D&D 5E Hp as meat and abstraction

[DEFCON 1]

First off, no it isn't. Surviving fifteen marginal sword blows is pretty ridiculous, but it's not the same thing as causing harm to a person, by making an attack with your weapon, without actually touching them.

Putting that aside however, isn't that the rationale behind E6? It's a characteristic feature of 3e/d20 system games at least, that low level play is considerably more "realistic" than high level play. For a character at single digit levels to survive double digit numbers of hits, those hits have to be pretty demonstrably pathetic. It's not at all unrealistic to think that a trained warrior could survive twenty hits if I was the one swinging the sword (or in context, a commoner or a halfling with a strength penalty). If one believes DMG demographics, there are only a very small number of people in the world who have a high enough level to create the really wild outcomes.

This is a very different dynamic than the whole DoaM thing, wherein it's available at low levels and is actually more nonsensical given that the characters using it aren't necessarily even all that good at what they do.

Basically what you are saying is that both "D&D sword-fighting" and "DoaM" are ridiculous in terms of aligning mechanics to story... but since on a Realism scale E6 might be ranked at a '7' and DoaM a '3'... then E6 is okay to have and DoaM needs to be removed.

Whereas I'm saying that since both are on the table AT ALL... splitting hairs about where the cut-off is is ridiculous. They are BOTH unrealistic in terms of story. So at that point, I ask if the game mechanic itself is interesting and different from other game mechanics in the game. And to me... with the preponderance of "All or Nothing" rules in terms of the removal of points (you either succeed and remove points or you fail and you don't)... an "All or Some" mechanic is a nice change of pace for a specific part of the game. D&D is at its best when it use a wide variety of easy-to-understand game mechanics to interact with to keep the game interesting. And if the story or description invented to layer on top of the game mechanic doesn't interact with said mechanic with 100% "realism"? Well, its joining the club of every other mechanic/story interaction in the game.

 

[dmgorgon]

Thinking too hard about hit points does 1d6 per round damage.

Is that physical damage?

 

[am181d]

Those two rolls represent the combined effect of that period of combat. Damage caused to the goblin is rolled up in the fighter's attack roll, and vice versa.

Huh? Sorry if I missed it, but are you talking about a specific edition of D&D? I don't recall any of them using this assumption, even AD&D with it's one minute rounds.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Whereas I'm saying that since both are on the table AT ALL... splitting hairs about where the cut-off is is ridiculous.

So why stop at shouting wounds closed? Why not introduce a new ability that allows a fighter to shout and deal damage to everyone that can hear it? Why stop at damage on a miss, when you could have a new ability that says that whenever you miss, you deal double damage? And for the new fighter capstone, why not introduce an ability that allows a fighter to name all his enemies, swing his sword in pantomime, and have all of them instantly drop dead no matter where they are? Once a day, of course.

I mean, if degrees of plausibility are really irrelevant...

*If you don't like these ideas, you're clearly excluding the playstyle of the 99% of people who think they're totally awesome.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes... I'm presuming that the game will occasionally present a situation where a swordfighter has a series of bad damage rolls. As a result, if a "hit is a hit"... then an enemy can get hit with a sword 15 to 20 times without dying. That is just as unrealistic as the idea you could use to justify "damage on a Miss." So everyone who thinks "hit points as meat" are realistic is basically ignoring all the ways that it isn't.

First off, no, it's not. As Ahnehnois (how do you pronounce that, anyway?) pointed out, while surviving multiple sword wounds is an unlikely claim, it's far more probable than the idea of near-missing someone into defeat because it demoralizes/de-luckifies/makes God hate them.

No one is saying that the system needs to perfectly emulate anything, but there's a point where the abstraction goes too far. Obviously, that point will vary by individual, but the idea of surviving multiple, relatively minor sword-inflicted wounds (until the total amount of wounds brings you down) seems to be safely more plausible than stabbing someone in the luck.

They are voluntarily putting their heads in the sand about certain aspects of the absurdity of hit points. Which is why I reject their claims that other absurd aspects of hit points (i.e. damage on a Miss) have no place in the game. They are ALL ridiculous attempts to make story sense of a game mechanic, none of which actually work 100%. Every attempt at story justification of hit points falls through one way or another.

Some fall far worse than others.

If you don't like the concept of "damage on a Miss", that's cool. But don't try and claim it has no place in the game due to any inane concept of realism or the dictionary definitions of what "hit", "miss" and "damage" are.

No, I think that's a fairly legitimate claim to make.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So why stop at shouting wounds closed? Why not introduce a new ability that allows a fighter to shout and deal damage to everyone that can hear it?

4E had that. The Bard's Cutting Words power. And it damaged the enemy's psyche so as to make him just that little bit closer to be taken down. Didn't have a problem with it. The psychology of combat has just as much place in the game as the physical toll it takes.

Why stop at damage on a miss, when you could have a new ability that says that whenever you miss, you deal double damage?

If you could make this game mechanic balanced with other mechanics of the game, I'd say absolutely. And in point of fact... that would be a rather interesting mechanic to have if a particular character only missed on like a 1 or 2. So normally you do regular damage, and you then had a kind of 'reverse crit' when you missed. I'd be completely fine with that, especially if the ability was given to a particular character and narratively dressed in such a way that you could understand why its doing what its doing. Probably a magic attack-- maybe force / Magic Missile like (since those don't ever miss.) Just make sure the damage it produces is balanced so it doesn't overshadow the other classes.

And for the new fighter capstone, why not introduce an ability that allows a fighter to name all his enemies, swing his sword in pantomime, and have all of them instantly drop dead no matter where they are? Once a day, of course.

At 20th level? A Fighter having that kind of supernatural combat ability? No problems at all. If we're going under the idea that this guy can wander all around the Elemental Plane of Fire with no ill-effects, or can fall from a 200 foot tower and then jump back up... the concept that his aura of invincibility is so great that it can make enemies faint dead due to fear sounds just as plausible as any other ability these D&D character have.

But the real question here is... what is the game mechanic you are introducing that you would use this story description to layer on top of it? Is that a good game mechanic? Is it interesting? Is making it a Fighter ability the best place to use this mechanic? If you can answer all of these with a 'Yes'... then the story description you gave for a 20th level capstone ability sounds fine with me.

I mean, if degrees of plausibility are really irrelevant...

For D&D? Nothing is "plausible". It's called a 'fantasy game' for a reason.

 

[CAFRedblade]

Crud too many windows open...
Second edit:
I like a combination of Abstraction and Meat Damage, as I usually describe particularly nasty hits
with a little more detail, most often on critical hits, but ignore the majority of general wounds until one
gets dropped below 0 hitpoints.

I'm kinda hoping for a module of critical effects or a damage track system to add to the regular hp tracking as an option to help show more damaging persistent wounds.

Also:

If the wording changed it to be that the Fighters turn what would normally be a miss into a glancing blow, would that resolve/mitigate the issue..?

I know it sounds better to me personally, and I could live with it.
It could reflect all the little hits a fighter could make in the back and forth of combat.

As long as it's not an ability that every fighter gets, and has to be chosen, I'd be fine with it I think.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Some fall far worse than others.

In your opinion. Which I do not begrudge you in the slightest.

But if the ability has survived this long in the game... chances are good that your opinion or concern does not match up with that of most other players, and thus you're going to end up just having to deal with it. You either don't allow the ability in your game, you change that particular ability to something else, or you just choose not to play D&D Next.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Alzrius]

But if the ability has survived this long in the game... chances are good that your opinion or concern does not match up with that of most other players, and thus you're going to end up just having to deal with it.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, regarding why it's in. D&D had a public playtest; it was not designed by all of its players. Claiming that the existence of "hit points as abstraction" and "damage on a miss" equates to them having a mandate is simply wishful thinking. Now, if that makes it more palatable to you, that's certainly your choice, and I have no problem with that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...but the idea of surviving multiple, relatively minor sword-inflicted wounds (until the total amount of wounds brings you down) seems to be safely more plausible than stabbing someone in the luck.

Or you know... the combat takes such a toll on an individual that the fatigue eventually takes over and the person falls unconscious due to the fatigue. And when that person falls, his head hits a rock and begins bleeding. Or do you not believe people can die from fatigue? Or that people don't hurt themselves (and possibly die) when they faint or fall unconscious?

Are the odds of that happening any better or worse that getting hit with a battleaxe 15 times and not dying? To me, they are both so implausible that picking nits is a waste of my time.