D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[Uchawi]

Unless someone develops a hit point system where there is a direct ratio of damage = decreased output, mental capacity, etc. then hit point interpretation is wide open and there is no universal viewpoint when a character is above zero. In my opinion hit points above zero are fluid and adapt to the given situation. That also means there will be inconsistencies if you want a universal application, whether that is all meat or all fatigue.

 

[Hussar]

And, really, below zero is fluid too. You can stand up all by yourself after being reduced to zero hp on a lucky die roll. You might be dying or you might be simply knocked out briefly but there is no way to determine that before the results are known.

 

[Minigiant]

And, really, below zero is fluid too. You can stand up all by yourself after being reduced to zero hp on a lucky die roll. You might be dying or you might be simply knocked out briefly but there is no way to determine that before the results are known.

It goes back to thr fact that when you drop yo 0 HP, there's no roll to say what happened then. You roll death saves AFTER you fall and try to get up. Its not like some games with say that happens when you drop.

That would make a cool variant. You drop, roll d20, and see if you are KOed, badly injured, or dead.

Then the variant warlord would add his CHA to the rolls of his allies.

 

[I'm A Banana]

When you say that each individual HP must contain some portion of physical damage, you are committing the Fallacy of Division. Correct that.

In order for the Fallacy of Division to apply, there should be evidence that it is indeed false. That is, there should be an example of the 5e PHB/DMG/MM not treating each individual HP like it contains some portion of physical damage. In fact, many examples, enough to pass a threshold of simple error. That would show that the idea that each individual HP must contain some portion of physical damage is, indeed, not the case.

Such evidence is critically lacking. Any effect that recovers HP can easily be interpreted as if it contained some measure of physical healing. There's been no serious attempt to show otherwise. The closest one gets seems to be indicating that healing during a rest cannot be totally physical and stay "realistic," but even if one grants that point, that point does not show that there is no physical element to healing during a rest, merely that it is not 100% physical, which is well within the interpretation of hit points as being part physical.

So I'm afraid you must correct yourself and your cavalier use of the world "fallacy" in complete absence of evidence of falsity. Or, to put it another way, you are suffering from the fallacy fallacy.

Don't get me wrong, 5e could've made some other choice, or could later present some view of HP that isn't consistent with that, and it would be "fine." And nobody cares what anybody does at their table or if there is an ounce of "officialness" to it. There's nothing binding WotC or individual players to this concept. It is simply the case in the rules as they exist now. What appears baseless wishful thinking is the idea that you already have HP in 5e treated sometimes as if it was not in part physical. There's no evidence for 5e using HP in that way. You can interpret it that way, but there is no problem with not interpreting it that way, and there's no instance of the game itself using that interpretation. Which means that any attempt to insist that one is doing it wrong by including physical damage in instances of hit point recovery or loss is clearly absolute hooey.

And, again, what brought this up in the first place what a poster's desire for explanation: they wanted to know why someone could find this inconsistent.

And the reason someone could find this inconsistent is that every other instance of gaining or losing hit points in the game can be interpreted as at least a bit physical without any contradiction, so an element of gaining or losing hit points that is not at least a bit physical is a contradiction.

 

[tuxgeo]

In order for the Fallacy of Division to apply, there should be evidence that it is indeed false. . . .

Wrong in the first sentence!

The "Fallacy of Division" does not depend on specific evidence; rather, it is a matter of the presence or the lack of validity of the argument itself.

In the philosophy of logic, validity of an argument is independent of the truth of any of the constituent statements within the argument. If you want to see any examples, consult any textbook on Introductory Logic, which I must assume you either did not study in college, or else forgot. (I mean, if you missed that most elementary point, what else might you have missed?)

You imagine a contradiction where there is none.

In actual logic, the fact that the category of Hit Points includes the description "physical" does both of the following things:
(1) FAILS to impute the description of "physical" to any quantity of healed Hit Points; and
(2) FAILS to impute the description of "non-physical" to any quantity of healed Hit Points.

The points (1) and (2) above mean that gaming group A can say that any healed hit points at the table of gaming group A must include the "physical" descriptor -- because (2) FAILS, above; and
gaming group B can say that any healed hit points at the table of gaming group B might or might not include the "physical" descriptor, because (1) FAILS, above;
and they would be equally right!

The only problem arises when members of gaming group A decide that, since all Hit Points include a "physical" element at their table, they conclude (and post on the Internet) that everybody else must therefore be doing it wrong.

 

[epithet]

I explained to you earlier why your "fallacy of division" does not apply to this discussion. You're doing logic wrong.

 

[pemerton]

Because it doesn't heal injuries - it doesn't restore physical durability, which is a part of hit points.

That's RAW. That's how the game itself defines hit points. They aren't devoid of meat. When you reduce or increase hit points, you reduce or increase physical durability along with those other elements. If hit points are - in part - physical durability, and a pep talk from your party's sexy elf heals hit points than that pep talk has - in part - restored your physical durability.

You are assuming that the only way to overcome the burdens of physical injury is by way of physical recovery. This isn't really true in real life, so why would it be true in a game of heroic fantasy?

To give an instance from the real world: if I am running, and I notice myself slowing down (as my legs get tired, my breathing heavy, my mind wanders, etc), I can make myself speed up just by thinking about it and willing myself.

In the context of martial healing, a warlord encourages his/her friends to try harder. Because of the warlord's encouragement they keep going despite the fact that they are physically worn down.

In the mechanics of the game, the way that we represent this ability to keep going despite being physically worn down is to pour fresh hit points into the depleted pool. And the game's name for such replenishment of hit points is healing. That doesn't mean that any healing in the colloquial sense is taking place. (This isn't the only place where the game uses a term in a technical sense. In ordinary usage a bard is a poet or, perhaps, a musician. In the game, a player can play a bard PC who is neither poet nor musician.)

 

[tuxgeo]

I explained to you earlier why your "fallacy of division" does not apply to this discussion. You're doing logic wrong.

I read that; but thanks, anyway!
(Your explanation was wrong, and amounted to sheer dismissal without comprehension.)

 

[epithet]

I read that; but thanks, anyway!
(Your explanation was wrong, and amounted to sheer dismissal without comprehension.)

Clearly one of us has a failure of comprehension, but I'm pretty comfortable in the knowledge that it isn't me.

As I mentioned (and you claim to have read,) your logical breakdown lies in your failure to account for the fact that a hit point cannot have individuality or characteristics that set it apart. There are only two pools of hit points, those that have been lost and those that remain. All hit points are just hit points, equal and identical. There is no way to identify which hit point or points are removed from the pool when damage is taken, or returned when recovery takes place.

Any and every hit point is exactly like any and every other hit point. None may be described as anything other than a hit point, whether lost, remaining, or restored. If you would take a moment to simply think about it (logically) instead of struggling (in vain) to smugly apply some nugget from a college course that you seem to have retained in form without completely grasping in function, you would see that.

Hit points are not snowflakes.

 

[epithet]

You are assuming that the only way to overcome the burdens of physical injury is by way of physical recovery. This isn't really true in real life, so why would it be true in a game of heroic fantasy?

To give an instance from the real world: if I am running, and I notice myself slowing down (as my legs get tired, my breathing heavy, my mind wanders, etc), I can make myself speed up just by thinking about it and willing myself.

In the context of martial healing, a warlord encourages his/her friends to try harder. Because of the warlord's encouragement they keep going despite the fact that they are physically worn down.

In the mechanics of the game, the way that we represent this ability to keep going despite being physically worn down is to pour fresh hit points into the depleted pool. And the game's name for such replenishment of hit points is healing. That doesn't mean that any healing in the colloquial sense is taking place. (This isn't the only place where the game uses a term in a technical sense. In ordinary usage a bard is a poet or, perhaps, a musician. In the game, a player can play a bard PC who is neither poet nor musician.)

I disagree. I think that the way that ability is best represented is by giving the subject temporary hit points. It is, as you describe, an extra pool of endurance and determination "despite being physically worn down." Your injuries (in the form of lost hit points) remain, but you persevere despite them. Considering that temporary hit points generally last until you take a long rest, there is very little benefit to being "healed" over getting THP, but the difference in theme and "fluff" is important. Using THP allows to the Warlord to be every bit as effective without raising the issue of "martial healing" which is viewed with such skepticism.