D&D 5E Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?

The Crimson Binome · May 3, 2016

pemerton said:
But "hit" and "damage" here are purely mechanical notions. Nothing in the rules correlates them to the fiction.

This is the point Hussar has repeatedly made. If someone is "hit" by a sword and takes "7 hp" of "damage", this could be anything from a wrongfooting which sets the character back (the depletion of luck and divine favour) to a mere scratch to a bruise to a serious cut.

No, a "hit" means that you hit and caused injury, and "7 hp" tells you how much injury you caused. You definitely hit, if you hit, because that's what the attack roll means. Suggesting otherwise would be ridiculous, and there's no reason whatsoever why anyone would jump to such an inane conclusion.

It would be nearly as ridiculous to suggest that someone could take damage without that corresponding to some physical deterioration of the flesh, though there are a couple of wonky corner cases where a poorly-written rule might be interpreted that way.

TwoSix · May 3, 2016

Saelorn said:
Suggesting otherwise would be ridiculous...

It would be nearly as ridiculous to suggest ...

Uchawi · May 3, 2016

I agree with a more abstract interpretation of hit points, but I am not going to convince someone else their viewpoint is wrong based on the abstract nature of hit points. A lot of things fall apart when you dig into the concept. That is the price you pay for a simple concept that can represent anything that is less then 100 percent when considering a state of a character or creature.

Tony Vargas · May 3, 2016

pemerton said:
This is interesting. I see it as a mere veneer of simulation.

For instance, a fierce dragon can have a +30 or more natural AC bonus. What does that mean in the fiction, given that the best possible magical armour - +5 plate - gives +13 to AC? It's a mechanic but I can't see what it's simulating.

It's simulating an in-game fictional reality in which a dragon's natural armor is at least 230.77% better than the best possible magical full plate. What reality is that? The reality of that edition of D&D.

Saelorn said:
No, a "hit" means that you hit and caused injury, and "7 hp" tells you how much injury you caused. You definitely hit, if you hit, because that's what the attack roll means.

Case in point, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: Say that hit needed a natural 11, it's simulating a reality in which that attacker, attacking that target, under those circumstances, necessarily hits 50% of the time. Similarly, 7 hps represents exactly that much injury, half as much injury as 14 hps, 7x as much as 1 hp, 1/7th as much as 49, but all injury, and all in precise proportions. The rules do not merely simulate that reality, they first define it into being, then simulate it perfectly.

That's what I mean by rules-as-laws-of-physics. It's exactly like a simulation. Just a self-referent one. In the same way that a tautology is necessarily true, a rules-as-laws-of-physics system is necessarily a perfect simulation.

And it would be, ..ah.. 'ridiculous' to mess with perfection, no?

Shasarak · May 3, 2016

TwoSix said:
View attachment 76599

Ha ha, when a "hit" does not mean you "hit".

TwoSix · May 4, 2016

Shasarak said:
Ha ha, when a "hit" does not mean you "hit".

Got it in one, mate!

Lots of words mean different things. Some words even have more than one numbered item in the "official" dictionary. I know, I was gobsmacked too!

For example, when I tell a player to "roll for it", they don't always get on the floor and tumble across the room. I mean, sure, sometimes, but there's normally alcohol involved.

MechaPilot · May 4, 2016

Saelorn said:
No, a "hit" means that you hit and caused injury, and "7 hp" tells you how much injury you caused.

Judge's ruling?

SFX: Bzzzzz!

Ooh. Sorry. Wrong answer.

"Hit" has two specific meanings as it relates to D&D:
1) The occurrence of your attack roll defeating the target's AC.
2) The landing of a blow as described by the DM in the narrative of the game.

That you choose to always interpret the word "hit" as definition #2 is on you and you alone.

Saelorn said:
You definitely hit, if you hit, because that's what the attack roll means. Suggesting otherwise would be ridiculous, and there's no reason whatsoever why anyone would jump to such an inane conclusion.

It would be nearly as ridiculous to suggest that someone could take damage without that corresponding to some physical deterioration of the flesh, though there are a couple of wonky corner cases where a poorly-written rule might be interpreted that way.

Well, it's nice that you're not being insulting, or otherwise demeaning or making fun of the way other people play the game. More people need to do just. . . oh wait. You totally are. Maybe your message might be better received if you weren't framing it as "You're doing it wrong! Your way is ridiculous and you should know it! Because I say it is! And because I'm the final arbiter of what everything in the game means and of what is rational!"

Shasarak · May 4, 2016

MechaPilot said:
"I'm the final arbiter of what everything in the game means and of what is rational!"

Finally! At last someone standing up and taking charge.

The Crimson Binome · May 4, 2016

MechaPilot said:
Maybe your message might be better received if you weren't framing it as "You're doing it wrong! Your way is ridiculous and you should know it! Because I say it is! And because I'm the final arbiter of what everything in the game means and of what is rational!"

"Because I say it is!" is a lousy reason for anything. The only valid reason is, "Because it follows logically from the evidence at hand!"

We need to be able to call people out on their shenanigans, if there is to be any discussion at all. Otherwise, there would no point in these forums even existing, because any troll with a ridiculous assertion would have the run of the place.

MechaPilot · May 4, 2016

Saelorn said:
"Because I say it is!" is a lousy reason for anything. The only valid reason is, "Because it follows logically from the evidence at hand!"

We need to be able to call people out on their shenanigans, if there is to be any discussion at all. Otherwise, there would no point in these forums even existing, because any troll with a ridiculous assertion would have the run of the place.

As has already been explained, multiple times, both here and on the old WotC forums, there exists perfectly valid logic for the non-physical taking of damage. You don't like it. It violates your preferred reasoning. Fine. All good. But to state that it's "ridiculous" or "illogical" is insulting, dismissive, and derogatory of people simply have a different preference than you do. And then you bring up "trolls." Ha! You state that your way is the only correct and logical way and that everyone else is being ridiculous. You yourself sound like you're engaging in trolling with both the tone and the substance of what you're saying.

D&D 5E Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?

How common is it for NPCs in your world to be built using the classes in the Player’s Handbook?

All NPCs (or all NPCs with combat or spellcasting capabilities) have class levels.

Class levels are common for NPCs, but not universal.

NPCs with class levels are rare.

Only player characters have class levels.

The Crimson Binome

Hero

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

Uchawi

First Post

Tony Vargas

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

MechaPilot

Explorer