D&D 5E Hp as meat and abstraction

[DEFCON 1]

The "hit points as meat" crowd would then proceed to beat the ever-loving crap out of them, thus showing that the "bloodied" condition is, in fact, literal.

Although the "hit points as meat" crowd would actually look rather pathetic as warriors, since they'd be so bad at fighting that it could take like 15 or more slices with a longsword to actually finally kill someone. Hell, every single swing at that point you might as well just call "damage on a miss", since they'd be able to do no better than a series of small papercuts to their opponent over and over again until they finally get that last cut to kill him after a dozen previous so-called "hits". They'd look like klutzy idiots swinging those swords around nicking people like a dull razor.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The relevant question isn't whether hp are physical, but whether they are anything. Clearly, a number that combines the physical state of an entire body plus all the psychological stuff that goes along with it is very abstract. But the question is whether the hp are a phenomenon that exists in the game world, or whether they are a player resource that doesn't really relate to the character.

 

[Mistwell]

Not particularly, since that relies on the incorrect assumption that a successful Reflex save means completely dodging something, rather than "reacting in a manner so as to make a serious blow less serious."

The 2nd level rogue with a 12 dex can dodge the lightening bolt taking no damage, even if there is zero cover to dodge behind, thanks to his evasion ability.
The other guy standing next to him, who is 20th level and has a 25 dex and high bonus to his reflex save that rolls a natural 20 on his saving throw still takes half damage from the same lightning bolt.

As others have said - stare too long into hit points, and the abyss stares back at you. They're an abstraction that can never make perfect sense.

There simply is no winning this debate, for anyone. Hit Points cannot be purely meat, and cannot be purely non-meat. They must be some mix of both. People can differ as to what that mix is, and how it gets applied, but it has to be a mix of both to even vaguely function in a semi-realistic manner.

 

[Mistwell]

Although the "hit points as meat" crowd would actually look rather pathetic as warriors, since they'd be so bad at fighting that it could take like 15 or more slices with a longsword to actually finally kill someone. Hell, every single swing at that point you might as well just call "damage on a miss", since they'd be able to do no better than a series of small papercuts to their opponent over and over again until they finally get that last cut to kill him after a dozen previous so-called "hits". They'd look like klutzy idiots swinging those swords around nicking people like a dull razor.

If hit points are purely meat, do you get fatter as you go up in levels? Where is the additional meat coming from, with additional hit points? Do you puff up when given temporary hit points?

 

[Obryn]

When D&D was made, hit points were there because Gary liked how they played at the table. Your hit points tell you how many hit points you can take before your dude shuttles off to the big dungeon in the sky. That's it, that's what they do.

Hit points make no more sense now than they ever did, and "debating" it is bound to go nowhere. Again. It hasn't gone anywhere since people sent angry letters to Dragon, posted rants on usenet, etc.

There's just no "there" there. There is no hidden truth to be unveiled by ruthless application of logic or reference to chapter and verse. Hit points are a game mechanic, just like xp, and nobody sits around asking what an xp models.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For me, HP is my injury mechanic.

A guy who hits you with a sword isn't hurting your feelings, he's hurting your body. But I can't be arsed to try and figure out exactly how and why he's hurting your body, so I figure this works okay: I reduce a pool of points you have. These can be thought of as your "reasons I don't die from getting hit with a sword" points. What, exactly, that means, is kind of up to you and me in the moment, but the salient fact of the fiction is that you've been hit with a sword, so it is going to cause some bodily harm. Someone with fewer of these points WOULD die from getting hit with the sword.

So if you take damage, you take some bodily injury. How severe that injury is depends on how much HP you've got left after the fact. Is it NONE? The injury is life-threatening. Is it SOME? The injury is not life-threatening. But the precise nature of the injury doesn't matter to me. Say it's a broken leg. Say your arm's off. Say it's some bruises. Say it's some internal hemorrhaging. Whatever makes sense to you and me and everyone else works. The more badass your idea of your character is, the more he's going to be able to continue fighting with his guts as an ascot.

Which is the takeaway, here: HP is the only mechanic I need to model bodily injury. Having a broken leg or a sucking chest wound or a cosmetic slice or a meaty chunk taken out of your leg isn't something I need a lot of detailed rules about. You're down HP. You might not survive the next time you are hit with a sword. So you're going to be careful. I don't need a litany of fiddly modifiers to directly model the specific wound you're suffering, but I do need you to understand that you are WOUNDED, because you have been hit with things that could kill you...and you didn't die.

Hurt fee-fees don't make you die, and the barbarian who hits you with his greataxe isn't just hurting your "protagonism." But maybe you just sprained a shoulder instead of getting your head lopped off, and maybe you attribute that to luck or skill or morale or divine influence and that's all good, but you are still suffering a physical effect from being hit with something that would be potentially deadly. That's why you're missing HP. You've suffered and injury.

Damage on a miss doesn't bug me in that context, because a miss is just an attack that doesn't do physical damage. Maybe Barry's attacks ALWAYS do physical damage, no matter how agile or well-armored the target is.

Though in that respect, perhaps it should be a save vs. Barry's attacks rather than damage-on-a-miss?

Damage-on-a-miss also bugs me a bit from a gameplay and fictive perspective when it can be spammed ad nauseum from a low level, because it means your first-level trainee is suddenly UNAVOIDABLE, and that's also a little dull, but I buy it on a "realism" level just fine.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If hit points are purely meat, do you get fatter as you go up in levels? Where is the additional meat coming from, with additional hit points? Do you puff up when given temporary hit points?

No, no... you don't get fatter... your enemies just get worse with their weapons. When they used to be able to hit you with a killing blow with a single swing... now they're old and frail and barely scratch you with that greatsword. Heh heh.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But maybe you just sprained a shoulder instead of getting your head lopped off, and maybe you attribute that to luck or skill or morale or divine influence and that's all good, but you are still suffering a physical effect from being hit with something that would be potentially deadly. That's why you're missing HP. You've suffered an injury.

I'm good with thinking like this. Why? Because that physical effect would include getting tired and fatigued. Which means that if fighting causes you to get tired and fatigued... then that absolutely can still occur even when you are missed with an attack. He swings, you dodge, you suffer the physical injury of fatigue, you lose hit points.

Easy peasy.

 

[darjr]

The 2nd level rogue with a 12 dex can dodge the lightening bolt taking no damage, even if there is zero cover to dodge behind, thanks to his evasion ability.
The other guy standing next to him, who is 20th level and has a 25 dex and high bonus to his reflex save that rolls a natural 20 on his saving throw still takes half damage from the same lightning bolt.

As others have said - stare too long into hit points, and the abyss stares back at you. They're an abstraction that can never make perfect sense.

There simply is no winning this debate, for anyone. Hit Points cannot be purely meat, and cannot be purely non-meat. They must be some mix of both. People can differ as to what that mix is, and how it gets applied, but it has to be a mix of both to even vaguely function in a semi-realistic manner.

Bingo! The issue I have is that the Next rules, imho, try to nail down exactly what HP IS, as completely abstract and not much else. I don't think the rules to D&D should do that.

 

[Mistwell]

Bingo! The issue I have is that the Next rules, imho, try to nail down exactly what HP IS, as completely abstract and not much else. I don't think the rules to D&D should do that.

I don't think it does that. It says it's part meat, part non-meat, and ultimately an abstraction. Which is what I said, and what you said Bingo! to.

To be specific, 5e says, "Hit points represent a combination of [physical] and [mental durability, the will to live, and luck]. Hit points are an abstraction that represent a creature’s ability to survive the many perils lying in wait. "