D&D 5E Can mundane classes have a resource which powers abilities?

[Manbearcat]

It seems to me that, more-or-less by definition, the most enchanted plate armour would be the toughest thing there can be. So a dragon's skin being tougher strikes me as verging on incoherence within the context of the fantasy genre.

Gygax dealt with the comparable issue in respect of hit point ratios by saying that, when it comes to high level fighters vs horses, much of the hit point total is abstract "metaphysical" hit points. It seems to me that, desite the system's surface protestations to the contrary, the same must be true of natural armour in 3E. (And as I posted upthread, the same is also true of Lolth's -10 AC in AD&D.)

My take on the 3.x natural armor escalation (specifically for dragons through their age continuum) is that it is a kludge for curve fitting (in the same way that aerosol values are a kludge for curve fitting with high resolution climate models). The physical portions of the 3.x dragon models are fundamentally outcome based design, same as 4e. They needed escalation of all of the various metrics, to make the dragon more physically potent in all the "right ways", while they simultaneously needed dex and touch AC to stay at a tightly bound, low number. How best do you accomplish this? Not some sort of magical deflection bonus (as that inflates touch AC). You accomplish it by an escalating natural armor that allows for the curve fit you're looking for.

Edit: In case it wasn't clear by my above statements, escalation of natural armor (the "kludge" in the formula) serves the purpose of escalating the physical math of the dragon in proportion to the math of the heroes that they will be facing. The problem is (i) their obscenely low dex and touch AC makes them vulnerable to non-save touch spells and/or dex damage and (ii) their actual CR number is utterly turned on its head by their concurrently escalating sorceror level. So they don't serve their purpose as fire(etc)-breathing behemoths with claws that rend and teeth that impale and wings of a hurricane. They're outrageously vulnerable (to certain spells and certain poisons), giant, flying, scaley sorcerers. Their brawny physical stats become almost entirely irrelevant in the rocket tag that is epic tier 3.x.

 

[Dungeonman]

It seems to me that, more-or-less by definition, the most enchanted plate armour would be the toughest thing there can be. So a dragon's skin being tougher strikes me as verging on incoherence within the context of the fantasy genre.

As a fantasy idea, I think it's coherent with the genre trope that Important Monsters (dragons, demons, etc.) are physically toughest. I think it's coherent with the non-sci-fi action genre that the hero's abilities can exceed his tech and armor. I think it's coherent with mythological themes that Ancient Powerful Mother Earth is more scary and formidable than puny human technology (and human magic by extension). It's a moving goal-post, of course, depending on what's the story and expectations, but it could easily be coherent to me. I think what makes it incoherent within the fiction are the gamist priorities, like quantifying an absolute bonus to physical defense. I think it's that kind of absolute math that could cause incoherence within the fiction (which I think was your point in the 1st place?), not the idea itself that dragon hide is stronger than enchanted plate.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It seems to me that, more-or-less by definition, the most enchanted plate armour would be the toughest thing there can be. So a dragon's skin being tougher strikes me as verging on incoherence within the context of the fantasy genre.

That makes sense why you would want that, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's the case within D&D-world. There are a lot of stories that can't really be told using D&D rules, and saying that the best mortal magics pale in comparison to the hide of an ancient wyrm would seem no less unpopular of a design choice than say, spell slots instead of magic points.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Parrying and dodging is therefore a function of hit points because it is essential that it is there and that's the only factor that fits. Or our people simply don't parry. At this point hit points can not be damage points. So the entire objective nature collapses like a heap of cards when a successfully parried blow does hit point damage.

That doesn't follow at all from the topic at hand. Nobody is talking about whether the mechanic is realistic, only whether it's objective. As unrealistic as you may find it, it's still an objective fact that - as a result of complex physics and in-game happenings - the result of one minute (or round) of combat is an X% certainty that someone will be injured for Y% of their ability-to-stay-up-edness. Any intelligent creature should be able to spot the inter-connected relationship of all relevant factors.

(Completely tangential to the topic at hand, we've already covered that skill is part of the justification for hit points, as the thing that allows you to turn a lethal-blow into a non-lethal blow. Skill is one of the reasons why the giant's hit for 109/100 was "merely" as bad as the orc's hit for 11/10. If you otherwise want skill to model the ability to deflect an attack completely, then I direct you to the Combat Expertise feat, or the fighting defensively option, or the equivalent rules in older editions.)

 

[Hussar]

And you've still yet to actually describe the objective wound in either case. After all, if it's objective and measurable it should be pretty easy to describe.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And you've still yet to actually describe the objective wound in either case. After all, if it's objective and measurable it should be pretty easy to describe.

I've actually described it twice so far, but how I describe it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If I didn't care about verisimilitude (which is really a completely different axis entirely), I could describe it as the axe chopping right through the rib cage and the spinal cord, and then pigeons fly out of it. As long as everyone on the scene can agree that, indeed, the spinal cord was severed and pigeons burst forth, then that is objective damage. It actually happens, and people are aware of it.

I guess the real question is, what does any of this have to do with mundane resources to power abilities?

 

[LostSoul]

Yeah, it's kind of weird. They come right out and say that Hit Points are all of these things, and then make it so that you can only possibly lose them through things that can physically hurt you, and you only recover them slowly or through magic. And then, when morale and luck are called out by the rules, they always use some mechanic other than Hit Points. Clearly, that description of what a Hit Point is supposed to be does not match up with what they actually are as defined by the game rules.

I believe that you can take HP damage from things like illusions in AD&D. (I think it was from a Q&A with Gygax on this site.)

Even if you look at Lolth's -10 AC, what does this tell us about the gameworld, other than that she has so much Demon Queen mojo that only high level character's have any real chance of hurting her?

4E actually has a pretty consistent "game-world" way of setting ACs, at least in the Monster Vault. I went through the monsters there, worked out their ACs - (Level + Dex), and I was able to figure out what kind of armour they were supposed to be wearing. It made a hell of a lot of sense. (Though the top monster - Stone Golem, at AC 27, beats out the Iron Golem at AC 24. Should probably be reversed. And if you look at those top ACs, they are not that far out of the d20 range - which is what enabled me to run a pretty heavily 4E-ish game without adding 1/2 level to anything.)

On the other hand the longest recovery times in AD&D are about equivalent to the shortest recovery times for cracked ribs - an injury that doesn't even break a bone.

There's some kind of rule in AD&D that says if you go into negative HP - I think it's below -3 - then you go into a coma and those wounds take a really long time to heal.

The physical portions of the 3.x dragon models are fundamentally outcome based design, same as 4e.

I believe that 4E has less outcome based design as compared to 3E. If you look at the Red Dragon from the Monster Vault (I think; I'm looking at my spreadsheet) it has an AC of 22 if you take out its DEX and 1/2 Level bonus. Which is pretty close to magic plate. Which is what you'd imagine a Red Dragon's armour to be. There are a few strange results, but for the most part they actually fit a formula. (Armour + dex + 1/2 level.)

Though that's only the published materials, and the Monster Vault at that, but still. Kind of an interesting find.

 

[Hussar]

I've actually described it twice so far, but how I describe it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If I didn't care about verisimilitude (which is really a completely different axis entirely), I could describe it as the axe chopping right through the rib cage and the spinal cord, and then pigeons fly out of it. As long as everyone on the scene can agree that, indeed, the spinal cord was severed and pigeons burst forth, then that is objective damage. It actually happens, and people are aware of it.

I guess the real question is, what does any of this have to do with mundane resources to power abilities?

Twice? Missed the second one I guess. All I saw was massive bruising and cracked ribs. Now, how are cracked ribs and bruising six seconds away from death?

Sure, you can describe it however you like, but, from your argument, you care about verisimilitude. So, how is it believable that I can either die from cracked ribs, or that I can heal from nearly fatal wounds in a couple of weeks at the absolute outside?

To me, it's a heck of a lot more believable to think that hit points are abstract, thus unknowable in the game world, exactly the same as some powers. They are player resources, not character resources.

Heck, if my character knows that he's superhuman, because we can objectively measure that I can take ten times more damage than you can, then why can't I also have superhuman powers. After all, my superhuman physique allows me to survive wounds that would instantly kill a horse without the slightest bit of magical aid, so, why can't I also leap buildings and walk on the clouds?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Sure, you can describe it however you like, but, from your argument, you care about verisimilitude. So, how is it believable that I can either die from cracked ribs, or that I can heal from nearly fatal wounds in a couple of weeks at the absolute outside?

We're not talking about you, though. We're talking about Conan, or Tarma, or even Harry Dresden. If something doesn't kill a fantasy hero, then it makes sense to me that they'll be back up and feeling fine within a month (the four weeks mentioned in AD&D 1E). Maybe it's just the particular books I've read.

To me, it's a heck of a lot more believable to think that hit points are abstract, thus unknowable in the game world, exactly the same as some powers. They are player resources, not character resources.

Oh right, that's how the topic got from powers to hit points.

That begs the question, though: how do you explain in-character decisions based on knowledge they aren't supposed to have? Why would you decide to drink a potion, if it didn't have an observable effect? Why would you even spend such incredible sums of wealth on "magical" potions that - as far as you can tell - do nothing?

Heck, if my character knows that he's superhuman, because we can objectively measure that I can take ten times more damage than you can, then why can't I also have superhuman powers. After all, my superhuman physique allows me to survive wounds that would instantly kill a horse without the slightest bit of magical aid, so, why can't I also leap buildings and walk on the clouds?

My position on that hasn't actually been established. If you wanted to say that high-level fighters have Charles Atlas superpowers, and can punch through steel walls or perform a 20' standing vertical jump, then that's not necessarily inconsistent within the world. I mean, sure, why not? Magic is already so crazy at high levels, it's not like this would make things any more crazy.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you wanted to say that high-level fighters have Charles Atlas superpowers, and can punch through steel walls or perform a 20' standing vertical jump, then that's not necessarily inconsistent within the world. I mean, sure, why not? Magic is already so crazy at high levels, it's not like this would make things any more crazy.

These sorts of things have always been possible. Particularly in 3e, with Power Attack and various other damage mods, the base damage you can deal is certainly enough to punch through a steel wall. The vertical jump, perhaps not (particularly given the physics error that says you need a running start to jump upward), but there are pretty trivial ways of getting it. You can also jump off cliffs. As the originators of E6 have noted, the d20 system doesn't really play "realistic" past a certain point. High level fighters have some pretty astounding capabilities.

In 2e, grandmastery was pretty exciting too.