D&D 5E 5e* - D&D-now

[Ovinomancer]

Not quite correct. If you deal 5 damage to a 7 HP goblin, you have reduced the goblin below half its hit points, which according to the “describing the effects of damage” sidebar on PHB 197 means the goblin should be showing signs of wear such as cuts and bruises. If you had dealt 3 or fewer damage, the goblin would be showing no signs of injury. If you had done 7 or more damage, the goblin would be struck directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or simply knock the goblin unconscious.

Technically read, that only applies to you. Another great example of 5e's incoherence in providing vague and inconclusive advice!

 

[Charlaquin]

Technically read, that only applies to you.

That would seem unduly technical to me.

Another great example of 5e's incoherence in providing vague and inconclusive advice!

I think the advice is coherent enough when taken holistically.

 

[Malmuria]

There are some GM narrations that have relatively well-defined mechanical (and narrative, I suppose) effects, for example conditions and damage vulnerability/resistance whenever they come up. Those are going to be most mechanically meaningful and predictable. Passing coded information is still meaningful, but in a "soft" way. This sort of narration can feed into the PCs tactical decisions even if there isn't a hard mechanical effect. Adding in morale scores from earlier editions would be a simple way to give hp reduction more mechanical teeth.

As an aside, one thing I often find annoying is damage type, since it doesn't matter whether one does slashing or cold or whatever damage until in the (relatively rare) cases that it does. And it's hard to square with hp as "grit" points.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That would seem unduly technical to me.

I think the advice is coherent enough when taken holistically.

Yes, we've been around that bush recently. "Holistically" is just a cover word for 'I have my interpretation and insist that it's the best one possible, but allow for others to exist.'

 

[clearstream]

Views seem divided. How about this example:

Characters are fighting a stone giant with 126 HP. A hit deals 1 HP. The DM narrates "Your hit barely scratches it. The giant laughs. 'You're no threat little elf, I'm going to be about hitting that one there.' (It points directly at the wizard)."

1) Is this case realistic? Could it come up in play?
2) How is the narration here meaningful?"

[EDITED Note extensive ninja edit to avoid proposing any theory.]

 

[clearstream]

Relatedly, I don't think reporting pure system information counts as narration in the first place.

I agree with you. 5e* doesn't rule out reporting system information. It requires that I also narrate results meaningfully... in ways that matter. What that entails is that reporting system information alone is often not a case of narrating under 5e*, so my [first] example in my view is not meaningful.

As some noticed, examples very similar to my case, where system information alone matters, might count. 5e* isn't precious about the form of content, but more concerned about the consequences on conversation going forward.

Perhaps the OP should clarify “meaningless in greater context than purely mechanical”?

You may be right. That's going to take some thought! Any suggestions?

 

[TheSword]

Hmmm. This thread is starting to sound like the kind of conversation I had as a student at 3am after drinking too much snakebite and black, many years past.

 

[clearstream]

Hmmm. This thread is starting to sound like the kind of conversation I had as a student at 3am after drinking too much snakebite and black, many years past.

Good call. Note my ninja edit!

 

[clearstream]

Yes, we've been around that bush recently. "Holistically" is just a cover word for 'I have my interpretation and insist that it's the best one possible, but allow for others to exist.'

You are right that "holistic" shouldn't be camouflage for one-best-wayism. On the other hand, I feel we ideally take the whole RAW into account when forming rulings. If we pick and choose what to apply, we leave ourselves open to another's picking and choosing: we can't settle anything that way.

[This is something like Dworkin's principle of integrity, and I think many of his arguments are appealing in forming principles for interpreting game rules. Mutatis mutandis.]

 

[Oofta]

Views seem divided. How about this example:

Characters are fighting a stone giant with 126 HP. A hit deals 1 HP. The DM narrates "Your hit barely scratches it. The giant laughs. 'You're no threat little elf, I'm going to be about hitting that one there.' (It points directly at the wizard)."

1) Is this case realistic? Could it come up in play?
2) How is the narration here meaningful?"

[EDITED Note extensive ninja edit to avoid proposing any theory.]

Well, I don't remember the last time someone literally did only 1 point of damage, but a solid hit and it barely scratches the opponent? Yes, it's meaningful because it tells the player this guy is tougher than your average bear. Although, of course I also think that the average bear is tougher than the average D&D bear but that's another story.

As far as the giant taunting the PCs? That's just something we like to call "fun". I don't care if it adds to the narrative or not.