D&D 5E Hp as meat and abstraction

[Mistwell]

I don't respond to semantic arguments.

There are two groups. If you want, we can call them the ones that don't like damage on a miss and martial healing groups and those that like damage on a miss and martial healing groups. You can define it how you want, but there is a big divide.

That's not really the split either. Some people don't like Damage on a Miss but are fine with martial healing, and view martial healing like they view healing from a short or long rest.

 

[Lokiare]

That's not really the split either. Some people don't like Damage on a Miss but are fine with martial healing, and view martial healing like they view healing from a short or long rest.

There might be more variations, but most players fall into one or the other groups as WotC own surveys revealed.

And you still aren't actually participating in the thread subject.

 

[Mistwell]

There might be more variations, but most players fall into one or the other groups as WotC own surveys revealed.

And you still aren't actually participating in the thread subject.

I am. I'm trying to clarify a pretty important aspect of your topic.

Explain to me why a martial healer's ability to increase the hit points of his allies through non-magical means is meaningfully different (all the time) from a short rest. Binding wounds doesn't actually heal those wounds, it just stops the bleeding. You're not actually healing a wound in a material way during an hour's rest. So, how are they meaningfully different?

 

[Lokiare]

I am. I'm trying to clarify a pretty important aspect of your topic.

Explain to me why a martial healer's ability to increase the hit points of his allies through non-magical means is meaningfully different (all the time) from a short rest. Binding wounds doesn't actually heal those wounds, it just stops the bleeding. You're not actually healing a wound in a material way during an hour's rest. So, how are they meaningfully different?

Nope. You are still trying to justify one group over another rather than trying to come up with a rules idea that will allow those that two groups to play the same game.

For instance if you were to suggest adding an optional rule that the players and DM choose before hand whether martial healers could add temporary hit points or real hit points when they use martial healing then you would be contributing to the thread. Instead you continue to try to convince one group or the other they are wrong.

Please at least attempt to stay on topic.

 

[Mistwell]

Nope. You are still trying to justify one group over another rather than trying to come up with a rules idea that will allow those that two groups to play the same game.

For instance if you were to suggest adding an optional rule that the players and DM choose before hand whether martial healers could add temporary hit points or real hit points when they use martial healing then you would be contributing to the thread. Instead you continue to try to convince one group or the other they are wrong.

Please at least attempt to stay on topic.

You can start a topic, but you cannot tell people what to do with that topic, what opinions to have about that topic, and where that topic goes. You made a claim that this is people who do not like damage on a miss AND they don't like martial healers, and I don't agree with that premise as I see the two as appreciably different. You opened the door to this issue - you don't have to answer, but you don't get to tell me I can't ask.

 

[Lokiare]

You can start a topic, but you cannot tell people what to do with that topic, what opinions to have about that topic, and where that topic goes. You made a claim that this is people who do not like damage on a miss AND they don't like martial healers, and I don't agree with that premise as I see the later as appreciably different.

Sure thing. Anyone else have anything to say on the topic?

 

[Jan van Leyden]

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.

And the same roll would have scored a (real) hit, if the cleric didn't wear armour. The blow hit his armor, it wasn't a miss slicing through the air. Or makes wearing the armor a character somehow .. smaller?

The problem, IMHO is the definition of "hit" and "miss".

 

[Jan van Leyden]

The best solution I've seen incurs some additional bookkeeping. It's from the old German FRPG called Midgard, which has to type of points.

Life Points describe a creatures real bodily capability. You start with pretty few Life Points and don't get additional ones during your career.

Stamina Points describe your stamina. You start with pretty few but can increase the number when your character gets stronger.

When the attacker scores a hit (1d20+bonus >= 20), the defender tries to parade or evade (his choice) by rolling 1d20+bonus >= attackers result. If the defender is successful, he loses Stamina Points only, if not both Life and Stamina Points.

Damage on a miss doesn't exist in this system, as a miss is well defined (attacker's result less than 20). But you have two different kinds of hits. The narrative roll of DoaM is taken over by hits which don't affect Life Points.

It exists a clear distinction between hit and miss in this system, and you can get a positive result (loss of Stamina Points) even if your hit wasn't the telling blow the Meat fraction accepts.

While this system is quite nice in theory, the practical execution is somewhat awkward.

 

[Sadras]

The answer to this HP problem is to introduce a module for Wounds (similar to the Fatigue Rules), to cap Hit Points mostly according to ones size and redefine how rests, skills and magic heal - whether they be Wounds or Hit Points (which would stand for endurance, morale, divine providence and luck).
There is practically no additional admin, eliminates a lot of meta play (fighter charging a field of gnoll archers due to his massive hp) and makes the game gritty if that is what you are going for.

 

[Lanefan]

The best solution I've seen incurs some additional bookkeeping. It's from the old German FRPG called Midgard, which has to type of points.

Life Points describe a creatures real bodily capability. You start with pretty few Life Points and don't get additional ones during your career.

Stamina Points describe your stamina. You start with pretty few but can increase the number when your character gets stronger.

DING!

This is pretty much exactly what we houseruled into D&D many many years ago, only we call them "body points" and "fatigue points".

Body points are all meat, or very close. Every being has some and they (usually) never change; most PC types have between 2 and 5; some monsters can have lots. Fatigue points are mostly abstract but always involve a bit of meat (nicks, scratches, bruises etc.) if for no other reason than if there was no meat involved at all then the whole point of poisoned weapons goes flying out the window. Fatigue points are what you get from your level-up rolls. (side effect is that everybody has a few more h.p. in total than the original game gives them, no big deal)

For 5e purposes it'd be really easy to say that (optional) things like DoaM don't and can't affect body points.

While this system is quite nice in theory, the practical execution is somewhat awkward.

We've found it adds greatly to the realism, and the awkwardness - while present - isn't overly burdensome.

Lanefan