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

[Arch-Fiend]

all also add that if the DM has to figure out how something in the rules makes sense, you are basically saying that on its face value it doe sent make sense. simply phrasing it that your giving the dm the opportunity to make sense of it to best fit their narrative doesent best fit the problem of the game not having a good answer as it is write to why a spear, a weapon specifically designed to stab, with the point of it designed specifically to slip between the rings of mail or the fabric of padded armor, can possibly have 100% of its damage reduced by that armor. you as a dm can say that a roll of 15 against chainmail with a spear is an attack that you dodge instead of getting hit squarely even though the players bonus to ac is only coming from his armor and that 10 (which i actually think represents being a living creature subject to the ability to move rather than being the baseline to hit any object) but your clearly stating in the instance of that attack while the ac bonus is designed to be armor, its not armor, because reasons. you might say that the reason is that it hits one of the rings of the mail (though theres no advantage to using a piercing weapon against an armor full of holes in holes), you might say that an ac of 16 is sufficient to block max damage with a heavy mace despite in reality you can feel a weak punch through chainmail, these are weird things to say but you could say them.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not to mention - what kind of world is "supernatural durability" simulating?

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Arch-Fiend :

I've given a variant to your approach in the other thread. Check it out and let me know what you think of it. I think it accomplishes at least something you are trying to do without having to retool as much?

 

[FrogReaver]

all also add that if the DM has to figure out how something in the rules makes sense, you are basically saying that on its face value it doe sent make sense. simply phrasing it that your giving the dm the opportunity to make sense of it to best fit their narrative doesent best fit the problem of the game not having a good answer as it is write to why a spear, a weapon specifically designed to stab, with the point of it designed specifically to slip between the rings of mail or the fabric of padded armor, can possibly have 100% of its damage reduced by that armor. you as a dm can say that a roll of 15 against chainmail with a spear is an attack that you dodge instead of getting hit squarely even though the players bonus to ac is only coming from his armor and that 10 (which i actually think represents being a living creature subject to the ability to move rather than being the baseline to hit any object) but your clearly stating in the instance of that attack while the ac bonus is designed to be armor, its not armor, because reasons. you might say that the reason is that it hits one of the rings of the mail (though theres no advantage to using a piercing weapon against an armor full of holes in holes), you might say that an ac of 16 is sufficient to block max damage with a heavy mace despite in reality you can feel a weak punch through chainmail, these are weird things to say but you could say them.

You really need to learn to utilize whitespace in your posts.

More importantly though. I've agreed that the AC rules make little sense in most situations - no matter what kind of hp interpretation is used.

Thus, this AC issue you are citing is unrelated to everything else we have been discussing.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

You really need to learn to utilize whitespace in your posts.

More importantly though. I've agreed that the AC rules make little sense in most situations - no matter what kind of hp interpretation is used.

Thus, this AC issue you are citing is unrelated to everything else we have been discussing.

k

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's start here:

If HP = Meat Then, that leaves AC+DR as the only remaining mechanics for complete dodge situations and being hit in the armor situations.

Under this HP=Meat interpretation DR becomes an essential for everything to make sense - because being hit means you are actually hit.

So I totally see why @Arch-Fiend went the DR route when trying to make a sensible HP=Meat system.

However, this is also the most important piece of evidence that the system was never designed around HP=Meat. There is no damage reduction property of armors in the default game and one is needed for the HP=Meat interpretation to make sense.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Let's start here:

If HP = Meat Then, that leaves AC+DR as the only remaining mechanics for complete dodge situations and being hit in the armor situations.

Under this HP=Meat interpretation DR becomes an essential for everything to make sense - because being hit means you are actually hit.

So I totally see why @Arch-Fiend went the DR route when trying to make a sensible HP=Meat system.

However, this is also the most important piece of evidence that the system was never designed around HP=Meat. There is no damage reduction property of armors in the default game and one is needed for the HP=Meat interpretation to make sense.

the mechanics of the actual game do not change how numbers work simply because your perspective of what the numbers mean change frog. i mean yes technically if hp doesn't = dodging then only the mechanics that reduce or negate damage = dodging, however the numbers still roll the same the damage still adds up the same, and if you drop to -1 in either interpretation your at -1 and are subject to the games dying mechanic. if your not dodging your enduring wounds, but the amount is still the amount.

 

[FrogReaver]

the mechanics of the actual game do not change how numbers work simply because your perspective of what the numbers mean change frog. i mean yes technically if hp doesn't = dodging then only the mechanics that reduce or negate damage = dodging, however the numbers still roll the same the damage still adds up the same, and if you drop to -1 in either interpretation your at -1 and are subject to the games dying mechanic. if your not dodging your enduring wounds, but the amount is still the amount.

Then why do you want to add DR into the game? It's because you find something lacking about the current mechanics in the HP=Meat interpretation and you are trying to account for that something with DR... no?

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Then why do you want to add DR into the game? It's because you find something lacking about the current mechanics in the HP=Meat interpretation and you are trying to account for that something with DR... no?

its because i stayed up late one night talking to someone else about their own game and i had the inspiration to do it. im also a fan of historical European martial arts and am on a discord server full of people like that but we also talk about ttrpgs a lot.

basically my armor dr rules have nothing to do with my preferred interpretation of hitpoints besides the fact that i only think the method i created works with a supernatural durability interpretation. its a limit to my design not anyone elses, but im ok with that because i like what i made for what its worth.

 

[Garthanos]

Which is a completely valid narrative.

Intimidation attacks doing psychic damage really should be an explicit possibility

Then shouldn't they be making attack rolls with intimidation?

ideally I am tempted to change the intimidation skill powers and combat functionality to operate in such a fashion in 4e using a different rules that are not really consistent with the rest seemed odd. But I am one of those that thought sleep was mishandled too for similar reasons.

I guess you could do it like the first fight in Hero, with both parties working through the future fight in their head - anticipating angle of attacks and counters.

Future fight modelling in your head is certainly one visualization that might allow well much the same mechanics

But this has oddities too. It needs an agreement not to follow the rules in their normal sense (because it wouldn't make any sense to quaff a healing potion in the middle of a staredown).

Break the stare (acting outside of the internal modelling) you lose (take X more hit point damage as a prize perhaps even) you just admitted inferiority might even be one RL take... or the action economy angle its accepted and open to anyone shrug.