|
I played at a table yesterday where the GM declared that PCs could not know how badly damaged a character was, and it was bad form to let the cleric know how many hit points the PC had remaining. This was in the middle of a combat. The ruling was that the cleric could only know if someone was wounded, whether it was one point of damage or one point remaining could not be known. I didn't ask but I think he meant only during combat, as once combat was done it would be simple enough to inspect the various wounds. He also argued that there was a clerical spell that tracked this information, which meant that normally the information was not available.
This struck me as kind of dumb. I don't think there is a rule, other than the spell he mentioned, that backs up his interpretation. Correct me if I am wrong. Or perhaps it is a sort of unwritten rule that many GMs follow.
My inclination is to play it his way when he is GM, and forget about it when I GM or with other GMs.
What do you think? How do you do it at your table?
|
I let PCs know the exact health total of their fellow adventurers since I don't limit communication between party members. Why wouldn't another friendly character let the Cleric know how he was feeling and if he needed healing? When it comes to enemies, I just give the players a rough approximation (usually less or more than half, as well as barely scratched or nearly dead).
With hp damage, I agree with /kestlergunner. Even if the character doesn't know exactly how much hp they have, they would roughly know if they've copped a serious bit of damage or its just light bruises. Thats for each character estimating how much of a beating they've taken and how much more they can take. As for knowing how much damage their fellow party members have taken, thats a separate issue. Unless they are constantly watching the other party members and paying minimal attention to their foes, it would be difficult for them to have an accurate estimate. This is one of the issues where one has to be careful of letting meta-gaming creep too far into the game. Then again, every group plays differently, different strokes for different folks. Thats my take on the matter.
Mmmm, good.
Yes, the character is likely to know how much they can take, how much they have taken, when they are soon to lose unconsciousness, but how to judge that and know that in others on the fly?
Heal would be very useful, but! The immense and unusual toughness of some pcs would throw predictions right out.
Some examples, the barbarian has been cut and gashed with a dozen spears, but he is tough enough that his vitals aren't struck yet, he has not lost enough blood to die. For a normal person they would be down, they wouldn't have taken the hits as well (take heavyweight boxers as an example, they take punishment most of us would die from). A healer might be surprised that this barb is still standing, and be unable to truly work out how hurt he really is. Is he at half health, is he just fine (ha! five lots of 6 damage, I am laughing, I also have DR)?
Now another example relates to a specific build, the hp wizard. Seen it a lot, weedy guy with low strength, but with good con, favoured class hp bonus, pathfinders d6 hit die which almost always seems to be a 5 or a 6. Con boosting magic items.
So this thin chap, takes three greatsword hits, bleeds a great deal, but is still alive. How would a healer really know how healthy the wiz is now? He might be shocked he hasn't split in two/three parts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a way, I see where the GM is coming from. I think he/she is just taking it a bit too far. Generally speaking, I like to keep numbers out of my game as much as possible. It's a lot more vivid to describe how a monster LOOKS, rather than how many hit points they've got left. For example, if they've got a monster down to 5 or 6 hit points, I'll describe it as limping around the battlefield, going pale from blood loss. I'll tell them they can see the whites of its eyes, as the realisation dawns that its doom is fast impending. I'll have them behave more erratically, and more desperately when they're dying. While they'll behave more arrogantly if they're still feeling healthy. They'll be more likely to taunt the players, and they'll fight more confidently. I don't think it makes sense that the players should know EXACTLY which round will be the killing blow, but I think it makes even less sense that they should know nothing at all. If they really want a number, they can count the litres of blood on the ground.
It sure is more vivid. For npcs with the party, I try to avoid using numbers (can't always reign it in). It is best to describe the pressure they are under, the blood loss, the trauma, their attempts at fighting back. Their *need* for player help. Charry is about to fall! Tymeke swings his axe back, but is nearly dead.
Nice roleplaying shiftybob. Add morale and hp into one. I've had monsters and foes rout really quickly, when taking a lot of punishment. Players sometimes have gone whuuut? So I describe what has happened, and how yeah, they knew they were almost done.
I can see it both ways while it is annoying that the unconcious guy is telling people how much longer till he is dead I've had DM roll you stablize checks behind the scree and would simply tell you when you died if you didn't get healing or stablize.
|
I let players know, but I personally don't like it. If players were meant to know how injured they are, what is the purpose of the spell deathwatch? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/deathwatch
And if players are allowed to just magically "know" how injured each other are, why don't they magically know how injured their enemies are? Knowing how injured your allies are is very handy combat wise, but in a RP sense, it just doesn't fit. It's a conundrum I don't have an answer to, other than that when I play I try to not give out how many hitpoints i'm down or I have left, rather I state if I'm fine, injured, near death, or at the point of "HEAL ME THE **** NOW!"
I can see it both ways while it is annoying that the unconcious guy is telling people how much longer till he is dead I've had DM roll you stablize checks behind the scree and would simply tell you when you died if you didn't get healing or stablize.
As a player, I start coughing and making dying sounds. The dm keeps track of the numbers, might say something, I play a dying fish. I once also played a wise talking snail.
|
|
Thank you all for your comments.
My problem is that in most combats it would seem to me that people would have an idea of how damaged fellow party members are. Aside from all the blood, characters would logically call out to the healer when their hit points got low. I suppose that could be role-played although it seems a little artificial when players are each tracking their own hit points. I guess the GM could secretly track hps, even rolls for stabilization, but I think many players would object as they are accustomed to keeping track themselves.
I see that such knowledge is metagaming information and inherently unrealistic - but it is a game which is not be any means realistic anyway.
As for "deathwatch" it always seemed a useless spell to me except in special circumstances, such as fighting in silence or perhaps when underwater makes communication impossible. I'm sure we could make a long list of other spells that are nearly useless, relative to others of the same level, except in special circumstances. In any case just because a light spell exists doesn't mean that we should assume that without it the world is dark.
It is one thing when I am GMing at home, where I can train players in a certain etiquette, such as not using numbers when in character, or whatever. It seems to me different in society play where I think there is an expectation of some uniformity from game to game, between a variety of GMs and players.
So since this is Pathfinder Society general discussion I am particularly interested in how people play in society games in relation to this issue.
|
If players were meant to know how injured they are, what is the purpose of the spell deathwatch? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/deathwatch
I agree. Players should call out if they're hurt, and remain silent if they're below 0hp. Having a comrade fall in combat should be a tense situation, not knowing if they're dead or alive? A heal check will tell you whether someone is dead or unconscious. Players shouldn't metagame how many rounds they have to remain in combat, and then feed their fallen comrades potions after - they should treat this situation with urgency and uncertainty - I even continue rolling stabilisation rolls after I've actually stabilised, because players shouldn't know the difference without a heal check. Players should never refer to their characters hps to other players in game.
|
I consider hp as an abstraction, and I consider the party to be able to be well-travelled enough that they can tell when they're in serious enough trouble.
For the sake of balance, they don't get this courtesy with anyone outside the party (including any NPCs who join them that they're supposed to protect, for example), and instead, unless they have no real way of knowing (such as if they're a construct, elemental or undead), they still get to know if they're "lightly wounded", "somewhat wounded", "seriously wounded" or "critical", which I don't attach hard percentages to either - it's only what their character thinks.
As far as Deathwatch goes, I'd say this spell is used to tell the state of the bad guys which would including the exceptions I just mentioned.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This one is a tough one. Personally I hate when meta-gaming detracts from the experience of the game. So to me nobody knows their hit point number, but that doesn't mean that they have no idea of their condition.
I like to suggest that players use a CLW approach to this. I suggest to players that they might have a light wound, a moderate wound, a serious wound or a critical wound. Of course just conscious sounds ok too. This way they indicate how wounded they are instead of stating a HP number which detracts a bit from the game for me.
Once someone is unconscious, there is really nothing they should say about their status. Hopefully their friend will get to them quickly. It is tough to be the character dying and say nothing as you bleed out. The best thing is for the character to have good friends who act fast.
Some unconscious characters seem to talk a lot (and truthfully I am not an innocent here).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbP3OsS195Q
|
Personally, I dislike numbers being revealed. And it applies to more than Hit Points. Could be attack modifier, skill bonus, whatever. It lends itself to meta-gaming.
Descriptive games are much more immersive. Of course, not everyone plays "my" way and it isn't the only way to play.
I think, in this case, the GM has a responsibility to tell the players that he does not allow numbers discussions during the game. As a player, you might disagree, but with no official rules covering it, this is a GM fiat issue.
Remember that a 10 point attack from a greatsword applied to a 2nd level barbarian is significantly less important than being applied to a 1st level wizard with a Con of 10. And to some extent, each player is free to evaluate his own character's health and risk outside of a number. What makes me nervous and want healing, might be a "flesh wound" to another player. YMMV
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
While I don't push the issue, I find the best players buy into the immersion and avoid the meta game. If asked they say "I'm hurt pretty badly" or "It's just a flesh wound". The other day two of the players were bleeding on the ground and neither said how badly they were hurt because really... they are unconscious, how can they? They wound up bleeding for three rounds before they were healed and added a bit of tension the game because no-one knew which one was closer to death or if they would die before the healer could get over to them.
If a player asks how injured an enemy is I have them make a heal check and if they roll well I'll tell them it's on death's door or something similar.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
One of the only things I took away from "That Other Edition" was the word Bloodied. I use it in all it's implications, because I think that having an official word that means <50% allows a little bit of in-game description while still sending a clear message in a meta-sense to players. This also let's me set the mood of how I want my game to be, and players generally follow suit, at least during combat.
Even adding more classifiers between "wounded" and "sorta wounded" just allows for more HP ranges, and at some point, players should just say their hit point totals if that's where you want to go.
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Birmingham
|
PCs should be able to know the HP, or at least reverse engineer it, for anyone in their party. If you can communicate with the damaged party member you should be able to communicate that damage and it's exact severity. For monsters I use unharmed (full HP,) wounded (above half,) bloodied (below half,) and near death (below 1/HD.) If someone lands a charm and can speak their language, then you can have exact HP.
HP totals are part of the system you just hand waive to make the game flow. Assume in-character notifications of injuries are happening, just as you assume casters are saying the right voodoo words and really mean those prayers. If communications are hindered for some reason then feel free to play with in-game knowledge of game mechanics, but until that time you are just making the game more difficult than it has to be.
There is no rule that lets Heal know anything about HP, or even poison or disease for that matter. You can treat them if you know they are there, but by the OP's DM Logic, you'd have to cast spells to know that too; just ignore that crippling loss of Str or con until you cast a spell to find it.
If you want to play without numbers, stop giving armor class and hit roll numbers, describing your defenses every time you are attacked. Don't accept hit rolls, instead demand a full description of every swing, hit or miss. Insist on 1e titles instead of levels. Don't give save DCs, only the name of the spell and your level of education in you casting statistic.
If numbers bother you that much, you probably should be playing a more abstract game system.
|
|
PCs should be able to know the HP, or at least reverse engineer it, for anyone in their party. If you can communicate with the damaged party member you should be able to communicate that damage and it's exact severity. For monsters I use unharmed (full HP,) wounded (above half,) bloodied (below half,) and near death (below 1/HD.) If someone lands a charm and can speak their language, then you can have exact HP.
+1, pretty much the same as Grolloc. Mostly I mention the bloodied status, or "almost down".
For PCs, it's pretty hard not to metagame their health. As GM, I have to tell everyone how much hp damage they've taken, so everyone knows, unless I do something time consuming and weird like write it down on paper and pass it across the table. In PFS, we just don't have time for that (unless it's an exception).
I also assume the PCs are in constant verbal contact. Many players will tell the healer "they're hurt" instead of their exact hps, which is fine with me.
With regards to stabalization, I wish it was kept unknown (so the other PCs would have to spend time stabalizing), but then again all the players can hear the table talk (and it would be a pain to conceal). Many players also don't remember the stabalization rules, so I find as GM that I end up telling them.
Also if a PC goes down, lets face it, the party might be in trouble, taking an action to heal the downed PC might matter. In addition, everyone wants the PC to live, so if that PC is at -9 and they have a Con of 10. It's not realistic and it's not the best, but in terms of keeping the game moving, it's good.
Players telling other players how bad off their character is with general descriptions is fine and that is how groups I have been in have generally done it. If someone's character is hurt really bad, they will tend to say so in some manner, whether it is saying they are badly hurt or whether it is by action as they withdraw from the fight to heal.
Now, I may not be reading the OP correctly, but if he is also saying that the GM would not let the players know the exact damage their own character was taking, then that would be not acceptable at all and I would likely avoid a GM that was that controlling, even if that meant leaving a table or not getting to play.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"If numbers bother you that much, you probably should be playing a more abstract game system."
You could just remove all abstraction then.
Player: "Attack roll 38, damage 14, bludgeoning on enemy 3"
GM: "Enemy 4 casts, make Will save"
Player: "17"
GM: "Add Status: Staggered, 3 rounds"
GM: "Enemy 2 attacks (GM rolls), Damage 14, (rolls) Also add status grappled."
Somewhere in the middle...
|
|
There is an argument to know / not to know both ways
Knowing your HP helps
a) Players keeping track
b) Let feel players being in control
Not knowing your HP helps
a) Immersion into roleplay
b) Avoid meta-gaming
Personally I handle it the following way:
For monsters I never reveal actual HP. I keep it descriptive - like a scratch, lightly wounded, badly wounded, seriously wounded. Fighting an spider and doing massive damage - you just chopped off a leg. Fighting a skeleton and doing 6 HP damage with your rapier - your rapier pierces the rib cage but seems pretty much ineffectual.
For Players I tell them how much damage I have done. It is enough work that I keep track of the HP of my monsters. There is one exemption. I tend not to let people know there exact HP if they are unconscious.
They (as well as the fellow players) don't know.
It goes the following:
Monster hits - critical.
I roll (open) 4d6 -> result 19.
GM to player - how many HP do you have left. What is your Con
Player - 14
GM (adds the +8 modifier that the players can guess but don't know to the 19 for a total of 27 = -12).
GM announces - character Bob goes down - the claw slices him open and he falls uncoscious and looks close to death.
I do tell them if they stabilize - but not on how many HP.
I then keep track of the HP until it is back to 0 or positive. Then I hand the HP tracking back to the player.
Not every player likes this. It prevents meta gaming like - I have 3 rounds left to heal. I'm not risking an AoO and let him blead on.
The players already get enough information to meta-game. If I ask about CON then they know it is bad / very close. They know it is either too late or 1-5 rounds max. Also self stabilization is unlikely.
They know it is serious and a close call. Their next action might be responsible for a dead or alive comrade. Do they really need to know more than that.
|
|
IMO, the numbers lead to meta-gaming even if you try to avoid it. Anytime, you can avoid it, I think it makes the game "feel" more real.
I see, all the time, decisions being made based on the numbers that the character could not really know.
"I have 10 hit points left (out of 50) so I can take anything other than a crit from that guy. And he's using an axe so only a 5% change. I can live with that."
In reality, if you were functioning at 20% of your potential, that axe and it's crit potential would scare the crap out of you and if a companion had healing, you'd be begging for it.
The numbers are important as a standard for the simulation, but I dislike using them as a justification for actions in game. Just because we have numbers doesn't mean the game shouldn't have a more abstract feel to it. IMO, it doesn't make sense that you can tell, with merely a glance in combat, exactly how much health a companion has. You should be able to get a general feel, but I like a bit of mystery in the game. I think it makes all your decisions more challenging and consequential. YMMV.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with PCs knowing exactly how many hit points they have and how many hit points any other ally has. You can't really prevent metagaming here anyway since players can look at other players' character sheets and count damage if they feel like it. I also want to make absolutely certain that the players and I are in sync regarding how many hit points they have so there are no surprises when/if I tell them they're dead, etc.
When it comes to enemies or NPCs, I just describe roughly how healthy/damaged they look to the party. I use a roughly 100-75%, 75-25%, 25-5%, and 5-0% scale for variations in those descriptions and let the PCs know when one of those thresholds is crossed by describing the increased level of injury. If the PCs ask before the threshold is crossed, I just repeat roughly what I last said.
Sometimes my party mistakes which baddie has more HP or something to that effect and I do nothing to prevent them from making that mistake.
My interpretation of deathwatch is that it's primarily useful for determining the status of enemies or NPCs. Characters would and should talk to each other during combat IMO.
I let PCs know the exact health total of their fellow adventurers since I don't limit communication between party members. Why wouldn't another friendly character let the Cleric know how he was feeling and if he needed healing? When it comes to enemies, I just give the players a rough approximation (usually less or more than half, as well as barely scratched or nearly dead).
This is exactly how I do it as well. Unless you do not allow "talking across the table", I can not think of a reason why you wouldn't allow a cleric, who should be reasonably the first party member, to notice the healing needs of a player.
With enemies, I allow the players to do a "perception" check and I discribe the level of health. This works to keep the mage from dropping a massive bomb on a target that has only one hit point left.
That's what I do anyway.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've never really felt that knowing each other's HP was a huge deal. I think I'm used to gaming well enough that hearing things in terms of HP and other stats doesn't really break immersion for me - it sometimes startles me when others on the boards say it does so for them, as I tend to forget that some people's gaming experience is (for lack of a better word) more fragile than mine.
As for the enemies' HP, I don't tell. And honestly, I haven't even had players ask very often. They usually pay attention to how many times a given enemy has been hit (and have a vague idea of for how much damage) and make guesses from there.
In theory I can see HP-speak being an issue, but in practice (for me) it never has been.
|
|
When I DM, I let the player know ( only if he asks ) if he is slightly wounded ( has lost less than about 1/5 Hp ), somehat wounded ( Lost about 1/3 hit points , moderately wounded ( lost about 1/2 hit points ), seriously wounded ( lost about 2/3 hit points), or on the verge of dying ( down to 1 hit point ). I always tell a player if he is down to 1 HP. I think it's more exciting for the players that way- it adds a touch of uncertainty and fear, while at the same time giving the player a reasonable idea of how injured his character is. Also, it lessens a bit of metagaming in that it makes it harder for the players to figure out tneir opponents' stats,strength bonuses etc.
I think this is really cool...although it make certain feats and class abilities dealing with hitpoints almost impossible to use by the player taking them (in particular a lot of the stuff interesting to half-orc barbarians who get "in the zone" when below zero HP).
I agree with Jiggy, but honestly, I rarely have players asking/telling each other how many hit points they have in combat - everyone pretty much trusts each other to ask for healing or heal themselves if they need it. I think it would be annoying, both as a GM and a player, to have someone constantly announcing their hit points after every hit or bugging you about yours.
My longest running group, however, did come up with in-game code words for needing healing, such as announcing "I'm getting busy over here" indicating that a character would appreciate some healing but it's not an emergency, versus "I'm busy right now" indicating an immediate need. This sprung up from the fact that intelligent opponents started targeting characters who were calling out to the cleric for healing :)
I see, all the time, decisions being made based on the numbers that the character could not really know.
"I have 10 hit points left (out of 50) so I can take anything other than a crit from that guy. And he's using an axe so only a 5% change. I can live with that."
In reality, if you were functioning at 20% of your potential, that axe and it's crit potential would scare the crap out of you and if a companion had healing, you'd be begging for it.
I don't see a problem with this "meta-gaming" - I mean this is pretty much how people make informed decisions in real life. If I want to cross the street and see a car coming, I am aware of how fast I can cross, how far away the car is and approximately how fast the car is moving, the fact that sometimes drivers speed and don't pay attention to the road or traffic laws, and that getting hit by a car can kill me, and then weigh these against the urgency of my desire to cross, and decide if it's worth going or waiting. I'm pretty sure the sort of reasoning you've described above is performed all the time in reality by actual soldiers in combat (or was performed to generate their training and tactics) with all the information they have available to them. All in the real world where getting damaged impairs, there are no hit points and any weapon can instantly kill, and it takes days or months to heal - with the knowledge that wounds can easily lead to permanent disability. Yet individuals who have chosen this as their profession make these types of decisions every day.
Basically, I think a little more bravado and flippancy from adventurers in combat in Fantasy World, where you can be brought from death's door to perfect health in the space of a few breaths by common healing magic, if not flat out resurrected, is justified.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Gulf
|
To contribute, or die trying, its important to me for organized play (PFS) to have a consistent ruling.
There are three HP states a PC can observe with a casual (immediate action) glance. Undamaged, hurt, and unconscious.
A heal check (DC15) will reveal approximate HP, I usually say slightly hurt (66%-100%), halfway hurt (33%-66%), critical (1hp-33%), stable, unstable, dead. If they are unstable, that same roll can automatically stabilizes them.
A Deathwatch spell tells people HP. It makes life easy.
A player can always call out, "I can't take another hit from him". If the bad guy understands that, that would be a bad thing.
Calling out "I have 4 HP left" is bad form. It is just like yelling, "My IQ is 113", "My girlfriend weighs 140lbs" or "I make $20 per hour!"
|
|
To me, the main issue is for unconscious character. If you are unconscious, you can't take actions; talking is a free action but an action nonetheless. RAW, you can't talk if your characer is unconscious (or otherwise not present, like during the inevitable party split where the loud guy is strill directing the group he's not physically with).
"Bill has four more rounds before negative Con, so I'll attack the bad guys three more times before I heal him" is the result of knowing HP totals below zero. That's as meta- as it gets. Knowing a guy is bleeding out and you ony have X rounds to save him can add drama - like when the dying sorcerer is sealed in a tomb with the rogue and a cure light wounds wand, and the rogue is desparately trying to UMD that healstick and failing... but in general it is best avoided IMO.
I also use "bloodied" as part of the spectrum of "light, moderate, serious" wounds in describing enemies, and encourage my players to roleplay their wound descriptions rather than just spew numbers. Some do, some don't.
Any discussion of numerical values from the character sheet is by definition done out-of-character, and GMs can limit out-of-character talk if needed.
|
|
Knowing a guy is bleeding out and you ony have X rounds to save him can add drama - like when the dying sorcerer is sealed in a tomb with the rogue and a cure light wounds wand, and the rogue is desparately trying to UMD that healstick and failing...
I remember that! Good times...
Any discussion of numerical values from the character sheet is by definition done out-of-character, and GMs can limit out-of-character talk if needed.
Another thing to remember if you want to get hard-line on this is that speaking is a free action, which means it can only be done on a character's turn. With groups of experienced players, I've started cracking down on the table chatter during combat. If they don't know how to work together yet, they can discuss it on their turn (briefly). Keeping in mind that intelligent enemies can use this info to their advantage. I usually give the players an opportunity to introduce their characters at the beginning of a scenario and remind them that this is a good time to discuss general tactics.
|
|
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn.
Oops! My mistake.
I still stand by not allowing the players to re-write "The Art of War" during combat.
