D&D 5E Starter Set Character Sheet Revealed!

[Hussar]

No, it is not a given that bigger creatures have more Hit Points, because Hit Points are a collective name for many different things which each contribute to making something less likely to fall.

All else being equal, sure, a bigger creature is going to have more Hit Points than a smaller one. All else being equal, a skilled combatant will have more Hit Points than a less-skilled one. If nothing is equal, and the bigger creature is less skilled, then we don't have enough information to say which will have more Hit Points.

It's not inconsistency. It's just a multi-variable equation.

Note, we're taliking Hit Dice, not hit points. So experience doesn't enter into the equation. I could have ten hit dice and have less hp than a horse. But, the baseline MM creatures are not experienced. They don't have levels.

So why does a harpy or a medusa have more hit dice and more hit points than an ogre?

Look, if something is consistent then it is predictable, correct? If it is predictable then it operates by defineable rules. Again correct?

So what rules define how many HD a creature has? After all, if it is consistent than that should be an easy question.

In a game like Villains and Vigillantes, your hp were your weight divided by ten. Makes sense. The Hulk has more hp than Kitty Pryde. Predictable and consistent.

DnD is neither.

 

[Obryn]

Unless someone can clearly and unequivocally provide evidence to the contrary, it is purely a matter of choice, playstyle, and preference as to how it is interpreted. Personal interpretations tend to fall along simulationist vs. narrativist "camps."

Nice breakdown.

But! I'd say that the overriding consideration among all "camps" is more involving gameplay concerns. Since hit points are a game mechanic, I think even most arguments about simulation (with a couple of rare exceptions which I think are the exception rather than the norm) really come down to playstyle concerns first and foremost.

That is, if you want hit points to be strategic resources that, once lost, are difficult to regain on your own, you can call that "simulation" because that's how getting hit hard works in real life. But I think the gameplay concern - what hit points do and how they interact with the rest of the game's rules - are really at the heart of it. If you've said "hit points" you've already conceded any arguments about realism or simulation. However, you can create other rules surrounding hit points which helps them play like (some but not all forms of) longer-term damage.

OTOH, if you want hit points to be a tactical resource that recover fairly fast, or you don't want to have to rely on a cleric, or if you think it's more dramatic to have them gained and lost quickly, that seems to look "narrative" but it's still really all about the gameplay.

Just my two cents.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Note, we're taliking Hit Dice, not hit points. So experience doesn't enter into the equation. I could have ten hit dice and have less hp than a horse. But, the baseline MM creatures are not experienced. They don't have levels.

Since when? I thought we were talking hit points, but if you want to change to hit dice then the same is true. And no, it is not the case that baseline creatures in the MM have no combat experience whatsoever - the entry in the MM represents a typical adult member of the species. It would be be more-than-slightly silly to suggest that an ogre or harpy survives until adulthood without any significant combat experience.

And you're still making too many assumptions by saying that an ogre is physically tougher than a harpy. That particular factor - the physical resilience of the harpy - is not something which is presented in any source.

Look, if something is consistent then it is predictable, correct? If it is predictable then it operates by defineable rules. Again correct?

If it's consistent, then it's predictable to the degree that the variables and the rules are knowable. Hit points (and hit dice) are a complex variable, involving multiple components, which we lack the knowledge of how to separate.

It's like, an ogre might have 29 hit points, where HP(o) = M(o) + S(o); and a harpy might have 31 hit points, where HP(h) = M(h) + S(h).

We can see HP, but M and S are individually unobservable. Just because something is unknown, that doesn't mean it's inconsistent.

 

[Maxboy]

We did it. All. The. Time.

It was actually quite fun. I am thinking of running a 5e game that will require someone to map. We also had a treasurer (kept track of treasure for party and treasure splitting), and note-taker (when needed).

We still do that in 2014, actually last friday night

 

[Hussar]

Since when? I thought we were talking hit points, but if you want to change to hit dice then the same is true. And no, it is not the case that baseline creatures in the MM have no combat experience whatsoever - the entry in the MM represents a typical adult member of the species. It would be be more-than-slightly silly to suggest that an ogre or harpy survives until adulthood without any significant combat experience.

And you're still making too many assumptions by saying that an ogre is physically tougher than a harpy. That particular factor - the physical resilience of the harpy - is not something which is presented in any source.

If it's consistent, then it's predictable to the degree that the variables and the rules are knowable. Hit points (and hit dice) are a complex variable, involving multiple components, which we lack the knowledge of how to separate.

It's like, an ogre might have 29 hit points, where HP(o) = M(o) + S(o); and a harpy might have 31 hit points, where HP(h) = M(h) + S(h).

We can see HP, but M and S are individually unobservable. Just because something is unknown, that doesn't mean it's inconsistent.

Then why do elephants have more HP than ogres? What combat experience did an elephant, or a whale for that matter, get into?

So, you're saying that HD are consistent because, somehow, a harpy gets into more combat by the time it becomes an adult than an ogre? After all, that's how HD are gained aren't they? For me, it seems pretty inconsistent that a 700 pound ogre has less HD than a 150 pound harpy. And somehow, a brown bear, which isn't exactly getting into fights all that often, has almost twice the HP and almost the same HD as the harpy and almost twice that of the ogre.

Again, what consistency is there here? HD are a purely gamist mechanic. The reason a harpy has that many HD is to make it a viable threat for a 4th level party. The reason an troll has that many HD is because you need a giant between ogre and hill giant. It has absolutely nothing to do with simulating anything. It's pure gamism. Everything is built that way because it fits within the game. There is no reason for an ogre to have less HP than a troll. They're about the same size, they're both Large Giants, so why does the troll have two more HD and twice as many HP?

Funnily enough, you've got a nice straight line progression - Ogre 29 HP 4 HD, Troll 63 HP 6 HD, Hill Giant 12 HD 102 HP. Ogres are 9 to 10 feet tall and 650 pounds, Trolls are 9 to 10 feet tall and 500 pounds and Hill giants are 9-10 feet tall and 1100 pounds.

There's no consistency there. The lighter creature has more HP. You cannot argue combat experience here, they're all about the same. The one that's twice as heavy has 5 TIMES more HP and three times more HD. There's absolutely no consistency here. There's no "unknown variables" to account for this. It's pure, 100% gamism. Trolls are that big because you need a critter at that CR. Ogres are the right size for a CR 3 monster.

Simulations have to actually simulate SOMETHING. There's nothing simulated here.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Simulations have to actually simulate SOMETHING. There's nothing simulated here.

Maybe "simulation" is the wrong word for it, but "process sim" can still work since we seem to agree on that definition.

And even if you don't see how D&D can work as a process sim - and even I will admit that there are a few inconsistencies, because the designers are only human - you should respect that it's worked well enough for myself, and for others, that we have reason to see that it can continue to do so in the future.

I mean, if you treat it as primarily a game, then I can see how it's worked that way for you, and I would be disappointed if they made it unplayable as such.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe "simulation" is the wrong word for it, but "process sim" can still work since we seem to agree on that definition.

And even if you don't see how D&D can work as a process sim - and even I will admit that there are a few inconsistencies, because the designers are only human - you should respect that it's worked well enough for myself, and for others, that we have reason to see that it can continue to do so in the future.

I mean, if you treat it as primarily a game, then I can see how it's worked that way for you, and I would be disappointed if they made it unplayable as such.

See, but that's the thing. The claim here is that something changed as we went along. That 4e suddenly made process sim a problem. And that it might be a problem in 5e because of things like Second Wind and short rests and the like. But, I've been using 3e as the example here. I could do the same thing with 2e and 1e as well just as easily.

Passing it off as a "few inconsistencies" is a bit much. When something as basic and fundamental as HP and HD are inconsistent, how can you actually have any consistency in the rest of the game? There is no process to simulate since the process is unknowable. You can't look at any part of the game and say, "Ok, we start at A, pass through B and reach C." which is a fundamental concept of process sim.

Not without ignoring vast swaths of the game. Healing overnight is a problem because it's too fast? But, healing in two nights is consistent? Really? Damage on a miss is inconsistent but not being able to actually tell how and why you missed is? We almost all agree that a miss can make contact with a target - 3e had touch AC's specifically for this idea - so, why not have an ability to allows those attacks to deal minor damage? It's not inconsistent with anything.

The problem I'm having is that people are trying to claim their personal preference as having some sort of objective value. "I don't like DoaM" is perfectly fine. No problems. But, "DoaM is inconsistent with the in game fiction" doesn't hold any water and it's demonstrable that it doesn't hold any water. "Hit points are consistent" is flat out untrue.

See, the whole "D&D as process sim" argument would be a lot more credible if it had appeared at any time BEFORE the edition wars surrounding 4e. After all, if it was simply a play style thing, 4e is hardly the first edition to be pretty bad at process sim. AD&D doesn't do process sim at all and doesn't pretend to. There's a reason we got games like GURPS and Role Master when we did and it's not because AD&D was a great process sim game.

But, the "it worked well enough for me" line is problematic because you cannot actually explain how it works for you. There's so many consistency holes, even using the 3e mechanics, that it's frankly baffling why you would even try. Sure, you could cook an egg on a radiator, but a frying pan would be a lot better and I'd never try to claim that a new radiator was bad because it doesn't fry eggs.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

See, but that's the thing. The claim here is that something changed as we went along. That 4e suddenly made process sim a problem.

All I can say is that, in actuality, both 2E and 3E worked well enough for me (and for others) from a process sim standpoint.

There's a huge difference between "hit points are both skill and meat, and both harpies and ogres have ~30 hit points" and "hit points are both skill and meat, and the same harpy can have either 30 hit points or 1 hit points depending on who is looking at it". Seriously, that is a huge difference.

And for the record, I don't have any problem with damage-on-a-miss, and I'll even admit that the 4E style of fast healing can make sense and be internally consistent. Those are just minor preferences, next to the concept of using different mechanics to model the exact same thing.

 

[pemerton]

There's a huge difference between "hit points are both skill and meat, and both harpies and ogres have ~30 hit points" and "hit points are both skill and meat, and the same harpy can have either 30 hit points or 1 hit points depending on who is looking at it". Seriously, that is a huge difference.

And for the record, I don't have any problem with damage-on-a-miss, and I'll even admit that the 4E style of fast healing can make sense and be internally consistent. Those are just minor preferences, next to the concept of using different mechanics to model the exact same thing.

AD&D uses different mechanics to model the same thing - it uses hit points to model dodging (increases in hp with character level represent the ability to avoid otherwise skewering attacks due to "sixth sense"), plus DEX bonuses to AC to model dodging, plus various saving throws to model dodging.

AD&D also uses different mechanics to model divine favour - cleric spells, plus hit points, plus saving throws, plus the divine intervention chance.

Finally, even for a simulationist there need be nothing inherently objectionable that a harpy might be Level X with N hp and Level X + 8 with 1 hp. What is being simulated is the constant toughness of the harpy, which is a function of these two properties. Much as the space-time interval between two events is constant although the location and time at which an event occurs, and of which the space-time interval is a function, is itself variable depending upon who is looking at it.

If special relativity is true of the real world, then "hit point + level" relativity can be true of a fantasy world!

 

[The Hitcher]

Hit points are a pacing mechanic.