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

[Don Durito]

Armor as DR simply doesn't work without completely rewriting D&D.

It punishes multi-attacks more than it does escalating damage. Therefore, it screws Fighters and makes dual wielding even worse.

And, unless it scales with level, it risks becoming largely irrelevant to high level monster damage (unless they too gain their damage through multi-attacks in which case they become relatively weaker.)

You may get away with doing something like lowering the AC of full plate and giving it resistance to all damage instead (because half-damage scales).
Or giving all heavy armour damage resistance and then distinguishing between them by how much AC they give as well.

But resistance is largely the only additional tool you've got to work with. (If it was a computer game you could give 1/4 damage or 1/3 damage but nobody want's to be calculating that at the game table).

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Interesting.

Are damage types all that obscure?
Especially if the resistance or vulnerability is natural the extra effort or lack thereof could be a reflex.
Like how you touch something hit, you don't have to determine it's not, remember that hot things burn and choose to snatch hour hand away, you just do.

The exception where you might expend effort to avoid an attack out of all proportion to the real danger might be psychic damage and illusions that inflict up damage.

are damage types all that obscure? not nessicarly no but its very easy to switch between damage types in the middle of combat, how much does drawing, sheathing, and dropping weapons cost in action economy in 5e? not to mention how a spellcaster can cast an energy of one type one round and the energy of another type the next round. theres no mechanic to imply a character keeping track of the damage they are being delt and thats a VERY fast pace to be reacting to changing energy types, a little faster than reacting to changing weapon types, and well when your being attacked by 4 different people that just compounds the matter. and finally resistances, immunites, ect still apply when you dont even know your being attacked.

not knowing your being attacked is something i also forgot about, how exactly does hitpoints as a messure of endurence apply to attacks your hit by before you even know your hit? how does it apply to invisible sources of damage? how does it apply to force damage, arguibly the most invisible damage of them all?

No, remeber, hps are not primarily physical. There's no inconsistency there.

hitpoints arnt physical, but damage clearly is physical by all the measures ive described in the first post ive made in this thread.

Remember, you can briefly say "hps are endurance" or something as a shorthand, but it's an abstract mechanic that could represent any factor that helps you avoid or minimize the effects of what would otherwise be a deadly attack (and, I think, it helps to remember that, for instance, a dagger is absolutely a deadly weapon, but only gets a d4).
By the same token, bestowing any such factor, not only restoring endurance or literally healing a scratch, could reasonably restore hps.

Since the DM has a free hand in narrating results, and the mechanics if combat are so abstract, he can choose to keep the narrative in line with the mechanics (or vice versa) to the degree he's comfortable with.

if you would like to argue that hitpoints are so abstracted that there is absolutely no consistent narrative to what hitpoints actually represent then i dont think we have a problem, my thesis is mostly arguing against a narrative, if you dont think there is one, then im not really arguing against you besides just saying that damages in the game reflect a narrative better than hitpoints do.

 

[Garthanos]

not knowing your being attacked is something i also forgot about, how exactly does hitpoints as a messure of endurence apply to attacks your hit by before you even know your hit? how does it apply to invisible sources of damage? how does it apply to force damage, arguibly the most invisible damage of them all?

Gygaxian answer was ESP, literally... the hero does things on instinct. Plus as I said its not just endurance, but regardless

 

[Garthanos]

Instinct might even be a CON reflected concept and definitely in them thar hit points

 

[FrogReaver]

not knowing your being attacked is something i also forgot about, how exactly does hitpoints as a messure of endurence apply to attacks your hit by before you even know your hit? how does it apply to invisible sources of damage? how does it apply to force damage, arguibly the most invisible damage of them all?

Hit points are whatever makes the narrative make sense. Sometimes that will be physical. Sometimes not.

hitpoints arnt physical, but damage clearly is physical by all the measures ive described in the first post ive made in this thread.

Damage is simply the loss of HP. Whatever narrative makes sense for that particular loss of HP is the one that is used at the time.

if you would like to argue that hitpoints are so abstracted that there is absolutely no consistent narrative to what hitpoints actually represent then i dont think we have a problem, my thesis is mostly arguing against a narrative, if you dont think there is one, then im not really arguing against you besides just saying that damages in the game reflect a narrative better than hitpoints do.

Everyone here recognizes that the loss of hp (aka damage) is narrated as whatever makes sense at the time. Hp is not (always) physical. Damage is not (always) physical. Those things certainly are physical sometimes though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

are damage types all that obscure? not nessicarly no but its very easy to switch between damage types in the middle of combat, how much does drawing, sheathing, and dropping weapons cost in action economy in 5e? not to mention how a spellcaster can cast an energy of one type one round and the energy of another type the next round.

Those are matters of seconds, but hps allow you to minimize an otherwise fatal injury from sources that are instantaneous. Reflexes, as well as instinct and conscious trepidation could go into the degree of effort that goes into avoiding a particular attack.

not knowing your being attacked is something i also forgot about,

Among the factors that EGG cited in his exhaustive treatise on hps, c1979, were luck, divine favor and a "sixth sense ability."
I'd also call it just 'refexes.'

if you would like to argue that hitpoints are so abstracted that there is absolutely no consistent narrative to what hitpoints actually represent

There's no specific narrative dictated by the mechanic, narration is left to the DM (in 5e, quite explicitly).
The same goes for AC - thanks to hps, a "hit" might not touch you, while, thanks to armor a "miss" might well contact you quite forcefully.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

But we aren't just saying that we think hp work that way. We are saying you are incorrect about the reasons you cite.

Take your poison example. All the presence of poision means is that any successful attack roll with a poisoned weapon will always inflict a minor cut somewhere on the enemy. Poison issue is really a non-issue. D&D HP forces you to come up with fiction to make everything make sense. That's what I've been saying since I came in this thread. That's the answer to all your objections.

so "hitpoints are a representation of the endurance expended by a character to avoid taking a lethal blow" is suspended to an extent simply for the rule that allows poison to take effect? that seems very convenient. there's also still 60% of the rest of my thesis you now have to make points to dismiss as well, take your time im patient. i will add that the dmg doesent specify that the narrative of how hitpoints works is taking a backseat to allowing poison to function.

Just to make it 100% clear - D&D hp is not a simulationist mechanic. You can't take the loss of hp and apply any kind of consistent meaning to the loss of hp - because the meaning of hp loss is ambiguous until fictionally narrated.

if you are arguing that hitpoints is a complete abstraction with no narrative bias to what actually happens when applying damage it hitpoints besides "hitpoints are lower now" and leaves it up to the dm to decide, then my thesis doesent disagree with you besides implying that hp isint described as being that abstract in the game and that damage is certainly not very reflective of an abstraction however damage also doesent reflect the narrative i argued hitpoints support.

I understand you probably mean well enough. However, you presented a thousand-plus word piece on a discussion messageboard - your presentation does not match well with the medium and local culture, neither of which which handle long-form presentation well. Accept that, and maybe you can still get something useful out of this.

Getting huffy at folks for not absorbing everything you intended out of your piece is not going to end in constructive discussion for you.

i mean quite well, i figured EN world was actually one of the best places to share highly thought out introspection about the game and its many facets due to the websites history and my experience at using the website as a goto reference for answers to my own questions both mechanical and lore.

that expectation lead me to assume i would be treated with enough respect that responses to my thoughts would be thoroughly read as i thoroughly read the responses to it. casting judgement onto an idea without actually understanding that idea because you are to impatient isint useful to anyone.

Armor as DR simply doesn't work without completely rewriting D&D.

It punishes multi-attacks more than it does escalating damage. Therefore, it screws Fighters and makes dual wielding even worse.

And, unless it scales with level, it risks becoming largely irrelevant to high level monster damage (unless they too gain their damage through multi-attacks in which case they become relatively weaker.)

You may get away with doing something like lowering the AC of full plate and giving it resistance to all damage instead (because half-damage scales).
Or giving all heavy armour damage resistance and then distinguishing between them by how much AC they give as well.

But resistance is largely the only additional tool you've got to work with. (If it was a computer game you could give 1/4 damage or 1/3 damage but nobody want's to be calculating that at the game table).

so the way i designed dr for armor for 5e is basically making armor class from armor super high, but if you hit the armor it simply applies dr, then the only way to not hit the armor is to either not hit the person in the armor (base dc plus modifers) or hit above the armors ac (armor ac + base dc (though maybe omitting some modifiers based on dm digression) the dr also applies to all damage, including spells except spells that have to make an attack roll which case it doesent if they roll high enough. this is to balance the benefit of the armor against as many kinds of damage dealers as possible so that martial classes arnt unfairly weakened against enemies. my system is a bit complex but not insurmountably so, you should check it out i linked it a page or 2 back. also i thought multiple attacks would be unfavored too because of the high ac, but frankly that just means that you have more chances to do damage that isint deflected at all, i think its a good compromise.

 

[Don Durito]

If we're thinking of D&D combat as modelling reality (which we probably shouldn't) then the reality it best models is two knights in heavy armour bashing away at each other's armour until finally one drops from an accumulation of bruises and minor fractures or is finally struck a telling blow through the gaps in the armour.

And Iaijutsu duel between two master samurai, not so well.

 

[Arch-Fiend]

Everyone here recognizes that the loss of hp (aka damage) is narrated as whatever makes sense at the time. Hp is not (always) physical. Damage is not (always) physical. Those things certainly are physical sometimes though.

probably shouldn't imply that you speak for everyone. you like to site how everyone has your back as if its an argument against my ideas, its not, its just a logical fallacy

 

[DND_Reborn]

hitpoints arnt physical, but damage clearly is physical by all the measures ive described in the first post ive made in this thread.

Ok, let's examine this point then. Damage isn't clearly physical. I'll repeat part of my post #4:

In a recent session, a hill giant rolled a critical hit for a thrown stone attack, and the DM narrated it as the character throwing themselves to the side as the boulder crashed into the wall next to him, shards of stone stinging his face and arms. It was something like 25 hp of damage. That "close call" would have killed a normal man if hit squarely. For a character with about 100 hp, it is still very scary and he had to spent a good amount of energy, luck, and skill to avoid getting crushed. That is a perfectly good narrative of how a critical hit can result in loss of hp with little physical injury or damage. The character's combat effectiveness is not stunted in any way, but the close call took its toll in other ways, as represented by the loss of HP.

This narrative shows how damage done by a thrown rock from a giant didn't physically harm the character (at least not directly, the "shards of stinging stone" is physical but not necessary really). Weapon attacks of any kind don't have to by physically damaging. The reduction in hit points from the weapon can be reflected in the energy it takes to move so the killing blow is just a scratch, etc.

Since hit points don't have to represent physical damage taken, neither does the damage done by a weapon, fire, poison, or any other agent. It can be, certainly, but it doesn't have to be. That damage can just as easily be narrated as luck, skill, energy, etc. depleted by the target of the damage.

Now, a couple sessions ago a druid had wild-shaped into a giant eagle. I critical hit was narrated as the shaft piercing the form (the druid-eagle hp was reduced to 0) and then the druid fell over 50 feet! The druid was already injured and nearly went nearly to 0 hp himself (IIRC he had 4 hp left after the fall).

It is certainly possible for people to fall 50 feet or more and survive, it is well documented. But how to narrate this damage? The DM decided "luck" was primarily the exhausted factor, as branches broke much of his fall and the actual physical damage was described as bumps and bruises, and having the wind knocked out of him.

The point is there are all sorts of ways to narrate damage from any source and how the damage is mitigated to the loss of hp is part of that.