D&D 5E Assumptions on Hit Points and Armor Class...

[schnee]

But if you lurch backwards to avoid the giant sword, and you're calling that HP damage, then how are the characters aware of it? Why would your character think that they need to drink an incredibly expensive magical potion, when they don't even have a scratch on them? Why would a magical healing potion even be valuable at all, if it didn't have any tangible effect? There are too many ways that the world wouldn't make sense, if that was what was actually going on.

Counterpoint 1:
Uh... have you ever had an IV after being horribly dehydrated? I was beat, barely able to walk and 1/2 hour later, I felt fine. If something could do that in ten seconds? Yeah, that'd be expensive.

Counterpoint 2:
You need to go to some better parties, dance your butt off, then *pop* Drink a Red Bull. (It'll give you wings!) If that's not a 'Potion of Cure Fatigue' I don't know what is.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Characters would certainly know when they are tired or running out of steam, and potions that restore that fatigue are supported in fiction like the Miruvor in the Lord of the Rings.

Yes, I am familiar with the potion of vitality. It doesn't affect your HP at all, unless you get an hour to rest.

There's already a mechanic in the game to represent fatigue. Hit Points are not that mechanic.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Yes, I am familiar with the potion of vitality. It doesn't affect your HP at all, unless you get an hour to rest.

There's already a mechanic in the game to represent fatigue. Hit Points are not that mechanic.

And yet that's exactly what I use them for. The game still hasn't broken.

 

[Lord Twig]

Yup. See, this is why reading the book and not pulling single lines out of context makes conversation so much more productive. I love the fact that someone actually posrep'd you for that when the actual quote from the book reads:

Describing the Effects of Damage

Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma or simply knocks you unconscious.

So, yup, right there, right in the sidebar, it tells you specifically, and fairly precisely, how hit point loss works in 5e. If you are describing cuts and bruises for the first half of HP loss, you are actually going against what the game tells you. Now, you can certainly do so. That's 100% groovy and up to you and if it works for your table, that's great. But, what you cannot do is argue that all hits MUST be physical injury. A hit can be physical injury, or it very well might not be.

Like I said, the HP=meat argument got lost in 5e. HP in 5e do not necessarily mean meat. It's right there in pretty clear English in the books. Someone with 100 HP who takes 10 points of damage does not necessarily show any signs of damage whatsoever. In fact, according to what's written here, that character could take 49 points of damage in a single hit and not show a single bruise.

Any other interpretation is simply projecting your own personal preferences onto the game.

So, yup, right there, right in the sidebar, it tells you specifically, and fairly precisely, how hit point loss works in 5e. If you are not describing cuts and bruises for the second half of HP loss, you are actually going against what the game tells you. Now, you can certainly not do so. That's 100% groovy and up to you and if it works for your table, that's great. But, what you cannot do is argue that NO hits are physical injury. A hit might not be physical injury, or it very well might be.

The HP != meat argument got lost in 5e. HP in 5e is definitely meat when you reach 0 HPs. It's right there in pretty clear English in the books. Someone with 100 HP who takes 60 points of damage does show signs of damage. In fact, according to what's written here, that character could take 51 points of damage in a single hit and would be bruised or bleeding.

Any other interpretation is simply projecting your own personal preferences onto the game.

 

[Hussar]

So, yup, right there, right in the sidebar, it tells you specifically, and fairly precisely, how hit point loss works in 5e. If you are not describing cuts and bruises for the second half of HP loss, you are actually going against what the game tells you. Now, you can certainly not do so. That's 100% groovy and up to you and if it works for your table, that's great. But, what you cannot do is argue that NO hits are physical injury. A hit might not be physical injury, or it very well might be.

The HP != meat argument got lost in 5e. HP in 5e is definitely meat when you reach 0 HPs. It's right there in pretty clear English in the books. Someone with 100 HP who takes 60 points of damage does show signs of damage. In fact, according to what's written here, that character could take 51 points of damage in a single hit and would be bruised or bleeding.

Any other interpretation is simply projecting your own personal preferences onto the game.

Funny.

And way to miss the point. I expressly said that you can describe HP loss as physical damage. That's right there in the rules. But, HP=Meat is a lost cause. HP might equal Meat? Sure, no worries. HP sometimes equals Meat? Not a problem. HP MUST equal Meat? Sorry, you lost this argument for 5e. Come back when they write 6e and maybe you can win your cause. Saelorn, for one, here is arguing that HP loss must be physical wounds. That is 100% NOT supported by the mechanics in 5e.

HP are whatever you need them to be at the time. There is no single definition of HP that covers all examples.

But, hey, keep trying. I know that any sign of weakness here might allow terrible things like damage on a miss to creep into the game, and we must do whatever we can to prevent abominations like that, right?

 

[robus]

Not quite what the OP was discussing but I really like this approach to wounds and healing: http://www.mindplaces.com/pictures/wound doc.pdf

 

[Ratskinner]

Dear gods do I hate HP, just for these arguments alone.

Honestly, having played rpgs with other systems recently....HPs really don't offer that much in either savings of effort or time. We're just very used to them and all the quirkery that they bring.

Oh well, I don't expect them to go away any time soon.

 

[Ratskinner]

HPs measure the degree of script immunity of the character. That's all.

I've actually been thinking about this lately. (I disagree, BTW, as script immunity there'd be no need for Fighters and Wizards to have different amounts.) I think it might be an interesting core for a system that actually represents "plot armor" that you either earn from achieving/fulfilling roleplay/plot goals or engaging in the core plots. I'm not saying its for every group, but it would certainly put a whole new spin on the dramatic side of the game.

 

[Hussar]

I've actually been thinking about this lately. (I disagree, BTW, as script immunity there'd be no need for Fighters and Wizards to have different amounts.) I think it might be an interesting core for a system that actually represents "plot armor" that you either earn from achieving/fulfilling roleplay/plot goals or engaging in the core plots. I'm not saying its for every group, but it would certainly put a whole new spin on the dramatic side of the game.

The difference in HP though is a reflection of a couple of things. One, it's grounded in the war-game roots where artillery was high damage but easily destroyed. Second, you can easily make the game balance argument. Wizards have far more ways to interact with the "plot" (as in what's going on in the game) than fighters do, and the trade off for that is that they have less plot immunity.

I played a game a while back called Sufficiently Advanced that worked exactly like that. You could make your character virtually a demigod, able to blow a ship out of orbit from the ground. Or, you could be a, more or less, normal human. The difference between these two characters was the amount of meta-level plot influence they could bring to bear. The high power character had very little in the way of plot armor or ways to interact with the campaign indirectly. The player of the normal human, OTOH, could cause that ship to malfunction and crash, without actually engaging their character sheet in any way.

 

[Lord Twig]

Funny.

And way to miss the point. I expressly said that you can describe HP loss as physical damage. That's right there in the rules. But, HP=Meat is a lost cause. HP might equal Meat? Sure, no worries. HP sometimes equals Meat? Not a problem. HP MUST equal Meat? Sorry, you lost this argument for 5e. Come back when they write 6e and maybe you can win your cause. Saelorn, for one, here is arguing that HP loss must be physical wounds. That is 100% NOT supported by the mechanics in 5e.

HP are whatever you need them to be at the time. There is no single definition of HP that covers all examples.

But, hey, keep trying. I know that any sign of weakness here might allow terrible things like damage on a miss to creep into the game, and we must do whatever we can to prevent abominations like that, right?

And you apparently missed my point, even though I used the same wording that you did!

Yes, you can describe HP loss as physical damage, just like you can describe it as fatigue or luck or plot armor or whatever. Then you keep saying that HP=Meat lost. But that is not true, nor is the opposite true. You can describe all damage as some sort of physical affliction and the game works just as well.

The trap I did not fall into is saying that those who think that HPs are not meat lost. They didn't. They can still play their way with the 5e rules and it won't even be a house rule. What I did say was that those who say that HPs are not equal to meat lost, because they did. HPs can be meat. Or they can not be. They can be either. To say that one or the other lost is not true.

So no, I don't need to keep trying. I can describe HP loss however I and my group wish. Or we can ignore the description of HPs altogether and just not worry about it.

I will admit that I believe Damage on a Miss is an abomination. The ability to truly fail is what makes success that much sweeter. DOAM dilutes that sweetness. This is pure opinion though and I understand others will disagree. Probably best if we don't open that can of worms any farther.