D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[hawkeyefan]

Of course they do. Healing before then is like combat, a necessary evil in order for the game to be playable. There is no way to describe damage that isn't 100% meat and let's the PCs know how much damage has been taken. There is also no way to describe non-meat damage that has no sign, but that the PC can know about. Further, almost every way to describe non-meat damage also describes the PCs in non-combat situations.

Fatigue happens out of combat, so unless you expect the clerics to go around healing the PCs when they get tired or winded from a jog, that doesn't work to describe hit points. Other non-meat descriptions have similar circumstances.

Okay. It's a bit odd that you're arguing so strongly in favor of one interpetation of the HP rules, but you in practice you follow another. I don't have my book handy, but I don't think there's such strong language in the section on damage and HP and healing for there to be only one interpretation. HP Loss is always described as "damage", so that alone, to me, implies an observable change.

I also tried that in 2e and abandoned it for the same reasons you did. I'm not even sure they made it to 3rd level before I tossed in that towel.

We did it for a while. In a lot of ways, I liked it. It removed some of the meta gaming aspects that are sometimes silly and made the players behave a little more like their characters would. Sometimes, it would create a very dramatic situation, especially when characters dropped ; we played with the old "death's door" rules from 0 to -10 HP. Not knowing if a character was at -1 or -9 or in fact already dead was interesting.

However, ultimately all that score keeping was a lot of extra work for those few moments where it added tension. Because most of the time, the verbal cues were enough to give them a pretty accurate description. Just because the HP mechanic was hidden from the players doesn't mean it wasn't still in place.

And it also created some doubt that I was being honest about the totals and not manipulating the numbers.

I agree. That's a 4e/5e mistake. Most hits that I describe are a combination of luck, skill, meat, and so on. The meat being scratches, bruises and such until the hit points are low enough to warrant larger injuries.

I can't really comment on 4E...I remember the "bloodied" mechanic, which I thought was okay as a game mechanic, but they went a little far to me that everyone knew who was bloodied. Seemed a bit bizarre to me...but that's just me. For 5E, I really don't think that's the expectation, but as I said, I'm away from my book, so I can't say for sure.

"The ogres swings and misses!" *records 17 damage to the PC*

Ha the opposite was far more likely...that I'd shave damage off to keep a PC up. But my descriptive text pretty much always involved physical damage, or at least a hit; "it hurt, but didn't penetrate your armor" that kind of thing.

 

[Maxperson]

a bunch of stuff written to avoid having to prove a claim.

Show it then. Show me the rule that you think implies that hit points are something a PC can see and know about.

I quoted exact text that says what I'm claiming. It's your turn........if you can.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. It's a bit odd that you're arguing so strongly in favor of one interpetation of the HP rules, but you in practice you follow another. I don't have my book handy, but I don't think there's such strong language in the section on damage and HP and healing for there to be only one interpretation. HP Loss is always described as "damage", so that alone, to me, implies an observable change.

I'm arguing what the book says, because the rules are generally what are debated here. I practice a house rule, since I change the rule and do something else. I'm not practicing a different interpretation. That's the major difference between me and Aaron. He's unwilling to admit he's altering what the book says, even to the point of sticking his head in the sand and refusing to show anything that backs him up.

The 5e rules explicitly say that damage is typically not noticeable until below 50%. If there are no signs, there's nothing to be noticed.

When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit
point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When
you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs
of wear, such as cuts and bruises.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The 5e rules explicitly say that damage is typically not noticeable until below 50%.

That's not actually what the words that are in the book mean, Max.

"No sign of injury" is not "no sign of lost hit points", and even more importantly that's not a rule, it's a suggestion, and not even a specific one at that.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm arguing what the book says, because the rules are generally what are debated here. I practice a house rule, since I change the rule and do something else. I'm not practicing a different interpretation. That's the major difference between me and Aaron. He's unwilling to admit he's altering what the book says, even to the point of sticking his head in the sand and refusing to show anything that backs him up.

The 5e rules explicitly say that damage is typically not noticeable until below 50%. If there are no signs, there's nothing to be noticed.

The word is *show*. You SHOW no sign of injury. Same way someone might be feeling kinda blue but SHOW no sign of depression.

For example.

Cleric McHealer: Well Ragnar, that orc sure punched you in the face good! Let me fix that up for you
Ragnar (who's lost 2/3 of his hitpoints): thanks!
McHealer: Well looks like that's it for me
Fighter Bob: (who lost 1/3 of his hitpoint): erm, I think I need a bit of healing
McHealer: But you didn't get hit at all! You were ducking and wearing like a champ!
Fighter Bob: Yeah, about that... I think I hurt my back :/

During the fight, Bob showed no sign of injury. Adrenaline was pumping, he probably didn't even feel the pain at all! But after the fight... ugh.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm arguing what the book says, because the rules are generally what are debated here. I practice a house rule, since I change the rule and do something else. I'm not practicing a different interpretation. That's the major difference between me and Aaron. He's unwilling to admit he's altering what the book says, even to the point of sticking his head in the sand and refusing to show anything that backs him up.

The 5e rules explicitly say that damage is typically not noticeable until below 50%. If there are no signs, there's nothing to be noticed.

Ah, my mistake, I thought you were arguing that interpretation because you favored it.

I can see how the bit you've cited can be interpreted as you do so, but I don't think it's the sole thing ther PHB says about damage. I'd also add that the word "typically" adds a variance that insists that interpretation is needed.

But I don't have my books, so I can't cite any specifics beyond that. I don't think you're actually houseruling anything but if you think so, well okay then.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not actually what the words that are in the book mean, Max.

"No sign of injury" is not "no sign of lost hit points", and even more importantly that's not a rule, it's a suggestion, and not even a specific one at that.

Sword do 1d8 hit points of damage, not 1d8 points of hit point loss that we will now describe as damage. Damage and hit point loss are synonymous in D&D. Read the book.

 

[Maxperson]

The word is *show*. You SHOW no sign of injury. Same way someone might be feeling kinda blue but SHOW no sign of depression.

For example.

Cleric McHealer: Well Ragnar, that orc sure punched you in the face good! Let me fix that up for you
Ragnar (who's lost 2/3 of his hitpoints): thanks!
McHealer: Well looks like that's it for me
Fighter Bob: (who lost 1/3 of his hitpoint): erm, I think I need a bit of healing
McHealer: But you didn't get hit at all! You were ducking and wearing like a champ!
Fighter Bob: Yeah, about that... I think I hurt my back :/

During the fight, Bob showed no sign of injury. Adrenaline was pumping, he probably didn't even feel the pain at all! But after the fight... ugh.

Except that according to those on your side of things, the "hurt" PC doesn't have to ask. The cleric can tell that you are blue or have a back injury that has no signs, so your argument doesn't work.

 

[pemerton]

In 4E, sure, there's no real indication until someone hits Bloodied

There is no way to describe damage that isn't 100% meat

I don't see why either of these claims is true.

Your stamina is running out.
You barely manage to dodge the orc's blow.
You are being hard-pressed by your foes.
You feel your resolve slipping.
You can see that your comrade's spirits are flagging.
Hope is ebbing.

I don't know if this is the sort of thing that [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION] has in mind.

The point of an RPG ruleset is not to manipulate the emotional state of its players.

Speak for yourself! If the rules don't put the players into the same general mental and emotional state as their PCs, the rules aren't doing their job.

In RPGs with blind action declaration, for instance, that feeling of uncertainty corresponds to the uncertainty experienced by the PC.

In D&D, when a PC's spirits are flagging, the player can see the hit point total dropping - and the player's spirits flag.

A more complex example, from my 4e game: the Chained Cambion (in MM3) is described in its flavour text as having a "tortured psyche", as "hat[ing] its life, its captors, and its enemies who roam free", and as "screaming its despair within the minds of nearby foes." And it has a mind shackles ability which causes two enemies to take ongoing damage unless they are adjacent to one another, with each victim having to make a separate saving throw. When I used this in game, I shackled the melee fighter to the archer ranger. As the two players had to coordinate their actions or else take damage, they started bickering and complaining. Once one had saved but the other hadn't, the bickering got worse, because the one who had saved nevertheless had to stay shackled because the other player couldn't roll a d20 high enough!

In other words, I didn't have to tell the players to pretend to be filled with despair and hate towards one another; the mechanic ensured that this actually happened (in a light-hearted way, or course!).

These are all examples of the rules serving to generate a particular emotional state in the players.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Speak for yourself! If the rules don't put the players into the same general mental and emotional state as their PCs, the rules aren't doing their job.

We're pretending, though. You don't have to actually starve yourself in order to play a character who is starving, just like you don't have to get stabbed in order to play a character who has been stabbed. I don't need to suffer in order to play a character who is suffering.

I mean, I guess you could add that sort of thing, if you really wanted to do. It's like mood music. It doesn't hurt anything, as long as you don't sacrifice anything to achieve it. FATE, in particular, sacrifices everything important by asking the player to consider meta-game concerns, such as the story and fate points. Just about the only worse "RPG", in that regard, would be Dread. By contrast, your 4E example shows how this sort of thing can be done well.