a few more seconds tick away.

Edit: When you roll a 20, you manage to convince not only the time bomb that you're still fighting, but yourself, psychosomatically putting you back in the fight!

The heal check is emergency brain surgery to cut the Yellow wire (it regenerates really fast, though, 'cause it's magic, so it's only a temporary fix).

Obviously, once you fail three saves against death, *BOOM!*

(This is, obviously, for humor purposes)

That is beautifully absurd, Indon. Thank you.

I can just imagine the fighter begging the time bomb, "No, really, I'm up, I'm still fighting, please don't go - *BOOM*"

It's right up there with my mental image of rolling 20 on a Death check and popping up off the ground like you're attached to a dozen springs.

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 01:07 AM
One of the things I like about 4E is the way that they've really embraced the abstract nature of HP, with things like Healing Surges, second wind, and most "healing" being not-explicitly-magical it makes them feel a lot more like the "hero points" or "karma armour" they've always been at least partially described as.

I also very much like this development. Call a spade a spade, I say.


This is also, incidentally, why I like the removal of save-or-die from the system. It doesn't make sense to me that a sufficient quantity of hit points renders you immune to decapitation by sword, but not immune to death by spell.

This doesn't really make sense, since SoDs operated off a different fundamental assumption than HP damage.


And finally, it's why I like the fact that every single Power does damage.

Incorrect. There are quite a few powers that deal no damage, even powers that require a Hit that deal no damage.


Once again it enforces the idea that anything which messes up your ability to fight (including getting confused or scared or distracted) effectively constitutes "damage".

Nope, anything that reduces your side's effective chance at winning a battle "messes up your ability to fight", including the other guys healing themselves up, teleporting/shifting to more advantageous battle positions, etc.


This gets even more interesting when you realize that 4E removes the concept of "non lethal damage" and instead just assumes that when an enemy is reduced to 0HP the player can knock them unconscious if they want.

I also really like this change. All damage is in a nebulous lethal/nonlethal pool; it is up the player whether their character is merely disabling or killing the enemy. Again, this goes back to the fact that combat in D&D is abstract; delineating between striking the killing blow or knocking an enemy unconscious is not a momentary decision, it evolves over the course of the battle.


This idea has a lot of very interesting possibilities if it is interpreted, shall we say, liberally.

If you interpret Hit Points as a nebulous ability to resist having Bad Stuff happen to you, and Damage as an erosion of this resistance, then HP damage suddenly becomes extremely interesting, because it makes what happens to "defeated" foes a matter of GM choice.

A lot of people are lamenting the loss of Charm and Domination effects in the Wizard skill list, what few effects there are basically just do damage and slap a status effect on the target. If, however, damage represents any negative effect applied to the target, and being reduced to 0HP does not necessarily mean death, but instead means "whatever the hell the DM thinks it should mean" you can put all those sorts of powers back in in a very straightforward way.

Simply: there is nothing stopping the DM from ruling that an NPC "killed" by a particular spell is, instead, subject to a permanent or long-lasting "story" effect. Want to let your Wizard have his mind-control back? Rule that a character "killed" with a Mesmeric Hold can instead be bound to the will of the Wizard. Want zombies? Rule that an enemy "killed" with a Ray of Enfeeblement rises from the dead.

Just to be clear, I'm not committing the Oberoni Fallacy here: I'm not saying "4E does have these effects, they're just not in the rules", I'm saying "it is interesting, and consistent with the rules of 4E, to interpret 'death' in a variety of ways, depending on the manner in which a target was reduced to 0HP".

Of course for a lot of people, this won't offer any significant utility over just having the damned Charm spells in the first place, for me, though, it has significant advantages:

- Because the possibilities aren't explicit, there's never an issue of whether you are or are not allowed to do a particular thing by RAW, it's a purely subjective, purely judgment-based way of running things.
- Because the possibilities aren't explicit, it encourages players to come up with interesting uses for powers based on what they're supposed to do in-character, rather than their mechanical effects.
- It preserves the abstract nature of hit points.
- Just a personal preference thing, but it also highlights the fact that mind controlling somebody is actually quite extreme action (since it uses the same mechanics as combat).

Again, I'm not trying to convert any 3.Xers, I'm trying to suggest to people who are already 4E converts some interesting ways to give their casters a little bit of their awesome back.

I completely disagree with all of this, beyond it being merely houserules in your game, Dan. I don't think it has any merit on a system-wide basis.

nagora
2008-06-27, 04:37 AM
And if you say "realism" you're playing the wrong game. :smalltongue:
This is just a re-wording of the old "some suspension of disbelief is suspention of all disbelief" nonsense. We're happy to watch James Bond outrun a modern Ferrari in an old DB5, but if he flaps his arms and flies to to top of a mountain or turns into a dragon we'd be rightly unhappy.

Realism does have a place in all RPGs, and hiding behind "it's fantasy-anything can happen" is usually a disguised admission that something's gone wrong. And it's usually, as in this case, that a game mechanic has intruded into the roleplay.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 05:10 AM
This is just a re-wording of the old "some suspension of disbelief is suspention of all disbelief" nonsense. We're happy to watch James Bond outrun a modern Ferrari in an old DB5, but if he flaps his arms and flies to to top of a mountain or turns into a dragon we'd be rightly unhappy.

Realism does have a place in all RPGs, and hiding behind "it's fantasy-anything can happen" is usually a disguised admission that something's gone wrong. And it's usually, as in this case, that a game mechanic has intruded into the roleplay.

I'll agree there, but I gotta say that HP is a fairly huge intrusion into the realism of any system.

At the very least, it says that getting hit with a sword does not interfere with your ability to fight until you're dead.

At most, it means that getting stabbed in the head while helpless won't kill you.

You can eat around the edges of HP all you want, but every time you allow limb breaking or insta-kills, you diminish the utility of having HP at all. After all, if HP is able to keep you from cracking a rib when you get slugged by an ogre, why is it that a human kneecapper can break your leg when the plot demands it? You certainly can make exceptions all you want, but all that does is highlight the gap between how tough you are fighting monsters and how tough you are otherwise.

(Personal preferences)
I find it most comfortable to work with a system that is generally applicable. Coup de Grace provided a neat system for dealing with helpless opponents which, while it generally was indistinguishable from instant-death, at least gave powerful heroes (and villains) a chance to defend themselves even if some minion snuck up on them while they were sleeping or charmed. Lava may have usually killed you, but you could find magics (with mechanics!) that would protect you from lava. Why is this good? Because it allows my players to understand that I'm not going to pull a "you just die" on them, even if they're 20th level - they have earned enough resilience that even dire straights won't kill them outright, if they're lucky and well prepared.

This is a point of personal preference. I know my PCs didn't mind the occasional plot-related non-HP loss when we were playing 2e, but I always felt cheap doing it. Just as bad as if I said "the bad guys run away and you can't catch them" without rolling some dice. And I wanted those dice to mean something, not just me deciding, ad hoc, that this time a Con check would be appropriate.

(On the utility of 4e HP granularity)
4e actually is an improvement on the old HP system by breaking it up into "Healing Surges" and HP - plus the new Death's Door system. Losing a chunk of HP now actually matters, thanks to the Bloodied status, and PCs can better manage their long-term status with Healing Surges. Additionally, PCs can get exhausted since virtually all curative powers drain Healing Surges from the PCs, rather than just keep charging them up with divine forces.

These new mechanisms also provide new areas to take damage, aside from the terrifyingly random Ability Drains. Torture, dehydration, and other physical strains can eat Healing Surges rather than HP, suggesting a loss of a PC's stamina reserves rather than their current ability to take a sword to the face. Draining Healing Surges (as many of the former level-drainers do now) will not immediately kill the PC, but it can still leave them weakened. Best of all, draining Healing Surges scales with level, so the mighty 20th level archmage doesn't have to be frightened of getting Strength Drained by Shadows to death, due to his 6 Strength.

I don't expect these to convince you, but I hope that you rethink the value of Healing Surges and the new HP system as compared to old HP. It helps keep the PCs tougher-than-mortal all of the time, rather than just when they are fighting monsters, and prevents the sort of "jackpot" deaths that Energy and Ability Drain monsters often got. Maybe the flavor still seems too weird for you, but if there's one thing I've learned from all the systems I've played, it's that you need to taste a lot of fruit before you can really know what you like.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-27, 05:12 AM
And people mock it there, too. At length.

Some people do. I personally don't.


OK, since 4e's over-abstract system is apparently so good at this, explain to me: what exactly does having negative HP (with two failed death saves) mean?

Because it simultaneously has to be an injury so deadly that the player is literally six seconds away from death, but it also has to be an injury so trivial that one Heal check can put him back into the fight and killing things - also within six seconds.

Exactly.

It's abstract, therefore by definition it doesn't mean anything specific. If you die then obviously it was a horribly serious injury. If you don't, then obviously you were just temporarily stunned but basically fine.

Besides, how exactly is this different from auto-stabilising in 3.X (except that it's a 5% chance not a 10% chance)?


In practice, when players have to repeatedly deal with these sort of mechanics, they usually just stop bothering to give them in-game explanations anymore. Otherwise you get caught in so many contradictions that your head explodes.

Exactly.

You seem to be saying "okay, if it's an abstraction, what does it represent" but that defeats the purpose of an abstraction. It doesn't represent anything. It's an abstract way of telling you if you're winning or losing. Insisting that it must represent any single thing defeats the whole purpose of the abstraction.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 05:43 AM
You seem to be saying "okay, if it's an abstraction, what does it represent" but that defeats the purpose of an abstraction. It doesn't represent anything. It's an abstract way of telling you if you're winning or losing. Insisting that it must represent any single thing defeats the whole purpose of the abstraction.

Woah there. All abstractions represent something - after all, they are abstractions of some system that is too difficult to use normally. Here, HP is an abstraction of your vitality - a mixture of guts, physical endurance, and the will to live.

Some folks think it abstracts something different - your physical integrity, your ability to resist the vicissitudes of life, etc. - but it has to abstract from something.

Hoggmaster
2008-06-27, 05:55 AM
You could do HP this way...


AD&D PHB (6th printing 1980) In some campaigns the referee will keep this total secret, informing players only that they feel "strong", "fatigued" or "very weak", thus indicating waning hit points.

I kind of as a DM like this. True, more paper work for the DM


And earlier in the same section (long)


Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points repersent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can e sustained. The remainder, a significant protion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four large warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantasitc fighter can take that much punishment. The same holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural forces), and magical forces


If you want true realism for hp/wounds/death in your RPG do not play D&D. Try GURPS (Very deadly, especially for Sci-fi), Warhammer fantasy, or for hyper realism (fastasy still though!!!) try Rolemaster (aww you broke your arm and your healer just died, looks like your out of action for the next few months... the crit tables are hilarious!!!) [N.B. on Rolemaster 'hits' are still abstract ... its really the crits that kill you!]

nagora
2008-06-27, 05:55 AM
I'll agree there, but I gotta say that HP is a fairly huge intrusion into the realism of any system.

At the very least, it says that getting hit with a sword does not interfere with your ability to fight until you're dead.
I know, but I see this as a genre issue rather than a game issue: heroic fantasy heroes don't fail because they're wounded by and large. I agree that it could be done slightly better but I'm generally happy with a "John McClane" style of hero.


At most, it means that getting stabbed in the head while helpless won't kill you.
As mentioned earlier, this wasn't an issue in 1e where what hit points represented was much more coherently explained. In situations where what hit points were would not help, they didn't help.


You can eat around the edges of HP all you want, but every time you allow limb breaking or insta-kills, you diminish the utility of having HP at all. After all, if HP is able to keep you from cracking a rib when you get slugged by an ogre, why is it that a human kneecapper can break your leg when the plot demands it?
I agree, mostly. There are (rare) circumstances where I would allow either an instakill or (less rare but still uncommon) a roll on the old assassination table but broken limbs and such like are not part of the genre.


(Personal preferences)
I find it most comfortable to work with a system that is generally applicable.
I mistrust such systems. "Generally applicable" always leads to trouble with roleplaying in my experience. That's my problem with most skill systems and with the "new" hit points, as well as the detailed combat system of 3ed+. The world is full of exceptions to the rules, I don't see how the gameworld can be any different and still present a believable stage for the players.


Lava may have usually killed you, but you could find magics (with mechanics!) that would protect you from lava. Why is this good? Because it allows my players to understand that I'm not going to pull a "you just die" on them, even if they're 20th level - they have earned enough resilience that even dire straights won't kill them outright, if they're lucky and well prepared.
Jump in lava without magical protection, you're dead. Fall accidently (or be pushed etc) and I'll give you damage (and probably a saving throw for half damage) if there's any way you could have ended up on a ledge or something instead of actually in the lava.


This is a point of personal preference. I know my PCs didn't mind the occasional plot-related non-HP loss when we were playing 2e, but I always felt cheap doing it. Just as bad as if I said "the bad guys run away and you can't catch them" without rolling some dice.
I agree.


And I wanted those dice to mean something, not just me deciding, ad hoc, that this time a Con check would be appropriate.
But I don't see what the objection is here: doesn't the characters' Con score mean something? Why is it not a reasonable and meaningful option? It's even called an ability score.


(On the utility of 4e HP granularity)
4e actually is an improvement on the old HP system by breaking it up into "Healing Surges" and HP - plus the new Death's Door system. Losing a chunk of HP now actually matters, thanks to the Bloodied status,
Bloodied status is a meaningless complication. It's not part of the genre and in the old system low hit points were often the sign that it was time to fall back, so the handicap of bloodied status was unneeded and is contrary not only to hit points generally but to the "new" hit point system's philosophy. Surely the idea that people fight on without realising how badly wounded they are is not only realistic but part of the argument for the supposed re-working of what hit points mean?


and PCs can better manage their long-term status with Healing Surges.
4e doesn't do "long term": everything's reset after a short night's sleep.


Additionally, PCs can get exhausted since virtually all curative powers drain Healing Surges from the PCs, rather than just keep charging them up with divine forces.
And that makes sense in what way?


hese new mechanisms also provide new areas to take damage, aside from the terrifyingly random Ability Drains. Torture, dehydration, and other physical strains can eat Healing Surges rather than HP, suggesting a loss of a PC's stamina reserves rather than their current ability to take a sword to the face.
All covered just fine in 1e, because hit points were not your current ability to take a sword to the face (they were your ability to avoid a sword to the face). We didn't have many ability drains, though. Having played Traveller I think they're far more hassle than they are worth as an attack form.


Draining Healing Surges (as many of the former level-drainers do now) will not immediately kill the PC, but it can still leave them weakened.
Until the morning, or even just later on today.


Best of all, draining Healing Surges scales with level, so the mighty 20th level archmage doesn't have to be frightened of getting Strength Drained by Shadows to death, due to his 6 Strength.
Again, why is that good? If he gets that close to a Shadow, he should be in trouble, the bloody idiot.


I don't expect these to convince you, but I hope that you rethink the value of Healing Surges and the new HP system as compared to old HP. It helps keep the PCs tougher-than-mortal all of the time, rather than just when they are fighting monsters, and prevents the sort of "jackpot" deaths that Energy and Ability Drain monsters often got. Maybe the flavor still seems too weird for you, but if there's one thing I've learned from all the systems I've played, it's that you need to taste a lot of fruit before you can really know what you like.
Healing surges are a very, very gamey approach to healing and make no in-character sense at all as far as I can see. They're also so obviously just cloned from video games that I don't think any group I know would ever consider them. The only purpose they serve is to fix a problem with the system, which is that monster hit points are far too high by and large, just as minions exist to patch the problems with defensive ability.

Patches make poor rules; it would have been better to cut back to basics and start again. When a purple worm has 780+ hp it's time to wonder what you're doing wrong, IMO.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 06:37 AM
Healing surges are a very, very gamey approach to healing and make no in-character sense at all as far as I can see. They're also so obviously just cloned from video games that I don't think any group I know would ever consider them. The only purpose they serve is to fix a problem with the system, which is that monster hit points are far too high by and large, just as minions exist to patch the problems with defensive ability.

See, here I think it's just a question of how you think about HP.

(Ruminations on HP Fluff)
I've never been that big a fan of the "buckets of blood" school of HP - your HP is literally your vital essence, and when you run out, you keel over (running being 0 or -10, depending on how you run it). It doesn't quite make sense (to me) why being a veteran fighter means that your body can just take more punishment (or, possibly better, an elder wizard can take more punches than an apprentice!). The reason why is that while you get "tougher" it's not like your bones are suddenly able to withstand an ogre's club just because you've been killing hundreds of orcs in your spare time. Now, although I'm uncomfortable with this interpretation, it pretty much was the primary dogma of early D&D, though it got eaten around the edges by CON drains and so forth.

This is why I like the "fighting spirit" school of HP, which we see in 4e. Everyone has the same body (with stat variances, of course) but what sets adventurers apart from other people is that they are better able to roll with the punches and are more determined to keep on fighting. This is a step above the "combat ability" school of HP which says that HP just represents your ability to "roll with the punches" - the ogre's club doesn't crush your body now because you've gotten good at deflecting its blow and falling back from the main thrust - because the "combat ability" school is unable to explain why a Coup de Grace doesn't kill everyone equally (or it does, which I find unsettling for the reasons stated above).

With the "fighting spirit" school, if you get stabbed in the throat by a Coup de Grace, you may just be too darn ornery to to die, so you tie a rag around your neck to stop the bleeding and axe those sneaky bastards until you can find a cleric. Consequently, the "fighting spirit" school allows for the spirit to wax and wane by drawing on "inner strength" (Healing Surges) to pump up your current spirit, and to keep going even after you've taken a spear to the kidney. Taking a short break from getting stabbed is enough to let you "man up" from your current wounds, but it has its limit, and only a good night's rest can help you face a new day.

Another nice feature is "bloodied" - a situation when you're beat up enough to slow down a bit. This is the point when enemies start having second thoughts about fighting (are vulnerable to Intimidate), sneaky guys can exploit their particular skills on the fighter they've been smacking around (bloodied-key powers), and some monsters fly into a terrible rage. Calling on a Healing Surge can bolster your spirit back to where you're fighting at full, but once you get bloodied not only do you know, as a player, that things are getting bad, but as a character you know you're not fighting at 100%. I'm not sure how this is a bad thing if you wanted to make HP more "realistic" since it means a fighter with 1 HP actually is different, fighting-wise, than when he's at full HP.

So, thematically I like the 4e HP system, because the fluff I use matches nicely with it. Note that this is not a patch on the system, since the definition of HP has always been very vague, fluff-wise, and my particular fluff fits the mechanics of 4e very well. Your mileage may vary, but aside from personal distaste, do you see any reason why this particular fluff interpretation of HP is not reasonable?

Additionally, 4e HP has a variety of mechanical advantages that address the various points you brought up previously.
Ability Checks:
1e ability checks did not scale with level. A level 1 fighter was just as likely to succeed at a CON check as a level 20 fighter. This is a disconnect, first of all, with the idea that HP has anything to do with your character's well being. His saves may improve, his HP may improve, but whether he's at level 20 or level 1, he makes the same darn System Shock roll - or whatever basic CON check I'd use. This is true of all 1e Ability Checks; there was just no way to scale with level, which divorced them from the general metric of characters getting tougher with level.

In 4e, we have Skills which can tie to most conceivable Ability Checks. In addition to allowing PCs to train in skills their characters may be particularly good at (like acrobatics for the rogue) they also scale with level. Now a level 1 fighter cannot make as good an Endurance check as a level 20 fighter - and that means I can feel less guilty about using Endurance checks if I want to see how a given character is weathering, say, a forced march through the desert. Such a mechanism was alien to 1e (unless you wanted to puzzle out whether dehydration is more like a Rods save or a Death Magic save :smalltongue:) and has really come full blossom in 4e.

Healing Surges:
Unlike pre-4e HP, which could be restored with the touch of a wand, there is now a limit to how much punishment a PC can take in a day. Despite your scoffing, I think we can agree that with sufficient wands, potions, and so forth, a 1e adventuring party only had to stop if they got hungry or if the casters ran out of spells. Furthermore, if you wanted to hobble them, you were most likely to go to Ability Draining monsters which could actually incapacitate a party, but suffer the same scaling problems as Ability Checks, and may accidentally kill off a party member too easily.

Healing Surges fix both of these problems. The "problem" with the Eternal Adventurers is that they were juggernauts with sufficient clerical backing, and they stopped at weird times due to the whims of their Vancian Casters. Unless you ruled in endurance, this is how 1e played. Now, Healing Surges can tell the PCs when they need to take a break - and a 6 hour sleep is as big a break as having your 'casters rest (okay, maybe 2 hours less?) and every morning the PCs were more-or-less fresh to do as they will.

Your distaste of this theory of HP aside, what is the main difference between the two styles of adventuring, aside from the fact that parties relied upon magic to get them back to full, rather than sleep itself?

The second utility of Healing Surges is as a weapon to use against the PCs that replaces Ability Drain. You essential drain off some fraction of a PCs potential HP for the day for every Healing Surge you take away from them. This is a real punishment that can extend from fatigue, vampires, starvation, or whatever non-stabbing-related malady you wanted to put on them. Unlike Ability Scores you don't risk "accidentally" killing a PC by taking a Healing Surge, though it may end up killing them in the long run.

The drain of Healing Surges is a real impediment to party's progress for the day without creating the "oops, TPK" situations of Ability Drain or crippling a character from doing anything for the session due to an unfortunate roll.

Oh! And the limiting of Healing Surge recovery / giving Healing Surge penalties isn't something I made up. Lots of places in the DMG and in WotC's modules, these sort of penalties are used and encouraged. So again, this isn't a "patch" on the system, but something the Framers intended when they introduced it.

So, there you go.

I sense that you don't like 4e HP because you don't accept an alternate fluff explanation. That's fine. If you don't like using HP like I described, then you don't have to, but I find the 4e HP system much more coherent under the "Fighting Spirit" theory and there are substantial mechanical advantages to this system over the older styles - both in avoiding "oops, TPKs" (which I believe we want to avoid - save the TPKs for really stupid PCs, not just unlucky ones :smallbiggrin:) and in providing substantial dangers to the PCs that will make them more cautious about running around at low HP or with few Healing Surges.

Well, how's that sit with you?

Roderick_BR
2008-06-27, 06:45 AM
I always find threads like this hilarious.

One side thinks that HP should only represent physical punishment, leading to a character being totally unfazed by having three claymores in his spleen. The other side thinks that HP should represent ability to avoid Bad Things, leading to being fully healed from the brink of death simply by taking a quick breather.

...and both sides argue over which one is more realistic.

*grabs popcorn* This oughtta be fun.
This comment doesn't add anything to the discussion, and borders on trolling, but I'll bite anyway.

In my defense, I never said it was supposed to be "realistic", it was supposed to be holliwoodian and fantasy :smalltongue:
If it were to be realistic, a simple knife should be able to kill an higher level character the same as it kills a lower level character. As they said in the GURPS book: "An axe will cut through a strong person as easily as it does an weaker person". D&D is about fantasy and unrealistic things, like taking dozens of arrows (that in real life can kill a person in one shot).

nagora
2008-06-27, 07:32 AM
See, here I think it's just a question of how you think about HP.

(Ruminations on HP Fluff)
I've never been that big a fan of the "buckets of blood" school of HP - your HP is literally your vital essence, and when you run out, you keel over (running being 0 or -10, depending on how you run it). It doesn't quite make sense (to me) why being a veteran fighter means that your body can just take more punishment (or, possibly better, an elder wizard can take more punches than an apprentice!). The reason why is that while you get "tougher" it's not like your bones are suddenly able to withstand an ogre's club just because you've been killing hundreds of orcs in your spare time. Now, although I'm uncomfortable with this interpretation, it pretty much was the primary dogma of early D&D
This is a strawman. The 1e DMG very clearly states that hp are NOT the bucket of blood system. It was not a primary dogma of early D&D, it was never a dogma at all of any edition ever anywhere. Well, it might be in 3ed, I don't know for sure.


Additionally, 4e HP has a variety of mechanical advantages that address the various points you brought up previously.
Ability Checks:
1e ability checks did not scale with level. A level 1 fighter was just as likely to succeed at a CON check as a level 20 fighter. This is a disconnect, first of all, with the idea that HP has anything to do with your character's well being.
Ability checks were for where HP and saving throws did not make sense and the character's class was no help to them either. They were a last line of defense which were based on raw, natural ability. Your raw, natural ability is fixed.

Ability checks were pretty rare.


In 4e, we have Skills which can tie to most conceivable Ability Checks. In addition to allowing PCs to train in skills their characters may be particularly good at (like acrobatics for the rogue) they also scale with level. Now a level 1 fighter cannot make as good an Endurance check as a level 20 fighter - and that means I can feel less guilty about using Endurance checks if I want to see how a given character is weathering, say, a forced march through the desert. Such a mechanism was alien to 1e (unless you wanted to puzzle out whether dehydration is more like a Rods save or a Death Magic save :smalltongue:) and has really come full blossom in 4e.

All of this stems from overgeneralising rules. If you overgeneralise ability checks, then naturally you have to patch them up with YMR (Yet More Rules).


Healing Surges:
Unlike pre-4e HP, which could be restored with the touch of a wand, there is now a limit to how much punishment a PC can take in a day.
His magical ability is limited by your physical ability. Yeah, that makes sense.


Despite your scoffing, I think we can agree that with sufficient wands, potions, and so forth, a 1e adventuring party only had to stop if they got hungry or if the casters ran out of spells.
With enough petrol I can drive until I fall asleep. Sure, it's true, but is it either a problem or unreasonable?


Furthermore, if you wanted to hobble them, you were most likely to go to Ability Draining monsters which could actually incapacitate a party, but suffer the same scaling problems as Ability Checks, and may accidentally kill off a party member too easily.
I think we have radically differing views on what makes an interesting scenario. Why would I want to "hobble" them artificailly? And, there's very few ability draining monsters in 1e.


Healing Surges fix both of these problems. The "problem" with the Eternal Adventurers is that they were juggernauts with sufficient clerical backing, and they stopped at weird times due to the whims of their Vancian Casters.
And only stopping for a 6 hour kip now and then is an improvement?


Unless you ruled in endurance, this is how 1e played.
No. 1ed played in a totally different way. Only Monty Haul DMs ever allowed the sort of juggernaut you're talking about - playing btb it was very hard to do that. And a three month wilderness adventure, for example, would almost certainly wipe out any party who tried to take that approach.


Now, Healing Surges can tell the PCs when they need to take a break - and a 6 hour sleep is as big a break as having your 'casters rest (okay, maybe 2 hours less?) and every morning the PCs were more-or-less fresh to do as they will.
Which is far far more generous than the 1e system. Eternal Adventurers are something that are built-in to 4e, at least in 1e you had to bring a cleric and/or pay a fortune for potions of healing.

And an 8th-level cleric, for example, could only cast 5 hp-raising spells per day anyway. For most parties that's less than one each. Given that a day might include 10, 20 or 30 encounters once into the main enemy stronghold that's not not exactly a never-ending hp supply, although it's very useful, as is the cleric's ability to fight as a 5th level fighter, turn undead, give information on religious or alignment issues, and of course all the other non-healing spells they can provide.


Your distaste of this theory of HP aside
Our theories of HP are almost identical, we differ on how we think those HP should recover regardless of our agreement on what they represent.


what is the main difference between the two styles of adventuring, aside from the fact that parties relied upon magic to get them back to full, rather than sleep itself?
High level 1e parties found it difficult to get back to full hp. Heal was a 7th level cleric spell, so it was not something that a PC would normally have.


The second utility of Healing Surges is as a weapon to use against the PCs that replaces Ability Drain. You essential drain off some fraction of a PCs potential HP for the day for every Healing Surge you take away from them. This is a real punishment that can extend from fatigue, vampires, starvation, or whatever non-stabbing-related malady you wanted to put on them. Unlike Ability Scores you don't risk "accidentally" killing a PC by taking a Healing Surge, though it may end up killing them in the long run.
I guess ability draining must be common in 3e; it was vanishingly rare in 1e. Slow erosion of hp were the normal method of grinding down a high-level party from starvation or disease since they prevented recovery.


Oh! And the limiting of Healing Surge recovery / giving Healing Surge penalties isn't something I made up. Lots of places in the DMG and in WotC's modules, these sort of penalties are used and encouraged. So again, this isn't a "patch" on the system, but something the Framers intended when they introduced it.
I'm confused; healing surges are new, are they not? I was talking about patching problems in 3e with YMR instead of removing the problem itself.


I sense that you don't like 4e HP because you don't accept an alternate fluff explanation. That's fine. If you don't like using HP like I described, then you don't have to, but I find the 4e HP system much more coherent under the "Fighting Spirit" theory and there are substantial mechanical advantages to this system over the older styles - both in avoiding "oops, TPKs" (which I believe we want to avoid - save the TPKs for really stupid PCs, not just unlucky ones :smallbiggrin:) and in providing substantial dangers to the PCs that will make them more cautious about running around at low HP or with few Healing Surges.

Well, how's that sit with you?

The "fighting spirit" has always been part of HP, along with skill, luck, and physical training, so I've no issue at all with that aspect. Many 1e DMs even houserule a sort of healing surge type of rule (mine is that "first aid" restores 1d4 hp after combat, limited to not raising you above your hp total at the start of a combat). My problem is that they seem to accomplish nothing since characters on low hp are cautious anyway, and they are doled out in a strange and unbelievable way, while total healing is simply given on a plate for no in-character reason. Fighting spirit or not, people become weary after a week or more facing death; they don't wake up every single moring all shiny and new.

TPKs are not something that happen accidently to most DMs - I have no need to "fix" them. If I place a TPK, like the one in ToEE's top floor, then it's because I expect the players to break it. If they don't then they don't but that's not accidental - such places are designed by the enemy to kill and if the players can't work out how to thwart the enemy then they ain't going to live long enough to be "famous heroes" - it's their job to thwart!

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 07:45 AM
The "fighting spirit" has always been part of HP, along with skill, luck, and physical training, so I've no issue at all with that aspect. Many 1e DMs even houserule a sort of healing surge type of rule (mine is that "first aid" restores 1d4 hp after combat, limited to not raising you above your hp total at the start of a combat). My problem is that they seem to accomplish nothing since characters on low hp are cautious anyway, and they are doled out in a strange and unbelievable way, while total healing is simply given on a plate for no in-character reason. Fighting spirit or not, people become weary after a week or more facing death; they don't wake up every single moring all shiny and new.

TPKs are not something that happen accidently to most DMs - I have no need to "fix" them. If I place a TPK, like the one in ToEE's top floor, then it's because I expect the players to break it. If they don't then they don't but that's not accidental - such places are designed by the enemy to kill and if the players can't work out how to thwart the enemy then they ain't going to live long enough to be "famous heroes" - it's their job to thwart!

So... I don't appreciate the strawman comments and so forth, nor cutting out the "Combat Ability" theory of HP - which I think is what you are most closely modeling as you have described your system. I'm not sure why you didn't mention it, but hey, so be it.

Sadly, this conversation has pretty much reached its end.

You do happen to just like how you run things - every reference to a mechanical problem with Ability Checks, Drains, or so forth was responded with "a smart DM can fix it," which I think we both know means the system is very, very broken. Yes, your DM can fix everything, but why not just use a system which is robust in its implementation and doesn't require the DM to shepherd the mechanics so closely?

I'm also troubled by your reference of "Yet More Rules." Clearly this is an argument against complexity, but 4e is not a more complex system than, say, Shadowrun or 3e are. It is more "complex" than 1e, certainly, but as you've said yourself, you barely use the actual mechanics of 1e - such as they are. If anything, 4e cleans out the cobwebs left over from 2e and does away with complicated rules for "item saving throws" or "grappling" in favor of simpler, more usable guidelines.

If "Yet More Rules" is your main foe here, I would suggest trying out a storyteller system. Many of them use no more than a pair of dice to resolve random situations, relying heavily on collaborative (or combative!) narration of the parties involved to display their in-game effects. For an experienced group of RPers like you seem to have, such a system should help you be even more free from the inanities of HP and THAC0 without losing the atmosphere you desire.

As I've said many times, it's OK to use a system you feel comfortable with, and to use it in the exclusion of other types. I think you're missing out on the possibilities of the 4e system (and indeed, other storyteller systems), but nobody is going to force you to try them.

It has been an enjoyable conversation though. :smallsmile:

nagora
2008-06-27, 08:32 AM
So... I don't appreciate the strawman comments
You specifically set up a claim that the "bucket of blood" interpretation was the "dogma of early D&D" when the DMG has always gone out of its way to say the exact opposite. What would you call that if not a strawman?

Hoggmaster actually quoted the relevent section earlier.


nor cutting out the "Combat Ability" theory of HP
I cut it partly because it's been covered, partly because I think 1e does all you're asking more elegantly, and partly because I'm tired of CdG being used as a term for something else (specifially it seems to mean to you just a "can't miss" situation).


You do happen to just like how you run things - every reference to a mechanical problem with Ability Checks, Drains, or so forth was responded with "a smart DM can fix it,"
Acutally, I think you'll find that the response was "that's not true" more often. Your claim about weapon immunities, for example, was simply wrong as a matter of checkable fact and I pointed that out. Similarly, ability checks are not even a part of the 1e rules, they're just convention for certain situations and DMs differ on how they do them. So a DM doesn't have to "fix it" since it's not a feature of the rules.


Yes, your DM can fix everything, but why not just use a system which is robust in its implementation and doesn't require the DM to shepherd the mechanics so closely?
Because then I would play chess. There is no RPG system which is both robust in its implimentation and doesn't require the DM to overrule that system in order to prevent it blocking the roleplaying.


If "Yet More Rules" is your main foe here, I would suggest trying out a storyteller system. Many of them use no more than a pair of dice to resolve random situations, relying heavily on collaborative (or combative!) narration of the parties involved to display their in-game effects
Once you have narration, you've lost all roleplaying. However, putting that aside, what I htink you're implying (that I prefer a simple system over a complex system) is largely true, which is why 1e works so well for me - it mostly gets out of the players' way while providing useful guidelines for play within its particular setting/genre/style of play.

batsofchaos
2008-06-27, 10:34 AM
Dude, you devised a system that uses the exact same terms (Vitality & wound points), uses the exact same rules (Vitality is non-bodily injury, Wound points are bodily injury, and CdG's bypass vitality and go straight to Wound) as a system that you apparently have never heard of?

I call shananigans.

Oh, gee. "Wound points" is so unique and specific to the Star Wars universe. It's not at all descriptive of what it's representing, nor is it a simple, understandable nomenclature. And the non-actual damage hit-points being called vitality points! You got me there! That's definitely the word I used! And CdG bypassing these previously-called-by-me "vitality" points to go directly to wound points isn't intuitive and reasonable at all; impossible to come up with on my own. I must have stolen the idea from a well-known, often-played game, changed a couple of words and rules around, and tried to pass it off as my own creation on a message board of role-players, many of which have probably played that specific game before!

Maybe it's an easily grasped idea, based on concepts that are inherent to the game but just not fleshed out in DnD. Is it really so hard to believe that I came up with an idea that was used in another game? Especially an idea that is so damned intuitive?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-27, 03:07 PM
Woah there. All abstractions represent something - after all, they are abstractions of some system that is too difficult to use normally. Here, HP is an abstraction of your vitality - a mixture of guts, physical endurance, and the will to live.

But by its nature, an abstraction will not map directly and repeatably to a single IC event. Otherwise it wouldn't be an abstraction, it would be a representation.


Some folks think it abstracts something different - your physical integrity, your ability to resist the vicissitudes of life, etc. - but it has to abstract from something.

Ah, you see I genuinely don't think it does. I view it as a more or less purely metagame construct. HP simply covers too many things to stem from any specific IC source, same with damage.

Knocking a Kobold out with a crossbow could mean:

- Inflicting an injury on it which is non-fatal, but incapacitates it.
- Pinning it down with a bolt through its tunic.
- Firing a "warning shot" that causes it to surrender.

In game terms, these all work the same way, but they have totally different IC meanings.

Similarly "damage" could mean that a piece of sharp metal has physically penetrated your body, or that you're being backed into a corner. The thing is that I don't actually need to know what it means until somebody dies from it.

As far as I'm concerned, the function of Hit Points is simply to tell you when to stop fighting.

Tormsskull
2008-06-27, 03:09 PM
it really so hard to believe that I came up with an idea that was used in another game? Especially an idea that is so damned intuitive?

In a word, yes.

batsofchaos
2008-06-27, 03:41 PM
Fine, think I'm a liar. Whatever. I have nothing to gain by lying here; it's a simple mechanic that offers a concrete guide for adjudicating hit-points and how they affect a character. The point is it's a valid option (apparently more valid than I thought, since it would be adapting OGC to a different setting, rather than instituting a homebrew) for dealing with the nebulous intangibility of what a hit-point is.

Saph
2008-06-27, 04:12 PM
Exactly.

It's abstract, therefore by definition it doesn't mean anything specific. If you die then obviously it was a horribly serious injury. If you don't, then obviously you were just temporarily stunned but basically fine.

Can you give me an explanation that doesn't require quantum mechanics? I want to know what my character's status is, not what it may or may not be depending on which point I choose to observe her at.


You seem to be saying "okay, if it's an abstraction, what does it represent" but that defeats the purpose of an abstraction. It doesn't represent anything. It's an abstract way of telling you if you're winning or losing. Insisting that it must represent any single thing defeats the whole purpose of the abstraction.

This is . . . bizarre. Do you seriously run D&D sessions like this? The whole point of the D&D combat system is that it IS supposed to represent something, namely a fantasy combat with swords and magic. What did you think the pictures and the flavour text in the 4e books were intended as, chewing material for your pet hamster?

Honestly, having these discussions with you always leaves me feeling like Alice in Wonderland. Everything is entertaining and extraordinarily detailed, but none of it makes much sense.

- Saph

Asmodeus
2008-06-27, 04:16 PM
Please forgive my ignorance...

What is the Oberoni Fallacy?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-27, 04:24 PM
Please forgive my ignorance...

What is the Oberoni Fallacy?

"Rule X isn't broken, because the DM can change/ignore it".

I'm claiming that I'm not perpetrating it here because I'm specifically suggesting a houserule, not saying that the possibilty of said houserule negates the flaw it is designed to fix.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-27, 04:36 PM
Can you give me an explanation that doesn't require quantum mechanics? I want to know what my character's status is, not what it may or may not be depending on which point I choose to observe her at.

Game mechanically, you know that your character is "unconscious" and has failed two Death saves.

In character, you know that you feel really bad, you know that you can't carry on fighting right now. Depending on what took you down there might be a lot of blood, but you're probably feeling too messed up to tell whether it's life threatening, or superficial. Otherwise, to use the cliche, it's "not as bad as it looks".


This is . . . bizarre. Do you seriously run D&D sessions like this? The whole point of the D&D combat system is that it IS supposed to represent something, namely a fantasy combat with swords and magic. What did you think the pictures and the flavour text in the 4e books were intended as, chewing material for your pet hamster?

The D&D combat system is supposed to represent, as you say, fantasy combat with swords and magic. What it's not supposed to represent is the actual interaction of cold steel with living flesh.

When a character takes a hit in D&D, all it means is that they have been brought closer to the point at which they have to stop fighting. Whether that means physical injury, mental distraction, or anything else needs to be judged on a case by case basis.

Interpreting HP damage as concrete makes no sense to me, it leads to contradictions I can't reconcile. If your character just lost half his hit points to that Greatsword attack, and that means he took a serious, solid blow from a greatsword, how is he possibly still alive? How is it that he'll recover without medical attention? Why isn't he bleeding slowly to death?

I tend to assume that if a character is not on negative HP that they haven't suffered any "real" physical damage beyond superficial cuts and bruises. Once they're on negative HP, they've suffered an incapacitating blow, but I'd only imagine it as a potentially fatal wound once it has, indeed proved fatal.


Honestly, having these discussions with you always leaves me feeling like Alice in Wonderland. Everything is entertaining and extraordinarily detailed, but none of it makes much sense.


I'm almost inclined to take that as a compliment...

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 07:01 PM
I am... distrustful of people who claim there is the One True Way to understand HP.

That's why in my rather didactic discussion of HP Theory I presented three different ways to look at HP and showed which one I thought modeled 4e HP the best and which one I thought provided the most interesting mechanical results.

That's pretty much all I have left to say on the matter, but can anyone really claim to have the One True Theory of HP when it rarely gets more than a paragraph in the books, and a vague one at that?

its_all_ogre
2008-06-28, 02:53 AM
Fine, think I'm a liar. Whatever. I have nothing to gain by lying here; it's a simple mechanic that offers a concrete guide for adjudicating hit-points and how they affect a character. The point is it's a valid option (apparently more valid than I thought, since it would be adapting OGC to a different setting, rather than instituting a homebrew) for dealing with the nebulous intangibility of what a hit-point is.

i feel your pain, i homebrewed a new spellcaster class into my 3.5 game to replace wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer and any other full spellcaster class using some ideas i had knocking around.

one of my players sent me an email saying how he'd liked my take on some alternative full casting UA variant, he attached a link that showed me what it was talking about.
the thing was almost identical to my own creation, but i had never read it or heard of it before! :smallamused:

nagora
2008-06-28, 06:24 AM
i feel your pain, i homebrewed a new spellcaster class into my 3.5 game to replace wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer and any other full spellcaster class using some ideas i had knocking around.

one of my players sent me an email saying how he'd liked my take on some alternative full casting UA variant, he attached a link that showed me what it was talking about.
the thing was almost identical to my own creation, but i had never read it or heard of it before! :smallamused:

And the vitality/wound dichotomy has been invented and re-invented many times since the OD&D set came out - complete with "CdG bypasses vitality" rule. I've done it myself. There's only so many names for these things which make sense so I have no difficulty in believing batsofchaos.

namo
2008-06-28, 06:51 AM
And finally, it's why I like the fact that every single Power does damage. Once again it enforces the idea that anything which messes up your ability to fight (including getting confused or scared or distracted) effectively constitutes "damage".

I have only read half of the thread, so perhaps this has already been pointed out: Web doesn't do any damage, nor does Maze of Mirrors (an encounter power from the Dragon article on Illusions). They make me strangely happy (because it's rather irrational).

Arameus
2008-06-28, 08:04 AM
I always enjoyed knocking people out with a sap and selling them like produce.

YEAH, I SAID IT. SO SUE ME.

My question is, how does this shift in the essence of HP change the effectiveness or even feasibility of nonlethal damage and this particular method of... well it isn't your BUSINESS exactly what it's going for, IS it?

In short, does this mean no more nappy-bys for unwary alleygoers? Or can I just keep on bludgeoning my way to prosperity in the way I know and love?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-28, 08:06 AM
My question is, how does this shift in the essence of HP change the effectiveness or even feasibility of nonlethal damage and this particular method of... well it isn't your BUSINESS exactly what it's going for, IS it?


RAW: There's no "non-lethal" you just choose to KO at zero HP.

But remember that this isn't 3.X: NPCs don't have levels and classes, most members of the general public will basically be Minions who'll go down to one hit anyway.

Thrawn183
2008-06-28, 10:22 AM
Hmmm, if you were to view a chunk of hit points to represent actual toughness (that increases as you level, you get harder to break or something), would it follow that a 20th level character would lose max HP after getting something like an organ transplant?

JaxGaret
2008-06-29, 04:13 PM
I'm going to have to agree with Dan here on HP and combat in general being more abstracted than it seems, with a slight caveat: in 4e, there is a difference between being at 2 HP and being at full HP, and that difference is the Bloodied condition.

Now, what precisely being Bloodied means is an abstraction - it could mean that you took a cut and are bleeding a bit, it could mean you are limping slightly, it could mean your vision is clouded or you feel woozy. It could mean anything. But there definitely is a mechanical representation of being at less than full combat capability, and it is represented in-game as a condition that can be recognized and exploited by enemies.

erikun
2008-06-29, 08:23 PM
Hmmm, if you were to view a chunk of hit points to represent actual toughness (that increases as you level, you get harder to break or something), would it follow that a 20th level character would lose max HP after getting something like an organ transplant?
Loss of CON = loss of HP.

Actually, that's pretty much what I did in 3.x: anything that does lethal damage (jumping into lava, getting your throat slit while asleep, etc.) did damage directly to your CON score, not your HP. And if you somehow managed to survive that, you will have a very depleted HP value until you recover, either through several weeks of rest or through magic (such as Restoration).