D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Metroido]

That's not clear from the text, however, since there is no "6E". Nor is the 2024 set of books even the 6th set of AD&D style manuals, it is the ninth. And there have been more editions of the game than that. So referring to the 2024 rules aa "6E" is unclear obfuscation

That's not clear from the text, but it is quite clear from the context clues.

 

[Hussar]

Hit points measure nothing but hit points. They are always nebulous with respect to actual effects in the imagined world.

There is no point at which trying to equate hit points with some other phenomenon (wounds, skill, fatigue, luck ... whatever) does not collapse under its own internal inconsistency.

Oh, absolutely. You'll get no argument from me on that score.

I'm not the one that needs convincing though. The idea that a "hit" could be (not necessarily must be, but, could be) the cause of "damage" without actually touching the target is a bridge far too far for many people. And WotC would be committing suicide to try to actually come done on any side in that discussion.

 

[Parmandur]

That's not clear from the text, but it is quite clear from the context clues.

Well, correcting the clear mistake still has value.

 

[Bae'zel]

Hit points measure nothing but hit points. They are always nebulous with respect to actual effects in the imagined world.

There is no point at which trying to equate hit points with some other phenomenon (wounds, skill, fatigue, luck ... whatever) does not collapse under its own internal inconsistency.

At our table, this ambiguity was entirely solved by accepting that HP literally IS physical so that spells like “Cure Wounds” and conditions like “bloodied” make some effing sense.

That pisses some people off but it reduces confusion for us. And it’s more fun. Players seem to love to describe scratches, bruises, bloody armor etc.

 

[Remathilis]

Why does it have to be so specific to be lore? Why can't it just be something like, "Drawing on the power of time..." or "Focusing his mind on the power of the astral sea..."?

I mean, it doesn't. And I'm perfectly fine with something like drawing off the astral sea. I think even that might be too much lore for sone, but I'm fine enough with a pseudo mind/body psionic explanation.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

At our table, this ambiguity was entirely solved by accepting that HP literally IS physical so that spells like “Cure Wounds” and conditions like “bloodied” make some effing sense.

That pisses some people off but it reduces confusion for us. And it’s more fun. Players seem to love to describe scratches, bruises, bloody armor etc.

Although less ambiguous, it is no less internally inconsistent. Either:

1) A 20th level character with 200hp can literally sustain 20x the physical damage that a 1st-level character with 10hp can

or

2) A hit point means something different at 1st-level and 20th-level

Plus "Wounds" now heal at a ridiculous pace from rests.

Hit points can't map onto real phenomena, period. They just can't. They couldn't in 1975, and they can't in 2025. The nature of hit point damage is not objective; it is contingent upon the particulars of the one sustaining it. The best thing that can be done is narrate a "vaguely plausible" effect in-game, and not subject that narration to any kind of logical scrutiny.

 

[James Gasik]

And if defining hit points is hard, then try defining temporary hit points! At first blush, you might be like "well, it's a magical shield of some kind" until you remember that you can be granted temporary hit points from entirely non-magical sources as well!

Somewhat related are effects that increase or decrease your maximum hit point total- to my knowledge, everything that increases the total is magical, but it can be decreased due to relatively normal things like disease.

Once upon a time, I had a DM describe hit points as the sum total of all the techniques characters learn over time to minimize damage as it comes in, by ducking, weaving, rolling with punches, learning to fall correctly, and so on. So a 15th level Fighter doesn't really have more "meat points" than a level 5 Fighter, it's just that the level 15 Fighter is more adept at evading deadly wounds. This worked mostly fine until the game started including actual damage reducing effects on top of hit points, at which point, all bets are off.

Doubly weird in 5e, where the class with the highest base hit point total also has an ability that minimizes incoming damage...

 

[Bae'zel]

1) A 20th level character with 200hp can literally sustain 20x the physical damage that a 1st-level character with 10hp can

We look at action movies for rationalization. John McClane, Indiana Jones, Rambo etc get punched, kicked, shot, stabbed, blown up, thrown out of moving vehicles etc and somehow manage to survive stuff that unnamed mooks die from instantly.

As I prefaced, at OUR table, it works. We don't apply "realism" or "physics" when it comes to this stuff. We accept that D&D PCs are basically super heroes and leave it at that.

It actually causes LESS confusion. For US. For most of the hobby, I agree with you, it's handwaved and ignored as "one of those wacky sacred cows of D&D".

In other RPGs, which have less ambiguous health trackers, we go with the flow.

edit: it's also a bit like video games. In plenty of genres, from the gritty to the most super heroic, the protagonist gradually is able to take more and more stab wounds, gun shots, animal bites than at the beginning of the game. There's no ambiguity: there's blood splatters. We just extend the same thing to D&D, also a game.

 

[TwoSix]

We look at action movies for rationalization. John McClane, Indiana Jones, Rambo etc get punched, kicked, shot, stabbed, blown up, thrown out of moving vehicles etc and somehow manage to survive stuff that unnamed mooks die from instantly.

As I prefaced, at OUR table, it works. We don't apply "realism" or "physics" when it comes to this stuff. We accept that D&D PCs are basically super heroes and leave it at that.

It actually causes LESS confusion. For US. For most of the hobby, I agree with you, it's handwaved and ignored as "one of those wacky sacred cows of D&D".

In other RPGs, which have less ambiguous health trackers, we go with the flow.

edit: it's also a bit like video games. In plenty of genres, from the gritty to the most super heroic, the protagonist gradually is able to take more and more stab wounds, gun shots, animal bites than at the beginning of the game. There's no ambiguity: there's blood splatters. We just extend the same thing to D&D, also a game.

Over the past few years, I've also started narrating hit points as simply supernatural resilience. Even a non-adventurer knows that skilled warriors can take a dozen sword blows, any one of which that would kill a normal man.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Although less ambiguous, it is no less internally inconsistent. Either:

1) A 20th level character with 200hp can literally sustain 20x the physical damage that a 1st-level character with 10hp can

or

2) A hit point means something different at 1st-level and 20th-level

Plus "Wounds" now heal at a ridiculous pace from rests.

Hit points can't map onto real phenomena, period. They just can't. They couldn't in 1975, and they can't in 2025. The nature of hit point damage is not objective; it is contingent upon the particulars of the one sustaining it. The best thing that can be done is narrate a "vaguely plausible" effect in-game, and not subject that narration to any kind of logical scrutiny.

This is why I maintain that what happens when you run out is far more important, and also that hp healing should be proportional to the target.