A body is only so durable. Maybe whatever you had when you gained your first level is actual durability. The rest is luck - luck from the gods or whatever.

I don't agree with nicks and protruding arrows when you still have 50 hit points left. If that were the case, you'd be making saving throws over and over again from poisen, you'd be taking more damage from the protruding arrows over time, etc, because you'd be re-damaging yourself when you move around. That kind of damage over time is accounted for separately in special instances, special abilities, etc. So I believe then that the "threat" of these types of damage is passed - achieved by burning your luck.

As you level up, you gain more HPs and your saving throws improve. The gods, fate, the universe all agree you are more powerful and more deserving of preservation, not because you can physically take as much damage as 10 other healthy adults. HPs preserve you until you run up against someone else's luck. For example - consider the old assassin's assassinate skill. It could bypass hit points entirely, using a normal weapon. His success means you've been marked for death, no matter how great a hero you've become.

At least with HPs, you have X number of steps before you have to deal with real consequences, as with saving throws.

Quote from: Kiero;673273This is something consistent across every edition, that regardless of empty throwaway text claiming they represent a broad spectrum of stuff, the reality is they are physical condition and nothing else. Not luck, not skill, not desire to fight on, nor anything else.

We can see this in the way hit points interact with other parts of the game.

1) How do you lose them? Being hit with weapons, monster attacks, poison, falling, physically-damaging spells and so on. All impacts on health.

2) How do you get them back? Magical healing and/or natural healing through rest. All relating solely to health.

You might argue a small exception to this with 4th edition, where hit points possibly represent fatigue rather than health, since with a 10 minute rest you can restore them all via Healing Surges, and you get all your Surges back with a eight hour's rest. Furthermore, there are means besides being attacked to lose those Surges (such as being exposed to extreme climates) and "inspiration" as a way of getting them back (Warlord "shouting wounds closed" as some people like to disparage it), which again reinforces the fatigue, rather than health notion.

Otherwise, though, straight up health. Throughout the editions.

That's my position on the thing, I've yet to have anyone offer any evidence to the contrary. So if you have such things, from actual books rather than your own house rules, please regale me with ways of losing hit points and more importantly ways of regaining hit points that aren't physical*.


*Hint: subdual doesn't count, since that's merely non-lethal physical.

RE: 4E.  Yesterday my character took damage from several "psychic" attacks; I'm pretty sure those weren't physical damage. I'm not even going to speculate on the (meta)physical nature of those 40 "temporary hit points" I used to protect my character from an insubstantial necrotic parasite. Good luck explaining that in terms of "physical" damage.

Quote from: Sean !;673278Hit Points as purely physical - this doesn't explain why HP increases so greatly - or are all Level 10+ characters He-Men.

Hits Points are simply a measure of combat advantage.

Combat advantage...that only returns with healing. Right. All you've done is highlight another problem with them, not address the central question.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;673280I'm afraid you are wrong.  Even way back in the 1e PHB, when HP are very clearly more than health when they talk about a fighter with 55 hp.  The fact that a 55 hp fighter can withstand multiple hits that would kill lower hp fighters is proof that experience plays at least a factor.  I.e., the experience of that higher level fighter allows him to effectively turn those severe blows into glancing blows.

If you want more proof, the fact that the natural healing rate in D&D is extremely accelerated over "real" healing, which is reflective of how some hp loss is tied to fatigue and exhaustion.

*Edit*  here's the passage:

That would be the case if there were actually means besides healing to recover hit points, or if healing was level-linked. But they're not, so it's another classic example of some text that doesn't actually reflect the way the various bits of rules interact with each other.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;673282OK. Lets run with this HP as physical health only idea for a moment.

Why can a fighter with a max HP total of 50, fight without penalty with 5 hp remaining?

At only a tenth of his vitality, he certainly should by all accounts be ready to collapse? Per RAW he can go out and continue to chop through orcs all day like that.

It may take him awhile to recover all the luck and stamina needed to go the distance in a tough battle but if he is able to hack through the remainder of the day without penalty, then he can hardly be all THAT physically wounded.

Except once again, the only way they come back is with healing or rest.

How do you get hit points back through luck-recovery?

Why don't curses cause hit point-damage?

Quote from: mcbobbo;673288I agree with the others.  Underscore - the leveling is the fly in this ointment.  No amount of killing rats can make you twice as healthy physically.  But that's the effect of going to level two.

That merely tells you something else with the implementation of hit points is inconsistent, it doesn't change how you lose them, or how you get them back.

As above, healing should probably be level-linked, that might at least make the whole "skill in minimising injury" thing true.

But unless you add something non-physical in the means of recovery, it's still a physical measure.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;673300The entire point is that the 5 hp fighter is not crippled. He is just out of luck/mojo and a significant hit against him now WILL be physical.

Luck/mojo that requires physical healing to restore it. Again, it doesn't work.

Quote from: Bill;673312Your points are valid but its also a very old game, and has logic flaws built in.

Not so much "logical flaws built in" as "not very well thought through". Or maybe whomever was writing the bit on healing didn't really communicate with whomever wrote the stuff elsewhere about what hit points represented.

Quote from: Sommerjon;673296They were defined as abstract but then only had "physical means" of getting rid of them.

They didn't have Luck Absorbing creatures.
Constitution is the determining stat.

Good point on the last, the health-stat is the one that determines the bonus. Along with the physicality of the class determining how big your hit dice are. Or are we arguing Fighters are luckier than Mages?

It's not too fucking tricky. Who's to say that CLW doesn't replace luck, energy etc? The Gods are certainly able to replace such depleted resources through their vessel, the Cleric. Potions? Well, they can improve your vitality as well as close your physical wounds. It's the one reason that i've always thought that the Warlord shouting wounds closed actually made sense - but you have to buy into the healing from previous editions being more than just wound closure. If you can believe the one, then it doesn't make sense not to believe the other. well, unless you're an edition warrior, anyhow.

Quote from: One Horse Town;673343It's not too fucking tricky. Who's to say that CLW doesn't replace luck, energy etc? The Gods are certainly able to replace such depleted resources through their vessel, the Cleric. Potions? Well, they can improve your vitality as well as close your physical wounds. It's the one reason that i've always thought that the Warlord shouting wounds closed actually made sense - but you have to buy into the healing from previous editions being more than just wound closure. If you can believe the one, then it doesn't make sense not to believe the other. well, unless you're an edition warrior, anyhow.

The reason I wasn't a big fan of 4E  hp and healing had more to do with making hp a tactical resource instead of a strategic one.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;673352The reason I wasn't a big fan of 4E  hp and healing had more to do with making hp a tactical resource instead of a strategic one.

Even though I happily play 1e and 4e, I agree the hp recover rate in 4e is way too fast for my preference.

Quote from: One Horse Town;673343It's not too fucking tricky. Who's to say that CLW doesn't replace luck, energy etc? The Gods are certainly able to replace such depleted resources through their vessel, the Cleric. Potions? Well, they can improve your vitality as well as close your physical wounds. It's the one reason that i've always thought that the Warlord shouting wounds closed actually made sense - but you have to buy into the healing from previous editions being more than just wound closure. If you can believe the one, then it doesn't make sense not to believe the other. well, unless you're an edition warrior, anyhow.

The speed with which hit points come back in 4e makes any claim to them being purely physical somewhat ridiculous. Since a night's rest restores you to full hit points. In that context, Warlord healing by inspiration is perfectly fine.

By contrast a night's rest in older editions restores a small number which isn't even level-related. 4E at least fixed that part since a Surge is 25% of your hit points.

Hit points are an exact and precise measure of the amount of hit points you have.

Quote from: Piestrio;673364Hit points are an exact and precise measure of the amount of hit points you have.

This is very true. Refer to Abstract for the win.




I love level one characters with 1 hp at max.

They can't be wounded!  

Sweet!

Quote from: K Peterson;673324P.S. Though, I won't agree that this is consistently the case across editions. Or any rubbish about "empty throwaway text".

That's the thing about Kiero's argument: even he acknowledges, with stuff like the "throwaway text" and redefining subduing a creature as physical damage, that the rules say otherwise. See, it's one thing to look at the rules and say "I don't like this part about hit points being luck, because I don't think the rest of the rules support it well, so I'm going to change it." And it's another thing to say "The rules don't actually say that, because LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Quote from: Kiero;673273We can see this in the way hit points interact with other parts of the game.

1) How do you lose them? Being hit with weapons, monster attacks, poison, falling, physically-damaging spells and so on. All impacts on health.

2) How do you get them back? Magical healing and/or natural healing through rest. All relating solely to health.

#1 is wrong, because not all monsters that do hp damage have physical forms. Sometimes, you die for other reasons, or you're turned into a mind-controlled automaton when you hit zero points, etc.

# 2 is wrong, because there are spells and magic that provide boosts above normal hit points. Not to mention the intoxication rules on pp. 82-83 of the 1e DMG, which state that Moderate and Severe Intoxication add hit points over and above your normal hit points.

I now you hate being wrong, so I'm going to rub it in and quote part of that "empty text".

Quote from: 1e DMG, p. 82HIT POINTS

It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage -- as indicated by constitution bonuses -- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

Etc. Gygax must have been psychic, because he goes on for a couple more paragraphs demonstrating why hit points were never meant to represent just physical damage. Why you consider it "empty text", I don't know, since it is describing hit die advancement and hit points increasing with level, something that is very integrated into the rules and does not support hit points as physical damage AT ALL.

But that's not all! What about saving throws?

Quote from: =1e DMG, p. 81Poison Saving Throws For Characters:

For those who wonder why poison does either killing damage (usually) or no harm whatsoever, recall the justification for character hit points. That is, damage is not actually sustained -- at least in proportion to the number of hit points marked off in most cases. The so called damage is the expenditure of favor from deities, luck, skill, and perhaps a scratch, and thus the saving throw. If that mere scratch managed to be venomous, then DEATH. If no such wound was delivered, then NO DAMAGE FROM THE POISON. In cases where some partial damage is indicated, this reflects poisons either placed so that they are ingested or used so as to ensure that some small portion does get in the wound or skin of the opponent.

See? The whole idea of save vs. poison ties into the idea of hit points being luck. You save vs. poison because sometimes no amount of luck is going to save you from that snakebite. The same would apply to the Finger of Death. These rules, plus the intoxication rules, plus many other rules, are the "support" for hit points as luck and skill that you say is missing.

Now, you can say "those are bad rules, so I'm going to change them so that hit points only represent physical damage". Or you could play another edition or another game entirely that you feel has better integrated rules. But stop claiming that something that is obviously there is not there. It just makes you look like an idiot.

Quote from: Piestrio;673364Hit points are an exact and precise measure of the amount of hit points you have.

Correct. *You can fiddle and diddle, moan, groan and split hairs, but it really comes down to this.

(*not you, general you)

Quote from: Piestrio;673364Hit points are an exact and precise measure of the amount of hit points you have.

Quote from: One Horse Town;673376Correct. *You can fiddle and diddle, moan, groan and split hairs, but it really comes down to this.

(*not you, general you)

Heck yeah. In Chainmail, 1 hit = 1 kill. Although that's a physical effect, it doesn't mean that a hit "represents" physical damage. Heroes in Chainmail, for example, require 4 hits to kill, not because they are physically sturdier, but because it takes more men, or a monster equal to many men, to bring down a hero.

OD&D changed that from "1 to 1" to "1d6 to 1d6" to introduce variety. Luck, as we say. Sometimes, when you make a deadly attack that would kill most men, your opponent doesn't die. Heroes and creatures with more than 1d6 for hit dice are even luckier and harder to kill. Size and toughness certainly play a role, but why is a wizard (8+1 hit dice) so hard to kill in physical combat? Do M-Us bulk up as they gain magical knowledge? Should Arnold Schwarzeneger or Jean-Claude Van Damme play Gandalf in a LotR remake?

Gary always claimed that the D&D combat system was built to model the fight between Erol Flynn and Basil Rathbone in "Robin Hood". That fight seems to have nothing to do with physical damage.

*cough cough*

Quote from: Adventurer Conqueror King System, page 18HIT POINTS

Hit points are a measure of a character's ability to survive in combat. When a character, or any other being, is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, he is incapacitated and possibly dead. Hit points are not a direct representation of the character's capacity to receive physical injury. Rather, they represent a holistic combination of fighting skill, stamina, luck, and the favor of the gods, all of which contribute to helping the character roll with blows and survive attacks that would have killed a lesser combatant.

That's taken from the game Kiero wants to see emulated by all other variants of D&D because "hit points represent physical damage only."

...

*blink blink*

I guess Kiero hasn't read his own rules book.

Quote from: Piestrio;673364Hit points are an exact and precise measure of the amount of hit points you have.

The best definition of HP I read ever was Tim Kask basically saying that hit points represent just that: the amount of hits or near hits, abuse, dodging etc you could take before you took an actually lethal blow in a fight. Which amazingly, ACKS basically paraphrases in the quote in my previous post!

But Kiero has a big fucking problem with it... and wants D&D games to take notice of ACK and do just like it!

The mind. It boggles.

Quote from: Benoist;673386The best definition of HP I read ever was Tim Kask basically basically saying that hit points represented just that: the amount of hits or near hits, abuse, dodging etc you could take before you took an actually lethal blow in a fight. Which amazingly, ACKS basically paraphrases in the quote in my previous post!

But Kiero has a big fucking problem with it.

The mind. It boggles.

Which makes sense in the fact that in AD&D, you had one attack per round, but a round lasted 1 minute.  It's entirely reasonable to view "you lost 4 hit points" as "you got hit 4 times in that one minute of combat."