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

[Maxperson]

Wow, that's patronizing. Normally contributors might at most say something like I think you are wrong on this because of that. Anyway:
View attachment 289186
So, yes, a fighter with a 10 constitution could, among other things, become 60% luckier between levels 1 and 2, per RAW.

But not normally and only for particular attacks.
View attachment 289189
"On a hit, you roll damage". Presuming a minimum strength of 10 in melee there would be positive damage, and those hits would be more likely to bring a 1st level fighter to a bloodied condition than a fighter of second level and beyond.

You're missing the primary portion.

"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."

That can't happen if you're getting hit every time you get hit.

"When you drop below half your hit point maximum , you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises."

It's not until 49% down to 1% that you even show minor effects like 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."

And there's the meat. Until you hit 0 you haven't been struck directly. So before 49% you really aren't being hit at all. From 49% to 1% you're being hit indirectly/glancing strikes. At 0 is the direct hit.

Me too, but combat training and tournaments up to the point where opponents yield might not necessarily need to constitute a fight for their life. Certainly, onlookers could relax back and observe while eating their popcorn. My analogies were to things like boxing, and to damage taken from the full range of "types": acid, bludgeoning, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, piercing, poison, psychic, radiant, slashing, and thunder.

Training doesn't yield the same benefits of fighting for your life. You are practicing and learning, not being put in a situation where you are taking real damage.

Tournaments can kill you, so you're again going to be focusing on stopping that sword from cutting through your skull. An onlooker can observe and see who is more skillful, and perhaps comment on good or bad luck, but they aren't going to put that together with hit points. Especially since skill and luck are often in D&D not even associated with hit points. How is an onlooker or even the PC going to be able to tell the difference between getting lucky and not dying, but taking 10 points of damage and getting lucky via the lucky feat and the attacker missing and doing no damage?

True, but I thought types were still worth mentioning on the view that a damage type like acid might deliver its damage more consistently.
Nonetheless, yes, it's the amount of damage that matters, and 17 hit points of acid, bludgeoning,... lighting, or other damage would kill a first-level fighter even while a higher-level combatant could survive.

All that means is that the first level guy got hit directly and the 8th level guy was missed completely since it didn't do enough damage to even show singed hair.

 

[greg kaye]

...
"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."
...

(I've already covered this). Then a 1st level fighter would show injury after 5 points of any type of damage while a 2nd level fighter would show injury after 8 points of damage and so on.

... stopping that sword ...

from being mentioned would be nice. I was talking about boxing etc. but we seem to be having different conversations,

Again, not every fight will be life or death. You seem to be completely ignoring the idea of sparring, training, etc. during non-adventuring times. (your PCs do get some downtime now and then, don't they?)
...

 

[Maxperson]

(I've already covered this). Then a 1st level fighter would show injury after 5 points of any type of damage while a 2nd level fighter would show injury after 8 points of damage and so on.

A d8, one of the most common damage types, wouldn't show damage on an average roll to either one. It would take two hits for both. You are also ignoring misses due to armor class. Assuming both have the same AC the 2nd level fighter could very easily be showing damage before the 1st level fighter, even if the 1st level fighter ultimately drops first. There are too many variables to know anything more than "The 2nd level fighter is a bit more skilled." Nothing about more skilled equates to more hit points. There are too many variables with hit points being just one of them for onlookers to know what's what.

from being mentioned would be nice. I was talking about boxing etc. but we seem to be having different conversations,

You also mentioned tournaments. But if you want to talk boxing, it uses padded gloves and really doesn't do hit point damage the way weapons do. It's not much of an indicator of how things go in real combat. Give a professional boxer a knife and an Marine private a knife and see which one most likely wins the fight.

 

[greg kaye]

... Nothing about more skilled equates to more hit points. ...

Yet, with experience, a 1st-level fighter has 10hp while a 2nd-level fighter has 16.

...
You also mentioned tournaments. But if you want to talk boxing, it uses padded gloves and really doesn't do hit point damage the way weapons do. ....

I believe that the word "boxing" simply relates to hitting with a hand or fist.

... It's not much of an indicator of how things go in real combat. Give a professional boxer a knife and an Marine private a knife and see which one most likely wins the fight.

I'm talking about D&D fighters of various levels who may spar, train or engage in tournaments in downtime. Again,... it doesn't appear that we are talking about the same things. Please try to reply to the things people are saying. Otherwise, it's a really naughty word aggravating waste of time.

A rival boxer would need ~a little more of those successful, 15+ type rolls to put ol' Reggie down for the count than ... to knock Al out. Spectators would be watching the hits land and would have the opportunity to make note of differences.

Reggie can take more hard hits than Al.

 

[Lanefan]

You're missing the primary portion.

"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."

That can't happen if you're getting hit every time you get hit.

"When you drop below half your hit point maximum , you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises."

It's not until 49% down to 1% that you even show minor effects like 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."

And there's the meat. Until you hit 0 you haven't been struck directly. So before 49% you really aren't being hit at all. From 49% to 1% you're being hit indirectly/glancing strikes. At 0 is the direct hit.

I know you love quoting RAW as if it's gospel, but sometimes RAW flat-out gets it wrong.

Read literally, the above makes anyone at 51% h.p. or higher immune to weapon-borne poison as the weapon does no physical harm (and thus can't get the poison into the victim's bloodstream). And that's plain dumb stupid.

Never mind that description of the reduce-to-0 attack ignores the most sailent point: whatever injury you just sustained is fatal unless it's treated - or unless you're damn lucky.

What they have for the 0-h.p. description should mostly be for the 10%-remaining point; with a further one added: "An attack that reduces you to 0 h.p. leaves you unconscious; death may be imminent".

 

[Maxperson]

Yet, with experience, a 1st-level fighter has 10hp while a 2nd-level fighter has 16.

I believe that the word "boxing" simply relates to hitting with a hand or fist.
View attachment 289202

I'm talking about D&D fighters of various levels who may spar, train or engage in tournaments in downtime. Again,... it doesn't appear that we are talking about the same things. Please try to reply to the things people are saying. Otherwise, it's a really naughty word aggravating waste of time.

Reggie can take more hard hits than Al.

Boxing really is a horrible example. There are times when a single strike knocks someone out in the first round, despite having comparable "hit points." I had a friend who in the 80s paid for all of the Mike Tyson pay per views. He wasted his money. They weren't cheap and we got to watch literally seconds of boxing.

 

[Maxperson]

I know you love quoting RAW as if it's gospel, but sometimes RAW flat-out gets it wrong.

Read literally, the above makes anyone at 51% h.p. or higher immune to weapon-borne poison as the weapon does no physical harm (and thus can't get the poison into the victim's bloodstream). And that's plain dumb stupid.

You're getting it a bit incorrect. Read literally that's how damage is typically applied. The word "typically" being critical in that paragraph. For poison stingers and such, scratches have to happen before that if a save is failed or results in half damage.

 

[greg kaye]

Boxing really is a horrible example. There are times when a single strike knocks someone out in the first round, despite having comparable "hit points." I had a friend who in the 80s paid for all of the Mike Tyson pay per views. He wasted his money. They weren't cheap and we got to watch literally seconds of boxing.

"View attachment 289202
I'm talking about D&D fighters .... Again,... it doesn't appear that we are talking about the same things. ..."
In 5e a critical hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 2 + your Strength modifier.
Even in RL, critical hits would be recognized for what they were. Even if training boxers weren't wearing head protection and were aiming for the head, there might be times when a boxer, with their feet firmly planted might launch a thunderous fist to their opponent's jaw. If that opponent was then still standing, it could say a lot about their hit points. Boxers, even in real life, are assessed on endurance and on things such as if they have a glass jaw or they can't take a punch.
What hits would be required to down or visibly damage a fighter with 16 hit points in comparison to a fighter with 10 hit points?
There are two answers in 5e: better or more.
In circumstances like enduring something like acid and the 2nd-level fighter could be noted as being able to take 60% more than before. These things might be specially noted by the clever, squishy members of the party when deciding which member of the party may have best chance when facing that hazard,

 

[greg kaye]

You're getting it a bit incorrect. Read literally that's how damage is typically applied. The word "typically" being critical in that paragraph. For poison stingers and such, scratches have to happen before that if a save is failed or results in half damage.

RAW is a bit incorrect, but we're used to that.
Nonetheless, any character even if making their dex, wis, con, or chr saves in relation to damage types would still be better at enduring damage if they had 16 hit points in comparison to if they just had 10. In some cases, per your point, there might not typically even be signs that might be noticed during combat that damage had been sustained beyond a certain level of damage.
However, my guess is that various "signs of injury" might be more apparent via medicine checks taken, say, in the breaks between boxing rounds.

...Read literally, the above makes anyone at 51% h.p. or higher immune to weapon-borne poison as the weapon does no physical harm (and thus can't get the poison into the victim's bloodstream). And that's plain dumb stupid. ...

This is true, but my homebrew reading would be that it could take, for instance, a close and successful inspection to notice an injury the signs of which might not otherwise be typically seen. It might even be typically true for "poison stingers and such".