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

[DEFCON 1]

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

If they suddenly changed the rules to include this... I'd be absolutely fine with it.

Here's the thing... many of us believe that the game and the story are really two separate things. We need game mechanics because we're playing a game. We're rolling dice, we have game rules, we have conflict and resolution using said rules and dice. In addition to that... we have a cooperative fantasy story that the players at the table are writing together.

In truth, we don't NEED game mechanics to tell our story. Anyone who's done long-form improvisation or something like Fiasco can tell you that. The story can get written by all the participants whether or not we include dice rolls or not. As a result... if we do decide to add dice rolls as a mechanism for deciding as a group the resolution of certain conflicts... all that matters is that it adds to the FUN of writing the story. It doesn't matter what those dice rolls are, doesn't matter what those dice rolls represent... all that matters is that the dice rolling becomes a FUN addition to what we are doing.

As a result, so long as the mechanics are fun-- which usually means at least partially related to the conflicts and resolutions, as well as beating odds both long and short... the specificity of what those dice rolls represent do no matter all that much. The story is the story and we will create it together-- we don't need the game mechanics and the dice to create it for us. Which is what being beholden to such meticulous, consequential, and nitpicky detailing of what die means what effect and does that accurately represent reality yadda yadda yadda... we're trying to get away from or not worry about.

We care about the macro story result of the monster dying... not the micro story of which attack did which hit causing which wound resulting in which bleed concluding with which form of unconsciousness, etc. The story is the story... not the individual play-by-play of the dice game.

 

[variant]

Hit Points have always been an abstraction. I wonder how many people would be complaining if they took Hit Points and divided it into Vitality and Wound which is basically what HP and negative HP are like.

 

[mlund]

The issue is the Dexterity Modifier is balanced as an ever-green resource - it counts every time someone attacks your AC or makes you roll a Dexterity saving throw. Hit points are a consumable resource. Simply switching AC for HP / level is never going to be a balanced exchange.

You'd need some sort of scaling damage-reduction mechanic instead (resist damage = Dex Mod x .5 x Level or something like that), and I think that's just a bunch of extra math nobody wants.

- Marty Lund

 

[B.T.]

As a result, so long as the mechanics are fun-- which usually means at least partially related to the conflicts and resolutions, as well as beating odds both long and short... the specificity of what those dice rolls represent do no matter all that much. The story is the story and we will create it together-- we don't need the game mechanics and the dice to create it for us. Which is what being beholden to such meticulous, consequential, and nitpicky detailing of what die means what effect and does that accurately represent reality yadda yadda yadda... we're trying to get away from or not worry about.

We care about the macro story result of the monster dying... not the micro story of which attack did which hit causing which wound resulting in which bleed concluding with which form of unconsciousness, etc. The story is the story... not the individual play-by-play of the dice game.

I could not possibly disagree more with this, particularly the bolded bits. The individual events within the game are resolved via mechanics and the end result is the formation a narrative. However, the importance of a particular event in the narrative matters much in the way that a brick matters to a wall. Likewise, the implementation of those mechanics affects the mood and tone of the game, and it affects how the characters interact with the game world.

The mechanics are the difference between a storygame (where the end goal is creating a story) and a role-playing game (where the end goal is playing a role and the story comes after-the-fact).

 

[Gadget]

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.

Yes, Con had to have an mechanical influence. In this case it could easily represent your stamina and resistance to fatigue. That doesn't make Hit Points any less abstract. Hit points have always been some form of ablative script immunity and a measure of badassitude, nothing more. I assume you are coming from the Hit Points = physical wounds crowd? If so that has never made sense either. Explain to me why higher level characters can take so many more sword strikes to the gut than lower level characters?

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?

Which is also an abstraction, as your armor does not stop anything from "hitting you", it may actually make you a little slower to react and easier to hit.

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...

I assume this about the slayer ability to do minor Hit Point damage on a miss? Yes, well the point is that the slayer is a whirling dervish of death that is unsafe to approach in combat without extreme danger. If you're badass enough to take him/her on, you'll still feel it but be able to fight through it. If you are a horde of mooks, well, one of you is going to die every round (possibly more with things like cleave); but while the slayer is spending and action to (possibly miss and still) kill your buddy, you and x other guys get to wail on him/her and wear him/her down.

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.

Yes, you could very easily make that, it would just be a little to binary and not a very fun experience for most people playing the game, IMHO. You could actually just flip a coin, heads you clear out the dungeon and become fabulously wealthy and a famous hero, tails you die. Not very fun. Almost all mechanics are some level of abstraction with a thin (or sometime less thin) layer simulation-ism layered on top. Taking almost anything to the extreme is not going to desirable results.

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

Yes, you could. The system has chosen to use DEX in other places, though some would say it is still too much of an Uber stat. I do not find Your point to be that profound or revealing.

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.

Except it would be rather fiddly and interrupt the flow of combat, for little gain. Sometimes simple is better. I'm tired of numerous situational bonuses that needed to be tracked and applied.

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.

How does this relate the the reaper ability again? Opponents who are 'tough' and have 'expertise in frontline combat' will be able to stand up to the slayer and hopefully give as good as they get, those who are less so...will not and would presumably rely on numbers to help offset the Slayer's advantage.

 

[Mallus]

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.

You seem to be forgetting, outside of 4e, D&D models a characters increasing defensive capabilities by giving them more hit points.

In AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e and Pathfinder, AC doesn't scale with level, while their attack values do. Does this mean PCs never gets any better at dodging blows?

No.

Because their ability to dodge blows is represented, in large part, by their hit points!

To believe otherwise is to accept that a high-level fighter can become as physically tough as adult elephant. Or dinosaur.

At the same time you accept said fighter's fancy weapon training/hands-on experience only taught them how to hit stuff. With no emphasis, at all, on getting the hell out the way.

We wouldn't want to accept that, would we?

Gygax himself said it was ridiculous to conceptualize a 50 HP character as being able to withstand multiple run-throughs with a sword. They were more like Errol Flynn in a cinematic duel... dancing around, dodging, twisting (mostly) out of harm's way at the last second.

So, yes, CON gets added to hit points. But hit points also model a character's increased ability to avoid taking serious damage. Which means you very well could add to DEX to HP, or you do as we've been doing all along and add DEX to AC, CON to HP, and freely admit hit points do double duty representing both physical toughness and dodging/defensive capability (and conversely, admit that AC is only represents a portion of your ability to avoid a serious hit).

 

[TwoSix]

Here's the thing... many of us believe that the game and the story are really two separate things. We need game mechanics because we're playing a game. We're rolling dice, we have game rules, we have conflict and resolution using said rules and dice. In addition to that... we have a cooperative fantasy story that the players at the table are writing together.

In truth, we don't NEED game mechanics to tell our story. Anyone who's done long-form improvisation or something like Fiasco can tell you that. The story can get written by all the participants whether or not we include dice rolls or not. As a result... if we do decide to add dice rolls as a mechanism for deciding as a group the resolution of certain conflicts... all that matters is that it adds to the FUN of writing the story. It doesn't matter what those dice rolls are, doesn't matter what those dice rolls represent... all that matters is that the dice rolling becomes a FUN addition to what we are doing.

I wish I could XP you for this.

 

[Empath Negative]

You seem to be forgetting, outside of 4e, D&D models a characters increasing defensive capabilities by giving them more hit points.

In AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e and Pathfinder, AC doesn't scale with level, while their attack values do. Does this mean PCs never gets any better at dodging blows?

No.

Because their ability to dodge blows is represented, in large part, by their hit points!

To believe otherwise is to accept that a high-level PC can become as physically tough as adult elephant. Or dinosaur.

And we wouldn't want to accept that, would we?

Gygax himself said it was ridiculous to conceptualize a 50 HP character as being able to withstand multiple run-throughs with a sword. They were more like Errol Flynn in a cinematic duel... dancing around, dodging, twisting (mostly) out of harm's way at the last second.

So, yes, CON gets added to hit points. But hit points also model a character's increased ability to avoid taking serious damage. Which means you very well could add to DEX to HP, or you do as we've been doing all along and add DEX to AC, CON to HP, and freely admit hit points do double duty representing both physical toughness and dodging/defensive capability (and conversely, admit that AC is only represents a portion of your ability to avoid a serious hit).

Note where I said "Expertise? Expertise is where you roll with a punch, dexterity is where you dodge the punch altogether.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

I know I'm getting a bit off topic here, but can you elaborate a bit? I'm totally confused, because I run 4e with a 'damage always = injury,' and I'm trying to see what about 4e makes this impossible for you.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

In AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e and Pathfinder, AC doesn't scale with level, while their attack values do. Does this mean PCs never gets any better at dodging blows?

Ehem.

Nitpicking aside, everything you say is true. But for some of us, "Well that's the way it's always been, and I'm used to it" just isn't a satisfying solution.