D&D 5E Hp as meat and abstraction

[Li Shenron]

Actually if you compress light enough it becomes matter (See E=MC squared) so its basically one of the tiniest forms of matter and acts as a wave because that's what liquid and many tiny bits of matter act as. In fact all matter can be seen as a wave that moves super slow (or has gigantic dips and rises) its just not measurable by our instruments right now.

Scientists will find this out pretty soon though...

That's exactly what I've been thinking all this time, and tried to warn them, but they wouldn't listen.

 

[Cyberen]

That doesn't require that hp damage be meat-ablation on any occasions other than when poison is actually delivered. In his DMG, Gygax tells us that we can work this out after the saving throw is rolled. Schroedinger's wounds in AD&D!

This.
Consistency issues with HP are in fact issues with Fortune in the middle.
The whole paradigm is very consistent, as it literally can't fail... but apparently, it feels wrong for so many people that the system can't openly rely on it. It's a shame, cause it would have provided at the same time a way out of the HP conundrum, and to open a lot of design space.
Sadly, I guess the only viable solution for Next is to hide those FitM elements, rather than embracing them. Too bad for DoaM :'-(

 

[Lanefan]

That doesn't require that hp damage be meat-ablation on any occasions other than when poison is actually delivered. In his DMG, Gygax tells us that we can work this out after the saving throw is rolled. Schroedinger's wounds in AD&D!

Not for me. I tend to think of all h.p. as being part meat, part virtual; with the meat ratio increasing as the h.p. total goes down until you get to 0 (or into body/wound points) after which they're pretty much all meat.

It has at least two issues: it requires introducing a new stat into the game; it compiclates the look-up time for adjudicating the attack.

Whether formally named as such or not the concept of touch AC is going to be in the game anyway like it or not, for all the situations when you're trying to simply touch someone e.g. delivering a touch-range spell in combat (or a cure in combat); and when something - let's say, incorporeal - is just trying to touch you. And slowing down the look-up time is a tiny price to pay to avoid the silliness of doing damage on a rolled '2' when you need '13' to hit.

Lan-"not a forum in which 'touch' and 'meat' are often brought up in the same post"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Consistency issues with HP are in fact issues with Fortune in the middle.
The whole paradigm is very consistent, as it literally can't fail... but apparently, it feels wrong for so many people that the system can't openly rely on it. It's a shame, cause it would have provided at the same time a way out of the HP conundrum, and to open a lot of design space.

I agree with all this.

Though I also find it weird. Gygax is pretty open in his DMG - he just doesn't use the terminology, which hadn't been invented yet, but look at what he says about narrating attack rolls, hit point loss and saving throws!

4e's great problem seems to have taken this out into other areas of the game, like healing (which Gygax didn't really say much about) and resource rationing (martial encounter and daily powers), and thereby made it more overt in play (as opposed to when you read Gygax's essays). And D&Dnext certainly seems to be going back into a more concealed mode with its FitM.

 

[Mistwell]

Update on Damage on a Miss from Twitter:

YetiMoose: {at}MikeMearls Damage On a Miss seems to remain the greatest source of fan tension. Can you tell us where you're at on this concept now?

Mike Mearls: {at}YetiMoose I'm personally not crazy about it - causes a lot of questions about how stuff interacts at the table.

 

[Cybit]

Update on Damage on a Miss from Twitter:

YetiMoose: {at}MikeMearls Damage On a Miss seems to remain the greatest source of fan tension. Can you tell us where you're at on this concept now?

Mike Mearls: {at}YetiMoose I'm personally not crazy about it - causes a lot of questions about how stuff interacts at the table.

:-D

 

[darjr]

Update on Damage on a Miss from Twitter:

YetiMoose: {at}MikeMearls Damage On a Miss seems to remain the greatest source of fan tension. Can you tell us where you're at on this concept now?

Mike Mearls: {at}YetiMoose I'm personally not crazy about it - causes a lot of questions about how stuff interacts at the table.

I think this is a good sign. Even if it persists, feedback and public thought on the subject is awesome.

I do get the problem it's trying to solve. It's a tough problem to solve.

 

[Lokiare]

I think this is a good sign. Even if it persists, feedback and public thought on the subject is awesome.

I do get the problem it's trying to solve. It's a tough problem to solve.

a much better feature would be a static bonus to ac.

 

[pemerton]

a much better feature would be a static bonus to ac.

From my point of view - a much more boring feature would be a static bonus to AC.

D&D is more fun when damage is dealt. The good thing about current GWF is that more attacks from monsters/NPCs damage the fighter (due to lower AC) but more attacks from the fighter damage the monsters/NPCs (due to auto-damage). It reminds me of a stance the GWF in my 4e game uses, that lowers his AC but ups his damage.

As best I understand those tweets, Mearls' issue is not with the concept of damage on a miss but rather with adjudicating various rules interactions which have tended to treat "hit with a weapon" and "deal damage with a weapon" interchangeably.

 

[Lokiare]

From my point of view - a much more boring feature would be a static bonus to AC.

D&D is more fun when damage is dealt. The good thing about current GWF is that more attacks from monsters/NPCs damage the fighter (due to lower AC) but more attacks from the fighter damage the monsters/NPCs (due to auto-damage). It reminds me of a stance the GWF in my 4e game uses, that lowers his AC but ups his damage.

As best I understand those tweets, Mearls' issue is not with the concept of damage on a miss but rather with adjudicating various rules interactions which have tended to treat "hit with a weapon" and "deal damage with a weapon" interchangeably.

Well in that case make it a 'brutal weapon'. Where you reroll 1's one time.

Or:

"When you miss by 2 points or less, reroll your attack. If the second attack hits, deal your Strength modifier in damage. This hit counts as a miss for all other intents and purposes."

Edit: My goal here is to suggest something that everyone can live with, rather than one side winning and getting their way. If the solution actually pleases all sides, then that's even better.