D&D 5E The "everyone at full fighting ability at 1 hp" conundrum

[Ratskinner]

If you follow the encounters per day and design blah blah blah suggested in 5E, the game is a like a video game... you just have to keep plugging along and you'll win.

TBH, I think that's what a decent portion of the audience is looking for. HP just "keep it interesting." -could be wrong, and maybe they don't even realize that. I certainly had no trouble putting PCs down in my 5e game, but I ignored the encounter guidelines.

 

[Arnwolf666]

If you want hp to be more realistic
Then give runequest a try. No need to make a game what it’s not. No need to

Well, yeah. The point is that I can respect the speaker while still thinking that they are, on this point, totally wrong. This is the internet, and expressing that I don't think any less of the person for them being incorrect can go a long way.

with respect I agree with you

 

[Garthanos]

Realistic Ogres:

Well no cinematic ogres... and narrating 3hp damage as the enemy was staggered or stunned but it having no impact mechanic lacks that battlefield puzzle angle.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Umbran
@5ekyu
@Oofta

If you follow the guidelines for encounters per adventuring day, and the guidelines for building easy, moderate, difficult, and deadly encounters, and follow also the guidelines for how often each of those types of encounters should occur, my point is simple: 5E is not deadly once you reach a certain point.

One of the biggest complaints is it is too easy. Of course, the DM can adjust whatever they want to make it more challenging, but the base design presented in the core books is such that the players should win. Healing is too frequent, too accessible, and general recovery of hp to quick (again, following the suggested two short rests per long rest, etc.).

So, again, I am well aware you can make the game deadlier. My observation is that if you follow the suggestions presented, once you get to certain point, it won't be deadly and you will pretty much always win in the long run. Is that a bad thing? Probably not for newer players and DMs. After all, who wants to play a game you are likely to lose? Most people wouldn't get much fun out of that IME. But for experienced players picking up a new (to us) system, it is really "safe".

TBH, I think that's what a decent portion of the audience is looking for HP just "keep it interesting." -could be wrong, and maybe they don't even realize that. I certainly had no trouble putting PCs down in my 5e game, but I ignored the encounter guidelines.

And that is precisely my point. I am not saying the game doesn't play well or anything, just that if you follow the guidelines, you are playing a game you can reasonable expect to "win."

 

[3catcircus]

Hmm the stats that I saw on hit rates for gun fire by police was 35% success vs humans, 50% vs dogs. I think intimidation shots were not included.

I don't think stats are that tricky to interpret. Instead they paint a remarkably consistent picture. LD50 Falling damage and average # of gunshots to drop someone are roughly equivalent to D&D damage of 5d6, and seem consistent with the knife stats I shared.

A number of people seem to share your view that getting hit with a knife is instant death, but its just not true. Heck I know someone whose throat was cut while they were sleeping and they survived...

A significant impact to survival is training. If cops are taught to continue fighting after having been shot they survive far more often than if they go "Oh God! They SHOT ME!!!" and writhe around on the ground.

The reality is that you may be mortally wounded and not die for minutes or hours unless something vital is hit (brain, spinal column, heart).

Most fatalities not due to instantaneous CNS destruction occur from either exsanguination or tension pneumothorax. That is - you either bleed out or drown/asphyxiate due to collapsed lungs or lungs filled with blood.

Falling a great distance is going to incapacitate or kill most people instantly; some will be able to crawl away to die later without treatment, and a lucky few will survive with treatment. A rarity is someone who walks away unscathed.

What is never modeled well in D&D are thermal (or other forms of energy) injuries. The reaction to an accidental brushing of your hand against a hot stove is immediate. The reaction of most people (not on drugs) to being covered in flaming accelerants is a "GOT TO GET THIS OFF AND PUT MYSELF OUT RIGHT FING NOW!!!" yet most players have their PCs shrug off the 5 points of damage from flaming oil as if it were nothing. Lanterns burn at around 1200 degrees F. A campfire maxes out around 2000. Dragonfire is likely over 3000 degrees F since iron melts around 2750.

PCs of sufficiently high level also shrug off dragon fire.

 

[Oofta]

@Umbran
@5ekyu
@Oofta

If you follow the guidelines for encounters per adventuring day, and the guidelines for building easy, moderate, difficult, and deadly encounters, and follow also the guidelines for how often each of those types of encounters should occur, my point is simple: 5E is not deadly once you reach a certain point.

One of the biggest complaints is it is too easy. Of course, the DM can adjust whatever they want to make it more challenging, but the base design presented in the core books is such that the players should win. Healing is too frequent, too accessible, and general recovery of hp to quick (again, following the suggested two short rests per long rest, etc.).

So, again, I am well aware you can make the game deadlier. My observation is that if you follow the suggestions presented, once you get to certain point, it won't be deadly and you will pretty much always win in the long run. Is that a bad thing? Probably not for newer players and DMs. After all, who wants to play a game you are likely to lose? Most people wouldn't get much fun out of that IME. But for experienced players picking up a new (to us) system, it is really "safe".



And that is precisely my point. I am not saying the game doesn't play well or anything, just that if you follow the guidelines, you are playing a game you can reasonable expect to "win."

So? I'd write "no disrespect" but that seems to be a trigger word.

The guidelines are just a starting point and probably about right for a group of 4 newbies with no feats or magic items. Given the vast number of alternatives for group dynamics I don't see how any set of guidelines could work for every group.

Personally I used them as a starting point, threw out the numbers multiplier, multiply my budget by X depending on the group and level. It works pretty well for me.

 

[Garthanos]

If you want hp to be more realistic
Then give runequest a try. No need to make a game what it’s not. No need to

I played quite a bit of Stormbringer at one point (aka 2e Rune Quest) the RQ system had skills in 70s when it came out already had a single die roll type for most every action. Had an experience system geared to let characters advance in the things they actually do. A lot going for it. They used avancing parrying skill instead of advancing hit points. Armor absorbed attack damage and could be by passed by critical hits which were easier to hit if you were more skilled) and so on and so forth.

It also lacked a sense of heroic scale and there was not the team work angle that came to a head in 4e D&D but which has always been there. And other things like a really weird quirkie world that it was hard for some people to get into.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I played quite a bit of Stormbringer at one point (aka 2e Rune Quest) the RQ system had skills in 70s when it came out already had a single die roll type for most every action. Had an experience system geared to let characters advance in the things they actually do. A lot going for it. They used avancing parrying skill instead of advancing hit points. Armor absorbed attack damage and could be by passed by critical hits which were easier to hit if you were more skilled) and so on and so forth.

It also lacked a sense of heroic scale and there was not the team work angle

I played quite a bit of Stormbringer at one point (aka 2e Rune Quest) the RQ system had skills in 70s when it came out already had a single die roll type for most every action. Had an experience system geared to let characters advance in the things they actually do. A lot going for it. They used avancing parrying skill instead of advancing hit points. Armor absorbed attack damage and could be by passed by critical hits which were easier to hit if you were more skilled) and so on and so forth.

It also lacked a sense of heroic scale and there was not the team work angle that came to a head in 4e D&D but which has always been there. And other things like a really weird quirkie world that it was hard for some people to get into.

i love d&d and runequest (and coc). I just really wish more people would try runequest or one of its derivatives.

I noticed more teamwork in RQ in my experience. And a heck of alot more in COC. But that’s just my experience. No empirical data or sources to cite.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So? I'd write "no disrespect" but that seems to be a trigger word.

You could, but why bother? Just write your response.

The guidelines are just a starting point and probably about right for a group of 4 newbies with no feats or magic items. Given the vast number of alternatives for group dynamics I don't see how any set of guidelines could work for every group.

Personally I used them as a starting point, threw out the numbers multiplier, multiply my budget by X depending on the group and level. It works pretty well for me.

Sure, I never said the guidelines don't "work", I said they make the game easy, especially for experienced players. And what you do is what most tables do, to make things work for their table.

 

[Oofta]

You could, but why bother? Just write your response.



Sure, I never said the guidelines don't "work", I said they make the game easy, especially for experienced players. And what you do is what most tables do, to make things work for their table.

Yeah, it's just kind an automatic response when people say the guidelines don't work for every group.

Asking for encounter rules that would work for everyone is like asking for a car that got 50 MPG, could be competitive in the Indy 500 and handle the Rubicon trail while holding 6 adults comfortably.