D&D 5E Can mundane classes have a resource which powers abilities?

[Neonchameleon]

I gave an example, with the massive bruising and cracked ribs, identical to what a level 1 character would have taken from max damage on a battleaxe (11 damage against 10 hit points).

Some massive bruising and cracked ribs is identical to a very effective hit from a battleaxe? Those things have edges for a reason. And humans have skulls and necks. And ribs that aren't as hard as iron. Besides, cracked ribs aren't negative hp - they aren't a knockout.

But abstraction does most certainly not equate to unknowable. Abstraction means that what we see is directly related to what's going on within the game, but we lose some of the information in the translation.

Indeed. But where everyone who complains about disassociated mechanics goes wrong is thinking that the mapping should be bijective. That because the world maps to the rules then the rules by the same token map to the game world. Hit points, as explained by Gygax (a point you haven't engaged with) take into account a number of different factors including skill, luck, divine protection, and fatigue. There is nothing at all wrong in mapping half a dozen complex variables into one single factor, as D&D and most other RPGs do. But where your entire approach is falling down is then trying to claim that this one outcome can be mapped back directly into the effects on the gameworld - and this mapping will be consistent.

When our fighter gets hit really hard, we may only know in the abstract that it's ~110% of how much she can take and remain conscious, but the character can be perfectly aware of the true extent of that injury (cracked ribs, etc). Usually, the DM is at liberty to fill in some of the details that were lost due to abstraction.

This is true.

Yes. Among the editions, 4E was unique in that it didn't attempt to model any sort of objective reality.

Because luck, skill, morale, and divine protection are all objective factors. The unique part was that 3.X did try to claim that everything was objective most of the time.

 

[Ahnehnois]

On the first paragraph: I assume that the gameworld conforms to the particpants' expectations for it, generally reached through shared genre expectations as communicated via the game rules. In 4e, for instance, an epic PC may be a demigod, and so expectations as to what is achievable for an epic PC, in terms of magic or endurance or other feats of might, are to be framed by reference to shared genre expectations around demigods. There is also a discussion of "tiers of adventure" in the PHB that helps set those genre expectations.

If I understand correctly, this paragraph translates roughly to an answer: "meh". Apparently people have such commonalities in expectations (derived from fluff text no less!) that their visions of what's actually happening in this fantasy world will be entirely complementary and never contradictory.

So if you are feeling anxious, as if you are boxed into a corner with no way to extract yourself and not much left in the way of reserves, than that's how your PC is feeling (the flip side of this: healing inspires the player, restoring hope, as much as it does the PC). It is a mark of good rules, for me, that they engender this sort of correlation between players' and characters' emotional states. And direct mechanical causation removes the need for mechanical simulation!

Except that players never feel that their life is in danger (and by and large, they often don't feel that their character's life is in danger). This is kind of a problem; characters probably should.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm with some other posters, however, in taking the view that 4e is not as unique in this respect as you believe. If you look at Gygax's descriptions of hit points and of saving throws in his DMG, I think they're both closer to the 4e style than the 3E style. And the AD&D action economy is as abstract as the 4e one also, in my view - in some ways probably moreso, because of the very long (1 minute) rounds.

As I mentioned... somewhere around here, in one of these threads... the rules of 4E do a pretty good job of modelling those traditional explanations for hit points and saving throws that had been around since way back in the day. A far better job, in fact, than any of the older editions did. When you look at 4E, with the overnight healing and the second wind and all that, you really feel like a hit point is 95% mental with just a few scratches. Even the 4E style saving throws, where you can be afflicted with something and then "shake it off" or "snap out of it" is a better fit to the genre than the old "all or nothing" style saves.

The problem is, by the time 4E came around, you had two generations of players who were used to the "one hit point per day" and "it is what it is" style of rules, which made a much more compelling case for rules-as-physics in spite of what the authors originally claimed. I like D&D rules for what they were, rather than for what they were supposed to be.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Some massive bruising and cracked ribs is identical to a very effective hit from a battleaxe? Those things have edges for a reason. And humans have skulls and necks. And ribs that aren't as hard as iron. Besides, cracked ribs aren't negative hp - they aren't a knockout.

The fighter in this example is wearing armor. The rules were never intended to cover someone who both had a ton of hit points and didn't have armor (whether natural or worn). The rules also don't cover decapitation strikes, so every attack that hits is one which strikes the armor and causes injury anyway.

If you feel that the rules should cover decapitation strikes, and should include additional caveats for striking people who aren't wearing armor (or for bypassing armor), then by all means feel free to change things at your table.

Because luck, skill, morale, and divine protection are all objective factors. The unique part was that 3.X did try to claim that everything was objective most of the time.

Let me see... +2 luck bonus to AC, +3 competence, +1 morale, and +2 divine. Yep, all perfectly objective and test-able.

I agree that 3.X did go further than any prior edition in explaining the objective nature of the world, but there's not really much from anything before that which was actually subjective. A troll will have 42 hit points and AC 3 (or whatever) regardless of whether you're level 1 or level 20, in any edition other than 4E.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The fighter in this example is wearing armor. The rules were never intended to cover someone who both had a ton of hit points and didn't have armor (whether natural or worn).

Not so. The rules were intended to replicate Errol Flynn/Basil Rathbone style duels. I see no armour (I'm going by primary sources here - mostly Mike Mornard). And if they were never intended to cover someone with a ton of hit points and no armour, high level wizards wouldn't exist. (A ton of hit points, to be honest, is anything over 8 - where you can't be downed in a minute by an orc with an axe and luck on its side.

Let me see... +2 luck bonus to AC, +3 competence, +1 morale, and +2 divine. Yep, all perfectly objective and test-able.

And not part of hit points, which such things explicitly were in older editions of D&D (I've already quoted the 1E DMG once). 3.X set out to make things objective and explicit that had not been previously - and in doing so they changed the nature of hit points. And armour class. (And I'd hardly describe eight years as "two generations").

I agree that 3.X did go further than any prior edition in explaining the objective nature of the world, but there's not really much from anything before that which was <em>actually</em> subjective.

You can keep repeating this all you like - but it doesn't make it so.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not so. The rules were intended to replicate Errol Flynn/Basil Rathbone style duels.

I was going by Gygax, who always seems to reference Conan for some reason. If the rules were intended to replicate armor-less duels between skilled fighters using one-handed weapons, then I must say they do a fantastically terrible job at that.

And not part of hit points, which such things explicitly were in older editions of D&D (I've already quoted the 1E DMG once).

Yeah, it's kind of weird. They come right out and say that Hit Points are all of these things, and then make it so that you can only possibly lose them through things that can physically hurt you, and you only recover them slowly or through magic. And then, when morale and luck are called out by the rules, they always use some mechanic other than Hit Points. Clearly, that description of what a Hit Point is supposed to be does not match up with what they actually are as defined by the game rules.

You can address that by changing their description (which is the easiest option), or by changing the rules (which would require a lot of work and is likely to cause balance issues), or you can ignore it because it's just a game and nobody really cares.

You can keep repeating this all you like - but it doesn't make it so.

If you claim that it's not the case, then find some examples of some things in older editions that are actually subjective, on anything like the scale of 4E's low-level-elite vs high-level-minion issue.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I was going by Gygax, who always seems to reference Conan for some reason.

Gygax liked Conan. And for that matter Conan didn't always wear armour (although he wore a lot more than in the film).

If the rules were intended to replicate armor-less duels between skilled fighters using one-handed weapons, then I must say they do a fantastically terrible job at that.

No argument that Gygax wasn't a terribly good game designer (have you ever looked at Mythus or Cyborg Commando?)

Yeah, it's kind of weird. They come right out and say that Hit Points are all of these things, and then make it so that you can only possibly lose them through things that can physically hurt you, and you only recover them slowly or through magic.

As I have pointed out repeatedly on this thread and you have continually ignored, you do not recover hit points slowly. It takes about the same length of time to recover from almost all your hit points being wiped out as it takes an athlete to recover from a large sporting event. On the other hand the longest recovery times in AD&D are about equivalent to the shortest recovery times for cracked ribs - an injury that doesn't even break a bone. A dislocated shoulder takes 12-16 weeks. Broken legs weeks before you can walk again. Calling recovery times in AD&D long is simply because you expect a more cinematic reality than the game tries to use at that point.

The notion that hit points are long enough to represent injury is risible.

And then, when morale and luck are called out by the rules, they always use some mechanic other than Hit Points.

Morale, yes. Luck - it depends. And there is no reason to call luck out twice.

If you claim that it's not the case, then find some examples of some things in older editions that are actually subjective, on anything like the scale of 4E's low-level-elite vs high-level-minion issue.

Making a fudge factor consistent does not make it objective. And it shocks me that anyone would work on the basis that hit points are an "objective" model of reality to the point that you can count sword hits until someone drops by pounding on them. For that matter the idea that most people only make one melee attack in a minute should be dynamite under any attempt to claim that the rules are objective. If you treat the rules as objective you are playing in an Order of the Stick reality.

 

[pemerton]

If I understand correctly, this paragraph translates roughly to an answer: "meh".

Then you've misunderstood. The gameworld, as I said, conforms to the game participants expectations for it. These are established by a combination of genre familiarity, discussion, game rules etc. I think I mentioned an example of a relevant game rule: the fact that an epic 4e PC can be a demi-god. This helps establish common expectations for what is possible, within the fiction, for epic PCs.

I also gave another example of how the game text can help establish shared expectations, namely, the description in the 4e PC of the three "tiers of play" that characterise that particular game.

Apparently people have such commonalities in expectations (derived from fluff text no less!) that their visions of what's actually happening in this fantasy world will be entirely complementary and never contradictory.

I don't see where else genre expectations would come from but flavour text. After all, genre is about flavour. THACO vs attack matrices vs BAB might be a differene of maths, but it's not a difference of genre!

I also don't see why you think it is hard to establish common expectations. I've never really had much trouble doing so, by discussion when the campaign starts and then ongoing discussion plus (more importantly) actual play as the game unfolds.

Except that players never feel that their life is in danger (and by and large, they often don't feel that their character's life is in danger). This is kind of a problem; characters probably should.

I talked about "correlation" in experience, not identity. The character's life is in danger; the player is in danger of losing his/her PC.

If I was playing a system in which, when the PC's are feeling anxious and boxed into a corner with no way to extract themselves and not much left in the way of reserves, the players don't feel similarly, then I would look for a different system. I certainly don't want to play a system where the player is expected to imagine what his/her PC is feeling, but there is nothing in the play of the game that would make the player feel similarly: I'm happy with that sort of treatment for the colour of a PC's boots or eyes, but that's only because such things are fundamentally irrelevant to the play of the game. If something matters, though - like the situation of a PC during battle - then the mechanics should be making the ingame situation matter to the player too.

 

[pemerton]

Let me see... +2 luck bonus to AC, +3 competence, +1 morale, and +2 divine. Yep, all perfectly objective and test-able.

To me, this is actually similar to "natural armour" bonuses. I'm not at all persuaded that these are objective and testable in the fiction. What objective property, for instance, does a dragon with a +30 natural armour bonus exhibit upon dissection? How do you even dissect a creature whose natural armour is so much stronger than the strongest possible magical plate armour?

Likewise some of those other bonus types: other than the fact that they all stack, what does it mean within the fiction to say that armour is magical because it is enhanced, because it grants luck, or because it confers divine favour? In particular, what is the difference between the latter two? (Another easy example to illustrate the point: what is the difference in the fiction between an insight bonus to hit, and adding your WIS via Zen Archery?)

For me, this is all pseudo-objectivity. No one is really expected to correlate all these bonuses types and bonus numbers to states of the gameworld. They're just labels established and applied for metagame purposes.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What objective property, for instance, does a dragon with a +30 natural armour bonus exhibit upon dissection?

Dissipation of kinetic energy, kind of like a resister in an electrical circuit. You can imagine it as measuring how much force would be required to deform the armor; nothing will resist an infinite amount of force without bending, but steel will resist more than bronze and adamantine will resist more than steel. No matter how tough something is, there is always an amount of force that can break it. (Granted, this model would be much closer to reality if we were using armor as DR rather than avoidance, but that makes for a game that is much more difficult to play/balance.)

There is a lot of overlap between some of the bonus types, in 3.5 especially. "Natural armor" is only different from "armor" in that it's attached to your skin, and what you think might be an armor bonus might actually be a natural armor bonus when it turns out that you're fighting an automaton rather than a person wearing plate. Dodge bonus to AC vs Dexterity bonus to AC is another one. At some point, the distinction is made for game purposes, so you get multiple game terms that refer to the same physical phenomenon. They could have said that your Dexterity bonus increases your Dodge bonus to AC, just like Zen Archery allows you to add your Wisdom bonus to your Insight bonus to hit, but that would be even more confusing.

They really tried to keep everything straight and orderly in 3.5, but the results were mixed. The benefit of tracking so many independent variables did not always prove worth the effort. I mean, it's fine if someone uses luck to cause some attacks to randomly miss, and another person invokes divine favor to force some attacks to miss, but how does it benefit anyone to bother distinguishing between the two at a mechanical level?