D&D 5E The problem with 5e

[Helldritch]

@Don Durito
Yep, I too do have problems with the cure spells. How do you heal something that did not really caused a wound?

What we came up with is less than satisfactory, but it is somewhat logical. The CW spells remove the cuts, bruises, stress, fatigue and up to a certain point, a good chunk of luck. It is all we could come up with. And after all, it is a SUIM case as we say. (Shut Up It's Magic!)

Edit: Added a few words that the autoco had removed....

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes. Definitely. Absolutely. It must be the case that an attack which hits and deals damage has actually hit you. The alternative - that you can suffer injury without anyone touching you (by hand, weapon, or magic) - is too ridiculous to entertain. Such an assertion would cause far, far more problems than it solves.

Again, I disagree. Changing your thought process to this philosophy so hit points can represent abstract concepts like skill, luck, divine favor, etc., all of which absolutely are part of hit points. To assume otherwise would be tantamount to equating hit points to meat points IMO.

That was a typo, because I haven't had coffee yet. The second value should be 42/50, indicated a loss of 8hp relative to the first value having lost 16hp.

Gotcha. Yeah, coffee is a must.

Under this model, a miss is an attack that didn't exhaust him at all to defend against. No bruise, no strain, little or no sweat.

A hit that leaves the target at positive HP causes minor to trivial injury at most, but primarily wears them down and makes it harder for them to defend themselves from the eventual blow which truly gets through their guard- the one that reduces them to 0 HP.

And THIS is exactly what I've been talking about how hit points really work. This way, they make perfect sense (well, mostly... the poisoned blade scenario is a notable exception--sigh...).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Giving a hero that drops to 0 hp a level of exhaustion (cumulative with future drops) would go some way to reducing whack’a’mole

We did that for over a year. It works fine if you can accept that it will drive things occasionally when a PC has 4 levels of exhaustion, etc.

We now use that you make a check when you get hit by a crit or take a level of exhaustion.

Personally, either work fine IMO.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What we came up with is less than satisfactory, but it is somewhat logical. The CW spells remove the cuts, bruises, stress, fatigue and up to a certain point, a good chunk of luck. It is all we could come up with. And after all, it is a SUIM case as we say. (Shut Up It's Magic!)

I think that works perfectly fine, as it is also how I decided CW spells work. If you are at 0, it cures your "major wound" that took you down and gets you up and going again. Further castings restores the fatigue, nicks, and so on.

 

[Mannahnin]

Wow. How bad is this attacker, that their target doesn't even need to try to defend against their attacks? About as impressive as the cleric whose "miracles" are less effective than taking a nap, I suppose. Truly, this is an Age of Heroes.

I didn't write "didn't try". Nor was what I wrote semantically equivalent. I'm not clear whether you're deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, or just had a minor reading comprehension issue. I appreciate your hyperbole, though.

I was talking about an attack which doesn't measurably tire the defender and reduce their ability to defend themselves from a later killing blow. It might miss entirely (misjudged the range, and the defender just stepped away from it at the right time) glance off their armor, or deflect off their shield, or be warded off by an easy parry. "Hits", under the game rules, are attacks which succeed in straining and wearing down the defender, whether they physically cut and bruise them or not.

I wasn't talking about your example #1. That example almost makes sense. Until he rolls a 20 on the death save, and then takes a nap after the fight, thus removing all evidence that one hour ago he was twelve seconds away from bleeding to death (assuming a good roll on his Hit Die).

So which is it? Was he beaten within twelve seconds of death? Or was he not substantially injured? Because the rules tell us that both are true, which is inconsistent.

The rules tell us that it could be either, and we don't know which until it becomes relevant. They are simulating heroic fiction, where, for example, a character might be knocked momentarily unconscious then wake a short while later, even seconds later (having been functionally "stunned and senseless" for a moment), which is a pretty common occurrence in pulp fiction. If he doesn't roll that 20, then the wound was apparently more serious.

Likewise, resting to restore the combatant's energies such that they can engage in a whole new fight without being a single attack from death or unconsciousness is again very much in keeping with heroic fiction (including action movies).

Now you're just making stuff up. There is no factor in the equation of Hit Points for plot armor, or divine favor.

Plot armor isn't real, even by the standards of a world with magic and dragons.

Yes, it quite explicitly is, and this is part of how Hit Points have been explained as a concept at least since 1978. Most likely earlier, but I have a specific passage from the AD&D 1E PH immediately leaping to mind. Gary was telling us that they are not "meat points" more than forty years ago, and every version of the D&D rules since has continued to so explain.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I didn't write "didn't try". Nor was what I wrote semantically equivalent. I'm not clear whether you're deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, or just had a minor reading comprehension issue. I appreciate your hyperbole, though.

I was talking about an attack which doesn't measurably tire the defender and reduce their ability to defend themselves from a later killing blow. It might miss entirely (misjudged the range, and the defender just stepped away from it at the right time) glance off their armor, or deflect off their shield, or be warded off by an easy parry. "Hits", under the game rules, are attacks which succeed in straining and wearing down the defender, whether they physically cut and bruise them or not.


The rules tell us that it could be either, and we don't know which until it becomes relevant. They are simulating heroic fiction, where, for example, a character might be knocked momentarily unconscious then wake a short while later, even seconds later (having been functionally "stunned and senseless" for a moment), which is a pretty common occurrence in pulp fiction. If he doesn't roll that 20, then the wound was apparently more serious.

Likewise, resting to restore the combatant's energies such that they can engage in a whole new fight without being a single attack from death or unconsciousness is again very much in keeping with heroic fiction (including action movies).


Yes, it quite explicitly is, and this is part of how Hit Points have been explained as a concept at least since 1978. Most likely earlier, but I have a specific passage from the AD&D 1E PH immediately leaping to mind. Gary was telling us that they are not "meat points" more than forty years ago, and every version of the D&D rules since has continued to so explain.

If I recall he stated that the idea that a human fighter with 50 hit points was taking the same punishment that a war horse could (I.e. that the same number of hit points maps directly onto would severity) was absurd.

he went on to describe hit points as being luck, favor, skill at avoiding blows whatever with the last chunk of hit points being the severe wounds.

maybe same place? Would have to check—-he notes that many hit points down would look like cuts and bruises usually without severe or disabling injury until the last bit.

I think that is the 1st edition DMG...again its memory and would have to dig it out to get the actual wording.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah, every edition explains HP much the same, at least since 1E. Actual physical injury is nebulous, and mostly consists of minor cuts and bruises until the character goes down.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Yeah, every edition explains HP much the same, at least since 1E. Actual physical injury is nebulous, and mostly consists of minor cuts and bruises until the character goes down.

It’s odd. Hp are almost like a narrative device as much as anything and a countdown to the story taking a rough turn.

I guess the bottom line is that it’s a game and some things will remind us of that.

 

[Krachek]

If we start complain about HP we should rename the thread : What’s wrong about DnD.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

It’s odd. Hp are almost like a narrative device as much as anything and a countdown to the story taking a rough turn.

I guess the bottom line is that it’s a game and some things will remind us of that.

If we start complain about HP we should rename the thread : What’s wrong about DnD.

It’s me. My perceptions and concerns. They’re all wrong