D&D 5E On the healing options in the 5e DMG

[aramis erak]

Has anyone mentioned the quote in 5E?

5E PBR, P 75.

Describing the Effects of Damage
Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious​

So, at half, you're into some meat. At 0, you're definitely into meat.

I think the meat vs moxie debate is being mired in useless PEK...

 

[MechaPilot]

Has anyone mentioned the quote in 5E?

5E PBR, P 75.

Describing the Effects of Damage
Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious​

So, at half, you're into some meat. At 0, you're definitely into meat.

I think the meat vs moxie debate is being mired in useless PEK...

Actually, that quote is rather meaningless in that it uses the term "typically." It is basically offering a ready-made explanation for new DMs without imposing a definition on anyone. As an experienced DM, I don't care about the ready-made explanation; I'll continue to narrate it as I see fit. However, I do appreciate the non-absolute language (i.e. the use of "typically" instead of writing the sentences without that word, which makes them read in an absolute manner), and the opening sentence which gives a non-qualified statement that different DMs do things differently.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How do you know that a character took fifteen arrows to the face except that you choose to narrate it that way. Nothing in the resolution mechanics tells you that the arrows hit the face, the arm or indeed caused tiring ducking and weaving - indeed, that is the whole crux of the discussion!

If you're using critical hit rules, and equipping a helmet negates critical hits, then you can reasonably infer that a critical hit is one to the head.

You could play everything with a maximum of abstraction, so you have plenty of wiggle room to narrate anything as a hit or a dodge or whatever. Or, you can choose to codify meaning into the system - every hit is a hit, a miss by two points or less was blocked by the shield (if applicable), and a result lower than (10 + Dex mod) was a wide swing that doesn't even make contact.

All of that can be reasonably inferred from the rules in the game, though there's room to argue if you really want things to be vague. Even if you're house ruling all of that in yourself, though, as long as it's made part of the game before you actually start rolling, then the outcome is determined by the system rather than the players. It reduces the effect of narrative bias.

It is a valuable strength of the system if it can be made to resolve greater detail
merely by choosing to view it in a consistent way.

 

[pemerton]

If you're using critical hit rules, and equipping a helmet negates critical hits, then you can reasonably infer that a critical hit is one to the head.

How does this relate to the hit point system in any edition? 3E, 4e and 5e all have critical hits, and none have a rule that equipping a helmet negates critical hits.

you can choose to codify meaning into the system - every hit is a hit, a miss by two points or less was blocked by the shield (if applicable), and a result lower than (10 + Dex mod) was a wide swing that doesn't even make contact.

That doesn't tell me how you know that a character has arrows in his/her face (or arm, or back, or wherever) - except that you choose to narrate it that way.

It is a valuable strength of the system if it can be made to resolve greater detail merely by choosing to view it in a consistent way.

How do I have to view the AD&D, 3E or 5e combat system to know which part of a PC's body is injured by any given event of hit point loss?

I also don't see what consistency has to do with it: there is nothing inconsistent about narrating an event of hit point loss sometimes one way, sometimes another. There is no rule of the game that states, or even implies, that every time hit points are removed from the pool exactly the same thing is happening in the fiction.

Has anyone mentioned the quote in 5E?

5E PBR, P 75.

Describing the Effects of Damage
Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious​

So, at half, you're into some meat. At 0, you're definitely into meat.

Nothing there says that hit points correspond to meat. Certain events of hit point loss are to be narrated as injuries, but nothing says that (for instance) healing those hit point cures those injuries. It is quite consistent with the more verisimilitudinous assumption that healing those hit points means that the injuries in question are no longer a burden on combat performance.

 

[Sailor Moon]

How does this relate to the hit point system in any edition? 3E, 4e and 5e all have critical hits, and none have a rule that equipping a helmet negates critical hits.

That doesn't tell me how you know that a character has arrows in his/her face (or arm, or back, or wherever) - except that you choose to narrate it that way.

How do I have to view the AD&D, 3E or 5e combat system to know which part of a PC's body is injured by any given event of hit point loss?

I also don't see what consistency has to do with it: there is nothing inconsistent about narrating an event of hit point loss sometimes one way, sometimes another. There is no rule of the game that states, or even implies, that every time hit points are removed from the pool exactly the same thing is happening in the fiction.

Nothing there says that hit points correspond to meat. Certain events of hit point loss are to be narrated as injuries, but nothing says that (for instance) healing those hit point cures those injuries. It is quite consistent with the more verisimilitudinous assumption that healing those hit points means that the injuries in question are no longer a burden on combat performance.

Your statement about inconsistency and the narrative really says to me that you aren't in touch with the system.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How do I have to view the AD&D, 3E or 5e combat system to know which part of a PC's body is injured by any given event of hit point loss?

So you admit that the body is injured by any given event of hit point loss? Because that's my point - you can either read it such that every hit *does* cause bodily injury, or you can read it that some hits might cause injury and some might cause fatigue or erosion of luck and divine protections etc.

When you decide that a hit was either mojo or meat, then that's you imposing your bias on the narrative - you're making something happen because you feel like it should happen. If you interpret the rules such that every hit has some meaningful component of meat, then that's one less thing that you need to just make up, because it's information that is provided by the system. (You still need to determine hit location, but that's relatively less narrative freedom than if you have to independently determine that it was a meat hit before also determining location.)

I also don't see what consistency has to do with it: there is nothing inconsistent about narrating an event of hit point loss sometimes one way, sometimes another. There is no rule of the game that states, or even implies, that every time hit points are removed from the pool exactly the same thing is happening in the fiction.

The matter of consistency is whether it is internal to the system, or subject to narrative fiat (from you, the player, which exists outside of the system).

You can choose to play a game where events are narrated more consistently (e.g. every loss of HP corresponds to a discrete injury). Or, you can choose to play where radically different narrative events might correspond to similar mechanical events. If you choose the latter, then *you* must determine the difference in outcomes, and since you are a factor external to the system, it devalues the model.

 

[Hussar]

The point is Saelorn, there is no model. That's the crux of the discussion. People who claim HP=Meat want D&D to model combat. It doesn't and never, ever has. A model MUST be able to tell the user of that model something about what happened. When I use any model, it will always tell me something about what happened. It might not tell me exactly what happened, but, it will give me a pretty good idea.

A 15 HP fighter takes 5 points of damage. What happened? Using the mechanics of the game, tell me what happened in the fiction. The problem is, you can't. Not even remotely definitively. The only thing you can tell me is that the character has taken 5 points of damage and his current HP is now 10. That's it. That is the only thing the mechanics tell you. Anything else is 100% added by the DM because I can narrate that event any way I want and the mechanics will not contradict a single interpretation. I could rule that as you were hit, a baseball flew over from a nearby playground and bounced off your head. The mechanics have nothing to say about it.

There is no model. Nothing is being modelled at all and never was.

 

[BryonD]

Did we decide yet if the sun sets in the east or the south?

 

[jodyjohnson]

Did we decide yet if the sun sets in the east or the south?

At this particular time of year, depending on ones latitude, the sun may not rise or at the opposite latitude set. So very much a relative question much like the topic.

 

[pemerton]

So you admit that the body is injured by any given event of hit point loss?

No. You said that an event of hit point loss might correspond to a character having his/her face full of arrows. And you said that this is more consistent, because it doesn't require a narrative choice. You said that if "you choose to view the system in a consistent way" narrative choices won't be required.

And I'm asking - how do I know, from applying the rules of AD&D, 3E, 4e or 5e, what sort of injury a given event of hit point loss corresponded to, how serious it is, etc?

The question is mostly rhetorical, because the answer is - I can't. I have to choose to narrate the injury as a cut to the arm, or an arrow in the face, or whatever, because the system doesn't tell me. (Contrast, say, RM, RQ or BW. Or even Roger Musson's system, which tells me how severe an injury is.)

When you decide that a hit was either mojo or meat, then that's you imposing your bias on the narrative - you're making something happen because you feel like it should happen. If you interpret the rules such that every hit has some meaningful component of meat, then that's one less thing that you need to just make up, because it's information that is provided by the system.

What is the difference between making up "You narrowly dodge the giant's fierce blow" and "The giant's fierce blow shatters your rib cage, but you fight on"?

If you decide that hit point are meat, the range of your permitted narrations is narrower, but the options are still, for practical purpose, unlimited within either range.