D&D 5E Hit Point Recovery Too Generous

[Hussar]

Exactly. There's not much of an in-game difference between 12 or 13 damage, and the descriptor for either will be almost identical, as will the response by anyone trying to heal that damage.

Characters understand their damage capacity at-least well-enough that they can come to the same decisions regarding them that players make regarding Hit Points. The numbers may not translate perfectly, but the entire process is analogous.

I'd say there would be very significant difference if the pc was reduced to 1 hp or zero and drying.

But again what is a character doing when it spends a hit die? And how do you distinguish that from a fighter's second wind?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Characters understand their damage capacity at-least well-enough that they can come to the same decisions regarding them that players make regarding Hit Points. The numbers may not translate perfectly, but the entire process is analogous.

I don't consider them analogous at all. I feel there's a vast difference between "Am I badly hurt or not?" and "How many hit points do I have left after I've been hit by a fireball?" Vast enough that there's zero chance of "hit points" ever becoming an in-character term or resource.

But I think we've more or less exhausted the possibilities of this debate.

 

[pemerton]

Believe it or not, the read world does work somewhat like that. If you hesitate because you are uncertain in your choices, then you are more likely to fail than if you are acting in a manner that you feel confidently about.

This makes no sense. What if my PC's Flaw is "Jealous of Peta's vorpal sword"? So, to earn Inspiration, I (as my PC) refuse to go into combat alongside Peta, letting her handle the enemies with her vorpal sword.

Then, when one of the enemies gets past her and attacks me, I use my Inspiration to kill it with my own non-vorpal sword. What did the Inspiration model?

Or what if I give my Inspiration to Peta's player, to help with the vorpal sword attacks? How does my PC's jealousy of Peta's vorpal sword help Peta lop of heads?

As a cunning player, I will trick my DM into giving me Inspiration, by acting entirely in-character.

Sorry, it doesn't work. If you try to act in-character for ulterior reasons, then you're still acting in-character. You can't have a character pretend to act like itself, because that's how the character would actually act.

I don't see what "cunning", "tricking" or "ulterior reasons" have to do with the issue of metagaming.

There is no rule that says a D&D player must play his/her PC in character. A player is free to play to his/her PCs flaws and ideals, or against them. Those choices are influenced, in 5e, by the earning of Inspiration.

That is meta-gaming, namely, making a play decision not from the perspective of my character but rather from the perspective of whether or not I can earn a "bennie" by making one play choice rather than another.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Or what if I give my Inspiration to Peta's player, to help with the vorpal sword attacks? How does my PC's jealousy of Peta's vorpal sword help Peta lop of heads?

The situation you're describing does not make sense, in-character, and I don't believe a reasonable DM would allow that to happen. Why would you pour so much energy and effort into inspiring someone of whom you are jealous?

The rules give the mechanics for what happens when you take certain actions, but that doesn't mean anything can happen just because you've twisted the rules to an end they were obviously never intended. If you try to give that Inspiration to Peta, then the DM takes it away because you are no longer playing your Flaw.

That is meta-gaming, namely, making a play decision not from the perspective of my character but rather from the perspective of whether or not I can earn a "bennie" by making one play choice rather than another.

No, this is aligning player and character to similar course of thought. The player wants the Inspiration, just like the characters wants to act in accordance with his or her ideals. It's like how a player wants to recover HP, and the character wants to not be pained or injured or more susceptible to future death. Inspiration - at least at the base level - is the mechanical representation of something that actually exists within the game world.

When you are Inspired to do something, you try harder than you otherwise would, allowing for success where you might otherwise fail. Like everything else in the game, the name of the mechanic is a strong indicator of what it actually represents.

 

[pemerton]

The situation you're describing does not make sense, in-character, and I don't believe a reasonable DM would allow that to happen. Why would you pour so much energy and effort into inspiring someone of whom you are jealous?

The jealousy is a character trait. I'm not suggesting that I, the player, am jealous of anything.

The rules give the mechanics for what happens when you take certain actions, but that doesn't mean anything can happen just because you've twisted the rules to an end they were obviously never intended. If you try to give that Inspiration to Peta, then the DM takes it away because you are no longer playing your Flaw.

I think you're confusing the rules for earning Inspiration with the rules for spending them.

From pp 35-36 of the Basic PDF:

Your DM can choose to give you inspiration for a variety of reasons. Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way. Your DM will tell you how you can earn inspiration in the game. . . .

If you have inspiration, you can expend it when you make an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check. . . .

Additionally, if you have inspiration, you can reward another player for good roleplaying, clever thinking, or simply doing something exciting in the game. When another player character does something that really contributes to the story in a fun and interesting way, you can give up your inspiration to give that character inspiration.​

There is no requirement that the die roll that benefits from the Inspiration be related to playing out personality traits. There is no intention, stated or implied, to the contrary.

Likewise, if I want to give my Inspiration to another player, I don't have to have any regard to my own PC's personality traits in doing so. No such requirement is stated or implied.

 

[Manbearcat]

When you are Inspired to do something, you try harder than you otherwise would, allowing for success where you might otherwise fail. Like everything else in the game, the name of the mechanic is a strong indicator of what it actually represents.

Well done. You have just perfectly described one premise routinely used by advocates for the Encounter power and Martial Daily power paradigms in 4e. While I agree with your first sentence here, detractors of 4e didn't dig the reasoning so much (of which I think you belong?).

 

[Sunseeker]

I'd say there would be very significant difference if the pc was reduced to 1 hp or zero and drying.

But again what is a character doing when it spends a hit die? And how do you distinguish that from a fighter's second wind?

My solution was to have players roll a medicine check, proficient or not, and regain 1hp, +1 for each point they roll above a 10. ex: Joe rolls a 10 medicine, he gets 1hp. Bob rolls a 15 medicine, he gets 6hp. It takes their full action to do this and they cannot do it in melee.

 

[Umbran]

Anyway, it doesn't matter much. As I said, play how you like. I just find blanket statements of what "is" or "isn't" D&D to be irritating.

What he's doing is implicitly saying, "I get to say what D&D is and is not," which he has no right to do. Inappropriately assuming authority over others is generally insulting, which is why this kind of assertion was the basis of so many vicious arguments in Edition Wars, and why I reject it now.

Something that so many people miss is that, with so many people playing the game so many ways, "Dungeons and Dragons" is effectively defined as a genre* - and exclusive genre definition generally fails. Genres are defined by what is in them, not by what isn't - you have a list of tropes and themes, and if you have enough of them, you are in the genre, even if you also include things not on the list.




*Or as simply, "that which WotC labels D&D." But this latter means that anyone using anything like a house rule, or otherwise stepping away from the content published by WotC or under license is not playing D&D, which seems pretty ludicrous to me in this discussion.

 

[TwoSix]

Well done. You have just perfectly described one premise routinely used by advocates for the Encounter power and Martial Daily power paradigms in 4e. While I agree with your first sentence here, detractors of 4e didn't dig the reasoning so much (of which I think you belong?).

That's actually how I rationalize my constant use of Come and Get It. My character flaw is "Innately ugly and disagreeable", which just inspires monsters to attack me.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's actually how I rationalize my constant use of Come and Get It. My character flaw is "Innately ugly and disagreeable", which just inspires monsters to attack me.

Or it could be an ideal such as "the just man has the right kind of kibble for every situation." Thus, whenever you shout "Come and Get It (!)", the kids, the rust monsters, the glass-jaw wizards cannot possibly resist engaging you in melee!