D&D 5E ludonarrative dissonance of hitpoints in D&D

Musson's explanation of the problem, from the same article.

The Advanced D&D Player's Handbook clearly states that hit points do not exclusively reflect physical damage, but also energy, combat ability, etc. And this is the crux of the problem, for such a definition just doesn't work. It tries to sum up two totally different things under one concept, and that is like trying to mix oil and water. They don't go. The party fighting minotaurs loses "abstract" hit points, but recovers them at the rate for healing wounds, while the fighter chained up in the dragon's cave loses "physical" hit points and survives because he has so many "abstract" hit points to lose.​

I think his comment there also reflects the fact that in older editions of D&D, there was additional ludonarrative dissonance created by "healing times" and other factors, because he's absolutely correct to pick that out as not going with the idea that HP were not physical damage. I kind of want to know more about what was going on with the Fighter being "chained up" in the dragon's cave though! That particular issue is resolved in 4E and 5E (though 3E retained it).

It's certainly amusing that someone came up with the basic shape of a solution (whatever the details) in 1979, barely 2 years after AD&D came out, and it's also interesting that HP have been enough of an effective and sacred cow that despite that, and despite 2000's SW d20 RPG "going there", they've never actually tried to make an edition where HP were replaced.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I kind of want to know more about what was going on with the Fighter being "chained up" in the dragon's cave though!
It's a hypothetical example he uses at the beginning of the article.

that little business of the strange fact that a dragon breathing 30 points of damage at a helpless low-level magician and ditto high-level fighter frazzles the one but fails to kill the other. In White Dwarf 6 I queried whether gaining experience ought really to have this asbestosising effect.​

From his article in White Dwarf 6, Combat and Armour Class -

Consider what would happen if you chained up a 1st level magician with 1hp and an 8th level fighter with 45hp, both sans armour, outside the cave of your friendly neighbourhood red dragon. Said dragon ventures forth, decides he likes offerings to be burnt ones, and gives them both a quick blast of fiery breath (why can't dragons use toothpaste like everyone else?). They both take 30 points of damage, with the result that the magician is burnt to a crisp, while the fighter, though singed, is amazingly enough, still alive. How is that? Has finding x thousand gold pieces caused his skin to turn to asbestos? A man's a man for all that; either they should both be fried or they should both survive. Nor will I accept the argument that the man with less hit points is more likely to die of shock, since dragon breath is a lot more than a touch of heartburn.​

This article proposes giving characters a bonus to AC but limiting their hit points.

ultimately I should like to see a system like this; when a character goes up a level, he increases his hit points by one die as per normal up to a base maximum of 10 hit points (modified up or down according to constitution). This represents the maximum amount of damage a human being can take. When the maximum is reached no further hit dice are added. However, right from the start, whenever a character goes up a level, his combat armour class decreases by one - from 2 to 1 for those humanoid juggernauts in plate, and from 9 to 8 for magicians.​
 

lets talk about ludonarrative dissonance

ludonarrative dissonance is the conflict between a game's narrative told through the story and the narrative told through the gameplay. now this might seem like an odd thing to consider when discussing rules, however the rules of D&D are representations of a narrative that exists within playing the game, which is why you say, as the rules specify that hitpoints is an abstraction of a characters effort of taking a damaging blow and turning it into a near miss. that is the narrative the game is telling you, but is it the narrative that the mechanics of the game actually express? lets take a look

hitpoints

we've described what hitpoints are narratively, but mechanically hitpoints are a number of points that characters gain through the classes they take and the level they achieve in those classes plus a characters bonus from constitution, an ability statistic that is representative of endurance, which also applies itself to holding ones breath, march or labor for hours, go without sleep, survive without food or water, or handle alcohol. additionally though constitution applies itself to resisting poison. all in all constitution stacks up as a stat that represents endurance and fortitude, not necessarily health, which reinforces the narrative of hitpoints. the classes that gain hitpoints more than other classes are those that emphasize martial talents and surviving combat, those who are most likely to fight at the front line have higher hitpoints gained every level than those who do not, additionally characters who gain experience gain more hitponts as well, a measure of their ability to fight is represented by their increasing gains in hitpoints. this all still reinforces the idea of hitpoints being a measure of ones battle hardiness rather than survival of direct damage.

physical damage

so now we've addressed what hitpoints are and where they come from, lets discuss what they oppose, damage. damage is an expression of lethality by attacks or effects in the world of D&D, the environment can be damaging, elemental damage can be damaging, poison can be damaging, disease can be damaging, and most commonly experienced, attacks from physical weapons natural or created can be damaging. damage is expressed by weapons based on a few trends that can be observed, typically heavier weapons deal more damage, lighter weapons deal less, and damage from these weapons come in 3 different forms implying that the way these weapons effect the body will hurt the body in different ways, additionally implying some forms of body take less damage from some sources than they do of others, in fact physical damage can be resisted by a creature separately from elemental damage.

strength likewise increases damage by physical attacks, strength is a measure of physical power, it effects the skills of athletics where it gives them a bonus to climb and hold onto a vertical surface, jump propelling their body further from the ground and over horizontal distance, and swim. other applications of strength include force open stuck, locked, or barred doors, break bonds, push yourself through thin spaces against friction, hang onto a wagon while being dragged behind it, trip over a statue (this one is odd to me), or hold a boulder from rolling down a hill. additionally besides increasing damage strength also increases your attack roll with a melee attack or some throwing weapons. it effects how much you can carry on your body while acting normally, how much weight you can lift, push or drag, and larger creatures have more strength. this describes strength as being the ability to apply more power behind motion, that power translates into damage as kinetic energy which not only makes the attack faster as expressed in strengths bonus to attack rolls, but makes the weapon impact harder.

the qualities of how physical attacks deal damage imply that damage is a measure of a weapons impact on a body rather than a weapon's ability to push a person to expend endurance to avoid it, the more damage a weapon would deal if it hit, is the expression that damage takes in D&D with the way strength adds speed to a weapon, the way weight imparts mass to speed to create force, and how different types of weapons damage differently based on how they are used. if the damage from physical attacks was just an expression of the endurance taken to avoid a telling blow, weapons would do no different damage from each other as the amount and type of damage is not relevant, the endurance used is simply avoidance.

elemental damage

elemental damage is expressed in a few different ways, the main forms of elemental damage are acid, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, poison, psychic, radiant, and thunder damage. that's a lot of damage, but i think i am going to divide these a bit more, acid, cold, fire, lightning, necrotic, radiant, and thunder damage seem to be damages that most reflect elemental nature, while force is a kind of physical damage which is expressed by an invisible energy that expresses itself by hitting its opponents like...well a force. psychic damage seems to be damage to ones mind or brain which reflects the idea of hitpoints being reduced as a matter of endurance, however instead of psychic damage causing a character to exert endurance to resist it, it is a direct attack on the mental endurance a character has. poison is a kind of damage i would like to get back to later.

how do sources of acid, cold, fire, lightning, necrotic, radiant, and thunder deal damage? typically expressions of these energies are from spells and special abilities of creatures or characters. acid is a splash of a liquid that dissolves materials on contact. cold is low temperatures that negatively effect creatures with liquid circulation systems or a dependence on heat to maintain their existence. fire likewise negatively effects creatures with a liquid circulation system but also creatures with bodies made of compounds that break apart easy at high temperatures, and creatures that require cold to maintain their existence. lightning is like fire but gets inside you frying up your nervous system and burning everything its in contact with while also breaking apart the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen. necrotic energy is a form of spiritual decay which often manifests as physical decay, it snuffs out the spirit that clings to the material world. radiant energy is much like fire, searing flesh and blustering the spirit until it can not be contained in material form. thunder damage is a concussive burst of sound, a shock-wave through an atmosphere that rips and shakes atoms apart breaking down complex structures in bodies and can even snuff out flames.

so do energy sources express themselves as endurance a character must expend to avoid a deadly blow? all of the damage expressed by these forms of damage effect the way the body reacts to them, and one could say something like cold, necrotic, radiant, and sonic damage even if they struck the character can still be expressed as direct endurance reduction by the effect of the damage itself but i could also call that health as well. other forms of damage are more telling though, acid that dissolves flesh, fire burning that flesh and boiling blood, lightning frying nerves and scaring flesh, radiance burning tissue, and thunder ripping flesh from bone as it shakes a body apart are clear expression of body damage if they hit, and even cold at extreme temperatures crystallizing blood and cutting the body up from the inside out. can all these damages be avoided or minimized by an exertion of endurance in order to avoid a deadly blow? of course and thus that interpretation stats, but then we run into a different problem, how can different creatures be resistant, vulnerable or even immune to these damages? are they just good/bad at avoiding them? or is it some property of their body that resists it or is effected by it worse than other bodies. when including resistance to elemental damage, elemental damage seem less like a toll on endurance and more a toll on ones body

poison

poison is an interesting form of damage because it can be delivered in a few ways, some spells, but often direct attacks. the damage from poison requires the poison somehow getting into the body of a character and then slowly hurting the body in some way until it dies, endurance can be expressed in resisting the damage via a constitution check or as an expression of the damage it does, but its clear that poison damage is happening to your body, its not something to lose hit points to avoid, but you do lose hit points to avoid death from it. how poison enters the body is also telling, there are 4 methods of poison entering the body besides magic, contact, inhalation, ingestion, and injury. injury is most interesting because the type of damage you take effects weather you take that poison damage or not, and this reflects weapons not damaging as a measure of endurance to avoid taking a telling blow, but instead weapons actually harming the body of a character.

conclusions

very little about the mechanics of damage in D&D reinforce the idea of hitpoints in the game being an expression of avoiding death by avoiding body harm but rather expressions of the body avoiding death by being harmed less as hitpoints of a character increase. this creates a ludonarrative dissonance between what the game is telling players hitpoints represent and how they actually lose those hitpoints. furthermore reinforcing this ludonarrative dissonance is the system of avoiding damage all together in the armor class system and dexterity's impact on the game which implies a statistic that exists to avoid damage all together. the game does not require multiple narrative explanations for how a character avoids taking damage, especially where damage itself runs contrary to the narrative that the body is undamaged until its dead.
in a jack nicksonal voice, "it is freaking game it doesn't have story. It is freaking game and hit points is a way of keeping score.. It is freaking game and a long winded post will always forget is a freaking game. Do you freaking get it?"
 


It's a hypothetical example he uses at the beginning of the article.

that little business of the strange fact that a dragon breathing 30 points of damage at a helpless low-level magician and ditto high-level fighter frazzles the one but fails to kill the other. In White Dwarf 6 I queried whether gaining experience ought really to have this asbestosising effect.​

From his article in White Dwarf 6, Combat and Armour Class -

Consider what would happen if you chained up a 1st level magician with 1hp and an 8th level fighter with 45hp, both sans armour, outside the cave of your friendly neighbourhood red dragon. Said dragon ventures forth, decides he likes offerings to be burnt ones, and gives them both a quick blast of fiery breath (why can't dragons use toothpaste like everyone else?). They both take 30 points of damage, with the result that the magician is burnt to a crisp, while the fighter, though singed, is amazingly enough, still alive. How is that? Has finding x thousand gold pieces caused his skin to turn to asbestos? A man's a man for all that; either they should both be fried or they should both survive. Nor will I accept the argument that the man with less hit points is more likely to die of shock, since dragon breath is a lot more than a touch of heartburn.​

This article proposes giving characters a bonus to AC but limiting their hit points.

ultimately I should like to see a system like this; when a character goes up a level, he increases his hit points by one die as per normal up to a base maximum of 10 hit points (modified up or down according to constitution). This represents the maximum amount of damage a human being can take. When the maximum is reached no further hit dice are added. However, right from the start, whenever a character goes up a level, his combat armour class decreases by one - from 2 to 1 for those humanoid juggernauts in plate, and from 9 to 8 for magicians.​
That article seems like a bit of a strawman argument to me.

If there's a chance for the characters to get out of this, then the fighter (experienced and sensing the danger he is in) rolls behind a convenient bit of cover just before the dragon breaths. Maybe a rock, or a blackened shield that was left on the ground from a previous kill.

On the other hand, if there is no chance of survival, then don't engage via hit point mechanics. It's the same as slitting the throat of a sleeping creature.

If there's a possibility for the creature to wake up, sixth sense kicks in and they wake just in time to try and twist out of the way of the knife.

If, on the other hand, they're in a magically induced coma and there's effectively no chance of survival, I would just rule that they're dead/dying when their throat is slit. Why make rolls to stab a high level character a few dozen times before pronouncing death if the outcome is already certain? (Unless of course the campaign is intentionally farcical.)
 

the one thing that is disheartening more than anything else about the thesis i wrote on hitpoints and damage in D&D is how obvious it is that so many people jumped to the section i wrote called "conclusions" then in their responses accuse me of being the one to jump to conclusions

Unfortunately, that is the way most people handle very long posts (hence my initial response back on page 1 of the thread). It represents more of an investment into something (at least at first) than I am willing to commit when I agree with the HP mechanic and how it works in 5E. I am not thrilled with it by any means, but it does work without having to propel characters to near demigod status as you understand.

best way to deal with this is if a character rolls high enough on their attack roll they completely bipass dr, thats how the armor as dr system i created functions, multiple attacks per round giving fighter more opportunities to deal damage completely unhampered by the resistance which on the higher end of the scale* could be the difference between doing 0 damage and 100% damage, like armorclass already works but gives room for characters specializing in dealing damage the ability to just power through dr with damage and not worry about ever failing to do any damage at all regardless of their attack roll though still benefit from a high roll.

*which would also be the higher levels of the game where fighter gets the most attacks

While I see your point (from this thread and the other), that the idea of rolling "high enough" means you bypass the DR, that is precisely what AC already does in 5E. I've pointed this out before and I don't recall you addressing it.

I'll provide a concrete example:

You are playing a Battle Master Fighter and rush two foes (a bowmen and a guard) who were standing next to each other while in conversation. They saw you approaching, thinking you were another guard, when you attack. You win initiative.

bowman (AC 14, studded leather, DEX +2)
guard (AC 15, chain shirt, shield)

Now, on your first attack against the bowman (you want to disable him first) you roll a 17, dealing 9 damage. The DM narrates this as a slashing strike across the bowman's chest, actually drawing blood as he staggers backwards a step.

You decide to spend a superiority die and perform a sweeping attack maneuver to attack the guard as well, thinking the roll will succeed against his AC 15. What you didn't know, due to the darkness and the cloak the guard is wearing, is that this is actually a guard sergeant and he is wearing chainmail and has his shield, so AC 18!

"Curses!" you cry out as your weapon strikes his armor and shield and is deflected. Or, maybe you simply missed. (Who knows, right? It depends on the DM's narration...).

Why did you "hit" a man in light armor and good dex, but fail to "hit" a man in heavy armor? Well, you didn't fail. You likely did hit him, physically, but the armor absorbed the hit--protecting him. It reduced the impact of your hit to the point you dealt no damage, functioning as DR.

So, again, the concept of DR is already baked into high AC values. If you roll "high enough" (say in the above example you had rolled a 20 total, beating both ACs) then you already bypass the DR... because it is part of the AC and inherent in the mechanic.

That is why, I repeat, I loved Touch AC. Touch AC makes sense. You MAKE contact! The Touch ACs of the two foes would be AC 12 for the bowman and AC 10 for the sergeant (maybe also 12 if you rule a shield prevents "touch"...). You are actually hitting both targets with a total attack of 17, but the armor protects the sergeant.

Look, you can rework things however you want obviously, but to really do the things you want would still require major retooling IMO. What about Dragons? How much DR do they have? (EDIT: I am re-reading your other thread and found the section again on how you are handling natural AC.)
 
Last edited:

That article seems like a bit of a strawman argument to me.

If there's a chance for the characters to get out of this, then the fighter (experienced and sensing the danger he is in) rolls behind a convenient bit of cover just before the dragon breaths. Maybe a rock, or a blackened shield that was left on the ground from a previous kill.

On the other hand, if there is no chance of survival, then don't engage via hit point mechanics. It's the same as slitting the throat of a sleeping creature.

If there's a possibility for the creature to wake up, sixth sense kicks in and they wake just in time to try and twist out of the way of the knife.

If, on the other hand, they're in a magically induced coma and there's effectively no chance of survival, I would just rule that they're dead/dying when their throat is slit. Why make rolls to stab a high level character a few dozen times before pronouncing death if the outcome is already certain? (Unless of course the campaign is intentionally farcical.)

think you might have missed something here

Consider what would happen if you chained up a 1st level magician with 1hp and an 8th level fighter with 45hp,
 

think you might have missed something here
Yeah, I misread it and didn't see that they were chained together. Thought they were just both chained up.

That makes it even easier though. The fighter uses the mage for cover. Done and done.

If the fighter isn't the type to do so, then he tried to get them both behind the rock/shield but is a moment too slow and only gets himself behind cover.

Doesn't change much either way.
 

While I see your point (from this thread and the other), that the idea of rolling "high enough" means you bypass the DR, that is precisely what AC already does in 5E. I've pointed this out before and I don't recall you addressing it.

I'll provide a concrete example:

You are playing a Battle Master Fighter and rush two foes (a bowmen and a guard) who were standing next to each other while in conversation. They saw you approaching, thinking you were another guard, when you attack. You win initiative.

bowman (AC 14, studded leather, DEX +2)
guard (AC 15, chain shirt, shield)

Now, on your first attack against the bowman (you want to disable him first) you roll a 17, dealing 9 damage. The DM narrates this as a slashing strike across the bowman's chest, actually drawing blood as he staggers backwards a step.

You decide to spend a superiority die and perform a sweeping attack maneuver to attack the guard as well, thinking the roll will succeed against his AC 15. What you didn't know, due to the darkness and the cloak the guard is wearing, is that this is actually a guard sergeant and he is wearing chainmail and has his shield, so AC 18!

"Curses!" you cry out as your weapon strikes his armor and shield and is deflected. Or, maybe you simply missed. (Who knows, right? It depends on the DM's narration...).

Why did you "hit" a man in light armor and good dex, but fail to "hit" a man in heavy armor? Well, you didn't fail. You likely did hit him, physically, but the armor absorbed the hit--protecting him. It reduced the impact of your hit to the point you dealt no damage, functioning as DR.

So, again, the concept of DR is already baked into high AC values. If you roll "high enough" (say in the above example you had rolled a 20 total, beating both ACs) then you already bypass the DR... because it is part of the AC and inherent in the mechanic.

That is why, I repeat, I loved Touch AC. Touch AC makes sense. You MAKE contact! The Touch ACs of the two foes would be AC 12 for the bowman and AC 10 for the sergeant (maybe also 12 if you rule a shield prevents "touch"...). You are actually hitting both targets with a total attack of 17, but the armor protects the sergeant.

Look, you can rework things however you want obviously, but to really do the things you want would still require major retooling IMO. What about Dragons? How much DR do they have?

what armor class in D&D represents is an abstraction of a few different statistics that when combined with the to hit mechanics creates an all or nothing "to lower enemies hitpoints system" context fails to represent itself properly in the terms of ac within D&D's armor class system and its not particularly realistic. when people criticize me for wanting hitpoints to be less realistic while wanting armor to be realistic theres one fundamental reason why this is, armor is subject to the laws of nature, and when it works realistically it often works better than it does in D&D's abstraction rather than with hitpoints being a representation of a character having supernatural durability, a different frame of mind.

the counterpoint to your hypothetical goes back into something that ive said a few times and i think perhaps even to you more than once, the armor system i designed and the only way for armor to really be represented realistically is for hitpoints to not be an abstract concept but one that fits squarely on the idea of hitpoints as a measure of damage a character can sustain, i knew that when i made it, ive said so several times. your example of how ac accounts for reduction in damage (all or nothing) in D&D is based on the idea of abstract hitpoints where the dm must figure out (or more often go with their gut while juggling the chaos of dming) what a to hit roll vs an ac represents with regard to a character being able to dodge an attack or the dr reducing properties of that armor just happening to be 100% in that very instance as they can describe it (theres not many situations i can imagine padded armor being 100% damage reduction against a stab wound from a blade specifically designed to penetrate padded armor) however if a dm wants to do it that way the very abstract nature that D&D can have all of its rules played with gives plenty of room. creating a system however that attempts to de-abstract and show how these mechanics can actually work with each other for simulation is going to have to de-abstract a few things starting with hitpoints.

also simulation and fun are not mutually exclusive, ive seen that argument pop up a few times, just going to kill it here, simulation rules are not fun when subjectively you dont find them fun, they are not objectively less fun, they may objectively be more complex and thus anyone who wants to avoid any degree of complexity more than RAW might find them less fun, but lets not use that person as a standard ifwe arnt talking about making realistic armor a standard for the game.
 

also simulation and fun are not mutually exclusive, ive seen that argument pop up a few times, just going to kill it here, simulation rules are not fun when subjectively you dont find them fun, they are not objectively less fun, they may objectively be more complex and thus anyone who wants to avoid any degree of complexity more than RAW might find them less fun, but lets not use that person as a standard ifwe arnt talking about making realistic armor a standard for the game.
You're not wrong. It is a preference.

That said, IME more complex rules (which tends to be the way simulationism goes) typically appeal to more hardcore gamers with loads of free time. That typically doesn't include newbies (who probably don't know the difference between complex and simple, much less their own preferred style), and people who just want to have fun without much fuss (casuals). This latter group tends to find complex simulationism to be unfun, as they'd rather be kicking ass and swinging from chandeliers, than spending several minutes working out the blood spray pattern from their latest injury.

More complex rules create a higher barrier to entry into the hobby (because the more you need to learn before getting started, the less likely you are to ever start). As such, while simulation is enjoyed by some people, I don't think 5e would be enjoying its current popularity if the designers had leaned in that direction. Hardcore players are oftentimes more devoted to a game, but they tend to be a minority when compared to casual players (apart from games whose design only attracts hardcore players).
 

Remove ads

Top