D&D 5E Hit points explained

[Lanefan]

I just thought of a variation on use of hp today, and haven't really finalized how it might work in my campaign.

So, here's the new thought, based on the hp pool mechanic:

When you spend a round in combat dodging and don't take any damage, you regain 1d6 hp from your hit point pool.

In short, instead of damage on a miss it's healing on a miss.

The thought is to encourage people to take a break from active combat to recover and regroup (which is something real people do).

If that's what you're after then it should involve complete withdrawal from combat rather than just spending a round dodging, which still takes effort and exertion.

A big part of this is that I'm trying to encourage players to use more real-world type tactics, and reward the use of those tactics. Catching your breath and looking for a better opening is a big one that's hard to encourage.

I usually don't allow Thieves to backstrike in consecutive rounds...they need to spend a round backing out and hiding, then spend the next round sneaking in and attacking.

They don't get to revocer h.p. in the "off" round, however.

As I said, I haven't worked out the details just yet, but that's the concept.

Another option, instead of giving them h.p. recovery (of which there's already far too much) why not give advantage on the first attack after such a break, to reflect the time spent looking for an opening?

Lanefan

 

[Ilbranteloth]

In short, instead of damage on a miss it's healing on a miss.

If that's what you're after then it should involve complete withdrawal from combat rather than just spending a round dodging, which still takes effort and exertion.
I usually don't allow Thieves to backstrike in consecutive rounds...they need to spend a round backing out and hiding, then spend the next round sneaking in and attacking.

They don't get to revocer h.p. in the "off" round, however.

Another option, instead of giving them h.p. recovery (of which there's already far too much) why not give advantage on the first attack after such a break, to reflect the time spent looking for an opening?

Lanefan

That's another possibility, although I'm trying to limit options that just allow you to automatically gain advantage, perhaps with an Insight check, with a bonus based on how many rounds you dodge.

For the recovery, since the hp are already part of their pool of hp for the day, it just means they will be potentially getting them earlier in the day. I could make it two or more rounds, instead of one, but you have to avoid being hit in addition to not fighting. I get what you're saying about dodge, but I'm thinking in terms of what you see in boxing or other fighting sports where they'll back off for a few seconds to regroup. The hp are a mechanical way to address a sort of very short term fatigue.

That's an interesting idea about backstabbing/sneak attack, that you specifically can't use it every round. Although since the trigger is usually either being hidden, or the distraction of another target, it makes sense that they are good at taking advantage of the opening.

Having said that, I handle flanking and rear attacks a little differently. When you are being attacked by more than one opponent, you can choose to focus on one of your opponents. That grants advantage to the attack by the other opponent, but it prevents the one you're focusing on to gain advantage. I never thought about it, but that would allow you to focus on the rogue to prevent the Sneak Attack. I like that.

 

[Maxperson]

Having said that, I handle flanking and rear attacks a little differently. When you are being attacked by more than one opponent, you can choose to focus on one of your opponents. That grants advantage to the attack by the other opponent, but it prevents the one you're focusing on to gain advantage. I never thought about it, but that would allow you to focus on the rogue to prevent the Sneak Attack. I like that.

If someone is facing two or more opponents and he focuses on one of them, he dies a second or two later. The way you stay alive is to divide up your attention so that you don't end up dead, which is why they all get advantage on you and rogues can back stab.

You can of course play it the way you describe, but the realism level of combat(and it's already pretty low) will drop considerably.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If someone is facing two or more opponents and he focuses on one of them, he dies a second or two later. The way you stay alive is to divide up your attention so that you don't end up dead, which is why they all get advantage on you and rogues can back stab.

You can of course play it the way you describe, but the realism level of combat(and it's already pretty low) will drop considerably.

It's not that you aren't paying attention to both of them, it's that you can only face one of them at a time. Your focus is on one over the other at any given point, and when you have to deal with more than one. And you're most likely going to have to focus your attacks on one or the other.

In part its because of the wonkiness of the rules, I don't think both opponents should get a +5, but I also don't want to start adding a bunch of modifiers where one gets +5 and the other +2.

 

[Ti-bob]

Hit points only measure the degree of script immunity of the character or monster.

 

[chaochou]

I think of hit points simply as a danger meter. More hit points puts you in less danger, fewer means you're in more danger.

Really, they'd be better named hazard points, or hero points.

 

[Lanefan]

Really, they'd be better named hazard points, or hero points.

If we want to keep the h.p. abbreviation, what about calling them hell points?

That way you really are beating the hell out of your opponents.

 

[pemerton]

For the record I go down both sides of the flowchart - the left for monsters and the right for players.

Gygax describes just this in his DMG: for most monsters, hp are "meat" rather than luck, skill etc.

As folks have mentioned a poisoned weapon always delivers its poison so it must always actually penetrate skin

EGG considered exactly that situation in the 1e DMG. His conclusion was that, if the save was failed, there was at least a tiny scratch from the 'hit' that the venom got into. If the save succeeded, there was no such wound, at all.

We've also seen a lot where foe HPs are often considered more "meaty" and actual damage then character HPs. Especially when you start to look at things like resistance.

HPs are just nebulous, I think trying to lock it down somewhat defeats the purpose in that it will not be as flexible to describe the narrative of what's happening. If your PC is bitten by a venomous snake and acquires the Poisoned condition, it'll likely be described as a bite regardless if you have full HPs less than a quarter, because the narrative requires a successful bite to deliver the condition.

Agreed with Tony Vargas and Blue: the narration of the hp loss differs from occasion to occasion, depending on what happened in the fiction. So if someone got poisoned, some sort of scratch has to be narrated; otherwise not.

There is no need for universal correlations between "hit point loss events" and particular narrations.

Hit points are a lie and can easily by seen through at any moment with just a bit of introspection. They are but a shadow of shadows of all the different things they can represent. They are constantly in flux and often change their nature by being one thing when they are lost and another thing when they are recovered.

A bit less poetically: hit points are numbers on a sheet. What is key, from the point of view of correlating ingame events to gameplay events, is the moment of loss and the moment of addition. When you mark of hit points on your sheet, something has happened that makes your demise more imminent; when you add hit points back onto your sheet, something has happened that makes your demise less likely (eg a wound has been healed, your morale has improved, your vigour has been restored, etc).

There is no need for equivalence here - eg if your PC has been poisoned, then you (the player) deduct hp from your sheet to reflect that; then someone speaks a healing word, bucking you up, and you add hp to your sheet to reflect that. The change in hp total needn't be taken to indicate that you're no longer poisoned.

The problem with hit points as abstractions is that not only does damage become an abstraction, but, healing and resting become abstractions. Temporary hit points become meta-abstractions.

Well yes, in the sense that a given "hit point subtraction event" or "hit point addition event" might have one sort of ingame correlate, and then another one might have a very different ingame correlate. But that doesn't mean that the fiction is abstract. Whether or not we know what is happening in the fiction depends on whether or not someone (player or GM) narrates it. And the hp mechanic doesn't normally prevent that (though it doesn't encourage it, either).

Falling damage at mid to high levels become ridiculous.

And you are left with the immersion-crushing conclusion that its just a game.

I don't think this is right. I mean, of course it's just a game, but so are RPGs (eg Rolemaster, Burning Wheel) that use wound mechanics.

If the fiction is evoked reasonably vividly - by some mixture of narration and the other events of play - then I don't find the hp mechanic causes any obstacle to immersion. Of course the narration has to match the consequences of hit point loss - so falls can't be narrated as "bone shattering" if the rules tell you the character is able to pick him-/herself up and keep going. This is where proper narration of luck/magical protection becomes important. But as long as that is handled properly then I don't see immersion issues.

 

[Ratskinner]

Just to note - I think this is interesting; the questions below are not intended to be hostile even though some might sound 'pointed'.

Not a problem, so long as we all remember that this system is still an idea.

Questions: (acknowledging that this is just a sketch, so not everything may have answers)

1. I think you answered this, but just to confirm - are there still attack rolls and only hits require the expenditure of saves to avoid consequences?

Yes.

It sounds like not all saves would be applicable to all attacks, e.g., you can't parry a fireball. But what does the applicability mapping look like? I mean its general properties, not complete details. In particular, are there a set of attack types that each have a set of saves that apply only to that attack type, or are there some saves that apply to multiple attack types? (The latter could lead to player decisions that are either 'interesting' or frustrating depending on tastes.)

I hadn't envisioned a specific mapping. I would have let the table decide when a particular save would or wouldn't apply given the narrative descriptors. Although, yes, that might be a source of friction. I've been musing if maybe some of the save shouldn't be more broad or less particular than others, just to leave some wiggle room. Like maybe the ones derived from stats or race are very nebulous but those derived from class/skill are more specific: "Elven Grace" vs. "Tumble away".

You mention the possibility of a 'take it on my shield' save. If you had that, would shields then provide only that benefit (essentially DR), or would they still contribute to lessening the possibility of getting hit (AC)? Similarly would armor still be AC, or function as DR, or both?

Good question. I suspect that's the sort of thing playtesting would need to sort out.

Among the benefits you list 'You actually know when you are wounded, rather than "low on luck right now".' Are you pointing here only to the specificity of having different types of saves, or do you mean in addition that you see as a benefit excluding 'things like luck'? If the latter, then what is the criterion for including/excluding the various 'traditional' interpretations of hit points - that they have a very specific narrative associated with them?

In spite of what many people say, my close observations of HP mechanics in play indicate that any narrative results the DM/players ascribe to an attack are easily forgotten or handwaved away. Not to mention that they have the problems I indicated upstream, which make perfect sense with the mechanic, but are not (IME) observed in play. That is, it makes perfect sense by Gygax to narrate the 16 point hit to the 100 point fighter as nothing but a miss, but I never see it in play.

However, the criterion for including something as a save is simple....people want it in or it makes sense for the character. I mean, rogues should probably have less "divine favor" than do paladins, but they should both still be in the game.

With respect to "You actually know what happened when you didn't get killed or suffer the consequences." - it seems like it is a little more than this, since even with HP, the DM's narrative can tell you what happened. It seems like it is more that a) the player decides instead of the DM, b) there is now a fixed set of things that can happen, c) each thing can happen a fixed number of times, d) there is a tracking mechanism for what has happened. Which of those do you see as actual benefits vs. just accidents of how you happened to express the idea?

I disagree about the current state of the DM's narrative call. Have you ever heard of Schrodinger's Wounds? That's what I observe at the table all the time. Combat is regularly nothing but a numerical attrition game only nominally attached to the narrative. Whatever the DM says at a given moment when someone loses HP is completely and totally irrelevant to the game and is quickly forgotten. UNLESS! It happens to be the hit that does a character in, then maybe it matters. Its the same with spells, the only ones that matter to the narrative are the ones with impact outside the HP structure. If a character is at 12 of 46 HP, you have utterly no idea what has transpired to get him there, and its totally irrelevant to play. If one character has been narrated with deep, bleeding, dragon-teeth marks all over and the other is just a bit shy on luck or divine favor...it doesn't matter! Cure Serious Wounds works for both...and don't get me started on how you can Uncanny Dodge a Fireball without moving.

As for the rest of the question:
a) accident, but it seems reasonable for those lists of saves to "live" on the character sheet.
b) depending on how specificly the saves are written, yes...mostly accident.
c) design accident, I don't consider it a feature or goal, but its there.
d) benefit


I'm not married to this particular system by any means, but that's the kind of stuff I want to "fix" for narrative-central play.

 

[chaochou]

So the challenge is to come up with a better way of game-mechanicizing the very reasonable (in a fantasy sense) idea that a seasoned veteran is most of the time considerably tougher and harder to put down than a raw recruit. Do that, and hit points can give way to this new mechanic.

Runequest did it in 1977. It's not rocket science.