D&D 5E Damage on a Miss: Because otherwise Armour Class makes no sense

[BryonD]

I believe that one of the most relevant/enlightened design decisions of 4e was to finally match the hp recovery mechanics with the classic description of HP. This cracked the door for decoupling HP recovery from magic. Therefore opening an entire spectrum of additional gaming options, such as removing the need for a dedicated healer, second wind, variable rest periods, the leader role, etc.

This is certainly true. (though I think a lot of people would strongly dispute that 4e truly matches the "classic description of HP", the rest of your point stands without that)

It is also true that for many, many people found the problems caused by the design decision to be among the most destructive and flawed.

Gamers on both sides play what they prefer.

 

[D'karr]

people found the problems caused by the design decision to be among the most destructive and flawed.

Gamers on both sides play what they prefer.

That just means that there is no accounting for taste.

I believe that the real flaw is not that the changes were destructive but that the designers did not take the time to show ways of tweaking the inherent mechanisms in the game.

In my game, for example, I have ways of accounting for long term injury, short term injury, depleted resources, etc. These are all using the basic mechanisms already provided. I believe that had the designers taken the time to show how to actually use these "dials" then a DM could have easily adjusted the game to their tastes - like I did with mine.

 

[Jester David]

The argument isn't that hit points only equal meat. I can think of few people who think or play as if hp only represents physical health. The issue is that they shouldn't be all energy and that health has to be in there somewhere and that everyone should be able to pick their own ratio of meat:skill.

DoaM, lethal/no lethal damage, and martial healing and other issues pick as side. They come out and say "hp is mostly energy, everyone else is wrong." They ask me to change my game or adjust my narrative. This is something the alternative (no DoaM or the like) doesn't do. Not having the mechanics doesn't favour one side or the other.

 

[D'karr]

Not having the mechanics doesn't favour one side or the other.

It does. It favors status quo so it does pick a side, if that is how you want to look at things. I don't think a pick a side approach is very productive.

 

[Hussar]

The argument isn't that hit points only equal meat. I can think of few people who think or play as if hp only represents physical health. The issue is that they shouldn't be all energy and that health has to be in there somewhere and that everyone should be able to pick their own ratio of meat:skill.

DoaM, lethal/no lethal damage, and martial healing and other issues pick as side. They come out and say "hp is mostly energy, everyone else is wrong." They ask me to change my game or adjust my narrative. This is something the alternative (no DoaM or the like) doesn't do. Not having the mechanics doesn't favour one side or the other.

The problem is, that everyone else actually IS wrong. And almost always have been. In 3e, you could not describe a wound that would ever take more than 9 days to heal. That was the slowest any character could ever heal when given assistance by someone with the heal skill. Since you actually don't know how someone will be healed when the damage is dealt, and if you actually want to avoid Schroedinger's HP, you cannot actually describe any wounds in 3e. A 5th level Mage with 20 HP, takes 29 points of damage. He's six seconds away from death, so, he's taken some pretty serious wounds, right? But, with bed rest, he's actually at full health in two days. What potentially lethal wound is naturally healable in two days?

The thing is, D&D HP never actually matched the source fiction very well. HP don't work if you want a duel like the one between the Man in Black and Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. Neither of them actually makes any contact with the other. In D&D terms, pre-4e anyway, neither has lost a single HP, Inigo loses the fight. In Lord of the Rings, Frodo is hit by the troll and slammed into the wall, knocked unconscious. Yet, he springs up, with no healing, and is perfectly fine after a short rest and proceeds to run a short marathon away from the hordes of orcs and whatnot in Moria.

Earlier edition D&D HP never matched up very well. Not when you decided that HP were mostly meat. DoaM and whatnot is not asking you to change your game. You already did that when you ignored what the rules actually said HP were in the first place. The only thing that DoaM and other mechanics have done is shine a big old spotlight on the fact that you have been ignoring the actual rules of the game for years.

 

[Balesir]

DoaM, lethal/no lethal damage, and martial healing and other issues pick as side. They come out and say "hp is mostly energy, everyone else is wrong." They ask me to change my game or adjust my narrative. This is something the alternative (no DoaM or the like) doesn't do. Not having the mechanics doesn't favour one side or the other.

I don't think that's actually true; the rules that eschew DoaM, non-magic healing and "gonzo" non-magic capabilities DO "pick a side". They pick the side of "anything magical that happens must be due to magic".

This I find a shame on two levels.

Firstly, while I see many movies where strength of human spirit, inspiration and grit works miracles, that can't happen in an RPG where magic has to be a result of literal magic. You can have drama, for sure, and courage - even (with luck) success against the odds - but not the attractive fantasy of sheer human(oid) spirit, of grit and of sheer determination. Games where this fantasy of larger-than-life heroes really works are only really possible if "hit points" are manipulable by heroism, (demi-)human spirit, grit and swashbuckling gung-ho - with or without glowy stuff called "magic".

Secondly, if an intensely rational, "physical" game with all the fantasy hard grounded in tough realities is what is desired, I don't think a game using hit points does it well. The ingrained "accepted wisdom" that RPGs have to treat the life of characters as a resource "pot" has, it seems to me, stifled development of games that treat health and injury in a more grounded, non-gamey way. As long as we treat life as a pot of points or "levels" that get abraded away instead of as a fragile thing that is endangered by accumulating nasty consequences, any one of which can snuff it out, roleplaying "life" will never really feel as delicate and fragile (and yet as resilient and energised) as it is in the "real world".

There is a place for both these styles of game, and more. Let's try to learn to appreciate them for what they add, not attack them for what they take away.

 

[BryonD]

That just means that there is no accounting for taste.

The sun also rises in the east.

I believe that the real flaw is not that the changes were destructive but that the designers did not take the time to show ways of tweaking the inherent mechanisms in the game.

This presumes that some significant majority of people who disliked the system only did so for lack of understanding. I've seen this same line of reasoning for a laundry list of issues with 4E.
I also know a lot of people who dislike 4E far more than I do and understand that whats and whys of their dislike quite well.

I understand the points you made above regarding why 4E healing is better for you. And I, with full understanding, want them kept away from my table.

In my game, for example, I have ways of accounting for long term injury, short term injury, depleted resources, etc. These are all using the basic mechanisms already provided. I believe that had the designers taken the time to show how to actually use these "dials" then a DM could have easily adjusted the game to their tastes - like I did with mine.

I've been around and around the conversations regarding 4E healing.
That is now ancient history and I'm not going to relive it.
I assure you I could tweak the dials. I can assure you that tweaked 4E would still be like 12th best with 11 other games requiring vastly less tweaking ahead of it.
So you overstate your case and even with you point conceded for sake of argument, there are better options.

I think that the bottom line is you start with no accounting for taste, and then spent the rest of the reply assuming you could do taste accounting by assuming everyone shared yours.

 

[BryonD]

The problem is, that everyone else actually IS wrong. And almost always have been. In 3e, you could not describe a wound that would ever take more than 9 days to heal. That was the slowest any character could ever heal when given assistance by someone with the heal skill. Since you actually don't know how someone will be healed when the damage is dealt, and if you actually want to avoid Schroedinger's HP, you cannot actually describe any wounds in 3e. A 5th level Mage with 20 HP, takes 29 points of damage. He's six seconds away from death, so, he's taken some pretty serious wounds, right? But, with bed rest, he's actually at full health in two days. What potentially lethal wound is naturally healable in two days?

And yet it has worked great for tens of thousands of groups over decades.
Quantum physics is truly a strange beast.

 

[D'karr]

The sun also rises in the east.

And sets in the west....

This presumes that some significant majority of people who disliked the system only did so for lack of understanding. I've seen this same line of reasoning for a laundry list of issues with 4E.
I also know a lot of people who dislike 4E far more than I do and understand that whats and whys of their dislike quite well.

My statement presumed nothing. I'm addressing only one of the many mechanisms of 4e and could care less for what "a lot of people dislike". I'm not trying to convince you or them to "like" a system.

You made the assertion that the changes were destructive. I addressed only that point by saying that not providing in the system ways to obviously tweak the dials was what was the main flaw. I'm totally fine with you disagreeing with that. Since I'm not trying to make you like it (the system), or agree (with my assertion).

I understand the points you made above regarding why 4E healing is better for you. And I, with full understanding, want them kept away from my table.

That is your prerogative. What I would have liked to have seen was ways for you to keep doing what you liked, and for me to also have what I liked. Instead of arguing only for what I like.

I've been around and around the conversations regarding 4E healing.
That is now ancient history and I'm not going to relive it.

Then why are you commenting on what I'm saying about 4e if you don't want to relive it?

I assure you I could tweak the dials. I can assure you that tweaked 4E would still be like 12th best with 11 other games requiring vastly less tweaking ahead of it.

In your opinion of course.

So you overstate your case and even with you point conceded for sake of argument, there are better options.

There might be better options, once again in your opinion.

I think that the bottom line is you start with no accounting for taste, and then spent the rest of the reply assuming you could do taste accounting by assuming everyone shared yours.

I meant that there is no accounting for taste, as in the designers provided something and did not take into account for ways of recreating what the system already did or did not do - in essence not accounting for "your" (the general you) taste.

I never assumed everyone shared my tastes, but it is also obvious that not everyone shares yours. So there is no accounting for taste.

 

[D'karr]

And yet it has worked great for tens of thousands of groups over decades.
Quantum physics is truly a strange beast.

Or maybe instead of working great it has just been serviceable for decades, but not really great. Both options are really matters of opinion.