D&D 5E (2024) Is 5E better because of Crawford and Perkins leaving?

[ECMO3]

nm

 

[CreamCloud0]

The argument of what hit points "really" are - or why the vast majority of combat oriented video game treat them exactly the same - is one that will never be resolved except "they are simple and they work for purposes of the game". I don't see any way to have anything particularly close to reality when it comes to combat and I don't think it would make for a fun game even if we could. You can certainly make more complex options, and some games have, I just don't see how they're any better. Same with parrying blows, disengaging or any number of decisions made for the game.

The choices were not made because they were more realistic. They were chosen because they were close enough to what people imagine combat would be like and because they keep the game flowing without excessive overhead.

are hit points meat? luck? stamina?

it doesn't really matter, hit points are ENOUGH to simulate what they're trying to simulate.

 

[Distracted DM]

are hit points meat? luck? stamina?

it doesn't really matter, hit points are ENOUGH to simulate what they're trying to simulate.

Yup! They're enough to simulate what's needed in a combat situation, and many narrative situations. It's just that once you go to narrative stuff like "hero murdered in his sleep with a dagger to the heart," then you need to just say "anyone could be killed if they're helpless in a non-combat situation if the narrative calls for it," and the rules don't cover that, excepting for the "what the DM says, goes" part. DM fiat to a tee

 

[Maxperson]

What you provided does not support your claim. You are simply wrong, whether you admit it or not and if you could provide something that actually supported your claim you would.

I am still waiting to find out why someone who gets stabbed by a poison weapon, or clawed by a Quasit or similar can have the poisoned condition when the weapon or other attack completely misses them and causes no actual damage.

Posted it twice. Go back and re-read some.

 

[AlViking]

Yup! They're enough to simulate what's needed in a combat situation, and many narrative situations. It's just that once you go to narrative stuff like "hero murdered in his sleep with a dagger to the heart," then you need to just say "anyone could be killed if they're helpless in a non-combat situation if the narrative calls for it," and the rules don't cover that, excepting for the "what the DM says, goes" part. DM fiat to a tee

It's a pretty common trope that the protagonist is about to be killed in their sleep and for some reason it doesn't happen. They wake up at the last moment, the blade slips, gets deflected by a lucky McGuffin or some other reason. The characters the PCs play are the heroes, they're not supposed to be easy to kill once they've established that they're the heroes. It's as simple as that.

If this is something that happens in your game, you an always implement something like coup de grace from 3e

Coup de Grace​

Description: A character can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. A character can also use a bow or crossbow, provided the character is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. If the target survives the damage, the target must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.​

 

[Distracted DM]

It's a pretty common trope that the protagonist is about to be killed in their sleep and for some reason it doesn't happen. They wake up at the last moment, the blade slips, gets deflected by a lucky McGuffin or some other reason. The characters the PCs play are the heroes, they're not supposed to be easy to kill once they've established that they're the heroes. It's as simple as that.

If this is something that happens in your game, you an always implement something like coup de grace from 3e

Coup de Grace​

Description: A character can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. A character can also use a bow or crossbow, provided the character is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. If the target survives the damage, the target must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.​

Yup! I wasn't really referring to PCs being instakilled, I think the discussion comes from people trying to simulate every event in the world with the game's rules. "How can the warrior-king (an NPC) have been killed by a single dagger stab while asleep?! His traitorous wife with a dagger does 1d4+1 damage and the king had 144hp!" Yes, that 3e coup de grace rule helps simulate it, if the king rolls badly he's toast. If he passes, he woke up just in time and avoided it by the skin of his teeth (cost him some HP). But 3e also went out of its way to provide rules to simulate A LOT of situations... 5e has done less of that.

 

[tetrasodium]

The argument of what hit points "really" are - or why the vast majority of combat oriented video game treat them exactly the same - is one that will never be resolved except "they are simple and they work for purposes of the game". I don't see any way to have anything particularly close to reality when it comes to combat and I don't think it would make for a fun game even if we could. You can certainly make more complex options, and some games have, I just don't see how they're any better. Same with parrying blows, disengaging or any number of decisions made for the game.

The choices were not made because they were more realistic. They were chosen because they were close enough to what people imagine combat would be like and because they keep the game flowing without excessive overhead.

The what are hit points argument is indeed old (and stupid), but I think that up until 5e it still felt like it was a risk just being at low HP. Death save supplied absorb shields and explosive total recovery resting rules changed that though and even being at one hp doesn't invoke any feelings of risk. I think that changes it from "what are hit points" to the kind of ~"why the Heck do we still pretend to even care enough for this value to simply be tracked" vibes that were being put out earlier.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i know there's the death spiral argument but do you think DnD ought to try implement anything that curbs the 'the only hit point that matters is the last one' mentality where you run at 100% effectiveness right up until you're making death saves.

 

[tetrasodium]

i know there's the death spiral argument but do you think DnD ought to try implement anything that curbs the 'the only hit point that matters is the last one' mentality where you run at 100% effectiveness right up until you're making death saves.

Like putting the mere possibility of non-fiat death spiral being the result of players choosing to act recklessly back in the GM's toolbox by undoing the god awful mechanics that stripped it away or something else?