D&D 5E Do you let PC's just *break* objects?

[Maxperson]

Agreed, although various editions have given some guidance on how DMs might narrate HP and HP loss. It varies from edition to edition, but 5e describes visible signs of wear first appearing at half HP, and the hit that reduces a target to 0 HP being a direct hit. This can be a handy way to communicate relative HP values dietetically, if it’s done consistently.

I put my players' PCs on hit point diets all the time!

 

[greg kaye]

They can't know hit points, though. From 1e on they have been abstract and represent luck, skill, divine intervention, physicality and more, and not even in the same proportions from day to day. There's nothing for them to be able to figure out. ...

Arguably not exactly, but they may know that something was up, after each killing six goblins, that they'd all (hit-point-wise) become measurably harder to kill. Along with other character progression, they suddenly become significantly tougher.

... Hit points are purely for players.

They can also be pretty good for stopping characters from dying.
But could characters make a reasonably accurate assessment of how much harder to kill they had become? Certainly not without some discomfort...

I put my players' PCs on hit point diets all the time!

Well, things like this might help in the assessment and characters may have some awareness that they'd gained more resistance to your regimes than when they started adventuring.

 

[Maxperson]

Arguably not exactly, but they may know that something was up, after each killing six goblins, that they'd all (hit-point-wise) become measurably harder to kill. Along with other character progression, they suddenly become significantly tougher.

That's just it. There's nothing to measure. Oh they get more skillful, so they parry some "hits" and take hit point damage rather than being run through, but they can't possibly measure that skill as hit points. They'd simply measure it as skill. And then the next day when they screw it up badly(skill fails), because everyone makes mistakes, the PC gets luck and the sword takes off a lock of hair doing 15 hit points of "damage."

There's no way that they can realize that hit points are there and measure them with any sort of accuracy.

But could characters make a reasonably accurate assessment of how much harder to kill they had become? Certainly not without some discomfort...

Not with any sort of idea of hit points they can't. Especially when instead of dying to those goblins in 18 seconds, they last 24 or maybe 30 seconds.

They can know that they are getting more powerful, but that's not going to translate into hit points or any sort of measurement of them. The abstract nature of hit points ensures this.

 

[greg kaye]

That's just it. There's nothing to measure. Oh they get more skillful, so they parry some "hits" and take hit point damage rather than being run through, but they can't possibly measure that skill as hit points. They'd simply measure it as skill. And then the next day when they screw it up badly(skill fails), because everyone makes mistakes, the PC gets luck and the sword takes off a lock of hair doing 15 hit points of "damage."

There's no way that they can realize that hit points are there and measure them with any sort of accuracy.

Not with any sort of idea of hit points they can't. Especially when instead of dying to those goblins in 18 seconds, they last 24 or maybe 30 seconds.

They can know that they are getting more powerful, but that's not going to translate into hit points or any sort of measurement of them. The abstract nature of hit points ensures this.

If there was one thing that might be measured it would be fighting/survivability potentials. These are things that someone such as a boxing coach could give special attention to. A character with 11 HP is, one way or another, measurably harder to down than one with 10.

 

[Lanefan]

They can't know hit points, though. From 1e on they have been abstract and represent luck, skill, divine intervention, physicality and more, and not even in the same proportions from day to day. There's nothing for them to be able to figure out. Hit points are purely for players.

They can't know hit points by that name, but they'd be able to tell soon enough who was tougher and more resilient than who - particularly among the warrior types for whom toughness is part of their trade - when it came to stamina in combat and-or taking a physical beating.

Put another way, they wouldn't know that Reginald has 57 hit points and Aloysius 45 but they would know that it takes a little more to put ol' Reggie down for the count than it does to knock Al out.

 

[Lanefan]

A lot of DMs had invisible or illusion covered traps that the pole would reveal. As it would a corridor with a section of stone that was like quicksand. And so on. Traps got really inventive in 1e.

A pole would also reveal an invisible or disguised creature e.g. a Gelatinous Cube or Trapper.

 

[greg kaye]

I've honestly never understood the 10 foot pole. A regular staff could be used to tap ahead but most traps other than the occasional trip wire won't be triggered by a stick anyway.

But back in white box days, you couldn't buy a staff but just a 10' pole.

I guess you could also throw garlic at suspected traps, but that was more expensive.
It also amazes me that, by 5e, casters have discovered mage hand but crafters are yet to comercialise pull apart tent poles.

 

[greg kaye]

They can't know hit points by that name, but they'd be able to tell soon enough who was tougher and more resilient than who - particularly among the warrior types for whom toughness is part of their trade - when it came to stamina in combat and-or taking a physical beating.

Put another way, they wouldn't know that Reginald has 57 hit points and Aloysius 45 but they would know that it takes a little more to put ol' Reggie down for the count than it does to knock Al out.

IF a world were to operate within a system within which points to death/unconsciousness were quantifiable, who knows what these points might be called? But my guess is it would be something like Mordenkainen's mortality points.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Haha on the subject of impractical contrivances, standardized dungeon hall measurements… is one of those.

It did make more sense when the spell lists included more tunneling spells than just Move Earth.

 

[Oofta]

Your DMs could use custom monsters, if that’s a concern for them. Or, they could just rely on you to choose to play your character as you imagine they would act if they didn’t know what you know. That’s a perfectly valid play preference, it just isn’t analogous to method acting.

It’s not my impossible standards. You’re the one who made the method acting analogy. I was just pointing out that it’s a poor analogy, because in Stanislavsky’s method, the actor tries to align their experience with the character’s, which again, is more like how @Lanefan plays than how you do, from my understanding.

Right, I got that. I’m just saying that’s not what method acting is like.

First, nothing I've ever read about method acting requires or even implies limiting the knowledge the actor has. What I have read and seen explained is that it's about putting yourself into the perspective and emotional state of the character being presented. Second, I really don't understand why you're making a mountain out of a molehill when I said it was "akin to method acting". Not exactly the same, in a similar vein. AKA "akin". I guarantee I would never rise to the level of dedicated method actors, I just try to do something similar.

All I'm saying is that I try to have my PC approach the world as my PC would approach it. It will never be perfect, I can never actually feel the confusion of a troll that doesn't die, but I can at least attempt to understand how that would feel. But your odd criticism? It feels like a way to just attack a method of RP that you don't personally follow or care for by attacking the fundamental concept.