D&D 5E Keepiing Current HP from players...

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION]: How would something like a paladin's Lay on Hands ability work with a rule like this? Likewise, how is a healer going to know what level spell slot to expend on a healing spell?

They don't and why should they. How does a wizard know what level slot to expend on fireball to kill the enemies you are currently facing?

 

[cmad1977]

As a player I feel like I can only be effective if I'm given the information I need. Knowing how healthy I am is am important part of that. For that reason, I'm out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pukunui]

They don't and why should they.

How is the paladin's player supposed to know how many points to subtract from their Lay on Hands pool if you won't tell them how many hit points they've healed?

How does a wizard know what level slot to expend on fireball to kill the enemies you are currently facing?

Because the average wizard is more intelligent than any of us are and can more easily determine how much power they need to expend to deal with a threat?

 

[Lanefan]

As a DM I wouldn't want to do this - too much bookkeeping, given as I already have to track the opposition's h.p. as well.

As a player...it'd be an interesting experiment. Puts a lot on the DM's plate to make sure our conditions get described in a way we can relate to.

Hit points to us are a vague combination of fatigue, physical damage, and stamina; with every hit to some extent affecting all three mostly so poisoned weapons can work without too much head-twisting. Thus, a character is usually going to have a pretty good idea what shape it's in. We also use a variant on a wound/vitality system (we call it body/fatigue) and you'll certainly know when you're into body points - and as most people only have a few of these, getting into bodies means it's probably time to either bail out or prepare the blaze of glory you're about to go down in.

When I describe monster hit points, what I say depends somewhat on what they're fighting. Something like an ogre - yeah, you can get a pretty good idea how it's doing. But a wraith? Not a chance, though you can usually tell you've affected it you've no real way of knowing what it's still got in the tank. But yeah, for most foes once they get it down to half or one-third I'll let them know it's looking somewhat the worse for wear, and once into bodies I'll tell 'em it's bleeding and wobbling.

Likewise, how is a healer going to know what level spell slot to expend on a healing spell?

How about a perception roll or similar to narrow the recipient's condition down a bit? Answers in different situations might range from "You can tell she's almost as healthy as she can get" to "You're sure that no matter what variant of cure you use, one won't be enough" to "You think a minor cure ought to do the trick" to "You have no idea, other than she's at less than her usual fighting form". Another factor would be length of association - knowing the capabilities of someone you've run with for ten adventures is a lot more a sure thing than of someone you just met.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Because the average wizard is more intelligent than any of us are and can more easily determine how much power they need to expend to deal with a threat?

Though in most situations a wizard doesn't exactly have loads of time to size up the opponents; while in many cases* a healer can take a few moments to size up and assess an ally's condition provided immediate death isn't a concern.

* - ignoring in-combat healing for these purposes. Don't get me started...

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

Rule 1: Monster Damage is hidden from players. Hits will be narrated by the DM but damage numbers not given.
Rule 2: Players will only be told when their hp is at hp maximum so they don't waste resource for nothing at that point. Players will know their hp maximum since their is no way to hide that from them.

So I think it would be fun to run a game this way sometime. Has anyone ever tried? What was your experience? If you haven't would you like playing in a game with these rules or not?

I personally think it would do a lot to give uncertainty and fear to the players for their characters which D&D currently lacks. My hope is it would lead to more immersion by diminishing the unnatural safety net that hp represents for players playing their characters.

I wouldn't be up for this. It takes away some important strategic and tactical information that I think is vital to the D&D play experience. Further, the DM's descriptions would have to pretty much standardized to avoid a mismatch in expectations that could upset the players. It's also a lot of handling for the DM. While I think too much of a deal is made about how much a DM normally has to do to manage the game, this certainly adds a great deal more.

I have found that more transparency is actually best to achieve the goal you seek, depending on what you mean by "immersion." I generally think of "immersion" as emotionally identifying with your character. Because I play on Roll20, all the PCs' and monsters' hit point bars are shown. While this doesn't show the precise number of hit points, it's quickly apparent how much work you need to do on a monster before it's down. (Though I'm pretty open with mentioning the hit points especially as they get low.) Or how close your friends are to death.

So when a character hits for big damage and the hit point bar drops just a fraction, the players all groan - that's an emotional reaction the character might also be having. When they see a hit nearly erases the hit point bar, they're elated. When they see an ally's hit point bar reduced to a few pixels, they are concerned and start scrambling to save their friend. I'm pretty good at managing tension in my games and transparency with hit points and damage really helps with that.

I just ran a D&D 4e game a few minutes ago and I'm sure [MENTION=6801219]Lanliss[/MENTION] can tell you it was pretty tense the whole night with some losses by the PCs and some very epic victories.

 

[Shiroiken]

I know someone who did a game like this: the players rolled nothing, ever. The DM made all rolls, including ability scores and HP gained by leveling. The players literally knew nothing about the numeric mechanics of their character, but relied entirely on descriptions from the DM. When I found out, I was truly surprised because the players were min-maxers of a high caliber. Oddly enough, they all enjoyed it, because it took away the stress of needing to optimize characters and so they could focus on role-playing.

Personally, I could see doing this as a one-shot, either as a player or DM. As a long term campaign, however, this would probably lose some of the luster after a while. I can't image most players enjoying this, however.

 

[Lanliss]

cannot add much to Iserith's statement, other than my agreement with his style.

 

[Staccat0]

As a DM I think it does the opposite of what you would want. It would create a situation where players roleplay their characters poorly or "wrong" because they have misunderstood some math. In the game, HP an abstraction. Every "hit" is not a literal hit and anything to the counter gets silly very fast.

So basically what you get is either everyone feeling like they have taken an absurd amount of damage or you have everyone being caught by surprise at their level of injury in an immersion breaking way, because in the end nothing describes the number 27 better than the numerical representation we've all agreed on.

It sorta reminds me of how Roger Ebert spoke of 3D movies and the way they break immersion by reminding you there is a screen. In an effort to "fix" something it breaks from established convention only to make players focus on it more.

i think there are certainly cool systems that you could develop that do not use math to track health. I just don't see the advantage of a half-measure where health is entirely an abstraction represented by math and the game is pretending this is not the case. May as well go whole hog and play a more narrative focused way.

 

[GMMichael]

1) I don't have the patience for this crap.
2) It's a game. There's NOTHING you can do to instill any amount of fear in me concerning my character. The uncertainty? That comes from the d20 & whatever damage dice are being rolled. Don't waste the time/effort trying it.

That's unfortunate. It's really fun to feel some fear for your character. Maybe if you had more patience, you could try wearing your character's shoes.

Not to mention that characters are generally pretty aware of how beaten up they are. A boxer can tell when they're on the ropes, or battered but still energetic, and your current HP value conveys that information far more effectively than mere words of description from the DM.

Boxer: yes. D&D characters: definitely not boxers. A boxer knows...well I'm not a boxer. But having taken a few punches, I know that when the world gets wobbly, or your vision starts to fade, it's a bad sign. However, even at 1 hp, a D&D character takes no penalty on his perception checks, nor athletics as far as I know. So, are you still sure about this?

As a player: No thanks. Why would my character not know how badly hurt it is?

Because D&D characters don't get hurt. They just lose HP, and then they fall down. Savage Worlds is worse: you think you're hurt one round, but then you spend a bennie and realize you're not actually hurt. Wha, huh?

Rule 1: Monster Damage is hidden from players. Hits will be narrated by the DM but damage numbers not given.
Rule 2: Players will only be told when their hp is at hp maximum so they don't waste resource for nothing at that point. Players will know their hp maximum since their is no way to hide that from them.

I can save you some headache with an observation: there's one thing players already don't know: how much damage you're going to deal. Which means that they don't know if 5 hp, 10 hp, or even 20 hp means they're about to die. So let them hide behind their walls of hit points...and let rule zero tumble those walls down...