D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[GMforPowergamers]

I wasnt accusing you of grey blob campaigns. It does seem you have a more 'Gamist' style that I am accustomed to however. Of course, it may just be that in your worlds, hit points represent mystical physical damage absorbtion, or the laws of physics are different and inertia from falling or sharp objects jabbed into the body, or energy transferrance from lava are significantly reduced from real world expectations.

Its your game bro; I just roll differently.



No, youre playing your interpretation of DnD 5e. I'm playing mine. Again, I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong. I'm just saying that its different from mine, and expressing the reasons why (and why I prefer my interpretation).

Chill out brother.

The problem is that up Acton different until you declair that something can bypass up to auto kill. Up until that moment we arre on the same page

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ok, so by that logic, you live in this world. How many bullets can you take before it kills you?

Probably between one and three, depending on how lucky I am. Of course, I'm not a mythic hero of legend, and my feats are not comparable to raising the dead or teleportation.

Nor am I typically wearing body armor, which is a standard assumption of anyone who gets into combat. In D&D, if you can take a hit without dying instantly, then you're either wearing armor (fighter/ranger/rogue) or you are magic (wizard/sorcerer/warlock/monk) or both (cleric/paladin/druid). Sure, the rules say that you still need to get through HP even if you aren't wearing armor, but that's an obscure corner case that shouldn't actually arise during gameplay, and I'm not going to fault the game for using a simpler ruleset that works just fine 95% of the time.

Think of Hit Points as your PC's 'plot hazard immunity' points. The less you have, the closer to a redshirt you become. Now watch any movie, or read any fantasy novel. The heros dont soak lasers to the face, swords to the neck and so forth. The blaster bolts impact on nearby walls, he dodges or parries the attacks at the last second, some lucky plot contrivance stops him from certain death, and so forth. Maybe an attack glances off his shoulder, letting us know that he is getting 'low on hit points'

As I said, that raises a whole bunch of other questions. If Hit Points aren't something that characters know about, then they can't use that as a basis for fleeing from a difficult combat, or asking for a Cure spell, or anything else. Your reward for jumping through hoops in trying to explain how you "weren't really hit" is that you get to keep jumping through more hoops to explain why you won't fight this next orc even though the last group didn't even scratch you.

In general, though, heroes of fiction soak plenty of hits. Look at Nolan's Batman, or the Netflix incarnation of Daredevil. When Frank Castle gets backhanded by the Hulk, he goes flying across the room and doesn't die. There's a huge amount of playable space between "that hit was actually a miss" and "that sword went straight through your neck". So what if 95% of all hits in the game are straight to the torso armor? Most hits should be to the torso, from a probability standpoint. As long as a hit is actually a hit, and your state of health corresponds to your HP in some visible way, the game is actually playable without resorting to an escalating slide of meta-game.

 

[Flamestrike]

Says who?

The rules. HP represents luck, vitality, experience, stamina, mental fortitude and the will to live.

When you lose over half your HP, you do show visible signs of bleeding and injury.

Yeah. A few nicks and bruises from all those narrow (lucky) misses and parries. Youre short of breath and could probably use some positive energy or a short rest to catch your breath and reinvigorate yourself.

If that's how you imagine the game, go ahead, but I've never once met someone, at any table who imagines their PCs never getting physically injured unless they dropped to 0 HP.

Where did I say the hit that drops you to 0 isnt physical injury? Its most likely that the closer you get to zero HP, the more your luck is running out, the cumulative effect of ducking, dodging and weaving those narrow misses takes its toll, your bruised and battered from rolling on the floor and deflecting attacks from your armor, and too knackered to properly defend yourself. You cop an injury, bad enough to drop you like a fly. It may not have been a square hit with the massive blade, but its enough to have you drop, wounded and dying.

Some of the 'hits' to your HP prior to the final blow that reduces you to 0 HP could also be physical injury (just not serious ones). Instead of the axe blade hitting you, it nicks you above the eye luckily not seriously hurting you (for 10 damage). The next attack you narrowly parry (for 10 damage). The next attack glances off your armor as you twist at the last minute (for 10 damage). And so forth. You tire, getting bruised and bloody - but because of your luck, skill, experience and stamina are able to fend off the more serious hits, that would have connected squarely at lower level, likely killing you.

Look. I'm repeating myself now. Play it how you want.

 

[Flamestrike]

As I said, that raises a whole bunch of other questions. If Hit Points aren't something that characters know about, then they can't use that as a basis for fleeing from a difficult combat, or asking for a Cure spell, or anything else.

See above. Youre tired, bruised and a few minor cuts from near misses and parries.

Its like how a boxer knows he's in trouble.

Your reward for jumping through hoops in trying to explain how you "weren't really hit" is that you get to keep jumping through more hoops to explain why you won't fight this next orc even though the last group didn't even scratch you.

Just citing the rules brah. If you disagree with the rule of what hit points represent (luck, vitality, stamina, experience, mental fortitude and the will to live) then thats your problem, not mine.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Just to be clear, you would know the rules in advance at my table. I would let you know that most of the stuff is abstract. The game is focused on maintaining a story. If you do things that will get you killed like diving into lava, I'm going to say you're dead and be done with it. I would tell you that you have to play your character as though it were a living person in a real world. Game mechanics will not supersede verisimilitude. I do agree that a DM should let players know these kinds of things in advance.

I think I answered most of your points in my last post, to [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION] . I guess my relevant question to you is, why should I be limited to what a person in the real world can do, if the game doesn't take place in the real world? The wizard and cleric aren't limited to what "real" magic can do.

I get that the world is supposed to be like reality, except where otherwise noted. But having over 100 HP is a place where it specifically says that reality doesn't apply. So the rules say that I die after ten seconds of immersion, where most real-world people would be dead within five. Is that really so ridiculous, even given the conceits of genre? It's not like lava does 2d6 damage per round, and I can try to swim away in it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

See above. Youre tired, bruised and a few minor cuts from near misses and parries.

Its like how a boxer knows he's in trouble.

Great, so we can agree that HP reflect overall health. That means your character is (roughly) aware of how many HP it has, and can ask for a Cure spell or choose to flee from a fight. It's not plot armor, and referencing it is not meta-gaming.

Just citing the rules brah. If you disagree with the rule of what hit points represent (luck, vitality, stamina, experience, mental fortitude and the will to live) then thats your problem, not mine.

Except, the rules in 5E explicitly state that different DMs describe HP loss in different ways. You can't say that your way is the 'right' way to do it, anymore than I can insist that my own interpretation must be followed. We just get to debate the merits of each perspective, and then choose for ourselves. And from my perspective, anything that relies on meta-game knowledge is an untenable position, regardless of whatever else it has going for it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But if the rules expressly provided for such an attack to kill you regardless of your HP, you wouldnt do it.

In other words, you are openly meta-gaming the system using player knowledge (of the rules, of your hit point total and of the likely numerical value of damage the axe deals) in exchange for an absurd result. Good for you. If that works at your table, then go for it. It wont work at mine.

Im not saying youre 'wrong' mind you. If that kind of playstyle works for your group, then it works for your group.

So why are you folks still arguing? Since the very beginning, I've been saying, "Hey, if you want to run HP that way, cool for you." If you want to change the rules to make certain things auto-kills, fine. I prefer for D&D not to be The Bards Tale so I don't do that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I've played at so many different tables with so many different rules as to be beyond count at this point. I doubt the discussion we're entertaining now would even be brought up at the table. I have never had someone argue that they get to jump in lava on purpose just because the mechanics allow it. Never in all the thirty plus years I've played. Just like I've never had anyone expect me to roll a bunch of times to hack their head off if they are on the headman's block regardless of how many hit points they have had. I wonder if any player has actually argued this with you when you DM. It seems more the case that you like to take a contrarian point of view for the sake of doing so.

Imputing bad faith motivations to other posters is a violation of Enworld rules.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I've played at so many different tables with so many different rules as to be beyond count at this point. I doubt the discussion we're entertaining now would even be brought up at the table. I have never had someone argue that they get to jump in lava on purpose just because the mechanics allow it. Never in all the thirty plus years I've played.

Likewise, but it's not because I expected the GM to intervene with a house rule that certain attacks bypassed Hit Points - it's just that lava submersion does a ton of damage, so the player and the character are usually on the same page in realizing its obvious lethality.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Says who? Not the rules. When you lose over half your HP, you do show visible signs of bleeding and injury. And the only logical way that could have happened, given that the immediate cause of that loss of HP was an attack with that axe that hit your character, is because the attack actually landed. I don't know why people insist on playing the game in such a silly way, but you're welcome to do that. However you aren't actually narrating HP loss according to the rules if you think characters never get injured unless they are killed. That is not what's happening in D&D combat. When your character falls down the stairs or into a pit trap and comes within an inch of his life, barely conscious, do you imagine that nothing touched him? Quite a trick, avoiding the rapidly approaching ground slamming against him like that. Maybe he's flying, so he didn't actually fall, and so didn't touch the ground, and so his HP loss didn't result because the ground mangled his body.

If that's how you imagine the game, go ahead, but I've never once met someone, at any table who imagines their PCs never getting physically injured unless they dropped to 0 HP.

Another case in point: if you get hit by a poisoned arrow, you take extra damage/paralysis from the poison. It's hard to argue that that could happen without the arrow physically striking you.

If you try to pretend that HP don't have a physical basis in D&D you'll run into all kinds of inconsistencies. You can play it that way if you like, but it's a fairly narrativist convention and it doesn't appeal to me as a simulationist.