Knowledge of HP for fellow PC


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
2/5

As there is spells to allow a character to determine how bad another is (mainly Status), it makes sense to hide the HP of a character to others.

At the same time, damage is visible, a character low on hp is probably covered in blood, having some visible injuries.

I’ve seen GM handle this differently in PFS (played only online), either hiding the characters health bar to everyone, only showing the party one or showing it to everyone.

I’ve also seen some GM ask for Heal checks (using a standard) to determine if someone was dying/dead/stabilized. That’s asking for more PC death I think, but it would also explain why monsters don’t bother striking down (coup de grâce) fallen PC. The Heal check doesn’t mention this use of the skill by the way.

I only GMed a single game and hide everyone HP but I think I let the % bar visible. I changed my mind and was going to hide it for the next game. Then I was thinking of those visible injuries, and thought that having different state, like fine 75%, hit 50%, badly hit 25% close to go down, be visible for everyone.

What other PFS GM do and why?

1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I let players know exactly how many hit points each other has.

It's a game. It isn't a real life simulation. It's not meant to be a real life simulation. The soul of the game is tactical combat.

My honest opinion is too much emphasis is put on trying to keep players in the dark about these types of things. It doesn't make my game more enjoyable, it makes it more tedious. In addition, GMs do a lousy job of imposing these type of restrictions on themselves when they play NPCs. Do you have NPC's make heal checks on one another? Do you force them to communicate with one another to pull of complex actions? Do you make them make Knowledge Checks versus the PC's and Spellcraft checks vs spells?

Level the playing field and let PC's know things about their fellow PC's.

2/5

I didn’t think about Spellcraft and Knowledge checks. It makes sense that those are needed, for example to determine someone is an elf and that they are immune to sleep for example. That’s probably a DC of 5 Knowledge (local) usable untrained.
For Spellcraft, it’s usually all or nothing, either plenty of ranks or none; so NPC either don’t have a clue or have a good chance to find out.

Scarab Sages 4/5 **

Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

I tend to discourage players saying their hitpoint totals to each other at my tables. I've used the % system you've described OP to some great results. I use the keyword "bloodied (or injured)" for characters\monsters at 50% health, "critical" for 25% and "near death" at 10%. It helps people visualize the state of each thing in the combat, and lets people know the relative odds of someone going down in one hit.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Under ideal circumstances, hee's how it goes at my table:

If I've got a new-ish player...
Player 1: I pull a potion out of my pouch.
Me: That'll provoke an Attack of Opportunity from the guy with the spear. Do you still want to take your eyes off him?
Player1: Well, yeah.
Me: He strikes (roll attack in the open) It's a natural 20. (roll confirmation in the open) That's a 25. Does it hit?
Player 1: Aarg. Yes.
Me: How many hit points does your rogue have left?
Player 1: Twelve.
Me: You drop, the vial clattering noisily as it hits the smooth paved stones. (slip Player 1 a note, indicating to him that his rogue is at -2 hp)

Player 2: Is he dead?
Me: Do you have deathwatch up and running?
Player 2: No, but I should be able to tell. Breathing vs not breathing. Blood spurting versus quietly pooling. Head attached versus not.
Me: (laugh) If he's that obviously dead, I'd let everybody know. But how wounded he is? From across a busy melee? Then what good would it be for a mage to cast deathwatch? If you want, you can make a Heal check on your turn.
Player 2: ...

And, yeah, NN 959, if Player 2 wants his oracle to cast a spell, Player 1's rogue can either make a Spellcraft check or else ask Player 2 what the spell is. In which case, all the bad guys within ear-shot might get that information as well.

1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
And, yeah, NN 959, if Player 2 wants his oracle to cast a spell, Player 1's rogue can either make a Spellcraft check or else ask Player 2 what the spell is. In which case, all the bad guys within ear-shot might get that information as well.

So you're really not letting other players know what someone on their team is casting?

I honestly don't think you get much bang for the buck trying to police player's from knowing what each other is doing...or there hit points. I've frequently heard players call out, "Hey, -10 over here, I could use a little help." For me that's fine. I'd rather devote my energies to maximizing the plausibility of the scenario and the characters than policing OOC knowledge.

Also, it cuts both ways. If the PC's can know it about each other, so can the NPC's. Plus, I encourage players to talk OOC about tactics. It allows experienced players to help less experienced players and improves the chance everyone will survive. Better tactics from the players means I don't have to soft-ball.

Finally, it's a social game and the more communication people have, the more likely they are gong to bond with one another.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does there need to be a hard and fast rule for how this is handled in PFS? I hope not.

Typically I don't police hit point reporting but instead try to promote a more qualitative approach to players' broadcasting their respective hit point totals. For example, I might ask them to let the table know percentage-wise how many hit points they have remaining. When I describe how damaged a creature is, I might describe how it is suffering from many terribly wounds and might fall to another mighty hit.

I have a soft spot for divination and near-divination spells, especially those that give an in-character reason for some of the out-of-character inevitabilities that come with playing a social game. These include deathwatch, status and telepathic bond, which a frightening number of character seem to benefit from without actually casting. By setting a personal baseline for when I entertain qualitative vs. quantitative value judgments, I set myself up for being able to reward those who use the above spells.

That said, yes, NN 959, I also respect that it's a social game and like to encourage plenty of banter, but I find by regularly trying to translate numbers into descriptions for my players, they're usually quite good about reciprocating with each other. Once it's the shared cultural norm in a region, it's no longer a drag to do.

I've handled many a near death (and occasionally death) in a way similar to what Chris described above, but that's my GMing style.

It's just how I handle it in a not-binding-for-PFS way.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

N N 959, I'm letting players know what their teammate is casting, without a Spellcraft check. But the NPCs within ear-shot know, too, without a Spellcraft check, and can plan accordingly. The same is true for tactics. Please, call out to the intelligent opponents what maneuver you're planning.

It's one of the reasons I recommend characters who adventure together regularly all learn some common, obscure language. (Modesty Blaise and Willie used Arabic.) For ad-hoc groups, there's the gold nodule ioun stone. Or, you know, just fight oozes and talk amongst yourselves.

I wasn't sure ahead of time, but it turns out that I get a lot of bang for the buck when players aren't sure how close one another is to death. It's not the "Hey, I'm at -13" but rather the "Hey, no problem, I'm only at -3 over here" that drains the drama and danger out of the situation. Without that, the healers don't know how much time they have to save their comrades; that seems more plausible to me. I recommend you try it and see if people don't have an easier time getting into character.

Paizo Employee 5/5 * Developer

I'm with Chris on the hp, but it's a personal style thing. As for casting, the character could announce it, but tactical table talk is in character at my tables absent telepathic bond, so the baddies can hear what you're doing. So if someone says "I've got a breath of life" or somesuch, intelligent foes with spellcraft will react accordingly. So I suppose I'm with Chris there, too.

Shadow Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way I handle this, when it becomes more fun to do than just plainly stating hit points (online, usually), is to say that I'm:

"fine"
"lightly wounded"
"moderately wounded"
"seriously wounded"
"critical"

And after anyone drops below 0, when the game starts feeling rough (and sometimes less fun), I'll announce negatives and let the players use their own method of abstraction - someone's fairly likely about to lose their character here. If someone's dropped, chances are it's already a sufficiently challenging and fun encounter, without having to add on the pressure.

Of course, if the players want bring-it-on hard mode, you can just not communicate anything at all beyond "really really bleeding" when you get to the negatives, I suppose.

If I had it my way, ideally, I'd do away with deathwatch/status to allow using the numbers, for all the reasons NN959 described. For me (and this is my personal opinion only), the convenience is worth more to the game.

2/5

As a player, if my character has Spellcraft and another character starts a 1 round without announcing the spell, I usually roll for it. I would also do it if the character announce it in a OOC way.

I like the way some GM describe their various levels of damage. But after reading deathwatch, I want it to stay relevant. I’m not sure having state based on %hp would hinder it.

Anyway, thanks the other GMs for sharing their particular style and preferences.

1/5

I would have to agree with NN 959 in regards to GMs imposing restrictions on the players that they do not impose on the NPCs they are playing. I do not especially like ooc table talk either, but it is no different then a GM running a group of NPCs and always healing at just the right moment, or coordinating attacks with no verbal discussions that pcs can use to their advantage. If you are going to enforce that type of table talk make sure you are adjudicating your NPCs the same way. In my experience GMs almost never do, and I have played under many 4 and 5 star GMs including a couple involved in this discussion. I. Do not believe any malicious intent is meant...I think that many GMs just do not think about it from that point of view.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Does there need to be a hard and fast rule for how this is handled in PFS? I hope not.

First let me say that I appreciate being able to read your thoughts on various aspects of the game. Complimenting your formal role in PFS is your vast experience in playing RPGs, which I'm sure extends beyond Pathfinder. At some point I may treat you like just another poster, but this will always be on my mind. I'll add that I do give greater than normal weight to your opinions and observations.

Second, this topic hits close to a hot button for me: the whole meta-gaming-is-evil thing. I also think this topic touches on a lot of things, but I'm going to try and limit this to just the topic at hand and not write a thesis *crosses fingers*

Do I wish there was a hard fast rule? I'll answer that with another question: Does the game benefit from this type of table variation? Is going from a GM who has no problem with players stating their hit points to a GM who takes your character sheets from you and doesn't let you see how much damage you take or how many hit points you have left, make the game better?

Quote:
Typically I don't police hit point reporting but instead try to promote a more qualitative approach to players' broadcasting their respective hit point totals.***When I describe how damaged a creature is, I might describe how it is suffering from many terribly wounds and might fall to another mighty hit.

My guess is that the goal for you and many GMs is to create a greater sense of immersion. Clearly many players feel that hiding the numbers suspends disbelief. I get that. But I've noticed a huge oversight with many GMs on this:

In real life, we have intuitive knowledge of things that cannot be conveyed qualitatively without a baseline comparison.

I don't know what "mighty hit" means. I do know what "would die at the hands of a Commoner wielding a longsword," or "would not survive another fireball cast by a wizard skilled enough to cast one" means. I think it's fine to use qualitative descriptions so long as they provide some objective basis of comparison that the player can intuitively understand. "Strong as a typical barbarian," "Quick as a small cat," "no wiser than a Commoner," etc. I'll advocate for similes over metric-less adjectives.

Quote:
For example, I might ask them to let the table know percentage-wise how many hit points they have remaining.

I don't really get this. If I don't know how many hit points you started out with, then a percentage gives me no actionable information. 25% of X tells me what? If the response involves statements about players knowing typical hit points for X class, then you're just expecting the player to meta-game on the back-end. If I know how many hit points you started out with, then a percentage tells me an exact number. My guess is you're limiting this to wide bands. A player can say less than 25%, but not less than 20%? What about 5% or 10%?

From this side of the table, it feels like you want me to experience a greater deal of uncertainty. This is on top of the lack of info on the monsters, the monster tactics, the scenario curve balls, the GM rulings, the fellow player tactics, and last but not least, the dice gods.

Here's something that's quantitatively true: Uncertainty causes stress in organisms. It's been proven in one biological study after another that stress kills organisms. When you force players to act based on imperfect knowledge, you're increasing their stress level.

Quote:
I have a soft spot for divination and near-divination spells, especially those that give an in-character reason for some of the out-of-character inevitabilities that come with playing a social game. These include deathwatch, status and telepathic bond, which a frightening number of character seem to benefit from without actually casting. By setting a personal baseline for when I entertain qualitative vs. quantitative value judgments, I set myself up for being able to reward those who use the above spells.

Let me take a look at those spells...

Deathwatch:

Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct). Deathwatch sees through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death.

Status:
When you need to keep track of comrades who may get separated, status allows you to mentally monitor their relative positions and general condition. You are aware of direction and distance to the creatures and any conditions affecting them: unharmed, wounded, disabled, staggered, unconscious, dying, nauseated, panicked, stunned, poisoned, diseased, confused, or the like. Once the spell has been cast upon the subjects, the distance between them and the caster does not affect the spell as long as they are on the same plane of existence. If a subject leaves the plane, or if it dies, the spell ceases to function for it.

Telepathic Bond:
You forge a telepathic bond among yourself and a number of willing creatures, each of which must have an Intelligence score of 3 or higher. Each creature included in the link is linked to all the others. The creatures can communicate telepathically through the bond regardless of language. No special power or influence is established as a result of the bond. Once the bond is formed, it works over any distance (although not from one plane to another).

If desired, you may leave yourself out of the telepathic bond forged. This decision must be made at the time of casting.

Telepathic bond can be made permanent with a permanency spell, though it only bonds two creatures per casting of permanency.

While I am a HUGE advocate of creating/preserving design space by keeping things in a box, after reading those spells, I don't see that knowing the hit points of the player next to you devalues these spells. Mainly because I don't see that these spells were created to serve that purpose. And while we are on that topic, here's something that has always stuck out at me: the Heal skill does not specifically states that it can be used to determine a character's hit points. So that leaves me with two possibilities:

1. It was never intended for characters to need an IC method to determine the health of fellow PC's;

or

2. It was never intended for character to routinely know the health of fellow PC's.

Quote:
but I find by regularly trying to translate numbers into descriptions for my players, they're usually quite good about reciprocating with each other. Once it's the shared cultural norm in a region, it's no longer a drag to do.

As I said above, as long as the descriptions include an objective reference, I think that's great.

I hope this is coherent.

1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
N N 959, I'm letting players know what their teammate is casting, without a Spellcraft check.

Okay, wasn't sure based on how it was written.

Quote:
But the NPCs within ear-shot know, too, without a Spellcraft check, and can plan accordingly. The same is true for tactics. Please, call out to the intelligent opponents what maneuver you're planning.

And do you have the BBEG or sentient NPC spell casters telling their mooks what they are casting? I've never once seen a GM do it. I've never, not once, heard GM have the NPC's talk out loud about their tactics. Amazingly, the NPC's know exactly what they are doing, when they are running, when they flanking..it's as if..it's as if...it's as if all the NPCs are being run by single mind. I won't mix genres.

Quote:
It's one of the reasons I recommend characters who adventure together regularly all learn some common, obscure language. (Modesty Blaise and Willie used Arabic.) For ad-hoc groups, there's the gold nodule ioun stone. Or, you know, just fight oozes and talk amongst yourselves.

The nature of PFS-OP generally precludes this for a lot of players. For reasons I won't go into here, I would not want to disadvantage players who have to jump around compared to those who have the luxury of a persistent group.

Quote:
I wasn't sure ahead of time, but it turns out that I get a lot of bang for the buck when players aren't sure how close one another is to death.

I think we may disagree about whether this is a net negative or positive. While I don't deny that some players will enjoy this, I don't know that I've ever told a GM I didn't like something he did (actually did it once in PM when the GM gave me grief about Taking 20).

Quote:
I recommend you try it and see if people don't have an easier time getting into character.

While I can see the allure of forcing healers burn actions if a character goes negative, I have to point out a couple of things:

1. There is no RAW method (that I'm aware of) that allows someone to know the hit points of another. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that Deathwatch, a necromancy spell with a "cone-shaped emanation", was intended to serve that purpose in the baseline game. So this technique puts an asymmetrical disadvantage on the players. NPCs are rarely set up to heal one another and if they are, the tactics make it a non-issue.

2. There is a finite amount of data a GM can process during any encounter. My spending cycles trying to make sure no one is calling out their actual hit points number in the event someone does go negative and now the healer has to scramble because they weren't able to figure out how negative the player was from the DC to stabilize, is taking time away from other parts of the game. I'd say 7 times out of 10 I've seen GM's make a mistake on any battle that lasted more than 2 rounds. I'm sure I'm one of those 7 more often than not.

My GM style is to encourage players to play the tactical part of the game...tactically. In face to face games there is so little tactical discourse among the players as it is (the lack of which I find far more immersion breaking), the last thing I want to do is make them self-conscious about meta-gaming.

3/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
N N 959, I'm letting players know what their teammate is casting, without a Spellcraft check. But the NPCs within ear-shot know, too, without a Spellcraft check, and can plan accordingly. The same is true for tactics. Please, call out to the intelligent opponents what maneuver you're planning.

While I do typically like a game more attuned to the realistic implications of things in the rules, I think that given the fact that PFS is not a campaign with persistent stories or character interactions it is completely fine to bend realism little bit to get more inter-character interaction and cooperation out of players who are just tossed together by the vicissitudes of game-day sign ups. Also I am biased because most of the time I encounter DMs who are adamant bout this sort of thing they are also the kind of DM who enforces it solely to screw over the characters and runs NPCs with the kind of hive-mind that is mentioned upthread.

Chris Mortika wrote:
It's one of the reasons I recommend characters who adventure together regularly all learn some common, obscure language. (Modesty Blaise and Willie used Arabic.) For ad-hoc groups, there's the gold nodule ioun stone. Or, you know, just fight oozes and talk amongst yourselves.

This is absolutely the approach to take in the context of a real campaign in a home game. PFS is very different though. For the vast majority of PFS players this is tedious and wastes the chronically too-short times in most slots.

Chris Mortika wrote:
I wasn't sure ahead of time, but it turns out that I get a lot of bang for the buck when players aren't sure how close one another is to death. It's not the "Hey, I'm at -13" but rather the "Hey, no problem, I'm only at -3 over here" that drains the drama and danger out of the situation. Without that, the healers don't know how much time they have to save their comrades; that seems more plausible to me. I recommend you try it and see if people don't have an easier time getting into character.

Again, in the context of a real campaign with persistent character interaction I agree with this assessment. However in the context of PFS I think that it is ok to play according to more gameist, or more pejoritavely "video-gamey" logic and let things like this slide.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
And do you have the BBEG or sentient NPC spell casters telling their mooks what they are casting? I've never once seen a GM do it. I've never, not once, heard GM have the NPC's talk out loud about their tactics.

I do this on a regular basis.

In the last few sessions, the enemies were yelling back and forth to each other - however, none of the PCs spoke the appropriate language to be able to understand them. Other times, the PCs are able to understand them.

Enemy spellcasters sometimes advertise what they are going to cast, at other times they don't - depending on the situation. A spellcaster summoning a creature might ask for some of the others to form a wall. A spellcaster casting fireball to catch the PCs only likely will not say anything - same as one casting hold person on a PC.

In one game, the PCs heard the necromancer tell the mindless undead to attack the half-orc (the team's cleric). The mindless undead proceeded to do so, but did take several AoOs from PCs who moved in to block them and made the undead take a couple of rounds more to be able to do so, as they moved around the rest of the PCs.

I too prefer that players not talk about their HP level. I would rather that they use more descriptive terms - I do the same for NPCs (hobgoblin line trooper: Medic! If I go down they will roll up this flank!)

I also try and be descriptive during the fight rather than just say - you take 7 points of damage, I try and say something like "The hobgoblin's blade scores your flank and he smiles tauntingly at you - take 7 points".

YMMV

1/5

N N 959 - I really like your breakdown of the spells - and I agree with your interpretation. They are still very useful spells, even if the PC's are allowed to "metagame" to a certain extent.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

N N 959 wrote:
And do you have the BBEG or sentient NPC spell casters telling their mooks what they are casting? I've never once seen a GM do it. I've never, not once, heard GM have the NPC's talk out loud about their tactics. Amazingly, the NPC's know exactly what they are doing, when they are running, when they flanking..it's as if..it's as if...it's as if all the NPCs are being run by single mind. I won't mix genres.

Which is not only unrealistic in some cases, but it's also missing two bets.

1) When the Aspis boss does bark out orders to his minions, and the PCs who make a Perception check can overhear them, then they can act on that knowledge. When the enemy calls to his companion, "let's surround this guy here and make short work of him," it tells the players something about the tactics that the opponents are using. It gives the tactics-plus players something to work with, which they find fun.

2) It also helps differentiate different opponents. Long-standing combat teams might not need to bark more than "6-man assault, left corridor, 12 seconds away. Code Gamma, hot." and they all fall into position, using readied actions, flanking, battlefield control maneuvers, etc.

Meanwhile a group of competent mercenaries, all recently hired, will be calling out tactics, and the better ones mostly follow them. Some of these guys might talk with the PCs as the fight progresses. A group of guards will be able to handle themselves in a fight, but won't have elaborate tactics.

Vicious animals will have less coordination, depending on their natural attack forms. Mindless vermin and undead, none at all.

By having some groups call out tactics and maneuvers, the GM lets the role-playing-heavy players interact with the opponents during the fight, which they find fun. She also gives the players a feel for what kind of fight this is supposed to be.

I'm sure there are GMs who play all the bad guys as a hive mind. I confess that I did that a lot, myself, when I was learning how to run an enemy team. But now I spend some time into my prep-work deciding what kind of opponent team the PCs encounter, and how to convey that to the players during the fight. "They have tight combat tactics, and the guys with long spears routinely trip you and harass the spell-casters" is better than "They all have the same blue-star tattoo on their right hands."

---

Quote:
For reasons I won't go into here, I would not want to disadvantage players who have to jump around compared to those who have the luxury of a persistent group.

My experience is that a lot of PFS is getting played in game stores, where people have semi-regular groups. Even at conventions, I see more groups of two and three players moving from table to table than singletons. If self-mustering continues to be a thing at larger conventions, that practice only reinforces this phenomenon.

My point being, even players who "jump around" are doing so with one or two buddies. The idea of bringing along a couple of ioun stones for the guests at the table isn't ridiculous. (The Pathfinder Society Primer isn't even three months old, and I've already seen one PC at a conventon -- I believe he was a battle oracle with the Tongues curse -- hand out ioun stones to the other party members so they could all communicate in Sylvan.)

I look forward to playing at your table sometime.

Dark Archive

Our home group's preference (including when we run PFS sessions) is to have to Heal check for more than basic percentage/description of HP reports. I think it is so ingrained that we never even noticed these newfangled editions don't list a DC for it!

But we also favor a goose-gander philosophy. The NPC's have to heal check also, and sometimes that has hilarious results. Just this past week, in our home campaign, one my NPC's not only died, but wasted seven rounds of actions, because his team (all 13 of them!) could not make a Heal check in the double digits. Their specialized healer was dead, and the remaining oracle had healing spells but didn't bother to put any effort into learning about Heal.

I think when I finally get around to running PFS outside our gang, I'll just take a table poll before game starts, making clear that whichever way the players decide, the NPC's will do the same. Our group does this with a lot of other things too, but the tactics following requirements in PFS have made it a lot harder here. The players can have the choice of whether they want more uncertainty or not.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't take a spell or a heal check to realize that if you can spot internal organs without your goggles of x ray vision its time for the bigger cures.

1/5

Mistwalker wrote:


In the last few sessions, the enemies were yelling back and forth to each other

***
Enemy spellcasters sometimes advertise what they are going to cast, at other times they don't - depending on the situation. A spellcaster summoning a creature might ask for some of the others to form a wall...***

I also try and be descriptive during the fight rather than just say - you take 7 points of damage, I try and say something like "The hobgoblin's blade scores your flank and he smiles tauntingly at you - take 7 points".

All good stuff.

Quote:
I too prefer that players not talk about their HP level. I would rather that they use more descriptive terms...

Yes, I can understand the appeal. If Paizo and crew believe this approach makes the game more enjoyable on average, then I would petition them to provide some rules so that this can be treated in a consistent manner.

1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
But now I spend some time into my prep-work deciding what kind of opponent team the PCs encounter, and how to convey that to the players during the fight.

Awesome. I'll wager that the PC's who play at your table enjoy it.

Quote:
My experience is that a lot of PFS is getting played in game stores, where people have semi-regular groups.

A couple of weeks ago, I made the rounds at all the FLGS on my side of the lake. Three different stores and one store I've played at three times before. The highest level table I got in was 7-11. Several of the players knew each other. Nobody really talked tactics. Nor did they have code words or pre-planned maneuvers. There were some familiar faces from store to store, but other than an occasional Delay being suggested, I didn't see any effort to coordinate actions by the players. Nor did I see any effort to learn about the tactics of other characters.

Honestly though, it is hardly ever needed. The only time I've seen players stop and really try and talk tactics was for In Shadow's Wrath (I haven't played Bonekeep). So I think part of the problem is that there is so much soft-balling, there's very little external pressure for players to step up their game.

Quote:
I look forward to playing at your table sometime.

I would see it as a privilege to play at yours, but I don't consider myself to be more than a mediocre GM. My in-person acting skills are below average among those who enjoy GMing. It's hard for me to get into the head of a goblin.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

me, too. That's because it's very small in there, and it's hard to fit.

Scarab Sages 1/5

John Compton wrote:
Does there need to be a hard and fast rule for how this is handled in PFS? I hope not.

I believe this is an excellent place for table variation.

Personally, I ask players not to use numbers when communicating hit points or skill bonuses. I have no issues with tables that do allow players to discuss numbers.

Silver Crusade 2/5

At our gaming table, we jokingly and yet seriously ask "If you were a pie..." to indicate roughly the amount of damage a character has sustained to determine how many hit points they have left.

A classic example (iterated just this past Sunday in fact), after the party's rogue was hit by a crit from the GM (me), when asked "If you were a pie...?", the player responded, "Slowly molding in the trash can". I might've killed him...

In all seriousness, unless they have Status up and running, at my PFS games the players typically agree to give rough approximations, whether generic percentages (about 25% HP left/gone), or physical descriptions (winded and slightly scratched, or bleeding profusely, or my favorite, "I have the sway" meaning they're at 0 HP).

-SK

Grand Lodge 4/5

My table rule is that you don't know the other PC's exact hit point status in combat (unless you've been tracking it yourself). I ask players not to discuss their current hit points, although they can say things like, "I'm badly hurt and need healing."

Of course, if they say that the bad guys can hear them, too.

Part of playing the game is paying attention to what happens to the other players around you when it's not your turn. If you're distracted then it stands to reason that your character is distracted. If you want to know how badly hurt your fellow PCs are, pay attention to the game or use magic that will let you know.

I don't have problems with discussing hit point totals out of combat, but in combat, in the rush and heat of battle, it doesn't make sense that a PC can tell the exact status of their allies (or enemies) with a glance.

And, yes, the same rules apply to my NPCs.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

I never really "enforce" any hard and fast rules regarding HP at the table, except when it comes to the negatives.

I'd rather a player not inform others as to how negative they are when their PC drops, because deathwatch does precisely that.

Also, not knowing a downed allies current HP adds some tension. The situation becomes more exciting. You also get the opportunity to engage in more roleplaying if you share in your PCs emotions.

Picture this: After that savage blow, your comrade drops. His broken body lies not 10 paces away from you. He's bleeding to death, and you don't know how best to help him. In fact, he might already be dead. Alright, you're up. What do you want to do this turn?

Knowing that your buddy is only at -2 and has a full minute before he bleeds out removes that excitement from the game.

In general, I'd rather people only talk about the damage they've taken, since that information is already public knowledge (as the GM announces it to the table).
"Dang! I just got wailed on for 34, that sucks!"
You've taken 34 out of how much? Who knows? Only that player. Rather than,
"Dang! After that hit I only have 13 hitpoints left."
Now everyone knows just how low that player actually is, and might change some actions because of it.

But in the end I'm too much of a softy to slap wrists about it.

When I do get the chance to play, I refrain from telling my current HP to other players (to the chagrin of some divine casters), because I don't think my character has the exact numerical knowledge of his current survivability. And this isn't Order of the Stick. Pathfinder Society doesn't break the 4th wall. So I try to communicate my damage taken in character, as best I can.

"Ehh, I don't think I can take another one of those hits."
"Hah! My ancestors mock your pitful attack, NOW DIE!!"
"Oh gods! Help me you fool, there's so much blood!"

1/5

Spoiler:
This is sidetrack, but I wrote it and its a positive comment so spoiler tags!
I've been DM-ing for a group consisting of some the same people session to session so I've been able to track changes in their behavior and enjoyment game to game. Last week I was playing "roll play" based on past experience where the players yell out things like "diplomacy" and then roll. This week I ran "role play" where I had the players tell me a story and then I asked for an appropriate skill check from that story (one person kept attempting to diplomacy by telling about things he had just failed a knowledge check on so that rolled around to being bluff instead as the character had no idea what he was talking about).

One of the new things I've been trying is being actively descriptive of the results in combat, having misses thematically slam into things or threaten the family jewels. Everyone at the table was enjoying it, but it blew me away when one of my players took a missed arrow (which I had described as slamming into the wall next to his ear) and used it to describe his action of pulling himself back up over the edge of the boat.

I've been musing over trying something similar in combat, and I like the idea of keeping players from shouting their hp totals back and forth. I think I'll see if I can get players to describe their conditions as much as possible next week and see what sort of feedback that gives.

1/5

As a player, I never say how many HPs I'm on once unconscious.

While a PC is concious, he's more than able to should "Medic!!!"

1/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:

I'd rather a player not inform others as to how negative they are when their PC drops, because deathwatch does precisely that.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't see that Deathwatch tells you how many negative hit points someone has.

"You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left)"

They way I read this spell, you are only given qualitative labels and there is no granularity between "dead" and "fragile." So once someone gets below 3 hit points, you get no more information until they are dead.

As such, I don't see Deathwatch was intended as the method for PC's to know when another PC was at -1 or -10. I do see Deathwatch as a way for a necromancer or evil cleric to scan the battlefield for potential minions. I do see it as an IC way for an evil cleric to identify and target weak PC's.

I think it's a fair observation to point out that there isn't even a Good spell which provides for routinely tracking PC's hit points. Combine that with no RAW mechanic to determine PC health, one is forced to consider that the game authors were not trying to leverage this aspect of the game. I'll go further and point out that given a GM is required to call out the damage delivered, it's hard to insist that players are supposed to suppress their exact health.

Quote:
...because I don't think my character has the exact numerical knowledge of his current survivability.

By that reasoning, you should never know how many hit points you have...or how many you got for next level. The GM should take away your character sheet and just tell you that you were wounded. While I may agree that this is more real, no RPG I've ever played, has withheld a character's health status from the player. I'll even point out that I haven't see this in a video game, where it would be very easy to implement. My guess is that players knowing their character's health and acting accordingly is an intended aspect of the game.

Quote:
But in the end I'm too much of a softy to slap wrists about it.

I'm glad to hear it.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Quote:
Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct). Deathwatch sees through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death.

Deathwatch tracks the amount of hit points you have left. Although undefined, I think we both agree that means "left until dead." Per the rules for taking damage, going unconcious, etc (found under Injury and Death):

Quote:

If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.

When your negative hit point total is equal to your Constitution, you're dead.

Example, target with a Con of 10.

Current HP // Status from deathwatch
-10 or lower: Dead
-7, -8, -9: Fragile
-6 or higher: Fighting off death

So it does in fact tell you "how negative" a target is. And since it is a core 1st level spell, exists as a permanent item (deathwatch eyes), this is as close to a "RAW mechanic to determine PC health" as one can find.

Given that, I am going to extrapolate that characters are unaware of each other's numerical levels of HP without such a spell. All effects that deal damage or heal hit points only exist to express varying levels of severity when it comes to wounds and recovery.

Quote:
By that reasoning, you should never know how many hit points you have...or how many you got for next level. The GM should take away your character sheet and just tell you that you were wounded. While I may agree that this is more real, no RPG I've ever played, has withheld a character's health status from the player. I'll even point out that I haven't see this in a video game, where it would be very easy to implement. My guess is that players knowing their character's health and acting accordingly is an intended aspect of the game.

I think that the relationship between a player and their PC is a very intimate one. You know your characters hopes, dreams, fears, and flaws. If your character is savagely wounded by a blade, you know by how much. No one else knows how much that wound bites every time you move. That is your PC's knowledge, which is why you know your character's HP. But the GM's shouldn't know, and neither should your buddies (my opinion).

Quote:
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.

That quote is from the CRB.

Anything else we want to interpret from it is fine. I don't think that information is public knowledge, and you think it should be. That's fine. Any interpretation about this will be varied, as has been shown in this thread.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Ahh! Now that makes sense. I've been misreading the spell such that fragile = 3 or less hp. (As have most of the GMs I've played with -- though to be fair this is a spell I almost never see cast.)

That might actually be useful enough to take now -- especially since my cleric has it as a Domain spell.

1/5

Thanks for the discourse, Walter. I appreciate the discussion.

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Quote:
Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct). Deathwatch sees through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death.
Deathwatch tracks the amount of hit points you have left.

It gives you six areas and more or less defines their boundaries:

Dead - Pretty clear.

Fragile - anything between -Con and -Con +3

Fighting off death -so -Con +4 out to what?

Healthy - No clue what the criteria for this is other than it's not Fragile or lower.

Nowhere does the spell description give the caster knowledge of actual hit points or a continuous updates on changing hit points unless the creature crosses a threshold.

Quote:
Although undefined, I think we both agree that means "left until dead."

Agreed. But that is not the same as knowing you are one round from death versus three rounds from death.

Quote:
Given that, I am going to extrapolate that characters are unaware of each other's numerical levels of HP without such a spell.

That's some very thin ice, Walter. You're essentially claiming that the the authors don't want you to have any clue about another creature's health except when that creature is -Con +3 hit points. There is not one single spell, magic item, skill, or feat (that I'm aware of), that allows characters to have even modicum of certainty about another PC's hit points...except for Deathwatch? A necromancer spell with a 10 min lifespan at 1st level and that operates in a cone?

Quote:
All effects that deal damage or heal hit points only exist to express varying levels of severity when it comes to wounds and recovery.

Except for the the fact that GMs tell players exactly how much damage they've taken. Nor is there any explicit language preventing characters from sharing character sheets with one another.

Nor does the Death and Dying section make any indication that the information should be withheld from any PC in the party. Such a requirement is actually expressed when it comes to variable spell durations, but I've never seen that imposed.

Quote:
If your character is savagely wounded by a blade, you know by how much. No one else knows how much that wound bites every time you move.

Is that why we go to doctors in RL every time we're injured or sick? Do you have any idea how long it will take your ruptured Achilles to heal? What about your broken ribs?

In RL, you have no concept of how wounded or sick you are specifically, and you certainly don't know it down to a number and rounds that you have left to live. If somebody stabs you with a sword through the side, you have no internal nerves to determine the extent of the damage or how quickly you are losing blood. Humans do not have internal diagnostics.

Using your logic about PC's not being able to know the extent of someone else's injury, would apply to the PC as well. Born out by the real life need to visit a doctor. And yet, there is no skill or feat or spell in Paizo for determining the extent of someone's injuries.

If we wan't to be realistic about this, the player should know the PC has been wounded and when the PC is unconscious. Beyond that, the player would know nothing. As soon as the PC goes unconscious, thhe player should have her sheet taken away from her because she's no longer aware of the world around her. In fact, the player should be forced to leave the table and wait outside. That would be real.

Quote:
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.

Do you know how many blows you can take from the average person? Then why should your character?

How far are we going take the suspension of disbelief? At what point are we going to acknowledge this is simply a game and stop asking the player to play it blindfolded?

Here's what I see. A lot of players, especially older 1e players, feel the game has become too meta-gamy. It's too much about numbers. So they look for areas to pull the game back. Hit points are an easy target. The authors left a huge gap in how the OOC knowledge translates into IC knowledge. The fact that they didn't give any RAW mechanic for players to routinely determine this data says something. That fact that there is so much unclaimed design space when it comes to player Hit Point knowledge....says something.

I'm sorry Walter, but no objective reading of Deathwatch is going to agree that this single evil spell is a definitive statement that PC's at the table were intended to withhold hit point information. I would agree that it's a statement that NPC's should be allowed to pick off and target characters close to death.

I have no problem with increasing the immersion by changing the way information is communicated. I think there is a categorical problem when the techniques that are based on taking information out of the players hands when there is no explicit intention by the game developers to do so. I don't agree that more player confusion and uncertainty makes for a better game. It might make the game seem more plausible, but if you want to go down that road, you're opening Pandora's Box.

1/5

Funny enough, I had this discussion with my players just last night. I'll describe in descriptive terms, but I refuse to just say 'so-and-so has X hp left', and I'm trying to get the players to stop doing it themselves.

It's not real-life, granted. BUT. It's also not a MMO. I can suspend disbelief for the fantasy part, but it's just inane to me that people/enemies/creatures would be running around with numbers or a life bar over their heads. Plus, that's what certain spells are -there- for. Why have a spell that tells you the status of someone's health, if you just look at them and say "How many hit points do you have?" Defeats the purpose.

... Then again, I fully admit, I'm firmly of the ROLEplay school, and I'm constantly fighting (what seems like an uphill battle more often than not) to stop metagaming in my games.

1/5

Draven Torakhan wrote:
Plus, that's what certain spells are -there- for. Why have a spell that tells you the status of someone's health, if you just look at them and say "How many hit points do you have?" Defeats the purpose.

Are you referring to spells other than the ones we've been discussing?

Shadow Lodge 3/5

It's worth mentioning that the upside to not abstracting hit points is that there's no confusion. What one person thinks is "bloodied" someone else might read as "critical" - this becomes just GM/player misinterpretation.

If you were actually on the scene, you'd be able to see how they're looking, and there'd be no doubt. The same goes with saying 10/50hp remain.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Thanks for the discourse, Walter. I appreciate the discussion.

Not a problem, it's what these boards are designed for! Unfortunately, I let time take over and posted a monstrous wall of text.

Spoilered for the weak of heart.

Spoiler:

Quote:

It gives you six areas and more or less defines their boundaries:

Dead - Pretty clear.

Fragile - anything between -Con and -Con +3

Fighting off death -so -Con +4 out to what?

Healthy - No clue what the criteria for this is other than it's not Fragile or lower.

Nowhere does the spell description give the caster knowledge of actual hit points or a continuous updates on changing hit points unless the creature crosses a threshold.

Entirely correct. The example I provided was to showcase what the spell actually did, as there was some indication previously that readers may have been confused. It does, however, remain as the only spell that monitors hit points in the Pathfinder universe. And in that regard (as a spell that monitors hit points), it is quite limited. So I agree with you here.

Quote:
Quote:
Given that, I am going to extrapolate that characters are unaware of each other's numerical levels of HP without such a spell.
That's some very thin ice, Walter. You're essentially claiming that the the authors don't want you to have any clue about another creature's health except when that creature is -Con +3 hit points. There is not one single spell, magic item, skill, or feat (that I'm aware of), that allows characters to have even modicum of certainty about another PC's hit points...except for Deathwatch? A necromancer spell with a 10 min lifespan at 1st level and that operates in a cone?

I don't see it as thin ice, I guess. A lot of this game operates on the suspension of disbelief -- an acceptance, rather-- when it comes to the mechanics. The rules can only take us so far, which is where table variation takes over. The GM and the players together determine the atmosphere of a table.

Quote:
GMs tell players exactly how much damage they've taken. Nor is there any explicit language preventing characters from sharing character sheets with one another.

Regarding the GM reporting damage -- I mentioned this earlier as a place where one has to suspend disbelief. In the game, my PC doesn't see a red "-5" appear after the goblin stabs him. He just knows he has been stabbed. There is no explicit language in either direction, your opinion or mine, which is why both perspectives are equally valid ones to have. If a system had to expressly disallow everything that wasn't permitted, the book would be infinitely long. This is why it is impossible to prove a negative in science.

Quote:


In RL, you have no concept of how wounded or sick you are specifically, and you certainly don't know it down to a number and rounds that you have left to live. If somebody stabs you with a sword through the side, you have no internal nerves to determine the extent of the damage or how quickly you are losing blood. Humans do not have internal diagnostics.

Correct, entirely. However, the person who has taken the injury knows the extent of the pain more than anyone else, because the damage has befallen them. That is why any doctor you visit when you have a sword in you will ask "how much does it hurt?" They will then ask you how on earth you survived with a sword in you for so long!

When I look at my HP total, I see that as asking the same question: "how much does it hurt?" And because the CRB states that HP is "[a representation of] the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one," I think that my condensed question drives at more or less the same core concept.

Quote:


Using your logic about PC's not being able to know the extent of someone else's injury, would apply to the PC as well. Born out by the real life need to visit a doctor.

It's impossible to have a system where we represent damage and health by numbers without someone being aware of those numbers. The closest we can get to an immersive combat system in Pathfinder (one where we forget that we are playing a game) is when we suspend our disbelief when it comes to all the calculations. We use descriptions for damage taken and damage dealt (e.g.: "you deal a savage blow!") instead of repeating the "34 damage" at the top of our lungs at the table.

We try to roleplay.

Quote:
And yet, there is no skill or feat or spell in Paizo for determining the extent of someone's injuries.

Status, deathwatch, and to an extent (when table-ruled to do so) the skill Heal all do these things. None of them do it "well;" none do it with 100% mechanical knowledge of HP, damage taken, etc. But they do determine the extent of someone's injuries. I feel that ignoring them, and in doing so providing or using that mechanical knowledge at the table weakens the roleplaying there, and thus, the immersion.

Quote:
If we wan't to be realistic about this, the player should know the PC has been wounded and when the PC is unconscious. Beyond that, the player would know nothing. As soon as the PC goes unconscious, thhe player should have her sheet taken away from her because she's no longer aware of the world around her. In fact, the player should be forced to leave the table and wait outside. That would be real.

That seems to be a little harsh and I think demeans your players. It assumes that they are unable to distinguish between OOC and IC knowledge. They should be aware that their character is unconscious and can no longer provide information to their buddies. They should also play in character when they wake back up, remaining oblivious to what happened while they were out.

Quote:
Do you know how many blows you can take from the average person? Then why should your character?

I do, to an extent. I know that I could take several jabs and maybe one or two solid punches before I collapse. I know that if someone hit me with an axe, I'd likely beg for mercy. Things like that. I imagine other people have some gauge of their own physical fortitude as well.

Quote:
How far are we going take the suspension of disbelief? At what point are we going to acknowledge this is simply a game and stop asking the player to play it blindfolded?

Take it to the level that the table is comfortable with. If I was GMing for you, we wouldn't take it as far as I normally do. That's where the atmosphere of the table becomes important. Figure out what the players are used to or would like, and work with that.

For me, playing without knowledge of my party members hit point totals has never been a hamstring or a hindrance. Even on my healing focused or support characters.

Quote:
A lot of players, especially older 1e players, feel the game has become too meta-gamy. It's too much about numbers. So they look for areas to pull the game back. Hit points are an easy target. The authors left a huge gap in how the OOC knowledge translates into IC knowledge. The fact that they didn't give any RAW mechanic for players to routinely determine this data says something. That fact that there is so much unclaimed design space when it comes to player Hit Point knowledge....says something.

I can't comment on the 1e thing -- I started with ADND.

I think you are correct when it comes to the gaps left in the rules. There is something important is being said in the silence: that it's honestly not that important.

I think it, like a majority of this system, is undefined because frankly, it's not really important one way or the other. Either PCs know about HP, or they don't, not much changes mechanically. I see a benefit when that info is kept close to the chest, as I have seen the results of not knowing that information -- I've experienced the drama. Drama which would have been lacking were everyone's HP total provided for me. If I had known HP totals at the time, the game would have been less enjoyable. Because of this experience, and subsequent similar ones, I see concealing HP information as a boon to my games, not a hindrance.

Quote:


I'm sorry Walter, but no objective reading of Deathwatch is going to agree that this single evil spell is a definitive statement that PC's at the table were intended to withhold hit point information. I would agree that it's a statement that NPC's should be allowed to pick off and target characters close to death.

There are no definitive statements, yet it remains as the only thing in the game that provides actual HP knowledge of one character to other players. Also, it's not a cantrip. It actually eats a spell slot. So I don't believe it can be ignored. It's evidence of something. What that is we can debate over, and have already.

Quote:
I have no problem with increasing the immersion by changing the way information is communicated. I think there is a categorical problem when the techniques that are based on taking information out of the players hands when there is no explicit intention by the game developers to do so. I don't agree that more player confusion and uncertainty makes for a better game. It might make the game seem more plausible, but if you want to go down that road, you're opening Pandora's Box.

Perhaps I have presented the whole "keep HP a secret" thing as something that causes rampant worry at tables. For that, I apologize.

I have never had complaints at a table when I mildly offer that the game might be more enjoyable to the players assembled if they didn't ask questions like "how many hit points are you down?" I suggest that they would find the game to be more engaging if they phrased that like "how wounded are you, friend?" to which their companion could respond "for the love of Iomedae, HEAL ME!!"

I don't think such implementation is opening a Pandora's Box, especially when I, the GM at the table, can control how these undefined areas of the rules are explored.

I see it as this. GMing a table is like a contract. I agree to provide a fun and fair environment for my players, and they agree to provide me their attention and trust that I have some foresight with what I am doing. I trust that they will correct any egregious errors and they trust that I won't use GM fiat to ruin their evening. Because of this, when I suggest refraining from discussing HP numerically, they know that I have only their enjoyment in mind and trust that I will deliver the fun and fair game as promised.

If it ever changes from that to anything else, I'd be quite surprised.

1/5

Walter,

Good responses. While I may quibble with the particulars, the measured tone has a logic of its own.

Regardless of what I believe to be true, with you, Chris, and John conveying a common theme, I'm forced to reconsider my perspective and may experiment with these techniques. I will repeat what I said to Chris, I can understand the allure of what is being proposed.

On the meta-game thing as a whole, I will hope that some thought will be given to an acknowledgment that in-person, one would have a visceral and intuitive understanding of things that adjectives can't convey. Similar to what Avatar-1 is discussing.

I do have one thing to clarify:

Spoiler:

Quote:
I can't comment on the 1e thing -- I started with ADND.

I thought AD&D is 1st Edition?

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

It's the revision to the original 1st Ed., with some substantial rule changes. The difference for me, as a 6th grader at the time, was that I couldn't get through the technical jargon of original 1st Ed., but could stomach ADND and 2nd Ed.

You can think of 1st Ed and ADND of being how 3.0 is in relation to Pathfinder. They're both similar, but have very different specifics and in the end are entirely different systems.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Waitwaitwait... Maybe I overlooked something while skimming some of the longer posts, but am I seeing people claim that "4 or more" can actually mean "—6 or more"? If so, then could someone break down for me how "4 actually means —6" makes any kind of sense at all?

1/5

It's ambiguous per my reading.

Fragile is defined as "3 or fewer hit points left."

Fighting off Death is defined as "4 or more hit points."

Is that 4 or more hit points "left" or for or more positive hit points?

If it's the former, then I'm not sure when one goes from Fighting off Death to Healthy. If it's the later, then what are you between 3 hit points and -Con +4 hit points?

The Exchange 5/5

N N 959 wrote:

It's ambiguous per my reading.

Fragile is defined as "3 or fewer hit points left."

Fighting off Death is defined as "4 or more hit points."

Is that 4 or more hit points "left" or for or more positive hit points?

If it's the former, then I'm not sure when one goes from Fighting off Death to Healthy. If it's the later, then what are you between 3 hit points and -Con +4 hit points?

it's in what the "...left." is defined as. HP left above zero, or HP left above neg CON.

Having played with this spell sense 1st edition, when "dead" had a different meaning (Neg. CON is new, even 3rd ed. rated -10 HP as dead)...

Most people I have seen use this spell expect it to reveal persons with 3 or less HP, and 4 or more. This is the first time I have seen it defined as related to a persons CON. I'm still considering it in this new light (trying to decide if I will change my view of how it works).

Dark Archive 4/5

My feelings on the matter are that at the table, we should self-police ourselves on this issue. If you as a player don't feel your character should know this, then regardless of what another player says, you can role play it away:

Tim: Ah! I am down to -7, need some healing!
Kristina: My character wouldn't know how far down you were, just that you fell down and appear to be bleeding out. They don't know how much time you have so they'll do the best they can to help.
Tim: I have 3 rounds.
Kristina: I'll pretend I didn't hear that...
GM Picard: I appreciate you taking care of this betwixt the two of you.
Tim: Can we finish this please, I'm tired of talking about game theory.
GM Picard: Make it so.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Todd Morgan wrote:
GM Picard: Make it so.

:D

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:

It's the revision to the original 1st Ed., with some substantial rule changes. The difference for me, as a 6th grader at the time, was that I couldn't get through the technical jargon of original 1st Ed., but could stomach ADND and 2nd Ed.

You can think of 1st Ed and ADND of being how 3.0 is in relation to Pathfinder. They're both similar, but have very different specifics and in the end are entirely different systems.

Huh... there were two versions of AD&D 1st Edition?

The only differences might have been errata and cover art.

The original red demon face book for DM's Handbook and stuff... the original Deities and Demigods had Cthulu and Melnibonean mythos...

The 2nd printing, which is what I'm sure you are referring to as AD&D vs. 1st Edition, was the same game.

I have both in my house right now.

The only DnD printed prior to these were the Red Box Basic DnD, I think the Expert (Turqouis Box) DnD was printed before AD&D as well, but not sure on that. There was also a big blue box that was the precursor to the Red Box, and a small box that was a precursor to that. I own the big blue box, but not the small box.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Huh. My only exposure to AD&D is my Order of the Griffon game on my TurboGrafx 16.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

History of D&D / AD&D Editions.

The Exchange 5/5

I sense a derailment on the horizon.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Doug Miles wrote:
I sense a derailment on the horizon.

At least it looks like the fun kind...

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
History of D&D / AD&D Editions.

That about parallels my memory of things, although I didn't realize there was a magenta version of the Basic game between the Blue Box and the Red Box. And I wasn't aware that the Blue Box Basic was printed roughly at the same time as AD&D (1st edition) was either.

But cool link!

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Knowledge of HP for fellow PC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.