D&D 5E The "everyone at full fighting ability at 1 hp" conundrum

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Unlike video games (and, by the sound of it from earlier this thread, at least one online RPG host) monsters in the game world don't run around with little health bars over their heads.

So what? HP isn't health, they're an abstract game concept. Telling the players the monster's HP values should be no stranger than telling them whose turn it is.

Many enjoy the "guessing game" aspect of secret HP, but that doesn't it's got anything to do with the game world reality.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

HP obviously correspond to something that the characters can observe, or else nobody would pay 50gp for a healing potion; they'd just spontaneously fall over dead, with no prior signs of injury.

The mistaken premise is that everyone is at full fighting ability when they're down to 1hp. That's not necessarily true. It's just that the degradation in combat ability is too small to be reflected in our simplified game mechanics. The penalty is there; it's just not worth the effort of us tracking it.

 

[Oofta]

I used to give PCs a general breakdown of opponent HP. From unhurt to 3/4, 1/2 or 1/4 HP so they had a general idea, but not exact.

As far as what HP represent ... it's just accumulated bumps, bruises, strain and mental stamina that will eventually do you in.

Beyond that? Worst system ever other than anything else I've seen.

 

[Krachek]

Oh no not again !

 

[Tony Vargas]

HP obviously correspond to something that the characters can observe, or else nobody would pay 50gp for a healing potion

IRL, people pay good money for ineffectual treatments all the time.

The mistaken premise is that everyone is at full fighting ability when they're down to 1hp. That's not necessarily true. It's just that the degradation in combat ability is too small to be reflected in our simplified game mechanics. The penalty is there; it's just not worth the effort of us tracking it.

OK, that's one rationalization.
You could also say that, when making that one significant attack, the creature is able to overcome or work around his 'wounds' (exhaustion, demoralization, luck running out, whatever) in that moment, but is decreasingly able to defend the rest of the time - that tracks fairly well.
Or, that reduced hps, however non-physical, /do/ represent degraded fighting ability, /and that's evident to the opponent/.

So instead of "you stab him below the floating ribs, perforating his sigmoid colon" you'd say "you have him on the ropes, his parries are getting desperate, his attacks, sloppy..."

 

[Krachek]

Hit point in DnD are based on quantic theory.
As you loose hit point you are a probability of being dead just like the Schrödinger's cat.
For example When hit by a poisonous blade, you take your save in advance as a probability of being hit deadly later.

Since you are not having damage but only a probability of being dead you fight at full efficiency.

 

[jsaving]

The DM pretty much narrated nothing with each attack people did, and when I asked, it was "it hits the creature."

I think you've just answered your own question here. Implicitly your blows come ever-closer to connecting as a foe's hit points diminish, first grazing armor instead of missing and then eventually inflicting visible damage that is very nearly enough to impair your foe. But it is up to the DM to narrate this progression, which yours didn't do.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think you've just answered your own question here. Implicitly your blows come ever-closer to connecting as a foe's hit points diminish, first grazing armor instead of missing and then eventually inflicting visible damage that is very nearly enough to impair your foe. But it is up to the DM to narrate this progression, which yours didn't do.

My post may have implicated the DM, and I apologize for that because it wasn't the point I was going after. I probably worded it poorly.

Let me try again.

If we assume the following:

• HP loss does not reflect wounds (because you heal completely after only 8 hours rest, so they couldn't be wounds, but near misses as people have described)
• You can lose 99% of your hit points and not suffer any effects to any of your abilities, combat or otherwise (which rules out fatigue and wear and tear)

then the DM narrated correctly as the above would advise. Not the DM's fault. That's the paradox I was referring to. On one hand, we're expected to believe the above is true, but on the other we use things like how much you damage a creature to determine things like what attacks are effective, which aren't, how close to defeat it is to offer surrender or another spell, etc. It's like a video game where the monster doesn't have any effects until suddenly it's dead. And you're relying on metagaming knowledge to strategize accordingly, which I am very much against personally.

 

[ad_hoc]

I apply action movie logic to D&D.

In action movies characters become visibly injured. They get scrapes, they start looking dirty. They grimace more. They might even develop a limp.

They still fight at full capacity though.

 

[ad_hoc]

• HP loss does not reflect wounds (because you heal completely after only 8 hours rest, so they couldn't be wounds, but near misses as people have described)

Action heroes get wounded and then after a break they are completely fine again.

They just need a bandage or two, some stitches, and a nap. Then good as new.