To everyone's surprise, he covered his character sheet with one hand (he's at the other end of the table from me) and replied, "Unless you have some sort of ritual or something that tells you my exact condition, I don't have to answer that."
We all kind of stared at him for a moment.
I explained as politely as I could, "I only get one heal this round, and we have three people prone and bloodied. I'm trying to figure out who needs the heal most, so I don't waste it and someone ends up getting killed."
He snaps back, "I'm bloodied, and that's all you can tell without some kind of DM ruling."
I shrugged, and said "OK, I'll heal the fighter, then. But just so everyone at the table understands why I ask 'How many left, out of how many maximum?', I'm going to explain it. If two players each tell me they are bloodied, it doesn't tell me anything that I can't already see. If one is a wizard, who has a maximum of say 14 HP, his bloodied means he's one good sword hit away from down & dying. If the other player is an 18 CON dwarven fighter with 40 HP max, his bloodied status means he's still 20 HP away from dropping. The difference between those two can be life and death at low level, so this is why I asked."
He said, "I've been playing LFR a long time, you don't have to explain things to me, and I'm not telling you my hit points unless the DM makes me."
I dropped the heal on the fighter, shrugged again, and said "OK, that's your call. I won't heal you until you drop then, assuming I have heals left."
One round later, the BBEG blew the paladin out of his socks with a crit, dropping him to negative status, and then the paladin failed his first death save on his following turn.
The rogue and the psion moved in to flank the BBEG, attacking him but failing to kill him. When my turn came around, I started to drop my last Majestic Word on the dying paladin, when he surprised us again.
"I don't accept," he said. We all looked at him again, and I asked politely what he meant.
He replied, "I want you to delay until after the monster, in case he hits me again while I'm down."
Several players pointed out that the intelligent BBEG wasn't going to waste an action smacking the dying paladin, when he has a rogue behind him stabbing him, and another character in front of him zapping him. The DM even pointed out that the BBEG was no longer under the Divine Challenge, and as a general rule, LFR monsters don't focus on already dying characters without some sort of special incentive to do so. It was like he couldn't hear them.
The paladin says, "If you heal me, then I'm not going to be 'down and dying' as you call it (rolls his eyes), I'll just be down, and so he will hit me again, wasting your heal."
I pointed out that if I delay until after the BBEG goes, and he DOES smack the paladin again, the paladin will probably die (the BBEG has been doing an average of 17 points of damage per attack so far).
"I don't care, I want you to delay," he says.
"Um...no," I say, pointing at the board, "I need to go over here and kill this other bad guy before he stabs the ranger while she's prone, so delaying isn't going to work for me. I drop my Majestic Word on you as a minor action. It heals you for Healing Surge plus 4, if you accept it, or it doesn't heal you and the power is wasted if you don't. Your call, my conscience as a healer is clean. DM, I move to here to flank the guy with the halberd, and make my War Song Strike attempt. If I hit, and he survives, anyone who hits him before the end of my next turn gets 2 temp hit points."
The paladin shakes his head in disgust, marks down the healing and says loudly, "I've never met anyone so stupidly determined to heal people."
I replied, "I've never met anyone who thought it was a bad idea to tell the healer how many hit points they have, so I guess that makes us even."
I've decided upon the simplest route to make us both happy in the future - I won't ask how he's doing, and I won't waste any healing on him either. Then we should both be happy, I guess.
I'm curious, though. Have any of you ever run across this kind of a situation, or this kind of player?
I don't play with them again.
I tend to follow the Golden Rule, so if someone is a jerk towards me then I figure they must want such treatment in return.
I completely see the Paladin in your case's point about not getting healed - when I DM, I would much rather attack the Defender that was making my life hard while he is on the ground and likely to go back unconcious if I hit him than some other target, but I would be unlikely to attack him once he was out of the fight. He was a huge jerk about it, though.
I really hate these kind of peoeple who belive that they are "supierior" to everyone else at the table. We got at least two of them in my 4e LFR games, one guy is absolutly convinced that you can never pick a lock, disarm a trap or anything else unless you have trainining in theivery. (Not true, though a DM could call that something is a bit too tough to do without training, but its not an automatic condition.)
My 3.5 game we all are just a bunch of people playing a game for **** and giggles. So no one who is supirior here.
The 2.0 on saturdays however, One guy keeps trying to be the top dog. He didn't let our Thief/Wizard cast charm on someone because it would cause the guard to start sounding the alarm, as he believes that casting spells cannot be subtle. He tried to say a fireball was a 20foot diamater.. Not a 20foot radius like it was in the book. (I challanged him here because I'm currently in geomtry, and was like "Holy ****! if a radius is the entire circle.. I've been getting taught wrong!")
And then shapechange. He was going on about how my character could never transform into soemthing he has never seen before. Which I agree and disagree. If i seen a dog, Could i not shapeshift into a dog person by applying traits of the dog to my normal anotomy? But then how do i prove my pregenerated character has seen something beyond a cat or dog?
Lucky, the last battle there were some crystal golems and I shapeshifted into them. Which then his superorty complex then worked in my favor as normally I'm suppose to keep my HP, and the first attack that hit me did exactly my HP.
Fine that he wants to play by the letter of the rule on HP knowledge, but when he starts arguing with you while his PC is unconscious...sigh.
I think you handled it pretty well. Just avoid the guy in the future, if it's possible to do so.
What a curious story. Is it possible this was another misunderstanding between a roleplayer and a optimizer(1)? Without knowing all the details (I wasn't there, obv), and without doubting the OP's account, that's what it seems like to me.
For truth, the rules don't allow you to say much more than "I'm bloodied" or "I'm down" or shades of gray on that. (My favorite response from another player was: "I'm standing in a pool of my own blood, how do you think I'm doing?!") For me, as a roleplayer, I really like that rule (and ones like it) and the choices it presents within the situations that you describe above. I want other players to roleplay their characters effectively and make decisions without perfect information...just like their characters have.
You're the bard, you have 3 of your comrades sprouting blood from their ears. Who do you save first? The noble paladin? The robed wizard? The bruised fighter? For me, I want you to make a decision, good or bad, and go with it. Choices are what make this game interesting.
On the other hand, I can see how you, as the healer, might want perfect information to use the exact right power on the right person. That's understandable...but it's not roleplaying. Sadly, this is an incredibly imperfect system for roleplaying, though people do try to stick it in the game.
I don't think the Paladin is wrong to ask that you delay to heal him, he has reasons for wanting that. However, you should absolutely feel free to play your character. While this is a team game, no one should feel compelled to play in a manner that is inconsistent with their character. For good teamwork, there needs to be a bit of give and take...and understanding that some people will choose to be less optimal in their play to support their character concept. I fully support that.
As the leader of the party, you also have the option to take notes on how much damage each player has taken as it happens (I used to do that on rare occasion...it's open information, but now feel it's a bit anti-roleplaying so I avoid it, but it's certainly legal) so that you can decide how to most effectively apply your heals.
-Pain
(1) = No, I'm not saying that optimizers can't be roleplayers. Nor that you can't be both an optimizer and a roleplayer. But I'm struggling to find the right word to describe someone who has little or no interest in the roleplaying aspects of this game. And yes, there are LOTS of them. What is the name for them? (No, I'm not calling the OP this...he may or may not be. I have no idea...and if I was, would that be a bad thing? I think not...it's just a preference that some people have.)
It sounds like this guy is very particular about how games are played, but what he's failing to understand is that he doesn't get to make choices for you, only for himself. If he wants to be the healer and determine how folks get healed, he should play a Leader. Otherwise, he should leave you to do what you do best.
As a player of a paladin, I know that 1) I have plenty of healing surges. There's really very little chance of you "wasting" one of my surges and 2) keeping PCs alive is good, especially if they can harry foes or cause them to reconsider options. His actions put him at serious risk of a burst affect killing him. His choice, but probably not the optimal one.
And of course, whatever everyone else has said. If he's a jerk, don't play with him.
And that's really what I would suggest for both you and the other player. A bloodied paladin and a nearly dead paladin would look a little different. You should be able to tell something about the PC - maybe he looks like he will drop at any moment, maybe he is just covered in a lot of blood. It should be inexact but hopefully provide some information. At tables I often hear loose terms like "way bloodied" or "barely bloodied". Or, you can have a conversation. "Stalwart Paladin, shall I heal you? Are you in grave danger?" The paladin can then choose how to answer it. "Save your efforts for the others, I shall prevail!"
In any case, if you will be playing with them again I would try to have a very relaxed conversation. Something like "Hey, I'm just wanting to make sure I keep everyone alive, since I am the leader. How can we work something out so your PC can let me know when you are in danger? It doesn't have to be hit points, but maybe your PC and mine could work something out to communicate when to heal?"
Every once in a while I run into people who do things like you describe above. I think you handled it well. Though, if the paladin in your story was using roleplay to hide his stat information and need for healing, I don't see how he could expect to tell your healer what to do after his character went down. Seems a bit inconsistent on their part.
I agree that it seems inconsistent. I can see why someone might not want to share their exact HP total for roleplaying reasons, but telling the healer to not heal him because he knows his healing will start at 0 HP is entirely metagaming. (Roleplaying-wise a leader would not just stand around while his buddy is dying on the ground next to the BBEG waiting until he's "closer to dead" before healing him.)
A bloodied paladin and a nearly dead paladin would look a little different. You should be able to tell something about the PC - maybe he looks like he will drop at any moment, maybe he is just covered in a lot of blood. It should be inexact but hopefully provide some information.
Perhaps the DM would let you do a heal check to get an idea of how badly hurt your allies are.
Even if you subscribe to knowable versus unknowable, in the free actions that occur between characters, there would still be:
[to dwarf fighter]
"How hurt are you?"
"I'm frickin bloodied!"
"Yeah, but is the next hit going to kill you?"
"No. He's got me pissed off, but it will take a heluva lot more than he's got to kill me."
or
[to gnome wizard]
"How hurt are you?"
"OMG helpme helpme helpme?"
"Are you bloodied?"
"Almost! He'll surely kill me if he strikes again!"
I really can't see:
[to a$$hat]
"How hurt are you?"
"None of your business!!"
"I see that you are bloodied, shall I heal you?"
"I can't answer that."
"I'm on my way. If you fall, we all fall!"
"No. For if I fall, you may then heal me and metagame me for more net hit points!"
"Uh, nevermind. I'll just go over here and heal someone who might appreciate it."
(offstage voice of gnome)"oh thankyou thankyou thankyou!!!"
Even when I'm playing my dwarf fighter (ex battlerager), I generally advise the healer that unless I call for healing, or am unconscious coughing up blood, assume that I'm able to deal with my own problem, and help keep the strikers/controllers standing.
There was some combination of jerkitude at the table, which added up to lousy communication and upset feelings. I've never met anyone who was hardcore about sharing exact hit point values, but OK, I can see where a purist might want to avoid that. I like to think I'd react OK. On the other hand, I can also see where a purist might get really snotty about it.
I gotta say, the whole "well, I'm going to explain it anyway" thing? Probably unnecessary. Metagaming the timing of the second heal on his part? Totally cheesy given the situation as presented.
I hate expressing an opinion on who's in the right at a table I didn't see, so Imma not gonna do that.
Of course that is without getting into the monsters speaking languages too issue
[to gnome wizard]
"How hurt are you?"
"OMG helpme helpme helpme?"
"Are you bloodied?"
"Almost! He'll surely kill me if he strikes again!"
[BBEG to his minions]
"Quick, charge the gnome in the dress, he is almost done for!"
Either way, the person might just have had an off day, if you end up at the table with the same person might not hurt to retry communication.. unless you think it wasted effort. Either way wish you better luck healing the next person
"Either way, the person might just have had an off day,..."
Exactly right.
Thank you for reminding us to give the benefit of the doubt.
I gotta say, the whole "well, I'm going to explain it anyway" thing? Probably unnecessary.
Well, my reason for explaining was that there were two fairly new players at the table, so I wanted to be clear (to them) as to why I was asking. I also wasn't sure if he was misunderstanding my motive for asking, himself. I play a cleric regularly, and my usual table of players all have their own style regarding when they want/expect healing. I rarely have to ask any questions about healing, with players whom I know. With strangers, I ask.
I hadn't intended to offend the paladin, but when we first sat down to play, he had taken great pains to inform everyone that 1) his build was "optimized for paragon level, where I expect to be doing striker level damage" and 2) that his paladin "was NOT any kind of healer" (this is how I knew he didn't have Lay On Hands, actually, he told us). Knowing I was the only healer of any type in the group, I very much wanted to be sure that I didn't leave someone to die.
We run two tables at a time for the events, so perhaps next week he will ask to swap to the other table, or perhaps we will get along better. If not, I'll dole out my two pitiful heals on other members of the party and make the best of it.
I just hadn't ever met anyone with this attitude towards HP/healer questions, in all my years of gaming, and thought it worth posting to ask.
1) Traditionally "Cleric" has been the role nobody else wanted, and the player is doing more to support the group than any other player - often at the sacrifice of the glory in the adventure.
2) Um, even if I'm mostly self sufficient, if I need healing, I really really need healing. I'd like the person I ask for help to be more than willing to provide it.
Well, my reason for explaining was that there were two fairly new players at the table, so I wanted to be clear (to them) as to why I was asking. I also wasn't sure if he was misunderstanding my motive for asking, himself. I play a cleric regularly, and my usual table of players all have their own style regarding when they want/expect healing. I rarely have to ask any questions about healing, with players whom I know. With strangers, I ask.
I hadn't intended to offend the paladin, but when we first sat down to play, he had taken great pains to inform everyone that 1) his build was "optimized for paragon level, where I expect to be doing striker level damage" and 2) that his paladin "was NOT any kind of healer" (this is how I knew he didn't have Lay On Hands, actually, he told us). Knowing I was the only healer of any type in the group, I very much wanted to be sure that I didn't leave someone to die.
We run two tables at a time for the events, so perhaps next week he will ask to swap to the other table, or perhaps we will get along better. If not, I'll dole out my two pitiful heals on other members of the party and make the best of it.
I just hadn't ever met anyone with this attitude towards HP/healer questions, in all my years of gaming, and thought it worth posting to ask.
Ah, that makes sense. It's definitely a touchy point at times -- people have different ideas of what healers should do. (We've all met the striker who wants a heal the second they're down one surge, right?)
2) Um, even if I'm mostly self sufficient, if I need healing, I really really need healing. I'd like the person I ask for help to be more than willing to provide it.
This is a very good point. Sort of like: don't piss off the person making your food or cutting your hair.
When I play defenders I always tell the leaders that unless I ask for a heal directly, help everyone else first.
After I use that secondwind, thats when I'll be needing to heal more. (But I have a racial power that gives me regen.)
Our group has one simple requirement when acting as the "healer"... at the start of your turn you shout "who wants a heal?"
Then the rest decide who needs it the most.
If the player in the OP had that option, then it would be his own fault if he got squished by the BBEG... in our group, "you snooze... you lose!"
You know, as a general rule, even if I play a character not likely to need much healing, I treat the healer in the party with great respect. Two reasons:
1) Traditionally "Cleric" has been the role nobody else wanted, and the player is doing more to support the group than any other player - often at the sacrifice of the glory in the adventure.
2) Um, even if I'm mostly self sufficient, if I need healing, I really really need healing. I'd like the person I ask for help to be more than willing to provide it.
QFFT.
I will ask at the start of my turn who needs heals, and then make something that the defender is beating on a pinata so he can maintain healing himself just by hitting.
Having gone back and read the entire thread now, here is how I might handle it with my striker:
Cleric: "Striker, you are bloodied, do you need a heal?"
Me: Looks at character sheet and spots that I have 5 hit points left "Looking up from the ground, wiping the blood from his mouth he says 'Cleric, I am in need of healing'"
I wouldn't typically divulge my exact hitpoint count.
Alas, as I tend to play the leaders in my party or else the controllers who stay far away from potential danger, I don't often find myself in the situation of being hurt and needing healing, but being unsure whether to tell people HOW hurt. I tend to keep an eye on who's bloodied, and when we're talking healing tactics, I never ask for how many hit points people have.
There is certainly a logical basis to knowing hit point totals: I do figure that the PCs have been adventuring with one another for a long time, so they should have a sense of how much punishment each companion can take, and see the warning signs that indicate being about to fall. So if you're the sort of player/DM who wants to do it totally openly, at least there's some justification.
When announcing my own health status, generally, I go with the "fine", "bloodied," and "very bloodied" descriptors. Also the way I roleplay my characters changes depending on their current health level--one of my characters is very stoic and doesn't react much to damage until bloodied, then makes increasingly loud grunts of pain with more damage. Another one (my shadar-kai, who are adrenaline junkies) is actually enthralled by pain, so when she takes damage she starts panting and eventually (when bloodied) starts laughing deliriously with each hit (kind of S&M, really, and more than vaguely creepy).
Cheers
As a Leader player (I've got at least 1 of all of them as this is my preferred role in 4th ed) I ignore players when they tell me HP totals and I ask how they're going in terms of bloodied, as per the above statement examples.
I do not (editied sorry I didn't mean to sound like I'm a nasty DM I'd rather players enjoy their game they don't need the DM oming down on them) go all fire and brimstone on players who tell exact HP totals but I do remind them politely that it is my understanding that they're not permitted to reveal that info and that's what the bloodied measure is for.
Similarly though I've got no problem with players telling the cleric after they've been heald 80hp from a single Healing word (yes an exageration) that they were on 1 HP and that was a good save, it makes for some fun at a table.
Perfectly Fine - unhurt or less than a surge down.
Doing alright - more than 1 surge down, not bloodied
Bloodied but ok - just under bloodied value
Need a heal - hp around my surge value
Don't think i can take another hit - under 15 hp or so, maybe higher if the monsters have been hitting hard.
I guess I just don't think much of it while running, if my players want to rattle off their exact HP values I don't think it really warrants me taking time out of the game to explain why they shouldn't.
As a DM, I'm all for open information. If the players want to broadcast their hit point totals to me, so I can use that information against them, so much the better. (Yes... I occasionally am evil).
As a (shaman) healer, I am cautious about who I heal, even those that might actually need healing for several factors.
1) Some races work better bloodied. Dragonborn and Shifters, for example, don't WANT to be fully healed. In fact, if you heal a bloodied shifter before they've had a turn, they will throw venom your way. Heck, even the Minotaur doesn't want to be healed until they go down.
2) Killer DM Syndrome. Despite the apparent insanity of it, the Paladin was right. By being down, he removed himself as a threat, and the DM should, by all means, attack someone else. As it stands, he probably got lucky in the turns afterward. Even if the DM had decided to go against conventional wisdom provided by the DMG, and killed the paladin, that still gives you a heal that one of your strikers will need to take that monster down. Strategically, it's a good call. You can always second wind the Paladin back up later.
3) It's Not Mission Critical Go Time. Sometimes, the whole team is just bloodied, you know? It happens, and if you are not in Early Heroics, that doesn't mean people are close to death. Sometimes, if you use healing too early, even if everyone is bloodied, then you end up wasting what could have been the life saving heal.
So, while the player was probably ingracious and a bit of a metagamer (I can't really judge second hand if he was being rude, or not), I can see where he is coming from. However, you *should* know your class better then anyone else at the table. You should always do what you feel is the best move, and if it turns out not to be, you learn from that experince.
Given how death is not that big of deal in D&D (Or the RPGA), I wouldn't worry about what happened too much.
I do go all fire and brimstone on players who tell exact HP totals but I do remind them politely that they're not permitted to reveal that info and that's what the bloodied measure is for. Most players take it fine when prompted on that rule, and it is a rule of 4th ed.
I would appreciate if you would refresh my memory as to where this rule you're citing can be found.
Personally, I'm fine with general terms like "close to bloodied", "barely bloodied", "seriously bloodied" and "need healing badly!", but that's more just the general flavor I like (and because I don't think exact numbers necessarily give that much to the leader) than a hard and fast rule that needs to be strictly enforced.
One of the people I regularly play with is dogmatic about not telling or wanting to know other PC's exact hit points, and I'm fine with that. Conversely, I'm sure that I've mentioned my exact total at times (or had other players tell me theirs). It's just not something I consider important enough to really note.
But, for those who are evidently very dogmatic about this rule, it would be nice if you could give a citation. I'm not saying it's not a rule; it's just not something I've ever had need for, so I could certainly have overlooked it (though it strikes me as pretty contrary to the general theme of openness that pervades 4e), so I'd appreciate if you'd note where this "rule of 4th edition" can be found.
People tend to use the Status ritual and the rings that give all that info as sort of an implied rule from what I've seen. If there are items and rituals that allow you to know this information under those conditions then you shouldn't be able to know them normally. I personally don't know if there is a rule that disallows the sharing of that info without a specific reason to be able to etc.
This is an interesting point.
The Status ritual and the Rings of Brotherhood work across any distance, (except the Status ritual will not work across planes). Lacking any actual rule, and given that the Status ritual is from a non-core book (FRPG) and Rings of Brotherhood are also from a non-core book (AV), it seems that it could equally well be implied that no rule exists that would keep players within earshot of one another (or line of sight really) from knowing each others status (current hit point total, number of healing surges remaining and any persistant conditions on them), and that the ritual and the rings are merely meant to allow characters outside of each others vicinity to keep track of one another.
While it might make better role-playing to place current HP total in general terms (and I tend to do it myself), I don't know that it's outside the range of possibility or probability for a character trained in healing to not look at a friend and know to within a pretty good degree of accuracy how many actual HP he has left. If someone tells you they have 15 out of 83 HP left, your mind really only considers that as an approximation (ie. somewhere greater than 1/6 but more than 1/5 of their total hp. If they are taking 23 damage from each hit, then the next hit will down them. If they are taking 3 damage from each hit, then they have a while to go.) Given that HP are simply an abstraction themselves representing the willingness/ability of a character to carry on a fight, communicating an abstraction in common reference terms doesn't seem like such a big deal to me, one way or the other.
Even looking at it another way - I've yet to see any rule limiting what information characters are allowed to pass amongst themselves of information that their character knows. A character can use free actions to communicate what he knows of the monster that he is fighting, a monster's location (if hidden), translations of anothers language, things he spots with a perception check, etc. If a player was to not be able to communicate his current state of health, the only really effective means to prevent it would be for him not to know his exact state of health. Which would mean that the DM would need to keep players current hit point totals hidden by not actually telling the player the exact damage done to them ("he hit you a mighty/sturdy/mild/glancing blow" "how many hit points" "I can't tell you - I'm keeping that secret from you. I'll let you know when you are bloodied and when you drop - that's all."). That's not the game that I think any of us are playing, and I don't think it's a game that I'd have the time to DM properly.
@ibixat - You say "if my players want to rattle off their exact HP values I don't think it really warrants me taking time out of the game to explain why they shouldn't." This implies there is a reason why they shouldn't. What would your reason be?
@benird - You said "I do go all fire and brimstone on players who tell exact HP totals but I do remind them politely that they're not permitted to reveal that info and that's what the bloodied measure is for. Most players take it fine when prompted on that rule, and it is a rule of 4th ed." (emphasis mine)
Where is this a rule? I've never seen it, and nobody I've asked in our local gaming group has seen it.
Personally, I'm fine with general terms like "close to bloodied", "barely bloodied", "seriously bloodied" and "need healing badly!"
Blue Valkyrie needs food badly!
I've never seen a rule in D&D (any edition) that says HP totals are not permitted to be discussed/disclosed. Ever.
@ibixat - You say "if my players want to rattle off their exact HP values I don't think it really warrants me taking time out of the game to explain why they shouldn't." This implies there is a reason why they shouldn't. What would your reason be?
@benird - You said "I do go all fire and brimstone on players who tell exact HP totals but I do remind them politely that they're not permitted to reveal that info and that's what the bloodied measure is for. Most players take it fine when prompted on that rule, and it is a rule of 4th ed." (emphasis mine)
Where is this a rule? I've never seen it, and nobody I've asked in our local gaming group has seen it.
Actually, it's fairly simple. The rule is in the books because there's no rule that actually lets characters do this. D&D is a game of rules that tell you what you can do, not rules that tell you what you can't do.
I think that a lot of folks have very different ideas on what constitutes meta-gaming and whether such meta-gaming is even wrong or cheating so really, it is up to the DM to decide what he wants to allow.
Others have suggested free heal checks, or simple descriptions of "not hurt", "bloodied", "ready to fall over", etc. Those are things your PC would see and could react ... one might even say, -you- could roleplay ... to and then do something about.
Blue Valkyrie needs food badly!
Yup, we use that, too! "Green Elf is about to die!"(Fortunately, we don't need to worry about, "Warrior shot the food!"
)
Actually, it's fairly simple. The rule is in the books because there's no rule that actually lets characters do this. D&D is a game of rules that tell you what you can do, not rules that tell you what you can't do.
You have an interesting interpretation of how the game system works.
As opposed to the crowd that says "Because there's no rule that says I *can't* do something, I can", you take the other extreme and say "Because there's no rule that says I *can* do something, I cannot".
Your reply, like most things that are 'fairly simple' is also flawed.
A rule is 'in the books' if it's printed in the books, or in the errata for the books. If it is something you infer/decide/rule on in your home game, then it's a House Rule, and not 'in the books'.
Benird says that it is a rule in 4e, and that it is not permitted to discuss/disclose their hit point totals. I'm asking, and continue to ask, where exactly this rule is found. If it is a rule, then it's on a page in one of the books, or in the RPGA documents that govern LFR play, and you should be able to point it out clearly. There's no grey area on that - if it's a rule, then it's somewhere you can quote as a reference.
Actually, it's fairly simple. The rule is in the books because there's no rule that actually lets characters do this. D&D is a game of rules that tell you what you can do, not rules that tell you what you can't do.
D&D is a game of rules that tell you what your character can do.
At the point that you are telling me that there is an actual rule specifically forbidding players from doing certain things outside of the game world, I think the onus is on you to come up with a page number.
If what you're really all saying is that you think that keeping actual hp totals hidden enhances the play experience and you'd appreciate if players go along with you (or that, as the DM, you are declaring a house rule that players are not allowed to do this), that's fine. That's not exactly the same thing as "This is a rule!", though, so I'd appreciate if people would stop saying that.
As far as the actual rules go, since no one on the "This is a rule!" side appears to be offering any, let me note what the DMG says:
"It’s a good idea to set some expectations about how players talk at the table.
[...]
* Can players offer advice if their characters aren’t present or are unconscious?
* Can players give other players information such as how many hit points they have left?" (DMG, p. 14)
As far as I can see, giving actual hp totals is a social contract issue. No more, no less. If you, as a player or DM, think it's better not to share that information, you should discuss that with your table and reach a consensus on the issue. Alternatively, as a practical matter you can, as the DM, enforce whatever whims you might have, though it's probably better not to claim you're just neutrally enforcing an actual rule unless you can point to one.
"No."
"Are you sure?"
"Yeah, I'll be fine."
Warden goes off and does her thing. Start of the Druid's turn I say, "You take 10 points of ongoing damage."
".... I'm dead."
Actually, it's fairly simple. The rule is in the books because there's no rule that actually lets characters do this. D&D is a game of rules that tell you what you can do, not rules that tell you what you can't do.
D&D is a game of rules that tell you what your character can do.
At the point that you are telling me that there is an actual rule specifically forbidding players from doing certain things outside of the game world, I think the onus is on you to come up with a page number.
If what you're really all saying is that you think that keeping actual hp totals hidden enhances the play experience and you'd appreciate if players go along with you (or that, as the DM, you are declaring a house rule that players are not allowed to do this), that's fine. That's not exactly the same thing as "This is a rule!", though, so I'd appreciate if people would stop saying that.
As far as the actual rules go, since no one on the "This is a rule!" side appears to be offering any, let me note what the DMG says:
"It’s a good idea to set some expectations about how players talk at the table.
[...]
* Can players offer advice if their characters aren’t present or are unconscious?
* Can players give other players information such as how many hit points they have left?" (DMG, p. 14)
As far as I can see, giving actual hp totals is a social contract issue. No more, no less. If you, as a player or DM, think it's better not to share that information, you should discuss that with your table and reach a consensus on the issue. Alternatively, as a practical matter you can, as the DM, enforce whatever whims you might have, though it's probably better not to claim you're just neutrally enforcing an actual rule unless you can point to one.
Technically, there is a rule that empowers characters to share information amongst themselves.
PH Pg 289. under "Free Actions" (last entry)
"Action" - "Description"
"Talk" - "Speak a few sentences"
There are no bounds or limits placed upon the character as to which sentences he may or may not speak. It could be "Attack the dragon!!!" or it could be "I'm down to 5 hit points."
As you said, any bounds placed upon the players by the DM in the interests of role-playing are simply house rules at this point.
(That said, I still tend to answer healer queries in general fashion rather than specific.)
Technically, there is a rule that empowers characters to share information amongst themselves.
PH Pg 289. under "Free Actions" (last entry)
"Action" - "Description"
"Talk" - "Speak a few sentences"
There are no bounds or limits placed upon the character as to which sentences he may or may not speak. It could be "Attack the dragon!!!" or it could be "I'm down to 5 hit points."
I'd just note that you're blurring the lines between character and player. "Attack the dragon!!!" could be something that your character says, or something that you, as a player, say. "I'm down to 5 hit points" is *not* something your character would say, no more than your character would say, "I'm going to use a daily power here." Hit points are a game mechanic, of which your character is only aware in an abstract sense. He doesn't know how many hit points he has left, only how relatively injured he is.
BTW, excellent find of that quote from the DMG, bgibbons. I do think it comes down to the social contract at the table.
Technically, there is a rule that empowers characters to share information amongst themselves.
PH Pg 289. under "Free Actions" (last entry)
"Action" - "Description"
"Talk" - "Speak a few sentences"
There are no bounds or limits placed upon the character as to which sentences he may or may not speak. It could be "Attack the dragon!!!" or it could be "I'm down to 5 hit points."
I'd just note that you're blurring the lines between character and player. "Attack the dragon!!!" could be something that your character says, or something that you, as a player, say. "I'm down to 5 hit points" is *not* something your character would say, no more than your character would say, "I'm going to use a daily power here." Hit points are a game mechanic, of which your character is only aware in an abstract sense. He doesn't know how many hit points he has left, only how relatively injured he is.
BTW, excellent find of that quote from the DMG, bgibbons. I do think it comes down to the social contract at the table.
True - it is a blurring of the lines.
Are there actually any constraints on players in the 4e rules? Or the rules define what "characters" can do, and ignore players?
If the rules are set up so that a player can not act unless the rules empower them to do so, then we are left with a whole plethora of actions that players engage in constantly without an empowering rule. (ie. Move miniatures. Go for soda. Eat snacks. Visit restroom. Breathe. and, yes, mention current hit points.)
If we regard the rules as being set up to empower characters to act, and players to work within those constraints, we can get situations where players sometimes communicate differently than characters (setting aside the whole issue of only allowing their players to speak draconic when talking to kobolds and not something more mundane like english, french, or spanish). I think, the more reasonable interpretation would be something like:
Joe's Elven Cleric: "Friend Dwarf, how fares ye body and spirit???"
Bob's Dwarf Fighter: "Verily, though I am sorely bloodied, my spirit fights on!"
Joe: "uh, Bob, do you need a heal?"
Bob: "No, I've got 58 hit points left. I'm fine."
Somewhere between the interaction of characters in the middle of roleplaying a tactical situation where the ghost of Euclid cries intermitably and the interaction of players at a table deciding to make tactical decisions, we get some mix of pure roleplay and pure numbers. The exact location of that line isn't defined by the rules but by (again) the social contract between players and DM.
"I'm down to 5 hit points" is *not* something your character would say, no more than your character would say, "I'm going to use a daily power here." Hit points are a game mechanic, of which your character is only aware in an abstract sense.
Mandatory OOTS reference
BlacksmithI estimate a 25% increase in attack accuracy, with a corresponding enhancement to it's damageRoyIt's OK. You can just say "+5 sword" here. We do stuff like that all the time
When I was DMing SPEC 2-1 H2 I one-rounded a Druid because he had the unfortunate opportunity of going first in initiative. Dropped him down to negative HP and taking ongoing 10 damage. After the baddies go three other players, none of them healers, had their turns before his turn. The shielding cleric was after him. The party Warden says, "You are going to die. Do you want me to trigger your second wind?"
"No."
"Are you sure?"
"Yeah, I'll be fine."
Warden goes off and does her thing. Start of the Druid's turn I say, "You take 10 points of ongoing damage."
".... I'm dead."
Ouch. The post game discussion was probably very interesting, though.
When I was DMing SPEC 2-1 H2 I one-rounded a Druid because he had the unfortunate opportunity of going first in initiative. Dropped him down to negative HP and taking ongoing 10 damage. After the baddies go three other players, none of them healers, had their turns before his turn. The shielding cleric was after him. The party Warden says, "You are going to die. Do you want me to trigger your second wind?"
"No."
"Are you sure?"
"Yeah, I'll be fine."
Warden goes off and does her thing. Start of the Druid's turn I say, "You take 10 points of ongoing damage."
".... I'm dead."
Ouch. The post game discussion was probably very interesting, though.
I think we can safely call this a PEBDAC issue.. Problem Exists Between Dice And Chair.. (yes I have always been wanting to co-opt that acronym for D&D ;) )
I've never seen a rule in D&D (any edition) that says HP totals are not permitted to be discussed/disclosed. Ever.
@ibixat - You say "if my players want to rattle off their exact HP values I don't think it really warrants me taking time out of the game to explain why they shouldn't." This implies there is a reason why they shouldn't. What would your reason be?
@benird - You said "I do go all fire and brimstone on players who tell exact HP totals but I do remind them politely that they're not permitted to reveal that info and that's what the bloodied measure is for. Most players take it fine when prompted on that rule, and it is a rule of 4th ed." (emphasis mine)
Where is this a rule? I've never seen it, and nobody I've asked in our local gaming group has seen it.
Well the general view I've always seen is that you shouldn't really state exact HP totals, I don't personally care.. When I'm dm'ing it's usually at a convention so unless you try to violiate a very well defined game rule I'm probably not going to say anything, if you do something with multiple interpretations and I have a different one than you I'm also probably going to let it go, at a con I don't have the luxury of time to discuss the finer points of rules interpretations so I just let almost all of it slide, unless another player at the table really has a problem with it.
I find games at conventions run much smoother if I just let people run their characters the way they interpret the rules, it's a rare occurance where I'll even ask how you did something anymore since all it does in the end is slow down the game and impact the other 5 players more than if I just ignore it for the time being. During a break or after the game I may ask you about something or let you know that it may not work the way you think it does etc but during a game I prefer letting the game flow rather than stopping it all the time.
Somewhere between the interaction of characters in the middle of roleplaying a tactical situation where the ghost of Euclid cries intermitably and the interaction of players at a table deciding to make tactical decisions, we get some mix of pure roleplay and pure numbers. The exact location of that line isn't defined by the rules but by (again) the social contract between players and DM.
Just Awesome!
I have often found myself Thinking it was a rule to not share exact numbers... right after I did so. ;)
Although, to be fair, I only do so when determining whether a short rest is needed and where healing during it should go. In combat, I at least try to approximate a more in-character approach.
"Warrior needs food badly" and all that.
-VIC
True - it is a blurring of the lines.
Are there actually any constraints on players in the 4e rules? Or the rules define what "characters" can do, and ignore players?
If the rules are set up so that a player can not act unless the rules empower them to do so, then we are left with a whole plethora of actions that players engage in constantly without an empowering rule. (ie. Move miniatures. Go for soda. Eat snacks. Visit restroom. Breathe. and, yes, mention current hit points.)
The rules also don't say that players can negotiate amongst themselves to share healing surges and trade them around their characters. It also doesn't say that they can't. Is it your position that if your group decides to do so that this is within the 4e rules?
Right.
So there's clearly certain things, -outside- the game, like "Visit restroom." that the 4E rules don't need to mention because they have no effect on the game. But other things, that clearly effect the PCs, the game, and the mechanics of same, if they aren't mentioned in the books, ... it doesn't matter if it is the PCs or the players themselves, then they shouldn't be done. If one is playing purely by the 4E rules.
I've never stated that I didn't want players to be allowed to discuss hit points. But if I were to take a RAW view such as the individual in the OP's story, that would in fact be the view I'd have to take. However, such a RAW view is so strict that I'd dare say that most folks would just say, "but that's not reasonable." If I was in a tournament, I might have to disagree but I might be willing to err on the side of the players. In most games, home or RPGA, I'm going to go with "sure, tell folks how many HP you have left."
But I still stand by the post I made most recently. (AFAIK) The rules don't normally allow for this, and as others stated, there's in fact a ritual that is put in place and makes by example the allusion that the default is that you can't normally communicate hit point totals. But folks will disagree and apparently are. *shrug* I can only go with what the books have in them if we're arguing RAW. If we're not ... and we seem to also be discussing RAI, I do agree with those that think that communicating in HP is ok.
the default is that you can't normally communicate hit point totals.
I guess it just seems arbitrary to me the notion that there is just one number on your character sheet that you can't tell anyone. You can tell your buddies your AC, or your XP total, or your Athletics skill modifier, but your current hit points are a big secret.
And frankly, it can only be a secret if both a) your max hp are secret too and b) the DM passes secret notes to everyone with damage totals. Otherwise it's not a secret to anyone who pays attention and has a good memory (or who makes good notes). I know that it I'm ever playing at a "no comunicating hit points" table as a healer, I'm going to keep pretty careful track of everyone else's numbers independently...
The rules don't normally allow for this, and as others stated, there's in fact a ritual that is put in place and makes by example the allusion that the default is that you can't normally communicate hit point totals. But folks will disagree and apparently are. *shrug* I can only go with what the books have in them if we're arguing RAW. If we're not ... and we seem to also be discussing RAI, I do agree with those that think that communicating in HP is ok.
(emphasis mine)
Again, you are saying 'rules as written' but where is the rule that prohibits players from discussing HP totals? If it is RAW, then quote your source. If you have no source to quote, then what you are proposing is your own House Rule. The difference is more than philisophical.
Seriously - we are in the RPGA forums, and you are saying that disclosing my HP to another player is breaking the rules, also known as cheating. That's sanctionable in the RPGA, so if there really is such a rule, we really need to know your source.
The ritual you refer to (Status) is a level 8 ritual that gives you an arcane link with your entire group, and access to much more information than just HP, and does so across any distance except planar boundries, whether or not they are conscious and able to communicate.
"You and up to eight ritual participants gain a powerful connection to one another. For the ritual’s duration, you know the current hit point total, healing surges remaining, and the nature of any persistent conditions affecting any other ritual participant. The connection persists at any distance except across planes."
This does not in any way allude to players not being permitted to disclose HP totals in combat. It does reinforce the rather common sense idea that you can't communicate such information if you aren't within range of normal communications (or you are unable to communicate because you are unconscious, silenced, etc), and it implies that during the ritual's duration the other players need not make any attempt to communicate such info to you (you simply 'know' it automatically). In short, the ritual is all about giving you information concerning your allies when they are unable to provide that information themselves (by distance, or blocked communications).
Again, you are saying 'rules as written' but where is the rule that prohibits players from discussing HP totals? If it is RAW, then quote your source. If you have no source to quote, then what you are proposing is your own House Rule. The difference is more than philisophical.
Seriously - we are in the RPGA forums, and you are saying that disclosing my HP to another player is breaking the rules, also known as cheating. That's sanctionable in the RPGA, so if there really is such a rule, we really need to know your source.
For the first para ... I've already made my case. Since D&D works by exclusion -you- have to tell -me- what page allows you to do things in the game, not the other way around.
For the second ... you need to re-read my posts if you are interpreting it that way.
The rules also don't say that players can negotiate amongst themselves to share healing surges and trade them around their characters. It also doesn't say that they can't. Is it your position that if your group decides to do so that this is within the 4e rules?
Is your position really that there's no difference between players changing the game stats of the characters and players sitting around the table talking?
The rules don't say anything about whether players can negotiate amongst themselves to share healing surges and trade them around their characters. The rules, however, do say that the characters cannot normally do that. If players wish to sit around and have that discussion, the rules don't care, but without having the means to accomplish that end (using an artificer's healing infusion or paladin's lay on hands for healing, or using certain magic items or rituals), their discussion has no effect on the characters.
Players are not their characters. The D&D rules say what the characters can do, not what the players can do. This is a pretty fundamental issue.
If my character is stunned, the character cannot talk.
If my character is stunned, the player is still allowed to ask whether anyone wants the last slice of pizza.
The rules are silent (and not just silent, but explicitly silent) as to what the player can do while the character is unable to participate or how much metagame talk is okay, save to note that this is the sort of thing that a table should reach a consensus on, along with other issues such as what happens when your dice fall on the floor and whether everyone chips in for pizza.
Some of the basic table issues are settled by RPGA rules (be on time, you don't earn XP if you're not there, you play only one character). Others aren't.
It's entirely fine if the default table rule for your group is "You don't talk about hit points." In our group, if a player started giving advice when the character wasn't with the group or was unconscious, the response would likely be "You're not there" and it would be understood that they should be silent.
That's not a natural law. That's not a D&D rule. That's simply the way we play the game, and the reasons for it are sufficiently understandable that I've not heard anyone question it.
In either case, however, if someone were to question it, the answer would be "Because it makes sense and we think the game is better played that way", not "Because that's a rule of 4th edition!"
If you are alone in thinking the game is better played a particular way, your best option is to try to convince the rest of the group that you're correct and they should sign your social contract, not to stand resolutely upon a rule that doesn't exist.
Uh oh, I guess my character can't breathe oxygen, I can hold my breath, but I can't actually take a breath, because there is no rule saying I can.
Technically, I don't think Wilden breath oxygen.
For the first para ... I've already made my case. Since D&D works by exclusion -you- have to tell -me- what page allows you to do things in the game, not the other way around.
For the second ... you need to re-read my posts if you are interpreting it that way.
Negative. You've made no case at all.
Your argument thus far is based wholly on unsupported statements.
You repeatedly claim that its against the rules as written (RAW) to discuss hit points, yet you are unable to produce a single source.
"Mar 26, 2010 -- 11:51PM, tirianmal wrote:
You repeatedly claim that its against the rules as written (RAW) to discuss hit points, yet you are unable to produce a single source.
*sigh*
Neither have you. Happy?
... long rambling stuff about everything but the point that I objected to in my second statement ...
... which was that I didn't say I thought it was cheating. Just that no one has shown me that there's a rule that allows them to do it. I don't automatically consider everything that anyone does that has no rule to it, cheating, otherwise DME* is just cheating all to hell and gone.
Plenty of folks keep quoting stuff about free actions and conversations in combat ... that -their characters- can have. And there've been plenty of folks that have stated similar concepts to the one I suggested about either saying "I'm hurt, extremely hurt or about to fall over", or something similar. But barring the unlikely and I dare say silly concept of PCs talking about hit points (or healing surges), and OOTS quotes aside, that is silly, then no one, including you has shown there to be a rule that allows players to do it.
Suffice it to say that, and I repeat, "I will let player's discuss HPs if they want, and won't consider it cheating ... but I see no and have been show no rule that says that they can do so." I don't know why this scrambles your bits so, but it does and at this point, until someone actually has a reference that they claim can allow it, I don't think I have anything further to add. Have fun.
*edit: And before you go jumping on that old bone, I mean that there is plenty of stuff done under DME that isn't really "DME" as defined in the CCG and therefore falls into that funny grey area we love to play in.
As a DM at all levels from the home game to the highest available LFR tiers at special events at large conventions, every time someone tries to give out an HP total in exact numbers, I ask the players if they have Status running. Typically, since these are LFR players, they are unaware of the ritual's existence. Once I explain the ritual to them, the players have, without fail, accepted the ruling that the ritual is required to provide exact totals - in fact, I've even had groups of strong powergamers (looking at a particular high-tier P2 group that I ran all Saturday at DDXP this year) thank me for pointing it out to them. This thread is the first time I've ever heard someone have a problem with it.
I'm going to add a quick note here:
As a DM at all levels from the home game to the highest available LFR tiers at special events at large conventions, every time someone tries to give out an HP total in exact numbers, I ask the players if they have Status running. Typically, since these are LFR players, they are unaware of the ritual's existence. Once I explain the ritual to them, the players have, without fail, accepted the ruling that the ritual is required to provide exact totals - in fact, I've even had groups of strong powergamers (looking at a particular high-tier P2 group that I ran all Saturday at DDXP this year) thank me for pointing it out to them. This thread is the first time I've ever heard someone have a problem with it.
So I guess my question is, how would you handle a player response to "Do you have status running?" of:
"No. I don't need it. Both our characters are conscious and in the same room. If we were in different rooms, or on different sides of the world, we would need Status to know the state of each other's health, but as it is, we can simply communicate with each other by talking as free actions. Just as a character can communicate that he is immobilized, restrained, grabbed, or otherwise affected by an ongoing condition, he could equally communicate to a high degree of accuracy the current wounds and readiness to fight."
I'm going to add a quick note here:
As a DM at all levels from the home game to the highest available LFR tiers at special events at large conventions, every time someone tries to give out an HP total in exact numbers, I ask the players if they have Status running. Typically, since these are LFR players, they are unaware of the ritual's existence. Once I explain the ritual to them, the players have, without fail, accepted the ruling that the ritual is required to provide exact totals - in fact, I've even had groups of strong powergamers (looking at a particular high-tier P2 group that I ran all Saturday at DDXP this year) thank me for pointing it out to them. This thread is the first time I've ever heard someone have a problem with it.
So I guess my question is, how would you handle a player response to "Do you have status running?" of:
"No. I don't need it. Both our characters are conscious and in the same room. If we were in different rooms, or on different sides of the world, we would need Status to know the state of each other's health, but as it is, we can simply communicate with each other by talking as free actions. Just as a character can communicate that he is immobilized, restrained, grabbed, or otherwise affected by an ongoing condition, he could equally communicate to a high degree of accuracy the current wounds and readiness to fight."
I would point out that the Status ritual is how the players are able to know numbers instead of general effect. If the player continued to argue, I would clarify that it was the table ruling. If the players continued to argue, and I was in a bad mood, I would ask the player how many hit points he/she, the player, had.
I am going to ask CS for an official ruling on this and from that we will have an answer on the topic one way or another. I'm also going to edit my original post to remove reference to it being a rule.
I'm going to add a quick note here:
As a DM at all levels from the home game to the highest available LFR tiers at special events at large conventions, every time someone tries to give out an HP total in exact numbers, I ask the players if they have Status running. Typically, since these are LFR players, they are unaware of the ritual's existence. Once I explain the ritual to them, the players have, without fail, accepted the ruling that the ritual is required to provide exact totals - in fact, I've even had groups of strong powergamers (looking at a particular high-tier P2 group that I ran all Saturday at DDXP this year) thank me for pointing it out to them. This thread is the first time I've ever heard someone have a problem with it.
So I guess my question is, how would you handle a player response to "Do you have status running?" of:
"No. I don't need it. Both our characters are conscious and in the same room. If we were in different rooms, or on different sides of the world, we would need Status to know the state of each other's health, but as it is, we can simply communicate with each other by talking as free actions. Just as a character can communicate that he is immobilized, restrained, grabbed, or otherwise affected by an ongoing condition, he could equally communicate to a high degree of accuracy the current wounds and readiness to fight."
I would point out that the Status ritual is how the players are able to know numbers instead of general effect. If the player continued to argue, I would clarify that it was the table ruling. If the players continued to argue, and I was in a bad mood, I would ask the player how many hit points he/she, the player, had.
I think at the point that you clarify it's a table ruling, then I would simply accept that and move on. I try not to argue rules during the 4 hour mod, but to follow up later to ask for specification.
Of course, if I were in a particularly foul mood, I would accept the table rule, and then simply state to the DM when the need arose "My fighter wishes to tell the cleric that his total hit points are currently at 14 out of 82 - as the Player's Handbook states on Page 11, under core mechanic: 'Decide what you want your character to do and tell the Dungeon Master.' "
(Probably would never actually do this at the table, just as most DM's would probably never kill a player character out of spite as you suggest.)
As others have pointed out, if faced with a DM taking this position, the best response would be to simply take careful notes of all of the player character damage. Once a character becomes bloodied, you have a very good range for what their total hit points are that will only become more accurate throughout the first combat. Given that damage done to a character is never passed by secret notes from DM to player, but simply announced across the table, it would be simple (if tedious) to simply track everyone's HP and thus know this information at all times.
As others have pointed out, if faced with a DM taking this position, the best response would be to simply take careful notes of all of the player character damage. Once a character becomes bloodied, you have a very good range for what their total hit points are that will only become more accurate throughout the first combat. Given that damage done to a character is never passed by secret notes from DM to player, but simply announced across the table, it would be simple (if tedious) to simply track everyone's HP and thus know this information at all times.
At that point (given that you have the levels to use the ritual), wouldn't it be less hassle just to buy and cast Status?
(I should note, as I did not in my post, that if my part is truly unaware of the ritual, or "forgot to tell me they cast it", then I tend to let them buy/cast retroactively. I'm a DM who prefers that the players play by the rules, but I try not to be a dick about it.)
At that point (given that you have the levels to use the ritual), wouldn't it be less hassle just to buy and cast Status?
At 250gp for components and 135gp for casting, no (especially at anything less than paragon tier). I'd rather not spend the gold for a ritual that no rule says I need, and only a contrived interpretation of the actual text of the ritual could indicate that it is needed for anything other than long distance knowledge (key quote: "The connection persists at any distance except across planes."). Given that many mods are multi-day adventures it wouldn't be hard to use up an entire adventure's gp reward just to cast this.
Uh oh, I guess my character can't breathe oxygen, I can hold my breath, but I can't actually take a breath, because there is no rule saying I can.
Technically, I don't think Wilden breath oxygen.
Hehehe I wonder if they technically *produce* oxygen, being plants?
As a DM at all levels from the home game to the highest available LFR tiers at special events at large conventions, every time someone tries to give out an HP total in exact numbers, I ask the players if they have Status running. Typically, since these are LFR players, they are unaware of the ritual's existence. Once I explain the ritual to them, the players have, without fail, accepted the ruling that the ritual is required to provide exact totals
The ritual Traveler's Chant allows a group to move overland at the slowest PC's speed +2. The existence of such a ritual does not mean that a group can't move overland at the slowest PC's speed.
The martial practice Thorough Search allows you to search a room, with a +20 to your Perception check. The existence of such a martial practice does not mean that you cannot search a room.
The ritual Status allows you to know the hit point totals, number of healing surges and conditions on another character, even if they're nowhere near you. The existence of such a ritual does not mean that you cannot ascertain that information while you're in the same room.
The fact that a ritual, martial practice or power exists which enhances simple actions or senses does not remove your ability to perform the simple tasks without aid of the ritual.
I note, by the way, that Status also reveals any conditions on another participant. By the logic that if there's a ritual to reveal information, that's the only way it can be revealed, this naturally means that I cannot inform someone that my character is diseased, dazed or immobilized. I'm curious why you don't follow your logic to this natural conclusion.
I'm also curious as to how you rationalize your belief that this is a clear rule of 4th edition with the section in the DMG which explicitly treats sharing exact hit point totals as being as open to discussion as whether everyone should chip in for pizza.
Or, does the fact that your argument is based solely upon the Status ritual mean that you believe that this was completely legal and acceptable as of the publication of the PH/DMG, and only became beyond the pale a few months later when the FRPG came out?
I'm not entirely sure how I'm ending up defending this position, since I find concealing exact hit point totals to be a perfectly acceptable house rule. I suppose my quibble is merely that I'm developing a severe distaste for people not distinguishing between "These are the rules of the game" and "This is the way our group does it."
The ritual Status allows you to know the hit point totals, number of healing surges and conditions on another character, even if they're nowhere near you. The existence of such a ritual does not mean that you cannot ascertain that information while you're in the same room.
This. Especially in the context that it is in a campaign book, not a core rule book. I don't think Status means more than what it says, which is that you can do what bgibbons notes.
Personally, I prefer to keep it in abstract values:
Not hurt
Minor injuries
Almost bloody(51-60%)
Bloody(50-25%)
Badly bloodied(24%-11%)
Barely conscious(10%-1% or will clearly be dropped by one additional hit)
Unconscious
I think the game is more fun when you don't know exact hit points, but at the same time, I don't think there's a huge difference in the mechanics of play - if I say I'm badly bloodied or if I say I'm at 12 hp out of 50, either way, I've just announced that I'm a priority target of healing assuming no one else is that badly off...
Show
As the Dungeon Master’s Guide points out, bloodied is the most important combat state to communicate to players. Not only does it help guide tactics, but it also lets you avoid giving out precise hit point totals. Tell the players as soon as the monster becomes bloodied, and if that state changes, let them know.
This goes both ways: each player should announce when his or her character becomes bloodied or no longer bloodied. Assume that all monsters can recognize this condition and act accordingly.
Not talking about it as a rule, but the "Game Transparancy" article in Dragon 375 talks about the Bloodied status and giving out hit point totals:ShowAs the Dungeon Master’s Guide points out, bloodied is the most important combat state to communicate to players. Not only does it help guide tactics, but it also lets you avoid giving out precise hit point totals. Tell the players as soon as the monster becomes bloodied, and if that state changes, let them know.This goes both ways: each player should announce when his or her character becomes bloodied or no longer bloodied. Assume that all monsters can recognize this condition and act accordingly.
Personally, I play it as all effects and conditions are known. So you can always tell if something's immobilized, dazed, taking ongoing X damage, etc.
Bloodied is a condition. "I have 12 hit points left!" is not. However, if the PCs are able to communicate I don't have a problem with them discussing in greater detail their hit point situation. Within reason and a six-second game turn. But just as characters don't have hit points so players have to use a different language than the characters would use in-game, players are not adventurers so we don't have the same language that the characters would use to quickly discuss such important details.
Maybe some military folks could weigh in with how effectively they are able to communicate quickly in a combat situation.
I'm going to add a quick note here:
As a DM at all levels from the home game to the highest available LFR tiers at special events at large conventions, every time someone tries to give out an HP total in exact numbers, I ask the players if they have Status running. Typically, since these are LFR players, they are unaware of the ritual's existence. Once I explain the ritual to them, the players have, without fail, accepted the ruling that the ritual is required to provide exact totals - in fact, I've even had groups of strong powergamers (looking at a particular high-tier P2 group that I ran all Saturday at DDXP this year) thank me for pointing it out to them. This thread is the first time I've ever heard someone have a problem with it.
I'll go ahead and appeal to authority too!
As a DM that's been running RPGA living games for nearly a decade and a half, involved heavily during much of that time running events and coordinating conventions, I don't do any of the above.
It's a rule that can be interpreted in different ways. The above interpretation is the way almost guaranteed to, at the very least, put a negative damper on the game souring future interactions between me and the players as they start thinking I'm a jerk tightwad DM. On the other hand, it can also cause outright arguements and tie up valuble slot time.
If the players are rules sticklers, I'll go with it. If they play looser and tend towards beer & pretzels style play, I'll roll that way too. Whatever challenges the table in a manner that brings fun.
As a personal preference, I'd like players to use general terms rather than numbers ("I'm about to die here!'), but if they want to use numbers and their PCs have some way to communicate, okay, whatever.
The rules are a means to have fun, not a means to themselves.
-karma
Given that HP are simply an abstraction themselves representing the willingness/ability of a character to carry on a fight, communicating an abstraction in common reference terms doesn't seem like such a big deal to me, one way or the other.
I have to agree with this. Hit points are an abstraction (as well as the entire game of D&D itself). Yes, of course your character doesn't know exactly how many "hit points" he/she has left. But your character does have a ton of information that you or I as players don't have. During a combat, the party healer is paying very close attention to how hurt everyone is. A character (but not a player) can observe how much the fighter winces when he is struck, how loudly he cries out in pain, how steady he stands on his feet, whether his sword arm trembles a bit when he swings, how many wounds he has and how deep each wound is, how much blood is gushing out of each wound, whether he looks faint from blood loss, if he's sweating, if his eyes are a bit glazed, if he slurrs his words slightly when he talks, if he looks dizzy, etc., etc., etc. Your hit point total is an abstraction of all of these things (that your character can observe). I would argue that a character (and his healer) has a very good idea of how hurt he is (certainly a much firmer idea than "I'm bloodied" or "I'm not bloodied"). If the characters play together consistently, I'd also argue that the leader would have a firm idea of how much punishment each of his allies can take. (And even if the healer is with a group of strangers, they should know basic things like "Fighters are tough and rogues are fragile, I'll have to keep my eye out on that rogue.")
The leader should be able to survey the battlefield and discern things like whether the fighter can take another hit or not, who in the party needs the healing more, and whether Healing Power X would be "overkill." I don't know about anyone else, but as a player sitting at a D&D table I see things like other gamers sitting in chairs, dice, pizza, sodas, etc. If I'm playing the leader I can't just look over at someone at the game table to see how hurt his character is. But in-game my character can. Hit points are simply a game mechanic for conveying out-of-game the kind of information that your character already knows in-game. A player communicating his current and max HP to another player is not all that much different than a trained healer surveying the battlefield. The healer won't know if his ally has 51 or 52 HP (or even 58), but will have a pretty good idea of his health level. And often it doesn't matter exactly how many hit points someone has anyway (they're usually down-and-dying at negative-something, not at 0 HP).
All that being said... I'm perfectly fine with whatever the social contract at the table is. The entire purpose of the game is to have fun, so as a player and a DM I want to do whatever the group will find most enjoyable. There are pros and cons with the various ways of communicating health level and different player-types will prefer different methods. LFR games are frequently under a time constraint and it is a lot faster (and to some players more fun) to just rattle off "I'm at 13/56 HP" and keep the combat moving (get to the "exciting parts"). No one wants to sit around for 5 or 10 minutes (every round) while the person playing the leader tries to figure out how to best distribute his healing. It's often much simpler, easier, faster, and more fun (for some players) to tell the leader how many hit points they have so the healer can quickly decide the healing needs of the party and continue the combat.
Again, "fun" is the key word. I recently played an underwater combat where the DM made us sit silently at the table the entire time. It made sense and I understood the ruling, but it wasn't enjoyable for any of us. It was boring, unexciting, and frustrating. D&D is a game. Just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean it's a good ruling if it diminishes the fun of the players at the table.
A player communicating his current and max HP to another player is not all that much different than a trained healer surveying the battlefield. The healer won't know if his ally has 51 or 52 HP (or even 58), but will have a pretty good idea of his health level. And often it doesn't matter exactly how many hit points someone has anyway (they're usually down-and-dying at negative-something, not at 0 HP).
I'm every healer's favourite player. We are firmly on the "please feel free to communicate your HP numbers" side of the issue, but my own communication is generally not "I'm at 49 of 84 HP" but rather "I'm down a surge plus 14". That tends to get a fairly positive reception
Again, "fun" is the key word. I recently played an underwater combat where the DM made us sit silently at the table the entire time. It made sense and I understood the ruling, but it wasn't enjoyable for any of us. It was boring, unexciting, and frustrating. D&D is a game. Just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean it's a good ruling if it diminishes the fun of the players at the table.
lol I did probably the same combat, but with Telepathy 20 it goes a bit smoother. I agree with your comments though, about fun and sense.
I don't know about anyone else, but as a player sitting at a D&D table I see things like other gamers sitting in chairs, dice, pizza, sodas, etc.
"Hey Lorika, how many more slices of pizza do you want?"
"Oh, I can't tell you exactly how hungry I am.
I'm either full, starving, or at least halfway done eating.""Do you need a soda refill?"
"Well, my glass is over halfway empty. You figure it out."
I don't know about anyone else, but as a player sitting at a D&D table I see things like other gamers sitting in chairs, dice, pizza, sodas, etc.
"Hey Lorika, how many more slices of pizza do you want?"
"Oh, I can't tell you exactly how hungry I am.
"Do you need a soda refill?"
"Well, my glass is over halfway empty. You figure it out."
See, I read that entirely differently. I thought:
"Hey Lorkia, why are you sitting in pizza?"
"Cause you're sitting in the damn soda!"
See, I read that entirely differently. I thought:
"Hey Lorkia, why are you sitting in pizza?"
"Cause you're sitting in the damn soda!"
You and me both! I just figured it was all for good luck...
See, I read that entirely differently. I thought:
"Hey Lorkia, why are you sitting in pizza?"
"Cause you're sitting in the damn soda!"
Note to self: Buy chairs for the gamers to sit in. Apparently they're tired of sitting in the pizza.
See, this is why I try to reread my posts before submitting them... Obviously I should have read it one more time.
From now on I'm sending all my posts to my editor husband for review prior to posting. See, I read that entirely differently. I thought:
"Hey Lorkia, why are you sitting in pizza?"
"Cause you're sitting in the damn soda!"
Note to self: Buy chairs for the gamers to sit in. Apparently they're tired of sitting in the pizza.
See, this is why I try to reread my posts before submitting them... Obviously I should have read it one more time. From now on I'm sending all my posts to my editor husband for review prior to posting.
Good useful information for both DMs and players alike! This is why I like reading this forum!
Didn't the party just get nailed with an AoE? SOOOOOoooo, isn't there some chance (perhaps 2/6 maybe) of getting another AoE again?
I think some might call that playing with fire.
As it says in the DMG - Your HP total is the amount of damage you can take before you go unconscious. I'd figure the heal skill would take into account HP totals, and other negatives, such as diseases etc. After all it's what is there to help trigger second wind etc.
Otherwise your using out of character knowledge to affect your gameplay. And yes it sucks for 1-4 4-7 its what rituals are for. Its what magic is for. In this instance you have a ritual stating its purpose and how it is to be used, and it basically tells you. "Hey I let you know the exact totals of your party" your counter-arguement comes up as "thats great if I was on another plane but im in the next room"
Realistically what module have you ever played with multiple people on different planes of existance? The entire idea of this is flawed Ad nauseam. You specifically have a rule and ritual that states its purpose. Your counter arguement is "But there arent any ruling saying I have to follow by this".
I'd like to say. hey its a ritual, if a ritual exists to define the purpose, then thats what it is there to do. This is going so far as to say, I know exactly how many HP I, the player have. We just dont know. But we know when were bleeding, and when were badly bleeding.
Thats my 2 cents. I agree with John Dubois. Status, or a (minor) heal check to know exactly what total someone has. Because hey. The DMG tells me I can do it.
Skip W.
I know this thread is fairly old, and I'm probably just saying "me too" at this point, but...
This is a clear illustration of the difference between being right and being a jerk. As others have said, you shouldn't really ask for exact HP totals - it breaks immersion and isn't really allowed by the rules. "Do you need healing?" "No, I'm okay, help the Rogue." Works fine. But a reasonable answer to "What is your exact HP total?" is never "I don't have to tell you that! Don't look at my sheet! Go eff yourself!"
And he may have been right about not wanting you to heal him so the BBEG could put him back down again, but if the BBEG hit the Rogue instead, then you could have 2 characters down and dying instead of 1, and that's no good either. At that point, he's unconscious, so it's not like he should be arguing with you.
In addition... If I heard someone say "my build is optimized for Paragon", I'd be tempted to say, "then play a different character." Because that's akin, in my mind, to saying "I won't be any good for the next 30 adventures, so I'm just going to leech XP for the next year while other people do the heavy lifting." If a character is no good through heroic, then it's not a good character.
You know, as a general rule, even if I play a character not likely to need much healing, I treat the healer in the party with great respect.
(snip)
2) Um, even if I'm mostly self sufficient, if I need healing, I really really need healing. I'd like the person I ask for help to be more than willing to provide it.
+1
I'm a Warlock with a minor in CON, so I can "take one for the team". Sometimes, though, it's more like "take ONE for the team" ... and call "Medic!"
In the LFR mini-campaign at Raven's Bluff, I helped establish teamwork as our priority by going to the aid of our battlerager fighter when he actually went down (first time in 2 1/3 modules). Good thing, too, because in fight 2 it was ME who got clobbered. The next two characters onto the map - including the Warlord - came to my aid when I needed it.
He then made a similar statement about not having to give his HP total out (we had 3 bloodied people in the party at the moment).
I turned to him (I was playing a Dwarven Defender) and proudly said "Have it your way buddy, but if you die I'm gonna make Gore Angels out of what's left..."
He then told the Cleric what his HP total was currently and what his total HP were.
It sounds to me like he may have had a bad experience with a DM who went after his character during a Mod (lord knows I have).