D&D 5E I Don't Like Damage On A Miss

[P1NBACK]

No, it's not true. Or rather it's an over-simplifcation.

Really it's not much different to 4E's bloodied condition - there is expected to be some visible effect, obvious impediment or injury to a creature when it is down to 50% or less of its maximum hit point total.

There appear to be no mechanics associated with it, it is just a descriptive element.

Yes, it is true. When you reach 50% hit points, you have suffered "cuts and bruises" and when you drop to 0, you have taken a serious wound and are knocked unconscious. You are then "dying".

Who dies from losing heart? No one.

There is an explicit implication that the first 50% of hp are superficial and the lower 50% are physical and when you reach 0 you are dying (from physical trauma).

 

[slobo777]

There is an explicit implication that the first 50% of hp are superficial and the lower 50% are physical and when you reach 0 you are dying (from physical trauma).

I think this reads too much into "cuts and bruises at 50%" . . . you are looking for a scheme to it, when it's just a helpful comment on how to interpret "50% wounded"

"explicit implication" is also a good example of an oxymoron, by the way

I've generally worked on the principle that almost all damage to a D&D character is non-lethal scrapes, close calls, fatigue etc. The only truly wounding blow in that view is the last killing one, giving "clean" cinematic fights. Of course that is not quite right either, otherwise poison damage wouldn't work as it does by RAW.

So you need to squint a bit for the rules to work anyway . . . you set yourself up for more disgruntlement with the rules if you try to fix a solid definition to what a "hit point" is, it's like nailing jelly to the wall, and the designers won't be doing that in this version (as they weren't in *any* previous version to my knowldege)

 

[P1NBACK]

I think this reads too much into "cuts and bruises at 50%" . . . you are looking for a scheme to it, when it's just a helpful comment on how to interpret "50% wounded"

I've generally worked on the principle that almost all damage to a D&D character is non-lethal scrapes, close calls, fatigue etc. The only truly wounding blow in that view is the last killing one, giving "clean" cinematic fights. Of course that is not quite right either, otherwise poison damage wouldn't work as it does by RAW.

The point is: cuts and bruises are physical damage. The rules state bleeding injury or trauma at 0 hit points. You don't get a bleeding injury from someone hurting your feelings.

So you need to squint a bit for the rules to work anyway . . . you set yourself up for more disgruntlement with the rules if you try to fix a solid definition to what a "hit point" is, it's like nailing jelly to the wall, and the designers won't be doing that in this version (as they weren't in *any* previous version to my knowldege)

Then why did Mearls do exactly that?

I shouldn't have to squint for the mechanics to function like the text says they should.

This is something they have a chance to nail down with 5E that has always needed it and has never been done.

I don't care if they say HP is all luck and fatigue or if it's physical or a combination of both... But, they need to stay consistent and the mechanics should reflect what they say.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Who dies from losing heart? No one.

padma... who had nothing to live for...not like new twins is worth living for...

 

[Fifth Element]

In a random thought, Fifth element is also a pretty damn cool movie .

Darn right it is. One of my favourites, but not actually why I chose the handle.

 

[Fifth Element]

There is an explicit implication that the first 50% of hp are superficial and the lower 50% are physical and when you reach 0 you are dying (from physical trauma).

No, read it again. It only says that when you reach 50% of your hit points, you have suffered some sort of physical injury. It does not state, and it does not necessarily follow, that every loss of hit points thereafter must be solely physical damage.

If a full 50% of hit points are purely physical, what do you do with an 80 hit point fighter? Can he literally stand there and let people run him through with spears, because he has 40 physical hit points? Of course not, that would be silly. Gygax's explanation of hp in the 1E DMG is useful here.

 

[Fifth Element]

"explicit implication" is also a good example of an oxymoron, by the way

Heh, didn't even notice that one.

The point is: cuts and bruises are physical damage. The rules state bleeding injury or trauma at 0 hit points. You don't get a bleeding injury from someone hurting your feelings.

Indeed, and that why you would never, ever narrate Reaper damage as hurting someone's feelings. Unless you're trying to be difficult, of course.

I don't care if they say HP is all luck and fatigue or if it's physical or a combination of both... But, they need to stay consistent and the mechanics should reflect what they say.

How do they not? It's a combination of physical and non-physical, narrate the results of die rolls accordingly.

 

[Pickles JG]

Who dies from losing heart? No one.

Princess Amidala (SP?)
Boy that was lame

 

[RangerWickett]

Guys, would any of these three work?

Slayer's Technique A
You have studied a variety of killing strikes, and are expert at finishing off weak or injured foes.

When you make an attack, if your Strength modifier is equal to or greater than the target's remaining HP, you can kill the target without having to make an attack roll.



or

Slayer's Technique B
You have studied a variety of strikes that let you follow up with a weaker blow if your primary attack misses. For instance, you might slash at a goblin's chest, but when he parries you reverse your move and smash your pommel into his face. These blows are seldom fatal alone, but they can fell a weak enemy or have a cumulative effect to drop even a mighty foe.

When you make an attack and miss, you still deal damage equal to your Strength modifier. However, you cannot move any more this turn.



or

Slayer's Technique C
You have studied precise strikes, excellent for finishing weakened foes or delivering poison.

You can spend your action to deal damage equal to either your Dexterity modifier to a creature within reach of your weapon. You do not have to make an attack roll, but this counts as a hit for the purpose of effects like poison or flaming weapons.


And then maybe at higher level, if you take the secondary feat, Improved Slayer's Technique C, you can spend your action to use this slaying strike and to make a normal attack.

 

[Greg K]

I understand you don't like 4e. I do. Let me turn this around - what parts of 4e would you keep?

I am not the person that you asked, but this was my list as a non-4e fan (this is off the top of my head so I might be missing one or two things)
1. No Level Drain
2. No 3e XP costs
3. Classes balanced across levels
4. Remove the non-biological aspects of race and make them feats (or tie to themes)
5. Elf/Eladrin split
6. Ranger as non-spellcaster
7. Warlord (either as a class or theme), but differentiate between magical and non-magical healing
8. Martial types get cool things to do (but I would use the Book of Iron Might maneuver system by Mearls as the basis rather than AEDU)
9. Backgrounds/Themes
10. Heroic Tier Multiclassing
11. Magic Missile needs a "to hit" roll
12. Reining in the damage dice from spellcasters
13. Disease Track
14. Death and Dying (although I would go back to something closer to 3e Unearthed Arcana)
15. Starting Hit Points based on Con score and no level based hit point bonus from Con
16. Healing Surges, but based soley on a character's Con bonus
17. Second Wind, but have it triggered by Action Point expenditure
18. Shaman as a class
19. Sample starting builds
20. The Feywild
21. Action Points, but characters have them starting at first level and they work more like True20 conviction/M&M Hero Points.