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

[Maxperson]

I disagree. Gygax was discussing a save-or-die mechanic. In 5E, it's all HP-based. Gygax's statement as quoted is irrelevant in 5E, unfortunately.

He was discussing saves and giving an example of poison. Poison will only happen if the poison gets into the body, so there needs to be a scratch. 5e drow poison just doesn't have a save. 5e spider and scorpion saves work just like he laid out.

The only real difference between the two editions is that 1e poison saves were almost always death saves. Now they do damage. The method of forcing the saves in the two editions is identical, though.

 

[Jester David]

Gygax
If we're going to start putting stock in his beliefs and arguments from the DMG - how he viewed game design and D&D - we have to apply all of his little essays and rants. We can't pick and choose.

If we can exclude any of his opinions as they apply to modern gaming, than all of his opinions become less authoritative.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The only problem I have with 1e hp being 'luck, etc'.. is how slow it was to recover this 'luck, skill, etc' hps.

It's not like there's any RL data on rates of luck recovery to 'realty check' it against. Recover all your luck overnight? No problem. Recover you luck at 1/day up to 6 weeks? No problem. Recover your luck each round? No problem. Never recover your luck? No problem.

an attack that deals 80 damage (or whatever) manifests similarly on both characters, so yeah, I'm going to say that my version is consistent. Literally.

Characters living through fatal injuries is not terribly consistent.

I think the bottom line is that the system is sufficiently vague and abstract that you can take your choice of absurd interpretations.

There's rarely reason for me to talk about my personal preference in the matter, because it really is just a preference, although it's somewhat more-enforced of a preference since I've been running a 5E game with the default healing rules.

So limiting vivualization of hp damage to ambiguous blunt-force quasi-trauma is an adjustment to 5e HD & overnight healing &c? OK, fair enough.

I disagree. Gygax was discussing a save-or-die mechanic.

Sure, but the upshot of it was that pseudo-hits could happen in the hps system. In 5e, the 'signs of wear' sidebar is similar, if a lot more broadly applicable.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sure, but the upshot of it was that pseudo-hits could happen in the hps system. In 5e, the 'signs of wear' sidebar is similar, if a lot more broadly applicable.

Bear in mind that the signs-of-wear sidebar is (1) DM advice, not a rule, (2) phrased tentatively, "typically", (3) fully consistent with HP-as-physical reality. From that standpoint it's a lot more HP-agnostic than Gygax's writings. HP-as-karma was arguably the official interpretation in 1E, but in 2nd and 5E there is no official interpretation. It's just up to the DM, on purpose.

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

 

[Shasarak]

I'll wait while you find the rules that say there is only one type of luck and one type of divine favor.

I would have imagined that supplying evidence for your idea was actually your responsibility? But dont worry I will not wait for you to find something which is not there. That would hardly be fair.

Gygax
If we're going to start putting stock in his beliefs and arguments from the DMG - how he viewed game design and D&D - we have to apply all of his little essays and rants. We can't pick and choose.

If we can exclude any of his opinions as they apply to modern gaming, than all of his opinions become less authoritative.

If every great work was judged on the producers "rants" then we would be left with nothing of worth.

No one produces gold everytime they do something.

 

[Shasarak]

Characters living through fatal injuries is not terribly consistent.

What about characters living through non-fatal injuries? Is that consistent?

 

[Maxperson]

I would have imagined that supplying evidence for your idea was actually your responsibility?

Not only did I provide evidence, I provided incontrovertible proof. You made the claim that there was only one kind of divine favor or luck with your question. The burden is on you to prove your claim. Of course, you know you can't, so you tried to turn it back on me. Shame on you.

 

[Jester David]

If every great work was judged on the producers "rants" then we would be left with nothing of worth.

No one produces gold everytime they do something.

Absolutely. But so much of what is said here hinges on one such discussion in what amounts to a huge appeal to authority.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Quote me a page reference that actually says that it exists. I don't even care what edition it is from.

Because, without that page reference of an explicit statement to that effect, you are adding it into the game yourself. It is not a part of the game until you do.

There's nothing wrong with adding things into the game, but those things aren't in the game just because there isn't writing saying that they don't exist.

Yes, Max, that is exactly what I am saying with the post you quoted - the existence of internal hemorrhaging in Faerun is not explicitly confirmed nor denied by the rules text.

The only mention of it, which is a vague mention at best, is the description of the abstraction of hit points and damage and what they represent, which implicitly states that all manner of real-world injury are equally abstracted into those game-rule elements - but doesn't imply that any particular sort of injury doesn't exist within the world of Faerun.

You seem to have focused on semantics and pissed my point in the process.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, Max, that is exactly what I am saying with the post you quoted - the existence of internal hemorrhaging in Faerun is not explicitly confirmed nor denied by the rules text.

The only mention of it, which is a vague mention at best, is the description of the abstraction of hit points and damage and what they represent, which implicitly states that all manner of real-world injury are equally abstracted into those game-rule elements - but doesn't imply that any particular sort of injury doesn't exist within the world of Faerun.

You seem to have focused on semantics and pissed my point in the process.

I didn't piss your point at all. You claimed that without something explicitly saying there was no hemorrhaging, you believed that the truth was that it existed. I pointed out that there is no such truth that exists. Crying semantics over something like that is like saying that it's semantics to point out to someone who claimed a gunshot to the body doesn't cause a hole, that it does in fact cause a hole.

The closest the game has ever gotten to including hemorrhaging as a "truth" is bleeding wounds from wounding weapons.