Quote from: The_Rooster;675564Pedantism 101.

No, Pedantry 101.

Quote from: estar;675624Of course in the Blackmoor campaign and slightly later in Greyhawk campaign the one hit = one kill rule was found to be too harsh. So a hit was expanded to do 1d6 damage and a hit was changed to a hit dice and also made 1d6 hit points varying slightly between classes.

Filling in some gaps (as I understand it):

Blackmoor changes to all PCs having 3 hit points. They also reduce all Hits they take by dividing them by their level. This apparently is taken straight from some Naval Combat Wargame. I assumed this was done before damage was rolled, but it might have been prior - in either case it seems pretty clear Damage was fractional. This system never sees print.

Gygax changes this to PCs having d6 hit points, plus another d6 each level rather than the divider.

Estar's right.

Following from that, my answer to Mistwell's question about whether a particular hit point ever represents pure "wound" damage in the game is: it depends on the particular situation. In fact, I'm a firm believer that the abstration is part of what makes D&D cool to play and run, because it leaves the room to describe what's actually going on with any particular situation, any particular series of fences or hazards or whatever else, up to the imagination of the participants involved. And that, to me, is a GOOD thing.

Split hairs, try to explicitly codify what's wounds, what isn't, and you're making the abstraction poorer for it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;675628There are plenty of logical issues that emerge when you contemplate HP but they work very well at the table delivering the kind of play people expect from dungeons and dragons.

This is a good point. What we should be discussing is why hit points have proven to be such a successful and popular game mechanic.

Personally, I think it's because they give characters some level of 'plot immunity' from level 3 on up. An important skill to master as an old-school player is when to cut and run; leave things too late and you can be taken down to 0 hps before you get a chance to react. In general, though, as long as you are wise, and as long as you do your best to avoid things that can kill you if you fluff a saving roll, then once you get to a certain level, you can do a lot to help guarantee your character's chances of survival by running off at the right time (if not your character's success).

More realistic combat systems don't allow this; there is always that 'critical impale to the head' waiting for you in the dice. If you think this is a good or a bad thing is a matter of taste, but the popularity of hps makes me think that most players see it as a negative.

As an aside, many years ago I read a book about the pilot of a WW2 Typhoon fighter aircraft. He said that once he had got enough experience, dogfights stopped worrying him, as he knew that he had a enough skill and talent to survive them; what he hated was making a ground-attack run, where no amount of skill on his part could save him after he was committed to the attack run.  Sort of like the difference between losing hps when you take damage, and having to make a saving roll to avoid death...

I don't give a shit. And the reason I don't is because HP has been proven by decades of play to be one of the best emulative mechanics for damage there is.

The problem here is with people confusing "realism" for "emulation".  If emulation was all about being "realistic" then sure, HP would suck.  But that's not what its about, and "realism" has nothing to do with the divide between RPGs and Storygames.

So I assume that every one who is adamant HPs are not always treated as wounds is cool with the 4e style healing surges in Next?

Quote from: jibbajibba;676140So I assume that every one who is adamant HPs are not always treated as wounds is cool with the 4e style healing surges in Next?

No they still suck. I prefer the abstraction of hit points as a strategic resource instead of a tactical one. Healing surges are a contrived method of making hit points a per fight resource which feeds in nicely with a grid and mini wargame consisting of a series of encounters.

I don't like the feel of it for D&D style play.

Quote from: jibbajibba;676140So I assume that every one who is adamant HPs are not always treated as wounds is cool with the 4e style healing surges in Next?

The HD mechanic in Next isn't really like healing surges.  Just ask the 4e players


And honestly, I don't mind at all.  With short rests requiring an hour, the hp you get back from the HD mechanic isn't as "easy mode" as you think it would be.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676156The HD mechanic in Next isn't really like healing surges.  Just ask the 4e players


And honestly, I don't mind at all.  With short rests requiring an hour, the hp you get back from the HD mechanic isn't as "easy mode" as you think it would be.

Okay consistency is good

I switched to 10% of HPs regained per hour's rest 20 years ago.
I did it because HPs were skill and endurance and luck and I wanted to get rid of the reliance on magical healing that was so embedded in the game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;676140So I assume that every one who is adamant HPs are not always treated as wounds is cool with the 4e style healing surges in Next?

No, mainly because it's not handled remotely as well as it was in 4e, and considering it wasn't even as well-handled in 4e as it deserved to be, it's become just a crap mechanic on the whole.

Quote from: Elfdart;675629No, Pedantry 101.

See what you did there!

Quote from: RPGPundit;676121I don't give a shit. And the reason I don't is because HP has been proven by decades of play to be one of the best emulative mechanics for damage there is.

The problem here is with people confusing "realism" for "emulation".  If emulation was all about being "realistic" then sure, HP would suck.  But that's not what its about, and "realism" has nothing to do with the divide between RPGs and Storygames.

Right now, the D&D Next rules heal 100% of your hit points after a single nights rest.  I've argued, both at EnWorld and at the WOTC boards, that the default assumption should allow for at least the possibility that you don't heal 100% up from just the natural healing of a night's rest (with various fixes recommended, such as heal some HP and all HD, or all HD that you can spend for healing, or simply role your HD for healing overnight, or max half HP healed overnight, or 10% healing per hour rested, etc..).

Have you heard anything from WOTC on this topic that you feel free enough to talk about?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;676144No they still suck. I prefer the abstraction of hit points as a strategic resource instead of a tactical one. Healing surges are a contrived method of making hit points a per fight resource which feeds in nicely with a grid and mini wargame consisting of a series of encounters.

I don't like the feel of it for D&D style play.

I have always treated hit points as being wounds and am perfectly fine with the concept of healing surges.  As implemented in 4e or Next, they are a rather boring resource to track, though.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;675379Against my better judgement to continue this...

And of course I couldn't help but notice that you never provided a quote anywhere in D&D that says that all hit point damage is due to a physical wound.  I don't expect you will.

Man, I was hoping you actually serious about the ignore list thing. Instead we just get more of your pathetic lies.

Quote from: jibbajibba;676140So I assume that every one who is adamant HPs are not always treated as wounds is cool with the 4e style healing surges in Next?

I haven't looked at Next for several iterations of the playtest document, but there's still a significant difference between the house rule that treats some hit points as not representing any kind of actual damage to the character and 4E's approach.

Under the house rule, you're still free to describe the loss of hit points in any way you choose and the rules are not going to actively contradict you. (I'm assuming here that you've simply accepted that cure spells are now dissociated or you've rationalized that their divine energy is replenishing the character's pool of luck or fatigue or whatever.)

In 4E, on the other hand, you've got specific effects that restore your hit points by, for example, boosting your morale or physically healing wounds. The result is that the nature of a wound isn't determined until you heal it: So either you're prohibited from describing what's actually happening in the game world or you have to accept that the game mechanics are going to periodically retcon the game world.

Quote from: jibbajibba;676164Okay consistency is good

I switched to 10% of HPs regained per hour's rest 20 years ago.
I did it because HPs were skill and endurance and luck and I wanted to get rid of the reliance on magical healing that was so embedded in the game.

Sure, and that's exactly why D&D Next has gone the same way with such generous recovery rules, to get away from the reliance on magical healers. D&D 1st-3rd edition really assumes the existence of a magical healer in the group. 4th-5th reduces that reliance, at the expense of reducing the utility of healers in general.