TheRPGSite

(So I'm curious, and really don't mean to troll, but I'm going to nudge what may be a hive here. Let me know if this is annoying.)

Someone asked on rpg.stackexchange.com (den of over-moderation and not hurting anyone's feelings) about whether (in 5e) if a werewolf hits someone but does no damage, if the target gets infected with lycanthropy or not. The accepted answer is yes, they just need to "hit".

To me, this seems like it implies the opposite of what I've heard (pretty consistently from D&D players I know, and here at TheRPGSite.com), that in D&D, hit points are meant as an abstract mechanic that represents a hero's ability to do all sorts of things that mostly _don't_ represent being hit or hurt by attacks, until they actually run out of (or very low on) hit points. The first hitpoints, especially for a character with many of them, are probably about the figure doing things to avoid being actually injured, but which wear them out.

So what gives? Is the answer wrong? Is 5e different from earlier D&D editions in what hit point loss represents? Do these interpretations not contradict each other in terms of trying to imagine what happened (unless lycanthropy can be caught from being near a were - miasmatic halitosis? inhaling were-fur? ;) )? Do players just not really care/think about it, or rationalize as a scratch was done but it just didn't hurt?

As far as the werewolf goes, maybe it's just  tiny scratch.

Now, that scratch might be 5hp or 50 hp....hit points are basically Schroedinger's Damage, and always have been. If it kills you, then, yeah, it's retroactively determined to be actual damage. If you heal it the next round with a second wind, then, yeah, it is retroactively determined to be a minor blow after all.

How is it "doing no damage"?

Here's the Werewolf's means of curse spreading, from D&D 5e Basic DMG/MM:

Bite (Wolf or Hybrid Form Only). Melee Weapon Attack:
+4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d8 + 2) piercing damage. If the target is a humanoid, it must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or be cursed with werewolf lycanthropy.
(D&D 5e Basic DMG/MM, 2014. p. 49.)

The presumption here is that if any attack connects, besides damage being done, the potential for curse contagion occurs. This assumes the bite somehow got around defenses (successful hit) and had a chance to spread lycanthropy. Basically exposure to saliva, close & direct eye contact, shared breathed air, whatever... relates to a Bite getting through. And thus is what opens curse potential to latch onto a new victim (curses being not so logically tied to biological material interactions, yes?).

Now, there's not many ways a successful hit can deal zero damage. Even temporary HP loss still suggests damage taken. But even if it did zero damage, (amazing de-buff against Werewolf's damage?), what is important is the breach of defense by the bite to dangerous curse exposure. Normally, a successfuly hit does damage, thus the easiest way to explain this is some form of mouth or saliva contact with "exposed" PC parts.

So a fighter in full plate getting knicked at full health, even for zero by a crippled werewolf, could theoretically catch lycantrhopy due to the werewolf's teeth, saliva, breath, etc. breaching the armor onto something "exposed" on the fighter. The curse is searching for contagious attack method breaching defenses, and thus does not have to be strictly attached to fangs sinking into juicy flesh.

Uncanny dodge + some sort of resistance to piercing damage + a really bad roll could reduce the damage down to zero maybe. Depends on of you round up or round down.

Also in some depictions lycanthropy can be transferred simply by non-skin contact. Literally a curse that bypasses armour.

As for interpreting HP. It is very obviously mostly varying forms of fatigue and using up luck of some sort. Plus probably some nicks and cuts along the way. Probably like in AD&D the last few HP are the "meat" damage. Least enough to send a downed person into potentially lethal shock.

Most of it is something that can be rested off in an hour or a night if you arent using the optional longer healing time rules.

I'd make it a percentage chance, increased by the HPs lost (if any)

Abstract, the bite mechanics might be a bit funky, but they are what they are. It is funny that 30-40 years later, people are still having discussions about this.

Yeah, abstracted out from physical contagion (fang, saliva, breath) you can imagine the curse spreads by some "curse nexus" around the werewolf's mouth, infecting through bad luck. Which is an interpretation that actually makes more sense when envisioning lycanthropy as a curse rather than a disease.

Various editions have done something like that. We discussed various forms of lycanthropy in D&D on another forum and how its changed.

In BX loss of at least half your HP total in damage done by a lycanthrope. And was fatal to non-humans.

In AD&D it was the same. 50% HP total in damage done by a lycanthrope meant you were infected. Eating belladonna gives a 25% chance to resist.

In 2e has this though.

QuoteWhenever a character is wounded by a true lycanthrope, there is a 1% chance per hit point of damage suffered that the character is stricken with lycanthropy.

So only the real werewolf could infect others. And the infected suffered the standard full moon and loss of memory effects where as the true lycanthrop had none of those drawbacks.

Quote from: Skarg;892461The first hitpoints, especially for a character with many of them, are probably about the figure doing things to avoid being actually injured, but which wear them out.

I haven't played the published version of 5E, but pre-2008 that's not how the abstract model of hit points worked. (Short version: Every time you lost hit points pre-4E, you were being physically injured in some way. Gaining additional hit points from leveling up represented your ability to minimize the amount of physical damage you were actually suffering from, for example, a 10 hp blow. Long version here. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1034/roleplaying-games/explaining-hit-points))

IIRC the 5E playtest documents correctly, they basically used the dissociated mechanics of 4E for healing. In this system you don't know if you were actually physically hit until later (when it's determined by the ability you use to heal the damage).

And, yes, in that system you can absolutely have a wound which simultaneously (a) delivers poison or lycanthropy because it totally caused physical damage and (b) which totally isn't physical damage because you healed it completely by having someone shout encouraging words at you.

Dissociated mechanics suck. Deal with it.

Quote from: Opaopajr;892466How is it "doing no damage"?

Here's the Werewolf's means of curse spreading, from D&D 5e Basic DMG/MM:

Bite (Wolf or Hybrid Form Only). Melee Weapon Attack:
+4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d8 + 2) piercing damage. If the target is a humanoid, it must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or be cursed with werewolf lycanthropy.
(D&D 5e Basic DMG/MM, 2014. p. 49.)

The presumption here is that if any attack connects, besides damage being done, the potential for curse contagion occurs. This assumes the bite somehow got around defenses (successful hit) and had a chance to spread lycanthropy. Basically exposure to saliva, close & direct eye contact, shared breathed air, whatever... relates to a Bite getting through. And thus is what opens curse potential to latch onto a new victim (curses being not so logically tied to biological material interactions, yes?).

Now, there's not many ways a successful hit can deal zero damage. Even temporary HP loss still suggests damage taken. But even if it did zero damage, (amazing de-buff against Werewolf's damage?), what is important is the breach of defense by the bite to dangerous curse exposure. Normally, a successfuly hit does damage, thus the easiest way to explain this is some form of mouth or saliva contact with "exposed" PC parts.

So a fighter in full plate getting knicked at full health, even for zero by a crippled werewolf, could theoretically catch lycantrhopy due to the werewolf's teeth, saliva, breath, etc. breaching the armor onto something "exposed" on the fighter. The curse is searching for contagious attack method breaching defenses, and thus does not have to be strictly attached to fangs sinking into juicy flesh.

I like this.

Perhaps an alternative is if a single HP is lost the character must make a save. Each additional bite (even if only 1 HP) a -2 mod is applied to the saving throw. So you might get lucky the first time, but it's going to get harder after that.

Quote from: dragoner;892513Abstract, the bite mechanics might be a bit funky, but they are what they are. It is funny that 30-40 years later, people are still having discussions about this.

+10 000 to that, really:).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;892528I haven't played the published version of 5E, but pre-2008 that's not how the abstract model of hit points worked. (Short version: Every time you lost hit points pre-4E, you were being physically injured in some way. Gaining additional hit points from leveling up represented your ability to minimize the amount of physical damage you were actually suffering from, for example, a 10 hp blow.

5e describes HP as

Quotea combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live and luck.

Looks like a duck. Sounds like a duck. Tastes like duck.

Abstract it is.

Yup, it's abstract, just like quite a bit about rpgs.

"One attack (and not too much more) within 6 seconds or 1 minute"? It's about the opportunities to breach defenses, not how many times someone can swing at another. Even I in my full pathetic glory can flail and slap more than once in six or more seconds (I know, right?, a gamer not gloating about their martial prowess?).

Skills are abstractions. Hit points are also abstractions, even if you call them "wounds" to assuage your inner-pedant's desire for realism. Essentially just about everything that has received a numerical value is an abstraction.

But without abstraction into a numerical value, you got a fascinating challenge for statistical probability...
;)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;892528And, yes, in that system you can absolutely have a wound which simultaneously (a) delivers poison or lycanthropy because it totally caused physical damage and (b) which totally isn't physical damage because you healed it completely by having someone shout encouraging words at you.

Dissociated mechanics suck. Deal with it.

Still caused "physical damage" (maybe just a scratch), but not, as it turns out, serious or substantial enough to cause any lasting effect. You were shaken momentarily, but quickly rally when you hear those encouraging words. Whew, could have been worse!

In other words, abstract. "Dissociated" or not, I don't know and I'm not really concerned. It roleplays just fine in a game like D&D. Probably wouldn't be my choice for a gritty, realistic special forces game.

It's abstract. An abstraction not only of physical damage, but of fatigue and parrying.

Remember the system started out from miniatures gaming. When you have 100 figures on the board you don't want to play out each jab, slash and parry, and keep track of bruises and bashes on this or that part of the body. You just want to know if the guy is dead or alive, and you'd have a few more important figures like commanders or "heroes" who might be as "strong" as 3 or 10 men - ie have 3 or 10d6 hit points.

So the guy with 1-6 hit points and the foe doing 1-6 damage, in effect this is "roll 1d6, highest total wins". Higher level guys get whittled away... The hero fights from a pile of enemy dead but finally does fall.

Abstraction.

How often does a 1D8+2 bite attack in 5e do no damage?

Especially when its a piercing attack?

Video games taught me to never give a shit about this stuff.

I treat HP like an old brawler video game's health bar, and leave it at that.

Quote from: Spinachcat;892577How often does a 1D8+2 bite attack in 5e do no damage?

Especially when its a piercing attack?

Warlord maneuver Parry. Spend one or more superiority dice to reduce the damage buy the roll + DEX mod.

Depending on the DMs call. Any hit that takes off phantom HP first like from False Life (1d4+4 temporary HP) might count?

Luck feat too if you count turning a hit into a miss?

My eternal response to such debates (and about several more aspects of D&D than hit points) is that if TSR had the intestinal fortitude to concede, 35+ years ago, something along the lines of "Don't be absurd, it's not supposed to be 'realistic,' it's a game fiat, just swing with it, okay?" the history of gaming would've been profoundly different.

Instead -- and about many more aspects of D&D than hit points -- they tried to justify it.

Quote from: Skarg;892461The accepted answer is yes, they just need to "hit".

To me, this seems like it implies the opposite of what I've heard (pretty consistently from D&D players I know, and here at TheRPGSite.com), that in D&D, hit points are meant as an abstract mechanic that represents a hero's ability to do all sorts of things that mostly _don't_ represent being hit or hurt by attacks, until they actually run out of (or very low on) hit points.

The "abstract" view of hit points is spelled out explicitly in the AD&D 1st Ed rulebooks. However, those are provided almost as a response to those who would take hit points too literally. The problem is, people then take the "abstract" view too far and far too literally.

Neither extreme is correct. Hit points as a mechanism are a great convenience. They are what you need them to be when you need them to be it. Some hits are not actually hits. Others are scrapes. Others are literal wounds. And when you really need to know--for reasons of special attack effect, for example--the saving throw tells you that.

Thanks to Estar's posting of old usenet posts on D&D, I went and found some of my own posts from way back then where I was explaining exactly this. Someone challenged my point by saying, "Well, what about injected poisons that do damage even on a successful save? How does it make sense that the poison effects the person if the attack didn't literally connect as determined by the saving throw."

To which I simply pointed out that (per page 20 in the 1st Ed DMG) that in AD&D 1st Ed, insinuative poisons always did zero damage on a successful save. It would seem, that at least at THAT point in D&D history, it was crystal clear what hit points meant, and that they are exactly as I describe.

Everything since then has been a misinterpretation, whether too far towards the purely physical interpretation, or too far towards the purely abstract interpretation. And it's unfortunate that new rules and editions of the game were written with those misinterpretations in mind. But, hey, just because RPG designers, authors, theorists, and DMs are fallible, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the concept itself of hit points.

Quote from: Omega;892606Warlord maneuver Parry. Spend one or more superiority dice to reduce the damage buy the roll + DEX mod.

Depending on the DMs call. Any hit that takes off phantom HP first like from False Life (1d4+4 temporary HP) might count?

Luck feat too if you count turning a hit into a miss?

I am spitting in disgust.

Quote from: Ravenswing;892620My eternal response to such debates (and about several more aspects of D&D than hit points) is that if TSR had the intestinal fortitude to concede, 35+ years ago, something along the lines of "Don't be absurd, it's not supposed to be 'realistic,' it's a game fiat, just swing with it, okay?" the history of gaming would've been profoundly different.

Instead -- and about many more aspects of D&D than hit points -- they tried to justify it.

Actually... The AD&D DMG does pretty much say that.

BX on the other hand doesnt explain what HP are at all.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;892627I am spitting in disgust.

Why? All the above are not the mechanical monstrocities so many like to make 3 and 4e equivalents out to be. And the luck feat is optional. Not to mention feats in 5e are not the same as feats in 3 and 4 and are much fewer.

You are speaking as though I said 3e and 4e were better than 5e.

I spit on them, too!

Quote from: Skarg;892461about whether (in 5e) if a werewolf hits someone but does no damage, if the target gets infected with lycanthropy or not. The accepted answer is yes, they just need to "hit".

Yes if you read the bite description in any of the lycanthropes it is a secondary effect of the hit that is in addition to the damage.

Quote from: Skarg;892461So what gives? Is the answer wrong? Is 5e different from earlier D&D editions in what hit point loss represents?

What hit points represents is this. In Chainmail, OD&D's progenitor, a Hero was a figure that took 4 hits to kill and fought as four stands of ordinary warriors, a super-hero was a figure that took 8 hits and fought as eight ordinary warriors. In Chainmail 1 hit = 1 kill.

Arneson used chainmail as part of the mix of rules he used to run Blackmoor. Using 1 hit = 1 kill is boring so the 1 hit was expanded to 1d6 damage and 1 kill was expanded to 1d6 hit points. The range of character was expanded to include levels between warrior and hero and super-hero. If you look at the level titles for classic D&D, you will see that 4th level is a Hero and 8th level is a Super-Hero.

That what Hit point mean in D&D and that what they still mean in 5th edition.

It is an abstract mechanic that says that a 8th level fighter takes 8 times the amount of hits to down over a 1st level fighter. Nothing more, nothing less. Every thing sense including what Gygax wrote in AD&D is just after the fact techno-babble for the above.

It was and still remains an elegant mechanic for fantasy roleplaying adventure involved fighting monsters and experienced characters. Easy to grasp, and easy to apply.

But the downside is that it kind of hard to conceptualize what exactly is going in terms of damage. In my experience over 30 years of gaming is that most players equate a single roll of a d20 as a single hit and the damage as an actual wound.

For the most part that how is how I adjudicate. What I do to describe things is look at the RELATIVE proportion of damage to the total number of  hit points. A 3 point hit may be half of a 1st level character's total and I describe it as a major wound. The same 3 point hit is literally just a scratch to a 10th level character.

Back to the Lycanthropy question. If I designed the game I would include the caveat IF the attacks does any damage, the target character has to make blah, blah or is afflicted with lycanthorpy. I would not make it on just a hit. But that not what 5e did. Instead it is a just a result of a hit.

Which is not inconsistent with how werewolves have been portrayed. Some takes on the myth, has even the slightest scratch capable of infecting a person with lycanthropy. However most require a more substantial wound.

Side Note:
In Chainmail, the chance of generating a hit was based on the armor that the target was wearing. The better the armor the less chance at hit was score. This combined with Arneson's experience with other games like Don't Give up the Ship, led to the Armor Class system of D&D where the armor worn determined the actual chance of an attacker hitting and doing damage.

Quote from: Skarg;892461Someone asked on rpg.stackexchange.com (den of over-moderation and not hurting anyone's feelings)

Most of them are a bunch of fucking asshats playing whack a mole. Despite their wankery I have a nearly a 25,000 score by focusing on answering the questions rather worrying whether it is a "proper" question.

I probably have the most negative votes of the folks high scores because I refused to play along with the just Rules As Written answers. I will state what the rules say and then explain all the other options are especially in the more opinion based question. When called on it, my reply is that it is my fucking vote, deal with it with your vote and quit whining.

Quote from: Omega;892606Warlord maneuver Parry. Spend one or more superiority dice to reduce the damage buy the roll + DEX mod.

Depending on the DMs call. Any hit that takes off phantom HP first like from False Life (1d4+4 temporary HP) might count?

Luck feat too if you count turning a hit into a miss?

Warlord? There is no Warlord class. Are you thinking Fighter class Battlemaster archetype?

It's possible if it actually reduces the damage value, if it is subtract 1d8+DEX from damage dealt. Double check the text equation (and post if it won't invoke WotC copyright hassle), please. It's useful to collate debuff abilities for future play.

The other two don't make any sense. Temporary HP lost to damage is still damage successfully inflicted, regardless whether it is to the Max HP pool or not. And Luck turning a hit into a miss obviates the discussion of zeroed damage as there became no hit to which damage could then occur.

Your previous point about Uncanny Dodge + *.Resist does work though. 5e is always round down unless told otherwise (extremely rare). Nothing of the same type stacks either, but Uncanny Dodge halves damage -- and Resistance is a whole other keyword mechanic which then does the same -- thus they can work together. If the damage roll is low enough, then yes the damage could be rounded down into zero. I should have remembered that from the Great Armor Master feat and Warded Bond combo an ally and I worked to great effect.

But it is all moot for this discussion. :) The effect checks for a successful hit, not damage taken. This is because the second "cursing" clause is separated by a period from the damage clause and has no further clause tying it to successful loss of HP.
--------------

I'm even more fun at CCG tournaments. :p

Quote from: Skarg;892461Someone asked on rpg.stackexchange.com (den of over-moderation and not hurting anyone's feelings)

Quote from: estar;892697Most of them are a bunch of fucking asshats playing whack a mole. Despite their wankery I have a nearly a 25,000 score by focusing on answering the questions rather worrying whether it is a "proper" question.

I probably have the most negative votes of the folks high scores because I refused to play along with the just Rules As Written answers. I will state what the rules say and then explain all the other options are especially in the more opinion based question. When called on it, my reply is that it is my fucking vote, deal with it with your vote and quit whining.

Wow, estar angry? (Ok, perhaps let's best say, 'uncharitable'.) That is actually useful information to me. This does not sound like a forum to spend much time discussing rpgs if it's that frustrating. Curiosity might get the best of me, but I can't imagine investing much time if it's mostly "sycophantic RAW hour."

Quote from: Opaopajr;892706Wow, estar angry? (Ok, perhaps let's best say, 'uncharitable'.) That is actually useful information to me. This does not sound like a forum to spend much time discussing rpgs if it's that frustrating. Curiosity might get the best of me, but I can't imagine investing much time if it's mostly "sycophantic RAW hour."

It not a discussion forum. The general idea is that somebody post a question, people post answers, and everybody get voted up or down on the quality of the answer.

In general it works. If you go do a search on RPG Stack Exchange (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/) and find a result that has a high score you can trust that the answer will be accurate.

So what the problem and the source of my obvious irritation.

It hard to participate because, trying to answer anything it is like playing whack a mole. There are some extreme users on there that must keep refreshing the site constantly. But often, I composed an answer only to find someone has posted a similar answer 30 second ago.

The community does piss poor job of helping new users properly frame questions that can be answered. It not a discussion forum. What you post much be either a answer or a question that could have an answer. They try but it comes off rude and the participants look like asshats. I tried to deal with it but due to the whack a mole issues it beyond one person to do anything about at this point.

Let's put it this way Frank Mentzer posted on the site and quickly dropped off.

The whole Stack Exchange series of site is designed to get definitive answers to questions. Anything that doesn't lend itself to definitive answers is generally downvoted and closed by the community. This is find for programming but RPGs the result is a community that feel like it is engaged in rules wankery.

On the flip side if you want to know how RAW works for a gvien game Stack Exchange is the place to go.

I fight a rear guard action against this because I will post answers that are mostly opinion based. Explaining that is a option out of many. The downvotes I get are from those who feel only answer based on RAW should be allowed. But obviously because I have 25,000 rep I got people who like my replies as well so it is stand off.

Those with high reputations are essentially given the same privileges as moderators. While douchebags are rare among the high rep users due how how you get reputation in the first place, there is a large amount of groupthink.

I participate because I like to understand RAW before I go off on my own tangent. I like helping people so if I see an unanswered question I will compose an answer. Finally there is a bit of a competition in that I won't concede victory to the asshats. So I will beat them at their own game by staying in the top ranks. It doesn't take much of my time and again I do wind up actually helping people.

To recap, you want to know how RAW works for a game, Stack Exchange is your best bet in getting a definitive answer that will backed by the actual rules and any other thing that WoTC has released (for example tweets).

If you have a question that could have a definite answer then don't worry about it and post it on Stack Exchange. Either three things will happen.

It is a duplicate and it will be closed to the older question.
Or it will be answered.

Sometime it will be edited and of course the edit may change it to something other than what you asked. In which case you will likely get pissed and never use the site again as you there to get an answer not fight with people on how to ask a question.

It is a frustratingly excellent resource for RPGs rules questions.

AFAIR 3e & 4e both had an explicit rule "if damaging attack does no damage, secondary effects don't trigger" - that would include poison & lycanthropy. I'd run it that way in 5e too.

"Interpretations" are generally worthless. Look to the mechanics - how do you get them back? If they're only restored (slowly) over time or (more quickly) through healing magic, then they're literal injury.

On the other hand, if they come back more readily through other means, such as being inspired or taking a refreshment break, then they're representing more abstract things.

Quote from: Kiero;892837"Interpretations" are generally worthless. Look to the mechanics - how do you get them back? If they're only restored (slowly) over time or (more quickly) through healing magic, then they're literal injury.

On the other hand, if they come back more readily through other means, such as being inspired or taking a refreshment break, then they're representing more abstract things.

The thing is, D&D does both.  At the same time.

Quote from: Opaopajr;892705Warlord? There is no Warlord class. Are you thinking Fighter class Battlemaster archetype?

Battle Master meant. Keep mixing it up with the playtest Weaponmaster and Warrior and was dealing with some family problems.

Quote from: Opaopajr;892705Warlord? There is no Warlord class. Are you thinking Fighter class Battlemaster archetype?

It's possible if it actually reduces the damage value, if it is subtract 1d8+DEX from damage dealt. Double check the text equation (and post if it won't invoke WotC copyright hassle), please. It's useful to collate debuff abilities for future play.

Battle Master Parry Maneuver

QuoteWhen another creature damages you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority dice to reduce the damage by the number rolled + your DEX modifier.

So it has the potential to totally negate the damage of a successful hit.

Quote from: Omega;892849Battle Master Parry Maneuver:

So it has the potential to totally negate the damage of a successful hit.

Thanks! Warding Bond now has more attractive targets: Uncanny Dodge Rogues, certain feat users, Battlemasters w/ parry... Mwu ha ha ha!

Then theres the question of what happens when a lycanthrop tags a beastshaped Druid or anyone polymorphed into a an animal? Especially polymorph as that makes you even more of an animal than the Druid achieves.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;892842The thing is, D&D does both.  At the same time.

Every pre-4th edition version didn't. They only did literal injury, regardless of what nonsense was written in the section explaining what hit points were.

Is 5e different in that regard?

Quote from: Kiero;892934Every pre-4th edition version didn't. They only did literal injury, regardless of what nonsense was written in the section explaining what hit points were.

Is 5e different in that regard?

As long as you healed slowly out of combat, but had healing spells as well.  Not to mention that they always claimed that HP has always been a combination of chutzpah and actual health, in fact, Gronan was there and he'll tell you (as he has SEVERAL times) that it's always been a resource, not an actual representation of anything, and the only reason that the spell was called Cure Wounds was because Cure Resource sounded dumb to his teenage self.

Sorry, but it's been around long since before 4e.  Please stop using it as a scapegoat for anything you want to debunk without facts.

Well that's because it was immediately obvious it was a game mechanic since anyone in the health profession would look askance at the mere mention of one's health as numerically quantifiable hit points (or wounds).

"Doctor, how many hit points do I have left? Do you think it's safe for me to go to school today, considering what random encounters I might have? These wounds will likely penalize my action economy today, I will be vulnerable."

Once upon a time obvious things were obvious, yet we could hold more than one thought in our heads at the same time (even contradictory ones which made sense even if exclusively in their own milieu).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;892954As long as you healed slowly out of combat, but had healing spells as well.  Not to mention that they always claimed that HP has always been a combination of chutzpah and actual health, in fact, Gronan was there and he'll tell you (as he has SEVERAL times) that it's always been a resource, not an actual representation of anything, and the only reason that the spell was called Cure Wounds was because Cure Resource sounded dumb to his teenage self.

Sorry, but it's been around long since before 4e.  Please stop using it as a scapegoat for anything you want to debunk without facts.

It's still a spell or magic. Fighters can't do it themselves, they need a Cleric or a (magic) potion.

If you can't get hit points back through any method other than those directed at healing physical injury, then they're literal injury.

Gronan's rationalisations after the fact are irrelevant, the rules are written that way. Add rules that allow non-magical, non-healing recovery of hit points, then we move into the abstract.

Quote from: Kiero;892964It's still a spell or magic. Fighters can't do it themselves, they need a Cleric or a (magic) potion.

If you can't get hit points back through any method other than those directed at healing physical injury, then they're literal injury.

Gronan's rationalisations after the fact are irrelevant, the rules are written that way. Add rules that allow non-magical, non-healing recovery of hit points, then we move into the abstract.

Of course hit points are literal injury, back in Chainmail 1 hit = 1 kill then 1d6 damage hurting a guy with 1 hit dice (d4, d6, d8, etc).

But you are missing the point of what 1 hit point of damage actually represent. Is it a scratch, a grievous wound, etc? D&D is has never specified this. All says that on average a 2nd level character can take twice the hits from the same weapon that a 1st level character can.

How many hits from a weapon you cant take before dying. That what hit points means nothing more and nothing less.  Anything beyond the above is arbitrary technobabble to try to detail the result of an abstract mechanic.

Because it arbitrary any definition of hit points beyond the above will be open to debate and intrepetation. This is something designer of D&D editions and D&D derived games can't escape as it woven into the foundation of the mechanics.

Hit Points in Runequest and GURPS in contrast are based on attributes of the character that are clearly related to real world concepts. So there no need to come up with an arbitrary explanation as what they are.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;892528I haven't played the published version of 5E, but pre-2008 that's not how the abstract model of hit points worked. (Short version: Every time you lost hit points pre-4E, you were being physically injured in some way. Gaining additional hit points from leveling up represented your ability to minimize the amount of physical damage you were actually suffering from, for example, a 10 hp blow. Long version here. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1034/roleplaying-games/explaining-hit-points))

IIRC the 5E playtest documents correctly, they basically used the dissociated mechanics of 4E for healing. In this system you don't know if you were actually physically hit until later (when it's determined by the ability you use to heal the damage).

And, yes, in that system you can absolutely have a wound which simultaneously (a) delivers poison or lycanthropy because it totally caused physical damage and (b) which totally isn't physical damage because you healed it completely by having someone shout encouraging words at you.

Dissociated mechanics suck. Deal with it.

From 3.5...

QuoteWhat Hit Points Represent
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

Effects of Hit Point Damage
Damage doesn't slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you're disabled.

At from -1 to -9 hit points, you're dying.

At -10 or lower, you're dead.

Also

Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nightmare.htm)
Phantasmal Killer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantasmalKiller.htm)

Physical...how?

Looking at The Alexandrian (shudders) we have this brief definition: "An associated mechanic is one which has a connection to the game world. A dissociated mechanic is one which is disconnected from the game world.

The easiest way to perceive the difference is to look at the player's decision-making process when using the mechanic: If the player's decision can be directly equated to a decision made by the character, then the mechanic is associated. If it cannot be directly equated, then it is dissociated."

A Fighter looks at a 200-ft. drop and by the playe knowing he has excessive amount of HP to take the fall, he'll take the 20d6 damage and still be OK. This is dissociated because any given character isn't going to know he has exactly 157 HP.

Quote from: Batman;893001A Fighter looks at a 200-ft. drop and by the playe knowing he has excessive amount of HP to take the fall, he'll take the 20d6 damage and still be OK. This is dissociated because any given character isn't going to know he has exactly 157 HP.

Or the referee rules he just dies. Remember the original design was that a Hero was worth four ordinary warriors and thus it took four hits to kill him. Why was that? Because a Hero in fantasy, ducked, weaved, and in some cases just took the damage that would otherwise kill an ordinary person.

Now translate that to falling. The fighter stumbles across a trap pit and fall. A 1st level fighter has a good chance of dying or being grievously injured. A high level fighter twists, turns and grabs at the wall so that while mechanically both take the exact damage, it is much of less of an impact on the higher level fighter.  


And like all abstractions it is not perfect which why having a human referee who is not a computer helps. When it makes sense the referee can correctly say, look the fall just kills you regardless of what the rules say. There is nothing to grab onto, there is nothing that will soften the landing. You will die at that height. If the player disagree, then it is the player's job  to point out what could make the fall less damaging and the referee then considers that as part of the ultimate ruling.

But that is unlikely if you are picked up by a Roc and dropped from 200 feet in the air in the middle of nowhere onto a hard desert surface. However since there been accounts of people surviving a fall from an airplane. The best way of handling it would to be not to roll damage but assign a low chance of survival and have the player roll it.

Quote from: estar;893006Or the referee rules he just dies. Remember the original design was that a Hero was worth four ordinary warriors and thus it took four hits to kill him. Why was that? Because a Hero in fantasy, ducked, weaved, and in some cases just took the damage that would otherwise kill an ordinary person.

Now translate that to falling. The fighter stumbles across a trap pit and fall. A 1st level fighter has a good chance of dying or being grievously injured. A high level fighter twists, turns and grabs at the wall so that while mechanically both take the exact damage, it is much of less of an impact on the higher level fighter.  


And like all abstractions it is not perfect which why having a human referee who is not a computer helps. When it makes sense the referee can correctly say, look the fall just kills you regardless of what the rules say. There is nothing to grab onto, there is nothing that will soften the landing. You will die at that height. If the player disagree, then it is the player's job  to point out what could make the fall less damaging and the referee then considers that as part of the ultimate ruling.

But that is unlikely if you are picked up by a Roc and dropped from 200 feet in the air in the middle of nowhere onto a hard desert surface. However since there been accounts of people surviving a fall from an airplane. The best way of handling it would to be not to roll damage but assign a low chance of survival and have the player roll it.

Oh I agree, I think things such as dramatic falls and lava etc. shouldn't involve HP at all. Of course 3e disagrees, thus the abstraction and dissociation.

EDIT: Also I think it's important to point out that 4e isn't nearly the start of dissociated mechanics, though it did implement them on a far more broader range. 3e had MANY instances where mechanics were dissociated, which the article from that site, for some reason, doesn't seem to indicate.

Yeah, there are some basic ideas that are completely being missed when people try to get overly analytical about hit points.

The simple way I used to describe hit points is that they are a convenience. A mix between abstract and physical. They are what you need them to be at the time you need them. To even try to manufacture an example of where hit points "fail" is to not get the idea. They can't "fail" because they are what you need them to be in your example.

The example of a high level fighter jumping off a 200 foot cliff like he's jumping into a bawl crawl is not a very good example for several reasons..

1) First, in my campaigns anyway, people aren't just walking around with 157 hit points. If you have that many hit points, there's a special reason, and this alone defeats many of the assumptions. The guy with 157 hit points taking a header off a cliff probably is very aware that he's protected by the gods or some such.
2) One of the ideas from AD&D 2nd Ed I actually did like was that any time any single event causes more than 50 hp of damage, a systems shock roll is called for. Granted, if your game world is such that everyone goes casually strolling down cliff-face park with 157 hit points, they'll probably only fail a systems shock 1% of the time. Still, a 1% chance of dying changes the whole dynamic of the decision to go bungee jumping without a line.
3) As Estar points out, the DM could just rule the character dies. The rules are only in place to reference when you're not sure what should happen next. This is broader than my point above about hit points. Any time someone thinks they found a place where any part of the game system is *clearly* broken, you have to stop and consider, well if it's so damn clear, you shouldn't be referencing the rules in the first place, and so the criticism/counter-example/whathaveyou fails on those grounds.
4) You can find this in published modules. Often times, depending upon what's at the bottom of the cliff there could be a damage multiplier involved. 20d6 times 1d6 suddenly brings max damage to 720. Good luck with that, Mr 157 hit point guy. Now even if there's nothing special about this cliff to justify a damage multiplier, there's no way the character knows that for sure from 200 feet up, so this has to factor into his decision, and lo and behold, it's no longer dissociated.

Quote from: Lunamancer;893025Yeah, there are some basic ideas that are completely being missed when people try to get overly analytical about hit points.

The simple way I used to describe hit points is that they are a convenience. A mix between abstract and physical. They are what you need them to be at the time you need them. To even try to manufacture an example of where hit points "fail" is to not get the idea. They can't "fail" because they are what you need them to be in your example.

Sure, no objections here on that issue.

Quote from: Lunamancer;893025The example of a high level fighter jumping off a 200 foot cliff like he's jumping into a bawl crawl is not a very good example for several reasons..

Well the example was there to illustrate that players use game mechanics that contribute to what their character does, sometimes doing stupid things because the mechanics allow them.

Quote from: Lunamancer;8930251) First, in my campaigns anyway, people aren't just walking around with 157 hit points. If you have that many hit points, there's a special reason, and this alone defeats many of the assumptions. The guy with 157 hit points taking a header off a cliff probably is very aware that he's protected by the gods or some such.

In your campaign, sure. In many RAW v3.5 campaigns it's not uncommon to reach 140+ HP from Fighters and Barbarians and combinations of classes/Prestige Classes by 15th or so level.

Quote from: Lunamancer;8930252) One of the ideas from AD&D 2nd Ed I actually did like was that any time any single event causes more than 50 hp of damage, a systems shock roll is called for. Granted, if your game world is such that everyone goes casually strolling down cliff-face park with 157 hit points, they'll probably only fail a systems shock 1% of the time. Still, a 1% chance of dying changes the whole dynamic of the decision to go bungee jumping without a line.

QuoteThey have that in 3.5 too, it's a Fortitude Save DC 15. A high level fighter, such as one with 140+ HP has a base Fort save of +8 in addition to magic and their Constitution modifier. DC 15 is ridiculously easy to pass.

Quote from: Lunamancer;8930253) As Estar points out, the DM could just rule the character dies. The rules are only in place to reference when you're not sure what should happen next. This is broader than my point above about hit points. Any time someone thinks they found a place where any part of the game system is *clearly* broken, you have to stop and consider, well if it's so damn clear, you shouldn't be referencing the rules in the first place, and so the criticism/counter-example/whathaveyou fails on those grounds.

I totally agree with that. It's what I'd do in my games I DM in. However the rules don't say that. If a player makes a decision based on what the rules say and the DM overrides that, there's going to be a problem. At least a heads-up about the probable outcome would be nice.

Quote from: Lunamancer;8930254) You can find this in published modules. Often times, depending upon what's at the bottom of the cliff there could be a damage multiplier involved. 20d6 times 1d6 suddenly brings max damage to 720. Good luck with that, Mr 157 hit point guy. Now even if there's nothing special about this cliff to justify a damage multiplier, there's no way the character knows that for sure from 200 feet up, so this has to factor into his decision, and lo and behold, it's no longer dissociated.

Yes there are ways to make that particular problem dissociated. What about Barbarian's Rage X/day? What about the Stunning Fist feat of X/day? What about the Dwarven Defender's Stance X/day? All of these are non-magical daily uses that are all dissociated. Thus the point is that other systems, including 4e, had them. 4e implemented them A LOT more than any other system but they were still there. Also what about Damage Reduction in 3e? If I have DR 5 and a creature with poison hits me with an attack, I take zero damage due to DR, am I still poisoned?

Thus combat and hit points are ALL abstract and thus lend itself to be somewhat dissociated.

Thanks very much to everyone who has replied to my question! The answers have greatly developed my understanding of the different approaches to hit points and attack results in D&D which different players and books have.

Also thanks to Estar for sharing his view of rpg.stackexchange.com. I have similar opinions (it's good for literal D&D & Shadowrun answers and some other interesting Q&A, but the format and moderation and community are often weird, annoying, and shutting down many interesting exchanges because they don't fit the site format or rules or aren't nice enough or whatever, which is why I keep getting lured into reading some and then annoyed by the result, and a few times now have come here to vent and get a better discussion.

Quote from: Batman;893001A Fighter looks at a 200-ft. drop and by the playe knowing he has excessive amount of HP to take the fall, he'll take the 20d6 damage and still be OK. This is dissociated because any given character isn't going to know he has exactly 157 HP.

This tired old gag... again? Funny and all. No. Not really. Except it was never meant to be 1d6/10ft fall. It was a typo that has been retardedly propagated to each successive edition. Its 1d6, cumulative, per 10ft. And all these nulls keep omitting that per PHB it is the DMs call to change that no matter which version you use. Jumped off a 200ft cliff to swan dive into stone, nothing to slow that fall? "Take 20d20 damage." Or. "1% chance of survival. Here. Roll percentile." etc.

QuoteFrank Mentzer

Gary has always used a geometrically increasing system for falling damage in AD&D games; the trouble arose because that system simply never made it into the rule books. When the AD&D Players Handbook was being assembled, a brief section on falling damage was included: a mere 7½ lines that offers more advice on broken bones and sprains than on falling damage. As we now understand the event, the section was not included in the first draft, and the editors requested a brief insert on this frequently referred-to topic. So Gary hastily wrote a sentence describing damage as "1d6 per 10' for each 10' fallen." Someone removed the "per 10'" as being (so it was thought) redundant, and off we went. That section was later quoted in passing in the Aerial Adventures section of the Dungeon Masters Guide, thereby becoming further entrenched in our game procedures.

The main point of current controversy seems to be the simple fact that everyone has been using "1d6 for each 10' fallen" for years, and the social inertia of Custom is still being cited as a reason to override common sense.

Quote from: Omega;893068This tired old gag... again? Funny and all. No. Not really. Except it was never meant to be 1d6/10ft fall. It was a typo that has been retardedly propagated to each successive edition. Its 1d6, cumulative, per 10ft.

Not in 3e.  There WAS a cap.  They called it Terminal Velocity.  It may have been introduced in 2e in one of the many supplements, but my memory being what it isn't, I could be wrong on that.

Quote from: Batman;893001From 3.5...

QuoteHit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

You do realize that the quote directly confirms what I said, right?

QuoteAlso

Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nightmare.htm)
Phantasmal Killer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantasmalKiller.htm)

Physical...how?

Because the magic hurts them? Both of these spells are phantasms, which explicitly have the ability to create real effects in the game world. I'm assuming you're confusing them for figments (which can't do that).

QuoteLooking at The Alexandrian (shudders) we have this brief definition

Trying to argue that the author of the Alexandrian meant something different than what I think he meant is an incredibly stupid argument for you to make.

QuoteA Fighter looks at a 200-ft. drop and by the playe knowing he has excessive amount of HP to take the fall, he'll take the 20d6 damage and still be OK. This is dissociated because any given character isn't going to know he has exactly 157 HP.

What you're arguing is that the incredibly high level fighter with the capability of performing the feats of Hercules shouldn't be capable of surviving a 200 foot fall. You're arguing that the result should look like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2HT5k20yfg) instead of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVpnmOXvBR0).

Which is fine. If you want to argue that high level D&D characters shouldn't be able to survive 200 foot falls, then there's little question that the falling damage mechanics in D&D are "bad" rules (insofar as they aren't doing what you want them to do).

This just has nothing to do with whether or not the mechanic is dissociated.

So it would be something like this? Supposing 50 feet.

10 feet = d6 = 1d6
20 feet = d6 + 2d6 = 3d6
30 feet = d6 + 2d6 + 3d6 = 6d6
40 feet = d6 + 2d6 + 3d6 + 4d6 = 10d6
50 feet = d6 + 2d6 + 3d6 + 4d6 + 5d6  = 15d6

Hmm, first gap is 2, then 3, then 4, then 5. I bet this can be made into an formula.

1 -> (2) 3 -> (3) 6 -> (4) 10 -> (5) 15

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;893103I bet this can be made into an formula.

Here's one way to write it as a formula.
   f(N)=f(N-1)+N, where f(1)=1.

A more familiar way uses summation notation.
   f(N)= Ʃ(n=1, N)

It would probably easier/better to make it a saving throw, more realistic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall#Surviving_falls

A falling person will reach terminal velocity after about 12 seconds, falling some 450 m (1,500 ft) in that time. That person will not then fall any faster, so it makes no difference what distance they fall if it is more than 450 m—they will still reach the ground at the same speed.

It's not the fall that kills you, it's the impact. ;)

Rather than worrying much about terminal velocity (since by that point the vast majority of falls will be fatal) this line seems more informative.

QuoteOverall, the height at which 50% of children die from a fall is between four and five storey heights above the ground.

So a realistic system should allow children a good chance to survive 40-50 foot falls. This means 10d6 to 15d6 damage is too much damage for those heights.

One of the nice things about making it a saving throw, is to avoid having to roll 15d6 or whatever.

Ah, here's (http://www.amazon.com/2-Volume-Set-Rosens-Emergency-Medicine/dp/1455706051) what you need to model your saving throws.

Quote

• The median lethal dose (LD50) for falls is 4 stories, or 48 ft.

• The lethal dose for 90% (LD90) of test subjects is 7 stories, or 84 ft.

Secondary Source (http://crashingpatient.com/trauma/general-trauma/trauma-resuscitation.htm/)

Quote from: Bren;893137Ah, here's (http://www.amazon.com/2-Volume-Set-Rosens-Emergency-Medicine/dp/1455706051) what you need to model your saving throws.


Secondary Source (http://crashingpatient.com/trauma/general-trauma/trauma-resuscitation.htm/)

Roll 5d6 over 9 + 2 per additional floor. Any roll equal or less represents instant death.

For example a 5 story drop: 9+2*4 (4 additional floors beyond the first) = roll above 17
For example a 7 story drop: 9+2*6 (6 additional floors beyond the first) = roll above 21

Or roll 6d4, 10 + 1 per level, so 5 stories requires a 16 or better (roll above 15).

The first model allows for very low odds of death by falling one floor while the later allows a 10% from the first floor drop. This leads to the question, at what point does it become relevant to roll and at what point does it stop being relevant?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;893071Not in 3e.  There WAS a cap.  They called it Terminal Velocity.  It may have been introduced in 2e in one of the many supplements, but my memory being what it isn't, I could be wrong on that.

Nope. You are correct. And I believe AD&D mentions terminal velocity too.

Spelljammer takes it into account. But that is the least of your worries.

Garys article in Dragon mentions it as well. The big difference is that with the intended cumulative system you reach it by 60ft. Falls were alot more lethal.

Moreso if the situation deemed the die upped to an 8, 10, or more.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;893103So it would be something like this? Supposing 50 feet.

10 feet = d6 = 1d6
20 feet = d6 + 2d6 = 3d6
30 feet = d6 + 2d6 + 3d6 = 6d6
40 feet = d6 + 2d6 + 3d6 + 4d6 = 10d6
50 feet = d6 + 2d6 + 3d6 + 4d6 + 5d6  = 15d6

Hmm, first gap is 2, then 3, then 4, then 5. I bet this can be made into an formula.

1 -> (2) 3 -> (3) 6 -> (4) 10 -> (5) 15

Yes. Looks alot like my own DM falling table. Though at 60ft I used 21d6 damage as thats what it comes out to.

Remember that in Spelljammer first you take re-entry damage. Which has no cap. THEN you take the 20d6 and a save vs death from the hitting the ground part. :jaw-dropping:

Quote from: dragoner;893115It would probably easier/better to make it a saving throw, more realistic:

It's not the fall that kills you, it's the impact. ;)

Falling damage was supposed to be used only when there was a chance to actually slow the fall. Like falling into a pit or off a building where theres some chance. What you fell into and circumstance dictated if the die damage was more or less than a d6 or if you just skipped to save vs death.

In BX if it wasnt a pit then the DM judged chance of survival and player rolled percentile.

Quote from: Omega;893179Falling damage was supposed to be used only when there was a chance to actually slow the fall. Like falling into a pit or off a building where theres some chance. What you fell into and circumstance dictated if the die damage was more or less than a d6 or if you just skipped to save vs death.

In BX if it wasnt a pit then the DM judged chance of survival and player rolled percentile.

Am I being too traditional and simulationist again? You can still assign damage from a failed save, though. I would probably do it by 10xd6 or something.

I like the percentile approach. But I like using percentiles. Much to the chagrin of my players when I DM. aheh. :o

Use whatever works and you are comfortable with if you are the DM.

Back to HP.

Something else to keep in mind is that HP also represents knockouts for grappling, and submission for subdual.

Play BRP? Then they should be used to percentiles.

Quote from: Bren;893118Rather than worrying much about terminal velocity (since by that point the vast majority of falls will be fatal) this line seems more informative.

So a realistic system should allow children a good chance to survive 40-50 foot falls. This means 10d6 to 15d6 damage is too much damage for those heights.

Yeah, I think in D&D 1d6 per 10' is a lot more realistic than geometric increases. I think though I might increase max damage from 20d6 to 50d6 at 500', it sounds as if even 100d6 at 10000' might be ok. Or cap at 20d6 but requiring a Save vs Death would be the best way to keep it unpredictable, say at -1 per 100' in pre-3e, in 3e maybe Fort Save DC 15 (if 50+ damage), +1/100', etc.

In D&D we generally don't actually want to kill PCs, we just want PCs to fear death and act appropriately. Saving throws seem the best mechanism for that.

Quote from: S'mon;893219Yeah, I think in D&D 1d6 per 10' is a lot more realistic than geometric increases.

In D&D we generally don't actually want to kill PCs, we just want PCs to fear death and act appropriately. Saving throws seem the best mechanism for that.

1: You hit terminal velocity really fast. 15 seconds. In older editions of AD&D that was  one 4th of a round. In a mere 4 sec you are moving at 70mph, and at 15 you are over 300mph according to my old Spelljammer notes. Funfact: AD&D did eventually fix the falling damage rule. Wilderness Survival Guide. Also introduced tumbling down incline damage.

2: We want to potentially kill the PCs when they do stupid things that should get them killed. Especially if they still did it even after the DM gently warned then that was a bad idea. Like leaping off cliffs thinking they can survive past X distance with no precautions. Or charging into every battle with no thought. The DM is not a safety net for stupid. See the loooooong Tomb of Horrors thread for all the variations on that. aheh.

I usually ask the player about to off themselves are they sure they want to do that thing as its something they wont survive. Or the chance is approaching nil. I may not be a safety net. But I make sure the player is aware of the situation on the off chance they either just didnt know, or had read some rule wrong.

There does exist a statistic that a child falling between four and five storey height (40-50 feet) has a 50/50 chance for survival.

I'm sure there are reasons why an adult might survive at a lower rate, but I would assume humans of D&D PC toughness and caliber should have a survival rate at least as good.

These survival statistics do include surviving the fall but sustaining injuries that will be fatal without immediate medical help, so I would interpret this as a 40-50 foot fall should leave a 1st level fighter with more than -10 hit points at least 50% of the time.

So as far as 1st Ed goes (rolling for hp at 1st level), I think 1d6 per 10 feet works better than making the falling damage cumulative. At least up to the 50 foot mark. Alternatively, it could be up to 6d6 damage at the 50 foot mark if a Save vs Death for half damage were allowed.

Another point to consider is that there are cases of normal people survival falls at terminal velocity. This suggests the 10 hp below zero buffer plus maximum hit points should exceed the minimum damage for a fall at terminal velocity. If I suppose the airline stewardess who survived such a fall had the hit points of a 1st level thief, and 16+ constitution, that would mean minimum damage from a fall at terminal velocity should be less than 18 (or less than 36 if you want to allow the save for half).

Of course, even then, the odds of survival are about 2 in a quadrillion, which doesn't really square with reality given the Earth's population. So the odds of survival ought to be far, far more generous than that.

The other thing to consider is that terminal velocity is asymptotic. 50% of TV is achieved after a fall of just 70 to 80 feet. At that height, the fall has only one quarter of the kinetic energy of a fall at TV. Now I said 18d6 was too high for TV. Even 16d6 is probably way too high, but I'll go with that for now. That would mean no more than 4d6 would be appropriate for a 70-80 foot fall.

Of course, it's more than just velocity and energy that factors into how fatal a fall is. Certain parts of the body are more vulnerable than others. Landing in a some positions more deadly than others. And body position can itself affect drag and therefore the velocity of the fall and the energy of the impact.

A higher fall, then, means more time to react, means being better able to position yourself to minimize damage. This would mitigate some of the non-linear effects of falling. On the other hand, the fragility factor--the idea that an impact at 122 mph is more deadly than 100, or even 10,000 (if you're going by kinetic energy) impacts at 1.2 mph.

So here's what I propose for a falling rule.

-Damage is linear with regards to the height of fall, 1d6 per every 10 feet, capped out at 15d6.
-Any fall greater than 50 feet, the character must save vs death. Success reduces falling damage by half. A save roll of less than half of what is needed results in instant death.
-So a 50 foot fall still does the appropriate 5d6 damage, while an 80 foot fall, if you succeed in the save, does indeed equate to 4d6 damage.
-Children are allowed a save for half from any height, and never face instant-death--the damage from the fall itself is lethal enough for those with so few hit points.

Under this system, even uber powerful adventurers are unlikely to choose to take a great fall due to the minimum a 5% chance of auto-kill. However, if they should happen to fall due to accident or hazard, they have a better chance of walking away with a smaller hit point loss than the current system--a simple mistake, continue on adventuring.

Oh, and my max hit point airline stewardess/1st level thief has about a 1 in 225 chance of surviving a fall at terminal velocity under this system. A frequency that squares with my sense of the facts.


You can plug in the assumptions of whatever system you're using and follow my logic. I realize this is a tangent, but it also does demonstrate something to the central point. Kiero's "mechanics over interpretations" standard is flawed because while embraces the possibility that what we're examining--hit points, in this case--may be in a sense broken, the mechanics we're testing it against, be it falling damage or healing, is somehow infallible.

I think the fallibility of the conception of healing is an even easier one to tackle. State of mind has such a potent impact on the body's physical well-being that scientific testing of medicines always has to be compared with a placebo group. If you factor in shell shock, I don't think it's unreasonable that a warrior who's done battle with a dragon (90% total hit point loss) is going to take more time to recover than one who's done battle with a group of goblins (40% total hit point loss), even though visibly and physically, each seem to have just a few flesh wounds.

This is especially emphasized with clerical healing. You're honestly going to tell me that in a fantasy world where the priesthood can cure physical wounds miraculously, their prayers cannot help to heal emotional and spiritual exhaustion even though they do in the real world?

Quote from: Lunamancer;893302There does exist a statistic that a child falling between four and five storey height (40-50 feet) has a 50/50 chance for survival.

I'm sure there are reasons why an adult might survive at a lower rate, but I would assume humans of D&D PC toughness and caliber should have a survival rate at least as good.

Because if I remember my human biology, a child's bone structure is amazingly flexible due to the fact that it's mostly cartilage until they hit the age of maturity.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;893325Because if I remember my human biology, a child's bone structure is amazingly flexible due to the fact that it's mostly cartilage until they hit the age of maturity.

Yes, that and the already mentioned difference in mass between a 7 year old child and an adult flight attendant which results in a significantly higher force on impact.

Quote from: Lunamancer;893302Oh, and my max hit point airline stewardess/1st level thief has about a 1 in 225 chance of surviving a fall at terminal velocity under this system. A frequency that squares with my sense of the facts.

Odds of 1/225 seems too high.

If you really want to model TV survival, you need to account for the significant factors present in the TV survivals e.g. position of body on impact, presence of angled surface, deep snow, tree branches, or other means of cushioning the impact, etc. Those are situational factors which, aside from body position (which would probably be best represented by a saving throw to reduce damage), are not controllable by the person falling. Those factors should be represented by modifiers not saving throws nor random statistical outliers of a damage roll.

Quote from: Kiero;892837"Interpretations" are generally worthless. Look to the mechanics - how do you get them back? If they're only restored (slowly) over time or (more quickly) through healing magic, then they're literal injury.

On the other hand, if they come back more readily through other means, such as being inspired or taking a refreshment break, then they're representing more abstract things.

the thing i keep triping over is that im not 100% convinced that inspirational healing means you wherent hurt even badly and dident force your self to stand and keep fighting any way

Quote from: Skarg;893055Thanks very much to everyone who has replied to my question! The answers have greatly developed my understanding of the different approaches to hit points and attack results in D&D which different players and books have.

Also thanks to Estar for sharing his view of rpg.stackexchange.com. I have similar opinions (it's good for literal D&D & Shadowrun answers and some other interesting Q&A, but the format and moderation and community are often weird, annoying, and shutting down many interesting exchanges because they don't fit the site format or rules or aren't nice enough or whatever, which is why I keep getting lured into reading some and then annoyed by the result, and a few times now have come here to vent and get a better discussion.

in my mind feel free to do so this is one of the more interesting things iv read in a while

Quote from: kosmos1214;893388the thing i keep triping over is that im not 100% convinced that inspirational healing means you wherent hurt even badly and dident force your self to stand and keep fighting any way

Inspirational healing seems like what happens when the sound track plays the theme song in a Rocky movie. Clearly Rocky took damage (just look at his face). But he gets back up from the mat or off of the ropes, punches back, and then knocks down his opponent.*


* Which is not to say that I particularly like inspirational healing as a mechanic.

Quote from: Bren;893433Inspirational healing seems like what happens when the sound track plays the theme song in a Rocky movie. Clearly Rocky took damage (just look at his face). But he gets back up from the mat or off of the ropes, punches back, and then knocks down his opponent.*


* Which is not to say that I particularly like inspirational healing as a mechanic.

Or when you do something to shake someone out of going into shock or exhaustion. That little surge of adrenaline.

Quote from: Omega;893470Or when you do something to shake someone out of going into shock or exhaustion. That little surge of adrenaline.

Which is pretty much what they claim that the D&D 5e Fighter's Second Wind power does.

Quote from: Bren;893376Odds of 1/225 seems too high.

It's not 1/225. It's 1/225 for someone with maxed out hp and maxed out CON bonus. The odds for a randomly selected ordinary human is more like 1 in 25,000.

QuoteIf you really want to model TV survival, you need to account for the significant factors present in the TV survivals e.g. position of body on impact,

As I spelled out, that's already accounted for.

Quotepresence of angled surface, deep snow, tree branches, or other means of cushioning the impact, etc.

WSG already spells out modifications to falling damage for such things.

Quote from: Lunamancer;893476As I spelled out, that's already accounted for.

Two possible impact positions (full damage on a failed save and half damage on a successful save) doesn't account for the effect of body position. Any other effect of position part of the random results of the damage roll which are unrelated to anything the character does i.e. not accounted for. That's basically what we already had in the original Gygaxian system that ignores position.

Quote from: Lunamancer;893476WSG already spells out modifications to falling damage for such things.

:huhsign: I presume WSG is supposed to mean something, but the acronym connotes nothing to me. The first search hit for WSG with RPG gave me this  WSG (https://twitter.com/wsgrpg), but I really don't see what "an unofficial fan-made Pokémon online RPG" has to do with a discussion on realistically modeling the significant factors in survival from a fall.

So what is WSG?

Can we just all agree that AD&D falling damage is broken if you take it out of context of the other modifying rules and that only the typoed falling damage part has been carried over to later editions?

No?

Thought so... :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;893489Can we just all agree that AD&D falling damage is broken if you take it out of context of the other modifying rules and that only the typoed falling damage part has been carried over to later editions?

Other than as an intellectual exercise, modeling falling to allow for some statistically very small chance that someone can fall several thousand feet or more and survive much less be nearly undamaged as some people have managed, seems not worth the effort required for modeling.

So yeah, I can agree. I did find the LD% by height interesting for distances < 100 feet. It appears that falls of 40 feet or less are similar to angry house cats in their lethality to first level D&D characters.

Depends on level too. A 10ft fall can potentially kill any character with HP equal or under the die used in AD&D (which might not necessarily be a d6). Or the same character might survive a 50ft drop.

One of the things I DONT like about 5e is that A: its still using the 1d6/10ft typo system despite knowing its wrong. B: Fails to provide alternatives or explain a damn thing. And C: does not take into account the mild HP inflation of 5e. At level My level 5 Warlock could survive the average damage of a 90ft fall. At level 10 he can survive the average of a 180ft fall.

Quote from: Omega;893512Depends on level too. A 10ft fall can potentially kill any character with HP equal or under the die used in AD&D (which might not necessarily be a d6). Or the same character might survive a 50ft drop.

One of the things I DONT like about 5e is that A: its still using the 1d6/10ft typo system despite knowing its wrong. B: Fails to provide alternatives or explain a damn thing. And C: does not take into account the mild HP inflation of 5e. At level My level 5 Warlock could survive the average damage of a 90ft fall. At level 10 he can survive the average of a 180ft fall.

4e D&D uses d10s, which works ok for PCs but ironically makes monsters too resilient (elites & solos) or squishy (minions). I suggest in 5e you do fall damage by monster size, just like monster hit dice:

Tiny - d4
Small - d6 - maybe Small children roll d4s for those cartaligionous skeletons...
Medium - d8
Large - d10
Huge - d12
Gargantuan - d20

Quote from: Omega;893512One of the things I DONT like about 5e is that A: its still using the 1d6/10ft typo system despite knowing its wrong. B: Fails to provide alternatives or explain a damn thing. And C: does not take into account the mild HP inflation of 5e. At level My level 5 Warlock could survive the average damage of a 90ft fall. At level 10 he can survive the average of a 180ft fall.

Well, with hit points that high, they ought to just go with the Lejendary Adventure falling rules. It uses d20s, greater heights adding dice, but any roll of '20' is counted as a zero. Any roll of '19' indicates a break or sprain. Other than that, just add 'em up. It makes falls from any height survivable since it's always possible however unlikely to roll all 20's. And with breaks and sprains, it makes even not-so-deadly falls a bit of the pain.

Quote from: Bren;893487Two possible impact positions (full damage on a failed save and half damage on a successful save) doesn't account for the effect of body position. Any other effect of position part of the random results of the damage roll which are unrelated to anything the character does i.e. not accounted for. That's basically what we already had in the original Gygaxian system that ignores position.

:huhsign: I presume WSG is supposed to mean something, but the acronym connotes nothing to me. The first search hit for WSG with RPG gave me this  WSG (https://twitter.com/wsgrpg), but I really don't see what "an unofficial fan-made Pokémon online RPG" has to do with a discussion on realistically modeling the significant factors in survival from a fall.

So what is WSG?

Wilderness Survival Guide, a 1e book that covers rules for outdoor adventures.  Paired with Dungeoneer's Survival Guide(which came first), it brought a skill system to AD&D through non-weapon proficiencies as well as lots of adventuring rules and campaign advice.

Hit points are a literal abstraction of pseudo-meat-fatigue.:-)

Quote from: CRKrueger;893575Wilderness Survival Guide, a 1e book that covers rules for outdoor adventures.  

I did not know that. :thanx:

Quote from: CRKrueger;893575Wilderness Survival Guide, a 1e book that covers rules for outdoor adventures.  Paired with Dungeoneer's Survival Guide(which came first), it brought a skill system to AD&D through non-weapon proficiencies as well as lots of adventuring rules and campaign advice.

I dearly love those books. How about that Natural Lightning!

Quote from: tenbones;893639I dearly love those books. How about that Natural Lightning!

Tidal wave = Instant death. No saves. No damage. Instant death. Just add water.

Quote from: Bren;893433Inspirational healing seems like what happens when the sound track plays the theme song in a Rocky movie. Clearly Rocky took damage (just look at his face). But he gets back up from the mat or off of the ropes, punches back, and then knocks down his opponent.*


* Which is not to say that I particularly like inspirational healing as a mechanic.

actually yah thats exactly how i view inspirational healing

as to fall damage why not do the simple thing and make it % damage leting low and high levels survive from big falls with luck??

Quote from: kosmos1214;893898as to fall damage why not do the simple thing and make it % damage leting low and high levels survive from big falls with luck??

Because there is a point past which chances of survival on impact drop to effectively zero. When I was doing some research for a game seems that the maximum survivable diving height into water is around 200ft. And even then the likelyhood of severe damage is high. Past that and the chance of death goes up very fast. In an uncontrolled fall into water then death was likely at much lower heights from the impact.

And seems my earlier math was off massively. Was calculating in meters not FT.

So it takes a mere 3.66 seconds to fall 200ft and on impact you are hitting at around 69mph. And you aren't even at terminal velocity yet.

Quote from: kosmos1214;893388the thing i keep triping over is that im not 100% convinced that inspirational healing means you wherent hurt even badly and dident force your self to stand and keep fighting any way

If the act of you standing up and continuing to fight means that the cleric can no longer heal your physical wounds (because your hit points are full up from the inspirational speech) you still end up with dissociation.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;893903If the act of you standing up and continuing to fight means that the cleric can no longer heal your physical wounds (because your hit points are full up from the inspirational speech) you still end up with dissociation.

I like how 5e makes non-magical morale effects Temporary hp only; avoids some problems like that.

Quote from: S'mon;893914I like how 5e makes non-magical morale effects Temporary hp only; avoids some problems like that.

That makes a lot of sense.

Heres another two lycanthrop stoppers for you Opaopajr.

Adventurers Guide:

Wizard Bladesinger: Song of Defense at level 10. Spend a spell slot when take damage to reduce the damage by 5x the level of the slot.

Also the Rogue Mastermind: Misdirection at level 13. When an attack is targeted at you while you have cover from someone within 5ft. You can redirect the attack on them as a reaction.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;893103Hmm, first gap is 2, then 3, then 4, then 5. I bet this can be made into an formula.

1 -> (2) 3 -> (3) 6 -> (4) 10 -> (5) 15

f(n) = 1/2 * n * (n+1)

n = 1 -> 1/2 * 1 * 2 = 1
n = 2 -> 1/2 * 2 * 3 = 3
n = 3 -> 1/2 * 3 * 4 = 6 etc.

Verifying the formula:
f(n+1) = 1/2 * (n+1) * (n+2)
f(n+1) - f(n) = 1/2 * (n+1) * (n+2) - (1/2 * n * (n+1)) = 1/2 * (n+1) * ((n+2) - n) = 1/2 * (n+1) * 2 = n+1.
(sum of 1 to n+1) minus (sum of 1 to n) should be n+1, since all the other terms cancel.

Hit points are hit points.

Quote from: RPGPundit;895344Hit points are hit points.

And in other news. Circles are circles and rectangles are rectangles.

Quote from: RPGPundit;895344Hit points are hit points.

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how D&D gets Existential.

Quote from: RPGPundit;895344Hit points are hit points.

Quote from: Bren;895351And in other news. Circles are circles and rectangles are rectangles.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;895357And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how D&D gets Existential.

In 35+ years of gaming, I have yet to see anything new on the subject of hit points. I would love it if the discussion became Existential.

What I mean is, trying to reason it out other than as the most effective way to deal with injury without hassle is kind of pointless.

Quote from: RPGPundit;895757What I mean is, trying to reason it out other than as the most effective way to deal with injury without hassle is kind of pointless.

Dude! This is a role playing game forum. Pointless discussion isn't our middle name, it's our frickin' first name. ;)

So true. So true.

And dont forget interpreting some rule in the most crack-headed ways imaginable. Which is why we get these pointless discussions.

If hit points are only a convenience, do you think gamers would be happy with a different but equally simple abstraction?

For example, what about a system that said: "You have a toughness of 10. If you take 10 or more damage from a hit, you're dead. Otherwise you're fine." Like the D6 games without all the foofaraw. This rule requires less bookkeeping than HP and is arguably more realistic.

That doesnt sound more realistic. Less bookkeeping is not allways a good thing.

D&D's abstract HP works. The problem crops up when someone wants it to mean only meat. Or it gets applied to situations it should not have been. Like the oft trotted out falling damage even WOTC botched three times now.

Quote from: Dumpire;896943If hit points are only a convenience, do you think gamers would be happy with a different but equally simple abstraction?

For example, what about a system that said: "You have a toughness of 10. If you take 10 or more damage from a hit, you're dead. Otherwise you're fine." Like the D6 games without all the foofaraw. This rule requires less bookkeeping than HP and is arguably more realistic.

That's Savage Worlds, except it's "taking a Wound". Most PCs can take up to 3 wounds before keeling over from the 4th one, most people are out in 1 Wound.

Given how popular Savage Worlds is, I'd say that yes, a lot of gamers are happy with such a system.

Well, that's a little different ... Do you think Savage Worlds would be as popular as it is if players died with the first Wound but suffered wounds only 25% as often?

QuoteThat doesnt sound more realistic. Less bookkeeping is not allways a good thing.

Well, maybe not to an unemployed bookkeeper. :p On realism, yeah, the two are hard to compare; they both create paradoxes.

Quote from: Dumpire;896943For example, what about a system that said: "You have a toughness of 10. If you take 10 or more damage from a hit, you're dead. Otherwise you're fine." Like the D6 games without all the foofaraw. This rule requires less bookkeeping than HP and is arguably more realistic.

Well, "arguably" -- you're arguing it, after all.  But genuinely more realistic?  Let me get this straight: there are only two states of being, "perfectly fine" and "dead."  "Wounded," "impaired," "bruised," those don't exist.  What remotely makes that realistic?

As far as bookkeeping goes, someone who can't handle the amount of bookkeeping involved in keeping track of hit points in most systems ought to enlist a friendly 2nd grader to deal with the scary, scary addition and subtraction.

I prefer the Mutants and Masterminds Saving Throw mechanic.  Realistic?  Nope.  Does it feel in genre?  To me?  Yeap.

If I want more realistic I'll just adapt to BX Arneson's HP location and crippling system from Blackmoor.

Quote from: Omega;897084If I want more realistic I'll just adapt to BX Arneson's HP location and crippling system from Blackmoor.

As someone who likes alternate rules, is there a place I can get those?

Quote from: Dumpire;896961Well, that's a little different ... Do you think Savage Worlds would be as popular as it is if players died with the first Wound but suffered wounds only 25% as often?

No, PCs can often suffer 5 or more wounds in the course of a session that includes healing. By your system, they'd be dead at least once! And many SW settings don't even talk about revivification.

It's not like Savage Worlds isn't a meatgrinder already, I don't need more than that:)!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;897092As someone who likes alternate rules, is there a place I can get those?

Wouldn't it be in Blackmoor;)? It was released recently, after all.

Do I have to quote myself from page one? I guess I have to.

Quote from: Opaopajr;892558Yup, it's abstract, just like quite a bit about rpgs.

"One attack (and not too much more) within 6 seconds or 1 minute"? It's about the opportunities to breach defenses, not how many times someone can swing at another. Even I in my full pathetic glory can flail and slap more than once in six or more seconds (I know, right?, a gamer not gloating about their martial prowess?).

Skills are abstractions. Hit points are also abstractions, even if you call them "wounds" to assuage your inner-pedant's desire for realism. Essentially just about everything that has received a numerical value is an abstraction.

But without abstraction into a numerical value, you got a fascinating challenge for statistical probability...
;)

Level or skill system, hit points or wound spirals, "combat rounds" by the minute 6-seconds or by the second, first impression reaction rolls, et cetera, on and on we can go about how all of these system DON'T EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. They are abstractions, for the very simple reason that we are playing in imagination land and have no interest in liability lawsuits. But there is a difference between more aesthetically palatable and less so, and often the reasons for such involve coherency, verisimillitude, and ease of playability (among others).

What's next, a nominalism versus realism discussion? "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."

The argument is not about abstraction -- it is an abstraction, that is fact and true of all methods. The argument is about aesthetics and the playstyle values that shape such aesthetics. Get there and you have a more interesting discussion.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;897092As someone who likes alternate rules, is there a place I can get those?

Basically you took your total HP and then assigned a percentage to body locations. Head was 15%, Chest was 80%, Arms 20%, Legs 25%. So for example 10HP would get you a 1 point for the head, 8 for the chest, and 2 for arms and legs. (I rounded down for convenience) Direction of attack determined what locations were likely to be hit if you scored a hit. (There was also an optional modifier table based on height I believe. So a shorter attacker would more likely hit the legs for example.) Depleting the head or chest was death. Depleting a limb severed it and you bled out each round at 1hp a round till treated. Loss of a leg reduced you to a crawl and loss of an arm reduced you to -50% crawl per harm.
Excess damage to a limb at the moment it was disabled/severed took off DEX for the excess amount up to the limbs points. (Which I think was the severing moment?)

There were a few other rules for it but that was the gist of it.

Pretty harsh system introducing more realism while still being abstracted to a degree. Though I though there should be a corresponding STR loss too. We used it about 2 years ago for a BX mini-campaign and can say it definitely made tactics and maneuvering more vital. As well as an absolute need for Clerics. Surviving the early levels was brutally hard and combats were dreaded. Least not as bad as when a DM used Role Masters tables with a 2e session.

Quote from: AsenRG;897093Wouldn't it be in Blackmoor;)?

I would think so. It is in my copyright 1975 edition.

Oddly, none of the three columns in the humanoid Hit Location Table include the abdomen as a location even though the Damage Allocation for humanoids assigns 60% of total hit points to the abdomen and even though all the humanoids I know obviously have abdomens. Personally, I'd use Runequest's hit location table and an expansion of RQ damage allocation to account for the larger hit point totals.

I figured the abdomen section for humanoids was a typo. Seems like Abdomen here was used to represent long bodied animals. I used the reptile section to represent most 4-legged creatures.

Its a jumbled section of rules to be sure. But still functional.

Quote from: Omega;897408I figured the abdomen section for humanoids was a typo.

I agree there is a typo. Where it is seems unclear. You might be correct, but an abdomen, groin, stomach, on a humanoid seems like it should lie in between LEGS and CHEST. As it stands, given the existing hit location table, if you try to eviscerate someone or kick them in the balls, you’d end up hitting them in the chest...or maybe their third leg.

But it's a start and it is the first hit location table I remember seeing. It wouldn't be hard to tweak it to address the missing location. It's kind of a clue that it’s D&D because there is a hit location table for reptiles and insects but no hit location table for mammals like horses, bulls, and tigers.

The entry for reptiles mentions "other quadrupeds" so I just assume its meant to cover all. Weird. But there you go.

Adding a STR loss as well as DEX did though introduce the "death spiral" as losses accumulated.

Brutal. But I liked it for its median between the pure abstraction of just HP, and other systems with all sorts of damage and wounds to track.