D&D 3.5 - HP represent damage. That's it.

[Tyndmyr]

Everyone likes to talk about how hp going out of you aren't actually really representing wounds. Just you getting worn out from fighting, and eventually, that last blow really hits. It sounds good, too, it really does. Dramatic, even.

But see, the problem is, examples in the game system itself don't use this model. They prefer to describe a hit, with blood, pain, the whole bit. Now, I can hear your cries of protest already. "Fluff and rules are separate, you can just refluff it!", you tearfully cry.

Ah, but it's not just fluff. First off, low hp doesn't model tired/exhausted/worn out well at all. You fight just as awesomely as when you started. There are actual conditions like fatigue and exhaustion that do model these concepts, though.

Now, people are going to say "er...they can both be worn out. Er...different KINDS of worn out." or some equally silly thing. This runs into a few obvious problems. First, dodging things results in less hp loss. This makes perfect sense if hp represent your remaining health after being hit. If they represent how worn out you are, it makes no sense. After all, not dodging is easier.

Next up, we have damage reduction. "A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).". Explain that away as not being actual wounds, eh? In a "tired" system of hp, tiring your opponent out with non-damaging actions and minor hits would be indistinguishable from the effects of DR.

Go on, re-fluffers. Explain to me how hitpoints don't represent being hit.

[Esser-Z]

Because, you see, it results in very strange behavior from weapons, wherein a sword strike from a very strong person might cause an insignificant amount of damage, contradictory to the way swords work.

Furthermore, damage-as-actual-damage results in the same situation that comes up in most video games--namely, wounds are not impediments until the very last one, which destroys you.

[Tyndmyr]

But very strong people do MORE damage with swords than regular people do with the same weapon, to the same target. Is this not logical? Clearly, all other things being equal, hitting harder is gonna leave a bigger mark.

Now sure, some guys are just so badass they can take a beating before they go down. That's not the fault of hp, it's how levels work. Targetting hp or not, low level things suck vs high level things.

[Esser-Z]

HP also vastly outpaces damage. While at low levels weapons function reasonably, at higher levels they do not, even against foes of the same level.

Now, you could have it both ways. Most hits are glancing blows, that hit hard enough to tire out or cause minor injury, but not enough to impair. This keeps the 'hit' aspect, while still explaining the mechanics of combat.

[DeltaEmil]

You hit, but the other can deflect your hit narrowly. If you don't hit, or if they have specific parrying abilities, they deflect them much earlier and cooler.

Aside from that, a knive in your eye only does 1d4+strength and other-stuff damage, and nothing more. Puny fighters, you suck so hard.
I mention this to ridicule the entire concept of hit points being real damage that cause blood and scars and terrible wounds.

Your real fleshy hit points are 1 to -9. Everything above 1 is whatever you want to fluff it. Everything below is death.

[Sipex]

This thread seems like it's only purpose is to start an arguement, maybe reword your first post so it doesn't come off so condescending towards...your opponents (whoever that is?) opinion.

[Temotei]

Because I said so. I'm the DM!

Seriously, though, there's more to it than a two-way perspective of tired vs. hit. I'm lazy and describe battles with direct hits when they hit, however, so I'll let others argue.

[Tyndmyr]

Now, a knife in the eye sounds like a crit to me. Therefore, it'd do a bit more damage. Pick a bigger weapon if you want to do even more.

But hey, superman can take a BULLET to the eye. Apparently, he has massive DR. So why can't a super-heroic character in a fantasy world do something similar? It's not going to be trivial damage until high levels, which are something the real world explicitly does not have.

[Esser-Z]

Note also that not all hits do damage. Or does the Full Plate work by letting you dodge blows?

Superman is immune to damage.

[DeltaEmil]

This thread and that one should be merged together.

[Tyndmyr]

Those get represented by misses. Bounced off the armor, so didn't actually get through to hit you and your squishy insides. Thus, does not cause hp damage.

[Skorj]

I've never been a fan of D&D-style HP. I don't mind the "full strength at 1 HP" stuff so much - it's merely a simplification to speed play. I fluff that as "you're seriously injured, but we're going to ignore it for game purposes because otherwise battles take to long to run". Sure, that's "meta-fluff", but I'm cool with it.

It's the silly ratio of hit points from low to high levels I've never much liked. I always end up fluffing damage as proportional to HP. A 20th level fighter just "takes less damage" from a sword attack than 1 1st level mage. It's not that he just ignores the wound, it's that HPs represent (to me) the combination of how much damage you can tak, which would be more for a fighter especially in a fantasy world, and basic luck at avoiding damage. Get your sword blow past a 1 Wizzie's guard for 8 HP You connect solidly, and possible cut him in half. Get your sword blow past a 20 fighter's guard for 8 HP? He twists out of the way almost fast enough, and takes only a minor wound.

[kamikasei]

Everyone likes to talk about how hp going out of you aren't actually really representing wounds. Just you getting worn out from fighting, and eventually, that last blow really hits. It sounds good, too, it really does. Dramatic, even.

I'm not sure I've ever heard that explanation. I've heard it said that hit points represent an abstract ability to avoid taking worse damage, but that's not "getting worn out". "Composure" might be a better way to think of it.

Ah, but it's not just fluff. First off, low hp doesn't model tired/exhausted/worn out well at all. You fight just as awesomely as when you started.

Yes, this is a terrible blow to the realism of HP-as-exhaustion. Clearly HP-as-actual-physical-wounds explains how your ability to continue fighting is unaffected by already having been grievously wounded. ...?

Hit points don't make sense at all, like most of the D&D combat system. Pointing out that one attempt at fluffing them fails to be perfectly realistic doesn't do much to make your preferred fluff look better in comparison.

This thread seems like it's only purpose is to start an arguement, maybe reword your first post so it doesn't come off so condescending towards...your opponents (whoever that is?) opinion.

Also, this.

[Draz74]

If we accept that HP only represent physical wounds, lots of things don't make sense.

If we accept that HP are abstract and represent all kinds of getting worn out, even more things don't make sense.

If we accept that HP are a DM-governed mishmash of multiple interpretations, that has its own problems.

Basically, the system just isn't set up well for verisimilitude in general. You need to re-write it if you want it to make sense. I favor approaches that do so by setting it up as worn-out damage (not physical wounds; a la Vitality Points).

[Esser-Z]

Those get represented by misses. Bounced off the armor, so didn't actually get through to hit you and your squishy insides. Thus, does not cause hp damage.

Indeed. Yet they are still hits, invalidating the point about the word hit in 'hitpoint'.

[Cespenar]

HP is never meant to represent tiredness etc.

Injury poisons require you to deal at least 1 points of lethal damage. End of argument.

[Esser-Z]

BUT it also CANNOT represent actual wounds, at least wounds of the sort that weapons would actually cause. Therefore, it is either entirely nonsensical, a combination of varying degrees of wounds and wearing out, or both!

[Tyndmyr]

BUT it also CANNOT represent actual wounds, at least wounds of the sort that weapons would actually cause. Therefore, it is either entirely nonsensical, a combination of varying degrees of wounds and wearing out, or both!

As in a # of wounds? One hit dealing you 37 wounds? Never heard of anyone stating that. No...it's slightly more abstract than that. Looking at it as a percentage system makes sense. If you have 100 hp, a hit that dealt 37 hp was a hit that landed a pretty solid blow.

[Skorj]

BUT it also CANNOT represent actual wounds, at least wounds of the sort that weapons would actually cause. Therefore, it is either entirely nonsensical, a combination of varying degrees of wounds and wearing out, or both!

That's not entirely true. Weapons, even big nasty weapons, can cause minor wounds as well as major ones. And while some people go into shock and become inefffectual from even a minor wound, others fight on unslowed by multiple gunshot wounds. Presumably HP from levels could be explained in that way.

[Saph]

If I remember right, the PHB specifically says that hit points represent two things; sheer physical toughness and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. A dagger hit against a 4 HP commoner might be a dagger in the eye; a dagger hit against a 12 HP fighter might be a nasty but not immediately fatal slash along the face.

This has always seemed reasonably logical to me, so I'm not quite sure why people get so worked up about it. HP = toughness + defensive skill. Simple enough.

[DeltaEmil]

Tyndmyr wants to prove somebody wrong... whoever that is...

[Morty]

The best way to deal with the way HP work in D&D is: not to dwell too much on it. The way Saph describes is a good way to do that, IMO. I still think HP are badly designed, but it's nothing you can't get over.

[Cespenar]

If I remember right, the PHB specifically says that hit points represent two things; sheer physical toughness and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. A dagger hit against a 4 HP commoner might be a dagger in the eye; a dagger hit against a 12 HP fighter might be a nasty but not immediately fatal slash along the face.

This has always seemed reasonably logical to me, so I'm not quite sure why people get so worked up about it. HP = toughness + defensive skill. Simple enough.

This. It's not even worth arguing over.

[Spiryt]

Everyone likes to talk about how hp going out of you aren't actually really representing wounds. Just you getting worn out from fighting, and eventually, that last blow really hits. It sounds good, too, it really does. Dramatic, even.

But see, the problem is, examples in the game system itself don't use this model. They prefer to describe a hit, with blood, pain, the whole bit. Now, I can hear your cries of protest already. "Fluff and rules are separate, you can just refluff it!", you tearfully cry.

Ah, but it's not just fluff. First off, low hp doesn't model tired/exhausted/worn out well at all. You fight just as awesomely as when you started. There are actual conditions like fatigue and exhaustion that do model these concepts, though.

Now, people are going to say "er...they can both be worn out. Er...different KINDS of worn out." or some equally silly thing. This runs into a few obvious problems. First, dodging things results in less hp loss. This makes perfect sense if hp represent your remaining health after being hit. If they represent how worn out you are, it makes no sense. After all, not dodging is easier.

Next up, we have damage reduction. "A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).". Explain that away as not being actual wounds, eh? In a "tired" system of hp, tiring your opponent out with non-damaging actions and minor hits would be indistinguishable from the effects of DR.

Go on, re-fluffers. Explain to me how hitpoints don't represent being hit.

I don't really see any problems, here...

To the top of all that HP can represent, creature has some tough skin/organism/whatever, so hit can be additionally described as being non threatening, non visible, or not being hit's at all, as creature can avoid/slip off, or again whatever blows without tiring, stopping, giving up...

Really, this is kind of searching problems where there are none.... And then starting a thread about it, seemingly to show people that they have problems even though, obviously, they didn't really had any.

[Snake-Aes]

quantum health! When you manipulate the wound, you can't see where it is!

Shortly, "HP" is an abstract and inconsistent value that represents how much it takes for you to die from wounds. What that actually means is not modeled.

[Spiryt]

quantum health! When you manipulate the wound, you can't see where it is!

Shortly, "HP" is an abstract and inconsistent value that represents how much it takes for you to die from wounds. What that actually means is not modeled.

Now it reminds me that my Grand parents pointing breed (R.I.P.) once killed a chicken by trapping it in enclosed space under the stairs.... And trying to reach it so relentlessly, that poor bird died of stress/panic/heart attack, whatever for sure it was, without any outside injuries at all...

Not that it's strictly connected with topic...

[liquid150]

There are d20 systems with rules that allow for you to sustain quite permanent damage in combat. They are more realistic, and often quite deadly.

I was looking at a d20 book for the Black Company world last night. The guy that handed it to me said there are rules for combat where you can lose an eye, eyes, fingers, hands, even arms and legs. I didn't see them myself, but I believe him.

D&D on the other hand abstracts your health from hit points, and as long as you have 1 left you are still as good at everything as you were before. It's just the nature of the rules, unfortunately, and you have to suspend your disbelief in the mechanics of it a little bit.

[lesser_minion]

Damage does two things:

• It acknowledges in the rules that the character was hurt by the attack.
• It acknowledges in the rules that the attack could have been fatal that moment.

The RAW make certain assumptions -- for example, that you aren't about to do experiments on them*, and that every wound is either incapacitating or superficial, with no middle ground.

* The rules describe what happens in general, but they don't describe the exact reality of the game world. Throwing a hundred people off a cliff is out of their scope.

[Temotei]

Oh, and:

Take three hundred characters with 21 hitpoints each, and you won't find that all of them can survive falling off a 20 foot cliff but some of them will be mortally wounded if you chuck them off a second time the same day. You'll find that, over many experiments, it seems like a third of people like this who fall down a 20 foot sheer drop die.

The thing is, falling twenty feet only does 2d6 damage, I thought.

[lesser_minion]

The thing is, falling twenty feet only does 2d6 damage, I thought.

That's the point. When you experiment on the physics of your world, you're moving outside of the scope of the rules.

The rules say that none of those guys will die the first time, but some of them might on the second.

In the reality of the game world, any of those guys could have been fatally injured on any of the jumps. If they couldn't have died from the fall, they wouldn't have taken damage from it.