D&D 5E (2014) Hp as meat and abstraction

[dmgorgon]

Even in my 4e game we used a modified version of the 2e options critical hit system.

I do recall one character had his face melted away by acid. Of course, the party called him acid face.

 

[Mistwell]

You can jump off the cliff and survive just fine. A dragon can bite you, critically even so that there is not question it's teeth are chomping on your head, and you can be relatively fine from it. You can be cut a hundred times by a sword and still be OK. You can simply wade into an army of orcs, and they can all hit you, and you can still be fine from it. You can trigger an acid trap and be fine (though it would have instantly killed you at lower levels). Poison? Disease? The same ones that would have killed you at first level are meaningless at high levels.

I admit that I truncated your first paragraph in my reply; that said, I still responded to most of your first paragraph's examples in the first paragraph of my reply. My statement about you not providing examples was specifically referring to your second paragraph's saying how the issue came up a lot at higher levels without mentioning specifically (or uniquely) high-level examples (hence why I said "this paragraph"). That said, I'll address the ones from your first paragraph that I did overlook.

Uh, it was a long list of things (seven of them) specifically pertaining to high level. Going back to the ones you covered in your initial response:

[You can spread out to try and catch more air to slow your fall and/or land on your feet as opposed to your head.

Why are you better able to do this at high levels, rather than low levels. Whatever stat covers your ability to know exactly how to do that, a first level character can have a higher stat in that thing than the 20th level character, and yet the first level character is certain death while the 20th level one is certain life. How does that make sense?

You can twist so that the dragon bites your arm rather than your neck.

See below on acid trap, and it's even more absurd given I said the dragon rolled a ciritical hit so we know for sure it's the best hit the dragon can do. If HP covers your ability to dodge, it makes no sense.

You can take a hundred flesh wounds from a sword before the combined tissue damage is enough to fell you, etc.

Only in a Wuxia movie.

The acid trap thing isn't an issue - before it would have gotten you in the face, now it's just grazing you on the arm since you moved quickly enough.

Wait, now agility is linked to hit points in this theory? So a character with a 25 dex and a character with a 3 dex both "move quickly enough" to dodge most of the acid (or the dragon's critical hit), in a way they could not "move quickly enough" at first level? The first level character with a 20 dex was unable to "move quickly enough" but the 3 dex guy at high levels could? That makes no sense.

Likewise, poison and disease dealt ability damage, not hit point damage,

Some deal hit point damage and, as this is a discussion of hit points, I think it's pretty obvious those are the ones I mean. So, let's talk about those.

 

[Gadget]

It is interesting that older editions never had this 'damage' = physical injury meme. In fact, both first and second edition had sections that disabused one of this. Despite terms like 'damage' 'healing' & such, Hit points have always been some form of ablative script immunity that abstractions much of the details from us. It seems that it is only when designs remind us of this by playing with this abstraction that we get up in arms. Personally, I think calling them endurance points would have been a better, though not perfect, term.

 

[Alzrius]

Uh, it was a long list of things (seven of them) specifically pertaining to high level. Going back to the ones you covered in your initial response:

None of those struck me as being particularly focused on high-level areas of game-play. They seemed low-mid level, or universal (e.g. regardless of level).

Why are you better able to do this at high levels, rather than low levels. Whatever stat covers your ability to know exactly how to do that, a first level character can have a higher stat in that thing than the 20th level character, and yet the first level character is certain death while the 20th level one is certain life. How does that make sense?

It makes sense because the stat in question is hit points. Asking why a character is better able to move in such a way as to minimize damage from a fall at higher level is like asking why they're better able to move to minimize damage from sword strikes at higher level - their greater hit points represent greater ability to reduce damage where "rolling with the blows" can possibly be construed as a factor.

See below on acid trap, and it's even more absurd given I said the dragon rolled a ciritical hit so we know for sure it's the best hit the dragon can do. If HP covers your ability to dodge, it makes no sense.

It's not solely a question of how good the dragon's hit is - your hit points play a factor in characterizing the damage. A critical hit for the same amount of damage when you're at 1 hit point will be completely different because now you can't react in such a way so as to ameliorate the extent to which you're injured...and so it kills you. It makes perfect sense.

The alternative is that the dragon criticals you, and despite having taken what you characterized as massive physical damage, you can then "spend a healing surge" to spike-heal that damage and be completely fine. Talk about making no sense!

Only in a Wuxia movie.

D&D is a wuxia/action movie - the PCs are all John McClanes. It's not supposed to be a model for realistic combat, and nobody is saying it is.

Wait, now agility is linked to hit points in this theory? So a character with a 25 dex and a character with a 3 dex both "move quickly enough" to dodge most of the acid (or the dragon's critical hit), in a way they could not "move quickly enough" at first level? The first level character with a 20 dex was unable to "move quickly enough" but the 3 dex guy at high levels could? That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense, you're just mischaracterizing it. "Rolling with the blows" is your ability to absorb a hit in a less damaging way, which including moving so that it hits a less vital area. Having that be divorced from Dexterity makes just as much sense as having your force of personality (Charisma) have no impact on your ability to fight off magical mind-control (Will save). Is that an imperfect representation? Maybe, but again, it's so minor that it's not anywhere close to being a deal-breaker for anyone who doesn't demand total fidelity to reality.

Remember, this is contrasted with the idea of an acid trap hitting you, and apparently just demoralizing you, since a warlord can then chew you out and you're back at full hit points. Which makes less sense?

Some deal hit point damage and, as this is a discussion of hit points, I think it's pretty obvious those are the ones I mean. So, let's talk about those.

I don't recall any poison or disease in 3E that dealt hit point damage. Maybe there were in older editions (I don't recall, and don't have my books with me), but that would make it pretty clear why those were changed when 3E came out.

 

[darjr]

It is interesting that older editions never had this 'damage' = physical injury meme. In fact, both first and second edition had sections that disabused one of this. Despite terms like 'damage' 'healing' & such, Hit points have always been some form of ablative script immunity that abstractions much of the details from us. It seems that it is only when designs remind us of this by playing with this abstraction that we get up in arms. Personally, I think calling them endurance points would have been a better, though not perfect, term.

I think the text tried to define HP but the rules themselves were both, a lot of both.

 

[Dausuul]

Hit points and related mechanics don't have to hold up under close scrutiny. That isn't what they're designed for. They just have to hold up under the level of scrutiny they will get during gameplay. However, they have to hold up very well under that level.

If you get chomped by a dragon, you aren't likely to be inquiring about which organs got pierced by which tooth. You are, after all, in the middle of combat and the wizard's player is impatiently rattling a handful of d6's. The important thing is that you got chomped on, it hurt, and now you're down some hit points. Nobody has to stop and explain what happened. Nobody has to think about how to connect the mechanics to the fiction. It's obvious and simple. Sure, if you take time to think about it, you might wonder how exactly a human being survives getting chomped on by a hundred-foot-long dragon, and what sort of injuries you have, and how you're still on your feet. But you probably won't bother thinking about it. You're more concerned with what you're going to do to the goddamn dragon when it's your turn.

Your turn comes up. You swing at the dragon and miss. Drat. Bad luck. But now you announce that you're dealing damage anyway. Uh... what? Wait, didn't you miss? How are you dealing damage? The connection between mechanics and fiction is no longer obvious and trivial. People have to stop and think about it, instead of getting on with the battle.

I think the text tried to define HP but the rules themselves were both, a lot of both.

I don't recall there being any "both" there. In each pre-4E edition, the rulebooks had one paragraph that claimed hit points weren't meat, and then proceeded to ignore that paragraph completely throughout the rest of the system. Hit points were treated as meat with perfect consistency. Loss of hit points was synonymous with suffering physical harm; recovery of hit points was synonymous with healing.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Incidentally, does martial 'warlord style' healing even exist in D&D Next?

After all, one optional mechanic, of one build, of one class has 'Damage on a Miss', and it's triggered 'Open Letters To Mike Mearls' and some of the most laughable histrionics I've ever seen.

 

[Dausuul]

Incidentally, does martial 'warlord style' healing even exist in D&D Next?

Next has a rough analogue to healing surges (hit dice), and fighters get a per-day version of Second Wind. At the moment, that's it.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Your turn comes up. You swing at the dragon and miss. Drat. Bad luck. But now you announce that you're dealing damage anyway. Uh... what? Wait, didn't you miss? How are you dealing damage? The connection between mechanics and fiction is no longer obvious and trivial. People have to stop and think about it, instead of getting on with the battle.

"Your axe glances off the dragon's thick hide, scratching it slightly but not doing much real damage."

When a PC misses an armored opponent do you ever say the strike was deflected by opponents shield?
Or is every miss swinging through open sky like a strike in baseball?

I really don't see the huge problem with this ability, and I'm a 'sumulationist' who doesn't even use a grid.

 

[Mistwell]

D&D is a wuxia/action movie - the PCs are all John McClanes. It's not supposed to be a model for realistic combat, and nobody is saying it is.

Remember, this is contrasted with the idea of an acid trap hitting you, and apparently just demoralizing you, since a warlord can then chew you out and you're back at full hit points. Which makes less sense?

You seriously don't see the absurdity of these two answers from the same position?

THEY BOTH MAKE NO SENSE.

"Chewing you out" doesn't make "less" sense than the idea that hit points are your skill in dodging a blow even though you never consult hit points to actually dodge something when rules when the rules call for dodging something. They're both absurd ideas that get erased in the abstraction that is hit points, and it doesn't matter if one is "absurd to the 5th degree" and the other is "absurd to the 6th degree" since once you reach "absurd to any degree" the entire concept either becomes an abstraction or needs help.

I am not trying to make sense of this - you're the one here trying to say it's a Wuxia movie while simultaneously claiming there is some logical explanation here for each of these things. There is no logical explanation here for many things that happen at high level.

Just give in to the fact that hit points are such an abstraction that you cannot focus on the details too much. When you focus on the details too much, it makes no sense, particularly at high levels. It's a gamist invention. It's not simulating anything. At one time it tracked how many actual hits you could take, but that time is long past and now it's an amorphous number you track on a sheet of paper which sometimes you can try and explain for entertainment and sometimes it's best to just not think about it too much.