Hit Points - Why were they designed to be incoherent?

[Frozen_Feet]

You are still only describing a player metagaming the choices, not the character's capabilities. Character capabilities are all the same regardless of hit point condition.

You think it's metagaming for a character to know what condition they're in? You think it's metagaming for a character to think that "Screw this, I can't run across 30 feet of molten rock!". Note: it doesn't matter what the hitpoints actually represent. They only need to represent something for a character to gauge his option based on that something.

Also, I just finished demonstrating how the character capabilities are not the same. In scenario #1, the guy with 2 or less HP can not cross the stream. Saying his capabilities are the same as those of someone with 6 HP is clearly false.

Scenario #1: The intense heat of a lava flow should deal fatigue-like damage just by being adjacent to the flow, if fatigue is being included in the hit point abstraction.

You, sir, are missing the point. I make no claim whatsoever regarding what exactly hitpoints represent; it is, in fact, entirely irrelevant. My argument is that the exact number of hitpoints can and does matter. Your argument of realism thus has no bearing whatsoever on my points.

Scenario #2: Unless you are talking about a game totally unknown to me the fighter and the monsters will be rolling to hit and damage, and probably some kind of initiative. There is no way to prognosticate who hits when and for how much. Surviving against those three foes would be less likely the longer the fight drags on, whatever order faced. It's up to the dice.

... what did I say about people not playing enough CRPGs? Besides, as long as you know the game rules, there is a way to calculate who is likely to get hit and for how much. of course, these calculations will be probalistic instead of deterministic, so there's a great deal more variance than in my examples.

I used simplified math just to illustrate my point without getting bogged down by tangential mechanics. The actual point holds in real games just as well.

To give a brief idea how it works: Scenario #4.

Fighter has 31 HP, does 1d10 damage and wins iniative 75% of the time. He's duelling ogre, who has 20 HP and does 3d6 points of damage, winning iniative 25% of the time.

Suppose the Fighter is unlucky, and the Ogre goes first, hitting him for max damage, 18. Fighter now has just 13 HP. If he scores two hits for max damage, he can kill the Ogre in two rounds - but it's only a 1% chance. Meanwhile, the Ogre has 25.92 chance to kill him with his next swing! With two swings, 99% of the time the Fighter just wounds the Ogre, but the Ogre kills him ~86% of the time! It is thus the best plan for the Fighter to just retreat. Once again, the exact number of HP is important, as it dictates the chances of his survival and capability to fight the Ogre.

Now, you can call this metagaming, I don't care. It has no bearing on my point. But I have to say that if you always cry foul when players do decisions based on info like this, you are not only denying players from using rules knowledge, you are preventing the characters from using any knowledge those rules represent! This leads to situations like a Fighter having no idea how lethal a swordblow could be, or how well he'd do against any opponent.

Scenario #3: Unless you know of a certainty that no damage-dealing dangers await after reaching the bottom, you'd be better off finding another way down in any case. The character should only consider jumping in greatest desperation, not flippantly depending on whether the injury will be mortal. The risk of movement incapacitation should be significant regardless of hit points, and a good DM should make that roll or judgment in addition to the (inadequate) 1d6 per 10' rule.

Bah. Again you're missing the point, arguing what the rules "should" be, or what the player "should" do, instead of taking look at the math and how it supports my point.

You're only stating opinions on what is smart, or which rules you don't like. It doesn't change the fact that this is how the rules work, and this is how Hitpoints interact with damage and affect what a character can and can't do.

[Protoneiko]

I've not read the full 2 pages of posts only the first page, but...

Anyone taking about Hit points as Luck and every blow could be a killing blow, that would be a Level 1 wizard could potentially KILL a level 20 black dragon by wacking him with a quaterstaff. Now I don't see that happening, also a summon small insect spell could wipe out a whole town.

Hit points are meant to process that game along explaining why a hit doesn't kill you. Hit points = Toughness. A Boxer can take a punch alot easier then I can. Therefore more hit points, therefore a higher level of training.

Now for anyone who says a gunshot or chopping of a limb would kill me and the boxer, correct thats like 4D100s of damage.

[olthar]

Now for anyone who says a gunshot or chopping of a limb would kill me and the boxer, correct thats like 4D100s of damage.

And there are, of course, people who survive a bullet to the brain.

[Protoneiko]

And there are, of course, people who survive a bullet to the brain.

Even 4d100 have a chance to roll only 4 damage Just a bad roll

[Frozen_Feet]

Which is what the variance in damage represents. A gunshot doing 4 points of damage is not the same thing as one doing 40 points - and furthermore, it represents a different injury against a person with 4 hitpoints than it does against someone with 40.

[TheOOB]

In the questions for Star Wars Saga edition on WotC's website the sage actually addressed this. The question was (and I'm paraphrasing what I remember here) Why does a 10 damage blaster bolt to the chest kill a stormtroopers, but my solider can take three such bolts before being killed.

The answer was that you take damage differently, if you have 30 hp and get hit for 10 damage three times, the first might graze your cheek, the second wing your shoulder, and the third hit you square in the chest. It's the cinematic ability to avoid damage.

[Straybow]

Also, I just finished demonstrating how the character capabilities are not the same. In scenario #1, the guy with 2 or less HP can not cross the stream. Saying his capabilities are the same as those of someone with 6 HP is clearly false.

Incorrect, they are the same. The guy with 2 hp has a particular movement rate and can jump a particular distance I can't be bothered to look up. It doesn't matter whether he's an nth level character who has taken 72 hp of damage and has only 2 left, or a 1st level character who rolled up 2 hp.

Now, you can call this metagaming, I don't care. It has no bearing on my point. But I have to say that if you always cry foul when players do decisions based on info like this, you are not only denying players from using rules knowledge, you are preventing the characters from using any knowledge those rules represent! This leads to situations like a Fighter having no idea how lethal a swordblow could be, or how well he'd do against any opponent.

I'm not crying foul, I simply respond that your point is immaterial to mine, or rather reinforces mine.

I quoted a post saying that the only hp that matters is 0, and quoted your response saying that a simplified calculation of survivability shows this to be false. Now you've launched into increasingly complicated scenarios showing calculations based entirely on not reaching 0 hp. Each analysis depends on the fact that there is functionally no difference between 1 hp and many hp. He attacks the same, his AC is the same, his saving throws are the same, all of which you count on for your decision-making.

Every argument you've brought up is actually proving that, indeed, the only hp that matters is hp #0, and that the capability doesn't change when creatures take damage.

I'm not criticizing your game play method, or your analysis of it. I am discussing the incoherence of the model that claims to represent physical damage but doesn't, claims to represent fatigue but doesn't, claims to represent luck, fate or divine favor, but doesn't. When an event occurs that specifically effects those things the event does no hp damage.

[Frozen_Feet]

... all fine and dandy, but you're still not grasping my point. You're right those calculations are based on not reaching 0, but your argument that the amount of HP somehow doesn't matter for the capabilities your character has in the interim is just ignoring content of my examples.

You go on about movement rates, AC, etc., and you're right, those things don't change. But that's not the same as the character's capabilities not changing, when clearly the amount of HP he has left limits what decision he can make or survive.

And for the record, it does affect how he attacks. A character with more HP will survive for more turns, which mean they can make more attacks and deal more damage. A character with less HP dies or is forced to retreat earlier. This is not trivial for the course of the game.

Your idea that the only HP difference mattering is between 1 and 0 is simply mistaken. I've shown you how the math works, what if you go and play Disgaea in the interim and learn what it means in practice?

[Straybow]

I'm not ignoring the content, I'm rejecting the erroneous conclusion.

Just because you play the character differently at different damage levels doesn't mean that the game mechanics are modeling character actions differently when damage is taken.

Capabilities are capabilities, period. If your opponent hacks into your arm (which must surely occur in some cases where damage is not reduced to 0), somehow your capability to do damage wielding a weapon with that arm is not reduced.

By contrast, if your opponent sunders your weapon, your capability to do damage is reduced. It doesn't matter if you have massive hit points and haven't taken a scratch of damage. Can you sunder your opponent's arm? No, somehow a squishy flesh and blood arm can't be damaged, but a steel weapon can...

Let that be my last point to convince you of your error in logic, and you may take or leave it as you will.

[Frozen_Feet]

It's your own logic that's erroneous. You're claiming that character A not being able to X or Y without severe consequences does not consist a difference in capability compared to character B, who can.

You yourself said it: capabilities are capabilities. Capability to stay in action for 5 rounds instead of 4 is a clear difference. So is ability to run across hazardous terrain wholly instead of in half.

You're merely fixating on things that don't change. That doesn't mean you can ignore changes that are demonstrably there.

[Siosilvar]

Here's another metaphor: I need to do some math that I simply can't do in my head, and I don't have a calculator to do it with. A computer costs $120 and a calculator costs $15, or I could head to the library and use a computer there.

If I have $500, I can do any of the three options. If I only have $20 to my name, I don't have the capability to buy the computer, but I can still do the math with the calculator or go to the library. If I'm broke, I have to go to the library.

Now substitute HP for dollars, math for finishing the challenge, and the library for running away. Having a bunch of HP gives me the capability to solve the challenge any of the three ways. If I've only got a few HP, I lose one of my options. And if I'm out of HP, my only option is to get the heck out of Dodge.

You're right in that the physical abilities of the character don't decrease at low HP, but there's definitely a change in what you can do. If you have 12 HP, you're not going to be able to defeat a dragon or go through the Tomb of Horrors, but you can go orc-hunting. When you get a whole bunch more HP, you might be able to take on the dragon. You gain and lose the ability to do certain things without failing based on your HP and the expected damage you'll take. The game doesn't realistically model physical damage, but it does model a reduction in capability.

[Straybow]

-sigh-

@Siosilvar: You're new, I'll give you a chance to apply actual logic. If you can't do the math in your head, you don't have the capability, period. That doesn't change. The fact that a computer can do it, and you can use a computer, is not a measure of the same capability. If every bone in your body were broken, your body cast would prevent you from using the computer on your own. You couldn't even turn it on. The damage you have taken has reduced the capability to use the computer, even though the computer isn't swinging a sword at you and you are at no risk of losing hit points. Does that compute?

[TheOOB]

-sigh-

@Siosilvar: You're new, I'll give you a chance to apply actual logic. If you can't do the math in your head, you don't have the capability, period. That doesn't change. The fact that a computer can do it, and you can use a computer, is not a measure of the same capability. If every bone in your body were broken, your body cast would prevent you from using the computer on your own. You couldn't even turn it on. The damage you have taken has reduced the capability to use the computer, even though the computer isn't swinging a sword at you and you are at no risk of losing hit points. Does that compute?

You know your really coming off as a an inconsiderate jerk there, just saying.

In any case, it is true that a character with less HP is able to fight less than a character with more HP, ergo they have a greater capacity for fighting. D&D doesn't take place in the real world with real physics and biology. It is easy to presume characters have some idea how much hp they have, and they understand that even though they are still going, it won't take much more to take them out. It's how their world works, so that's how their logic will.

You also mention breaking of bones and what-not. If you still have a positive hp score, your bones are not broken, you don't have critical internal bleeding, you may be beat up, but your still fundamentally in one piece. It's not until you hit 0 or less hp that an attack finally found it's mark and caused you real damage, until then it's just cuts scraps and bruises. It's how heroic fantasy works.

[Knaight]

If you can't do the math in your head, you don't have the capability, period. That doesn't change. The fact that a computer can do it, and you can use a computer, is not a measure of the same capability.

The capability in this question is to see that some specific math is done, and the means are entirely irrelevant. If the options included paying other people to do it, it would still be applicable. Moreover, "you don't have the capability, period" is absurd, as it ignores tools. It makes no more sense to say that about math than it does to physical labor - if you can't dig that hole with your hands, you can't dig it period, and little details like "possession of a shovel" can just be ignored.

[Straybow]

You know your really coming off as a an inconsiderate jerk there, just saying.

Meh, it's funny when Belkar is sarcastic. Just pretend that I'm him.

... It's how heroic fantasy works.

Would it not be heroic fantasy, for example, to be staggered by a hurled dagger penetrating the abdomen to the hilt, yet the protagonist rises again with obviously diminished capacity, not at "0 hit points" and incapacitated?

Would it not be heroic fantasy, in this example, that

• Before being wounded the protagonist's skill was so great his cowardly opponent had fled in terror?
• That his capacity was so diminished by the thrown dagger that he barely deflects two sword thrusts away from his vitals?
• That these thrusts deliver serious wounds to his shoulder and arm, each clearly not mere "scrapes and bruises?"
• That the protagonist chants, "My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!" to rally his remaining strength and consummate skill to defeat Count Rugan, despite greatly weakened state from his wounds?

@ FF, Sio, OOB, Knaight: Might it be judged inconsiderate, and maybe being a bit of a jerk, to repeatedly say that I'm not "getting it" when I discuss what the hit point system does not model? In a thread discussing the inconsistencies of the hit point system? just saying.

[Knaight]

@ FF, Sio, OOB, Knaight: Might it be judged inconsiderate, and maybe being a bit of a jerk, to repeatedly say that I'm not "getting it" when I discuss what the hit point system does not model? In a thread discussing the inconsistencies of the hit point system? just saying.

Disagreement is inherently inconsiderate now? Your statement is that there is absolutely no effect on capabilities, we consider that statement incorrect, our reasons have been given. That isn't to say that there shouldn't be other mechanical effects - I'm all for them, and prefer to avoid hit point systems entirely anyways - but that we think your claim is overstated.

[Straybow]

Disagreement is inherently inconsiderate now?

Please, spare the false indignation. As I said, it is the charming way you guys keep saying I don't "get it." I do get it, and [once again] the arguments made for "not getting to 0 hp" are not relevant to an observation that D&D hp doesn't include any physiological effects of taking damage, just fully capable or fully incapacitated.

Your statement is that there is absolutely no effect on capabilities

No, I consistently and specifically wrote about the kind of measured capabilities that could, and perhaps should, be penalized by wounds. I mentioned ability scores, AC, saving throws, and movement rates. I also mentioned two unmeasured capabilities that (by convention and narrative in manuals) "hit points" are supposed to vaguely include: fatigue and luck. I did mention "attack" capabilities without specifics, but I specifically excluded "how effectively you can attack depending on hp with all other capabilities unchanged."

And yet, after chiding me for not "getting it," you and the others go on to argue about everything except the measured quantities (or math-skill analogies), or fatigue and luck as vague qualities of hit points, that I cited.

That isn't to say that there shouldn't be other mechanical effects - I'm all for them, and prefer to avoid hit point systems entirely anyways

?? /me double-checks thread... ??
That's the first time you said anything remotely akin in this thread. By your previous post one would have the exact opposite impression, that you think it is stupid to model direct mechanical effects and such things should be ignored.

...but that we think your claim is overstated.

?? ??
How can I possibly overstate the simple fact that hp has no effect on any other measured quantity in D&D? In a thread about the shortcomings of the hit point model?? A simple fact to which you just admitted not only comprehension but a similar outlook???

[Knaight]

Please, spare the false indignation. As I said, it is the charming way you guys keep saying I don't "get it." I do get it, and [once again] the arguments made for "not getting to 0 hp" are not relevant to an observation that D&D hp doesn't include any physiological effects of taking damage, just fully capable or fully incapacitated.

They aren't relevant. D&D HP doesn't include any physiological effects, with the tiny niche of exactly 0 HP effectively slowing people. That isn't the part of your argument that is being objected to; in my case that is actually a shared complaint (I can't speak for anyone else in this argument on this).

No, I consistently and specifically wrote about the kind of measured capabilities that could, and perhaps should, be penalized by wounds. I mentioned ability scores, AC, saving throws, and movement rates. I also mentioned two unmeasured capabilities that (by convention and narrative in manuals) "hit points" are supposed to vaguely include: fatigue and luck. I did mention "attack" capabilities without specifics, but I specifically excluded "how effectively you can attack depending on hp with all other capabilities unchanged."

Your original post was defending "Whatever way you imagine hit points, the only number that matters is zero", which is wrong. Nearness to zero affects the choices one can make, and that isn't one of the systems shortcomings. As for hit points representing fatigue and luck - they do so extremely poorly. As far as I've seen, the only thing they represent well is sheer physical damage. Lord Gareth's "one hit point is one gallon of blood lost, you lose all your blood and you die" system is one of few that would be modeled well by hit points, which is not a point in the subsystem's favor.

And yet, after chiding me for not "getting it," you and the others go on to argue about everything except the measured quantities (or math-skill analogies), or fatigue and luck as vague qualities of hit points, that I cited.

That would be because we agree about most of the measured quantities. HP doesn't affect strength, or move rate, or anything else (again ignoring the exactly 0 HP niche condition). There is no reason to debate this, it is objectively true in D&D. Your argument is bigger than the other mechanical statistics and physiological effects however, and it is beyond those that the problems in the argument appear.

?? /me double-checks thread... ??
That's the first time you said anything remotely akin in this thread. By your previous post one would have the exact opposite impression, that you think it is stupid to model direct mechanical effects and such things should be ignored.

What I said in that post was that ignoring tool use in capacity to complete tasks is ridiculous. That really has very little to do with the rest of the discussion, given that it is a tangential defense of a metaphor.

?? ??
How can I possibly overstate the simple fact that hp has no effect on any other measured quantity in D&D? In a thread about the shortcomings of the hit point model?? A simple fact to which you just admitted not only comprehension but a similar outlook???

Again: Your original post was defending "Whatever way you imagine hit points, the only number that matters is zero", which is wrong. Nearness to zero affects the choices one can make, and that isn't one of the systems shortcomings. That includes other measured quantities, in specific situations. Take the lava flow example - how many times it can be crossed is directly connected to HP.

With that said, I do have some of the same problems with it. It best represents actual physical damage, and actual physical damage should have effects it doesn't have - which is not to say it has no effect. For instance, a character with a tiny fraction of their HP can aim a high powered bow as well as an uninjured person, they should have trouble drawing it, let alone aiming.

If you revise your claim to "D&D HP doesn't affect other physiological capabilities and it should, even if HP has to be entirely discarded as a system", with nothing else included, I am entirely on board. If it remains "D&D HP doesn't affect any other capabilities at all", I'm not. This is subject to change, given sufficiently good argument, but I've yet to see such. After all, you outright admitted that proximity to zero mattered, and proximity to zero is exactly what HP measures.

[Straybow]

Your original post was defending "Whatever way you imagine hit points, the only number that matters is zero", which is wrong.

I defended it because it is not wrong. FF was comparing being near zero hit points to a "weary or wounded" person needing to move more carefully than when uninjured. So I asked if movement rate was diminished to reflect this. Or attack, AC, etc. Imagining it isn't the same as modeling it in the system.

I pointed out that d20 has all kinds of conditions, such as fatigued, but no condition for "wounded." Imagining wounds isn't the same as modeling them.

Your argument is bigger than the other mechanical statistics and physiological effects however, and it is beyond those that the problems in the argument appear.

No, I was reinforcing the "whatever way you imagine hit points" part of the statement.

Examples of imagining what hit points could represent can't make hp model anything. They are an abstraction of ability to avoid lethal damage. When the examples, such as crossing the lava, amount to "don't take lethal damage" they do nothing to alter that. Creating a metaphoric illustration of solving math does nothing to alter that, and is purely contentious. I apologize for being contentious in return.

If you want a good argument, we should return to crossing the lava. Why should crossing lava inescapably kill an umpteenth level fighter who happens to have only 2 hp left, and allow the 6 hp commoner with half the Str and Dex to cross easily? Nothing is effecting the fighter's movement, balance, judgment or perception, or any other measureable factors in safely crossing. He doesn't trip and fall into the lava, thus killing him, he is abstractly dropped to zero hp, and then falls incapacitated into the lava.

[Knaight]

I defended it because it is not wrong. FF was comparing being near zero hit points to a "weary or wounded" person needing to move more carefully than when uninjured. So I asked if movement rate was diminished to reflect this. Or attack, AC, etc. Imagining it isn't the same as modeling it in the system.

I pointed out that d20 has all kinds of conditions, such as fatigued, but no condition for "wounded." Imagining wounds isn't the same as modeling them.

The "weary or wounded" state breaks down fairly easily for a few reasons (mostly in that so much of what is needed for either is not modeled), but the need to move more carefully is still there, and still modeled. The HP isn't at zero, yet it still restricts choices, which means that there are meaningful differences between different non-zero states. If the only number that mattered was zero, there would be no meaningful differences between different non-zero states.

No, I was reinforcing the "whatever way you imagine hit points" part of the statement.

Examples of imagining what hit points could represent can't make hp model anything. They are an abstraction of ability to avoid lethal damage. When the examples, such as crossing the lava, amount to "don't take lethal damage" they do nothing to alter that. Creating a metaphoric illustration of solving math does nothing to alter that, and is purely contentious. I apologize for being contentious in return.

True, imagining what they represent doesn't make them model those things, and the math metaphor doesn't change that. However, the math metaphor doesn't need to, as it is merely pointing out that variance in the quantity of a resource affects options. It doesn't really matter what that resource is, it may be money, it may be time, it may be hit points, it may even be something like quantity of sugar. Certain options only exist if you have enough, such as buying a particular thing, going a particular place, entering a particular dangerous situation in character, or making a particular desert. That is what the math example indicates, nothing less, and nothing more.

If you want a good argument, we should return to crossing the lava. Why should crossing lava inescapably kill an umpteenth level fighter who happens to have only 2 hp left, and allow the 6 hp commoner with half the Str and Dex to cross easily? Nothing is effecting the fighter's movement, balance, judgment or perception, or any other measureable factors in safely crossing. He doesn't trip and fall into the lava, thus killing him, he is abstractly dropped to zero hp, and then falls incapacitated into the lava.

Mechanically, the fighter ran out of abstract resource. If this was in a computer strategy game or similar this really wouldn't bother me, as it works for that purpose. Within the narrative* it doesn't mean anything - which nicely illustrates one of the downsides to the D&D HP system. I'd consider this major enough to be a point against D&D, and is (a small) part of the reason I almost never play D&D.

*There is an exception in that the Lord Gareth blood loss system works surprisingly well here. The last two gallons of blood evaporated, but the commoner had more blood, and only two to five gallons evaporated, leaving at least one gallon of blood to keep functioning. HP works beautifully for Dungeons and Dragonballs.

[Lord_Gareth]

*There is an exception in that the Lord Gareth blood loss system works surprisingly well here. The last two gallons of blood evaporated, but the commoner had more blood, and only two to five gallons evaporated, leaving at least one gallon of blood to keep functioning. HP works beautifully for Dungeons and Dragonballs.

This footnote, it made me weep with joy. I love you, Knaight. Marry me.

[Straybow]

The "weary or wounded" state breaks down fairly easily for a few reasons (mostly in that so much of what is needed for either is not modeled), but the need to move more carefully is still there, and still modeled. The HP isn't at zero, yet it still restricts choices, which means that there are meaningful differences between different non-zero states. If the only number that mattered was zero, there would be no meaningful differences between different non-zero states.

The counter-point to that is that the "near zero" state only manifests at the point of a sword. If you need to do a feat of strength with a high DC, maybe bending the bars blocking a window, suddenly you don't have to be careful about hurting yourself. But the next commoner with a paring knife might as well be Jet Li with a +5 sword.

It doesn't really matter what that resource is, it may be money, it may be time, it may be hit points, it may even be something like quantity of sugar. Certain options only exist if you have enough...

The only "resource" hit points represent is the mystical ability to avoid fatal damage. But it is a resource use that is inconsistently applied. You can't apply it to parry, dodge, or block the blow, nor to improve those defenses, it isn't skill or talent in that sense, it is something intangible that kicks in to nerf the damage, by unknown means, when the opponent gets past all that.

We can't even call it "toughness," because the character isn't taking any meaningful damage. The fighter crossing the lava runs out of an abstract resource which was never really in his control. Somehow he knows it is there, he can even quantify it, but doesn't know what it is.

[Knaight]

The only "resource" hit points represent is the mystical ability to avoid fatal damage. But it is a resource use that is inconsistently applied. You can't apply it to parry, dodge, or block the blow, nor to improve those defenses, it isn't skill or talent in that sense, it is something intangible that kicks in to nerf the damage, by unknown means, when the opponent gets past all that.

My point is that hit points do not represent a resource, but are one, and the general rules applicable to resources still apply, even when the resource in question is really weird.

[TheOOB]

Would it not be heroic fantasy, for example, to be staggered by a hurled dagger penetrating the abdomen to the hilt, yet the protagonist rises again with obviously diminished capacity, not at "0 hit points" and incapacitated?.

If you have more than 0 hp, there is no dagger penetrating your abdomen to the hilt, that thrown dagger just cut your side, only only penetrated just the tip before falling out. That's how hp works, and that is Word of God, by the Sage himself. I mentioned that above in the Star Wars example.

[Straybow]

That's how hp works, and that is Word of God, by the Sage himself. I mentioned that above in the Star Wars example.

WotC is a commercial entity (a cog in the great machine of world domination) financially obligated to protect the sales of the crud they churn out for undiscerning gamers. Their "Sage" is a corrupt minion who merely spews the party line, a fat geek surrounded by discarded fast food wrappers and cups covering his desk deep in the bowels of the WotC sweatshop. Seeking an opportunity to escape the whips of the production line, he ingratiated himself to his corporate masters by convincing them he could turn picky gamers into mind-numbed customers by use of a "Dear Abby" column. Caught between the fear of falling from his position back into the slavery of his fellows and the lure of rewarded promotions and perks he has been swallowed by the very darkness he conjured. His evil taint empowers the twisted logic and infectious rationalization of lame game mechanics, and thus you are deceived.

[TheOOB]

WotC is a commercial entity (a cog in the great machine of world domination) financially obligated to protect the sales of the crud they churn out for undiscerning gamers. Their "Sage" is a corrupt minion who merely spews the party line, a fat geek surrounded by discarded fast food wrappers and cups covering his desk deep in the bowels of the WotC sweatshop. Seeking an opportunity to escape the whips of the production line, he ingratiated himself to his corporate masters by convincing them he could turn picky gamers into mind-numbed customers by use of a "Dear Abby" column. Caught between the fear of falling from his position back into the slavery of his fellows and the lure of rewarded promotions and perks he has been swallowed by the very darkness he conjured. His evil taint empowers the twisted logic and infectious rationalization of lame game mechanics, and thus you are deceived.

Wow...I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or if you just have problems. If you dislike the game that much, don't play it.

As for the Sage, he is the official last word on D&D rules. Ultimately, D&D from third edition onwards, and by extension any official d20 book is a WotC supplement. You are buying their rules, for better or worse, and as D&D is a very complex set of rules open to interpretation, it is necessary to have someone to arbitrate rules disputes.

The fact is many people have explained how the HP system works to you. It's less about how much a character can take, and more their cinematic ability to avoid damage. It's not how many arrows can you take to the chest, but how many arrows will nick and scrap you before one does hit you in the chest. You seem to be ignoring other peoples often well crafted points in a desire to remain ignorant and contrary.

[Straybow]

Some of us, oh great and wise OOB, are not discussing "what does the Sage say" but how well do hit points work as a game mechanism. That's why somebody chiming in to say "think of it as this or that" is less than productive. Some of us are not content to close our eyes and think of Seattle as hit points are whittled away.

In that regard, the Sage's answer (or your citation) is incomplete. Unearthed Arcana includes OGL variants to standard hit points for injury, massive damage, and vitality. Almost as though somebody at WotC realizes that the plain potato hit point model isn't the only way to say "how heroic fantasy works."

I dislike the hit point system enough that I'm in a thread discussing the incoherence of it and suffering those who think this is a twelve-step group for recovering hit point haters.

My point is that hit points do not represent a resource, but are one, and the general rules applicable to resources still apply, even when the resource in question is really weird.

Or "incoherent," perhaps. It is a resource that protects you when somebody is dropping rocks on your head or sticking a spear in your spleen, and it protects you from fire, lightning, cold, acid and "sonic" attacks... but not from poison that is attacking the flesh by chemical means, nor from water, when it gets in your lungs.

[Knaight]

Or "incoherent," perhaps. It is a resource that protects you when somebody is dropping rocks on your head or sticking a spear in your spleen, and it protects you from fire, lightning, cold, acid and "sonic" attacks... but not from poison that is attacking the flesh by chemical means, nor from water, when it gets in your lungs.

Or incoherent, yes. The exact same principles regarding what resources are and how they work apply to completely incoherent resources, provided that how they work is understood. This is the crux of the options argument, which is what I've been arguing in from the beginning. Really, the entire thing boils down to this:

HP is a resource (coherence is irrelevant to this).
The quantity of a resource influences options.
Therefore, the quantity of HP influences options.

If the first two are true, the third follows. HP can be completely incoherent - I'd argue it pretty much is - and it still works.

[TheOOB]

Some of us, oh great and wise OOB, are not discussing "what does the Sage say" but how well do hit points work as a game mechanism. That's why somebody chiming in to say "think of it as this or that" is less than productive. Some of us are not content to close our eyes and think of Seattle as hit points are whittled away.

In that regard, the Sage's answer (or your citation) is incomplete. Unearthed Arcana includes OGL variants to standard hit points for injury, massive damage, and vitality. Almost as though somebody at WotC realizes that the plain potato hit point model isn't the only way to say "how heroic fantasy works."

I dislike the hit point system enough that I'm in a thread discussing the incoherence of it and suffering those who think this is a twelve-step group for recovering hit point haters.



Or "incoherent," perhaps. It is a resource that protects you when somebody is dropping rocks on your head or sticking a spear in your spleen, and it protects you from fire, lightning, cold, acid and "sonic" attacks... but not from poison that is attacking the flesh by chemical means, nor from water, when it gets in your lungs.

Your problem is you keep saying the same things while not paying attention to others arguments. Hit Points are not the only, or even the best method of tracking player health, but they do work, and they do make a certain kind of cinematic sense.

You keep mentioning how hit points are not a proper resource, when in fact they are, even if they are abstract.

You also keep talking about people not getting penalized for getting say, stabbed in the spleen, when it's been mentioned that people with hit points haven't been severely injured.

Hit points works, it's a measure of how much abuse you can go through, how many times you can luckily avoid a major wound, before you are taken down. It stands to reason that characters operating in world rules by hit points understand, at least in ab abstract sense, how much they have in the way of hit points. This is a setting where someone can wave their hands around and say funny words and cause someone to burst into flames, if characters can comprehend that, they can comprehend that even though their wounds are not slowing them down yet, they don't have a lot of fight left in them.

Honestly, the entire concept behind this thread is logically sound, starting with the title. Hits Points are not incoherent, they are abstract. Incoherent means that there is no logic or that it's inconsistent. Hit points are very coherent, they work in a very predictable and understandable way. Even a 5 year old can understand that as you get hurt, your hit points go down, and when they all go away you are defeated.

Hit Points are abstract in that they don't represent a concrete reality as we have come to understand it. They represent a fictional reality that is only present in works of fiction. Fictional character get the crap beat out of them all the time and are still able to kick butt, and so can D&D characters. You know what else, a lot of other things are abstract in D&D too. The idea that my attack rolls are determined by a twenty sided die, and I have a 5% chance of hurting a master swordsman in full armor, or they when I am moving around the battlefield, everyone else stands around until their turn. You don't see people complaining that you can have 20 foot tall giants even though a humanoid skeleton could never support that kind of weight. D&D doesn't follow the rules of reality. It follows the rules of fantasy and drama, but it does follow rules.

[Straybow]

Your problem is you keep saying the same things while not paying attention to others arguments. Hit Points are not the only, or even the best method of tracking player health, but they do work, and they do make a certain kind of cinematic sense.

I dunno, I'm pretty sure that I offered counter-arguments, which explicitly means I was not ignoring their arguments. I simply regarded their arguments as not addressing the issue of incoherence, and explained how they failed to address it.

You also keep talking about people not getting penalized for getting say, stabbed in the spleen, when it's been mentioned that people with hit points haven't been severely injured.

Yes, but the hit points aren't used if the attack actually misses. Hit points are only "expended" as a resource if the attack is successful and is considered a "hit," which means the spear does not miss the defender, nor is it deflected off the armor. The spear would injure, if not for the resource of hit point offering protection.

It isn't just a flat charge of N hit points to cinematically avoid the spear's damage, the hit points expended match the damage the spear would have done.

Hit points works, it's a measure of how much abuse you can go through, how many times you can luckily avoid a major wound, before you are taken down.

But didn't you cite The Great and Wonderful Sage saying that "hit points" mean that the character does not suffer abuse? The scrapes and bruises are too minor to be considered even 1 point of real damage, even if the character has taken dozens of hits. Thus there are no major wounds or minor wounds, just non-wounds represented as hit points.

Honestly, the entire concept behind this thread is logically sound, starting with the title. Hits Points are not incoherent, they are abstract. Incoherent means that there is no logic or that it's inconsistent.

No, a concept or an implementation can be coherent in some measures yet incoherent in others. I've listed several incoherent aspects that can only be rationalized as "picture it this way" even though the mechanics do not reflect that picture. Thus, the inconsistency of hit points as a game mechanism.

Hit points are very coherent, they work in a very predictable and understandable way. Even a 5 year old can understand that as you get hurt, your hit points go down, and when they all go away you are defeated.

But, as already mentioned above, your whole argument says you don't get hurt as long as you have positive hp. And, thus, the inconsistency that would confuse the 5 year old and umpty-five year old alike.

It means that no matter how tough your epic level barbarian is intended to be, he can't take any real damage. He's a total pansy. He jinks and dodges the missiles and swords like Neo, barely sustaining a nick. He mystically zens away the physical damage of the engulfing fireball when you missed the saving throw, hardly suffering a singe. He avoids damage all the way down to 1 hp. Then somebody jabs him with a letter opener and he passes out and starts bleeding to death. Predictable, yes. Coherent, no.

You know what else, a lot of other things are abstract in D&D too... D&D doesn't follow the rules of reality. It follows the rules of fantasy and drama, but it does follow rules.

And just because it follows rules means that those rules are coherent? No. Some rules are poorly conceptualized or poorly implemented or both. D&D hit points are in the "both" category.