Mechanics VS Realism?

[UXLZ]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife.

With a wicked glint, he approaches the Warlord's sleeping form, and plunges downwards sharply with his weapon.
Oops, he missed! Turns out the Warlord had high DEX and CON, as well as unarmored defense. Somehow the Rogue failed to stab the immobile, asleep, unarmored target. At all.

He must have had a small moment of bad luck. Luckily, the warlord is a heavy sleeper.

He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again!

A hit this time. With a heaving thrust he plunges the knife deep into the warlord's throat, heart, eye socket, pick your poison.

He rolls badly though, and the the Warlord wakes up at near to full strength. He took around 40 damage. He has 160 HP Max, not even half. A quarter.

That's from a mechanics perspective, as far as I'm aware. What would you do if you were the DM?

[JNAProductions]

Allow for a special one-hit kill. With the caveat that yes-this can happen to you, players.

[georgie_leech]

I would take advantage of the fact that rolls are for situations when the outcome is in doubt or failure is possible. As you've noted, failure to stab the Warlord in this circumstance would be ludicrous. In terms of the damage done, perhaps the Warlord is just that tough.

[An Enemy Spy]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife.

With a wicked glint, he approaches the Warlord's sleeping form, and plunges downwards sharply with his weapon.
Oops, he missed! Turns out the Warlord had high DEX and CON, as well as unarmored defense. Somehow the Rogue failed to stab the immobile, asleep, unarmored target. At all.

He must have had a small moment of bad luck. Luckily, the warlord is a heavy sleeper.

He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again!

A hit this time. With a heaving thrust he plunges the knife deep into the warlord's throat, heart, eye socket, pick your poison.

He rolls badly though, and the the Warlord wakes up at near to full strength. He took around 40 damage. He has 160 HP Max, not even half. A quarter.

That's from a mechanics perspective, as far as I'm aware. What would you do if you were the DM?

Isn't this where the coup de gras rule comes in?

[JNAProductions]

There are none in 5E.

[georgie_leech]

There are none in 5E.

Well, there are auto-crits on adjacent unconscious creatures. But otherwise true.

[wasgreg]

My house rules would not be in the favor of the warlord. His unarmored defense, dex and con would not be in effect while asleep. The rogue would have gotten the critical bonus as if he were unconcious, if this still did not kill him..it'd depend on the RP of the death blow. Pretty good.. and it was enough to slay the warlord in his sleep. "I stab him in the eye!" Well, the warlord wakes up blinded in one eye, stunned for one round from the pain. Get busy, assassin!

I dm fiat like crazy. So I am probably not the best at this :)

[Malifice]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife.

With a wicked glint, he approaches the Warlord's sleeping form, and plunges downwards sharply with his weapon.
Oops, he missed! Turns out the Warlord had high DEX and CON, as well as unarmored defense. Somehow the Rogue failed to stab the immobile, asleep, unarmored target. At all.

He must have had a small moment of bad luck. Luckily, the warlord is a heavy sleeper.

He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again!

A hit this time. With a heaving thrust he plunges the knife deep into the warlord's throat, heart, eye socket, pick your poison.

He rolls badly though, and the the Warlord wakes up at near to full strength. He took around 40 damage. He has 160 HP Max, not even half. A quarter.

That's from a mechanics perspective, as far as I'm aware. What would you do if you were the DM?

Your first mistake is treating HP as 'meat' and interpreting the results accordingly.

Hit points are not meat.

From the PHB:

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.

A high level character has more luck (hit points) than a low level character. This luck prevents him from death or mortal injury where a less fortunate person would die (a person with less hit points). A high hit point creature can pull things out of his arse that low level inexperienced creatures simply cannot. Blows that would kill a lesser creature narrowly miss him by sheer chance or other circumstance of fate. In this example, the dagger didnt hit him squarely (by a freakish co-incidence) it instead glanced off his holy symbol, snared in the roof of the tent on the way down, he rolled over in his sleep at the last moment causing it to narrowly miss, or only graze him or whatever.

Consider 'hit points' to be better described as 'plot immunity points' and it'll make more sense.

A Redshirt has 5 hit points. Kirk has over 100.

In this specific scenario, I would simply extrapolate the results (dagger narrowly misses, driving into the pillow and scratching the hero's face [resulting in the attrition of 40 points of the hero's available daily luck]) and go from there.

Ruling otherwise, penalizes high hit point PC's (i.e. martials) unnecessarily.

Think about a fall into lava (which deals 20d8 damage or whatever it is). A low level PC (or Redshirt) dies instantly. A high level PC (or Kirk) could take that damage and live. It's not that he fell into the lava but somehow survived. It's more that he nearly fell into the lava but was miraculously and freakishly saved at the last minute by some plot contrivance thats not available to a Redshirt (he landed on a rock in the middle of the lava, is hanging by an outcropping of rock precariously above the lava - with dramatic music playing in the background - or whatever).

It's no different from describing a hit as a wound (the axe slashes across your arm causing you to bleed and yelp in pain - reduce your hit points by 20) as it is describing a hit otherwise (the axe comes swinging down at you, and at the last minute you parry it, carried forward by your will to live and experience to survive where a lesser mortal would die - reduce your hit points by 20).

Remember - hit points are not meat in DnD - and you'll be fine.

[RenaldoS]

Personally I would rule the warlord dead. Trying to apply combat rules to an out of combat situation like this is merely silly. Why wouldn't the rogue be able to slit his throat? because the warlord is high level? seems silly to me. Warlord should've posted better guards.

[UXLZ]

Hence the title of the thread.

@Malifice: I know very well about the abstraction of hit points, thank you very much. The issue I have with it is the existence of spells such as "Cure Wounds" that somehow restore this metaphysical 'luck.'

To clarify, in your situation where the dagger narrowly misses and is just a graze... Why does it take extremely potent healing magic to whisk away that one small injury, and why can magic that is explicitly for dealing with physical injuries capable of restoring an abstracted form of 'fate'?

[Malifice]

Personally I would rule the warlord dead. Trying to apply combat rules to an out of combat situation like this is merely silly. Why wouldn't the rogue be able to slit his throat? because the warlord is high level? seems silly to me. Warlord should've posted better guards.

Because hit points represent luck, and the Warlord (Champion fighter) by virtue of his high hit dice and level is one freakishly lucky son of a bitch?

As in: when the rogue leans forward to slit his throat (rolls attack, hits, deals critical damage), the warlord (via this d10 per level amount of luck) wakes up just in time to narrowly avoid getting his throat cut (reduces the luck element of his hit points by the damage taken).

Thats what the mechanics tell us happens.

Bear in mind, if the Warlord was just some grunt or redshirt, he'd be dead. His position as a high level character with experience in combat situations (his high level and HD) grants him plot immunity and luck (hit points) far greater than your average Joe (who would be far more likely to have their thrat slit in the exact same situation).

[Magic Myrmidon]

I've never really thought of "cure wounds" as actually healing wounds. In fact, in the spell's description, all it says is "a creature you touch gains a number of hit points". It also says it has no effect on undead or constructs.

As such, it's easy to say that the spell is refreshing the character's plot immunity, renewing them from fatigue, and making the universe continue to bend the rules. Although it's CALLED "cure wounds", it doesn't necessarily do that. It can, though, if a particular character's HP source IS just meat. I can understand a 17th level barbarian taking a 5th level rogue's dagger to the throat, grabbing the rogue's arm, snapping it, laughing, and then moving the dagger from his throat to the fool who tried to kill him.

[Malifice]

Hence the title of the thread.

@Malifice: I know very well about the abstraction of hit points, thank you very much. The issue I have with it is the existence of spells such as "Cure Wounds" that somehow restore this metaphysical 'luck.'

To clarify, in your situation where the dagger narrowly misses and is just a graze... Why does it take extremely potent healing magic to whisk away that one small injury, and why can magic that is explicitly for dealing with physical injuries capable of restoring an abstracted form of 'fate'?

It's inferred that the spells magic uses 'positive energy' (the yin to the negative energy planes yang) and reaffirms his will to live (in addition to just closing visible wounds).

Think of it channeling 'positive energy' from the positive energy plane into the creature in question (think of this 'positive energy' as restoring, repairing, reinvigorating and soothing the creatures karma and spirit, as much as it restores his physical body). Positive energy makes him feel good, and reaffirms his will to live, and restores his positive energy karma (good luck).

Also: Because magic.

It's no different from when a PC takes a short rest and expends hit dice. His wounds dont magically seal over in an hours time like a starfish. He's taking a breather, catching his breath, binding minor wounds and reflecting on the days events. He's restoring and affirming his karma, spirit and resolve as much as he is tending to his physical wounds.

Loom also at the Fighters bonus action second wind at first level that 'heals' as much 'damage' in an instant as would be inflicted by a hit with a bastard sword wielded in two hands by a Strength 12 character.

You can imagine this as the fighter regenerating like a starfish if you want. It's clearly inferred to be nothing more than a quick refocus of his 'will to live' element of his hit points, and a catching of the breath.

[UXLZ]

By that logic Willpower should be just as important for Max HP as Constitution, no?

[Malifice]

I've never really thought of "cure wounds" as actually healing wounds. In fact, in the spell's description, all it says is "a creature you touch gains a number of hit points". It also says it has no effect on undead or constructs.

Undead are immune because of their connection to the negative energy plane. Constructs are immune because they have no connection to either the positive or negative planes.


As such, it's easy to say that the spell is refreshing the character's plot immunity, renewing them from fatigue, and making the universe continue to bend the rules.

Yep. I view 'positive energy' as a mix of 'good karma', and the ability to preserve life (and keep something alive). Not just via closing wounds (although the obvious to the naked eye effect of the spell is to close wounds, and grant a healthy glow to the person it targets). It also has a metaphysical affect of restoring the creatures will to live (they mentally and spiritually heal, in addition to physically healing)

[Malifice]

By that logic Willpower should be just as important for Max HP as Constitution, no?

Constitution already contains an element of willpower, stamina, endurance and vitality.

From the PHB:

Constitution measures health, stamina, and vital force.

It's why Concentration checks (which is willpower to tolerate damage) run off Con.

Among other things (your health and well being) Con also represents your ability to tolerate pain (which is a mental function), not to feel less of it.

[UXLZ]

It certainly makes DnD very "Meta," reminds me of Battle Century G.

Honestly, I perfectly understand the logic behind it and agree with your interpretation, and I could fluff it accordingly fairly easily (the hit point system that is) but it seriously irks me that they chose to give the various healing effects the names that they have.

It is also irritating for those of us whom may want to play a more realistic campaign, rather than one being driven by the laws of narrative and plot causality.

[UXLZ]

Actually, that was my mistake on the "Willpower" part, I forgot momentarily that DnD had "Wisdom" instead. HP being solely derived from CON in this case makes sense.

[Strill]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife.

Attacks against Unconscious creatures have advantage, and if you're attacking from 5' away, any hits against them are automatic crits. He should deal around 80 damage, leaving the warlord at half health.

Check Appendix A: Conditions in the player's handbook.

[UXLZ]

Yes, I know that. The Rogue is probably doing something along the lines of 2d4 + 12d6 + 4. Rolling at the halfway mark on everything that's... 44. I'll admit though, that I haven't ever really payed attention to the Rogue as a class so I maybe wrong.

[Strill]

It is also irritating for those of us whom may want to play a more realistic campaign, rather than one being driven by the laws of narrative and plot causality.
Luck is only part of it. It's also fatigue, minor bruising, and strain. This is what the healing spells generally fix.

[VoxRationis]

Your first mistake is treating HP as 'meat' and interpreting the results accordingly.

Hit points are not meat.

From the PHB:

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.

A high level character has more luck (hit points) than a low level character. This luck prevents him from death or mortal injury where a less fortunate person would die (a person with less hit points). A high hit point creature can pull things out of his arse that low level inexperienced creatures simply cannot. Blows that would kill a lesser creature narrowly miss him by sheer chance or other circumstance of fate. In this example, the dagger didnt hit him squarely (by a freakish co-incidence) it instead glanced off his holy symbol, snared in the roof of the tent on the way down, he rolled over in his sleep at the last moment causing it to narrowly miss, or only graze him or whatever.

Consider 'hit points' to be better described as 'plot immunity points' and it'll make more sense.

A Redshirt has 5 hit points. Kirk has over 100.

In this specific scenario, I would simply extrapolate the results (dagger narrowly misses, driving into the pillow and scratching the hero's face [resulting in the attrition of 40 points of the hero's available daily luck]) and go from there.

Ruling otherwise, penalizes high hit point PC's (i.e. martials) unnecessarily.

Think about a fall into lava (which deals 20d8 damage or whatever it is). A low level PC (or Redshirt) dies instantly. A high level PC (or Kirk) could take that damage and live. It's not that he fell into the lava but somehow survived. It's more that he nearly fell into the lava but was miraculously and freakishly saved at the last minute by some plot contrivance thats not available to a Redshirt (he landed on a rock in the middle of the lava, is hanging by an outcropping of rock precariously above the lava - with dramatic music playing in the background - or whatever).

It's no different from describing a hit as a wound (the axe slashes across your arm causing you to bleed and yelp in pain - reduce your hit points by 20) as it is describing a hit otherwise (the axe comes swinging down at you, and at the last minute you parry it, carried forward by your will to live and experience to survive where a lesser mortal would die - reduce your hit points by 20).

Remember - hit points are not meat in DnD - and you'll be fine.

This is frequently argued and entirely wrong. HP is used even in circumstances where luck and skill at avoiding damage cannot be applied, such as in situations where the target is completely immobilized and the attack is a certain thing. (Also, both of those things apply to rogue-archetypes even more than to fighters, and fighters, obviously, have more hit points than rogues.) Effects that curse the target, such as with bane or bestow curse or inflict penalties to willpower (either Charisma or Wisdom, or even just to Will saves with 3rd-edition mind fog), or ones that just plain disrupt the target's faculties, don't reduce current or maximum hit points, so "will to live" and luck (once again) clearly aren't applying. Constitution, which represents physical toughness, applies to HP, while Charisma or Wisdom (which are linked to willpower) or Dexterity (which would logically help with parrying, rolling, etc.) don't apply to it.

"Hit points aren't meat" is a crappy ad hoc excuse which does not properly explain how things work at more than the most basic levels. Furthermore, plot armor is a really bad mechanic in RPGs in general, because it's a bad mechanic in writing in the first place—we groan when a hero survives for no other reason than because the plot demands that they do, and even more so when the villain does so.

[Malifice]

It is also irritating for those of us whom may want to play a more realistic campaign, rather than one being driven by the laws of narrative and plot causality.

It doesn't effect realism at all, as long as you narrate it accordingly. In fact, it enhances it.

Consider a scenario, where a PC with 100 HP is standing next to his henchman with 10 HP, facing down some archers 100' away. After a volley of arrows is launched at the PC and his henchman (hitting both of them each several times, and inflicting around 20 damage to both), the henchman drops to 0 HP and the PC down to 70.

On the PC's turn he uses 'second wind' and (as a high level fighter) recovers all the damage inflicted as a bonus action.

Which is a more apt and realistic description of what just happened:

'Several arrows thunk deeply into your henchman, killing him instantly. They also thunk into you with equal force but you catch your second wind and are now completely physically unharmed'

Or:

'A hail of arrows lands around you and your henchman. Using the experience (level and HD) you have attained from thousands of battles, you duck and weave through the storm of arrows; some getting so close you can hear the sounds of them whizzing past your ear. One luckily glances off your breastplate, causing you to wince slightly.

Your henchman is not so lucky; foolishly (or perhaps unfortunately) he zigs where a more experienced warrior would have zagged and is brought down by an arrow sinking up to its haft in his neck. You take a moment to catch your breath and utter an oath of vengeance as you leap forward at your attackers with renewed vigor...'


This is frequently argued and entirely wrong.

Nah bro. You're wrong.

Read the PHB. It states: Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.

Mental durability. The 'will to live'. Luck.

That's by RAW. And clearly also by RAI (look at falling damage, lava damage, etc).


HP is used even in circumstances where luck and skill at avoiding damage cannot be applied, such as in situations where the target is completely immobilized and the attack is a certain thing.

In situations where the target is totally immobilized, the target still has luck. You cant immobilize luck.

Look at the PHB on when a person is totally immobilized. Attackers deal extra damage (auto crit) and find it easier to hit him (advantage). In mechanical terms, barring a hell of a lot of luck (the kind of luck that only heroic characters found in epic stories possess i.e. high level PC's) he's going to die.

Anyone else in the same situation would die (commoners have 5 hit points, so a crit with a dagger would kill them). Heroes however have a level of plot immunity that keeps them alive where mooks, redshirts, stormtroopers, and extras would die.

High level heroes can only be one shot killed in their sleep by villians of equal importance to the story and game world as the hero himself (challenge appropriate creatures and NPCs). They dont get one shotted in their sleep by redshirts.


"Hit points aren't meat" is a crappy ad hoc excuse which does not properly explain how things work at more than the most basic levels. Furthermore, plot armor is a really bad mechanic in RPGs in general, because it's a bad mechanic in writing in the first place—we groan when a hero survives for no other reason than because the plot demands that they do, and even more so when the villain does so.

Play Rolemaster then. This is DnD, and the vague and abstract nature of hit points (as a measure of more than just meat) are an express part of the game mechanic.

[Xetheral]

Read the PHB. It states: Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.

(Emphasis in original.) And the relative importance of each of those components will vary from table to table. Hit Points are an abstraction, and an ill-defined one at that. All potential interpretations have drawbacks, whether that's creating undesirable plot armor, ridiculous healing scenarios, or simply complicating the narrative description of events at the table. Tables can go with whatever interpretation they prefer while still adhering to RAW.

Personally, I use different interpretations at different times. The cognative dissonance is a small price to pay for being able to pick whatever interpretation damages immersion the least at that given moment.

To the OP: I'd just let the target die. In such a situation I consider the appearance of unfairness to the player from not permitting an autokill to far outweigh fidelity to the game mechanics.

[Malifice]

Hit Points are an abstraction,

Like every other facet of the game.


All potential interpretations have drawbacks, whether that's creating undesirable plot armor, ridiculous healing scenarios, or simply complicating the narrative description of events at the table. Tables can go with whatever interpretation they prefer while still adhering to RAW.

Agree with the last bit. I'm not suggesting it's badwrongfun to interpret or houserule hit points as 'meat' and remove the luck element if thats what makes you happy; I am suggesting that its not necessary to do so (and that it breaks immersion wore than leaving it as luck, willpower and stamina), that it is expressly stated and clearly inferred via a reading of the rules as a whole not to be true by both RAW and RAI and also by the style and genre of game that DnD purports to be. Deviate from it if you want, but it affects the game mechanically (and the games narrative) in other ways.

For example, it unfairly punishes high HD characters (usually martials) by denying them the level of heroic survivability that their class feature rightly gives them.

We're always complaining they cant do amazing things. When the rules clearly enable them to do amazing things by virtue of being a non spell caster (represented in DnD by granting them higher hit dice) we deprive them of it.


To the OP: I'd just let the target die.

But this unfairly punishes a player with high Hit dice (a key class feature).

If falls from great heights, into lava, or getting stabbed while asleep are just 'insta kills' instead of dealing a fixed amount of hit point damage (as expressly stated in the rules) then it devalues a higher hit dice (and accordingly unfairly punishes martial characters).

Why take away something from the martials?

It all sounds like an expression of the 'guy at the gym' fallacy, that is imposed on the game outside of the rules express wording and intent, for no good reason other than it fixes the narrative - when it does no such thing.

If you restrict or narrow the meaning of HP to be 'meat', then youre actually limiting the narrative (and for no good reason). Leaving HP as written - as a representation of physical toughness (body), stamina and the will to live (mental resolve) and luck (spirit, plot immunity and karma) allows for more options to explain and narrate 'surviving hit point loss' - not less.

It actually rewards and enriches the narrative, where a restrictive interpretation breaks and narrows it.

[djreynolds]

We played tonight, and we had an archer roll a one. Now this is a miss, but our DM, and some players grunted about it, had the archer roll another attack to roll to see if he struck someone else, and for us it was one of our fighters hanging on with 18 hit points and low and behold now he scored a hit. Players complained it was not in the rules, but logic in this case dictated that "when one fires into a crowd the arrow is bound to hit someone." Is it fair, well actually yes. Friendly fire happens all the time, its an accident but it happens. If a cop is wrestling someone to the ground, his partner in real life is not going to shoot at the assailant.

As for the rogue, I think Mr. Malifice's response is fair. This lower level assassin just couldn't finish the job and that explains the failure. His sneak attack is an approximation of how well he knows the human anatomy and exactly where to land a strike that would kill instantly. Now if these guys were equal level, his sneak attack and proficiency now would represent his expertise in killing. Perhaps he would score more than just 40 points.

Just cause someone is asleep doesn't mean you get to kill him outright. I believe even with the sleep spell, the enchanted awake once you strike them now. Why? Because its just a first level spell.

I think, IMO, you just have to see the game as an approximation of real life. But in real life, I have seen people survive in the ER from the craziest s**t.

But as DM you have control, and if you feel that this assassination could've succeeded, then maybe it did. You could have had the Warlord stricken by a disease that had weakened him or something that might explain how a lower level assassin did him in. "Suspension of Disbelief" If it was pivotal to the story that warlord dies, and if the character outright could not kill him because of hit points, then give him something. Such as the someone else had just previously tried to kill the warlord, or his second in command had poisoned him with a lethal dose and then set your rogue up with "easier" kill to put the blame on your gamers.

I mean you just can't have say one Jedi, in Monty Python style, cut off three limbs of another Jedi, whom he has battled to a stand still for hours, just cause he had the high ground.

[Baptor]

Allow for a special one-hit kill. With the caveat that yes-this can happen to you, players.

This.

Everyone's made some great points for and against, but ultimately I have a social contract with my players that reads, "Anything you can do to the enemy, thine enemy can likewise do unto thee."

So they know if they clamor for cloak-and-dagger espionage with one-hit kills, they can expect to sleep with one eye open themselves. I have had groups straight up tell me this is what they want and it was a fun game.

They also know they can request the other side, where true heroes cannot be so easily dispatched. Someone mentioned Captain Kirk, that's a great example. How many people snuck up on Kirk as he slept or rested? How many times did Kirk wake up at just the right moment or was struck violently only to be "knocked out" for a short time? The players know the true villains will likewise be hard to kill. The group I currently play with wants it this way, and its a fun game.

My point is if you are the DM and are agonizing over this decision, just ask your players what they want. Tell them up front whatever they can do, the bad guys can do too, and they will choose whichever poison they want to live with. The game will be fun for all.

[Malifice]

We played tonight, and we had an archer roll a one. Now this is a miss, but our DM, and some players grunted about it, had the archer roll another attack to roll to see if he struck someone else, and for us it was one of our fighters hanging on with 18 hit points and low and behold now he scored a hit. Players complained it was not in the rules, but logic in this case dictated that "when one fires into a crowd the arrow is bound to hit someone." Is it fair, well actually yes. Friendly fire happens all the time, its an accident but it happens. If a cop is wrestling someone to the ground, his partner in real life is not going to shoot at the assailant.

As for the rogue, I think Mr. Malifice's response is fair. This lower level assassin just couldn't finish the job and that explains the failure. His sneak attack is an approximation of how well he knows the human anatomy and exactly where to land a strike that would kill instantly. Now if these guys were equal level, his sneak attack and proficiency now would represent his expertise in killing. Perhaps he would score more than just 40 points.

Just cause someone is asleep doesn't mean you get to kill him outright. I believe even with the sleep spell, the enchanted awake once you strike them now. Why? Because its just a first level spell.

I think, IMO, you just have to see the game as an approximation of real life. But in real life, I have seen people survive in the ER from the craziest s**t.

But as DM you have control, and if you feel that this assassination could've succeeded, then maybe it did. You could have had the Warlord stricken by a disease that had weakened him or something that might explain how a lower level assassin did him in. "Suspension of Disbelief" If it was pivotal to the story that warlord dies, and if the character outright could not kill him because of hit points, then give him something. Such as the someone else had just previously tried to kill the warlord, or his second in command had poisoned him with a lethal dose and then set your rogue up with "easier" kill to put the blame on your gamers.

I mean you just can't have say one Jedi, in Monty Python style, cut off three limbs of a of another Jedi, whom he has battled to a stand still for hours, just cause he had the high ground.

Your logic is proceeding from a slightly flawed basis. Just because a 'hit' was rolled on an attack roll on a D20, and that 'hit' was good enough to reduce the targets hit points, its not the same thing as saying the attack physically physically connected with the target. The successful attack roll that caused hit point damage, may not have done any physical damage (or indeed even connected with the target at all).

A 'hit' on an attack roll, does not always indicate that the thing being targeted was physically struck and wounded. In fact the attack may have actually (due to the luck, resolve, stamina and experience - number and size of the HD by class and level - of the person targeted) narrowly missed, be parried or dodged at the last minute, glanced off the targets armor (all of which cost him a measure of his stamina, luck and will to live - and reduced his HP).

[Xetheral]

But this unfairly punishes a player with high Hit dice (a key class feature).

If falls from great heights, into lava, or getting stabbed while asleep are just 'insta kills' instead of dealing a fixed amount of hit point damage (as expressly stated in the rules) then it devalues a higher hit dice (and accordingly unfairly punishes martial characters).

Why take away something from the martials?

It all sounds like an expression of the 'guy at the gym' fallacy, that is imposed on the game outside of the rules express wording and intent, for no good reason (explaining the survival as an attack luckily missing instead of explaining the fighter surviving getting cut in half more immersive; not less).

If you restrict or narrow the meaning of HP to be 'meat', then youre actually limiting the narrative (and for no good reason). Leaving HP as written - as a representation of physical toughness (body), stamina and the will to live (mental resolve) and luck (spirit, plot immunity and karma) allows for more options to explain and narrate 'surviving hit point loss' - not less.

It actually rewards and enriches the narrative, where a restrictive interpretation breaks and narrows it.

I hardly think surviving falls from fatal heights and encounters with lava are considered major benefits of having a high HD. Permitting characters (or, in 99/100 cases, NPCs) to survive such things would damage the story at my table, and I don't get any intrinsic value out of adhering to book-listed damage figures for their own sake. I don't need the rules to adjudicate fatal falls, lava, and out-of-combat throat-cutting, so I simply don't use tthe rules in such circumstances.

And I'm not restricting my interpretation of HP to "meat" when suggesting to the OP to let the target die. I'm simply offering my opinion that in such a situation the cost of denying the PC the "realistic" consequences of their actions outweighs any problem introduced by stepping outside the normal combat resolution mechanics in this corner case.

[Malifice]

I hardly think surviving falls from fatal heights and encounters with lava are considered major benefits of having a high HD.

Not just lava, but other similar events. Such as falling into a 20' pit, lined with dozens of foot long spikes - a rather common occurrence in DnD. As is getting 'struck' by a Frost giants battle axe (which likely is the size and weight of of a car).

Such an event would almost certainly be fatal for a human. Even the healthiest human alive.

Characters in stories, movies, novels, comics etc dont fall into the pit, get impaled by several spikes and then push on. They dont get a 20' long axe weighing 1000kgs driven into them and walk away. They do narrowly miss or heroically avoid getting struck by the axe, or falling into the pit (perhaps dangling precariously) - plot contrivances and heroic luck save them at the last minute (hit points are reduced accordingly).

I know which of the two above scenarios (fall into spiked pit getting impaled and then walk away, or narrowly and luckily avoid the spikes) I find less jarring to my sensibilities.


Permitting characters (or, in 99/100 cases, NPCs) to survive such things would damage the story at my table,

Youre proceeding from the same flaw your friend is above. Example:

Situation - PC Barbarian with 100HP fails climb check and falls into the mouth of an active volcano - DM checks lava damage and notes it deals 20d12 damage.

1) DM thinks this is absurd and states: 'You fall into lava and die'

or:

2) DM notes HP are luck as much as anything else in the RAW and states: 'You plummet into the volcano, tumbling down the rock face, scrambling to get a grip on the sides of the rock, your imminent doom assured... when at the last moment your neck is jerked back violently as your scabbard catches on a rocky outcropping leaving you dangling perilously over the molten rock. Scorching smoke blocks your vision and chokes your lungs (DM rolls the damage, applies it to the PC)'

Which is better for the narrative? Which reflects both the the RAW and RAI on HP?

Note how in the second example despite 'falling into lava' and 'taking lava damage' the barbarian didn't actually fall into the lava, and was instead saved by freakish luck and stamina (his high HP) where a lesser mortal (commoner, wizard, lower level character) would have instead died?


and I don't get any intrinsic value out of adhering to book-listed damage figures for their own sake. I don't need the rules to adjudicate fatal falls, lava, and out-of-combat throat-cutting, so I simply don't use tthe rules in such circumstances.

Again I feel you miss the point. A successful attack roll does not by extension result in you physically hitting your target. A pair of high level fighter could trade blows for several rounds ('hitting' each other on several attack rolls and reducing hit points each time) without inflicting a single injury, or even physically striking each other.

The attrition of hit points in this case is an abstraction of the stamina drain (leaping out of the way at the last minute) luck, experience and skill at dodging and parrying (combined HD multiplied by the experience level of the Fighters).

The final killing blow may not even actually physically strike and injure anyone until the final successful attack roll is made and that person is reduced to zero HP.


And I'm not restricting my interpretation of HP to "meat" when suggesting to the OP to let the target die. I'm simply offering my opinion that in such a situation the cost of denying the PC the "realistic" consequences of their actions outweighs any problem introduced by stepping outside the normal combat resolution mechanics in this corner case.

If it's good for your story and narrative to let PC's kill high level NPC's and sleeping dragons etc with a dagger, then cool.

Just be consistent when the cleric casts hold person on your BBEG and they do the same thing to him.

[djreynolds]

My point is, is that in the context it was fair. He rolled a 1 on an attack into a crowd and the DM, likes his critical misses. And the reroll was lets say "much, much better." Our DM allows for accidents to happen and allows for bad decisions to possibly have bad consequences. Do I like? I don't know. But his explanation was fair and allowed for that "Suspension of Disbelief" to occur.

Like the PHB explanation of hit points, its in my mind fair for the context of the game. "Not just meat" You may aim at something and miss, or miss badly. Though not in the book, critical misses in our DM's opinion represents accidents and structural failure of the steel of your sword, or "bad luck."

What is your opinion of that? Do you agree at all with his critical miss?

[djreynolds]

Your logic is proceeding from a slightly flawed basis. Just because a 'hit' was rolled on an attack roll on a D20, and that 'hit' was good enough to reduce the targets hit points, its not the same thing as saying the attack physically physically connected with the target. The successful attack roll that caused hit point damage, may not have done any physical damage (or indeed even connected with the target at all).

A 'hit' on an attack roll, does not always indicate that the thing being targeted was physically struck and wounded. In fact the attack may have actually (due to the luck, resolve, stamina and experience - number and size of the HD by class and level - of the person targeted) narrowly missed, be parried or dodged at the last minute, glanced off the targets armor (all of which cost him a measure of his stamina, luck and will to live - and reduced his HP).

I get it, so you're saying here that even a players confidence is part of the hit points and a close shave is as detrimental as a hit that actually connects. And to many close shaves for novice can make him cower, as opposed to the veteran who may be used to them? I like it.

[Malifice]

My point is, is that in the context it was fair. He rolled a 1 on an attack into a crowd and the DM, likes his critical misses. And the reroll was lets say "much, much better." Our DM allows for accidents to happen and allows for bad decisions to possibly have bad consequences. Do I like? I don't know. But his explanation was fair and allowed for that "Suspension of Disbelief" to occur. What is your opinion of that? Do you agree at all with his critical miss?

I don't have a problem with this at all (other than my normal gripe about critical misses in that they punish high level PC's with multiple attacks per round - i.e. fighters - a lot more than they punish spell casters whom can generally place fireballs and save or suck spells with pinpoint precision all without an attack roll).


I get it, so you're saying here that even a players confidence is part of the hit points and a close shave is as detrimental as a hit that actually connects. And to many close shaves for novice can make him cower, as opposed to the veteran who may be used to them? I like it.

Hit points are expressly called out as 'mental resolve, will to live and luck' (in addition to meat). Some successful attack rolls don't actually physically hit but just reduce the targets stamina (he dodged the blow at the last minute tiring him), confidence, mental resolve, and luck.

Falling into a volcano and miraculously surviving requires a freak level of luck. Doing it twice in a row is pushing it!

[UXLZ]

I just wish the game was more clear about what Hit points are ACTUALLY intended to represent outside of when it talks about hit points specifically that one time. If it's called Cure Wounds, you assume it Cures Wounds.

[Malifice]

I just wish the game was more clear about what Hit points are ACTUALLY intended to represent outside of when it talks about hit points specifically that one time. If it's called Cure Wounds, you assume it Cures Wounds.

It does cure wounds. It also reinvigorates them, restoring their mental resolve and stamina, charging their will to live and replenishing their karma with a well of 'positive energy'.

Im surprised its not addictive ;)

[djreynolds]

It does cure wounds. It also reinvigorates them, restoring their mental resolve and stamina, charging their will to live and replenishing their karma with a well of 'positive energy'.

Im surprised its not addictive ;)

I like it. Its good advice from an obviously experienced gamer and its something I'll in put into our game.

[rollingForInit]

As with skills, I'd only use attack rolls when there's a chance that something might fail. Such as in combat, or when making a surprise attack against a creature that could defend themselves. In a situation like this, I'd just say the warlord died.

[Malifice]

As with skills, I'd only use attack rolls when there's a chance that something might fail. Such as in combat, or when making a surprise attack against a creature that could defend themselves. In a situation like this, I'd just say the warlord died.

The Warlords luck (represented by his insanely high hit points) doesn't come into it?

This is a guy so lucky he can go toe to toe with a pair of 2 ton axe weilding giants and survive. These guys hit so hard, they can chop a car in half. He can fall 60' down a pit onto rows of sharpened and poisoned 3' steel spikes, climb out and run a marathon straight away after. He so lucky he can fall from a 20 story building onto concrete and walk away without a single broken bone. He can spend several minutes literally dancing on the spot wearing no armor while getting shot at by a trained member of the town guard standing 20 feet away armed with a crossbow and be OK.

This guy is lucky, and experienced. He survives where lesser men die. His luck and skill at avoiding death (dodging, parrying, waking up at a fortunate moment before having his throat cut, getting saved in miraculous situations) is represented via game mechanics - he has a large number of large hit dice (and a large pool of hit points).

Why arbitrarily take this class feature (that he has worked hard to obtain) away?

A lesser warlord would die from an inexperienced assassin in the night. Not this guy. He's (multiple levels of d10 hit dice/ 100 hit point) lucky. Epic hero lucky. James Kirk levels of lucky.

Maybe a better trained villain sneaking in could pull it off. Khan perhaps. But not any old redshirt. Kirk would be saved by some plot contrivance at the last minute (that lucky son of a bitch). Spock would walk in, the ship would jolt because of a power fluctuation, the Redshirt would give himself away or whatever.

(In game, Kirk still takes x amount of damage to his 'hitpoints' - he just doesnt die because he's a hero and has too many hit points)

[UXLZ]

Honestly, that way of seeing things is fine but I do dislike how "Meta" it makes everything seem, like each game is OOTS where plot contrivance is an actual force. Or Battle Century G where things are literally referred to as "Scenes"

[Strill]

Gygax on Hit Points in the 1e DMG page 82.


It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" whith warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

[Malifice]

Honestly, that way of seeing things is fine but I do dislike how "Meta" it makes everything seem, like each game is OOTS where plot contrivance is an actual force. Or Battle Century G where things are literally referred to as "Scenes"

How does abstract rolls on a 20 sided dice (with a probability of success measured in 5 percent increments) atrritting meat 'hit points' on an entirely predictable basis, seem less meta?

In a system like DnD where hit points equate to a range of variables like luck, karma, resolve, stamina (to dodge or leap out of the way to avoid serious injury), physical toughness etc you have an infinite methods of describing and narrating the action other than if you called HP 'meat' and instead narrated every loss of hit points as successful physical attacks with (quite often) highly lethal weapons wielded by creatures as strong as a kryptonian, with the heroes seemingly completely uninjured the next day.

Try narrating 'hits' as 'lucky or experienced near misses' where the hero uses his luck, combat experience, resolve, stamina etc to dodge out of the way at the last minute (depleting hit points) turn a lethal blow into a grazing hit (the weapon luckily glances off his holy symbol, depleting his hit points) summons all of his resolve to parry the blow just in time (losing hit points) etc etc.

Higher level and better trained heroes develop a level of plot immunity, luck, resolve, and skill that sees them regularly survive situations where a lesser being (a redshirt, or your average town guard with 5 hit points) would have died long ago.

A 20th level fighter can engage a dozen guards from the DMG and win. He doesnt walk out of the battle with dozens of sword wounds deep enough to have killed him at 1st level (those wounds would still kill him today). He walks out of the battle alive because he's learnt how to not get run through with a sword in the first place. His luck, resolve, skill, stamina and experience (his level and HD which combine to form his hit points ) keep him protected from those injuries where he would have previously received when he was less experienced.

He knows when to zag and not zig. His built up karma and luck - and skill and experience - that make him stand out from the rest of the pack, keep him alive when lesser men would die. He's a hero, with a commensurate level of plot immunity.

Its no change in the mechanics. In fact, it's supported by the mechanics, and its one of the key features of many classes (higher hit dice indicating a better knowledge of combat situations and greater levels of plot immunity for the sword wielding hero - arguably in exchange for less options to modify the plot via spells). Taking it away unfairly punishes those classes.

It's only a change in how you narrate (and imagine) the action. And that change is both less jarring, less repetitive and less limiting than regular 'you take an axe to the face and push on' descriptions.

It also fits the 'pulp fantasy' genre of DnD (and conforms with the game mechanics of the actual rules themselves) to a tee.

[djreynolds]

Agreed, a private hitting the beaches of Normandy may come out unscathed, but his psyche has been injured and he needs rest. Hit points represent the total everything of the character- from muscle and sinew and organs to resolve and especially luck.

Where that private who escaped death unscathed is shaking in bed, that sergeant is going back out the next day with cuts and gashes and still going along. And you could explain that as second wind or just higher rank or level and just more hit points than the private.

But an artillery shells danger close is still gonna kill him no matter what, just like the lava.


I'm on third shift ignoring patients, so this is a stimulating conversation.

[Malifice]

Agreed, a private hitting the beaches of Normandy may come out unscathed, but his psyche has been injured and he needs rest. Hit points represent the total everything of the character- from muscle and sinew and organs to resolve and especially luck.

Where that private who escaped death unscathed is shaking in bed, that sergeant is going back out the next day with cuts and gashes and still going along. And you could explain that as second wind or just higher rank or level and just more hit points than the private.

But an artillery shells danger close is still gonna kill him no matter what, just like the lava.


I'm on third shift ignoring patients, so this is a stimulating conversation.

It certainly doesn't break my immersion to have that same shaken and messed up private soldier whose been through hell receive a 'cure wounds spell' and be invigorated by the postive energy flowing through him

Or to explain tom hanks surviving Omaha because he's the hero, even though everyone around him dies. They're the redshirt army. He's the high hit point PC.

He only just makes it though. The machine guns and mortars nearly had his hit points down to 0 with all the near misses (ie succesful Attack rolls on a high level character) and such.

He probably has an hour after the battle to take a short rest, spend hit dice (reflecting on the battle etc) before the next mission crops up.

[rollingForInit]

The Warlords luck (represented by his insanely high hit points) doesn't come into it?

This is a guy so lucky he can go toe to toe with a pair of 2 ton axe weilding giants and survive. These guys hit so hard, they can chop a car in half. He can fall 60' down a pit onto rows of sharpened and poisoned 3' steel spikes, climb out and run a marathon straight away after. He so lucky he can fall from a 20 story building onto concrete and walk away without a single broken bone. He can spend several minutes literally dancing on the spot wearing no armor while getting shot at by a trained member of the town guard standing 20 feet away armed with a crossbow and be OK.

This guy is lucky, and experienced. He survives where lesser men die. His luck and skill at avoiding death (dodging, parrying, waking up at a fortunate moment before having his throat cut, getting saved in miraculous situations) is represented via game mechanics - he has a large number of large hit dice (and a large pool of hit points).

Why arbitrarily take this class feature (that he has worked hard to obtain) away?

A lesser warlord would die from an inexperienced assassin in the night. Not this guy. He's (multiple levels of d10 hit dice/ 100 hit point) lucky. Epic hero lucky. James Kirk levels of lucky.

Maybe a better trained villain sneaking in could pull it off. Khan perhaps. But not any old redshirt. Kirk would be saved by some plot contrivance at the last minute (that lucky son of a bitch). Spock would walk in, the ship would jolt because of a power fluctuation, the Redshirt would give himself away or whatever.

(In game, Kirk still takes x amount of damage to his 'hitpoints' - he just doesnt die because he's a hero and has too many hit points)


I don't think luck factors into a face-to-face execution where the assassin makes sure the person is dead. Getting shot from a distance - sure. But having a dagger plunched into your heart, eyes and throat by a professional assassin? No. And if I wanted to actually portray this guy's luck, in such a situation, attack rolls aren't the way to go. There are no rules to cover this type of situation. Maybe I'd actually have someone walk in before the the guy gets killed. Maybe he'd have magical wards in place. Maybe he'd roll great on a Perception check while asleep and wake up (in which case it would turn into a fight). Maybe that wasn't the Warlord, but a body double. Lots of ways to introduce his luck and experience. But if he's sound asleep and caught off guard, it doesn't matter how lucky he is - if he gets beheaded (or suffers a similarly fatal experience), he's dead. If the point of the adventure is to assassinate someone, the challenge shouldn't be in actually hitting the guy when you've caught him off-guard, it should be getting to that point to start with (doing researching, spying, infiltrating, preparing, etc).

And who worked hard to obtain anything in this scenario? It was an NPC. If it were a PC, I wouldn't put them in a situation where they'd get one-shot murdered outside of their control to start with. Just like I wouldn't have them killed by a random lightning strike from the sky or a god suddenly appearing and smiting them into oblivion. If anything, having a PC assassin miserably fail with an assassination like this is doing the player a disservice.

[Malifice]

I don't think luck factors into a face-to-face execution where the assassin makes sure the person is dead.

Luck is the only thing that'll save you in that situation!

Whether that's the luck of rolling high enough to beat the assasins stealth check and hear him first, or the luck of heroes in fantasy literature with years of experience under their belt dealing with horrific monsters and demons (having lots of hit dice and HP) or the outrageous luck of plot immunity (hit points again), all the fighting skill, healthy constitution and resolve in the world doesn't help you when you're asleep!

The assasin (rogue 5) sneaks up and atracks the 150hp sleeping fighter with his dagger. He rolls to hit with Advantage. He hits and it is an automatic critical hit. He deals 6d6 plus 2d4 damage, plus his DEX for a total of 30 'damage'.

The result is interpreted and narrated by the DM as the fighters horse whinnying just in time outside the tent - waking the fighter up just in time to roll to one side avoiding the dagger blow that would have surely been fatal (using up 30 points of his luck component of his hit points).

Initiative is rolled and combat begins.

High level heroes have lots of hit points for a reason. They are saved by chance, skill, resolve or stamina at the last minute, where an ordinary mortal would die.

It's no different from how a Giants axe blow kills a 1st level fighter but a high level fighter leaps out of the way at the last second or turns the hit into a glancing blow via luck, skill or experience. Both take the same attrition of hit points (damage). Only one gets actually wounded.

[goto124]

And who worked hard to obtain anything in this scenario? It was an NPC. If it were a PC, I wouldn't put them in a situation where they'd get one-shot murdered outside of their control to start with. Just like I wouldn't have them killed by a random lightning strike from the sky or a god suddenly appearing and smiting them into oblivion. If anything, having a PC assassin miserably fail with an assassination like this is doing the player a disservice.

Pretty much this. I would've said that the players must've messed up terribly to end up in a situation like this, but then I realised that players can mess up terribly :smalltongue:

Also, I'm trying to imagine the Warlord's build. It's reasonable not to count for, say, DEX when he's unconscious sleeping. But how did he get his high CON, all that 160 HP, his unarmored defense? What's the fluff behind his... I dunno... defense-giving Feats?

Humans (we did assume a Human Warlord, right?) IRL reach a limit of ‘constitution’. No matter how much he’s trained, how much protein he’s eaten, etc, there’s only so much stabbing one can take before he’s dead.

That limit doesn’t really exist in DnD. Even humans can get much tougher, despite being non-magical. You could say they’re supernatural - they don’t control the magic weave and cast spells like wizards, but they can train their bodies to take more and more stabbing.

To be fair, it still doesn't really make sense when the assassin has so much time to aim for the warlord's heart or throat, and stab accurately.

[Fighting_Ferret]

In the original post, I'd say the warlord dies to the Assassin. No attack roll required, no damage rolled, just dead. The challenge here wasn't to 1vs1 the warlord, but to infiltrate his camp, sneak close enough to actually attempt the assassination. If this was a likely outcome, the warlord would have better prepared for it. You cannot blame the PCs for trying and succeeding a task you set up.

On HP, if you play the normal way expect silliness, as realism wasn't built into the system. You could use an older rule that massive damage can kill (offer a constitution save of say 15) and also establish a coup de grace mechanic with the same ruleset as the massive damage for instant kills. I believe that massive damage was defined as half your HP in one attack or a minimum value of 50, which could be extended to one turn of attacks. You could also create ranks of penalties to apply to loss of HP via the fatigue rules, just make them "curable" via cure wounds. I'm also a fan of the major injury rules in the DMG for dropping bellow 0 HP. Every time you do you roll to see what injury you sustain, ranging from mild scarring to loss of limb. I'm just not big into the you function fine from max HP to 1 HP, but at 0 you are unconscious to the point of rolling to survive death' grasp.

[Xetheral]

Youre proceeding from the same flaw your friend is above....

It's not a flaw. It's a different preference for how much weight to give each of the components of HP listed in the PHB. You agreed that a wide variety of such interpretations could still be RAW.

On occasion, I'll describe a "hit" in combat as a near-miss but still subtract hit points, but that's a very unusual situation at my table and only occurs when that interpretation provides superior immersion. Otherwise, I tend to prefer to describe all hits in terms of the wounds inflicted, paying attention to the proportion of HP lost when describing severity.

I do not subscribe to your interpretation that HP's as "luck" can provide a second chance to avoid an otherwise-inevitable lethal hazard. If the NPC (or, on extremely rare occasions, PCs) failed the dex-save, str-check, acrobatics check, dispel check, or whatever else stood between them and obvious death, then they die. On the other hand, I don't interpret a 20' pit with spikes as "obvious death". I do consider submersion into lava to be obvious death, or a 1500' fall (i.e. enough to reach terminal velocity): basically trauma massive enough to not leave an intact corpse. In theory the mechanical discontinuity between "obvious death" and "high damage" might be problematic, but considering that such situations don't come up very often, rigid consistency isn't terribly important: going with whatever interpretation most favors the PCs in a particular borderline case solves any consistency complaints remarkably well.

Finally, we clearly have different preferences when it comes to immersion. For me, any hint of "plot armor" is a deal-breaker. Sure, it comes up in stories all the time, and I usually hate it when it's obvious enough that I notice. If the PCs manage to stab the BBEG to death in his sleep, fantastic: they earned that victory. (And no, I don't allow coup de grâce against Held enemies in the thick of combat. Executing helpless prisoners afterwards, however, is permissible.)

[Malifice]

It's not a flaw. It's a different preference for how much weight to give each of the components of HP listed in the PHB. You agreed that a wide variety of such interpretations could still be RAW.

On occasion, I'll describe a "hit" in combat as a near-miss but still subtract hit points, but that's a very unusual situation at my table and only occurs when that interpretation provides superior immersion. Otherwise, I tend to prefer to describe all hits in terms of the wounds inflicted, paying attention to the proportion of HP lost when describing severity.

I do not subscribe to your interpretation that HP's as "luck" can provide a second chance to avoid an otherwise-inevitable lethal hazard. If the NPC (or, on extremely rare occasions, PCs) failed the dex-save, str-check, acrobatics check, dispel check, or whatever else stood between them and obvious death, then they die. On the other hand, I don't interpret a 20' pit with spikes as "obvious death". I do consider submersion into lava to be obvious death, or a 1500' fall (i.e. enough to reach terminal velocity): basically trauma massive enough to not leave an intact corpse. In theory the mechanical discontinuity between "obvious death" and "high damage" might be problematic, but considering that such situations don't come up very often, rigid consistency isn't terribly important: going with whatever interpretation most favors the PCs in a particular borderline case solves any consistency complaints remarkably well.

Finally, we clearly have different preferences when it comes to immersion. For me, any hint of "plot armor" is a deal-breaker. Sure, it comes up in stories all the time, and I usually hate it when it's obvious enough that I notice. If the PCs manage to stab the BBEG to death in his sleep, fantastic: they earned that victory. (And no, I don't allow coup de grâce against Held enemies in the thick of combat. Executing helpless prisoners afterwards, however, is permissible.)

What's the difference between paralysed or restrained and immobilised enemies and sleeping ones?

Isn't this a glaring example of inconsistency with your house rule?

[Xetheral]

What's the difference between paralysed or restrained and immobilised enemies and sleeping ones?

Isn't this a glaring example of inconsistency with your house rule?

Context. Sneaking into an enemy's room and stabbing them while they're sleeping is different from trying to butcher an immobile (possibly armored) enemy in six seconds while still effectively defending yourself from other threats.

[Malifice]

Context. Sneaking into an enemy's room and stabbing them while they're sleeping is different from trying to butcher an immobile (possibly armored) enemy in six seconds while still effectively defending yourself from other threats.

No other threats. A ful six seconds to cave in the skull of an inmobile helpless BBEG with an axe (probably bash it a few times in that time, pulverising it) or to draw the dagger across his throat and sever his windpipe and corotted artery. **** you have enough time to do it twice.

You'd allow a 3rd level cleric to Insta kill a BBEG 20th level NPC wizard with a second level spell and a knife or axe when the rules expressly contemplate this and say no?

[wasgreg]

I don't think luck factors into a face-to-face execution where the assassin makes sure the person is dead. Getting shot from a distance - sure. But having a dagger plunched into your heart, eyes and throat by a professional assassin? No. And if I wanted to actually portray this guy's luck, in such a situation, attack rolls aren't the way to go. There are no rules to cover this type of situation. Maybe I'd actually have someone walk in before the the guy gets killed. Maybe he'd have magical wards in place. Maybe he'd roll great on a Perception check while asleep and wake up (in which case it would turn into a fight). Maybe that wasn't the Warlord, but a body double. Lots of ways to introduce his luck and experience. But if he's sound asleep and caught off guard, it doesn't matter how lucky he is - if he gets beheaded (or suffers a similarly fatal experience), he's dead. If the point of the adventure is to assassinate someone, the challenge shouldn't be in actually hitting the guy when you've caught him off-guard, it should be getting to that point to start with (doing researching, spying, infiltrating, preparing, etc).

And who worked hard to obtain anything in this scenario? It was an NPC. If it were a PC, I wouldn't put them in a situation where they'd get one-shot murdered outside of their control to start with. Just like I wouldn't have them killed by a random lightning strike from the sky or a god suddenly appearing and smiting them into oblivion. If anything, having a PC assassin miserably fail with an assassination like this is doing the player a disservice.

Yep, as I said, in my game the rogue would have done much better. In the scenario given, it seems that the DM last minute wanted the Warlord to live. Or maybe followed rules to the letter. I dunno. But, I freely admit. I ignore rules for many reasons... sense of drama, rule of cool, realism, gut feelings. By having the dex, con and unarmored defense working while the warlord NPC is sleeping, it creates a more comedic game then I normally run. Feels very much like Giligan performing an assassination on the Skipper.

If it was so important to have the Warlord alive, he would have been awake (bio needs, bio desires, prophetic dream, last minute battle plans, up reading, and oodles more things) or not there (body double, inspection of whatever, keeps secret sleeps with subordinate, or otherstuff).

The whole HP discussion would hold little relevence. If the rogue was still missing with advantage to hit vs AC 10 ( quite possible ). I'd let them RP focusing and give them an auto hit with auto crits. Depending on the role play of it.. it kills or it wounds with a disadvantagous results for the NPC.

Seems like RollingforInit and I run similar sorts of games. Some folk would like it. ( My players do ) And some folk would find it arbitrary and disconcerting because the book says...something else. ( I don't find them arbitrary at all, and the co-dm runs his segments following the same internal logic.)

[Xetheral]

No other threats. A ful six seconds to cave in the skull of an inmobile helpless BBEG with an axe (probably bash it a few times in that time, pulverising it) or to draw the dagger across his throat and sever his windpipe and corotted artery. **** you have enough time to do it twice.

You'd allow a 3rd level cleric to Insta kill a BBEG 20th level NPC wizard with a second level spell and a knife or axe when the rules expressly contemplate this and say no?

No, I said I wouldn't.

While we're in initiative I don't permit instantly killing anyone, NPCs or PCs alike.

[Malifice]

No, I said I wouldn't.

While we're in initiative I don't permit instantly killing anyone, NPCs or PCs alike.

What's the difference? In game? Why break immersion like this by allowing a PC to insta-kill a BBEG while asleep by sneaking into his lair while he sleeps, yet you don't allow it when he magically puts him to sleep or paralyses him face to face?

Because 'initiative'?

Do failed climb checks resulting in falls into lava during 'initiative' also not Insta kill?

Why does abstract initiative result in plot armor but abstract hit points not?

[UXLZ]

I'll note that the scenario is something I made up in a few seconds on the spot, it probably isn't the best example out there and while it is something that could happen, has not happened. At least, to me. It's also an isolated example, and in that way flawed.

If it was a real game I was running, for instance, the "encounter" would have been the Rogue getting to the Warlord undetected in the first place.

[Xetheral]

What's the difference? In game? Why break immersion like this by allowing a PC to insta-kill a BBEG while asleep by sneaking into his lair while he sleeps, yet you don't allow it when he magically puts him to sleep or paralyses him face to face?

Because 'initiative'?

Do failed climb checks resulting in falls into lava during 'initiative' also not Insta kill?

Why does abstract initiative result in plot armor but abstract hit points not?

Because that is how I choose to balance mechanics vs realism in my games so as to best maintain immersion (and fun).

The justification that during initiative there are other foes to be wary of (or, in the case of hold person, the possibility that at any moment the spell might wear off), plus the time pressure (especially when also moving or taking other actions), plus the need to bypass passive defenses, plus the fact that a recently-held or recently-slept body might not yet have come to rest or be at a convenient angle for execution, is sufficient for me. It isn't for you, and there's nothing wrong with us disagreeing on this point.

Also, my rule helps the PCs, because they're the ones whose ultimate fate is more likely to be changed by permitting in-combat executions. That tends to cut down on complaints. With a group of players who felt differently, I might well add in 3.5's coup de grâce rules to 5e, with the stipulation that it requires taking no other action or movement that round.

[wasgreg]

I'll note that the scenario is something I made up in a few seconds on the spot, it probably isn't the best example out there and while it is something that could happen, has not happened. At least, to me. It's also an isolated example, and in that way flawed.

If it was a real game I was running, for instance, the "encounter" would have been the Rogue getting to the Warlord undetected in the first place.

OH! it is NPC vs NPC then! That changes everything.

Everyone except for one guy visiting the jacks dies of brain embolisms. The lone survivor travels from town to town relaying his experiences and espousing the virtues of IBS. The PC's have been approached with an offer to kill him and stop the insanity. :)

[Malifice]

Because that is how I choose to balance mechanics vs realism in my games so as to best maintain immersion (and fun).

The justification that during initiative there are other foes to be wary of (or, in the case of hold person, the possibility that at any moment the spell might wear off), plus the time pressure (especially when also moving or taking other actions), plus the need to bypass passive defenses, plus the fact that a recently-held or recently-slept body might not yet have come to rest or be at a convenient angle for execution, is sufficient for me. It isn't for you, and there's nothing wrong with us disagreeing on this point.

Also, my rule helps the PCs, because they're the ones whose ultimate fate is more likely to be changed by permitting in-combat executions. That tends to cut down on complaints. With a group of players who felt differently, I might well add in 3.5's coup de grâce rules to 5e, with the stipulation that it requires taking no other action or movement that round.

Guess it comes down to different styles. My interpretation maintains immersion and consistency and adheres to the rules. Hit dice aren't devalued (so both higher level and high hit dice PCs get a sense of reward) and I don't have to come up with contrivances outside what the rules tell me what hit points represent. My players know that hit points represnt a form of plot armor from the start (as Gygax intended).

I will add that plot armor hit points don't extend to intentional acts of suicide. A 100 HP fighter who willingly dives into lava, or cuts his own throat dies.

[Xetheral]

My interpretation maintains immersion and consistency and adheres to the rules.

Mine does too. As a DM it is my choice when to invoke the combat mechanics for resolving a given situation. Am I playing it strictly by RAW? No. But I am in no way going outside of RAI when I elect to use my discretion to decide when to resolve situations narratively rather than mechanically.

[smcmike]

I would just add that having the warlord flinch in his sleep and foil the execution is not all that unrealistic. A poor attack roll could mean any number of fumbles. Where the initial scenario goes wrong is allowing a second attack while the warlord sleeps. I imagine a hand shooting out at the last second to block the descending wrist, and one sad would-be assassin.

The problem I have with the scenario isn't the posdibility of failure: it's the certainty. I want the assassin to have a chance at the coup de grace, even if it's not a good one. Of course, applying this same rule against the players is problematic. If you are being realistic, a high level character without some sort of magic protecting him should be killable by any stray arrow shot by a humble farmboy. I don't think anyone wants that, though.

Now, if he were truly helpless, let's say drugged into a near coma, that's an auto kill for me. I wouldn't bother with a roll at all.

[goto124]

The challenge here wasn't to 1vs1 the warlord, but to infiltrate his camp, sneak close enough to actually attempt the assassination. If this was a likely outcome, the warlord would have better prepared for it. You cannot blame the PCs for trying and succeeding a task you set up.


If it was a real game I was running, for instance, the "encounter" would have been the Rogue getting to the Warlord undetected in the first place.

To be honest, if you really wanted the Warlord to stay alive, you should've set up more measures. If the players has bypassed them anyway, good for them!

Or you could have magical wards/body double/etc. Though even that can come off as railroading, if you're not careful.


No other threats. A full six seconds to cave in the skull of an inmobile helpless BBEG with an axe (probably bash it a few times in that time, pulverising it) or to draw the dagger across his throat and sever his windpipe and corotted artery. **** you have enough time to do it twice.

[Malifice]

Mine does too. As a DM it is my choice when to invoke the combat mechanics for resolving a given situation. Am I playing it strictly by RAW? No. But I am in no way going outside of RAI when I elect to use my discretion to decide when to resolve situations narratively rather than mechanically.

My system (the rules as written and as intended) allows for both a mechanical and a narrative explanation of damage and dangerous situations though. I don't need to arbitrarily switch. It's internally consistent mechanically and narratively consistent.

My problem with your system is it would be jarring for me to be able to Insta kill a High level NPC with a dagger while he sleeps yet I couldn't magically put him to sleep and Instakill him.

It seems like your NPCs (and PCs) still get a level of plot armor in your system - it's just arbitrary and circumstantial (depending on happening 'during initiative' or 'during the narrative'). I find that meta much more jarring and arbitrary and really struggle to see what narrative advanrage it provides to the story that the default rules for HP dont?

Not attacking your house rule. If it works for you and your group it's fantastic. I just don't see what advantages making such a jarring distinction gives you?

[georgie_leech]

My system (the rules as written and as intended) allows for both a mechanical and a narrative explanation of damage and dangerous situations though. I don't need to arbitrarily switch. It's internally consistent mechanically and narratively consistent.

My problem with your system is it would be jarring for me to be able to Insta kill a High level NPC with a dagger while he sleeps yet I couldn't magically put him to sleep and Instakill him.

It seems like your NPCs (and PCs) still get a level of plot armor in your system - it's just arbitrary and circumstantial (depending on happening 'during initiative' or 'during the narrative'). I find that meta much more jarring and arbitrary and really struggle to see what narrative advanrage it provides to the story that the default rules for HP dont?

Not attacking your house rule. If it works for you and your group it's fantastic. I just don't see what advantages making such a jarring distinction gives you?

It's jarring for you. It isn't jarring for them. Different circumstances lead to different trade offs and there isn't going to be a one-size fits all solution.

[Malifice]

To be honest, if you really wanted the Warlord to stay alive, you should've set up more measures. If the players has bypassed them anyway, good for them!

Or you could have magical wards/body double/etc. Though even that can come off as railroading, if you're not careful.

The alarms and guards are the extra hit points. Luckily his guards happened to be awake and found a sign of passage of the PC and raised the alarm. Or a guard bumbled into a cup in a neighbouring room and woke up the Warlord just at the right moment.

Because high hit points by RAW expressly represent a high level of experience and a high level luck (in addition to a high level of mental resolve, the will to live and stamina).

The warlord reduces some of the 'luck points' from his hit points (thanks to the critical hit) and wakes up 'as the dagger is poised to strike' (narrative exlanation). He can consider himself lucky.

His hit points (a large part of which are luck in addition to mental resolve and his stamina) are based on his hit dice which are determined by his experience level.

If 'hit points' were renamed (and broken down into) 'luck points' 'stamina points' and 'meat points' we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Luck points can be spent to mitigate damage on account of sheer luck on a 1 for one basis. Stamina points can be spent to mitigate damage on account of dodging, parrying and leaping out of the way also on a one for one basis. Meat points are the final 5 hit points and are only reduced once luck and stamina are reduced to 0.

Or instead, we can pool them all together in a pool called 'hit points' that combines luck, stamina, resolve and meat, and narrate the attrition of them as desired. Like the rules say. It's simpler and far more elegant and allows for a pulp fantasy game.

There was a system around that broke HP down into 'vitality' and 'wounds' but it added absolutely nothing that can't be resolved with a single pool of hit points and narrative explanations of what they represent when lost. Its unnecessary complexity to reflect something the hit point system already models.

The issue is people are used to viewing hit points as 'meat' (which is weird and breaks immersion for mine to imagine someone surviving repeated sword thrusts to the belly) when they are not and never have been regarded as such.

[PoeticDwarf]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife.

With a wicked glint, he approaches the Warlord's sleeping form, and plunges downwards sharply with his weapon.
Oops, he missed! Turns out the Warlord had high DEX and CON, as well as unarmored defense. Somehow the Rogue failed to stab the immobile, asleep, unarmored target. At all.

He must have had a small moment of bad luck. Luckily, the warlord is a heavy sleeper.

He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again!

A hit this time. With a heaving thrust he plunges the knife deep into the warlord's throat, heart, eye socket, pick your poison.

He rolls badly though, and the the Warlord wakes up at near to full strength. He took around 40 damage. He has 160 HP Max, not even half. A quarter.

That's from a mechanics perspective, as far as I'm aware. What would you do if you were the DM?
So works DnD, otherwise a goblin with a high stealth check could kill the level 20 adventurer's. It isn't logical but it makes the game way more fun. If would just say the normal 40 damage.

[Malifice]

It's jarring for you. It isn't jarring for them. Different circumstances lead to different trade offs and there isn't going to be a one-size fits all solution.

Agree to disagree. I find the rules as written provide a one size fits all solution. My PC and NPC plot armor isn't arbitrarily combat/ non combat reliant. It's character experience (and hit dice size) dependent mechanically and its attrition is driven by (and protected by) the narrative accordingly.

Like I said though. If an Insta kill out of combat rule works for your group, then awesome. Fun is the name of the game after all.

[Slipperychicken]

If you wanted realism, then why are you using a system designed for magical fantasy-world adventures?

[Malifice]

If you wanted realism, then why are you using a system designed for magical fantasy-world adventures?

Pulp magical fantasy world adventures no less. Where challenges auto scale according to your own increase in power, days are broken down into 6-8 encounters broken up by 2 x 1 hour long rests, and murder hobos wander aimlessly from place to place unchecked.

Kirk doesn't get murdered by a redshirt in his sleep. Neither does Khan.

Neither do my PCs.

[Fighting_Ferret]

I'd say that any system that let's anyone take several mortal wounds and still fight like they were uninjured, yet alone still able to do much of anything short of lay there and bleed out is immersion breaking.

In your last example you said that the guards were part the warlord's hit points, that he was somehow not killed outright by an assassin that could just run a dagger across his throat, and instead lost HPs as a result of seeing the attack about to happen, but he still takes the damage from the critical hit, as the guards raise the alarm at exactly the right time for him to avoid outright death. This seems very meta to me, did the guards actually make a perception roll to discover traces left by the PCs? Did they roll survival to track them to the warlord's tent/room? Did the PCs have to infiltrate this compound using some type of repeated skill rolls?

I understand wanting a rule system to maintain consistency, but unfortunately... that isn't any books job, that's the DM's job. You either set up a challenge of equal difficulty that allows for a series of successful skill checks, or a fight. Then you let the PCs make their decision and the dice do the talking.

Could you provide some more information on the scenario? PC level, is it just the Assassin who made it in? Did they beat a series of checks to get there? I'd like to give advice that could possibly help, as you seem disinterested in adopting house-rules, which I can respect. Things are always a bit more clear when more information is a available.

[georgie_leech]

Agree to disagree. I find the rules as written provide a one size fits all solution. My PC and NPC plot armor isn't arbitrarily combat/ non combat reliant. It's character experience (and hit dice size) dependent mechanically and its attrition is driven by (and protected by) the narrative accordingly.

Like I said though. If an Insta kill out of combat rule works for your group, then awesome. Fun is the name of the game after all.

One size fits all, in this context, means applicable to every group, not applicable to every in game situation. For some, it's more unusual to have a near miss from a dagger and a near miss from a mace somehow do different types of damage, doesn't account for things that are defined as directly hitting (Like Magic Missile or the damage from being on fire), and damages heroic credibility when they survive via freak coincidence rather than personal skill or toughness. What one person finds jarring, isn't, for someone else.

For the record I do use luck as a part of hp, I'm just aware that it, like other explanations, doesn't account for all corner cases.

[Xetheral]

It seems like your NPCs (and PCs) still get a level of plot armor in your system - it's just arbitrary and circumstantial (depending on happening 'during initiative' or 'during the narrative'). I find that meta much more jarring and arbitrary and really struggle to see what narrative advanrage it provides to the story that the default rules for HP dont?

It's not jarring for me, probably because it makes perfectly good sense to me that under the conditions during which we'd stay in initiative, the conditions aren't right for automatically-fatal strikes. If I wanted to change that (and I might) I'd add in coup de grace.


Not attacking your house rule. If it works for you and your group it's fantastic. I just don't see what advantages making such a jarring distinction gives you?

You're welcome to consider my approach a house rule, but neither I nor my group consider it such. On of the main advantages is avoiding...


The alarms and guards are the extra hit points

...this. It's a level of abstraction that I personally find extremely distasteful. And no, I don't believe that such an interpretation of HP is in accordance with RAW, RAI or D&D tradition. I suspect (but obviously cannot prove) that your claim that HP represents alarms and guards is a far more uncommon approach than my own of using discretion when deciding when to rely on the game mechanics.


The issue is people are used to viewing hit points as 'meat'... when they are not and never have been regarded as such.

It's an awfully bold claim that HPs "are not and never have been regarded as" meat. I can disprove it too: while I don't personally restrict my games to a single narrow interpretation, by far most of the games I've played in have interpreted HP as physical toughness and "meat". You may choose to believe me or not, but my personal experience contradicts your claim.

(Actually, you disprove yourself. If people are used to viewing hit points as 'meat', then obviously they have been regarded as such.)

[georgie_leech]

(Actually, you disprove yourself. If people are used to viewing hit points as 'meat', then obviously they have been regarded as such.)

Poor phrasing, but they appear to have meant "regarded by the rules" as oppose to the players.

[Xetheral]

Poor phrasing, but they appear to have meant "regarded by the rules" as oppose to the players.

In this context, is there an important distinction between "regarded by the rules as the designers intended them" and "regarded by the rules as "people are used to" applying them"?

[dream]

If you wanted realism, then why are you using a system designed for magical fantasy-world adventures?
Ka-Boom!:smalltongue:

There is no realism with TTRPG. Verisimilitude, sure. Realism? Never.

Also, what system is being used for the "sneak-up-and-86-sleeping-person" attack? Some games allow for auto-crits in those situations.

[georgie_leech]

In this context, is there an important distinction between "regarded by the rules as the designers intended them" and "regarded by the rules as "people are used to" applying them"?

In that he seems to find a problem with the way the latter traditionally differs from the former, probably.

[Xetheral]

In that he seems to find a problem with the way the latter traditionally differs from the former, probably.

I'm not convinced that the former is a better basis than the latter for making blanket statements about how a given game concept "is regarded".

[Malifice]

I'd say that any system that let's anyone take several mortal wounds and still fight like they were uninjured, yet alone still able to do much of anything short of lay there and bleed out is immersion breaking.

In your last example you said that the guards were part the warlord's hit points, that he was somehow not killed outright by an assassin that could just run a dagger across his throat, and instead lost HPs as a result of seeing the attack about to happen, but he still takes the damage from the critical hit, as the guards raise the alarm at exactly the right time for him to avoid outright death. This seems very meta to me, did the guards actually make a perception roll to discover traces left by the PCs? Did they roll survival to track them to the warlord's tent/room? Did the PCs have to infiltrate this compound using some type of repeated skill rolls?

I understand wanting a rule system to maintain consistency, but unfortunately... that isn't any books job, that's the DM's job. You either set up a challenge of equal difficulty that allows for a series of successful skill checks, or a fight. Then you let the PCs make their decision and the dice do the talking.

Could you provide some more information on the scenario? PC level, is it just the Assassin who made it in? Did they beat a series of checks to get there? I'd like to give advice that could possibly help, as you seem disinterested in adopting house-rules, which I can respect. Things are always a bit more clear when more information is a available.

Hit points represent and model (among other things) luck (by RAW) and experience (by inference due to being granted more to your pool as you gain experience). A higher level PC (by RAW and RAI) has a larger pool of luck than a 1st level charachter. In fact, with 120 odd hit points he has 1200 percent more luck than he did at 1st level.

The guards themselves don't relpresent hit points; one of them sneezing in the adjacent room flukily waking up the warlord at the right moment represnts hit points. The Warlord has just 'used' some of his extraordinary luck (represented by a depletion of hit points from the Attack) and the DM narrates the action accordingly (like any other Attack).

By clear RAW and RAI coup de grace attacks on helpless or sleeping foes don't insta kill. They deplete the characters HP (as a critical hit). Even smashing a creatures head in with an axe while they lie there helpless nd dying only forces 2 failed death daves. By RAW and RAI HP represnt luck to survive where an ordinary (non heroic or low level PC) would die (they also represent an increaed resolve to live, stamina to parry or dodge a blow at the last minute etc).

This warlord is lucky. 120 hit points worth of luck. It would take a master assasin to kill him while he sleeps. Not that Pcs know this of course. They don't know his 'level' or his 'HP'.

Same rule applies to PCs. When a goblin sneaks in to murder a 20th level PC as he naps during a short rest, the PC fortuitously wakes up at the right moment. Or the fatal blow is deglected by his holy symbol. Or his familiar snores making him roll in his sleep at the right moment. Or his infernal patron suddenly alerts him. Or any one of a miillion possible plot contrivances I can narrate to explain his sudden lucky break.

And the PCs 'luck points' of his hit points are reduced accordingly by the player.

The PC is none the wiser. The characters isn't aware of his hit points or plot imminity anymore than batman, James Kirk, Han Solo or Drizzt is aware of his. Perhaps on reflection the character realises how lucky he was.

Just how high do you think Drizzts AC is? Most of those attacks he parries, dodges, narrowly avoids, glance off his armor etc are a reflection of his hit point loss. He tires as combat progresses (loses hit points). All those times he narrowly avoids death by virtue of luck, things outside his direct control or other plot contrivances? Narrative depictions of Hit point loss.

Played Star Wars d20? Lightsabers deal 2d8 damage. In lightsaber battles its usually no more than one or two hits at most before the battle is over. Yet the battle lasts for minutes (ie a large number of roinds) of parries, dodges, bruises from kicks and pushes and so forth. Those are just narrarive descriptions of hit point loss. In a game sense, the duelist has been 'hit' a number of times - it's just narratively explained as parries, dodges and so forth. The character uses his experience (hit dice) to luckily or skillfully avoid taking any physical damage from the attack roll that hits. His hit points are reduced accordingly - it's just the narration that is different.

[1Forge]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife.

With a wicked glint, he approaches the Warlord's sleeping form, and plunges downwards sharply with his weapon.
Oops, he missed! Turns out the Warlord had high DEX and CON, as well as unarmored defense. Somehow the Rogue failed to stab the immobile, asleep, unarmored target. At all.

He must have had a small moment of bad luck. Luckily, the warlord is a heavy sleeper.

He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again!

A hit this time. With a heaving thrust he plunges the knife deep into the warlord's throat, heart, eye socket, pick your poison.

He rolls badly though, and the the Warlord wakes up at near to full strength. He took around 40 damage. He has 160 HP Max, not even half. A quarter.

That's from a mechanics perspective, as far as I'm aware. What would you do if you were the DM?

Remember the combat mechanics are for COMBAT. Those rules are assuming the warlord is doing everything they can to survive, and hits are not always direct even then. Other editions had Coup de grace but this dosent, But 5e puts the power in the hands of the DM (you can overrule any rule and make any exception) In this situation I would not make the assassin roll to hit but to wake the dude, if he continued successfully then I'd assume he cuts somewhere vital (insta-kill) assuming the target is humanoid of course for larger creatures I homebrew

small-med insta kill, large=critical hit, any larger is regular unless the PC knows of a weak spot (I assume the dragon or taurresk isnt dodging the attacks, but can just take the hits.)

Just always keep in mind what each stat represents realistically, and what that would translate to IRL. a leval 1 fighter hitting a dragon might be floundering around a bit or hitting in-efficiantly, a lvl20 fighter might recognize a weak spot that would cause the most pain same attack different damages. Hope this helps:smallbiggrin:

[Takewo]

Hit points represent and model (among other things) luck (by RAW) and experience (by inference due to being granted more to your pool as you gain experience). A higher level PC (by RAW and RAI) has a larger pool of luck than a 1st level charachter. In fact, with 120 odd hit points he has 1200 percent more luck than he did at 1st level.

So, from that, we ought to conclude that high level adventurers stay alive not because they are good at what they do but because they are terribly lucky. And the more experience they get, the luckier they become.

Proof of that is that at level 1 it takes two hits to take down somebody at your same level, whereas at level 20 it takes a lot more. Since the skill, stamina and the other factors remain the same (they have comparatively the same power) the only comparatively different thing is their luck.

Therefore, hit points above level 1 equal luck.


You know? I don't buy this "hit points represent more things that meat" thing. The Wizards and Gary can say whatever they want, but the mechanics are meant to clearly understand it as meat. Not just because of spells like "cure wounds" or "harm" (yeah, cure wounds restores your pool of luck and stuff; but then, why can't I get unlimited hit points with it? surely I've always got more space for luck) are phrased like they are, but also because in combat mechanics there is a difference between a "hit" and a "fail". Again, the Wizards may say whatever they wish, but your skill, your armour and your luck are already contemplated in the attack roll, saying that they are also part of the hit points just makes it redundant. If hit points measure those things, why can't you just forgo attack rolls and have automatic hits? And a lot more of mechanics that assume hit points as meat.

[1Forge]

So, from that, we ought to conclude that high level adventurers stay alive not because they are good at what they do but because they are terribly lucky. And the more experience they get, the luckier they become.

Proof of that is that at level 1 it takes two hits to take down somebody at your same level, whereas at level 20 it takes a lot more. Since the skill, stamina and the other factors remain the same (they have comparatively the same power) the only comparatively different thing is their luck.

Therefore, hit points above level 1 equal luck.


You know? I don't buy this "hit points represent more things that meat" thing. The Wizards and Gary can say whatever they want, but the mechanics are meant to clearly understand it as meat. Not just because of spells like "cure wounds" or "harm" (yeah, cure wounds restores your pool of luck and stuff; but then, why can't I get unlimited hit points with it? surely I've always got more space for luck) are phrased like they are, but also because in combat mechanics there is a difference between a "hit" and a "fail". Again, the Wizards may say whatever they wish, but your skill, your armour and your luck are already contemplated in the attack roll, saying that they are also part of the hit points just makes it redundant. If hit points measure those things, why can't you just forgo attack rolls and have automatic hits? And a lot more of mechanics that assume hit points as meat.

HP is designed to take into account all the skill (and sure i guess luck) your characters have aquired. A regular human fighter dosent just hulk-up at higher levels, they tend to look genericaly the same. Many people run their games where their guts are flung out every two seconds and PC's have magical or super hero like healing abilities (kinda like in 4e) but many run the game more realistically, many hits might only be fleshwounds not chest splitting boar wounds. After all XP stands for experiance not magic mana healing powers, that along with alot of text in the books suggest your characters simply learn from their mistakes and direct their skill accordingly. BUT in the end its up to the DM if they want a more video game like approach (hits are direct and hp is "meat") thats their choice, the point is theres no one way this game was MENT to be played the game is all about choice (I've played high fantasy, low fantasy, sci fi, and even non magic settings!) your choice the goal of this game is to have fun, the core rulebooks are just guidelines your DM is the ruleset his power is infinite and eternal the books just help standardise many play styles.

[Malifice]

So, from that, we ought to conclude that high level adventurers stay alive not because they are good at what they do but because they are terribly lucky. And the more experience they get, the luckier they become.

Proof of that is that at level 1 it takes two hits to take down somebody at your same level, whereas at level 20 it takes a lot more. Since the skill, stamina and the other factors remain the same (they have comparatively the same power) the only comparatively different thing is their luck.

Therefore, hit points above level 1 equal luck.


You know? I don't buy this "hit points represent more things that meat" thing. The Wizards and Gary can say whatever they want, but the mechanics are meant to clearly understand it as meat. Not just because of spells like "cure wounds" or "harm" (yeah, cure wounds restores your pool of luck and stuff; but then, why can't I get unlimited hit points with it? surely I've always got more space for luck) are phrased like they are, but also because in combat mechanics there is a difference between a "hit" and a "fail". Again, the Wizards may say whatever they wish, but your skill, your armour and your luck are already contemplated in the attack roll, saying that they are also part of the hit points just makes it redundant. If hit points measure those things, why can't you just forgo attack rolls and have automatic hits? And a lot more of mechanics that assume hit points as meat.

I feel like you're intentionally misrepresenting me. Hit points represent (by RAW):

Stamina
Luck
Resolve
Will to live
Experience
Meat

Higher level PCs don't 'grow more meat'. They become great heroes, equipped with plot armor (the ability to avoid meat damage) via contrivances of luck, last minute dodges and parries, resolve and willpower to fight on when exhausted and so forth.

If your immersion is assisted by high level fighters getting repeatedly stabbed in the belly or sliced open with wounds that would have killed them months ago and bouncing back to full hit points or somehow not becoming crippled with nerve damage and internal injuries and blood loss after several skirmishes then go for it. It's your game. I suppose it gives it a 'highlander' feel.

I prefer to model my games on heroic fantasy such as novels, comics, movies and so forth where heroes (and important villains) are lucky mofos who are clad in plot armor not available to redshirts and minions. That's whar Gygax told me hit points were in AD&D and that's what I've been told they represent in the PHB. It explains the rules on hit point loss (falls from 20 storey buildings dealing 20d6 damage, lava dealing 20d12, getting stabbed while sleeping dealing an automatic critical hit, etc etc).

If hit points represented meat, the game would say so, and the rules would reflect it. Instead the game says they don't just repreent meat and the rules support this statement (as does the historical context of hit points going by what Gygax himself had to say about them).

It's your game man. Feel free to interpret it however you want in your game. You're never gonna convince me to go that way though.

[georgie_leech]

If your immersion is assisted by high level fighters getting repeatedly stabbed in the belly or sliced open with wounds that would have killed them months ago and bouncing back to full hit points or somehow not becoming crippled with nerve damage and internal injuries and blood loss after several skirmishes then go for it. It's your game. I suppose it gives it a 'highlander' feel.


If your immersion is assisted by high level Fighters only sort of being on fire when someone douses them in oil and throws a torch or a poisoned axe wielded by a giant somehow forcing a CON save despite not quite hitting him (even though the last time it didn't hit did no such thing) Or that a person who was actually impaled by a spear and the guy who managed to parry it aside barely require the same amount of curative magic to restore (Level 1 Wizard with 6 hp and Level 20 Fighter both take 7 damage from a spear) then go for it. I suppose it gives the game a "deux ex machina" feel.

Don't act like our interpretation doesn't have its own trade offs and corner cases.

[KorvinStarmast]

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife. With a wicked glint, he approaches the Warlord's sleeping form, and plunges downwards sharply with his weapon.
Oops, he missed!

Turns out the Warlord had high DEX and CON, as well as unarmored defense. Somehow the Rogue failed to stab the immobile, asleep, unarmored target. At all.

He took around 40 damage. He has 160 HP Max, not even half. A quarter.
It is easy to rule that the Dex element of the AC is negated due to being asleep. But that's a "ruling" issue.

The game helps a bit here ... and remember that if your rogue has the basic assassin skills set, you get the surprise bit tossed in to start this all off ... I don't have the PBH with me right now, but this CR 9 is in some serious trouble.
He's asleep, right?
A person asleep is unconscious, right?
Look, here's a Condition in the rule book: Unconscious.


Unconscious
• An unconscious creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can’t move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.
• The creature drops whatever it’s holding and falls prone.
• The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
• Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the
attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.

An incapacitated creature can’t take actions
or reactions. You appear to have at least one autocrit, possibly more depending on what level your rogue/assassin is.

The last bit, about how many hit points. is another matter, and one that is worth DM consideration.

[Malifice]

If your immersion is assisted by high level Fighters only sort of being on fire when someone douses them in oil and throws a torch or a poisoned axe wielded by a giant somehow forcing a CON save despite not quite hitting him (even though the last time it didn't hit did no such thing) Or that a person who was actually impaled by a spear and the guy who managed to parry it aside barely require the same amount of curative magic to restore (Level 1 Wizard with 6 hp and Level 20 Fighter both take 7 damage from a spear) then go for it. I suppose it gives the game a "deux ex machina" feel.

Don't act like our interpretation doesn't have its own trade offs and corner cases.

Again you're either being deliberately obtuse or failing to comprehend what I'm saying.

I never said anyone is 'partially on Fire'. The fire based Attack that deals 20 points of damage (damage that would have incinerated them at 1st level and would kill any normal commoner or member of the town guard) doesn't 'burn them less' or be 'absorbed by his thicker meat' (although it could only singe him where a lesser warrior who lacks the experience or luck - read has less hit points - to avoid the flames would be toasted). It may be a case of that high level fighter dodging at the last minute feeling the heat of the flames as it goes past his head (takes 20 fire damage) or blocking it with his shield at the last minute (takes 20 fire damage) or luckily having the flames hit his waterskin and being extinguished immediately (takes 20 fire damage) or he had the resolve and the presence of mind where a lesser warrior would not to stop, drop and roll or extinguish the flames be shedding his cloak or whatever (takes 20 fire damage).

In one narrative (hit points as meat) all hit point loss is narrated as gory wounds that would render a man a mess of permanent injuries after one battle, with the high level fighter able to survive being hacked limb from limb like the black knight of monty Python and then somehow able to rest for an hour and miraculously regenerate like a starfish.

Barring Highlander type shenanigans this doesn't fit my idea of Fantasy literature or the idea of Heroic fantasy reflected in the portrayal of DND heroes in novels and other media. If it floats your boat then go for it.

In the other narrative (hit points as luck, resolve, experience, stamina) the high level fighters hit points represent (and are narrated as) him narrowly avoiding, dodging, parrying or relying on plot contrivances to avoid deadly wounds by virtue of his skill, luck, resolve and fighting ability, wearing him down until he is low enough on hit points that a single wound (or maybe two) finally brings him down. He rests and recovers his breath and binds his minor wounds and bruises and carries on with his heroic task.

The latter fits my idea of the narrative better, and conforms with both the literature and the rules, and is far less jarring for me.

But like I said. Each to their own.

[JoeJ]

Proof of that is that at level 1 it takes two hits to take down somebody at your same level, whereas at level 20 it takes a lot more. Since the skill, stamina and the other factors remain the same (they have comparatively the same power) the only comparatively different thing is their luck.

I used to fence back in my college days. In fencing, if you put two novices against each other the match will be over very quickly. Two masters, OTOH, can fence for ten minutes or more before one of them gains enough of an advantage to win. That's because defending is a lot harder than attacking. The novices can usually attack fairly decently, but they can't parry worth a darn so the match ends almost as soon as it begins. The masters are experts at both attacking and defending, and they can counter each other for a very long time.


You know? I don't buy this "hit points represent more things that meat" thing. The Wizards and Gary can say whatever they want, but the mechanics are meant to clearly understand it as meat. Not just because of spells like "cure wounds" or "harm" (yeah, cure wounds restores your pool of luck and stuff; but then, why can't I get unlimited hit points with it? surely I've always got more space for luck) are phrased like they are, but also because in combat mechanics there is a difference between a "hit" and a "fail". Again, the Wizards may say whatever they wish, but your skill, your armour and your luck are already contemplated in the attack roll, saying that they are also part of the hit points just makes it redundant. If hit points measure those things, why can't you just forgo attack rolls and have automatic hits? And a lot more of mechanics that assume hit points as meat.

According the the PHB (p. 197), a character down to half their hit point maximum usually shows no physical signs of injury. Below that, they have some cuts and bruises. It's only when they drop to 0 hit points that they are seriously injured.

[Grimstaff]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife.

With a wicked glint, he approaches the Warlord's sleeping form, and plunges downwards sharply with his weapon.
Oops, he missed! Turns out the Warlord had high DEX and CON, as well as unarmored defense. Somehow the Rogue failed to stab the immobile, asleep, unarmored target. At all.

He must have had a small moment of bad luck. Luckily, the warlord is a heavy sleeper.

He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again!

A hit this time. With a heaving thrust he plunges the knife deep into the warlord's throat, heart, eye socket, pick your poison.

He rolls badly though, and the the Warlord wakes up at near to full strength. He took around 40 damage. He has 160 HP Max, not even half. A quarter.

That's from a mechanics perspective, as far as I'm aware. What would you do if you were the DM?

Personally, if I was DMing, it never would have got so far, the Warlord would have awakened on the first miss. But as to your mechanics v. realism, I'd consider the two following scenarios and rule accordingly:

1. There is no realistic way for the Warlord to awaken (he's drunk, the Rogue rolled a nat 20 on his stealth check, etc). In this case - sure, the rogue immediately slices the Warlord's throat open, and the Warlord dies. Maybe I'll give him a Con check to see if he can gurgle for help or overturn a lamp with a crash or something.

2. The Warlord could possibly awaken. In which case, I handle the encounter RAW - he's sleeping, so the Rogue gets advantage to hit and automatically crits. That said, unless he's a high-level Rogue (or better yet, Assassin), a quick kill is unlikely at 180hp. Which is fine, why would I design a high-level Warlord if I wanted him vulnerable to a one-hit kill? I could simply have used the "Noble" stat block from the MM if I wanted that.

I don't see it as "unrealistic" that what's basically a superhuman villain can't get one-shotted.

[Ruslan]

I'm a big fan of roll-dice-first-narrate-later approach to roleplaying. The attacker dealt 40 damage to the sleeping warlord, but the warlord still has 120 left? Well, that could mean several things.

The easy way out of course is "the system is stupid". This doesn't require much thinking. I wanted the warlord dead, he's not dead, therefore the system is to blame. Obviously, the system and only the system, and not, heaven forbid, my own lack of imagination and ability to narrate the results.

An alternative option - make up a narrative that fits the dice rolls. The warlord's a light sleeper and managed to wake up just as the blade was whooshing on his way down to pierce his heart. As the very last moment, he instinctively thrusts his arm to deflect the weapon into a non-lethal stab, and although badly injured, manages to survive.

[georgie_leech]

Again you're either being deliberately obtuse or failing to comprehend what I'm saying.

I never said anyone is 'partially on Fire'. The fire based Attack that deals 20 points of damage (damage that would have incinerated them at 1st level and would kill any normal commoner or member of the town guard) doesn't 'burn them less' or be 'absorbed by his thicker meat' (although it could only singe him where a lesser warrior who lacks the experience or luck - read has less hit points - to avoid the flames would be toasted). It may be a case of that high level fighter dodging at the last minute feeling the heat of the flames as it goes past his head (takes 20 fire damage) or blocking it with his shield at the last minute (takes 20 fire damage) or luckily having the flames hit his waterskin and being extinguished immediately (takes 20 fire damage) or he had the resolve and the presence of mind where a lesser warrior would not to stop, drop and roll or extinguish the flames be shedding his cloak or whatever (takes 20 fire damage).



Now you're misrepresenting my view. This isn't 20 hp worth of fire breath attack, this is someone currently burning. Searing Smite straight up sets the target on fire. If someone is hit by Melf's Acid Arrow, it strains credibility to say that the acid damage is anything but it trying to dissolve the target; it isn't corroding their luck.

Once again, I AGREE THAT LUCK IS A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF HP. That is how I run it in my games. What I disagree with is the idea that that means that HP is a perfect abstraction with no corner cases and is the best explanation for everyone.

[kaoskonfety]

Doesn't most of this boil down to:
Are you telling a story the game rules help you with, or running a game that you have written a narrative for?

If you are telling a story: does the BBEG 'need' plot armor right now (they must live because X)? If yes, hit points serious scar and some dialoge about how bad-arse he is with a clear chance for the cunning rogue to escape, if no, he dies (or is VERY badly wounded)

If you are running a game: was getting past all the guards/security (one of the) the win condition(s)? If yes - he dies (or is VERY badly wounded), if no, he has hit points, gets a serious scar and some description about how bad-arse he is with a chance for the cunning rogue to escape. Roll initiative.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Doesn't most of this boil down to:
Are you telling a story the game rules help you with, or running a game that you have written a narrative for?

If you are telling a story: does the BBEG 'need' plot armor right now (they must live because X)? If yes, hit points serious scar and some dialoge about how bad-arse he is with a clear chance for the cunning rogue to escape, if no, he dies (or is VERY badly wounded)

If you are running a game: was getting past all the guards/security (one of the) the win condition(s)? If yes - he dies (or is VERY badly wounded), if no, he has hit points, gets a serious scar and some description about how bad-arse he is with a chance for the cunning rogue to escape. Roll initiative.

I like this a lot!

[rollingForInit]

Luck is the only thing that'll save you in that situation!

Whether that's the luck of rolling high enough to beat the assasins stealth check and hear him first, or the luck of heroes in fantasy literature with years of experience under their belt dealing with horrific monsters and demons (having lots of hit dice and HP) or the outrageous luck of plot immunity (hit points again), all the fighting skill, healthy constitution and resolve in the world doesn't help you when you're asleep!


Really, I fail to see the point of setting up an assassination quest where the party has to jump through all the hoops to get there, if it's going to be impossible to assassinate the target. As you've illustrated, it simply will not work, with 150hp. Why would you do that? You're robbing the PC's of any chance of success. In my opinion, hit points aren't intended for sitautions like this. Just like they aren't intended for a real execution. Say you have the 150hp warlord being publicly beheaded by a regular executioner? Not a fighter, really, just someone who swings the the axe. Is he going to have to chop a 10+ times before the warlord dies? Because, that's what would happen.

An assassination is the same thing.



Seems like RollingforInit and I run similar sorts of games. Some folk would like it. ( My players do ) And some folk would find it arbitrary and disconcerting because the book says...something else. ( I don't find them arbitrary at all, and the co-dm runs his segments following the same internal logic.)

Seems like we do!

[Vogonjeltz]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife.

With a wicked glint, he approaches the Warlord's sleeping form, and plunges downwards sharply with his weapon.
Oops, he missed! Turns out the Warlord had high DEX and CON, as well as unarmored defense. Somehow the Rogue failed to stab the immobile, asleep, unarmored target. At all.

He must have had a small moment of bad luck. Luckily, the warlord is a heavy sleeper.

He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again!

A hit this time. With a heaving thrust he plunges the knife deep into the warlord's throat, heart, eye socket, pick your poison.

He rolls badly though, and the the Warlord wakes up at near to full strength. He took around 40 damage. He has 160 HP Max, not even half. A quarter.

That's from a mechanics perspective, as far as I'm aware. What would you do if you were the DM?

You skipped the Wisdom (perception) check to see if the Warlord hears the Rogue approaching and wakes up.

That being said, an unconcious character is utterly at the mercy of an enemy in a non-combat scenario where there are zero available allies. That being the case, I'd follow the guidance in the DMG on 237 where it says: "Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful."

So, if the Rogue beats his passive perception AND there's no one else who could interfere, automatic kill against a character incapable of defending themselves.

If you (as DM) think you would prefer the unconcious character not die outright, but also not escape apparently unharmed, there are two other rules you could employ:

Lingering Wounds (for critical hits). I think losing an eye would be appropriate in this example if they stabbed the warlord in the eye but did not penetrate the brain.

And

Massive damage (the one in the DMG, not the PHB). If the helpless character had 160 hp, and the crit dealt 80 damage, it would force a saving throw that might outright kill the enemy.


This is frequently argued and entirely wrong.

It's said frequently because it's true according to the game manual (the PHB). Page 197, the text box on describing damage: "When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury."

Also, on page 196 under the heading of Hit Points: "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck."


I don't think luck factors into a face-to-face execution where the assassin makes sure the person is dead.

Well, they could wake up at a sudden and unexpected noise, perhaps someone yells in the moment before the dagger comes down, or there's the scrape of a blade clearing its sheathe, or an aide de camp enters the tent and calls out a warning, or one of a million other possibilities that foil the otherwise perfect kill.

Either outcome (automatic success, or possible failure) is ok, it's just the DM's responsibility to figure out which.

[Princess]

I'd say it's an auto-hit for sure. As for the damage, unless the plot is somehow totally ruined by this guy dying (In which case, the plot is weak and puny), I'd just say "Anyone with sneak attack knows how to slit a jugular" and the only thing left to determine is whether said warlord can cry out while he chokes on his own blood so that guards show up to attack the rogue, or your assassin does a good enough job keeping things quiet to sneak away before Fearless Leader's body is discovered. For that I'd make the player roll something against a fixed DC (maybe an attack roll just to determine how quickly they can slit his throat, and/or a stealth or sleight of hand to keep it quiet.)

[Flickerdart]

spells such as "Cure Wounds" that somehow restore this metaphysical 'luck.'
How else would you restore a metaphysical element than by using magic?

[Takewo]

I feel like you're intentionally misrepresenting me.

Oh, no. No, no, no. Sorry if I gave this impression. No, I wasn't doing that.

I was just trying to state that how the Wizards define the concept "hit points" doesn't reflect how the mechanics deal with hit points. The Wizards state that it is a bunch of things that is a)contemplated elsewhere and b)not intuitive. The fact that they need keep defining hit points in the fifth edition of their game and that we are still having these arguments kind of shows it.

I will put the example of Fate. In Fate, when someone attacks you, you both roll fight and if your opponent's roll is higher than yours, then he overcomes you. Then you can either take stress or consequences (or both). You define the consequences and can take them in the form of wounds, or something else that is reasonable given the context. The thing is that stress is never meant to represent an injury. And there is no need for an explanatory note stating so. The language never lets you think that by simply rolling higher than you then your opponent "hits" you nor that stress equals health.

In D&D, on the other hand, uses terms that bear a different meaning than what they state and makes the application of their statement redundant.

Your post was just the starting point of my reflection on why I think that the Wizards' definition of hit points does not fit the game.



I used to fence back in my college days. In fencing, if you put two novices against each other the match will be over very quickly. Two masters, OTOH, can fence for ten minutes or more before one of them gains enough of an advantage to win. That's because defending is a lot harder than attacking. The novices can usually attack fairly decently, but they can't parry worth a darn so the match ends almost as soon as it begins. The masters are experts at both attacking and defending, and they can counter each other for a very long time.

I just want to point out here that fencing is a show-off sport, not real combat. In a fencing match the opponents have all the time they want to test each other and try different approaches before any of them decides to take any risk. In a battle you don't have ten minutes to wrestle with your opponent, someone will come and kill you.

[UXLZ]

If hit points are primarily represented by a metaphysical universal constant of 'luck', why are there different types of damage?

I think the biggest issue isn't that interpretation of HP though, but rather Wizard's utter failure at making it intuitive through the way everything is named..

"Hit Points" are points that deplete when you get "Hit" and you can get them back up by drinking a "Potion or Healing" or having "Cure Wounds" cast on you. If you are "Hit" by fire you take fire-type damage, and if you are "Hit" by cold you take cold-type damage.

But neither of these things ever actually hit you, hit points in fact have nothing to do with getting hit, cure wounds doesn't actually cure "wounds" it restores luck and mental fortitude, fire and ice have different damage types even though neither of them effectively actually damage you.

[Ruslan]

If hit points are primarily represented by a metaphysical universal constant of 'luck', why are there different types of damage?Who said it's a constant? Dodging a fireball, blocking an axe blow, and withstanding a burst of necrotic energy, could all be painted as different types of luck.

[Hawkstar]

Let's turn this around! You're sitting at your gaming table, playing as a level 10 Battlemaster fighter. While discussing downtime, you tell the DM that your character turns in for the night in his reasonably-defended castle. The other players all follow suit. Then, the DM makes a few dice rolls behind his screen. When you start to describe what you do the next day, or what you plan to do with downtime, the DM cuts you off with "No you don't".

... and then, next time a player goes to check on yours, or a sufficient amount of time passes, the DM reveals your character had his throat slit in the middle of the night by a low-level ninja.

[Strill]

If hit points are primarily represented by a metaphysical universal constant of 'luck', why are there different types of damage?They're not primarily luck. Luck is only one part of it. Skill, experience, fatigue, stress, minor cuts and bruises, focus, and premonitions all play a part.


But neither of these things ever actually hit you, hit points in fact have nothing to do with getting hit,"Hit Points" have become a defining game term across almost every genre. Renaming them at this point would be ridiculous.


cure wounds doesn't actually cure "wounds" it restores luck and mental fortitudeIt does all three of those things, and more.


fire and ice have different damage types even though neither of them effectively actually damage you.While you have hit points, they damage you minorly. When you run out of hit points, they damage you majorly.

[UXLZ]

@Ruslan: What I meant by that was that this "luck" is basically ubiquitous. Everything has it, doors have it.

@Hawkstar: Yes, you can do that. Depending on campaign and players, it might even be the correct thing to do. You can also also just erase the character from existence, though, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

@Strill: The first seven don't let you avoid dying in your sleep very much. I'd consider premonitions to come from the same area as "luck", and now we're moving into the actively supernatural. What if the player wants their character to just be a really good fighter?

Um... Not really. You think that, I don't. There are plenty of games that use something other than hit points. A lot of them are tabletop games.

We're not talking about what cure wounds actually does, we're talking about how it's named. It explicitly cures wounds. It's like if Ray of Frost had Fireball's effect.

You "hit" a creature weak to fire with fire-typed damage. Of course, you don't actually "hit" it, it's just called a "hit" (because ???). Somehow avoiding being set on fire takes more of its "luck" because... It would be more damaging if it hit?

[Malifice]

Now you're misrepresenting my view. This isn't 20 hp worth of fire breath attack, this is someone currently burning. Searing Smite straight up sets the target on fire. If someone is hit by Melf's Acid Arrow, it strains credibility to say that the acid damage is anything but it trying to dissolve the target; it isn't corroding their luck.

Once again, I AGREE THAT LUCK IS A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF HP. That is how I run it in my games. What I disagree with is the idea that that means that HP is a perfect abstraction with no corner cases and is the best explanation for everyone.

I'm not saying 'all hit points are luck' either. In the case you describe above continuing damage could better be narrated by reference to a proportion of the ceeatures hit point total: a 120 HP fighter taking 5 damage a round isn't burning anywhere near as much as a 10 hit point fighter is; perhaps he's not even burning at all and the ongoing damage is simply reflective of the ongoing stamina drain and mental doubt caused by fighting a powerful spellcaster.

Narrating continuing damage in such a way is no different from narrating a 50 point blow with an axe as a narrow miss, and the 50 points of damage representing the stamina loss of the target leaping out of the way at the last minute.

[UXLZ]

What if it's a mindless creature taking continuous acid damage? Or someone who's dominated?

Also, why is it acid damage if it's representative of their doubt and stamina drain?

[JackPhoenix]

It's not...you're focusing too much on one interpretation of hit points over another. Sometimes it's luck, sometime you strain yourself, and sometimes you are just hit. And even then...have you seen the scene in Aliens when Hicks was hit by a splash of Xenomorph acid, but got his armor off before it managed to burn through? Maybe your armor stopped Melf before it could get to you (the magical acid will disappear after a while). Maybe your clothes or hair caught on fire, burned for few rounds but you've managed to put it out before you suffered more then minor damage.

You can't always say "All hitpoints except the last hit are luck!" or "It's all meat!"... you should combine the interpretation to make most sense at the moment depending on the different circumstances. Maybe this time you were lucky and there was a gap in the fireball's explosion. Or maybe you jumped out of the way, but stubbed your toe in the process. Or maybe you were hit, but suffered only singed hair and some minor blisters. If the situation on the battlefield isn't always the same, why should the result?

[Malifice]

Really, I fail to see the point of setting up an assassination quest where the party has to jump through all the hoops to get there, if it's going to be impossible to assassinate the target. As you've illustrated, it simply will not work, with 150hp. Why would you do that? You're robbing the PC's of any chance of success. In my opinion, hit points aren't intended for sitautions like this. Just like they aren't intended for a real execution. Say you have the 150hp warlord being publicly beheaded by a regular executioner? Not a fighter, really, just someone who swings the the axe. Is he going to have to chop a 10+ times before the warlord dies? Because, that's what would happen.

An assassination is the same thing.



Seems like we do!

Nice strawman.

No I am not proposing sending a bunch of 1st level PCs on a quest to kill a 150 hit point creature. How on earth you inferred that from what I posted I'll never know. None of what I'm saying removes the presumption of the DM designing challenge appropriate encounters for te party.

In fact I'm actually inferring the opposite - 150 hit point villians have plot armor (luck of the gods, skills, experience and resolve) to be almost immune from getting mechanically one shotted by redshirts.

Not that the above makes the claim that a low level PC can't kill a mighty warlord with a single dagger strike. It's still narratively possible. He'll just need a way to reduce the warlords hit points first. Ambushing him after a major battle when he is already wounded or even not wounded at all but just drained and off guard from the previous combat (Ie very low on hit points) and a single knife from a redshirt could do it. As could a redshirt low level PC with a magical dagger or other plot macguffin designed to kill the Super high level PC.

Look at Tanis slaying the Dragon Highlord in dragon lance with a single surprise thrust of a dagger ensorcelled by Raistlin for just such a purpose. Of course that event (getting in, acquiring the Magic dagger, getting close to the enemy and attacking him) would probably be modelled as a skill challenge in my campaign, and the dragon Highlord wouldnt be a NPC with hit points but hey.

Of course the villain isn't safe from death by a single knife in the dark. It's just the knife in the dark better be being used by a challenge appropriate foe, or otherwise be subject to a removal of his plot armor by the DM, or else luck and experience are on the warlords side.

[Pex]

Your first mistake is treating HP as 'meat' and interpreting the results accordingly.

Hit points are not meat.

From the PHB:

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.

A high level character has more luck (hit points) than a low level character. This luck prevents him from death or mortal injury where a less fortunate person would die (a person with less hit points). A high hit point creature can pull things out of his arse that low level inexperienced creatures simply cannot. Blows that would kill a lesser creature narrowly miss him by sheer chance or other circumstance of fate. In this example, the dagger didnt hit him squarely (by a freakish co-incidence) it instead glanced off his holy symbol, snared in the roof of the tent on the way down, he rolled over in his sleep at the last moment causing it to narrowly miss, or only graze him or whatever.

Consider 'hit points' to be better described as 'plot immunity points' and it'll make more sense.

A Redshirt has 5 hit points. Kirk has over 100.

In this specific scenario, I would simply extrapolate the results (dagger narrowly misses, driving into the pillow and scratching the hero's face [resulting in the attrition of 40 points of the hero's available daily luck]) and go from there.

Ruling otherwise, penalizes high hit point PC's (i.e. martials) unnecessarily.

Think about a fall into lava (which deals 20d8 damage or whatever it is). A low level PC (or Redshirt) dies instantly. A high level PC (or Kirk) could take that damage and live. It's not that he fell into the lava but somehow survived. It's more that he nearly fell into the lava but was miraculously and freakishly saved at the last minute by some plot contrivance thats not available to a Redshirt (he landed on a rock in the middle of the lava, is hanging by an outcropping of rock precariously above the lava - with dramatic music playing in the background - or whatever).

It's no different from describing a hit as a wound (the axe slashes across your arm causing you to bleed and yelp in pain - reduce your hit points by 20) as it is describing a hit otherwise (the axe comes swinging down at you, and at the last minute you parry it, carried forward by your will to live and experience to survive where a lesser mortal would die - reduce your hit points by 20).

Remember - hit points are not meat in DnD - and you'll be fine.

I like this interpretation.

[Strill]

@Strill: The first seven don't let you avoid dying in your sleep very much.Ok. In that particular situation, luck is more important. You're trying to twist that into saying that Luck is ALWAYS the primary component of hit points, even in other unrelated situations, like your example of a door's hit points. Hit points are an abstract conglomeration of many different things that keep you alive.


I'd consider premonitions to come from the same area as "luck", and now we're moving into the actively supernatural. What if the player wants their character to just be a really good fighter?Then play a different game. D&D fighters are modeled after the likes of Bellerophon or Achilles. Their abilities far exceed those of any real person to the point where the distinction of "natural" and "supernatural" are meaningless. After a certain level, it's all supernatural.

D&D itself is designed primarily to model heroic fantasy tropes, not real life. If you want a game where the hero can die a brutal death at any moment, you should be playing a different game.


We're not talking about what cure wounds actually does, we're talking about how it's named. It explicitly cures wounds. It's like if Ray of Frost had Fireball's effect.It says it cures wounds, and it does. What is the problem?


You "hit" a creature weak to fire with fire-typed damage. Of course, you don't actually "hit" it, it's just called a "hit" (because ???). Somehow avoiding being set on fire takes more of its "luck" because... It would be more damaging if it hit?It's called a hit because it's not harmlessly dodged or deflected. It still doesn't strike you at full force, but it does wear you down at the least.

[Malifice]

Oh, no. No, no, no. Sorry if I gave this impression. No, I wasn't doing that.

I was just trying to state that how the Wizards define the concept "hit points" doesn't reflect how the mechanics deal with hit points. The Wizards state that it is a bunch of things that is a)contemplated elsewhere and b)not intuitive. The fact that they need keep defining hit points in the fifth edition of their game and that we are still having these arguments kind of shows it.

Wizards dont keep defining and redefining hit points. A clear reference has been posted on this thread that shows that the definition of what hit points represent (your ability to dodge, parry, avoid, your depletion of stamina, ability to rely on some lucky plot contrivance to escape and actual physical injury) have been more or less constant since 1E.

Would it be easier for you if hit points were broken down in 'plot armor' points (90 percent of your hit point total) and 'wound points' the remaining 10 percent? Or perhaps try to take a second and imagine such a system.

Whenever you take damage, you choose to reduce your plot armor component of your hit points or your meat component of your hit points. If you reduce your plot armor points, you must narrate the method by which your PC turned the blow aside at the last minute (narrowly dodging it, parrying it, leaping out of the way and getting tired, or by some lucky plot contrivance such as bouncing off your armor and only causing superficial damage, getting deflected by your shield and jarring your arm, or getting woken up just in time to avoid the assassins blade). When you run out of 'plot armor' points, you must reduce your 'wound points' and in this case, you must narrate the hit point loss as an actual injury or wound.

The system mirrors and permits a near endless variety of fluctuating combat results.

If you can imagine that, then you can imagine how to narrate hit point loss in your game. Hit point loss by RAW represents a pool of all of the above (dodging, parrying, lucky misses, plot contrivances and actual physical injury). It's not arbitrarily broken down into several smaller pools of each; it's up to the narrative to explain the loss of hit points and whether their loss represents a depletion of luck, a dodge, a parry, a near miss or a mortal wound.

If you can wrap your head around that, you should be OK.


I will put the example of Fate. In Fate, when someone attacks you, you both roll fight and if your opponent's roll is higher than yours, then he overcomes you. Then you can either take stress or consequences (or both). You define the consequences and can take them in the form of wounds, or something else that is reasonable given the context. The thing is that stress is never meant to represent an injury. And there is no need for an explanatory note stating so. The language never lets you think that by simply rolling higher than you then your opponent "hits" you nor that stress equals health.

In D&D, on the other hand, uses terms that bear a different meaning than what they state and makes the application of their statement redundant.

DnD does exactly the same thing; just in a more abstract manner. The added complexity of a system that requires parries, luck rolls, stress rolls and so forth is subsumed into the 'hit point' system. High level fighters have more hit points not because their skin has gotten thicker and their organs are iron hard, but because of their increased ability to turn a hit that would kill a normal man into a near miss by virtue of luck, skill at dodging or parrying, knowing how to use their armor to deflect the blow, increased endurance and stamina to dodge when a lesser warrior would be too tired, resolve, knowing when to zag and not zig and so forth.

Fighters and Barbarians get increased HD for a reason. They're staple heroes of pulp fantasy fiction, and are assumed to be better at desperately parrying, dodging, using armor to turn deadly blows into glancing hits, and pushing on when lesser men would falter. They come equipped with the ability to do all the above via the abstraction of hit points. Their plot armor increases at a higher rate than than (for example) casters; this is a core assumption of the game.

TL;DR simply allow players to narrate 'hit point' reduction in an appropriate way - last minute parries or dodges that tire the character, contrivances of luck or chance that conspire to save the character where a lesser hero or redshirt would die, and occasionally as actual injuries commensurate with the hit point reduction as a proportion of the PC's hit points (generally, the blow that drops a PC to 0 HP in my games is the 'wounding hit that actually injures him' - it may very well be the only hit point loss of the entire battle out of dozens of 'hits' that reduced the PC's hit points that actually is narrated as such).


I just want to point out here that fencing is a show-off sport, not real combat.

You want to model a fight between a fighter and a 15' tall Giant wielding a 2 ton axe, where the fighter gets repeatedly squarely hit with the said axe and survives unimpeded?

Surely it is more immersive to narrate the loss of HP in this example as lucky last minute dodges (by virtue of the fighters skill and luck i.e. Hit dice and level), and then take a breather for an hour afterwards to refocus his resolve and regain his endurance, rather than to narrate it via the absurdity of the survival of the fighter notwithstanding repeated hits with the massive axe, and his subsequent ability to heal what must be grievous wounds by quietly resting for an hour.

Barring a 'Highlander' type scenario (and that could be quite fun by the way too), I find the former narration to be much less jarring and represents the fiction much better.


In a fencing match the opponents have all the time they want to test each other and try different approaches before any of them decides to take any risk.

Thats just how our real world DM is narrating the fencers hit point loss to you. He also narrates it via parries, dodges, lunges out of the way and so forth. In some alternate dimension the fencers player is reducing his 'hit point' total. The final thrust is narrated as hitting the opposing fencer.

You're none the wiser.


What if it's a mindless creature taking continuous acid damage? Or someone who's dominated?

Assume a dominated 20th level fighter with 200 hit points is taking 5 acid damage per round. Now assume a dominated 1st level fighter adjacent to him with only 10 hit points is also taking 5 acid damage per round.

Despite the damage (5 points) being the same, we can narrate it as the low level 'Redshirt' fighter gets literally drenched in acid (he'll die horribly in 2 rounds), whereas the higher level 'James T Kirk' fighter managed to heroically leap out of the way at the last minute (perhaps in an effort to save the Redshirt - or maybe the Redshirt was trying to save him!) and the high level hero was barely even splashed, or has maybe only instead breathed some vapors and is only mildly inconvenienced.

It's down to the narration. An abstract system of 'hit points' (representing luck, fate, plot armor, stamina, skill, resolve, and injury) allows for an enormous amount of narrative power at the cost of zero system complexity.

See it yet?

[Malifice]

D&D fighters are modeled after the likes of Bellerophon or Achilles. Their abilities far exceed those of any real person to the point where the distinction of "natural" and "supernatural" are meaningless. After a certain level, it's all supernatural.

Exactly.

Epic heroes are.. well... epic. The fate of nations and entire worlds rests on their shoulders. They are the James T Kirks, the Achillies, the Batmans, the Luke Skywalkers, the James Bonds the Arthurs and the Conans of the world. They are protected by fate, destiny or the gods (via an infinite number of lucky plot contrivances) and possess the skill to survive massive battles, perilous situations and deadly encounters relatively (and miraculously) unharmed thanks to a combination of skill and luck (i.e: Hit Points).

They dont get one shotted by stormtroopers, mooks, incompetent henchmen, redshirts or nameless footmen while they sleep. It takes a Darth Vader, a Bane, a Joker or a Khan to kill them.

Thats how the DnD system is purposefully designed.


D&D itself is designed primarily to model heroic fantasy tropes, not real life. If you want a game where the hero can die a brutal death at any moment, you should be playing a different game.

Spot on. I suggest Rolemaster. A good (if crunchy) system where a peasant with a knife can insta-kill even the mightiest hero, and every single swing of a weapon against you can kill you or deliver a graphic wound regardless of your 'hit points' or your luck or skill (although the latter helps).

[UXLZ]

I've understood it since the start, I'm just trying to narrow the specifics down. Though the terminology WotC use still irritates me.

[Malifice]

I've understood it since the start, I'm just trying to narrow the specifics down. Though the terminology WotC use still irritates me.

They're arent really any 'specifics' - its an intentionally abstract system that's designed to model an infinite number of equally abstract things like 'luck' 'fate' 'experience' 'stamina' 'resolve' 'last ditch efforts to parry and dodge' 'injuries' and a gazillion other things.

Being so open ended and so abstract is a boon. If you want to narrate every hit as some form of relative 'meat loss' then go for it. If you want to narrate every hit as near misses then that's also within the scope of the 'hit point' system as written.

If (OTOH) you want to introduce an 'insta kill' house rule, then be a tad wary of it's implications (in particular the ramifications for high hit point i.e. high level martial type) characters.

It overly penalizes them by arbitrarily depriving them of some of the benefit of a core class feature that grants them plot immunity (higher hit dice) -and this is a class feature that they get in exchange for not being able to affect the plot and narrative as easily as a caster can (via spell slots).

I don't see a need to penalize or deprive fighters of what plot and narrative control they do have via these hit points, nor do I see a pressing need to deprive them of the mechanical benefits of such a core class feature unnecessarily. It doesnt break my sense of simulation either - in fact it mirrors the exact type of genre (heroic pulp fantasy) that is depicted in movies, novels and comics to a tee.

It's also an extension of the 'guy at the gym' fallacy but that's a whole different topic.

[Coidzor]

What would you do if you were the DM?

What's the role of this NPC in the story? Is he an ally the party (or just the rogue) is betraying? Is he the BBEG? The apparent BBEG who is actually a cat's paw for the real villain? A lieutenant of the BBEG or his second in command? Is he the warlord of some random Orc Horde that the Rogue went looking for instead of learning **** or building up a thieves guild or other organization during DowntimeTM?

Story role and what purpose the Warlord serves determines how difficult it is to get to him in this position and how difficult dispatching him once he's in it should be. If the principle difficulty was in getting to him, then he's just assumed to be dead or subdued(at least, initially) once the party gets their mitts on him while he's vulnerable. If the challenge is to be both getting to him and taking him out, then he's not going to actually be asleep but will spring his own attack on the rogue as he tries to take him out.

If he's actually Conan, he'll wake up at the last moment and take on a variable amount of damage from a torn shirt to a nasty cut depending upon the needs of the story. If he's just a Conan Expy, then his massive bullneck will be surprisingly resilient, fouling the ability to mortally wound him.

[JoeJ]

In a fencing match the opponents have all the time they want to test each other and try different approaches before any of them decides to take any risk. In a battle you don't have ten minutes to wrestle with your opponent, someone will come and kill you.

In other words, fencing is exactly like the battle; if the two high level fighters of your example concentrate solely on each other, somebody else will join in, and one or the other will quickly drop to 0 hp.

[goto124]

I'm still confuddled by how (and why) HP has to represent luck/dodging/etc. Sure, it can give more flexible and interesting narration when the PCs are in combat, but I don't see how it's good for much else.


Say you have the 150hp warlord being publicly beheaded by a regular executioner? Not a fighter, really, just someone who swings the the axe. Is he going to have to chop a 10+ times before the warlord dies? Because, that's what would happen.

*attempts to imagine the scene* :smallbiggrin:


I'd say it's an auto-hit for sure. As for the damage, unless the plot is somehow totally ruined by this guy dying (In which case, the plot is weak and puny), I'd just say "Anyone with sneak attack knows how to slit a jugular" and the only thing left to determine is whether said warlord can cry out while he chokes on his own blood so that guards show up to attack the rogue, or your assassin does a good enough job keeping things quiet to sneak away before Fearless Leader's body is discovered. For that I'd make the player roll something against a fixed DC (maybe an attack roll just to determine how quickly they can slit his throat, and/or a stealth or sleight of hand to keep it quiet.)

Why is there a plot? Why does the game crash and burn if the Warlord dies? Replace the Warlord with any element of the campaign. NPC, a plot-related item, etc.

[Xetheral]

It overly penalizes them by arbitrarily depriving them of some of the benefit of a core class feature that grants them plot immunity (higher hit dice)

Wait, now you're claiming that plot immunity is a core fighter class feature? What?

[JoeJ]

Wait, now you're claiming that plot immunity is a core fighter class feature? What?

Plot immunity is a core player character feature. Fighters get more of one specific kind of plot immunity: hit points.

[Xetheral]

Plot immunity is a core player character feature.

Hardly. While some posters are in favor of the concept, I find nothing wrecks immersion for me faster than the feeling that the PCs are special by virtue of being PCs. The comparisons made to Kirk and redshirts miss the fact that for many people the redshirt phenomenon is one of the most cringe-worthy parts of TOS, and it's lampooned for that very reason.


Fighters get more of one specific kind of plot immunity: hit points.

Until yesterday I'd never heard anyone suggest that HP should be considered a form of plot immunity, and now today comes the suggestion that it's a core feature? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if plot armor truly were a core feature, veteran players should already be familiar with the concept.

[Coidzor]

I'm still confuddled by how (and why) HP has to represent luck/dodging/etc. Sure, it can give more flexible and interesting narration when the PCs are in combat, but I don't see how it's good for much else.

Because not every hit in every game needs to be cutting massive chunks into/out of the fighter and sometimes they just want some damage to be from dodging funny and pull a muscle instead. Or getting hit lightly so that it's mostly just bruising instead of massive lacerations.


Why is there a plot?

Generally because if things don't form a coherent narrative(even if it isn't a good one) based upon what happens in the game, things get weird and time gets all wibbly-wobbly and you might forget that you're in the mines killing kobolds, not in the forest killing goblins, which can be quite disorienting for the PCs when they cleave a kobold's head in twain with their axe only to find themselves in the middle of the woods with a goblin impaled on the sword in their hand.

[Malifice]

Wait, now you're claiming that plot immunity is a core fighter class feature? What?

Of course! Hit points directly interact with the environment. They determine a players ability to survive falls, assassination attempts, fireballs, immersion into lava and combat with potent mythical creatures. They're a key resource that determines success and failure in overcoming those obstacles (both by means of dealing hit points and by virtue of your ability to withstand hit point damage).

For example a 20th level fighter with a single hit point has a lot less ability to effect the narrative than he would if he had 300 of them. Even the most trivial of encounter would be insurmountable and he is reduced to the status of a redshirt or minion who only exists to die. Higher hit points serve as the Fighters method of enabling him to battle fire breathing dragons and vile pit fiends for minutes on end, to miraculously suvive falls into the mouth of a volcano and to wake up just in time to foil an assasin, where lesser heroes would be killed in seconds.

The high Hit points of the fighter are what the extra skills are to the rogue and spells are to the caster. His way of influencing the narrative, a symbol of his enhanced ability to overcome obstacles (and to influence the plot and narrative of the story).

On an even more direct level, mechanicaly they are an abstract representation of his higher levels of skill, stamina, health, resolve, experience and luck in perilous and life threatening situations where harm is a possibility. Narratively speaking they are his plot armor - his way of influencing the narrative and demonstrating his status as a great hero. They grant him a level of plot immunity from greater and greater threats that steadily grows as he advances in level. And you're depriving him of using that enhanced luck, resolve and stamina to do precisely what the game tells you it should do - protect his ass from the environment where the Guy at the gym would surely die.

Where a wizard casts a spell (and expend a spell slot resource) to get plot immunity to fire to survive a fall into a volcano (and influence the narrative), a fighter needs to rely on his higher hit dice (and expend hit points as a resource) to also gain a level of plot immunity (reflecting his increased luck, stamina, and resolve) to suvive falling in.

You're applying the Guy at the gym fallacy to the high level fighter who falls in the volcano (he just dies - luck component of hit points be damned) and depriving him of his inherent class feature and ability to influence the narrative by expending a resource and telling you what happens (how his luck saved him) yet the wizard gets to use his class based resources to avoid the exact same fate 'because Magic'.

And people wonder why Fighters get such a bad wrap?

[djreynolds]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife.

With a wicked glint, he approaches the Warlord's sleeping form, and plunges downwards sharply with his weapon.
Oops, he missed! Turns out the Warlord had high DEX and CON, as well as unarmored defense. Somehow the Rogue failed to stab the immobile, asleep, unarmored target. At all.

He must have had a small moment of bad luck. Luckily, the warlord is a heavy sleeper.

He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again!

A hit this time. With a heaving thrust he plunges the knife deep into the warlord's throat, heart, eye socket, pick your poison.

He rolls badly though, and the the Warlord wakes up at near to full strength. He took around 40 damage. He has 160 HP Max, not even half. A quarter.

That's from a mechanics perspective, as far as I'm aware. What would you do if you were the DM?

The assassin did miss twice before he hit. That's reality. That's chance. And chance is fair. Luck is fair. Hit points are an accumulation, of all of that. Now if you just had said he killed him, I'd be fine with that. That's story. But in reality, you still have to land that strike and because he is a low level, your assassin missed. He missed twice. Did he stab the pillow? Did his missed strikes produce a current of air that woke up the warlord? That's reality. See the mechanics allowed you to make a killing blow and in reality he missed twice. That's fair. Nothing is certain is the world of Quantum mechanics?

[JoeJ]

Hardly. While some posters are in favor of the concept, I find nothing wrecks immersion for me faster than the feeling that the PCs are special by virtue of being PCs. The comparisons made to Kirk and redshirts miss the fact that for many people the redshirt phenomenon is one of the most cringe-worthy parts of TOS, and it's lampooned for that very reason.

Then why on Earth would you want to play a game in which 20th level fighters can easily have more than 40 times as many hit points as commoners do? Where, without any magical protection, they can survive dragon fire so intense that an elephant standing next to them is incinerated instantly? How is your immersion not wrecked each and every time your character goes up a level and gains more hit points?


Until yesterday I'd never heard anyone suggest that HP should be considered a form of plot immunity, and now today comes the suggestion that it's a core feature? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if plot armor truly were a core feature, veteran players should already be familiar with the concept.

I don't know where you've been, but some veteran players are familiar with it. D&D hit point are even listed here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor) as a specific example of Plot Armor.

[georgie_leech]

Then why on Earth would you want to play a game in which 20th level fighters can easily have more than 40 times as many hit points as commoners do? Where, without any magical protection, they can survive dragon fire so intense that an elephant standing next to them is incinerated instantly? How is your immersion not wrecked each and every time your character goes up a level and gains more hit points?


There's a distinction to be made between something like "You dive for cover from the Dragon's fiery breath, and luckily you find a hollow that protects you from the worst of the blaze" and something like "With grim determination you raise your shield, promising your allies you will bear the brunt of this attack. Your experience allows you to position your shield to maximise its protection, and even though the fire rages, blistering your skin under the metal and searing your exposed flesh, you tough it out, knowing that your stalwart companions are depending on you."

The push back against "luck" as part of HP is because it takes away from the idea that the PC is skilled/tough/whatever enough to fight fierce foes, instead saying that it was a matter of chance that they prevailed (putting aside the chance of attack rolls, that is :smallamused:). I agree that luck is a part of it, and I suspect that most players use at least some, but disagree on where to draw the line. For instance, in the OP's scenario I would most likely allow a PC to just kill the Warlord, as they've already cleared the challenge of reaching them on their own, and presumably know how to take into account things like the target rolling over in their sleep (perhaps instead of an over-exaggerated stabbing motion they position it to stab upwards through the jaw and wait for a lull in the breathing or something). I would not have the Warlord wake up, unless they made the Perception check to notice something was amiss; I wouldn't let them double dip on luck, as it were. On the flip side, if they're attacking this guy in open combat, a successful Sneak Attack might be jabbing the dagger into the Warlord's side deep enough to seriously injure him, but quick reflexes let the Warlord pull away before it's fatal.

[Takewo]

In other words, fencing is exactly like the battle; if the two high level fighters of your example concentrate solely on each other, somebody else will join in, and one or the other will quickly drop to 0 hp.

It is not. Testing your opponent requires a start of a manoeuvre. If you start an attack that you never meant to finish just to see how your opponent will react, the guy with a shield and a spear that is next to him will stick his spear in your body. Game Over. In a battle there is no time to test your opponent, you take the risk and go for it or you die.


That said, I think there is a difference between the narrative level and the mechanical level. In mechanics, the game fails to assume what the Wizards state. If a giant with a poisoned axe hits you, you take damage and a constitution check. Mechanically, you have been hit and your resistance has been drained. Narratively you can call it whatever you want, but it as for the mechanics of the game, it is still a hit.

[djreynolds]

When in doubt, the DM can simply take away the mechanic in this instance. You killed him. And award him experience on his expert infiltration. No rolls or whatever and just say he's dead.

But he did allow mechanics and in that allowed chance. Chance now saved the warlord. Yes probably in the real world a knife to the neck might kill someone, but perhaps not instantly though. Wounds can be stemmed. And this is where "hit points" and luck come in. A low level assassin doesn't have the skill to kill a high level warlord or ogre with just one shot, and that is fair.

So in this case, at the DM's discretion, don't use the dice. But if you do, well you have allowed chance in the calculation. And now live with it. And for your players this can easily be explained. Hit points are more than just meat, its a perfect statement. 20's on a roll are critical hit and not immediate death anymore. This is fair, no dragon or 20th level fighter is getting killed by a 1st level character. For instance, "Bard" was a highly trained archer of a high level and his shot was luck and everything was in place for that shot to have its chance to succeed. All the elements of that attack lined up from ammunition to weak points.

It just sucks and I understand it. If you feel a character of appropriate level, ability scores and skill can read a map, don't use the die. If you feel, as DM, that this assassin could do this, then he did. Perhaps successfully infiltrating this man's Keep deserved a bigger experience bonus then he got and he leveled up before the knifing. His experience made him super confident now, thus showcasing his extra sneak attack damage.

[rollingForInit]

Well, they could wake up at a sudden and unexpected noise, perhaps someone yells in the moment before the dagger comes down, or there's the scrape of a blade clearing its sheathe, or an aide de camp enters the tent and calls out a warning, or one of a million other possibilities that foil the otherwise perfect kill.


I agree with this, but I'd handle that by allowing the sleeping person to make Perception checks (at a distadvantage) instead. Does he hear the sound or not? Does he wake up or not? If he wakes up in time, then all combat mechanics kick in.



Of course the villain isn't safe from death by a single knife in the dark. It's just the knife in the dark better be being used by a challenge appropriate foe, or otherwise be subject to a removal of his plot armor by the DM, or else luck and experience are on the warlords side.

And my point was that it's just strange to have the surefire attack miss. There are much better ways to handle luck and experience. Such as perception checks (if there's a chance of waking up), having magical or non-magical wards and traps that definitely wakes the person up, having someone walk into the room while the assassin is there.

My issue is with the whole "the assassin makes an attack roll and hits but the target doesn't die". If you hit a sleeping target with lethal strike, the sleeping target dies. If you want the sleeping target to survive, there are much better ways that wouldn't feel quite as counter-intuitive and possibly disappointing to the assassin.

[Grimstaff]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

A great and mighty Warlord, CR 9. Non-magical, like a PC Champion. Aseep, unarmored, in his tent. The Rogue has snuck in, he's got a knife.

With a wicked glint, he approaches the Warlord's sleeping form, and plunges downwards sharply with his weapon.
Oops, he missed! Turns out the Warlord had high DEX and CON, as well as unarmored defense. Somehow the Rogue failed to stab the immobile, asleep, unarmored target. At all.

He must have had a small moment of bad luck. Luckily, the warlord is a heavy sleeper.

He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again! Miss.
He strikes again!

A hit this time. With a heaving thrust he plunges the knife deep into the warlord's throat, heart, eye socket, pick your poison.

He rolls badly though, and the the Warlord wakes up at near to full strength. He took around 40 damage. He has 160 HP Max, not even half. A quarter.

That's from a mechanics perspective, as far as I'm aware. What would you do if you were the DM?

I'm reminded of how many times Conan was the 160hp Warlord in your example. How many times assassins attempted to do him in, but made the slightest noise at the last moment, or scored only a messy but superficial wound. Seems like the mechanics in your example very effectively support a literary narrative that inspired the game.

[mephnick]

I'm pretty sure people survive getting their throats cut more often than you'd think and they aren't tough warlords in a fantasy game. I'd just make it an automatic critical with no attack roll, but not an automatic death. You can't just go around auto-killing every major NPC in the world because of good stealth checks.

[Roderick_BR]

Don't you auto-hit an immobile target? You just roll for auto 1 or 20 (witch means he really messed up, or managed to get that eye gouging hit on).

And 40 points of damage is nothing to scoff at. That's enough damage to kill a normal person about 5, 6 times. An warlord with over 160 HP means he's VERY powerful, it's not a pityful rogue that'll take him out, even attacking him in his sleep.

So, within D&D's power level kind of reality, it's not more unrealistic than stabing a giant in the toe dealing 1 point of damage per turn until it reaches 0 HP.

[Malifice]

And my point was that it's just strange to have the surefire attack miss.

Thats what hit points [sometimes] do. Via parries, dodges, blocks, and sheer co-incidence (luck). Not every hit on an attack roll... actually hits.


There are much better ways to handle luck and experience.

Would it help you if hit points were renamed 'luck, dodge, parry and resolve points'? Or just plot armor points?

Why complicate an abstract system that allows for heroes to be saved by fate, luck, parries, dodges, glancing blows and other plot armor devices by virtue of tacking on a system of fate points, parry rolls, a dodge skill, wounds, another mechanic that incorporates the vagaries of chance etc when all the above can be elegantly modelled with a single pool of 'hit points' and a narrative approach?


My issue is with the whole "the assassin makes an attack roll and hits but the target doesn't die".

Thats becuase youre still picturing it as the assasin physically hitting the target. Youre imagining a succesful attack roll as a physical strike (in this case cutting the BBEG's throat).

The BBEG is protected by plot armor. Narrative plot armor represented in DnD by a mechanic called Hit Points. This pool of ever growing Hit Points represents the BBEG's growing plot immunity. His ability to be saved from Redshirts or Henchmen one shotting him while he sleeps. They represent a steady increase in his luck, karma, chance, resolve etc to cause a sure fire fatal finish (falling into a volcano, getting attacked while asleep, getting sucked out of an aircraft at 37,000 feet etc) into a miraculous survival (narrated accordingly).

Call them 'Fate points' if you must.


If you hit a sleeping target with lethal strike, the sleeping target dies.

He doesnt get physcially hit, or the strike isnt lethal. His luck (his hit points) stop him from getting his throat cut.

Its not that his throat is cut to the spine, and he takes x points of damage. You're putting the cart (the narrative description of the outcome of a roll) before the horse (the mechanics of the roll). Try it the other way around. The assasin attacks the sleeping BBEG. He 'hits' obtains a critical hit, and deals '20 points of damage'. The narrative is:

'As you lean forward to slit the sleeping BBEGs throat, his arm rolls from the bed in his sleep, knocking over a carelessly placed wine goblet from the feast the night before. You are thrown off balance at the last minute as you plunge your dagger down, nicking his cheek and leaving a wound that will surely scar. His eyes open in shock. Roll initiative.'


If you want the sleeping target to survive, there are much better ways that wouldn't feel quite as counter-intuitive and possibly disappointing to the assassin.

As long as you are consistent with your explanation of what hit points represent (narrative plot armor - and not just meat) there is no counter intuition or breaking of expectations, nor is there any need to meddle with the rules, or deprive Fighters of the plot armor and ability to modify the narrative they get from having a high HD.

[Xetheral]

The high Hit points of the fighter are what the extra skills are to the rogue and spells are to the caster. His way of influencing the narrative, a symbol of his enhanced ability to overcome obstacles (and to influence the plot and narrative of the story).

On an even more direct level, mechanicaly they are an abstract representation of his higher levels of skill, stamina, health, resolve, experience and luck in perilous and life threatening situations where harm is a possibility. Narratively speaking they are his plot armor - his way of influencing the narrative and demonstrating his status as a great hero. They grant him a level of plot immunity from greater and greater threats that steadily grows as he advances in level. And you're depriving him of using that enhanced luck, resolve and stamina to do precisely what the game tells you it should do - protect his ass from the environment where the Guy at the gym would surely die.

I think you may be misusing the term "plot armor". See: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor. (And see my reply to JoeJ below.) It doesn't refer to one's "way of influencing the narrative". Plot armor refers to a contrivance where a character survives something in a way that makes no sense in the context of the story, simply because they're a main character. Quoting from the article, the character "comes out unharmed with no logical, In-Universe explanation." What you're describing doesn't seem to fit that definition.

While I'm fully willing to let HP include a component of luck, I'm not willing to let that luck affect external phenomenon. In my interpretation, the "luck" component of HP reflects things like an arrow that penetrates the abdomen managing to miss any internal organs. It's not going to introduce an extra ledge over a volcano that a fighter can catch, but that a rogue can't. Nor will it suddenly create a previously-undescribed island in the endless molten seas of the plane of fire for the fighter to fall onto after their flight spell is dispelled.


Then why on Earth would you want to play a game in which 20th level fighters can easily have more than 40 times as many hit points as commoners do? Where, without any magical protection, they can survive dragon fire so intense that an elephant standing next to them is incinerated instantly? How is your immersion not wrecked each and every time your character goes up a level and gains more hit points?

I'm ok with the idea that some people can be significantly tougher than others: that where an elephant might be so badly burned that it ultimately dies from the trauma, a high-level fighter manages to weather the flame and still be on their feet despite being similarly badly burned. Sure, if I try to look for a scientific explanation, the whole thing falls apart, but that's where suspension of disbelief comes in.

By contrast, my suspension of disbelief does not extend to surviving immersion in 700+ degree (F) lava, and, as I described above, I don't interpret HP as extending to the ability to externally affect the game world. Letting HP change the game world breaks my suspension of disbelief completely.


I don't know where you've been, but some veteran players are familiar with it. D&D hit point are even listed here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor) as a specific example of Plot Armor.

The example listed is a short one, but in context I don't read it as applying to HPs in general. The contrast with 4th Edition minions suggests that it's referring specifically to enemy HP. Arbitrarily-large amounts of enemy HP designed to reflect their "unkillable" nature does indeed fit within the definition described in the article. HP in general do not.

[1Forge]

I used to fence back in my college days. In fencing, if you put two novices against each other the match will be over very quickly. Two masters, OTOH, can fence for ten minutes or more before one of them gains enough of an advantage to win. That's because defending is a lot harder than attacking. The novices can usually attack fairly decently, but they can't parry worth a darn so the match ends almost as soon as it begins. The masters are experts at both attacking and defending, and they can counter each other for a very long time.



According the the PHB (p. 197), a character down to half their hit point maximum usually shows no physical signs of injury. Below that, they have some cuts and bruises. It's only when they drop to 0 hit points that they are seriously injured.

I think Joej is on to something. I fence too and that was always how i pictured combat, though i did not realize the books agreed. BUT this argument is kinda dumb! in the end the DM makes the descision the books are ultimately guidlines and the DM makes the final call. wether one style was intended or logically makes sense is irrelevent because this ruleset is just a guideline to standardize play, this game was made for fun there is no specific way it must be played.

[weaseldust]

I'll just note here that attacks are as abstract as hit points. It's a six-second period of attempting to find a weakness in an enemy and damage them with a weapon. The attack isn't the act of jabbing the dagger down, it's the act of looking for an opening and then maybe doing something with the dagger. Missing can just mean failing to find an opening in the first place.

I also think the easiest way to fluff both misses and non-fatal hits is as cases where the warlord is shifting around enough to mean that the assassin has to pull back, or maybe that they deal a superficial wound. People can move around a lot while still counting as asleep or incapacitated for DnD purposes. E.g. a dozing person can brush off a fly that lands on them, but remain fast enough asleep to be unresponsive.

[Malifice]

I think you may be misusing the term "plot armor". See: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor. (And see my reply to JoeJ below.) It doesn't refer to one's "way of influencing the narrative". Plot armor refers to a contrivance where a character survives something in a way that makes no sense in the context of the story, simply because they're a main character. Quoting from the article, the character "comes out unharmed with no logical, In-Universe explanation." What you're describing doesn't seem to fit that definition.

While I'm fully willing to let HP include a component of luck, I'm not willing to let that luck affect external phenomenon. In my interpretation, the "luck" component of HP reflects things like an arrow that penetrates the abdomen managing to miss any internal organs. It's not going to introduce an extra ledge over a volcano that a fighter can catch, but that a rogue can't. Nor will it suddenly create a previously-undescribed island in the endless molten seas of the plane of fire for the fighter to fall onto after their flight spell is dispelled.

So.. a lucky gust of wind can come from nowhere knock an arrow mid air so it misses a vital organ, but a dog barking to wake up the BBEG at the last minute is not OK?

Why?


I'm ok with the idea that some people can be significantly tougher than others: that where an elephant might be so badly burned that it ultimately dies from the trauma, a high-level fighter manages to weather the flame and still be on their feet despite being similarly badly burned. Sure, if I try to look for a scientific explanation, the whole thing falls apart, but that's where suspension of disbelief comes in.

Can you point me to a fantasty series where the hero gets repeatedly stabbed, blasted, poked, shot and burnt? Caramon, Tanis, Sturm and Flint come out the other side of battles virtually unhurt (but tired and worn down). As does Conan, Drizzt, Luke Skywalker and Batman. They rely on (and it is narrated as) parries, dodges, near misses, superior skill, resolve, and grit (i.e. high hit points) to survive. When they do 'go down' it is usually to a single wound (i.e. they have run out of hit points and the attack in question reduced them to zero HP).


By contrast, my suspension of disbelief does not extend to surviving immersion in 700+ degree (F) lava

They dont get immersed. Thats what Hit points do. A contrivance happens narratively to save their bacon at the last minute (and they reduce hit points accordingly).

Just like the 'lucky' gust of wind saves the organ from getting nicked on a high level fighter (a contrivance that you seem happy with), the high level fighter in this case is saved on account of his luck, resolve and stamina. Something stops him from falling into the lava (and his hit points get reduced by a squillion to represent the arsey nature of his survival).

You need to stop viewing a loss of hit points as a physical hit to the 'meat'. The player (or DM) can and should narrate a loss of hit points as anything involving the PC's (stamina, resolve, luck, will to live, experience).

A high level fighter doesnt survive a fight with a Balor becuase he can survive repeatedly getting run through by the thing. He survives because he leaps out of the way, parries or dodges the attack at the last minute (reducing his 'stamina') or luckily the creature is distracted at the last minute, or its word gets stuck in the ceiling (reducing his 'luck') or where other men turn and run, he stands to fight (reducing his 'resolve').

The difference is in the narration. You cant seem to escape imagining a reduction of hit points as a 'hit to the meat'. Try and shrug this cognative dissonance off and think about the opportunities youre missing to narrate your combats like the stories you see in movies, comics and books.

[Vogonjeltz]

The fact that they need keep defining hit points in the fifth edition of their game and that we are still having these arguments kind of shows it.

The existence of disagreement is never indicative of anything being true or false, it simply means there is a disagreement. It's entirely possible for one party to an argument to be completely incorrect.

As in this case, for example.

[rollingForInit]

As long as you are consistent with your explanation of what hit points represent (narrative plot armor - and not just meat) there is no counter intuition or breaking of expectations, nor is there any need to meddle with the rules, or deprive Fighters of the plot armor and ability to modify the narrative they get from having a high HD.

And consistently treating HP as avoidance of damage means that virtually nothing can instantly kill a character with 150hp. No assassinations, no executions, no being dropped into a volcano with lava, not anything, because there's really not a whole lot of stuff that deals 150 instant hit points.

And there are many situations where an instant death, especially for an NPC, is really great for storytelling. Such as when the players have had an adventure of preparing an assassination, and finally managed to get to the point of stabbing the target to death.

[Malifice]

And consistently treating HP as avoidance of damage means that virtually nothing can instantly kill a character with 150hp. No assassinations, no executions, no being dropped into a volcano with lava, not anything, because there's really not a whole lot of stuff that deals 150 instant hit points.

For sure, you can handwave anything for story reasons. The tarrasque can suddenly have a heart attack and die halfway through a battle if thats whats good for the story.

I think I cited earlier the story pf Tanis killing of the Dragon Highlord Ariakis with one surprise blow from a dagger (that was given to him by Raistlin and magically enchanted to kill Ariakis). Ariakis was statted up as some ridiculously high level dual classed character in AD+D.

Tanis killed Ariakis with a plot macguffin. Plot macguffins trump plot armor. When its the hero (or villians) time to die for the good of the plot, they die and no-one can save them.

Plot immunity has a counterpart after all.


And there are many situations where an instant death, especially for an NPC, is really great for storytelling. Such as when the players have had an adventure of preparing an assassination, and finally managed to get to the point of stabbing the target to death.

Absolutely; but in my view such a thing should best be resolved as a skill challenge type thing so as not to diminish the role of HP. The BBEG's 'hit points' should not even be known, assumed or a factor (and indeed are not relevant to the success or failure of the task). The BBEG (in this case) only exists as a challenge plot macguffin to highlight how awesome the PC's are by 'assasinating' him.

If I resolved it as an attack roll vs AC and damage it diminishes the value of the BBEG and the challenge. My PC's would assume the BBEG in question had < (damage dealt) hit points.

That said, I dont really rate plot macguffins as they are generally pretty clumsy devices, and can get overused to the point of ruining consistency.

Personally If I ran an assasination quest for the PC's the end villian would be one they were capable of assasinating using the rules as written (i.e. - a level appropriate challenge).

[rollingForInit]

Absolutely; but in my view such a thing should best be resolved as a skill challenge type thing so as not to diminish the role of HP. The BBEG's 'hit points' should not even be known, assumed or a factor (and indeed are not relevant to the success or failure of the task). The BBEG (in this case) only exists as a challenge plot macguffin to highlight how awesome the PC's are by 'assasinating' him.


Which is why the idea of doing it with an attack roll is unnecessary in a situation like that, imo. That's the entire point of this discussion? The assassin should say that they attacks, and then the attack hits and the target dies. No roll needed.

[Malifice]

Which is why the idea of doing it with an attack roll is unnecessary in a situation like that, imo. That's the entire point of this discussion? The assassin should say that they attacks, and then the attack hits and the target dies. No roll needed.

Or simply make the warlord a challenge appropriate encounter, or arm the would be assasin with a 'Raistlins dagger' plot macguffin.

Both maintain consistency and dont take away from the benefit of high HP.

[djreynolds]

But the reality of this particular game is that the DM allowed the mechanics to enter in. That saved the warlord.

The DM could've said he's dead, enough he's gone.

But he was a good DM, and allowed the player to roll and the game mechanics to work freely. And in that, fate had it the warlord would live. And call it luck or grit, the warlord won. He has survived long enough to acquire more hit points and all that hit points encompasses via the rules of the game, the mechanics.

And now the warlord is going to be hunting this little rogue, and you'll have great side adventures because of it. And perhaps one day the rogue, if he survives and levels up, can finish the job.

I for one love it. Yeah bad guys and trilogies and crazy plot lines.

[rollingForInit]

But the reality of this particular game is that the DM allowed the mechanics to enter in. That saved the warlord.

The DM could've said he's dead, enough he's gone.

But he was a good DM, and allowed the player to roll and the game mechanics to work freely. And in that, fate had it the warlord would live. And call it luck or grit, the warlord won. He has survived long enough to acquire more hit points and all that hit points encompasses via the rules of the game, the mechanics.

And now the warlord is going to be hunting this little rogue, and you'll have great side adventures because of it. And perhaps one day the rogue, if he survives and levels up, can finish the job.

I for one love it. Yeah bad guys and trilogies and crazy plot lines.

You're missing the vital point that the warlord was an NPC, not a player character. He hasn't acquired anything according to the rules of the game, or put in any effert. It's an NPC with a Challenge Rating. Which probably means there will be no adventures of hunting down a failed assassin, either. Because the warlord isn't a PC.

[Hawkstar]

I'm reminded of how many times Conan was the 160hp Warlord in your example. How many times assassins attempted to do him in, but made the slightest noise at the last moment, or scored only a messy but superficial wound. Seems like the mechanics in your example very effectively support a literary narrative that inspired the game.

Okay. Thread's over. We have our explanation for how this works.

[goto124]

If I went with the 'oh you dealed 60 damage (mentally: out of 150 HP), therefore a dog made a barking sound and woke the warlord up, causing you to miss'...

I'll roll 20d100 to see how many hours I'll spend arguing with my players the way this very thread has argued.

Well, at least I know to put this 'interpretation of HP' upfront when I look for players for my campaign, alongside my rulings on hiding and steed spellcasting.

[Telok]

This is one of the things that D&D has never done well.

Why a high level character can stand naked in the middle of a bonfire that immedately kills normal people for over a minute and then completely recover after a short rest and do it again is something the people who design D&D these days don't care about. The fact that it (or things like it) happens in people's games and makes no sense is our problem.

[Xetheral]

So.. a lucky gust of wind can come from nowhere knock an arrow mid air so it misses a vital organ, but a dog barking to wake up the BBEG at the last minute is not OK?

Why?

No, a lucky gust of wind is exactly the sort of external phenomenon that I don't permit HP to influence. An arrow in the abdomen may or may not have hit a vital organ, and, the smaller the percentage of incoming damage of the wounded character's HP, the smaller that likelihood is. That's how I interpret luck being a component of HP. Wind has nothing to do with it.


Can you point me to a fantasty series where the hero gets repeatedly stabbed, blasted, poked, shot and burnt? Caramon, Tanis, Sturm and Flint come out the other side of battles virtually unhurt (but tired and worn down). As does Conan, Drizzt, Luke Skywalker and Batman. They rely on (and it is narrated as) parries, dodges, near misses, superior skill, resolve, and grit (i.e. high hit points) to survive. When they do 'go down' it is usually to a single wound (i.e. they have run out of hit points and the attack in question reduced them to zero HP).

Joscelin and Imriel from Kushiel's Legacy. Vin from the Mistborn Trilogy. Virtually everyone in the Silmarillion. Rand from The Wheel of Time. Everyone in A Song of Ice and Fire. Various characters in Watership Down.


They dont get immersed. Thats what Hit points do. A contrivance happens narratively to save their bacon at the last minute (and they reduce hit points accordingly).

That's what your interpretation of HP is, and you've given me nothing to suggest that your interpretation is preferable, let alone that it is the default interpretation used by D&D tables. I consider contrivances of any kind to be a negative thing, and I avoid them whenever possible.


You need to stop viewing a loss of hit points as a physical hit to the 'meat'. The player (or DM) can and should narrate a loss of hit points as anything involving the PC's (stamina, resolve, luck, will to live, experience).

I've already said that I don't view hit points as meat. I've explained my provision for determination, stamina, and luck as well.


...think about the opportunities youre missing to narrate your combats like the stories you see in movies, comics and books.

I do indeed narrate my combats as such, but it seems clear that we watch and read very different types of stories.

[UXLZ]

Actually, that's a fair point, can a character's HP work against their own intentions?

As per the "Standing naked in a bonfire for a minute." the character wants to be burned but not killed.

Also, how would you fluff that? If they nearly die, I guess you could say their incredible determination lets them drag their charred and blackened body to a bed, whereby they sleep for 8 hours and... are... fully healed. Hm.

[djreynolds]

You know its tough. Especially when you involve magic and all that to approximate the game to the real world. Isaac Asimov, and I'm paraphrasing, said if magic were real it would have to follow the rules of the universe, and he was a chemist mind you. That said, as a DM I believe even before game rules and mechanics and reality you must introduce the "suspension of disbelief" to the characters. If you are playing an adventure in the underdark, you must have a plausible reason as to why they went there or got there. If you have astronauts on Pluto, how did they get there? Did they have sleep pods or have we conquered the speed of light? Otherwise, its our nature as people to say "this is bull" As long as a DM, you can accomplish this, and not have your players saying this is bull then go ahead and do it. And don't involve rolling the dice, why waste the time?

But when you introduce the game mechanics, then you have to adhere to the rules even if you don't agree with the outcome. The game mechanics are "real" laws in the D&D world and are necessary because you are dealing with supernatural aspects that are fluff, but the RAW help keep the player from saying this is bull and into believing the bull your are shoveling as a DM. The "hit points" conversation that came about, is us as logical thinking gamers, giving a plausible explanation as to why this warlord could have survived and that obviously hit points are more than just meat.

Did the warlord die, yes and if he didn't he's going to need healing, desperately. But the rules keep "this" world in motion. Being a DM is a difficult job, you are a storyteller and judge and you must keep the story going and uphold the rules, at the same time. You must judge what was more difficult, infiltrating the warlord's keep or killing him and decide which of these is more important to the player's character development and story progression. To me, its the former. He rolled the dice on stealth checks and other checks to successfully sneak in there. That was the test and he passed it, and next time just have the warlord die. But if you made a mistake and had too challenging of an opponent, now you must fix it so that the story can move on. No god in the machine.

I'll be interested to see your move as DM.

[Vogonjeltz]

If I went with the 'oh you dealed 60 damage (mentally: out of 150 HP), therefore a dog made a barking sound and woke the warlord up, causing you to miss'...

I'll roll 20d100 to see how many hours I'll spend arguing with my players the way this very thread has argued.

Well, at least I know to put this 'interpretation of HP' upfront when I look for players for my campaign, alongside my rulings on hiding and steed spellcasting.

You could reduce that to 0 hours of argumentation by quietly reminding them that there is only the one explanation of what hit points are within the game. Anything else is something they've apparently made up in their own minds apart from the actual rules.


Joscelin and Imriel from Kushiel's Legacy. Vin from the Mistborn Trilogy. Virtually everyone in the Silmarillion. Rand from The Wheel of Time. Everyone in A Song of Ice and Fire. Various characters in Watership Down.

It's been too long for me to recall anything specific from most of those, but Rand insofar as I recall has one lingering wound (critical hit maiming table imo)...and as for the Song of Ice and Fire:

Who in the entirety of the series gets away scot free from being actually stabbed? Tyrion gets his face mostly cut off (so, a critical hit to the face), and basically everyone else who is ever hit pretty much dies then and there.

In point of fact, I can't off-hand think of any character in that series who has gotten hit and didn't go down basically immediately, and usually permanently.