D&D 5E Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?

[Tony Vargas]

Even though DnD hit points do not make sense, there is no reason to make them even more Gonzo.

Because they don't make sense, there's no danger of making them any 'more' gonzo.

Bottom line: Hit Points in D&D are just fine, characters can observe damage when it is taken, and any model which encourages meta-gaming is untenable in a role-playing game.

Hps are meta-game, by nature. They are also just fine - let players track 'em, discuss 'em out of character, and restore them in various ways. Just so much meta-game bookkeeping.

 

[Shasarak]

Because they don't make sense, there's no danger of making them any 'more' gonzo.

Except that a Vampire hitting one character with a wooden stake for 8 hp damage is a fatal wound while another character hit by the same attack is not even scratched.

That is plenty enough whackadoo fridge logic for me to disregard as a sensible theory.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except that a Vampire hitting one character with a wooden stake ...

That's one confused Vampire.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And how is the latter not restoring that non-physical proportion of hps, whether within each hp, or hypothetically separate pools? How do you tell the difference between 9 hp broken rib and a 12 hp black eye just by looking?

If you're saying that each HP can have both a physical and non-physical portion, then you're making a lot more sense than if you suggest that some HP are entirely physical and others are entirely non-physical. As your HP total increases, your physical capacity to withstand injury is spread out over a greater number of HP, such that losing one-of-eighty is only one-tenth as physical traumatic as losing one-of-eight. That's fine enough. I'm not going to argue that (here, today).

And yes, determining the difference between a 9-point broken rib and a 12-point black eye is an admitted weakness of the proportional-wound model, which relies on the assumption that you can see the source of the damage. And sometimes that assumption won't hold, just as the always-armored assumption doesn't always hold, so the DM needs to adjudicate as appropriate. It's one of the reasons why I don't use the proportional-wound model.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you're saying that each HP can have both a physical and non-physical portion, then you're making a lot more sense than if you suggest that some HP are entirely physical and others are entirely non-physical.

You were suggesting it, but, no it doesn't make particularly more 'sense.' You're still stuck with the disconnect between apparent physical severity of damage being proportional to total hps, but healing not being so.

It's one of the reasons why I don't use the proportional-wound model.

So you're back to high-hp humanoids surviving being stabbed through the heart. If it's not proportional to total hps, it's the same wound on an 4 hp or 80 hps character. You either have some characters instantly dropping dead from a scratch, or others walking around impaled through the heart.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You were suggesting it, but, no it doesn't make particularly more 'sense.' You're still stuck with the disconnect between apparent physical severity of damage being proportional to total hps, but healing not being so.

If magic being unrealistic is some sort of sticking point for you, then I don't know what to say. It's magic. It works consistently based on the individual.

So you're back to high-hp humanoids surviving being stabbed through the heart. If it's not proportional to total hps, it's the same wound on an 4 hp or 80 hps character. You either have some characters instantly dropping dead from a scratch, or others walking around impaled through the heart.

You're the only one talking about being stabbed through the heart. I have no idea where you're getting that. You can do identical wounds without any of those going through the heart.

Although, for the record, we do know with absolute certainty that a high-HP humanoid can survive a fall from thirty-thousand feet, so that says something about their resilience in an objective sense (depending on how much you want to assume about gravity).

 

[Tony Vargas]

If magic being unrealistic is some sort of sticking point for you, then I don't know what to say.

The realism issue is for your sake, you were the one concerned about being able to tell how many hps someone was down, and not wanting any unrealistic 'luck wounds' or whatever.

I have no desire for reality mucking up my fantasy.

You're the only one talking about being stabbed through the heart. I have no idea where you're getting that. You can do identical wounds without any of those going through the heart.

Take your pick of instantly fatal wounds, then.

Although, for the record, we do know with absolute certainty that a high-HP humanoid can survive a fall from thirty-thousand feet, so that says something about their resilience in an objective sense (depending on how much you want to assume about gravity).

Or what they landed on.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Take your pick of instantly fatal wounds, then.

I choose a strong punch to the upper torso, which is instantly fatal to the sort of feeble chump who only has 4 Hit Points in spite of starting with maximum HP at first level, and of which a heavyweight champion can shrug off dozens before falling unconscious.

 

[Hussar]

I choose a strong punch to the upper torso, which is instantly fatal to the sort of feeble chump who only has 4 Hit Points in spite of starting with maximum HP at first level, and of which a heavyweight champion can shrug off dozens before falling unconscious.

Heh. Harry Houdini would like to have a word with you.

The laughable thing is, you're still arguing that the game world is based on some sort of natural processes - some sort of internal logic and not completely subjective ideas dreamed up by the DM. The fact that the DMG tells the DM to basically pick his own spells to not work on other planes and gives absolutely no reasons why magic doesn't function on other planes apparently isn't subjective enough for you.

Ok. Explain this to me then. Let me set up the stats for you. This is from the 3.5 SRD, although, IIRC, the physical stats for these monsters, relative to each other, haven't really changed much between editions.

Ogre: 9-10 feet tall, 600 (ish) pounds, Str: 21 Con: 15 HP: 29 CR 3
Bugbear: 7 feet tall, 300 (ish) pounds, Str: 15 Con: 13 HP: 16 CR 2
Troll: 9 feet tall, 500 pounds, Str: 23 Con: 23 HP: 63 CR 5
Hill Giant: 10 1/2 feet tall, 1100 pounds Str: 25 Con: 19 HP 102 CR 7

Now, tell me again how HP is a measure of how much physical damage you can take. A hill giant isn't that much bigger than an ogre, yet has three times as many HP. A troll is actually smaller than an ogre and has more than double the HP. Our Bugbear, OTOH, isn't that much smaller than a troll, yet has a quarter of a troll's HP.

It's almost like the game designers realized that higher level characters need higher level challenges and then assigned different monsters for different character level ranges to encounter. So, you progress from ogres to hill giants as you gain levels. What a shock and surprise. Here I have been told that HP are purely a measure of physical toughness and that all things in D&D follow through some simulation process.

So, what exact in game justifications are there for two creatures of roughly the same size being wildly different in toughness? Why, exactly, does a hill giant have three times as many Hit Dice as an ogre and twice that of a troll? Why should a troll, which is considerably smaller than an ogre, have more Hit Dice than an ogre?

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Although, for the record, we do know with absolute certainty that a high-HP humanoid can survive a fall from thirty-thousand feet, so that says something about their resilience in an objective sense (depending on how much you want to assume about gravity).

Well, there are several cases of people surviving falls of 10,000+ feet in real life, when parachutes failed or aircraft disintegrated around them; some even in good enough condition to walk away from it.