D&D 5E Can mundane classes have a resource which powers abilities?

[The Crimson Binome]

Yeah, but, "How hurt are you" is a pretty vague question. For example, how hurt is this character? He's lost 95% of his HP, but, what does that actually mean?

It's an objective thing, so you can measure it. Are you using the proportional HP model? Great, so 5/100 is the same as 1/20. Gather a field of statistically identical individuals, and find a weapon (a cudgel of specific size, swung with a standardized force) such that it takes exactly 20 hits before one falls unconscious.

Then, go to the next individual in line, and hit that person exactly nineteen times. The character in question is exactly as injured as this individual.

(Also, just FYI, 3.0 used 1 hp per level per day for rest, or 1.5 for full bed rest; and 3.5 used 1 per level per day, with 2.0 for full bed rest. The upshot was that, no matter how many maximum hit points you had, you recovered from zero to full in about one day per average number of hit points per level - or about a week.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm probably working with an extra side of snippy today. Please accept my apologies.

We all have bad days

That's what I said. It's not the same level of information. What the player does represents what the character does. It is on a much more abstract level.

And yet you have problems with the old FASERIP Karma system. Which represents how a character is doing, how lucky, how confident, and how relaxed. Karma is a much closer representation than skill rolls.

My problem is with characters operating on information that they cannot possibly have,

Like how many hit points they have? As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has pointed out you do not have anything resembling knowledge of hit points in the real world. You play D&D in such a way that hit points are an objective quantity and do it by playing in an artificial world that follows the rules. First, this is ... unusual and against the intent of Gygax (not that that's definitive).

or with players acting in any capacity beyond what their characters can control. What do you want to call that? Is it just meta-gaming?

Maggie: You can’t just make somebody do what you want them to do.

Eliot: Whoa! [Everyone starts chuckling.] What?

Hardison: T-That’s what we do. I mean…

Parker [petting Maggie's head]: You’re adorable.
- Leverage, The Second David Job

What I call it is actual competence. Or possibly competence porn.

It's an objective thing, so you can measure it.

No it isn't. Not unless you set up a distinctly odd universe to make it so. You play in a universe where the best armour is made from ground up high level warriors. Most people do not. Gygax called playing things the way you do ridiculous.

Are you using the proportional HP model? Great, so 5/100 is the same as 1/20. Gather a field of statistically identical individuals, and find a weapon (a cudgel of specific size, swung with a standardized force) such that it takes exactly 20 hits before one falls unconscious.

The ethics board disapproves. The dice gods merely laugh at your science.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't really understand the notion of "knowing how hurt you are".

I started a new thread for that.

 

[Hussar]

It's an objective thing, so you can measure it. Are you using the proportional HP model? Great, so 5/100 is the same as 1/20. Gather a field of statistically identical individuals, and find a weapon (a cudgel of specific size, swung with a standardized force) such that it takes exactly 20 hits before one falls unconscious.

Then, go to the next individual in line, and hit that person exactly nineteen times. The character in question is exactly as injured as this individual.

(Also, just FYI, 3.0 used 1 hp per level per day for rest, or 1.5 for full bed rest; and 3.5 used 1 per level per day, with 2.0 for full bed rest. The upshot was that, no matter how many maximum hit points you had, you recovered from zero to full in about one day per average number of hit points per level - or about a week.)

Just FYI, you should read the Heal skill in 3.5 edition.

ong-Term Care
Providing long-term care means treating a wounded person for a day or more. If your Heal check is successful, the patient recovers hit points or ability score points (lost to ability damage) at twice the normal rate: 2 hit points per level for a full 8 hours of rest in a day, or 4 hit points per level for each full day of complete rest; 2 ability score points for a full 8 hours of rest in a day, or 4 ability score points for each full day of complete rest.

Thus, any wound you sustain in 3.5 edition must never take more than about 8 days to recover from, maximum,

Note, your 100HP character could take 109 points of damage in a single hit (possibly a critical hit from a power attacking Fire Giant with a great axe used two handed, for example) and then stabilise. He actually completely recovers from that single wound in 3 days. Let's see you measure that.

The idea that you can objectively measure HP is ludicrous. For one, it presumes that gaining levels actually results in physical changes to the character, something that has never been supported in any edition of D&D. Looking at two individuals, how can you possibly know how many HP each one has? A 10th level wizard can have ten times the HP of a 1st level commoner farmer, but, the wizard is small and spindly and bookish, while our farmer is healthy and hearty.

Does anyone actually buy the idea that HP can be objectively measured in a game world? Really?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Does anyone actually buy the idea that HP can be objectively measured in a game world? Really?

Yes.

Even if they don't correlate perfectly with observable physical status, I think most people assume there's a relationship between apparent physical harm and remaining hp.

But even barring that, it's a question of empirical observation. HP don't necessarily make sense or match the real world, but they're actually much simpler than what happens in the real world.

HP accumulation, damage, and healing are reproducible phenomena. A character who falls can expect the same probability spread of outcomes each time he falls. It doesn't matter whether he lands straight on his head. If the fall of a certain distance deals 2d6 damage and he has 6 hit points, a bell curve of predictable outcomes emerges, with him having a 50% chance of being dropped to negatives.

It's hard for a thinking creature not to infer something from all the data he accumulates about health and harm, especially if he's in combat regularly.

 

[GSHamster]

An analogy to consider is the Wealth mechanic in D20 Modern.

It reduced the wonder and complexity of modern finance to a single roll. But it did so deliberately.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Just FYI, you should read the Heal skill in 3.5 edition.

If you're going to assume medical attention, then why not just assume magic? You're talking about outside intervention here, rather than natural healing rates.

The idea that you can objectively measure HP is ludicrous.

And yet, that's exactly how the game works. They can be observed empirically, in-character. You can hit someone nineteen times with a controlled forced, and guarantee that the twentieth is the one that will cause unconsciousness, and the test is repeatable.

The laws of physics within the game world do not align perfectly with our own. They are an abstraction, yes, but they are more than that: they are a simplification. The game world operates on a simplified model that is head-computable, but it does follow a set of rules. I imagine that's one of the great appeals of such a system, to certain people.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you're going to assume medical attention, then why not just assume magic? You're talking about outside intervention here, rather than natural healing rates.
And yet, that's exactly how the game works. They can be observed empirically, in-character. You can hit someone nineteen times with a controlled forced, and guarantee that the twentieth is the one that will cause unconsciousness, and the test is repeatable.

[Citation Needed] Because that's really not how I read the rules at all. And I've already quoted Gygax on the subject of hit points saying the opposite of what you are.

 

[Hussar]

Yes.

Even if they don't correlate perfectly with observable physical status, I think most people assume there's a relationship between apparent physical harm and remaining hp.

But even barring that, it's a question of empirical observation. HP don't necessarily make sense or match the real world, but they're actually much simpler than what happens in the real world.

HP accumulation, damage, and healing are reproducible phenomena. A character who falls can expect the same probability spread of outcomes each time he falls. It doesn't matter whether he lands straight on his head. If the fall of a certain distance deals 2d6 damage and he has 6 hit points, a bell curve of predictable outcomes emerges, with him having a 50% chance of being dropped to negatives.

It's hard for a thinking creature not to infer something from all the data he accumulates about health and harm, especially if he's in combat regularly.

I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

You actually play this way? Your group plays this way? OOTS strip reality? No thank you.

If you're going to assume medical attention, then why not just assume magic? You're talking about outside intervention here, rather than natural healing rates.

Yes, because assuming that a group of adventurers has no access whatsoever to four skill points in heal is the same as assuming that you will always have magical healing. The point is, Heal skill ISN'T MAGIC. It's the natural healing rate of people in the game. You're insisting that HP are objective. Fair enough. Then no wound can EVER take more than 8 days (a 20 HP 1st level barbarian being taken to -9 HP) to heal naturally, with zero magical intervention. And that's the absolute maximum in D&D. Nothing can take longer than that to heal.

And yet, that's exactly how the game works. They can be observed empirically, in-character. You can hit someone nineteen times with a controlled forced, and guarantee that the twentieth is the one that will cause unconsciousness, and the test is repeatable.

The laws of physics within the game world do not align perfectly with our own. They are an abstraction, yes, but they are more than that: they are a simplification. The game world operates on a simplified model that is head-computable, but it does follow a set of rules. I imagine that's one of the great appeals of such a system, to certain people.

Again, totally not interested. No thank you. I agree, they are an abstraction, but, that means that they are not a simplification of the laws of physics of a game world. I would have zero interest in a game world where the game rules are actually meant to correlate in this way. If it works for you, then great, but, two things:

1. Please do not presume that this is somehow universal. There is absolutely no requirement to play this way.
2. Please do not presume that this is what the game intends. Again, there is no requirement to play this way.

 

[pemerton]

They can be observed empirically, in-character. You can hit someone nineteen times with a controlled forced, and guarantee that the twentieth is the one that will cause unconsciousness, and the test is repeatable.

Many tables - and default 4e - assume that the function of the mechanics is to resolve salient conflicts during the course of play. They don't treat the mechanics as the "physics" of the gameworld that could be measured via controlled experiments.

The game world operates on a simplified model that is head-computable, but it does follow a set of rules.

In my case, the game world follows the same rules as govern the worlds of Middle Earth, Earthsea and The Iliad ie the world of fantasy and myth, which is a literary version of the natural world infused with magical elements.

The game mechanics are a device for determining outcomes during play. They don't do so by modelling inworld processs. The most obvious case of this is the action economy. The gameworld is not one of stop-motion action on a metronomic timer.