D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

[Ahnehnois]

The fact is, I'm right.

Can't argue with facts, I guess.

Clearly, the break DC of a door and the amount of XP a 5th level wizard gets for killing a 5th level living spell are equally "metagame".

 

[Neonchameleon]

First, the fact that he says "by and large" is clearly indicating that his previous statement is not meant to be understood as an expressly literal definition; "by and large" means that there's a degree of flexibility.

Of course. Some hit point loss does involve wounds. And one way to lose hit points is by physically being wounded. Clear as day. Equally clear that "hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage" - they aren't strictly speaking wounds. What they are is a measure of ability to keep fighting. Which isn't just physical damage, although that is the most obvious way to inflict it.

What's more striking is that he's saying "as far as characters...are concerned." This is clearly him saying that hit points are a dissociated mechanic, as creatures don't have any conception of it (because, as he talks about more clearly later, the issue of damage scaling is too great for him to inore).

They are dissassociated. You are trying to associate them by making them wounds. Thank you.

The first part of the emboldened areas shows that he is clearly saying that some degree of physical damage is being taken; he's simply saying it's scaled down to being "a mere nick or scratch."

And nicks, scratches, and bruises are the most common way of lowering hit points. Wounds do hit point damage. This does not mean that hit point damage is wounds.

Notice the emboldened part here; it clearly indicates that damage is being sustained, just not in proportion to the hit points marked off - damage scaling again.

"In most cases" - in some cases none is sustained and some everything.

Here Gary out-and-out says that increased hit points reflect the ability to withstand greater damage. He also talks about the "sixth sense," but doesn't say specifically what it relates to beyond increased hit points, which I believe talks about the issue of damage scaling (hence why he'd mentioned it so many times previously, and does again later).

You aren't showing what you think you are. Damage scaling makes hit points being straight wounds laughable.

There's no need to change what you emboldened here, since it out and out says it still grazes the fighter - physical damage again.

It's tiredness, fatigue, luck running out, bruising. Wounding someone does hit point damage.

This doesn't mean hit points are wounds. Starve someone and you lower there hit points.

Simply put, I find there to be no support at all for hit points being anything other than physical wounds, at least in any edition of the game prior to 4E.

Simply put, the ability to withstand physical wounds is explicitely called out below. As are a lot of other things. If you want to say wounds are one component of hit points, fine. But if you are saying that hit points are wounds and only wounds then I suggest you re-read the sentence and the bolded part.

Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection.
​

I can see why people would think the text was saying that hit point loss isn't a physical wound, but I don't believe that's what the text is saying or is attempting to say.

I believe it both is and that it's explicit on the subject. Wounds are one way through to exhausting someone's ability to keep going. They aren't the only one.

 

[Underman]

Are we really splitting hairs to justify this rubbish? 3 squares or 15 feet take your pick thats how far my fighter pushes you over and over and over til you run away or die. You can't see it coming, you can't stop it. Yet stabbing twice in the same round is unrepeatable needs special openings etc etc. its bologna pure and simple.

I fully sympathize. I find it rather unsatisfying to debate in-game causation with Step-On-Uppers -- because ultimately, the in-game fluff is irrelevant. They've already chosen the metagame mechanic. Any half-assed fluff explanation will suffice exactly because the fluff is not even close to the raison d'être...

We then add fluff around it to make it fit, not the other way around.

...Now one might argue that the pro-simulationists are the same, coming up with fluff to self-justify the metagame, and that is true to some extent, but I'd completely disagree that it's equivalent to the 'gamist' agenda. The distinction is that a simulationist agenda (mostly at the design stage, sometimes as houseruling) can potentially be swayed to reassess or tweak a mechanic to better emulate some sort of fiction, but that will never or rarely work for a Step On Up agenda.

 

[Alzrius]

Of course. Some hit point loss does involve wounds. And one way to lose hit points is by physically being wounded. Clear as day. Equally clear that "hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage" - they aren't strictly speaking wounds. What they are is a measure of ability to keep fighting. Which isn't just physical damage, although that is the most obvious way to inflict it.

Notwithstanding hit point loss from things like starvation, I disagree with the second part of your assertion here. You quoted part of the previous text minus the following text that puts it into context - hit point loss is physical damage.

They are dissassociated. You are trying to associate them by making them wounds. Thank you.

They're already associated in terms of what hit point loss represents. I'm just pointing out what the books say. You're welcome.

And nicks, scratches, and bruises are the most common way of lowering hit points. Wounds do hit point damage. This does not mean that hit point damage is wounds.

I believe it does - beyond the "most common way" of lowering hit points (e.g. nicks, scratches, and bruises) are the uncommon ways...a stab through the heart, having your head cut off, etc.

"In most cases" - in some cases none is sustained and some everything.

Yes, in some cases the wound is extremely minor, and in others its lethal.

You aren't showing what you think you are. Damage scaling makes hit points being straight wounds laughable.

I'm showing exactly what I think I am, you simply dislike the idea. Damage scaling is what makes hit points as physical wounds make greater sense in the game world.

It's tiredness, fatigue, luck running out, bruising. Wounding someone does hit point damage.

This doesn't mean hit points are wounds. Starve someone and you lower there hit points.

The starvation aspect of hit points is explicitly called out, rather than simply being inferred - it's the exception that proves the rule. As you said, "wounding someone does hit point damage," rather than simply being tired or unlucky.

Simply put, the ability to withstand physical wounds is explicitely called out below. As are a lot of other things. If you want to say wounds are one component of hit points, fine. But if you are saying that hit points are wounds and only wounds then I suggest you re-read the sentence and the bolded part.

Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection.
​

Simply put, hit points being the ability to withstand physical wounds requires that there be physical wounds to begin with, which is explicitly called out below. If you want to say that hit points are anything besides wounds, I suggest you re-read the sentence and the emboldened part:

Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection.​

Any reference to "luck," "sixth sense," or similar non-physical abilities is a representation of why that physical wound isn't as bad as another wound, despite them dealing the same points' worth of damage.

I believe it both is and that it's explicit on the subject. Wounds are one way through to exhausting someone's ability to keep going. They aren't the only one.

I believe it is not, and that it's explicitly so. Wounds are the only way - barring specific exceptions such as starvation - to cause someone to lose hit points.

 

[Herschel]

Can't argue with facts, I guess.

Clearly, the break DC of a door and the amount of XP a 5th level wizard gets for killing a 5th level living spell are equally "metagame".

Yes, they are. "Break DC", "XP" "5th Level" and "Spell" are all metagame constructs. I've done several Home Improvement projects and I can tell you I've seen a whole lot of doors and I've NEVER seen a Break DC on the tag.

 

[Underman]

equally "metagame".

Yes, they are. "Break DC", "XP" "5th Level" and "Spell" are all metagame constructs.

He wrote "equally metagame", not "all metagame". That is, he's clearly using "metagame" as a quality or degree, not a binary (it IS metagame OR it isn't) meaning. You can't use the word "equally" otherwise ("that Nissan and that Toyota are equally automobile")

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Speaking of a pile of horse crap are we really back on the opening fallacy again? So my fighter needs an opening to stab you twice with rain of blows after that you can see it coming and I can't do it. Yet I can stab you and knock you back 15 feet leaving you prone via tide of iron over and over again. You can't ever see it coming? It just doesn't add up sorry.

Tide of Iron
After each swing, you use your shield to shove your foe backward, and then you surge ahead.
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be using a shield.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you can push the target 1 square if it is no larger than one size category larger than you. You can then shift 1 square into the space that the target left.
Level 21: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.

What power are you actually talking about?

 

[CM]

What power are you actually talking about?

Tide of Straw methinks.

 

[TwoSix]

FWIW, even though you'll take some flak from the edition warriors, you're 100% right.

From the 4e side of the edition warriors, yes. But let's not pretend it's a one sided argument, K?

 

[Ahnehnois]

From the 4e side of the edition warriors, yes. But let's not pretend it's a one sided argument, K?

From the "I don't have a horse in the edition war race" and the "substantive discussion of mechanics is not an edition war" and "let's not insult newbie posters in a futile attempt to defend our game of choice" side of things, I think it's important to show support when someone tries to make and appropriate and reasonable contribution to the discussion and gets insulted.