D&D 5E On the healing options in the 5e DMG

[Sailor Moon]

Really? What support did the hp=mojo see in 2e and 3e? At best it was all abstraction, fine and dandy, but because almost all healing was magical it never mattered.

I like the idea of healing surges. It just fits with the definition of hp much better. That's the thing. The hp as meat crowd got away with their interpretation because the mechanics didn't support the definition of hps.

They fit with 4th editions definition of HP.

 

[pemerton]

Here is Gygax (DMG, p 61) on the meaning of a successful "to hit" roll:

One-minute rounds are devised to offer the maximum of choice with a minimum of complication. . . . The system assumes muc activity during the course of each round. . . . [M]any attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the "to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful . . . Damge scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. With respect to most monsters such damage is, in fact, more physically substantial, although as with adjustments in armor class rating for speed and agility, there are also similar additions in hit points.​

This is pretty unambiguous. It is consistent with the picture of hit point loss that I sketched upthread (post 441). It contemplates that a successful attack might be a near miss, a mere nick or scratch - with the success of the attack consisting not in physical harm to the opponent, but rather in wearing him/her down, depleting reserves of luck and endurance.

The three outcomes of an attack with a poisoned weapon are: 1) the attack misses; 2) the attack hits, but the save is successful; 3) the attack hits, but the save fails.

If a hit is a hit and damage is damage and resisting the poison is resisting the poison, then not only do we get the major benefit of sticking with natural language, but the outcome of the roll will actually tell us what happens.

But in AD&D a saving throw vs poison is not "resisting the poison". Nor is the "damage" physical injury.

The DMG again, pp 80-81:

By means of skill, luck, magical protections, quirks of fate and the aid of supernatural powers, the character making his or her saving throw takes none or only part of the indicated results . . .

So a character manages to avoid the full blast of the fireball, or averts his or her gaze from the basilisk or medusa, or the poisonous stinger of the giant scorpion misses or fails somehow to inject its venom. . . .

For those who wonder why poison does either killing damage (usually) or no harm whatsoever, recall the justification for character hit points. That is, damage is not actually sustained - at least in proportion to the number of hit points marked off in most cases. The so-called damage is the expenditure of favor from deities, luck, skill and perhaps a scratch, and thus the saving throw. If that mere scratch managed to be venomous, then DEATH. If no such wound was delivered, then NO DAMAGE FROM THE POISON.​

the whole point of using a system to model anything, is that it tells us what happens. The more information we can get out of it, the better, (though concessions must be made to keep the game playable).

If a hit and resisting the poison can give the same narrative outcome as a miss, then we have no idea what happened and we need to just make something up. Which, I understand is something that holds some appeal for some players, but also makes the system significantly less useful as a model.

The system wasn't written as a model. It was written as a way of determining the outcomes of action declarations. Much as in a wargame, the narration of what happened in the clash of arms was left as an exercise for the imagination of the participants.

That Gygax did not intend the "to hit" roll or the saving throw as models is once again shown by what he wrote in his DMG. On page 61, discussing the combat round and the "to hit" roll, he says "One-minute rounds are devised to offer the maximum of choice with a minimum of complication.This allows the DM and the players the best of both worlds." The system doesn't tell you how the sparring, feinting and so on unfolded. It doesn't tell you what form the "to hit" attempt took, nor does it tell you what damage means, except in the limit case of hit point loss the drops the target to 0 or fewer hp.

On page 81, discussing saving throws, he expresses the same attitude: "Imagine that the figure [a man chained to a rock and subject to a red dragon's breath], at the last moment, of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds in finding a way to be free of the fetters Why not? . . . Whatever the rationale, the character is saved to go on." The task of narrating exactly what happened is left to the DM and players.

This is what Gygax describes as "the best of both worlds", meaning minimum complication - the rules are easy to apply and adjudicate - but maximum choice, in the sense that the rules don't impose any constraints on elaborate narration, nor do they confine the fictional events into any pre-defined, narrow channels. This is what [MENTION=1757]ruleslawyer[/MENTION] referred to above as the capacity of hit points to cover a multitude of sins.

The fact that it wasn't written as a model is further demonstrated by the number and extent of "simplifications" - which I regard as distortions - that you have to impose to make it even begin to work: that everyone who is not a mid-level character is a "non-heroic" chump who either suffers minor injuries or dies; that a nick or scratch takes a day to heal on a high level fighter but doesn't affect a peasant at all (being too minor to be modelled by the loss of 1 of 3 total hp); that all injuries that are not potentially fatal can heal perfectly, usually in a pretty short time, with no need for medical or nursing care; that the Heal skill represents low-level magic; etc.

You describe these as concessions to playability, but a game with crit and injury rules is completely playable. Rolemaster is not more complex than PF or 3.5E, as best I can judge those systems. RuneQuest is notably simpler. And a wound/vitality system probably even simpler again.

Whereas asserting that hit point loss corresponds to injury, but then going on to say that for reasons of playability we ignore the fact that our characters are injured, handwave the healing times (but in arbitrarily different ways depending on class, level, etc) and try not to wonder too hard about how someone can be nicked and scratched to death - to me that is the ultimate disregard of verisimilitude. As I said upthread, I find that style comedic.

 

[pemerton]

If 4E and 5E mechanics exclude the idea of HP = meat, then those editions are guilty of One True Way-ism.

They don't exclude hit points as meat. You just change the rest times back to ones that you are prepared to hand-wave as recovery from injury: probably 8 hours for a short rest and 1 week for an extended rest. The 5e DMG expressly states this as an option.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If a character gets hit by either of this monster, how will hit point be defined? Fatigue? Stress? Winded? Luck? Or meat?

Any of the above. Poison can certainly make you fatigued. The stress of fighting through the pain of the poison. Winded in a sense that you are not physically at your peak, or even literally because your airway is swelling shut. Even luck, as they are certainly the most abstract view of hit points, could be "damaged" by how unlucky it is to get poisoned. And certainly meat is, as you seem to infer, a fine answer. Plus any other answer that satisfies an individual as to what causes the hit point loss. But your answer is not the answer.

Which is why, even as a full-gaming-career advocate of hp=mojo, I see where the hp=meat crowd is coming from. They have their individual view and want rules that support that. I believe 5E gives them that, but I'm not the one that needs to be satisfied by the rules presented.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The system wasn't written as a model. It was written as a way of determining the outcomes of action declarations. Much as in a wargame, the narration of what happened in the clash of arms was left as an exercise for the imagination of the participants.

I could care less why the game was written. Any intent that Gygax may have had is, at best, tertiary to what the rules are and how they were used.

He could have tried to design a pie tin, but that's entirely irrelevant to our use of it as a novelty flying disc (especially since Gygax is long gone, and the new developers are entirely aware of both markets).

Whereas asserting that hit point loss corresponds to injury, but then going on to say that for reasons of playability we ignore the fact that our characters are injured, handwave the healing times (but in arbitrarily different ways depending on class, level, etc) and try not to wonder too hard about how someone can be nicked and scratched to death - to me that is the ultimate disregard of verisimilitude.

In which case words lack meaning, we get no information out of the model, and the game is entirely worthless to anyone who wants to use it as such. It is better that the game lack verisimilitude than that it lack meaning. It is a fantasy game, after all.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They don't exclude hit points as meat. You just change the rest times back to ones that you are prepared to hand-wave as recovery from injury: probably 8 hours for a short rest and 1 week for an extended rest. The 5e DMG expressly states this as an option.

That's why I said "If" it was the case. It most certainly is the case in 4E, but 5E has options such that it is not.

 

[MechaPilot]

Can you point out where it doesn't? We're not trying to establish meat as the One True Way of viewing Hit Points. We're just saying that the position is as-consistent or more-so than the alternative.

If you view every HP as at least partially meat, then it can still be entirely consistent with every definition.

I got rid of the bulk of my 2e books several years ago before a move, so I cannot open a 2e PHB/DMG and quote it directly to you.

However, I am not the one making the statement that the rules mandate that every single HP must contain meat; Chocolategravy did that.

Every single HP is meat and skill and luck.

The onus of proof is on the one who makes the claim. My asking for a source for his claim doesn't shift that burden to me.


Regarding consistency, might I ask that you reread this from my previous post:

Only if you think that a low Con mage healing from nearly dead to full HPs quicker than a high Con fighter healing from half HPs to full is consistent. At least in 2e a high enough Con score gave you regeneration. In 3e the stat that determines your physical health contributes in inverse proportion to your healing time (Con penalty to HPs means you heal to full faster, while bonus HPs from high Con means you heal slower).

HP as physical health is terribly inconsistent when the recovery system makes high Con characters take more time to heal than low Con characters. And 3e, which is mentioned as being consistent above, does just that. Let me illustrate this with an example.

Billie and Fred are fighters. They are both level three, they both got max HP at first level and 6 HP at both second and thrid level (22 HP just from 3rd level in the fighter class). The only difference between the two, is that Fred is rather sickly. While Billie has a 14 Con, Fred has a 6 Con.

Billie: 28 HPs (22 + (3*2))
Fred: 18 HPs (22 - (3*2))

Now lets say that Billie and Fred are fighting side-by-side, and they both lose half their HPs. Fred, whose Con score is eight lower than Billie's, will heal up completely after three nights of rest. However, Billie, who has a better chance of resisting poisons, diseases, and damage from forced marches because of her heightened Constitution, must spend five nights to recover to full.

Heck, lets dive in for round two. Let's say that both Billie and Fred started at full HPs and took 18 damage while fighting together. Billie is hurt, but Fred is very nearly dead. However, after six nights rest, both of them are back to full. But, wait a minute; the six Con character just recovered from being nearly dead in the same time that it took the fourteen Con character to recover from some cuts, scratches, and bruises.

Being less healthy means that you heal faster, and that is just woefully inconsistent with the notion that every HP must have some meat in it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The onus of proof is on the one who makes the claim. My asking for a source for his claim doesn't shift that burden to me.

Fair enough. I must have missed the original assertion. Sorry about that.

But, wait a minute; the six Con character just recovered from being nearly dead in the same time that it took the fourteen Con character to recover from some cuts, scratches, and bruises.

First of all, that's quite a stretch to suggest that losing 18 of 28 Hit Points is merely some cuts and bruises, but losing 28 of 28 Hit Points is beaten nearly to death. Even if you accept that, then there's only a problem if you interpret the same amount of damage to vary in severity based on who receives it, which is not a requirement of the meat camp (which merely states that every injury must contain at least some component of meat). What you are highlighting is a noted case of poor verisimilitude in the proportional meat camp (or sub-camp, if you want to call it that).

If you take 18hp of damage to be a fixed amount of injury, regardless of who receives it, then you have both individuals healing the same wound in the same amount of time, and Billie is tough enough that she could withstand another hit (of half the severity) without dropping.

Like I said, one of the benefits of abstract Hit Points is that there's plenty of room to interpret in either direction, depending on which issue bothers you most. We're just asking that there be enough wiggle room that we can still interpret there to be some significant amount of meat in there, somewhere, so we can use that how we want to.

 

[MechaPilot]

Fair enough. I must have missed the original assertion. Sorry about that.

First of all, that's quite a stretch to suggest that losing 18 of 28 Hit Points is merely some cuts and bruises, but losing 28 of 28 Hit Points is beaten nearly to death. Even if you accept that, then there's only a problem if you interpret the same amount of damage to vary in severity based on who receives it, which is not a requirement of the meat camp (which merely states that every injury must contain at least some component of meat). What you are highlighting is a noted case of poor verisimilitude in the proportional meat camp (or sub-camp, if you want to call it that).

If you take 18hp of damage to be a fixed amount of injury, regardless of who receives it, then you have both individuals healing the same wound in the same amount of time, and Billie is tough enough that she could withstand another hit (of half the severity) without dropping.

Like I said, one of the benefits of abstract Hit Points is that there's plenty of room to interpret in either direction, depending on which issue bothers you most. We're just asking that there be enough wiggle room that we can still interpret there to be some significant amount of meat in there, somewhere, so we can use that how we want to.

X amount of damage representing the same amount of injury to whomever receives it seems terribly inconsistent with how HPs have been described. If the average person takes 4 points of damage to be killed and damage represents a fixed amount of harm, then every four points of damage is a fatal injury. Even if we assume that the injury ends up being nonfatal because having HP remaining means the ordinarily fatal injury just wasn't in the right spot to kill, then we still have to contend with the lack of consistency associated with things like the porcupine of arrows not affecting your ability to successfully swing a sword, run, jump, climb, swim, or grapple.

And please note, it's not that I think my way is right; I've always said options for all, and that there's no right/wrong way to play as long as your having fun doing it. I just think that the argument about the lack of HP consistency in 4e and 5e glosses over the inconsistencies with 3e.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

X amount of damage representing the same amount of injury to whomever receives it seems terribly inconsistent with how HPs have been described. If the average person takes 4 points of damage to be killed and damage represents a fixed amount of harm, then every four points of damage is a fatal injury.

In my personal view, 4 points of damage is a wound that is fatal to someone. The average peasant, when hit with a sword or arrow, will be unconscious and bleeding to death. That's not to say that 4 damage is "an arrow through you" or "impaled on a broadsword", but more that the average peasant is related to Glass Joe. (My personal rule of thumb is that "run through with a sword" is equal to the maximum damage a sword can deal - 8hp in 2E, or 16hp in 3E.)

A level 10 fighter might have 100 hit points. She won't die, even with 4 arrows (4 x 24 = 96 damage) in her back. She is more akin to Brock Samson. This makes sense, because she hangs out with the guy who can instantly teleport anywhere in the world, and another friend who can literally raise the dead. They're all practically demi-gods by this point.