D&D 5E The problem with 5e

[Helldritch]

@Don Durito
Yep, I too do have problems with the cure spells. How do you heal something that did not really caused a wound?

What we came up with is less than satisfactory, but it is somewhat logical. The CW spells remove the cuts, bruises, stress, fatigue and up to a certain point, a good chunk of luck. It is all we could come up with. And after all, it is a SUIM case as we say. (Shut Up It's Magic!)

Edit: Added a few words that the autoco had removed....

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes. Definitely. Absolutely. It must be the case that an attack which hits and deals damage has actually hit you. The alternative - that you can suffer injury without anyone touching you (by hand, weapon, or magic) - is too ridiculous to entertain. Such an assertion would cause far, far more problems than it solves.

Again, I disagree. Changing your thought process to this philosophy so hit points can represent abstract concepts like skill, luck, divine favor, etc., all of which absolutely are part of hit points. To assume otherwise would be tantamount to equating hit points to meat points IMO.

That was a typo, because I haven't had coffee yet. The second value should be 42/50, indicated a loss of 8hp relative to the first value having lost 16hp.

Gotcha. Yeah, coffee is a must.

Under this model, a miss is an attack that didn't exhaust him at all to defend against. No bruise, no strain, little or no sweat.

A hit that leaves the target at positive HP causes minor to trivial injury at most, but primarily wears them down and makes it harder for them to defend themselves from the eventual blow which truly gets through their guard- the one that reduces them to 0 HP.

And THIS is exactly what I've been talking about how hit points really work. This way, they make perfect sense (well, mostly... the poisoned blade scenario is a notable exception--sigh...).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Giving a hero that drops to 0 hp a level of exhaustion (cumulative with future drops) would go some way to reducing whack’a’mole

We did that for over a year. It works fine if you can accept that it will drive things occasionally when a PC has 4 levels of exhaustion, etc.

We now use that you make a check when you get hit by a crit or take a level of exhaustion.

Personally, either work fine IMO.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What we came up with is less than satisfactory, but it is somewhat logical. The CW spells remove the cuts, bruises, stress, fatigue and up to a certain point, a good chunk of luck. It is all we could come up with. And after all, it is a SUIM case as we say. (Shut Up It's Magic!)

I think that works perfectly fine, as it is also how I decided CW spells work. If you are at 0, it cures your "major wound" that took you down and gets you up and going again. Further castings restores the fatigue, nicks, and so on.

 

[Mannahnin]

Wow. How bad is this attacker, that their target doesn't even need to try to defend against their attacks? About as impressive as the cleric whose "miracles" are less effective than taking a nap, I suppose. Truly, this is an Age of Heroes.

I didn't write "didn't try". Nor was what I wrote semantically equivalent. I'm not clear whether you're deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, or just had a minor reading comprehension issue. I appreciate your hyperbole, though.

I was talking about an attack which doesn't measurably tire the defender and reduce their ability to defend themselves from a later killing blow. It might miss entirely (misjudged the range, and the defender just stepped away from it at the right time) glance off their armor, or deflect off their shield, or be warded off by an easy parry. "Hits", under the game rules, are attacks which succeed in straining and wearing down the defender, whether they physically cut and bruise them or not.

I wasn't talking about your example #1. That example almost makes sense. Until he rolls a 20 on the death save, and then takes a nap after the fight, thus removing all evidence that one hour ago he was twelve seconds away from bleeding to death (assuming a good roll on his Hit Die).

So which is it? Was he beaten within twelve seconds of death? Or was he not substantially injured? Because the rules tell us that both are true, which is inconsistent.

The rules tell us that it could be either, and we don't know which until it becomes relevant. They are simulating heroic fiction, where, for example, a character might be knocked momentarily unconscious then wake a short while later, even seconds later (having been functionally "stunned and senseless" for a moment), which is a pretty common occurrence in pulp fiction. If he doesn't roll that 20, then the wound was apparently more serious.

Likewise, resting to restore the combatant's energies such that they can engage in a whole new fight without being a single attack from death or unconsciousness is again very much in keeping with heroic fiction (including action movies).

Now you're just making stuff up. There is no factor in the equation of Hit Points for plot armor, or divine favor.

Plot armor isn't real, even by the standards of a world with magic and dragons.

Yes, it quite explicitly is, and this is part of how Hit Points have been explained as a concept at least since 1978. Most likely earlier, but I have a specific passage from the AD&D 1E PH immediately leaping to mind. Gary was telling us that they are not "meat points" more than forty years ago, and every version of the D&D rules since has continued to so explain.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I didn't write "didn't try". Nor was what I wrote semantically equivalent. I'm not clear whether you're deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, or just had a minor reading comprehension issue. I appreciate your hyperbole, though.

I was talking about an attack which doesn't measurably tire the defender and reduce their ability to defend themselves from a later killing blow. It might miss entirely (misjudged the range, and the defender just stepped away from it at the right time) glance off their armor, or deflect off their shield, or be warded off by an easy parry. "Hits", under the game rules, are attacks which succeed in straining and wearing down the defender, whether they physically cut and bruise them or not.


The rules tell us that it could be either, and we don't know which until it becomes relevant. They are simulating heroic fiction, where, for example, a character might be knocked momentarily unconscious then wake a short while later, even seconds later (having been functionally "stunned and senseless" for a moment), which is a pretty common occurrence in pulp fiction. If he doesn't roll that 20, then the wound was apparently more serious.

Likewise, resting to restore the combatant's energies such that they can engage in a whole new fight without being a single attack from death or unconsciousness is again very much in keeping with heroic fiction (including action movies).


Yes, it quite explicitly is, and this is part of how Hit Points have been explained as a concept at least since 1978. Most likely earlier, but I have a specific passage from the AD&D 1E PH immediately leaping to mind. Gary was telling us that they are not "meat points" more than forty years ago, and every version of the D&D rules since has continued to so explain.

If I recall he stated that the idea that a human fighter with 50 hit points was taking the same punishment that a war horse could (I.e. that the same number of hit points maps directly onto would severity) was absurd.

he went on to describe hit points as being luck, favor, skill at avoiding blows whatever with the last chunk of hit points being the severe wounds.

maybe same place? Would have to check—-he notes that many hit points down would look like cuts and bruises usually without severe or disabling injury until the last bit.

I think that is the 1st edition DMG...again its memory and would have to dig it out to get the actual wording.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah, every edition explains HP much the same, at least since 1E. Actual physical injury is nebulous, and mostly consists of minor cuts and bruises until the character goes down.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Yeah, every edition explains HP much the same, at least since 1E. Actual physical injury is nebulous, and mostly consists of minor cuts and bruises until the character goes down.

It’s odd. Hp are almost like a narrative device as much as anything and a countdown to the story taking a rough turn.

I guess the bottom line is that it’s a game and some things will remind us of that.

 

[Krachek]

If we start complain about HP we should rename the thread : What’s wrong about DnD.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

It’s odd. Hp are almost like a narrative device as much as anything and a countdown to the story taking a rough turn.

I guess the bottom line is that it’s a game and some things will remind us of that.

If we start complain about HP we should rename the thread : What’s wrong about DnD.

It’s me. My perceptions and concerns. They’re all wrong

 

[Krachek]

It’s me. My perceptions and concerns. They’re all wrong

Your concern are legitimated, but 5ed is certainly the edition who encouraged the most house ruling and adaptation to a specific style of play.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Now you're just making stuff up. There is no factor in the equation of Hit Points for plot armor, or divine favor.

There it is... divine protection. Yep, been part of HP for a LONG time. This particular snip-it is from the DMG 1E, pg. 84.

If I recall he stated that the idea that a human fighter with 50 hit points was taking the same punishment that a war horse could (I.e. that the same number of hit points maps directly onto would severity) was absurd.

he went on to describe hit points as being luck, favor, skill at avoiding blows whatever with the last chunk of hit points being the severe wounds.

maybe same place? Would have to check—-he notes that many hit points down would look like cuts and bruises usually without severe or disabling injury until the last bit.

I think that is the 1st edition DMG...again its memory and would have to dig it out to get the actual wording.

And here you go (PHB 1E, pg. 34)

 

[DND_Reborn]

One final comment on HP. What bothers me mostly is not what it represents, but that given how so much of it is not "meat" but other abstract concepts, HP are still based on class with the martial PCs getting larger HD.

I think HP should be much smaller for die size, but incorporate more than just CON mod for a bonus. The CON mod is supposed to be some of the "meat", but also includes resistance to pain and fatigue, among other things probably.

Anyway, this thread has diverted enough with the HP talk. Hopefully people will move on to other things soon. I'm finished with the HP discussion for this go around.

 

[tetrasodium]

Your concern are legitimated, but 5ed is certainly the edition who encouraged the most house ruling and adaptation to a specific style of play.

Encouraging & being written in a way that enables it are two different things. Want to get away from "thou shall MUST run 6-8encounters per long rest rather than the tie proven 4-6" & your in for a headache. Want to make changes to how rests actually work because making them last a day or week doesn't mechanically change much & breaks a lot of things?... doesn't matter which way because it's a nightmare either way

5e's defenders love to say how it was built to allow for easy houseruling, but with everything in the game being written as a one off isolated rule the system is setup to make that as difficult & Sisyphean as possible. This thread touched on that a few times back when people were discussing things that were needlessly difficult to fix like the instant recovery of all hp before someone's insistance on discussing what is a hit point hijacked the thread into one of the easiest things possible to fix "is it divine favor luck or what?">":ask your GM"

 

[Oofta]

Encouraging & being written in a way that enables it are two different things. Want to get away from "thou shall MUST run 6-8encounters per long rest rather than the tie proven 4-6" & your in for a headache. Want to make changes to how rests actually work because making them last a day or week doesn't mechanically change much & breaks a lot of things?... doesn't matter which way because it's a nightmare either way

5e's defenders love to say how it was built to allow for easy houseruling, but with everything in the game being written as a one off isolated rule the system is setup to make that as difficult & Sisyphean as possible. This thread touched on that a few times back when people were discussing things that were needlessly difficult to fix like the instant recovery of all hp before someone's insistance on discussing what is a hit point hijacked the thread into one of the easiest things possible to fix "is it divine favor luck or what?">":ask your GM"

How is this really any different from other editions? If you follow the advice (which I do) it works well for every group I've ever run. But it's just a general guideline. Much more than we had in early editions. It's like people (conveniently) don't remember exponential casters and quadratic fighters from previous editions. How the casters were always ready to quit for the day after 1-2 fights in earlier editions?

Unless you go the route of 4E where everybody uses the same mechanic and everybody uses a variation of Vancian spell casting I don't see much of an option. At least with this version we have solid advice that works whether or not you personally like it. Want to allow 5 minute work days? Throw more monsters in waves. I do it sometimes because occasionally it's fun for the casters to go nova.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's like people (conveniently) don't remember exponential casters and quadratic fighters from previous editions. How the casters were always ready to quit for the day after 1-2 fights in earlier editions?

Every once in a while this comes up. Never happened in any AD&D game I played in. Casters and Fighters always felt balanced in power over the long haul of the game, and casters conserved their spells until they were really needed, not simply convenient, and often had spells left over (at mid- and higher levels) when the Fighters et al. wanted to call it a day.

But obviously YMMV at apparently did.

How is this really any different from other editions? If you follow the advice (which I do) it works well for every group I've ever run. But it's just a general guideline. Much more than we had in early editions.

I agree. When the adventuring day falls into the 6-8 encounters, it plays well. If the story demands fewer encounters on some days and more encounters on others, those days the game is easier or harder as expected.

IIRC, @Oofta, you also use the gritty rest variant or something, right?

 

[embee]

Yeah, but then people would know how horrible I am at accents. I couldn't stand the shaming I'd get from people not from midwestern USA when they realize how horrible my cockney brogue is.

You want bad accents?

Stop by my house at 7:45 every night when I read "Bread And Jam For Frances."

The little one is a captive audience for me to practice my terrible Liverpudlian accent on. It's Ringo Starr if Ringo was played by Dick Van Dyke dressed as John Oliver, having suffered a massive stroke.

 

[Oofta]

Every once in a while this comes up. Never happened in any AD&D game I played in. Casters and Fighters always felt balanced in power over the long haul of the game, and casters conserved their spells until they were really needed, not simply convenient, and often had spells left over (at mid- and higher levels) when the Fighters et al. wanted to call it a day.

But obviously YMMV at apparently did.


I agree. When the adventuring day falls into the 6-8 encounters, it plays well. If the story demands fewer encounters on some days and more encounters on others, those days the game is easier or harder as expected.

IIRC, @Oofta, you also use the gritty rest variant or something, right?

Yeah, I use the alternate rest rule and find that it really helps with pacing for my game since I don't do dungeon crawls very often.

In previous editions, it was more of an issue at higher levels. I remember playing games where every encounter just ended in 3.x once it was the caster's turn after about 13th level or so; there wasn't really a reason for anyone else in the party. It also depended on the game (and house rules), such as how many wands or staves the casters had and so on.

Before 3 there was so much variance in how people played the game I wouldn't be surprised if people had different experiences.

 

[Oofta]

You want bad accents?

Stop by my house at 7:45 every night when I read "Bread And Jam For Frances."

The little one is a captive audience for me to practice my terrible Liverpudlian accent on. It's Ringo Starr if Ringo was played by Dick Van Dyke dressed as John Oliver, having suffered a massive stroke.

It probably doesn't help that my "French" accent is based on Pepe Le Pew.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, I use the alternate rest rule and find that it really helps with pacing for my game since I don't do dungeon crawls very often.

We do them often enough that those are the really hard days LOL!

If I didn't do them, I would probably switch to longer rest variants as well. For a while we did a short rest was 4 hours (and later 8 hours) and a long rest was 24 hours.

Before 3 there was so much variance in how people played the game I wouldn't be surprised if people had different experiences.

I agree. I never played 3E that much, so I don't know about the power differences at that point.