4e combat sounds like a hoot, actually.

Arduin hit points finally won out in 4e. Funny how things turn around.

I started pre-AD&D, with Holmes and the OCE original rules when we got past 3rd level, and I can say that many, many groups did not use minis at all with the original rules. Some did, some didn't. I generally did not with D&D pre-3e though I did with fantasy trip. (Hexes would have worked better for some aspects of 3e combat also, Rob.) I found that I could not do good 3e combats without minis though.

'Talky parts of a porno' is a funny analogy. Outside of combat is often the most important part of the game to me, but I don't like rules for it. That's another thread.

Doing damage on a natural 1, that's a crime against God and Man.

Colonel,

There's two levels to the abstraction though. One is whether doing hit points = doing physical damage, the other is whether amount of hit points = amount of damage. I've never subscribed to the second, but the first I've always pretty much stuck with. A five point hit may mean broken ribs to a firstie and just a bruise to a high level character, but it always means something physical in my games. But what it means is totally contextual based on the type of attack, relative amount of damage to the hit points of the things being damaged, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are different levels of abstraction. You can be totally abstract if you like, where maybe it's just your 'aura' that's dented a little bit up until that last few hit points, but that's never what I've done. To me if you take a hit it's physical damage, it's just that the tenth level fighter mostly gets out of the way of the dragon's claw-swipe and only takes a flesh wound (though if he had been an inch closer...), where the second level fighter gets caught, popped in the mouth, and chewed up on the same damage roll.

Quote from: CalithenaColonel,

There's two levels to the abstraction though. One is whether doing hit points = doing physical damage, the other is whether amount of hit points = amount of damage. I've never subscribed to the second, but the first I've always pretty much stuck with. A five point hit may mean broken ribs to a firstie and just a bruise to a high level character, but it always means something physical in my games. But what it means is totally contextual based on the type of attack, relative amount of damage to the hit points of the things being damaged, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are different levels of abstraction. You can be totally abstract if you like, where maybe it's just your 'aura' that's dented a little bit up until that last few hit points, but that's never what I've done. To me if you take a hit it's physical damage, it's just that the tenth level fighter mostly gets out of the way of the dragon's claw-swipe and only takes a flesh wound (though if he had been an inch closer...), where the second level fighter gets caught, popped in the mouth, and chewed up on the same damage roll.

That's pretty close to how I've always envisioned what hit points represent. The only place I differ is that I never assumed, and neither did my players, that any and all deductions of hit points represented actual physical damage of some sort, even if it was very slight. It generally meant that, but not always. I see it as contextual as well; in the case of this Reaping Strike or whatever it's called, that damage on a missed strike would likely not be anything physical, or at least not until the character suffering the damage has a relatively few hit points left.

I'm totally cool with HP being partly, mostly, or even ALL abstracted.  Although if it's luck, skill, stamina, etc being used up instead of being *hit* then it makes we wonder why a thrust from a spear does any more "damage" than a dagger?  A solid hit would kill you either way -- and the OD&D method of all weapons doing 1d6 actually makes a lot of sense.

I think it's the healing surges that I've found it hard to get my head around.  If you narrate some physical injury as part of losing a lot of hit points -- that might be gone in 5 minutes... unless they die, and then it's not.  So I'd imagine you'd avoid talking about what those numbers represent during the combat at all.  Again -- more focus on the figures, map and dice, and less focus on the descriptions and creative narration.

I think it's a change of tone / genre.  If you think of it like Superhero action (and I don't mean that in a dismissive way) then you can imagine all sorts of smashing, bashing, cutting and bruising... and then they all get up, dust themselves off and go for a Malt shake.

Quote from: GrayPumpkinNot necessarily, you could have hit the guy just not pierced the skin with your poisoned weapon, getting hit with a weapon can still hurt even that weapon dosen't actually pierce the skin due to armor.
Same as above you hit but didn't cut deep enough to spill the Alien blood, or get tangled by the rust monsters rusting tentacles. We'll know more in a few weeks.

You don't think that you are stretching the justification here just a little? I mean if you were deisigning a game would you say that you have hit points that represent how much damage you can take but they are really more contextual and could mean you are just out of puff.

The poison example was just an example it could have just as easily have been a magical touch based power like a level drain or a shadow's strength sapping touch, or paralysis.
It would be an unusual case but it is feasible for the 'other' creature to eventually die from the reaping damage and he would be just as dead as if you toasted him with your breath weapon or smited him with a bolt of blue holy lightning.

There are some basic rules one of which is a miss is a miss another is never start a land war in Asia which you just don't break.

There is another post on the board about deal breakers. I just found one that does it for me. Its up there with Hellhounds in VTES riding sports bikes.

Quote from: jibbajibbaYou don't think that you are stretching the justification here just a little? I mean if you were deisigning a game would you say that you have hit points that represent how much damage you can take but they are really more contextual and could mean you are just out of puff..

Nope not a stretch me at all, but then, like others mentioned I've always seen HP as an abstraction.

Quote from: jibbajibbaThe poison example was just an example it could have just as easily have been a magical touch based power like a level drain or a shadow's strength sapping touch, or paralysis.

Again I'd just see it above, not deep enough of scratch to paralyze you, not solid enough of a touch to drain your strength, but it left you rattled thus the HP reduction.

Quote from: jibbajibbaThere is another post on the board about deal breakers. I just found one that does it for me. Its up there with Hellhounds in VTES riding sports bikes.

Fair enough, everyone has their deal breakers, this one is not me, in fact I rather dig it, but more power to ya.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonPlus, there is the long-discussed notion that hit points don't all represent physical damage. That's something I've subscribed to since as far back as when I first began gaming. It seemed ludicrous to believe that a character simply became physically tougher as he gained hit points, or that one character could physically absorb a battleaxe blow that outright killed another.

The conception of hit points as more than simple physical damage seems even more true in 4e than previous editions, based on what I've read. That little bit of "damage" could mean a number of different things - the character loses a bit of confidence after witnessing the potential power of such a strike, his stamina is taxed a bit as he twists to avoid the blow, or some of his luck is simply used up. Looking at it like that pretty much obviates a lot of the special case loopholes discussed above.

OK - maybe I'm just not being clear enough. I get the abstraction. I get that HP don't mean actual physical damage. I think I was the one in one of the previous threads HP that quoted the DMG (page 82 for those of you who are curious) where it discusses HP not representing just damage - particularly at higher levels.

But to somehow equate that concept with a miss reducing HP is...well...I don't want ot be too harsh, guys - but it's a bit of a silly argument. If you want to tell me that it's a change in the fundamentals and I just need to get over it - OK, I'm cool with that. But to somehow try to fit this into any version of D&D to date is more than a bit of a stretch (as I said, unless someone can point a strange concoction like, probably, ToB:Bo9S).

Look - your roll represents, at the most abstracted level, success or failure. In combat, if your roll indicates success, than you reduce the HP of the opponent - HP that could be luck, or divine favor, or anything else used in that abstraction. If your roll indicates failure, you do not reduce HP.

Until now. Has there ever been a time in D&D, in the core rules, that you can fail, and still reduce HP?

EDIT: A couple of them. First, it's the 1e DMG in that page reference - for that was the question in the thread IIRC. Second, it should be noted that I've said from the beginning that this is more like a power than anything else. So I'm aware that you can 'fail' - your opponent makes a save - and still do damage when discussing magic.

Quote from: jibbajibbaThe problem I have with the reaping strike is that it allows you to hit, with a miss, a creature that you might wel find it bloody hard to hit normally. Now what if you add say a weapon coated in poison. I miss my opponent and the other guy takes 3 damage, but my weapon is poisoned. Now the rule will say something like 'any special effects that are part of the strikes normal damage are not carried forward to the reaping damage', but that means I am missing the guy, not hitting him with my weapon and still doing damage. Or what about creatures that have powers triggered when they are hit, rust monsters or I have used creatures like Alien with acid for blood that attacks your weapons when you hit them. Will this reaping strike trigger these ?

I had a similar question when I noticed that the fighter with Reaping Strike had Power Attack (-2 to hit for +3 damage). Power attack specifically states "on a hit, you do +3 damage." All of the abilities that require an attack roll have an entry for what they do on a hit. Some have an entry for what they do on a miss. Presumably poison, ghoul touch, and the rest will be worded similarly.

Quote from: StuartI think it's the healing surges that I've found it hard to get my head around.  If you narrate some physical injury as part of losing a lot of hit points -- that might be gone in 5 minutes... unless they die, and then it's not.  So I'd imagine you'd avoid talking about what those numbers represent during the combat at all.  Again -- more focus on the figures, map and dice, and less focus on the descriptions and creative narration.

I expect the hit points section to be much more detailed than what we've seen before, with more guidelines on how to handle descriptions. If not, I'll just assume that anything below x is actual damage, anything above it is fatigue, nerves, etc.

Quote from: James J SkachBut to somehow equate that concept with a miss reducing HP is...well...I don't want ot be too harsh, guys - but it's a bit of a silly argument. If you want to tell me that it's a change in the fundamentals and I just need to get over it - OK, I'm cool with that. But to somehow try to fit this into any version of D&D to date is more than a bit of a stretch (as I said, unless someone can point a strange concoction like, probably, ToB:Bo9S).

I don't think it's a change in the fundamentals so much as it is a reapplication of the flavor text we've had for decades. But I won't tell you that you have to get over it. Other options include maintaining Luddite status, or playing and inventing a house rule to get past the hurdle.

QuoteUntil now. Has there ever been a time in D&D, in the core rules, that you can fail, and still reduce HP?

There have been attacks which only needed to hit touch AC, but did more damage if they hit real AC. But no, AFAIK there have been no cases where two swordsmen with blades could lower each others' hit points on a missed attack roll using a special ability available to their class. There also hasn't been a point in the game's where the hit points section said "hit points aren't all physical damage" and the game rules actually took that definition into account when abstracting combat. Up until now it's been fluff that you were free to ignore or apply as you saw fit, and which caused problems either way (for example, either you take 15 arrows to the chest or cure critical wounds closes up 15 hit points worth of cuts you never took).

To me this looks like a good step towards making the abstract RP aspect of hit points a more concrete mechanic. I haven't seen the full rules, but I like this piece.

This:

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't think it's a change in the fundamentals so much as it is a reapplication of the flavor text we've had for decades.

doesn't jibe with this:

Quote from: James McMurrayBut no, AFAIK there have been no cases where two swordsmen with blades could lower each others' hit points on a missed attack roll using a special ability available to their class.

And these:

Quote from: James McMurrayThere have been attacks which only needed to hit touch AC, but did more damage if they hit real AC.

still need to succeed. It's a choice between success..and lots of success.

And this:

Quote from: James McMurrayThere also hasn't been a point in the game's where the hit points section said "hit points aren't all physical damage" and the game rules actually took that definition into account when abstracting combat. Up until now it's been fluff that you were free to ignore or apply as you saw fit, and which caused problems either way (for example, either you take 15 arrows to the chest or cure critical wounds closes up 15 hit points worth of cuts you never took).

is, as I mention, not the point. I'm well aware of the abstraction. And...it's meaningless because it doesn't say you can fail and still succeed.

Contrary to your sense that it makes the abstract nature of more concrete (yeah, you said something that amounts to that, so I'm sure you understood the conundrum it brings up), it confuses the issues if you use this as the justification - are those three hit points luck parts of the HP? Are they some other source, but not physical? You get into the same issue from the other angle.

I guess I'm just not explaining it well, because all of those statements fit together perfectly in my mind. We have, until now, been given fluff text that said that hit points can represent things that aren't physical damage, but that in order to reduce hit points you have to hit your opponent with your attack roll. That doesn't make any sense.

Now, we are told that hit points don't all represent physical damage, and if you're really good and you focus on it, you can still wear your opponent down like Errol Flynn or Inego Motoya. That, to me, makes sense. I understand that it doesn't for you and that I'll never make it so, but that's cool. We're not at the same table, so we don't even have to agree to disagree if we don't want (although I'm happy to do it).

QuoteContrary to your sense that it makes the abstract nature of more concrete (yeah, you said something that amounts to that, so I'm sure you understood the conundrum it brings up), it confuses the issues if you use this as the justification - are those three hit points luck parts of the HP? Are they some other source, but not physical? You get into the same issue from the other angle.

Without seeing the hit point section there's no way I can answer that and be sure of matching 4e's rules. However, I would almost certainly narrate it based on the situation, just like I've done with BD&D - 3.5: they're luck, fatigue, and minor scrapes until hit points run low; then larger cuts until you get dropped; at which point the actual wound depends on the combatants and the weapon (although often it's just "he drops" because describing every hit and miss slows things down more than we like).

Quote from: James McMurrayI guess I'm just not explaining it well, because all of those statements fit together perfectly in my mind. We have, until now, been given fluff text that said that hit points can represent things that aren't physical damage, but that in order to reduce hit points you have to hit your opponent with your attack roll. That doesn't make any sense.

Ummmm...OK...you're right. We'll never see eye to eye because that's....ummm...well...yeah...

Quote from: James McMurrayNow, we are told that hit points don't all represent physical damage, and if you're really good and you focus on it, you can still wear your opponent down like Errol Flynn or Inego Motoya.

By...ummm...missing...with a fumble, even....sure...ok...

There's no such thing as a fumble, at least not in the 4e rules I've seen. If we add in a house rule for them, we'll almost certainly extend that house rule to things like Reaping Strike.

Quote from: James J SkachUntil now. Has there ever been a time in D&D, in the core rules, that you can fail, and still reduce HP?

Sure Fireball, Lighting Bolt, Page 73,74, 1st AD&D PHB, Save for 1/2 damage.

In 4th edition that would read something like

Fireball 1/day

+4 vs Reflex
Hit: 1d6 per level of caster
Miss: as above, divided in half

Frankly my opinion is that all the editions of D&D lost more than they gained by the "abstract" combat system. It causes no end of confusion. They should just made a roll = a blow which is a concept easily grasped by anybody. Note I am not saying that AD&D 1st combat should have been different in any broad sense but rather just explained it different.

In AD&D little was lost by pretending that a roll = blow. it was what most people did anyway. However in 4th edition they return to the idea of abstract combat with a vengeance.

I been saying that the combat system as whole and the reduced level of customization are likely what going to make or break people perception of 4th edition.

Rob Conley

The catch is, the Fighter actually has to shout "Lighting Bolt!" for this to work. :haw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ekugPKqFw

Quote from: StuartThe catch is, the Fighter actually has to shout "Lighting Bolt!" for this to work. :haw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ekugPKqFw

That was what I was doing from 1992 to 2004. Even owned my own chapter for a couple of years. I had to get out because with the birth my 2nd child I couldn't run my chapter anymore so I sold it.

One thing I want to point out is that in NERO that guy couldn't do what he is doing. He has to say "I call forth a Lightning Bolt". The longer incant changes the dynamics enough that a fighter has a chance.

Assuming these guys are running a NERO type system. The lightning bolt is a 2nd level spell doing about 8 points of damage. The monster they were fighting probably has about 100+ hit points.

Also as silly as all this may look from the outside it is very different feel when you are actually playing. It is very easy to get immersed. And long term play is enhanced by the fact you have friends going and you become part of a team of people. LARPS have advantages and disadvantages over tabletop.