D&D 5E Hp as meat and abstraction

[Ichneumon]

Some people in this thread are missing the point. This discussion is not about whether hp are meat or not, its about how we can get both views in the game with the least amount of rules.

Whether or not HP is stamina which can be worn down which leads to an actual killing blow or whether they are literally carving off pieces of meat is moot.

The point is there are at least 2 very different styles of play. We need to come up with a way to allow both play styles into the game with the least amount of rules.

My suggestion in the first post was that for damage on a miss for melee weapon attacks would key off missing by only a few points. This would simulate the target creature blocking or their armor (natural or otherwise) absorbing most of the blow, but the attack is so powerful that some of it still gets through.

This would be demonstrated by those movies where you see people sword fighting but one of them shakes their hand after blocking several blows from a stronger opponent because their opponents attacks are way too powerful. That is damage on a near miss. This makes it believable to both groups.

What are other rules we can use or changes to rules we can use to allow both camps to be able to play how they want?

I think the "hit points are hit points" view will be the most predominant. PCs and monsters take damage, and this is narrated as seen fit.

A vitality/wounds module would be useful for those groups who want a portion of hit points to be abstract, and a hit location module would suit groups who want hit point loss to have a more physical impact.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Even using hit points as a combination of several things, it still makes more sense that a "hit" is where the damage comes from and not a "miss".

I scored a hit on your cleric but his armour absorbed most of the blow. What we have here is the cleric getting hit, taking HP loss, but not losing his head or taking a blow to the heart.

Dodging, luck, abstraction, intervention, armour, etc, still makes more sense keeping it in the realm of a "hit" than it does a miss. Trying to describe damage on a miss is just spouting to be honest.

 

[Lokiare]

Even using hit points as a combination of several things, it still makes more sense that a "hit" is where the damage comes from and not a "miss".

I scored a hit on your cleric but his armour absorbed most of the blow. What we have here is the cleric getting hit, taking HP loss, but not losing his head or taking a blow to the heart.

Dodging, luck, abstraction, intervention, armour, etc, still makes more sense keeping it in the realm of a "hit" than it does a miss. Trying to describe damage on a miss is just spouting to be honest.

What about if it were described as a lesser hit?

"When your attack is 3 or less points below the targets AC you still hit, but instead deal less damage. You deal your Strength modifier in damage."

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you people want to discuss hp is meat please start a thread about that. This thread is about how we can have both groups using the same rules.

I'm not sure which groups you're referring to. As noted, no one really seems to believe that hp is all physical wounds. If you think there is instead a dichotomy between hp as being in-game or metagame, then the way to reconcile that would be to avoid any mechanical approaches that contradict the former (nothing could ever really contradict the latter), such as...

 

[steeldragons]

"HP as meat and abstraction"

HoHooooo, my friend. You have opened up ye olde can o' worms with that title! Good luck and gods bless...you're gonna need it.

The idea is some people view hp as meat and others don't. The question is how can fifth edition allow both playstyles to exist in the same game but at different tables?

The answer is...It can't. It is yet another example of the divergent playstyles that have [let's say] "evolved" over the past [let's say] 14 years.

One problem that has come up is damage on a miss for weapon attacks. For the hp is meat crowd it doesnt make sense. If you miss there is no physical damage. A fireball makes sense because the fire can move around all defenses.

I suggest for damage on a miss that if you miss by three points or less you deal the str mod damage. This should make both camps happy.

Hahahaha. That's cute. How do you figure that "makes both camps happy"? The HoaM [Kewl anagrams make evertang moar kewlz!] crowd still gets what they want..the "it makes no sense at all" crowd gets...nada. It's still a miss. So how does "3 points or less" suddenly become rationale as a hit?

 

[steeldragons]

All those Cure Wounds spells have infused your blood with positive energy, so you can survive more horrific trauma before passing out, and you heal dramatically faster. So if you've got 100 HP and you take 50 damage, you've probably got a gash down the length of your chest, slicing open your ribcage, with your organs held in only by supernatural force.

Obviously.

I...I think...[image stuck in head] I'm gonna be...*blurgekh*

 

[Wulfgar76]

Dodging, luck, abstraction, intervention, armour, etc, still makes more sense keeping it in the realm of a "hit" than it does a miss. Trying to describe damage on a miss is just spouting to be honest.

While currently I lean towards the opinion that 'Damage on a Miss' does indeed detract from the simulation, I am mostly ambivalent to it.
It's such a minor, class-specific mechanic I could ignore with minimal effort, I really don't consider it a dealbreaker.

However they hysterics it triggers in some people truly puzzles me.

If you want to talk about absurdly unbelievable, lets talk about what your optimized 3e/PF character can do in 6 seconds.

 

[The Human Target]

To me, this is like asking why in the fiction of chess a Knight can only move diagonally.

The answer is to make the game fun.

Not because the Knights horse got into some bad grain and is kind of drunk.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I like the idea from this article:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130527
Have the simplest, most restrictive definition be the default, and make it really easy to add to that definition.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If you leave out mechanics such as "damage on a miss" you take much of the spotlight away from the absurdity of "hit points" in general.

Uh no... hit point absurdity is there even without damage on a miss. My "receive 15 papercuts from fifteen shots from a longsword and still not die" example is one such indication of that. The "stand point blank in the middle of a fireball, fail a save, but then keep fighting as though nothing happened" is another example. Or the old "fall from a 100 foot tower onto a bunch of rocks then jump back up to your feet" is a third.

Hit points are ridiculous across the board. Which is why I find singling out certain instances of hit points as being "fine" and other instances "crossing the line" to be utterly ridiculous as well. Hit points are a game mechanic. They are there to establish rules for the game. Not the story. The game. We may try to layer story on top of it... but in every case the story ends up comes out absurd. Because that's exactly what hit points are.