D&D 5E D&D NEXT: Adding dex mod to hp, taking it off ac.

[Empath Negative]

This is about the "hp as abstract" discussion.

The people who keep harping about how abstract HP is see to forget that short of some very special rules the ONLY modifier ever added to HP is Con, which represents your physical durability and hardiness. Your Fortitude.


The HP = Abstract folks are taking it a bit too far. If they want HP to be that much of an abstraction... why have an attack roll and armor class?


If someone can hit someone every round for any made up fluff reason and never FAIL to hit someone every round for said fluff reason because HP is such an abstraction...

Well... take it to its logical conclusion. If the attack roll fundamentally doesn't matter because of the abstraction of HP then just ditch the mechanic altogether as so much useless filler.

Armor would be DR, dex and con, morale and enhancement bonuses all get added to HP and everytime someone swings they lop off a chunk of hp because some of it is fate, some of it is quickness, some of it is fortitude... whatever.


See my point? Why do we not add DEX to hitpoints? If HP is that abstract, why the hell not?


I'll tell you why not. Because Rolling the d20 is done to determine if you have succeeded or if you have failed. Dex would prevent you from getting hit, but it wouldn't matter all that much after you have been. That's what seems to be lost here.

That the d20 mechanic determines if you have succeeded or if you have failed.


Do you resist the poison or do you die? Roll the d20. Did you scale the wall or not? Roll it.


If they changed the mechanic to give the reaper a second d20 roll to see if they made glancing strength damage I'd be all for it. I'd think it was pretty awesome.

But they don't. They embrace the "HP as abstract" principle in all the wrong ways.


The abstractness of HP is actually pretty well defined by the game rules themselves when you get right down and think about it. I'm not talking about any outright definition of HP... but how the rules themselves treat HP.

More than anything else HP represents toughness and expertise in frontline combat. This is why the Fighter and the Barbarian get gobs and gobs of hitpoints. If it was about reflexes, being quick, etc etc then the ranger and the rogue would have far more than the big lumbering barbarian. A first level barbarian with 10 con would have more hitpoints than the hardiest first level dwarven rogue.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Well said! What you say is pretty much why I don't buy into the abstract hit points philosophy -- it just isn't reflected in the rules of any edition.

See my point? Why do we not add DEX to hitpoints? If HP is that abstract, why the hell not?

Why not take it a step further? If HP are really abstract, why not simply add all your stats to HP? Dex for dodging, Str for blocking strength, Int for defensive analytics, Wis for determination, and Cha for luck. Or, alternatively the "Don't hurt me, I'm pretty" factor.

Or otherwise, why not add only your best stat to HP, as WotC seems to be moving permanently away from +mod to HP.

 

[slobo777]

Things that are added to hit points that have nothing to do with Con:

1) They are in many editions, a random total, presumably representing some kind of long-term fate or luck. Must say I don't like this - a bit of bad luck just once in the game influences far too many hours of play.

2) They increase dramatically with experience. I guess this represents skill, rather than tough fighters gaining leather-like skin, or onion layers.

3) Amounts that are gained are assigned by "class", representing relative combat skill (but possibly ignoring that a wizard might be more durable versus mental assault).

For most characters, the proportion assigned according to class and by experience is larger than the Con bonus effect.

There are arguments for adding any or all stat bonuses to hit points (e.g. smarts allow you to intelligently deflect blows). I think that toughness/durability simply wins as the best to use for that part of the system, and gives the right "feel" for what Con is about. All the other possible stats modifiers are bundled into your class die and level of experience, and hand-waved.

As a game design, it's nice to have stats contribute directly and simply to something that "feels" right, and not sweat the details too much. Dex to AC as a dodge bonus equally feels right. It's an either-or situation for the sake of simplicity (we actually have to play this game!)

Taking it to logical extremes doesn't make sense. It's only a game, and the mechanics are in fact a very poor representation of what would happen in any "realistic" combat. From wearing down hit points to damage types to hits and misses, it's all complete shenanigans in the name of entertainment.

 

[Doug McCrae]

D&D is a peculiar mix of abstraction and precision, hit points being particularly abstract, but that doesn't mean that a greater level of abstraction would be preferable.

One could use the hit points and damage mechanic to simulate absolutely everything if one wanted to. For example creating a makeshift bridge to cross a ravine could be a problem with X amount of hit points, and the PCs deal 'damage' with their skills, spells and other abilities until the problem is 'dead'. I think this would be too abstract for most D&Ders taste.

 

[B.T.]

HP is an abstraction, but I'd rather keep it less abstract than more. It was one of the things I really hated about 4e.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

As a game design, it's nice to have stats contribute directly and simply to something that "feels" right, and not sweat the details too much. Dex to AC as a dodge bonus equally feels right. It's an either-or situation for the sake of simplicity (we actually have to play this game!)

While this is just a game we're talking about, and ya have to draw a line somewhere, the line that D&D has drawn doesn't mesh well with the abstract HP philosophy.

Saying that D&D's pre-existing line "feels" right sounds a lot like "Well that's the way it's always been, and I'm used to it, so whatever." Which is fine, but doesn't cut it for me. Because even taking your three bullet points into account, damage just doesn't seem very abstract based on things in the rules that do and don't do damage.

The line could be drawn closer to the abstract HP philosophy; 4e has proven that abilities don't have to be exclusive to single purposes. Alternatively, D&D could easily adopt a more concrete definition of hit points.

Personally, I do the latter, and it works fine.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Which is why statements like this confuse me:

HP is an abstraction, but I'd rather keep it less abstract than more. It was one of the things I really hated about 4e.

Not to single you out, but I wonder why gamers who don't like the abstract HP philosophy don't simply ignore that bit of fluff more often? Is it that your DM describes misses and hits based on default fluff, or something else?

 

[B.T.]

I wonder why gamers who don't like the abstract HP philosophy don't simply ignore that bit of fluff more often?

In general, I do. 4e made that impossible, which is why I want for HP to be pushed into the "less abstract" territory in 5e. I'm fine with the HD healing compromise (as long as it requires a healing kit) thus far, but no more healing surge nonsense.

 

[Fifth Element]

The people who keep harping about how abstract HP is see to forget that short of some very special rules the ONLY modifier ever added to HP is Con, which represents your physical durability and hardiness. Your Fortitude.

There's a world of difference between "hit points are abstract" and "hit points are abstract, and the game designers have always done a good job of reflecting that in a consistent way."

The 1E DMG has a long passage about the abstract nature of hit points, and then only Con bonus affects it. That is incongruous.

However, in terms of "making sense", hit points must be abstract, otherwise mid- to high-level characters can withstand many sword blows to their naked body that would literally cut an armoured commoner in half. They survive falls that would turn a commoner into paste.

So the problematic part is not the "hit points are abstract" but the "Con bonus to hit points."

Now, since part of hit points is certainly physical stamina, then it makes some sense to have Con affect it. I'd suggest that the 4E/5E method of having it affect the score only once, instead of every level, makes more sense. Probably.

The HP = Abstract folks are taking it a bit too far. If they want HP to be that much of an abstraction... why have an attack roll and armor class?

You've got this backwards. If you realize that the combat system is abstract, then each individual part of said system do not have to make sense on its own. So someone who is comfortable with the abstract nature of HP is likely also comfortable with the abstract nature of attack rolls and AC.

Well... take it to its logical conclusion. If the attack roll fundamentally doesn't matter because of the abstraction of HP then just ditch the mechanic altogether as so much useless filler.

Who said the attack rolls doesn't matter? That's not a logical conclusion at all, that's a strawman. Even with a very abstract system, you need to have *something* to resolve it.

See my point? Why do we not add DEX to hitpoints? If HP is that abstract, why the hell not?

I agree. There's no reason not to do it. Shifting Dex from AC to hit points would be fine in an abstract system such as this. Not necessary, mind you, because again abstract, but it would be justifiable.

 

[slobo777]

I agree. There's no reason not to do it. Shifting Dex from AC to hit points would be fine in an abstract system such as this. Not necessary, mind you, because again abstract, but it would be justifiable.

In fact there *is* a (4E) Background Born Under A Bad Sign, that allows you to pick a substitute stat to Con for your base hitpoints.

So WotC have already "gone there" in a small way. Whether this kind of thinking makes it into DDN in a major way (and whether general feedback is good or bad if so) remains to be seen.