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

[Maxperson]

A 2nd-level champion or battlemaster will regularly be able to put and take off that better armour (which they may or may not have been able to acquire) but one thing that would remain constant would be a 60% increase in base hit points. I doubt that this would typically go without notice. Surely, for, say, a "fighter"

So he's going to notice getting lucky now and then? Perhaps blocking one more hit with a shield? In the middle of battle he's going to be counting the number of lucky events, blocks, parries, times his god caused the enemy to miss and then do some complex math to figure out that all of those are hit points rather than skill and come up with hit points?

On what basis do you claim that experts and those interested in fighting would not be able to assess the craft?

People in combat for their lives don't stop to jot down every event that could be skill or could be skill hit points, could be a lucky miss or could be a lucky miss that does damage, could be their god causing the enemy to miss and do hit point damage or could be the enemy's god cursing him to miss and do no damage, could be a block on the shield that represents a miss or could be a block that does hit point damage, could be a parry or could be a parry that does hit point damage, and more, and then do complex math later to figure out which is which and determine hit points exist.

Instead they will simply fight for their lives and be grateful when they win. They will notice improvement in their skills, but can't possibly be able to determine hit points vs. skill vs. blind luck, etc.

Sure, there may be some fighters that may be so dumb or ~brain-damaged, if it's that character that's being played, that they might not have noticed a 60% increase in their potential to take damage and a doubling in the hit dice they could trade per short rest.

There is no "damage" being done, though. You don't even see a single scratch or bruise until 50% of hit points, and once you reach 50%, 90-99% of the "damage" is still invisible and they maybe get a scratch or bruise. They aren't going to see any real damage until they hit 0, which is the same at 1st level as it is as 20th' 0 = 0.

In these worlds it could be common knowledge that, say, falling out of a window might spell likely death for a commoner and a risk for a rookie fighter and yet might leave barely a scratch on a veteran. I find it difficult to believe, in a world that followed the rules of d&d, that these kinds of things would not become common knowledge in the "lore of my people".

Hit points are not pure meat, which is the only way the falling thing would reveal hit points. Instead the commoner dies, but the veteran fighter grabs the window sill and awning to slow himself down and survive OR he gets very lucky and lands in some mud OR divine providence saves him. Not anything recognizable as hit points. It's skill, luck or his god.

 

[greg kaye]

For what it's worth I greatly respect @Oofta's attempts at immersion

Can we drop this? You're definition does not match up to anything I've ever read, from what I've read as a layman my analogy was accurate. It also doesn't matter one bit.
...

I'm not sure why the conversation didn't end here.

 

[Oofta]

@Charlaquin For what it's worth I 100% agree that identifying all authorship based on "thinking as the character" as method acting, or to identify all attempts to perform a character based on imagining what they would think or feel as method acting, is simple misdescription.

"The Method" is a particular technique (or, perhaps, a range of techniques).

And of course it's not normally used to decide what choices a character will make - in the typical case those will have been scripted, or at least plotted in some general sense. It's a technique for portraying a character, not deciding whether or not they use fire to fight a troll!

Which is why I only said it was similar to, not that it was exactly the same.

 

[Oofta]

For what it's worth I greatly respect @Oofta's attempts at immersion

I'm not sure why the conversation didn't end here.

Yeah, I only responded because other people were ... it's an odd tangent about an off-hand remark based on similarities between my approach to role playing and a method of acting as understood by a layman.

But we should probably just be like that gal on Frozen and let it go.

 

[Maxperson]

@Charlaquin For what it's worth I 100% agree that identifying all authorship based on "thinking as the character" as method acting, or to identify all attempts to perform a character based on imagining what they would think or feel as method acting, is simple misdescription.

"The Method" is a particular technique (or, perhaps, a range of techniques).

And of course it's not normally used to decide what choices a character will make - in the typical case those will have been scripted, or at least plotted in some general sense. It's a technique for portraying a character, not deciding whether or not they use fire to fight a troll!

There's no effective difference between you handing me a script, my writing my own script, or someone improvising something the character would do. The latter just being an on the spot "script."

The important part, as defined by almost every acting school or site I looked at, was that you are inhabiting the character and behaving as the character would behave, drawing upon personal experiences to inform that behavior. Experiences that don't have to be exactly what is happening.

For example, even though I have never murdered someone I do have experience with anger and knowing myself, I would/could be capable of that act against someone who I witnessed murder my children. I can draw on those feelings and imaginings to inform my method acting of a murderer.

As another example I love animals and have great empathy with and for them. I need not ever have befriended an owl bear in real life in order to method act a druid PC befriending an owl bear. I just have to draw upon my personal experience with say cats and dogs to inform my druid's behavior in order to be method acting. No script is required.

 

[greg kaye]

So he's going to notice getting lucky now and then? ...

Consistently 60% more "lucky now" after going from 10hp at level 1 to 16hp at level 2?

... Perhaps blocking one more hit with a shield? In the middle of battle he's going to be counting the number of lucky events, blocks, parries, times his god caused the enemy to miss and then do some complex math to figure out that all of those are hit points rather than skill and come up with hit points? ...

No, hit points relate to events where attacks hit - and reduce points.

... People in combat for their lives don't stop to jot down every event that could be skill or could be skill hit points, could be a lucky miss or could be a lucky miss that does damage, could be their god causing the enemy to miss and do hit point damage or could be the enemy's god cursing him to miss and do no damage, could be a block on the shield that represents a miss or could be a block that does hit point damage, could be a parry or could be a parry that does hit point damage, and more, and then do complex math later to figure out which is which and determine hit points exist. ...

People in practice can take their time to measure and monitor what they like. People out of combat can also monitor those in combat. People in combat also have brains and can reflect - unless, as you say, people are blinded by superstition and rendered unable to perceive the realities of their situations.

... Instead they will simply fight for their lives and be grateful when they win. ...

Other than in situations where combatants engage in practice events or in mentioned tournaments like boxing, sure, they will be fighting for their lives - but simply has nothing to do with it.

... They will notice improvement in their skills, but can't possibly be able to determine hit points vs. skill vs. blind luck, etc. ...

They could certainly notice that they can absorb more hits, 60% more, similar to the extent to which they can damage from the full range of "types": acid, bludgeoning, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, piercing, poison, psychic, radiant, slashing, and thunder.

... There is no "damage" being done, though. You don't even see a single scratch or bruise until 50% of hit points, and once you reach 50% 90-99% of the "damage" is still invisible and they maybe get a scratch or bruise. They aren't going to see any real damage until they hit 0, which is the same at 1st level as it is as 20th' 0 = 0. ...

But, between 1st and 2nd level, that 50% of hit points would have, itself, have increased by 60%.

...Hit points are not pure meat, which is the only way the falling thing would reveal hit points. Instead the commoner dies, but the veteran fighter grabs the window sill and awning to slow himself down and survive OR he gets very luck and lands in some mud OR divine providence saves him. Not anything recognizable as hit points. ...

But when that broom of flying gives out, there may be no awnings to hold onto. And, again, hit points relate to all types of damage: acid, bludgeoning, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, piercing, poison, psychic, radiant, slashing, and thunder. In my view, it would be clear that as characters increased in level, their survivabilities, in relation to all forms of damage types, would very measurably increase.

... It's skill, ...

Pretty consistently and even with things like acid.

... luck or his god.

Though some characters might not want to go down the superstitious route, especially on issues where intervention IS NOT INVOLVED.

However, and I'm not saying that you should do this if you don't want to, it may be possible for characters in a D&D world to recognize a governing dynamics of a phenomenon like hit points.

 

[Maxperson]

Consistently 60% more "lucky now" after going from 10hp at level 1 to 16hp at level 2?

No, hit points relate to events where attacks hit - and reduce points.

Maybe you don't understand the nature of "hits" and "hit points." A hit can and often does "miss" dealing hit point loss. There's no way for a fighter to know if the arrow that narrowly missed his head was a real miss or hit point loss.

People in practice can take their time to measure and monitor what they like. People out of combat can also monitor those in combat.

40 years of playing and I've seen 0 instances of this being tried, and I'd impose disadvantage on anyone who did try it during a fight for their life, while giving advantage to the attackers. You don't divert enough attention to study what's happening when 5 orcs are trying to gut you and take your head off simultaneously. That's suicidal.

They could certainly notice that they can absorb more hits, 60% more, similar to the extent to which they can damage from the full range of "types": acid, bludgeoning, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, piercing, poison, psychic, radiant, slashing, and thunder.

They don't even know what a hit is, let alone whether they can absorb more of them. There's no way for them to tell the different between a miss because the guy didn't hit your AC and a miss that resulted in damage.

But when that broom of flying gives out, there may be no awnings to hold onto. And, again, hit points relate to all types of damage: acid, bludgeoning, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, piercing, poison, psychic, radiant, slashing, and thunder. In my view, it would be clear that as characters increased in level, their survivabilities, in relation to all forms of damage types, would very measurably increase.

Damage type doesn't matter. The lightning bolt missed you and you took 34 damage or it missed you and you took 17 damage or it missed you because you were outside the line. If you drop to 0, it came near enough for it to jolt you a bit. If you miss your death saves it hit you directly and you're making a new PC. Short of dropping to 0 or being directly hit, you aren't really taking much(scratch or bruise equivalent if under 50% hit points) or no damage at all.

 

[Lanefan]

So he's going to notice getting lucky now and then? Perhaps blocking one more hit with a shield? In the middle of battle he's going to be counting the number of lucky events, blocks, parries, times his god caused the enemy to miss and then do some complex math to figure out that all of those are hit points rather than skill and come up with hit points?

People in combat for their lives don't stop to jot down every event that could be skill or could be skill hit points, could be a lucky miss or could be a lucky miss that does damage, could be their god causing the enemy to miss and do hit point damage or could be the enemy's god cursing him to miss and do no damage, could be a block on the shield that represents a miss or could be a block that does hit point damage, could be a parry or could be a parry that does hit point damage, and more, and then do complex math later to figure out which is which and determine hit points exist.

Instead they will simply fight for their lives and be grateful when they win. They will notice improvement in their skills, but can't possibly be able to determine hit points vs. skill vs. blind luck, etc.

There is no "damage" being done, though. You don't even see a single scratch or bruise until 50% of hit points, and once you reach 50%, 90-99% of the "damage" is still invisible and they maybe get a scratch or bruise. They aren't going to see any real damage until they hit 0, which is the same at 1st level as it is as 20th' 0 = 0.

Hit points are not pure meat, which is the only way the falling thing would reveal hit points. Instead the commoner dies, but the veteran fighter grabs the window sill and awning to slow himself down and survive OR he gets very lucky and lands in some mud OR divine providence saves him. Not anything recognizable as hit points. It's skill, luck or his god.

One thing to keep in mind is that trained warriors won't just do their fighting in the field in life-or-death situations. Maybe it's just me, but I naturally assume they'll train, spar, joust, and so forth during downtime; and that's where these differences in stamina etc. would become apparent over time.

 

[greg kaye]

Maybe you don't understand the nature of "hits" and "hit points." ...

Wow, that's patronizing. Normally contributors might at most say something like I think you are wrong on this because of that. Anyway:

So, yes, a fighter with a 10 constitution could, among other things, become 60% luckier between levels 1 and 2, per RAW.

... A hit can and often does "miss" dealing hit point loss. ...

Hits hit, with the typical result of a damage roll.

"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.

People in practice can take their time to measure and monitor what they like. People out of combat can also monitor those in combat.

40 years of playing and I've seen 0 instances of this being tried, and I'd impose disadvantage on anyone who did try it during a fight for their life, while giving advantage to the attackers. You don't divert enough attention to study what's happening when 5 orcs are trying to gut you and take your head off simultaneously. That's suicidal.
...

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.

...
Damage type doesn't matter. The lightning bolt missed you and you took 34 damage or it missed you and you took 17 damage or it missed you because you were outside the line. If you drop to 0, it came near enough for it to jolt you a bit. If you miss your death saves it hit you directly and you're making a new PC. Short of dropping to 0 or being directly hit, you aren't really taking much(scratch or bruise equivalent if under 50% hit points) or no damage at all.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe you don't understand the nature of "hits" and "hit points." A hit can and often does "miss" dealing hit point loss. There's no way for a fighter to know if the arrow that narrowly missed his head was a real miss or hit point loss.

40 years of playing and I've seen 0 instances of this being tried, and I'd impose disadvantage on anyone who did try it during a fight for their life, while giving advantage to the attackers.

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?)

I mean, take the Night Watch in GoT. They spend a great deal of time training and sparring such that by the time they in fact go on patrol they already know how tough and-or skilled each of them is, in reference to the others.

You don't divert enough attention to study what's happening when 5 orcs are trying to gut you and take your head off simultaneously.

In the moment, no; but in later hindsight when thinking over how the battle went, why not?