D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[Sacrosanct]

I can see how someone might want to narratively put ogres as one-shots because it fits their vision. But I can see the opposite too. For example, the biggest problem I have with a 1 hp ogre is because what it means in the context of everything else going on in the game world. If an ogre has 1 hp, then it can be killed by a housecat rather easily (insert MU joke here).

For me, and it sounds like a lot of others, creatures and monsters don't live in a vacuum where only whatever is part of a particular encounter matters. Everything is related to everything else. That's what we mean by living world.

 

[Quickleaf]

Hit points are a gamist and narrative construct. They exist as a function of game and story. They don't simulate anything, so why does it matter why this particular ogre whose game and story purpose is to get one shotted has 1 hp?

I cannot speak for Crimson and Micah and others who find minion 1 HP monsters objectionable, but in other conversations where this comes up it usually comes down to whether the "minion-ization" happens on the monster side or on the player side.

You can effectively minion-ize certain monsters by implementing class features for a fighter that turn out to be much less objectionable (at least so far IME) than 4th edition style minions.... For example...

Deathbringer. When your attack would reduce a creature to 6 hit points or less, you may instead choose to reduce the creature to 0 hit points with a finishing move. At 5th level, this affects a creature that you reduce to 12 hit points or less, at 9th level 20 hit points or less, at 13th level 30 hit points or less, and at 17th 42 hit points or less.

This is a mockup feature – the actual hp #'s and progression would require a design process & testing.

So a 1st level fighter with this Deathbringer feature will always be able to kill your average goblin or kobold or similar monster with ≤ 7 HP so long as they hit, no need to even roll damage. Whereas the 9th level fighter with Deathbringer can almost always kill your average gnoll or similar monster with ≤22 HP in one stroke. While a 17th level fighter with Deathbringer miiiight be able to take down a 59 HP Ogre in one stroke if they deal 17 damage and can get it down to ≤ 42 HP. Again, numbers would need work, but that's the thinking.

Rather than a reflection of the narrative intent of the monster, this mechanic transfers the narrative focus to the fighter's skill at dispatching foes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I cannot speak for Crimson and Micah and others who find minion 1 HP monsters objectionable, but in other conversations where this comes up it usually comes down to whether the "minion-ization" happens on the monster side or on the player side.

You can effectively minion-ize certain monsters by implementing class features for a fighter that turn out to be much less objectionable (at so far IME) than 4th edition style minions.... For example...

Deathbringer. When your attack would reduce a creature to 6 hit points or less, you may instead choose to reduce the creature to 0 hit points with a finishing move. At 5th level, this affects a creature that you reduce to 12 hit points or less, at 9th level 20 hit points or less, at 13th level 30 hit points or less, and at 17th 42 hit points or less.

This is a mockup feature – the actual hp #'s and progression would require a design process & testing. The formula I used completely instinctively was [3 x (Proficiency Bonus +1 cumulative for every proficiency bonus upgrade after 1st level)]. Sorry, I don't know the mathematical expression for that exactly. For example, at 5th level the maths were 3 x (3 + 1) = 12.

So a 1st level fighter with this Deathbringer feature will always be able to kill your average goblin or kobold or similar monster with ≤ 7 HP so long as they hit, no need to even roll damage. Whereas the 9th level fighter with Deathbringer can almost always kill your average gnoll or similar monster with ≤22 HP in one stroke. While a 17th level fighter with Deathbringer miiiight be able to take down a 59 HP Ogre in one stroke if they deal 17 damage and can get it down to ≤ 42 HP. Again, numbers would need work, but that's the thinking.

Rather than a reflection of the narrative intent of the monster, this mechanic transfers the narrative focus to the fighter's skill at dispatching foes.

Yes, if that is the sort of effect one wants, something like this is way more elegant way of doing it, and avoids all the issues in the mixed party and consistent world representation departments. It also is clearly codified and not reliant on the GM's whims.

 

[Gammadoodler]

HP indicate how tough a creature is, how many hits they can take before going down. That shouldn't change just because the PCs have changed.

HP are a mechanical resource that can be depleted by hazards in the world. PCs and their attacks represent such hazards, measured in their ability to deplete HP.

Whether you raise PC damage or reduce enemy HP (in this case to 1), all you are doing is expressing that a PCs' attacks represent more of a hazard to that monster in that encounter.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Whether you raise PC damage or reduce enemy HP (in this case to 1), all you are doing is expressing that a PCs' attacks represent more of a hazard to that monster.

Well no, that's not all you're doing. As I mentioned, if you reduce a monster to 1 hp but leave the rest of the game world as is, then you're changing the competency of that monster compared to everything else. And ending up with an ogre that can be killed by a housecat. Every creature is more of a hazard to that ogre. That's why we prefer to shift towards player side.

 

[Minigiant]

Except in the fction, they're supposed to be the same monsters, that's the problem. But they don't feel like the same monster. Being able to defeat a bunch of fully statted werewolves actually feels like you beat some tough monsters, beating balloon variants of them really doesn't feel like that.

They are the same monster.

Again this is a limitations of the base mechanics.

Stating the base mechanic doesn't handle something doesn't mean the whole mechanic is bad. It just means it can't handle it. So it just needs an alternative rule or a change to the rule.

 

[Oofta]

HP are a mechanical resource that can be depleted by hazards in the world. PCs and their attacks represent such hazards, measured in their ability to deplete HP.

Whether you raise PC damage or reduce enemy HP (in this case to 1), all you are doing is expressing that a PCs' attacks represent more of a hazard to that monster in that encounter.

A lone 2nd level fighter is going to have an issue with an ogre, the ogre will likely smash them into goo. A 12th level fighter will chop multiple ogres to bits in one round. The PCs attacks already represent more of a hazard to that monster. Without doing weird minion logic that has 0 in-world justification.

Minions were that not only easier to kill, their stats were contradictory. An Ogre Thug was a level 11 minion with AC 23, +14 to hit and did 8 damage. An Ogre Warhulk was a level 11 elite brute, with AC 25, +14 to hit, averaged 15 damage and knocked prone with 286 hit points (talk about HP inflation!). If that Ogre thug is just some lackey, why do they hit so often? Why are they so hard to hit in the first place? Looking at the descriptions they didn't wear any armor. There was no way to come up with any in-world justification for the distinction.

If you approach D&D from a pure gamist perspective then it doesn't matter. If you want to have your D&D world at least make a passing attempt at emulating a logical fantasy world it makes no sense.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First, I don't think HP are purely a gamist and narrative construct.

GNS is BS, anyway.

hp are very abstract covers it.

They represent a huge bundle of factors like luck & skill, divine grace, size and toughness, plot armor, etc, etc... by the same token, hits that do damage needn't so much as touch the target, and one attack/round can represent many individual blows.

Whilst abstract, they represent something diegetic.

I mean, diegetic in it's native jargon means a sound in a film that the characters portrayed by the actors are meant to hear as part of the story - even if it's added in post, and the actors never hear it. TBF, it's also a narrative thing.

hp can - and do rather well, actually - represent the 'plot armor' that heroes have in genre. I mean, it explains the weird tendency to fall from great heights without injury. They're a lot poorer at modeling actual physical injury.

Some things being harder to kill is a thing that actually exists in the game world, or at least that's how I'd run it.

There's no need to run it that way (or not to), of course, because hp are so very abstract.

If you do want to have a thing that exists in the game world explain why minions are defeated with a single blow, you could go with morale. They're facing greatly superior foes, one smack and they give up.
Nor is that the only way you could rationalize it, if you felt the need to rationalize powerful heroes scything through lesser foes quickly.

(I mean, 'fast combat?')

Second, I'm not really a fan of such predestined purpose. That seems railroady to me. Ogre is an ogre, and what their purpose is, if any, will emerge in play. Their stats are assigned to represent who they are, not to fulfil some predestined narrative role.

I mean, it's arguably railroading a monster, which, like the DM controls them, so they are on whatever rails he lays down for them, prettymuch by definition.
"Railroady" is used as a bad thing in reference to DMs erroding player agency, taking choices away from them or making those choices moot.

And third, as a player, does it feel to you that you defeated a powerful monster if you kill a one HP monster? Because it doesn't to me.

It's clearly not meant to. Not a monster that's powerful, relative to your PC, anyway

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well no, that's not all you're doing. As I mentioned, if you reduce a monster to 1 hp but leave the rest of the game world as is, then you're changing the competency of that monster compared to everything else. And ending up with an ogre that can be killed by a housecat.

The relationship between hp and damage is only relevant during a combat encounter.

Specifically a combat encounter where the PCs are participants.

PCs have no knowledge of what HP total a given monster has or how much numerical damage they are doing. What they know is what it takes to kill the monster and how good a hit 'felt'. Likewise for other creatures in the world. The cat doesn't know that they are dealing 1 hp of damage, they know that they can kill a mouse and not an ogre. The PCs don't know that they are doing 20 damage, they know that they can kill goblins but behirs take a few more swings.

The flipside of this absolutist approach to hp and damage is that a swing of a fighter's greatsword is never more lethal to an ogre than encountering 20 CR 0 cats in a dark alley.

I personally would rather increase PC damage than reduce monster hp to 1, but at the end of the day, we're talking about the same relationship.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They are the same monster.

But it doesn't feel like it! Mechanics matter. This genuinely cannot be that hard to comprehend, even if you personally wouldn't feel this way.