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

[Garthanos]

Well, sure, LOL! But for me, there is no point in creating such a system if I am probably one of the people who would stop choosing it.

Hey that might be why I haven't fully followed through on it either, seems like a sound tool for someone who is after those bits, but......

 

[Fanaelialae]

criticism isint necessarily to say something is bad as much as to point out how something can be bad. a blank sheet and pure nonsense looks very much the same when you hand someone a blank sheet and tell them theres something there. now of course you can then tell them when they respond "i dont see anything" with telling them its there for them to come up with their own answer, but a book cant respond to a question it doesent expect. my issue with D&D is when it discusses hitpoints it doesent blatantly say "this is for you to come up with your idea about how it works in the moment" but ill also say that expecting that of people is expecting something, thats not very user friendly especially with a huge influx of new players.

everything should be writen as if its the first time someone has ever read it.

It doesn't strike me as difficult to understand. The sidebar on PHB pg 197:

Describing the Effects of Damage
Dungeon Master's describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.

Attacks that leave you above half generally don't leave visible injuries. Attacks that take you to half or lower leave minor injuries. Attacks that take you to 0 are the only ones that seriously connect. That should be easy to parse even for a first timer (at least within the context of absorbing a rulebook's worth of information, which isn't actually all that easy overall).

 

[DND_Reborn]

In browsing through my PHB as well, a thought occurred to me about Hit Points.

If hit points represent all these different things, I think CON bonus should be removed or another bonus such as WIS (not CHA, thank you very much... it already has enough FGS) should be added as well. IIRC in another thread @Garthanos mentioned this before as well.

The focus on adding CON bonus to HP fosters the issues about HP being physical. Compounded with feats like Toughness, for example, increases the idea that HP are meant to be physical.

I think allowing CON bonus to modify Death Saves (as we house-rule) still makes it pretty important, but it would also make it so CON is not an "we-always-want-a-bonus-here" ability score.

Now, as much as I hate to suggest it, I know most likely someone else would anyway, so I'll just bite the bullet and say it: What about "the will to live?" Could that be CHA? Maybe...? Maybe not. I could see an arguement either way.

Luck is in the roll of the Hit Die, so I am not concerned as much with that one.

Notice also, that no where in this description of HP is there skill, or a sixth-sense, or other concepts that are often lumped into HP. I would suppose you could think "physical durability" might also include the energy/ fatigue-element. And "mental durability" might actually be the skill or sixth-sense.

And why should a creature with few hit points (given this representation) be necessarily considered "more fragile"? Maybe they are just unlucky? Maybe they don't have as strong a will to live? The idea of fragile could be extended to mental ability and possibly being unbalanced, but why would that make someone easier to "kill"?

Again, if the word kill was replaced with defeat it wouldn't be as bad IMO. But even given the explanations I can offer new players, the wording is very misleading and presents a lot of HP as physical. I don't think WotC did such a good job in this respect.

 

[Lanefan]

you seem to be missing the idea im not pushing my interpretation on anyone but pushing against the dogma that there is a correct interpretation of hitpoints.

Fair enough, but there still has to be a baseline default for the benefit of those who don't want to think about it any further (which is probably some DMs and most players).

The question then becomes one of what that baseline default should be, and whether the various descriptions and definitions then match what's intended.

 

[Lanefan]

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 example, though someting of a corner case, provides a fine example where either of two variances from the RAW would be more than valid:

First would be a BP-FP system, where in a case like this where both prisoners are defenseless all the damage goes straight to BP (of which all characters have more or less the same amount (not many) regardless of class, level, etc.; the only modifying factors are race and starting Con score); which would leave both prisoners just as dead, just as fast.

OR

Second would be the ability for a DM to rule that some things just bypass normal hit points and go straight to death (or, if the DM is nice, death saves). Defenseless unarmoured chained-down prisoners being breathed on by a dragon would be a time where such a ruling would come into play. I'd posit that any unbroken fall greater than 100' comes into this same category.

The problems arise when everything is forced to use the same hit point mechanic even when doing so no longer makes any sense.

 

[Garthanos]

Again, if the word kill was replaced with defeat it wouldn't be as bad IMO. But even given the explanations I can offer new players, the wording is very misleading and presents a lot of HP as physical. I don't think WotC did such a good job in this respect.

Agreed with most of what you said plus more probably... this part i think would be a great thing for them to consider for the future though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Agreed with most of what you said plus more probably... this part i think would be a great thing for them to consider for the future though.

You know, I checked my 2E DMG and when it refers to HP, it says foes with greater HP are harder to defeat, not kill. Check out my new thread for a bit more about sort of stuff. I'll be posting it later tonight.

 

[Garthanos]

You know, I checked my 2E DMG and when it refers to HP, it says foes with greater HP are harder to defeat, not kill. Check out my new thread for a bit more about sort of stuff. I'll be posting it later tonight.

I know DMs in 4e certainly used it as defeat even had minions run in terror when attacked successfully and the like and thinking in terms of that can actually inspire some interesting in game elements (i mean you could explicitly choose not to kill when they go below zero hit points and declare your final blow a knockout or similar... we went further)

 

[Garthanos]

You know, I checked my 2E DMG

2e keeps coming up with better descriptive elements than many many other editions I totally give it that.

 

[Garthanos]

I know DMs in 4e certainly used it as defeat even had minions run in terror when attacked successfully and the like and thinking in terms of that can actually inspire some interesting in game elements (i mean you could explicitly choose not to kill when they go below zero hit points and declare your final blow a knockout or similar... we went further)

@dnd4vr
Realized that was vague.

one example I designed a poison based sleep spell if you defeat an enemy with it they might just be sleeping very soundly and hard to wake or like the poison apple from snow white eternally sleeping. (with a remove affliction or special clause to undo it) - just a detail that cleaves to legend.