D&D 5E ludonarrative dissonance of hitpoints in D&D

[FrogReaver]

i do think most people new to the game often look at the rules and see it that way

Something we can agree on!

but damage as physical damage is a common trope in gaming

Yes - and one that's never made any amount of sense if anyone takes a moment to actually think about it.

it does happen to be called damage and not "hitpoints lowering" thus by name alone it harkins to the idea of what the definition of damage is.

Maybe - or maybe it just means damaging your hp.

Given the history of the game I'd presume it was called damage due to it's wargame roots - even though the most defensible interpretation of hp doesn't actually require it to be "physical damage" in any given instance.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, I certainly don't "completely disagree" with the OP as you suggest. I think there are other ways to implement a physical damage mechanic as other house-rules have done that would work better. His other thread creates a system for AC that is more complex than I would want to play in, but he has points worth discussing. Which is why I am here...

Well for that matter I don't completely disagree with him either - just on the point of what hp and damage are in D&D.

I think DR is fine to implement in a D&D style game (doesn't work well in the current system without extensive tweaking though).

I really don't see a path toward turning hp and damage into all physical effects - at least not without changing genres into something a little more fantastical.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

All I have to do is propose a proper HP theory that works in the current game. I have. It's that HP is abstract and that the DM takes everything into account to create a fictional narrative that makes sense regarding each instance of damage. There's no logical flaws with this theory. It's very robust and works with any imaginable example you want to throw at it.

Look, I'm sorry you've mentally grabbed hold of a flawed hp theory and used it as a premise that everything else in this discussion hinges on.... especially sorry because there is a perfectly viable alternative that's been brought up by me and multiple other posters. Please consider the alternative before drastic changes to the game.

so your arguing that because the mechanic called hitpoints is abstract to the point of reflecting no narrative to describe how damage reduces hitpoints (dispute the fact that the game actually says what hitpoints reflect and thus implies what losing them represents) that the far more complex system of damage and friends (other mechanics playing off of damage) doesn't reflect one? thats a simple argument to make where "this one mechanic can be whatever i want it to be so what every other mechanic that effects it appears to do doesn't represent anything concrete either"

the only logical flaws with the theory is when it breaks down, when the rules actually require damage to be physical or when it makes no sense for damage to not be physical, which are a few times, which ill say isint enough to definitively say that damage is physical, but it is enough for me to say it reflects being physical. and thus my thesis

lol. All I'm saying is that you are trying to force assumptions onto the meaning of hp and damage that aren't necessary. All I have to do to show that is to provide a viable alternative. Once there is a viable alternative that doesn't run into the issues that your assumptions cause then it seems to me that means no real issue.

you've had your say now ill have mine potion seller, your a rascal, a rascal with no respect for people who post 7 paragraph long thesis's on game design with reference to popular games. no respect for anything except your constant pandering to the bandwagon of everyone agreeing with you. breaks down in tears

im not trying to force assumptions onto the meaning of hp, at least ones that wernt already there, i took the assumption of what hitpoints are, a LOT of people agreed with that assumption even though they thought what i ment was that the assumption is wrong and that hp should reflect something else, which i never said until i argued for ways to deal with the ludonarrative dissonance the game creates if you take the narrative for health and contrast it with the implied narrative of the mechanics for damage.

i have tried to argue that "hey these mechanics damage have seem to reflect something" if thats forcing an assumption then throw me in the brig, i think its simply saying "yes you can play abstract, but dont be surprised when players new and experienced at the game imagine these rules to mean something concrete because of how much the mechanics reflect the idea we often have about what damage is in reality, physical"

ive argued various times the viable alternatives can exist, if you can find where ive said "you shouldnt do this because my reasons" please quote me. just because you can create viable alternatives does not mean those alternatives better reflect the system as ive described it, if you want to do that, your going to have to actually try and break down my arguments for how it actually reflects what i think it does instead of just saying "but mah abstracts" a book full of blank pieces of paper is abstract until you write the players handbook on it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

im not going to argue to say that damage definitively represents weapons dealing physical damage, the majority of my thesis is on the idea of what it strongly resembles compared to what it doesn't strongly resemble, however the game can be played however it is desired. im not sure why many people will wouldnt agree that the way 5es damage mechanics work and how weapon properties including damage and how weapons can deal critical hits, and how poison is delivered, and how resistances, vulnerabilities, and immunities works, reflects damage being physical., but so be it. i do think most people new to the game often look at the rules and see it that way, i dont think the reason this is a contentious issue is because all of us oldtimers have a switch that goes off in our head that we want to buck the system, sure some might, but damage as physical damage is a common trope in gaming, it does happen to be called damage and not "hitpoints lowering" thus by name alone it harkins to the idea of what the definition of damage is.

LOL I like that "hit point lowering"!

By why call armor class "armor class" when you don't even have to be wearing armor? Wouldn't "Defense Rating" or "Defense Class" make more sense?

And I agree a lot of new people do think of hit points as physical damage and weapons as doing actual damage on a hit, until someone explains just how the mechanics are supposed to work in 5E and D&D in general.

I like other systems, such as Shadowrun, which have stun and physical condition monitors, and a "hit" is a "hit" and damage is damage and it is all pretty cut-and-dry.

Changing D&D could work as well, but as myself, @FrogReaver , and others have pointed out it would require a lot of reworking, and not just to ACs and armors.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Ok so you add at least 10 to all the armour is that what you're saying? In which case you've completely blown bounded accuracy as I've said.

This means the lowest full AC anyone will have is 27 - why even bother with this? Just say you only bypass DR on a natural 20 and be done with it.

I didn't add the metal bonus because you haven't explained any metal bonus (at least so far as I can see) - so obviously I can't add it. But in any case a DC of 28 to bypass Armour and 10 DR makes lots of low enemies irrelevant - if the actual DR is higher that just compounds the problem at the lower end.

Again. Scaling is the issue. That's why if you do something like this you need to work with the resistance mechanic - as it scales with damage across all levels and scales equally across all attack types (singular high damage ones and multi-attacks).

we should probably be having this conversation on that thread, but i digress. i also added a paragraph stating that dms should consiter what ac buffs they allow a character to have while wearing armor with this ac system, but the reason it doesent blow bounded accruacy out is because the ac from the armor only applies a resistance to damage rather than completely stopping damage. what this does is low level characters dealing with encounters with dr ranging between 1-4 will hit a lot, but always have their damage reduced a bit, but at higher levels they will begin to be able to hit without suffering any reduction in damage because they will eventually be hitting higher than that ac, on the other hand if they roll to low they will be dealing with higher reduction in the damage they actually do. also rolling a 20 always hits past armor regardless of your result. maybe you want a game where goblins can hit someone in full plate armor 30% of the time, then dont use my system, i only described how to make armor realistic, i wasent able to make it unrealistic at the same time.

 

[Don Durito]

This means the lowest full AC anyone will have is 27 - why even bother with this? Just say you only bypass DR on a natural 20 and be done with it.

If you still want to do this consider some way of adding in proficiency bonus instead of just starting with such a high number. This means that goblin can still be a threat to a Fighter in heavy armour (at least at low level - bounded accuracy is still a casualty).

 

[Arch-Fiend]

LOL I like that "hit point lowering"!

By why call armor class "armor class" when you don't even have to be wearing armor? Wouldn't "Defense Rating" or "Defense Class" make more sense?

And I agree a lot of new people do think of hit points as physical damage and weapons as doing actual damage on a hit, until someone explains just how the mechanics are supposed to work in 5E and D&D in general.

I like other systems, such as Shadowrun, which have stun and physical condition monitors, and a "hit" is a "hit" and damage is damage and it is all pretty cut-and-dry.

Changing D&D could work as well, but as myself, @FrogReaver , and others have pointed out it would require a lot of reworking, and not just to ACs and armors.

if you simply say hitpoints are meatpoints, how does that change the game?

 

[Tony Vargas]

, it does happen to be called damage and not "hitpoints lowering" thus by name alone it harkins to the idea of what the definition of damage is.

Yeah, "damage" is quite ambiguous. The damage of a two-handed sword - that 2d6 (or 1-10/3-18, if you still find yourself not saying "greatsword") in the weapon table is its damage - is surely physical. The damage inflicted by it may well be said to be physical. But, when a high-hp PC "takes 13 damage" from said tw- great sword it's s a reduction from say 123 hps to 110, if there is any physical component to that, at all, it's likely too minor to even qualify as the 5e sidebar's "signs of wear."

So greatsword, a physical object. (OK, an imagined physical object).
2d6 damage entry in the table, a quality of that physical object.
13 slashing damage rolled on a "hit" from that weapon, kenetic energy imparted by sharp metal, still pretty physical.
13 hit points "of damage taken" by the 123 to character, not significantly physical - it may go towards waring him down, it may have slightly shaken his confidence, if there's an injury, it's too trivial to be obvious.

 

[Don Durito]

we should probably be having this conversation on that thread, but i digress. i also added a paragraph stating that dms should consiter what ac buffs they allow a character to have while wearing armor with this ac system, but the reason it doesent blow bounded accruacy out is because the ac from the armor only applies a resistance to damage rather than completely stopping damage. what this does is low level characters dealing with encounters with dr ranging between 1-4 will hit a lot, but always have their damage reduced a bit, but at higher levels they will begin to be able to hit without suffering any reduction in damage because they will eventually be hitting higher than that ac, on the other hand if they roll to low they will be dealing with higher reduction in the damage they actually do. also rolling a 20 always hits past armor regardless of your result. maybe you want a game where goblins can hit someone in full plate armor 30% of the time, then dont use my system, i only described how to make armor realistic, i wasent able to make it unrealistic at the same time.

I can only comment on the system you present. If you want comments on the system you actually want to use then you will need to present that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

if you simply say hitpoints are meatpoints, how does that change the game?

Well, quite a bit frankly.

As I said before, consider a character with 100 hp and that a longsword does 5 damage on average. That means this character could withstand 20 such hits by a longsword, sufficient to drop 20 commoners. That goes to the point of being ludicrous to a lot of people. People simply can't take that sort of punishment in general. Sure, there are documented flukes, but this character could take all this damage, and then heal it overnight and do it again the next day. It requires people to want to play a game that is not only fantasy, but completely suspends reality.

Consider a Fireball. Average damage is 28. Even making a save for 14 damage kills your typical common instantly. Our fighter with 100 hp could take 4 or more such fireballs before likely falling, and assuming he makes a save or two, more likely 5 to 6 even.

I don't recall if it was here or in the other thread, but I commented on how hp would have to be greatly reduced and healing times lengthened unless you wanted to play a game that is super-uber-mega-hero-like.

So, to repeat myself, you would have to change a lot or be willing to play a game that is not of a sort I want to play.