D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Hussar]

Ahn - you ignore hit point damage?

 

[billd91]

Ahn - you ignore hit point damage?

I will for some NPCs, particularly if the PCs substantially outclass their opponent and there is no time or security pressure.

 

[Hussar]

I will for some NPCs, particularly if the PCs substantially outclass their opponent and there is no time or security pressure.

Sorry, I don't understand. What are you ignoring exactly? Automatically killing NPC's?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ahn - you ignore hit point damage?

Sure. In a number of different kinds of cases. If the enemies are substantially weaker than the PCs-enough to present no real threat-I'll often stop tracking damage (both ways) and just let the PCs kill them (or otherwise do as they wish). That happens regularly.

In the days of 3.0/2e Heal, I might stop tracking the math if I know a character isn't going to die and is about to be fully healed. There are various similar situations that still arise.

In a completely different scenario, I concluded a campaign with an epic internal battle for a character's soul as he hovered above a volcano and simply bypassed all the damage and saving throws and various other rolls the situation demanded and just went into stop time and let myself and the player dictate what happened.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sorry, I don't understand. What are you ignoring exactly? Automatically killing NPC's?

The bookkeeping. If a foe has 10 health, and a player hits for 1d10+9, then reasonably they're going to get one-shot. So why bother?

Of course, this is why minions are so useful. No bookkeeping.

 

[Libramarian]

Maybe... I think the easiest example would be tripping an ooze. So you've got a 4E Fighter with Spinning Sweep (I think - the first-level encounter power that knocks prone and does 1[W] on a hit) and you use it on an ooze. The DM says, "No, that doesn't work, it's an ooze, it can't go prone." Or what I've done with Come and Get It in the past: "No, the archers don't jump off the wall to fight you." (The dissociation coming from the "encounter power" designation.) In those cases, the "fictional positioning" - the monster being an ooze and the archers in range but on a wall - have an effect on the resolution of your action.

You could get a little more detailed, too: "I use Spinning Sweep so I sweep his leg out from under him, like it says, and then I get on top of him and stab him in the face." Now can the target get up from prone with a move action? You're on top of him, after all. He might have to make an "Escape from Grab" action to get up. I'd do this as part of the NPC's move action - a check against your Fort, or maybe have you make an Athletics/STR vs. Fort attack as an immediate action.

Oh ok -- I thought you might be talking about the thing where the DM never says "no, that doesn't work" but arranges things after the fact so that however you are using it is associated with the fiction (like player:"can I knock this ooze prone?" DM:"uhhh yeah...your Spinning Sweep disorients it and makes it kind of slough over onto its side" Worse: DM:"sure, just explain how that happens"). I think it's definitely true that some forms of mechanical dissociation are more bothersome than others.

 

[Hussar]

Sure. In a number of different kinds of cases. If the enemies are substantially weaker than the PCs-enough to present no real threat-I'll often stop tracking damage (both ways) and just let the PCs kill them (or otherwise do as they wish). That happens regularly.
/snip

You regularly feature combats where the PC's are so much stronger than the opponents that the opponents present no actual threat? What do you mean by regularly?

Oh ok -- I thought you might be talking about the thing where the DM never says "no, that doesn't work" but arranges things after the fact so that however you are using it is associated with the fiction (like player:"can I knock this ooze prone?" DM:"uhhh yeah...your Spinning Sweep disorients it and makes it kind of slough over onto its side" Worse: DM:"sure, just explain how that happens"). I think it's definitely true that some forms of mechanical dissociation are more bothersome than others.

"Worse"? What's wrong with allowing the player to specify the effects of his or her actions?

Granted, there's nothing wrong, particularly, with, "No, that doesn't work" but, I find, "Tell me how it works" to be a heck of a lot more fun as a DM.

 

[Libramarian]

"Worse"? What's wrong with allowing the player to specify the effects of his or her actions?

Granted, there's nothing wrong, particularly, with, "No, that doesn't work" but, I find, "Tell me how it works" to be a heck of a lot more fun as a DM.

I think it takes players out of the first person "to do it, you have to do it" mindset which newbies often have playing D&D that LostSoul was talking about, and that I also like and value.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You regularly feature combats where the PC's are so much stronger than the opponents that the opponents present no actual threat? What do you mean by regularly?

I don't have statistics, but regularly is pretty regular. Probably in the neighborhood of every other session on average; maybe even every session these days. In many cases, I'm referring to mop-up situations after one powerful enemy is dispatched. I also like to use weak monsters as scenery for powerful PCs and let them feel powerful without wasting time on numbers we know aren't going to matter. It also is important given that my typical battles do present a serious threat. It's important for the players to understand that:
*The world is the world and the creatures they encounter do not have to be the same level they are.
*I am not out to get them; I'll throw them a creampuff every now and then.
*Their powers are really powerful.

Examples would be a large mob of zombies that were moving slower than the party, a party that had a warlock. I just let the warlock "kite" therm around for a while and exterminate them; their hit points became irrelevant so I just guessed how long it would take and didn't roll or anything. Last session, I had a group of 10th level characters hunting for an enemy assassin ambush a goblin camp, only to find that there was no assassin and that the goblins were ordinary combatants with probably no one above 5th level. No need to track hp there. The same session I had another player who insisted on questioning every orc scout he met. It was important to the plot that they be mindless rage machines, so I explained that they refused to talk and attacked him on sight. Figuring that any garden variety scouts are probably only a little way advanced into a weak class, I just let him kill them after each failed interrogation without ever bothering to track whatever their AC, attacks, or hit points were.

To my mind, the whole set of numbers-hit points, attack rolls, saves, etc.-is there to help us determine the outcome of a situation. If I already know what the outcome will be, either because it is obvious or because I have dictated it for some reason, I don't use the numbers.

 

[LostSoul]

"Worse"? What's wrong with allowing the player to specify the effects of his or her actions?

Granted, there's nothing wrong, particularly, with, "No, that doesn't work" but, I find, "Tell me how it works" to be a heck of a lot more fun as a DM.

My "no, that doesn't work" is more often "I just don't see it" and then I follow up with my own viewpoint, which is meant to be an invitation to discussion. I don't have a problem with players specifying the effects of their actions but I prefer that it's in the form of an action the character takes. Then we apply the rules to resolve the fictional action, instead of applying the rules and then figuring out what that means in the fiction.

[sblock=Damage]Following this logic meant that I threw out damage rolls based on choice of weapon; I decided to go with the fictional details of the attack - where you said you were trying to stab the guy - setting the number of HP lost. You don't get "roll damage to see where you hit him and how hard", you get "you hit him here, so he loses X HP." Though I have thought about making that a roll.

I find this less jarring than when the player describes his killing strike and hits, then rolls minimum damage on his dice. When that happens to me I realize that there's no point in describing what my PC's doing, since it's all up to the dice. Then I don't even bother to worry about fictional positioning in combat, it's just "I hit AC X, if that hits I do Y damage."[/sblock]