This is inspired by another thread regarding characters knowing how well they rolled.
I have noticed that our current GM is resistant to letting us know "if" or "how badly" we are effecting enemies.
We often have no idea right up until the opponent suddenly drops.
Is that normal ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know if you dealt damage or not (that is a player roll). Usually DR can be described as even though you rolled 8 damage, it doesn't seem to effect the creature, or the wounds seal up almost immediately.
You don't know how many HP the creature is at, or how much more it takes to kill. A common house rule is to say it looks "bloodied" when at or below 50% HP.
It depends on how you GM is picturing HP's. Some people picture all but the last few hp's as expended energy to mostly avoid or absorb damage. In this case you might ask how the baddie looks, if he's getting low he'll be looking tired, winded, maybe even a little worn out or bleeding. Worst case scenario maybe you need to roll a heal check to get some info.
In the event that an opponent has damage reduction to the point that your dealing little or no damage then you should deffinatly be able to tell. Any decent GM will let you know that a blow didn't quite sink home or dig in as hard as you expected.
Asta
PSY
This is inspired by another thread regarding characters knowing how well they rolled.
I have noticed that our current GM is resistant to letting us know "if" or "how badly" we are effecting enemies.
We often have no idea right up until the opponent suddenly drops.Is that normal ?
If you swing a battle axe at somebody, you can SEE if it's made a solid connection or not. If the target has DR, I think your character will notice his attack did less apparent damage than he thought it should. While hit points are abstract, you should have an idea of how badly hurt the target is, even if it is a logarithmic scale: 1/2 hit points is roughed up, 1/4 hit points is bloody, 1/8 hit points badly hurt etc.
There's no rule for this, but your DM should establish a system of description that lets you have an idea as to the wisdom of pressing on with the fight.
In general, I describe things like DR, elemental resistences, fast healing and such in character. Your blow struck home, but didnt seem to get through its touch hide much (DR), though the creater was caught in your fireball it wasnt as badly burned as you might have thought (fire resistance), as the creature reals back from your blow, some of its wounds appear to close unnaturally (fast healing) etc.
In terms of how injured something is. I generally describe it never winter nights style 'Barely injured', 'Injured', 'Seriously Injured' 'Nearly Dead' if players as how the enemy is looking.
Sometimes damage reduction represents instant healing. Sometimes it represents the creature's tough hide or body. In either case, other characters can see that conventional attacks won't work.
From here. So, yes! They do know.
For me (as a DM)I let the players know if they're doing damage. How well they're able to see how many hit points it has left depends on the enemy. If it's a humanoid or animal the can see it quite good. Undead are harder but not imposseble. They once fougth a moss monster and had absolutly no idea at first (but they could see burning was effective.)
But in no case they know the exact amount.
|
I allow a "heal" check DC 15 on most living creatures for a player to know roughly how they're harming the enemy (if at all). Magic spells and other factors may affect the info given, but still helps out.
Given that hit points don't affect combat effectiveness, whether at 99% or 1% of health, I view them as a combination of physical resilience and ability to avoid lethal blows, much like I view saving throws not just as one's resilience against an effect but also a bit of luck. So, an enemy at 1 hit point out of 100 may have avoided numerous blows that should have killed them, but generally there's no way to know if the foe is ready to drop or not.
Of course, if DR is involved, usually there's a tell, such as an arrow instantly healing over.
Going up against skeletons at level 1 with a character who is not trained in religion I continued to use my scimitar to hack away at them, knowing full well that my attacks were going against DR/bludgeoning. This just seems like good roleplay to me. It was up to my DM to share the information that my attacks seemed less effective than expected, which he did. "You cut hard into the femur bone and leave barely a scratch." On a 7 damage swing I got "Your blade bites into the skeleton's rib bones ejecting a few flakes of shattered bone. This is the first sign that your attacks are having any effect." Note that we don't get such descriptions all the time. At this point I decided that my character has enough information to make an informed decision that his weapon may not be as effective as he hopes, and switched to alternate methods of attack. And when next given the chance, I acquired a mace.
Bloody (50% health or less) is a 4th edition state that I personally think was a good idea.
Hit points represent several things, but one thing they clearly include is the ability (gained through experience) to turn what might be lethal harm into a (relatively) less severe injury. So the fighter with 61 hp running away from a 100' fall is because he knows how to land in less damaging way. (Blah, blah, blah, fantasy tropes, superheroics, blah.)
So, hit points cover sheer physical resilience (can take more punishment), skill at reducing the effect of incoming injuries (see above), and the ability to (partially) avoid lethal blows. All at the same time. They're a very efficient mechanic. If sometimes unrealistic. Of course, if I wanted realism, I'd probably be playing Rolemaster.
I allow a heal check DC 15 on most living creatures for a player to know roughly how they're harming the enemy (if at all).
Given that the core rules state outright that attackers automatically know whether they're damaging the opponent, in point of fact you are "forcing" a Heal check, not "allowing" one.
|
Hit points represent several things, but one thing they clearly include is the ability (gained through experience) to turn what might be lethal harm into a (relatively) less severe injury. So the fighter with 61 hp running away from a 100' fall is because he knows how to land in less damaging way. (Blah, blah, blah, fantasy tropes, superheroics, blah.)
So, hit points cover sheer physical resilience (can take more punishment), skill at reducing the effect of incoming injuries (see above), and the ability to (partially) avoid lethal blows. All at the same time. They're a very efficient mechanic. If sometimes unrealistic. Of course, if I wanted realism, I'd probably be playing Rolemaster.
In Rolemaster, I saw a 1st-level wizard knock down an elephant for 6 hours with one swing of his quite mundane short sword.
I would not classify this as realism in any way or shape :-))
It depends on how you GM is picturing HP's. Some people picture all but the last few hp's as expended energy to mostly avoid or absorb damage. In this case you might ask how the baddie looks, if he's getting low he'll be looking tired, winded, maybe even a little worn out or bleeding. Worst case scenario maybe you need to roll a heal check to get some info.
In the event that an opponent has damage reduction to the point that your dealing little or no damage then you should deffinatly be able to tell. Any decent GM will let you know that a blow didn't quite sink home or dig in as hard as you expected.
Asta
PSY
This is basically the same way the d20 Star Wars (wizards of coast version) handled Wound Points (Basically HP) and Vitality Points (basically your ability to dodge and have near misses). I can see the idea of HP representing both at the same time, but it would be a house rule (and one that could be difficult to keep track of at times). Interesting concept though.
Yes, the abstract HP system is truly a strange thing. A level 1 warrior can easily be killed by a normal hit with a greatsword. A level 10 warrior needs to be whacked 7 or 8 times with the same greatsword to kill him, and a level 10 raging barbarian might need to be hit 15-20 times with that greatsword.
Did these guys grow extra meat, extra bone and muscle, extra flesh to be carved away with every sword hit? Not likely. That 10th level barbarian probably looks almost exactly like he did at first level. Maybe a little more muscle, but not 10x more.
So is it the ability to avoid damage? Does he merely sidestep the damage and simply get tired instead of hurt, until he runs out of energy and the last sword hit is the lethal one that kills him?
Maybe. That's as good an abstraction as any other, but it falls apart horrendously when you consider healing these guys. You can heal the level 1 warrior with Cure Light Wounds and his near-fatal greatsword hit might be FULLY healed. But it takes several castings of Cure Critical Wounds to fully heal the tired level 10 barbarian from the brink of exhaustion/death. That makes no sense at all if his HP loss is merely exhaustion instead of grievous (critical) injuries.
I find it's easier just to not think too hard about it. It's an abstract system so don't be more than abstract in how you handle it.
As for the OP, yes, a player should know what his character knows, and a character who hits an enemy with anything should be able to assess whether it worked as expected or not. All professionals should be able to evaluate the things they are professional at, and adventurers are professionals at damaging and killing enemies. I'm not saying that the GM should say "You knocked the dragon down from 280 HP to 254 HP with that hit" - the adventurers don't necessarily know how many HP the enemy has, or how much of the enemy's total HP they did with their hit, but they should know whether they hit well or poorly (high damage rolls or low rolls) and whether their hit seemed to affect the enemy the way they would expect (no particular DR or other resistance) or seemed less effective (some DR) or ineffective (lots of DR). Also, monsters that regenerate should also be fairly obvious since wounds are closing each round, though I don't necessarily let them know immediately, and often have them make perception checks for it (not very hard ones though - it mostly rewards their decision to invest a few ranks in the skill).
One of the things I actually found useful about playing 4e was the concept of being "bloodied", which meant that when the target was reduced to 50% of full hit points, they attained an actual STATUS of "bloodied" and that was immediately obvious to the PCs. In fact there were plenty of powers and magic items that were explicitly tied to the "bloodied" condition.
I've since taken to using that same sort of mechanic in Pathfinder even though it is not in the rules.
I believe that GMs should let the players know when damage is occurring, and if damage is rolled, but not inflicted due to DR or immunities, the GM should give the players rather obvious hints that the damage they rolled was not fully applied.
One of the things I actually found useful about playing 4e was the concept of being "bloodied", which meant that when the target was reduced to 50% of full hit points, they attained an actual STATUS of "bloodied" and that was immediately obvious to the PCs. In fact there were plenty of powers and magic items that were explicitly tied to the "bloodied" condition.
I've since taken to using that same sort of mechanic in Pathfinder even though it is not in the rules.
I believe that GMs should let the players know when damage is occurring, and if damage is rolled, but not inflicted due to DR or immunities, the GM should give the players rather obvious hints that the damage they rolled was not fully applied.
The only problem I have with the "bloodied" 4e condition is that it can be confused with the Pathfinder bleed effect. If I say a creature appears to be bleeding, I mean it's taking damage over time from the bleed effect.
In general, unless they're fighting something undead or amorphous, I'll give them some idea of how they're doing though. Undead look like they shouldn't be up and fighting anyway, so they're harder to judge, as are amorphous creatures and creatures with no discernible anatomy (such as swarms).
In the case of swarms, hp almost functions as morale. Once the swarm's hp reaches 0, the thousands of creatures making up the swarm disperse. They're not dead, at least not all of them, generally, but they've given it a good college try and are scattering to the four winds.
I had the party fight a vampire-festrog once that left the fight with more hp than it started with because of temporary hp on its bite attack and fast healing 2. In that case, not only did I describe how its wounds appeared to close after they cut it, but also how they closed even more when it bit them. Lucky for them, it was actually trying to flee and they were just blocking the exit.
Anyway, no problem with the "bloodied" idea, just with the terminology being potentially confusing. I also like the 4e idea of 1hp minion creatures for big fight scenes, but I haven't tried it myself.
We generally say "he looks bloodied" instead of "he is bleeding". If there is any question, its usually "Did you mean he is bleeding every turn? or is at half health?" which is easily answered and game moves on.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
By the actual rules: we don't know; nowhere does it say one way or the other.
In my games, I always let my players know if they scored a hit, and tell them if not all the damage counted (due to DR or the like). ("It doesn't do as much damage as you think it should" always elicits groans from my players!)
However, when it comes to actually describing in story terms how the bad guys look, I don't always track HP directly. A Barbarian with 5 out of 50 HP might be battered and bleeding from a dozen cuts and pressing on despite them -- or he might be a bit winded but have only some minor injury to show for it. Usually there is *some* correlation to how much damage the guy has taken, but not necessarily always.
Like some of the other people here, I do borrow from 4E and tell players when an enemy is "bloodied", or at 1/2 HP. That gives the player a sense of progress and keeps things from getting too frustrating.
Here is a short example of the sorts of things I do to describe damage in combat:
"Your attack felt solid, but appears not to have done as much damage as you would expect."
"The ogre is bruised and is bleeding from several wounds, you feel that he can't possibly take much more before falling."
"That last blow looks like it dislodged the ettin's spleen."
By the actual rules: we don't know; nowhere does it say one way or the other.
From the Core Rules (see Cheapy's link above):
"Sometimes damage reduction represents instant healing. Sometimes it represents the creature's tough hide or body. In either case, other characters can see that conventional attacks won't work." So, yes, we do know if they can tell if attacks are getting through DR, and yes, the rules do spell that out.
But you're right in saying that the rules don't spell out in Pathfinder (that I can find) whether things like "bloodied" can be easily detected.
Interestingly, in AD&D, the non-physical nature of most hp damage was explicitly spelled out, but that has little bearing on PF.
Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This IS the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic flghter can take that much punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.
Its worth noting that the CRB does say what HP are meant to represent.
"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
By the actual rules: we don't know; nowhere does it say one way or the other.From the Core Rules (see Cheapy's link above):
"Sometimes damage reduction represents instant healing. Sometimes it represents the creature's tough hide or body. In either case, other characters can see that conventional attacks won't work." So, yes, we do know if they can tell if attacks are getting through DR, and yes, the rules do spell that out.
But you're right in saying that the rules don't spell out in Pathfinder (that I can find) whether things like "bloodied" can be easily detected.
I stand (at least partially) corrected :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Here is a short example of the sorts of things I do to describe damage in combat:
"Your attack felt solid, but appears not to have done as much damage as you would expect."
"The ogre is bruised and is bleeding from several wounds, you feel that he can't possibly take much more before falling."
"That last blow looks like it dislodged the ettin's spleen."
In keeping with the "HP as an abstraction" concept, I often pepper in some stuff like this (usually early in the combat):
"The fighter takes the blow solidly on his shield. It doesn't faze him, but he has to take a step back to brace himself."
"Your attack swings true, but at the last possible instant the rogue shifts out of the way, and you slice an inch off his cloak. The effort leaves him visibly shaken but unharmed."
"Your hit slams against the orc's breastplate, forcing him down to one knee. He rises, his eyes burning with fury."
Tamago, those descriptions would make me think 1) I almost hit, but just barely was too low of a roll.
2) Again, almost hit, but was too low of a roll, maybe due to a deflection bonus.
3) Probably a barbarian with DR which negated the damage from the hit.
In all cases, those are descriptions were I would think no HP damage was done. Could just be me.
I usually request a perception check if something hinky is going on, and it's usually a DC 5 or 10 perception check. Mainly just to see if the haze of combat is confusing them (plus the fact that some people dump their wis and put no points into perception, so they start out with a -2 perception).
If the target has DR of 5 or less, I usually don't mention it if they are doing at least 5 pts of damage (the character would see they are damaging, maybe not as much as they expect, but as long as they are doing damage, they know they are hitting it). And I don't bother with obviously pointing out obvious things (like skeletons taking less damage from piercing).
For less obvious things (regeneration, etc), again, I do the 5 or 10 dc perception check to see if they notice it's healing (really high regen I would just tell them, after all, if a 2 foot slash is healing up in 6 seconds that's pretty obvious).
If they specifically ask "How bad does it look", then it's a perception check to get an idea (lightly wounded, moderately, heavily, he's looking pretty bad, he looks like he's barely holding on, etc).
Its worth noting that the CRB does say what HP are meant to represent.
"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."You cannot use ability, when falling sleeping from 100 ft.
"Gargy Gygax wrote:
People have fallen 35000 feet in the real world, and not taken any damage on landing. I doubt they had any special training which let them avoid the damage. Call it luck too, sure.
I have no idea why you are quoting GG, he didn't write the CRB for pathfinder.
I have no idea why you are quoting GG, he didn't write the CRB for pathfinder.
He's re-quoting me, where I added it as a bit of historical trivia with the caveat "interestingly, in AD&D, the non-physical nature of most hp damage was explicitly spelled out, but that has little bearing on PF." Even carn mentioned, "So if Gygax meant HP to be that, thats rather irrelevant." So you're agreeing with both of us and then pretending it's an argument?
(Why carn is debating which minutia of the quote apply in specific and contrived scenarios is beyond me though.)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Tamago, those descriptions would make me think 1) I almost hit, but just barely was too low of a roll.
2) Again, almost hit, but was too low of a roll, maybe due to a deflection bonus.
3) Probably a barbarian with DR which negated the damage from the hit.In all cases, those are descriptions were I would think no HP damage was done. Could just be me.
True, but I think the way I handle it is pretty clear the difference between game mechanics and story flavor. For example, in the first two cases, I tell the player they hit, they roll damage, and then I give the flavorful description. If there is DR or the like involved, I use a key phrase "It did less damage than you think it should..." to indicate that not all the damage was applied. The rest is just flavor.
Sometimes new players will be a bit thrown by this description style, but after a couple of combats, they catch on.
I usually let my players know if an enemy seems unaffected. I mean you would know if you hit someone and they didn't react, that your hit wasn't affecting them. As far as how much damage, I try to keep it vague. "Your blow glances his armor", or "Your opponent is bloody and breathing heavy".
|
And hit concrete at the end of 35000?
People have fallen 35000 feet in the real world, and not taken any damage on landing.
|
|
I allow a heal check DC 15 on most living creatures for a player to know roughly how they're harming the enemy (if at all).Given that the core rules state outright that attackers automatically know whether they're damaging the opponent, in point of fact you are "forcing" a Heal check, not "allowing" one.
To clarify, it's obvious if a sword is drawing blood with each hit, but I allow the optional heal check if players want to know more than a hit is injuring the foe and would rather know how wounded their foe appears to be without breaking versimilitude and telling them hit point totals.
For example, I estimate an orc champion hit a few times with a sword already would be downed in 1-2 more good swipes. I might describe to the player "the orc champion shows ferocity in his attacks, but you detect a slight stagger in his motions. He's taken some harmful damage. If you concentrate a hit or two more like he's already taken in the same areas, it's doubtful even this powerful foe could keep on his feet."
you see blood coming from the enemy?
you see it dried up in the next round?
is it hurt?
those things you can see and our GM always tels us it like that
when it comes to HP abstractions I tend to think of characters as comic book heroes who get stronger over time. Meaning at level 1 they are just well trained warriors, rogues, etc.. and 1 good blow will kill them. But come level 5-6ish they are more of a Captian America power level and are able to shrug off a few blows before falling. And after 10+ they are more of Thor level heroes/villians that while still mortal can take a hell of a beating before falling. YMMV....
Back on the topic when it comes to DR I normally say soming along the lines of "You swung your sword savagely into the werewolves side but it did not leave as deep a wound as you expected" or "You watch in horror as the slash aross the wererats chest instantly closes."
Doesn't matter how far he falls, it matters how long he falls. If he falls for 15 seconds or more, it's the same to fall from low earth orbit or to fall for 16 seconds, it's the same energy when you hit the ground.
My characters "YES!!!" if they do damage.
My characters tend to 'yes' when they do damage
|
If the target has DR of 5 or less, I usually don't mention it if they are doing at least 5 pts of damage (the character would see they are damaging, maybe not as much as they expect, but as long as they are doing damage, they know they are hitting it).
But they don't know that some of that damage is being absorbed unless you tell them "that attack seemed to have glanced off its hide / healed over / not done as much damage as it should." If I deal 7 damage to a wolf with my longsword, but it's actually a werewolf and I'm only getting 2 damage past its DR, knowing that I hit is not as important as knowing that my longsword isn't effective and that I should try my silver dagger.
If the target has DR of 5 or less, I usually don't mention it if they are doing at least 5 pts of damage (the character would see they are damaging, maybe not as much as they expect, but as long as they are doing damage, they know they are hitting it).But they don't know that some of that damage is being absorbed unless you tell them "that attack seemed to have glanced off its hide / healed over / not done as much damage as it should." If I deal 7 damage to a wolf with my longsword, but it's actually a werewolf and I'm only getting 2 damage past its DR, knowing that I hit is not as important as knowing that my longsword isn't effective and that I should try my silver dagger.
You misunderstood my comment. I said if they are doing at least 5 pts of damage to the creature, they probably don't notice the 5 DR, because it's within the range of what they expect their attacks to do. That means, they rolled at least 10 hp, but only got 5 through. Usually, it's 2 DR, and 12 damage, so they get 10 through, much harder to notice.
In my games, it's usually more like there's DR 5/Good and the barbarian is doing 25 pts on a hit. I do pop off a perception check, as I said later in my post (which you didn't quote) that's usually a 5 or 10 dc to notice it.
|
|
You misunderstood my comment. I said if they are doing at least 5 pts of damage to the creature, they probably don't notice the 5 DR, because it's within the range of what they expect their attacks to do. That means, they rolled at least 10 hp, but only got 5 through. Usually, it's 2 DR, and 12 damage, so they get 10 through, much harder to notice.
In my games, it's usually more like there's DR 5/Good and the barbarian is doing 25 pts on a hit. I do pop off a perception check, as I said later in my post (which you didn't quote) that's usually a 5 or 10 dc to notice it.
I did interpret your comment as more extreme than the reality since your comment said "I usually don't mention it if they are doing at least 5 pts of damage" as opposed to "I usually don't mention it if the DR is much lower than the amount of damage they're doing." I was also a bit confused about when you called for a perception check. You said you asked for one for "if something hinky is going on" and specifically mentioned regeneration, but the DR was in a different section and seemed to be in contrast, as in "I allow a perception check for some things. I usually don't mention low DR, but call perception for regeneration..."
I still disagree with this practice. Even if 10/12 points of your damage got through the DR is still active and still impeding your character. While thematically it might make sense for it to be more difficult to notice DR that isn't slowing you down much, the description of DR indicates that you should always notice without a check. The check is either a meaningful disadvantage that you've houseruled in, or else it's an unnecessary complication that doesn't make much of a difference anyway.
Checks for noticing how wounded an enemy is as a percentage of HP seem much more reasonable for me because there's no clear standard within PF for whether / how accurately you can identify how wounded an enemy is without something like Deathwatch. Even then I like to just let PCs know if the opponent is barely wounded, severely injured (50%) or almost unconscious because it makes things easier for all of us. Maybe a Perception/Heal check if they want anything more fine-grained ("do I think I can kill him with one more hit?").
I'd agree it's more of a house rule, not saying it's a RAW thing. This isn't the Rules Question forum, it's the General Discussion. By the same token, however, I don't give the NPCs that knowledge either without the same sort of checks.