Hit Points: Why do people hate human toughness, but love inhuman reflexes?

[oslecamo]

Now and then in D&D a discussion crops up that HP is just an abstraction, and that you're only actually gravely hurt by the attack that takes your last HP. All the damage you took before? Just your super reflexes at work many people claim. Having a pointy stick driven trough your torso and keep going would be a suspension of disbelief they say.

So I say we take a look back at the real world. A world where:
-People have survived being riddled with bullets, being stabbd dozens of times, falling off planes, being burned alive, and many more.
-The roman army designed their spears so they would break into impact after being thrown, since so many of their enemies were capable of shrugging off having a spear driven trough their bodies and would pull it off their own flesh and throw it back at the romans before.
-People can live with permanent holes in their stomaches
-People can have an iron stake driven trough their head, spilling their brains, and still able to walk on their own and live for many years thereafter.

But you know what doesn't happen in the real world? People being able to consciously dodge bullets. Even arrow catching is nothing more than a myth. If someone shoots high speed projectiles at you, your best only hope is having some damn good armor/shield/cover. Or being tough enough to shrugg it off. Our natural reflexes just aren't  good enough to pull that kind of stunts.

Now I'm not saying we should ban arrow catching, or make rays and arrows ignore an opponent's Dex/Dodge mod to AC.

What baffles me is that so many people seem to have trouble with imagining that somebody could take severe body injury and keep going when it's something that has already happened countless times in the very world we live in.

So I ask the question again: why are there so many people want fantasy adventurers to be more fragile than real world humans when they're perfectly fine with fantasy adventurers having supnernatural-level reflexes?

[SolEiji]

While this doesn't really apply to me, since I've always been of the sort that you're taking action hero damage (shots to the shoulder, not-actually fatal headwounds, etc) I think I may know why.  I call it the SKR problem since I always imagined this was behind the design decisions behind SKR.  And that simply is: People don't have a real good idea of what humans are capable of.  Most people in 1st world countries live fairly nice lives.  We're fat, lazy, and happy.  Even if you're not overweight, not many people are in shape and not many people are engaged in life or death or extraordinary situations.  So we are like "I can only pick up 150 lbs before I get tired" or "swinging this sword is really hard" and judge accordingly, ignoring the wonder drug that is adrenaline and the fact our bodies can, and do, take off its usual safety limits when engaged in heavy activities.  Incidentally magic use has no comparison and thus is not "limited" in this fashion.

And that's just going from a strict realism standpoint where people forget that humans are kind of scary optimized.  When you introduce fantasy, not only are you Spetnaz and Seal Team 6 elite marines the "norm", you get people who make those people look like 85 lb weaklings.

[Stratovarius]

Because several of those people you mention? They're commoners. Low level ones.

The man with the iron spike through the brain was a miner. Which in D&D terms means a level 1-3 commoner with his skill points in Profession (Mining). Give him a decent Con and he might crack 12 hit points.

Falling out the plane? Stewardess, on at least one occasion. Again, low level commoner, clearly using some luck feats. Not exactly an optimized build, even for the real world.

Compare that to a level 20 wildshaped Druid with his several hundred hit points, DR, saves, SR, magic items, etc. They aren't even operating in the same realm of survivability. So the reason that people assume that heroes can do things real world mortals can't even come close to is because the game is designed that way.

[oslecamo]

I'm afraid you completely missed the point.

A lot of people out there assume that D&D heroes should be more fragile than real-world people. While having no trouble that in D&D every average Joe with a positive Dex mod has good enough reflexes to try to dodge arrows.

Also, commoners by definition can't have good Con, because they're stuck with non-elite array of stats. Most competent workers  are supposed to be experts (or warriors for regular guards and soldiers, meaning a nice d10 HD, on which several of my examples were based). A miner would most certainly need good climb and listen and spot and knowledge(dungeoneering) just so he lasts more than a year at his job.  Commoners are the bottom down of society, the guys that'll only survive doing  the most basic, nondangerous tasks.

And luck feats wouldn't really help anyone survive a fall from a plane, since that's plain falling damage, no saves or skill checks involved for you to re-roll (well jump/tumble could help a bit, but still wouldn't make a difference unless you had a great modifier in the first place). There's tempting fate, but that demands a whooping level 6-that's somebody pretty important by real-world standards right there, not just some average Joe.

[Necrosnoop110]

I've always wondered the same thing. At nearly every gaming table I've been at someone, at some time, speaks up very loudly about how stupid/unrealistic/unfair the D&D hit point mechanic is. I've personally never had a problem with hit-points just being an abstraction for how hard you are to kill. Once you open hit-points up to being more than sheer "toughness" and incorporate luck, skill, training, providence, divine blessings, etc. they make much more sense to me.   

I think one piece of this is the video game/blockbuster movie generation equates hit-points directly to "life-points" and they don't see hit-points as the sum total ability of a character to avoid death not just sustain damage. Contrariwise, you can dodge just about anything in a video game no matter the ridiculousness. But once your hearts are depleted, that's it.


"Hit points measure how hard a creature is to kill. Hit points represent the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some creatures, hit points can represent divine favor or inner power."  - Rules Compendium, Page 72   

Peace,
Necro

[phaedrusxy]

A lot of people out there assume that D&D heroes should be more fragile than real-world people. While having no trouble that in D&D every average Joe with a positive Dex mod has good enough reflexes to try to dodge arrows.

I don't think he entirely missed the point. Most "modern" people have no idea how tough humans can really be. Even in wars, most people don't die directly from their injuries. They die from infections later. Barring lucky shots (i.e. crits), humans can sustain a hell of a lot of damage, particularly if they're hyped up on adrenaline, before they die. Most people don't know this, though, and have watched too many movies where people die quickly in one shot, or have heard stories about the unlucky guy who fell down the stairs and died, etc.

Game designers certainly seem to fall into this "clueless" category (some more than others).

[FlaminCows]

From most people I've talked to that support the "hit points are dodge / fatigue points" idea, it was to justify some odd ways of re-gaining hit points, especially in 4e. I do not know if it was only a 4e issue, but it my experience it tends to be that way, and the people who apply it to 3rd are copying ideas from 4e debates.

D&D already has "your inhuman reflexes saved you" mechanics. There is Dexterity bonus to AC, Dodge bonus to AC, reflex saves, and Evasion. All of them result in something like what you would expect to happen if you dodged something: you don't get hit. Whether you dodged a pebble thrown by a halfling or a flame javelin thrown by Gyara Spearhunter the Deadly, it has the same effect. If you lose hit points, on the other hand, you lose more from the flame javelin than the pebble, which doesn't jive well with the idea that you dodged the javelin.

If hit points represented dodging or fatigue, you would expect it to have an effect on your dodge bonus and reflex saves. Actually, the two mechanics do not interact at all.

Importantly, a character still has his full hit points when helpless. He could be bound, asleep, paralysed or unaware, and then have a pebble and a flame javelin tossed at him. What happens then? He could not have dodged it, and yet he did not take any more damage than he did from the same pebble and flame javelin before. He was, however, denied his dexterity bonus and dodge bonus to AC.

It is clear what represents dodging in this game and what does not.

[Unbeliever]

There's a lot going on in the OP that's tangled up.  For example, I don't even know what the arrow catching is doing in there.  D&D characters can do all sorts of unrealistic and fantastical things.  That's kind of the point.

I don't think this "real people are tougher than you think" point really goes anywhere.  The examples just shift the conversation up a few character levels.  Let's posit that humans can survive a spear wound.  How about 5?  How about 10?  How about 50?  Even when you import a "realistic" sense of what people can do, D&D characters are going to far outstrip it, and it won't take epic levels to do so. 

So, what argument is left? 

To answer the question in the thread title, mostly, I think SolEiji is right about SKR problem.  As a descriptive matter, I think that's largely true.  And, it gets further magnified by the fact that we're not even talking about "real" people here, but action hero types.  We're talking about Conan, not Sir Richard Burton.  So, their capabilities are being doubly discounted. 

I think there might be a subtle, but not terrible argument to be made about the difference between inhuman skill/reflexes and hit points. It goes something like this.  Catching arrows, the godlike speed of hinten mitsurugi, or some other superlative skill is a defining feature of the character.  It's the "thing" the character can do.  Large numbers of hit points, and their wonky relationship with real world examples of harm (e.g., a spear thrust from an ordinary bloke) are ubiquitous, though.  No one should bat an eyelash at Huma, He of the Iron Skin who is inhumanly tough.  That's his schtick.  But, it's weirder when Bob the Bookworm can also take what seems like massive amount of punishment -- in a real world sense of X number of sear thrusts -- without batting an eyelash. 

None of this really bothers me b/c the game is full of wonky abstractions and is also not there to emulate reality.  It's instead supposed to create a cinematic reality.  One in which an important named character -- like a 10th level PC -- can't be easily laid low by a lucky soldier.  That's patently unrealistic, as Hobbes famously pointed out, but it's needed to emulate the fiction that D&D is aiming for.

[Prime32]

I've always wondered the same thing. At nearly every gaming table I've been at someone, at some time, speaks up very loudly about how stupid/unrealistic/unfair the D&D hit point mechanic is. I've personally never had a problem with hit-points just being an abstraction for how hard you are to kill. Once you open hit-points up to being more than sheer "toughness" and incorporate luck, skill, training, providence, divine blessings, etc. they make much more sense to me.

See, that makes much less sense to me.

D&D is a game where characters quickly become superhuman, where becoming a wizard doesn't require a special talent, just knowledge - everyone is magic already. It's a game where leveling up literally makes your soul more powerful (seriously, look at stuff like trap the soul, the barghest's Feed ability, or even HD-capped spells like sleep/cloudkill) so why wouldn't they be more physically durable as well?

If those attacks didn't really hit in the first place... then why are high-level characters harder to heal? Since your level measures how heroic you are (in the "ability to shape the world" sense, not the moral one) it only makes sense if everyone has a pool of "hero energy" that protects them, which is refilled by healing spells. This isn't an idea from the "video game/blockbuster movie generation" - it goes back to mythology where some of the greatest warriors literally glowed with awesomeness.

[Raineh Daze]

This isn't an idea from the "video game/blockbuster movie generation" - it goes back to mythology where some of the greatest warriors literally glowed with awesomeness.

I need a character that does that, now. XD

[skydragonknight]

"Hit points measure how hard a creature is to kill. Hit points represent the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some creatures, hit points can represent divine favor or inner power."  - Rules Compendium, Page 72   

In a previous discussion I was in on this topic, one of the prevailing theories was that hit points were - in part at least - the ability to 'roll with the punches' and to simply be more skilled at taking hits in ways that are less damaging to the body. Which is why melee classes have the better chasis for this - they undergo more rigorous training for the realities of close combat. So armor class is your ability to negate (physical) hits and hit points is your skill to better handle those hits you do take as well as other things like pain tolerance (constitution bonus x level).

[Stratovarius]

I'm afraid you completely missed the point.

A lot of people out there assume that D&D heroes should be more fragile than real-world people. While having no trouble that in D&D every average Joe with a positive Dex mod has good enough reflexes to try to dodge arrows.

Also, commoners by definition can't have good Con, because they're stuck with non-elite array of stats. Most competent workers  are supposed to be experts (or warriors for regular guards and soldiers, meaning a nice d10 HD, on which several of my examples were based). A miner would most certainly need good climb and listen and spot and knowledge(dungeoneering) just so he lasts more than a year at his job.  Commoners are the bottom down of society, the guys that'll only survive doing  the most basic, nondangerous tasks.

And luck feats wouldn't really help anyone survive a fall from a plane, since that's plain falling damage, no saves or skill checks involved for you to re-roll (well jump/tumble could help a bit, but still wouldn't make a difference unless you had a great modifier in the first place). There's tempting fate, but that demands a whooping level 6-that's somebody pretty important by real-world standards right there, not just some average Joe.

Skilled peasantry, such as blacksmiths (and therefore miners), are commoners. It's right there in the description of what a commoner is. Also, exceptional members of any class are supposed to utilize better than the non-elite array, so we can assume that people who survive unusual events most likely are set up this way.

And again, the reason people make assumptions that high dodge totals help you dodge arrows is because it's in the rules. That's one of the points of having a stupidly high dexterity mod. It's not that difficult to get dodge based AC (by itself) high enough that any "normal" NPC (read warrior or lower level fighter type) is going to be completely unable to hit the PC, just based on the dodge AC. Or take Deflect Arrows (which is a wasted feat, but it's there).

You're also not taking things like the traditional description of dragon's breath (and fighting dragons) into account. Anyone who doesn't have plot armour is vaporized by it, whereas heroes (both in D&D and otherwise) can wade right through it, shield held high. Especially if the PC is of the "noble warrior" archetype.

You're trying to apply everyday realism to a world where creating your own universe is only a spell away, or where you hop across different dimensions just to get somewhere faster. Prime has it right. We're in the realm of the mythical, where souls not only have a strength rating, they even have a price, and heroes glow with awesomeness.

[Necrosnoop110]

I've always wondered the same thing. At nearly every gaming table I've been at someone, at some time, speaks up very loudly about how stupid/unrealistic/unfair the D&D hit point mechanic is. I've personally never had a problem with hit-points just being an abstraction for how hard you are to kill. Once you open hit-points up to being more than sheer "toughness" and incorporate luck, skill, training, providence, divine blessings, etc. they make much more sense to me.

See, that makes much less sense to me.

D&D is a game where characters quickly become superhuman, where becoming a wizard doesn't require a special talent, just knowledge - everyone is magic already. It's a game where leveling up literally makes your soul more powerful (seriously, look at stuff like trap the soul, the barghest's Feed ability, or even HD-capped spells like sleep/cloudkill) so why wouldn't they be more physically durable as well?

If those attacks didn't really hit in the first place... then why are high-level characters harder to heal? Since your level measures how heroic you are (in the "ability to shape the world" sense, not the moral one) it only makes sense if everyone has a pool of "hero energy" that protects them, which is refilled by healing spells. This isn't an idea from the "video game/blockbuster movie generation" - it goes back to mythology where some of the greatest warriors literally glowed with awesomeness.

I don't follow your disagreement. We seem to be saying nearly the same thing. IMHO, hit points are (and should be) a robust abstraction that incorporates both durability and "awesomeness" (regardless of the source of awesomeness: experience, divine blessings, luck, skill, etc.). I have no problem with a character's "awesomeness" going up step-wise with HD/Levels (in fact I think the game does this and should do this - otherwise what's the point of a progressive D&D style leveling system).   

I think problems come about when you see "hit points" as solely a simple physical damage meter.

Peace,
Necro


PS - I agree that hero-ey awesomeness did not originate with the "video game/blockbuster movie generation" but goes back millennia to the great epic stories of old. I think what the "video game/blockbuster movie generation" tends to want to do is to move away from abstraction and heroic awesomeness and fit everything into a nice simple damage meter.  *cough* 4th Edition *cough*

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Why?
I'm tempted to say a matrix-ian There Is No Why (spoon).

People just don't know stuff.
They fill in the blanks, right or wrong, and then dig in their heels.

wotc Next boards had a very long argument thread about
Fire not working under water = Yes or No.  It was stupid llooonnnnggggggg.
So I made a separate thread of Fires that do work under water.
Real World, and some children's cartoons to drive the point home.

But that won't be the last of it.
Because you know that fire can't work under water, right?
Sheesh, what kinda red herring rock did'ja just climb out from under.
  ... (not you ; the other guy)

I hate those "realism" weenies.  They suck the joy right out of the room.

[Amechra]

I agree with Oslecamo.

Children have taken bullets to the face without dying. Multiple bullets. Like, say, 5.

[Garryl]

If children could consistently take 5 bullets to the face, I'd agree. Since we're talking about an exception, not the rule, I'd like to point out that pistols (D20 Modern) deal 2d4 through 2d8 damage, so it's quite possible for even a 1 hp creature to survive 5 shots if they all roll minimum damage.

[Complete4th]

From most people I've talked to that support the "hit points are dodge / fatigue points" idea, it was to justify some odd ways of re-gaining hit points, especially in 4e. I do not know if it was only a 4e issue, but it my experience it tends to be that way, and the people who apply it to 3rd are copying ideas from 4e debates.

Weird, I've never gotten this sense from gamer discussions. 4e emphasizes the abstract nature of hit points, but because AC in other editions lacks a skill-based component, hit points have to represent skill-based dodgitude...at least in part. Unless one prefers to imagine that warrior-types are just standing in place stabbing each other until one of them falls over.

On a personal note, I think that 'hit points = meat points' is easier to justify in 4e than in other editions for this very reason.

Hit points became more difficult to explain as pure dodgitude / fatigue in 2000, when official damage values were attached to things like lava immersion. Before 3e, the DM was expected to adjudicate these kind of hazards as instant-death scenarios: you fall in the lava, you die. An assassin slips past the PC on watch and stabs you in your sleep, you die. (Your party should have been more careful!) But still, where is skill-based dodgitude represented in 3e (and earlier e's) if not in hit points?

That said, there are all kinds of things that frame hit points as meat points (healing spells, reflex save vs. fireball). So trying to come up with a coherent explanation of hit points is like trying to coherently explain religious mythology: there are just too many inconsistencies to make it all work out, so it's best not to think about it too hard and just go with it.

[FlaminCows]

But still, where is skill-based dodgitude represented in 3e (and earlier e's) if not in hit points?

Dexterity bonus to AC, Dodge bonus to AC, and reflex saves. Plenty of skill-based dodgitude is available.

The explanation of hit points is plenty coherent, it only becomes incoherent once people put their own notions of what Hit Points are instead of what the rules represent.

[Complete4th]

But still, where is skill-based dodgitude represented in 3e (and earlier e's) if not in hit points?

Dexterity bonus to AC, Dodge bonus to AC, and reflex saves. Plenty of skill-based dodgitude is available.

And yet there's no standard "I get better at dodging/parrying swords" stat or bonus, other than hit points. "I get better at dodging fireballs" has its own distinct representation (reflex saves), but aside from a few insignificant/finicky/costly dodge bonuses that you the player have to go out of your way to obtain, hit points are the only representation of "I get better at sword-dodging." Clunky and cognitively dissonant? Yes; but there it is.

Dex is a talent rather than a skill, so it's not relevant to skill-based dodgitude. It is, in fact, the very definition of talent-based dodgitude.

The explanation of hit points is plenty coherent, it only becomes incoherent once people put their own notions of what Hit Points are instead of what the rules represent.

Coherent as purely meat points or purely luck/dodginess/providence? Outside of 4e? 

[linklord231]

And yet there's no standard "I get better at dodging/parrying swords" stat or bonus, other than hit points. "I get better at dodging fireballs" has its own distinct representation (reflex saves), but aside from a few insignificant/finicky/costly dodge bonuses that you the player have to go out of your way to obtain, hit points are the only representation of "I get beter at sword-dodging." Clunky and cognitively dissonant? Yes; but there it is.

If you want something like that in 3.5, use the Defense Bonus variant.