There are nearly as many problems with describing attacks as near misses as there are with describing people brushing off Mortal Kombat-style wounds.
Personally, I won't use near misses if I can help it. Most attacks that are near miss and take HP can easily be described as flesh wounds and scratches and that is way better.
At least you don't run into problems with stuff like healing, poisons, other additional elemental damage on hit, resistances and vulnerabilities that way.
And this is why my take on it, from the start, is to be flexible and not say mandatorily "it's a wound, it draws blood". So many sources of damage, so many reasons to resist, for me you need to be able to tell a different story almost on each hit, sometimes it's a wound, sometimes it's a scratch, sometimes it's a near miss and just a scrape, sometimes it's avoided at the last instant, etc.
Not only is it the only way to take into account what you mention, but it also provides for much more variety, many more fun descriptions.
Or to say everything is a near miss....it can be whatever you want and its correct.
There are nearly as many problems with describing attacks as near misses as there are with describing people brushing off Mortal Kombat-style wounds.
Personally, I won't use near misses if I can help it. Most attacks that are near miss and take HP can easily be described as flesh wounds and scratches and that is way better.
At least you don't run into problems with stuff like healing, poisons, other additional elemental damage on hit, resistances and vulnerabilities that way.
And this is why my take on it, from the start, is to be flexible and not say mandatorily "it's a wound, it draws blood". So many sources of damage, so many reasons to resist, for me you need to be able to tell a different story almost on each hit, sometimes it's a wound, sometimes it's a scratch, sometimes it's a near miss and just a scrape, sometimes it's avoided at the last instant, etc.
Not only is it the only way to take into account what you mention, but it also provides for much more variety, many more fun descriptions.
Or to say everything is a near miss....it can be whatever you want and its correct.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here but yes, in general it's as problematic (but again, not wrong in itself) to say everything is a near miss as it is to say everything draws blood. The problem is not in the description itself but in the fact that sticking always to the same explanation makes it harder to interpret a game which is based on complex and varied principles, all very abstract.
There are nearly as many problems with describing attacks as near misses as there are with describing people brushing off Mortal Kombat-style wounds.
Personally, I won't use near misses if I can help it. Most attacks that are near miss and take HP can easily be described as flesh wounds and scratches and that is way better.
At least you don't run into problems with stuff like healing, poisons, other additional elemental damage on hit, resistances and vulnerabilities that way.
And this is why my take on it, from the start, is to be flexible and not say mandatorily "it's a wound, it draws blood". So many sources of damage, so many reasons to resist, for me you need to be able to tell a different story almost on each hit, sometimes it's a wound, sometimes it's a scratch, sometimes it's a near miss and just a scrape, sometimes it's avoided at the last instant, etc.
Not only is it the only way to take into account what you mention, but it also provides for much more variety, many more fun descriptions.
Or to say everything is a near miss....it can be whatever you want and its correct.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here but yes, in general it's as problematic (but again, not wrong in itself) to say everything is a near miss as it is to say everything draws blood. The problem is not in the description itself but in the fact that sticking always to the same explanation makes it harder to interpret a game which is based on complex and varied principles, all very abstract.
My point being you can describe it anyway you want and it works.
If you choose to do it exactly one way all the time that is just as valid as not.
IRL, the result of shooting someone with a bow is pretty binary: hit or miss. You hit; extreme damage, you miss; no damage at all.
You might need more experience with arrow wounds.
Generally speaking though, D&D doesn't give a breakdown on what kind of arrows PC use. There is a difference between broadheads and bodkins in real life but it doesn't translate into D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I just go full-on Mortal Kombat logic. You could get a big slam to the chest from a massive hammer and get three cracked ribs, but it doesn't affect your movement or skills and all you need is a good night's sleep and you're fine the next day.
You are one tough so and so. I was hit in the side by a gas pipe one time. I was not fine two weeks later much less the next day.
In the real world you can most certainly shoot an arrow at someone and have it graze them. It leaves a little slice that will bleed. You can also, using the most powerful modern day bow available, have an arrow designed to penetrate armor bounce off and do no damage to the person inside it.
Other: Situational - Whatever makes the most sense in the campaign and circumstances for the creature or object.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I picked the Other option, due to, as mentioned, primarily Psychic damage. When my players suffer this, I use whatever the spell effect describes (maybe the most horrifying thing you've ever experienced) and tell them that this image blazes into their mind, feeling like a lightning bolt just ripped from one ear to the other. The other spell damages, fire, cold, acid, etc can be put out pretty easy as physical. My parties take a lot of damage blows that hit armor and while not actually slicing deep, deliver some slashing damage. Irritating cut type wounds, but not debilitating. Bigger impacts (had a monster whack one of them with a club for 3d8 which landed solidly) have bigger descriptions, (I think I staggered him back) Not all wounds leave a visible mark, however.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
There are nearly as many problems with describing attacks as near misses as there are with describing people brushing off Mortal Kombat-style wounds.
Personally, I won't use near misses if I can help it. Most attacks that are near miss and take HP can easily be described as flesh wounds and scratches and that is way better.
At least you don't run into problems with stuff like healing, poisons, other additional elemental damage on hit, resistances and vulnerabilities that way.
And this is why my take on it, from the start, is to be flexible and not say mandatorily "it's a wound, it draws blood". So many sources of damage, so many reasons to resist, for me you need to be able to tell a different story almost on each hit, sometimes it's a wound, sometimes it's a scratch, sometimes it's a near miss and just a scrape, sometimes it's avoided at the last instant, etc.
Not only is it the only way to take into account what you mention, but it also provides for much more variety, many more fun descriptions.
Or to say everything is a near miss....it can be whatever you want and its correct.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here but yes, in general it's as problematic (but again, not wrong in itself) to say everything is a near miss as it is to say everything draws blood. The problem is not in the description itself but in the fact that sticking always to the same explanation makes it harder to interpret a game which is based on complex and varied principles, all very abstract.
There are nearly as many problems with describing attacks as near misses as there are with describing people brushing off Mortal Kombat-style wounds.
Personally, I won't use near misses if I can help it. Most attacks that are near miss and take HP can easily be described as flesh wounds and scratches and that is way better.
At least you don't run into problems with stuff like healing, poisons, other additional elemental damage on hit, resistances and vulnerabilities that way.
And this is why my take on it, from the start, is to be flexible and not say mandatorily "it's a wound, it draws blood". So many sources of damage, so many reasons to resist, for me you need to be able to tell a different story almost on each hit, sometimes it's a wound, sometimes it's a scratch, sometimes it's a near miss and just a scrape, sometimes it's avoided at the last instant, etc.
Not only is it the only way to take into account what you mention, but it also provides for much more variety, many more fun descriptions.
Or to say everything is a near miss....it can be whatever you want and its correct.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here but yes, in general it's as problematic (but again, not wrong in itself) to say everything is a near miss as it is to say everything draws blood. The problem is not in the description itself but in the fact that sticking always to the same explanation makes it harder to interpret a game which is based on complex and varied principles, all very abstract.
My point being you can describe it anyway you want and it works.
If you choose to do it exactly one way all the time that is just as valid as not.
Well, it's your personal and unsubstantiated point of view. Mine is different, and supported by RAW, because 5e specifically describes multiple sources of hit points, and very varied sources of damage, my claim is that it works better by varying the descriptions. It does not make other ways of doing this "invalid", just less natural considering the system design.
But I'm not even sure why you are still arguing, because in this post you have already shown that you describe damage in substantially different ways (not always blood and not always near misses) depending on the source of damage. So I'm still not sure what you want to say here.
There's no RAW for flavoring damage.
It's whatever you want to do. No right or wrong way to do it.
There's a big difference, in my opinion, between "The {Bad Guy} hits you: 8hp slashing damage' and "The {Bad Guy} swings his longsword in a vicious arc, connecting with your side with a sickening sound. The sword bites deep into your flesh, leaving behind a wide, bloody wound as the blade continues its murderous journey. You clutch your free hand to your side, the blood seeping through your fingers, as the {Bad Guy} mocks your pain.'
Well, it's your personal and unsubstantiated point of view. Mine is different, and supported by RAW, because 5e specifically describes multiple sources of hit points, and very varied sources of damage, my claim is that it works better by varying the descriptions. It does not make other ways of doing this "invalid", just less natural considering the system design.
But I'm not even sure why you are still arguing, because in this post you have already shown that you describe damage in substantially different ways (not always blood and not always near misses) depending on the source of damage. So I'm still not sure what you want to say here.
Optimus, I just want to point out that the OP option reading other says "please comment" next to it. I assume the OP is interested in hearing other people's takes on how HP works, so I don't think you really need to comment after every single post "there's no right or wrong way."
Nobody's saying you have to do it a certain way, we're just answering the question that was asked.
In my games it depends on the group and the style of game we're playing, but generally my preferred approach to hitpoints is having it as a value that pools together all aspects of someone's endurance - physical health, mental state, energy levels and sometimes even equipment (non-magical). Depending on the enemy, I might start off with the first few points of damage being light grazes or it might be pieces of their armour being worn down... or it might just be a case of the enemy breathing a bit heavier and adjusting their arm to shake of an impact.
Optimus, I just want to point out that the OP option reading other says "please comment" next to it. I assume the OP is interested in hearing other people's takes on how HP works, so I don't think you really need to comment after every single post "there's no right or wrong way."
Nobody's saying you have to do it a certain way, we're just answering the question that was asked.
And I think the answer that you can't do it certain ways is not correct.... You can do it however you want and the only incorrect answer is saying you have to do it a specific way.
And yes that's what they are saying.... That you can't just use wounds only....which is wrong since you can do it anyway you want.
I'm not likely to use this if I DM, but I found it interesting: one idea is to treat the combat system as non-diegetic, that is to say treat it basically like the songs in a musical. What happens during a system-defined combat isn't what's literally happening in the fight in-universe, but an exaggerated depiction meant to highlight aspects of the characters involved. So a high HP PC isn't actually being beaten in the face multiple times, it's a poetic hyperbole emphasizing how tough he or she is.
I'm not likely to use this if I DM, but I found it interesting: one idea is to treat the combat system as non-diegetic, that is to say treat it basically like the songs in a musical. What happens during a system-defined combat isn't what's literally happening in the fight in-universe, but an exaggerated depiction meant to highlight aspects of the characters involved. So a high HP PC isn't actually being beaten in the face multiple times, it's a poetic hyperbole emphasizing how tough he or she is.
In my games it depends on the group and the style of game we're playing, but generally my preferred approach to hitpoints is having it as a value that pools together all aspects of someone's endurance - physical health, mental state, energy levels and sometimes even equipment (non-magical). Depending on the enemy, I might start off with the first few points of damage being light grazes or it might be pieces of their armour being worn down... or it might just be a case of the enemy breathing a bit heavier and adjusting their arm to shake of an impact.
Both of the above, kind of. Generally I don't visualize hp as such. I do the moves to make combat seem interesting - describe the barbarians mighty axeblow shearing off the left thigh muscle of a baddie, how a bbeg fills a characters mind with high-pitched screams of unfathomable pain (and you take, eh, 24 psychic damage). But to me as a DM it's really just numbers and a constant evaluation of how to challenge the players just the right amount and be a round ahead of tactics etc. I personally find the beeg:s twirling mustache monologue more fun than the actual battle. And I find my pleasure in DM:ing out of setting as good conditions as possible for the players to co-create memorable stories and have truck loads of fun.
So I see hp as just a component in the collective process of having fun and generating stories, and a tool for converting math to enjoyment. If that makes sense.
I'm not likely to use this if I DM, but I found it interesting: one idea is to treat the combat system as non-diegetic, that is to say treat it basically like the songs in a musical. What happens during a system-defined combat isn't what's literally happening in the fight in-universe, but an exaggerated depiction meant to highlight aspects of the characters involved. So a high HP PC isn't actually being beaten in the face multiple times, it's a poetic hyperbole emphasizing how tough he or she is.
Ok I love this
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Or to say everything is a near miss....it can be whatever you want and its correct.
My point being you can describe it anyway you want and it works.
If you choose to do it exactly one way all the time that is just as valid as not.
You might need more experience with arrow wounds.
Generally speaking though, D&D doesn't give a breakdown on what kind of arrows PC use. There is a difference between broadheads and bodkins in real life but it doesn't translate into D&D.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You are one tough so and so. I was hit in the side by a gas pipe one time. I was not fine two weeks later much less the next day.
In the real world you can most certainly shoot an arrow at someone and have it graze them. It leaves a little slice that will bleed. You can also, using the most powerful modern day bow available, have an arrow designed to penetrate armor bounce off and do no damage to the person inside it.
<Insert clever signature here>
Other: Situational - Whatever makes the most sense in the campaign and circumstances for the creature or object.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I picked the Other option, due to, as mentioned, primarily Psychic damage. When my players suffer this, I use whatever the spell effect describes (maybe the most horrifying thing you've ever experienced) and tell them that this image blazes into their mind, feeling like a lightning bolt just ripped from one ear to the other. The other spell damages, fire, cold, acid, etc can be put out pretty easy as physical. My parties take a lot of damage blows that hit armor and while not actually slicing deep, deliver some slashing damage. Irritating cut type wounds, but not debilitating. Bigger impacts (had a monster whack one of them with a club for 3d8 which landed solidly) have bigger descriptions, (I think I staggered him back) Not all wounds leave a visible mark, however.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
There's no RAW for flavoring damage.
It's whatever you want to do. No right or wrong way to do it.
There's a big difference, in my opinion, between "The {Bad Guy} hits you: 8hp slashing damage' and "The {Bad Guy} swings his longsword in a vicious arc, connecting with your side with a sickening sound. The sword bites deep into your flesh, leaving behind a wide, bloody wound as the blade continues its murderous journey. You clutch your free hand to your side, the blood seeping through your fingers, as the {Bad Guy} mocks your pain.'
The first is RAW, the second is 'homebrew'.
You do you but no way is wrong.
RAW you get to describe how HP work.
Optimus, I just want to point out that the OP option reading other says "please comment" next to it. I assume the OP is interested in hearing other people's takes on how HP works, so I don't think you really need to comment after every single post "there's no right or wrong way."
Nobody's saying you have to do it a certain way, we're just answering the question that was asked.
In my games it depends on the group and the style of game we're playing, but generally my preferred approach to hitpoints is having it as a value that pools together all aspects of someone's endurance - physical health, mental state, energy levels and sometimes even equipment (non-magical). Depending on the enemy, I might start off with the first few points of damage being light grazes or it might be pieces of their armour being worn down... or it might just be a case of the enemy breathing a bit heavier and adjusting their arm to shake of an impact.
And I think the answer that you can't do it certain ways is not correct.... You can do it however you want and the only incorrect answer is saying you have to do it a specific way.
And yes that's what they are saying.... That you can't just use wounds only....which is wrong since you can do it anyway you want.
I'm not likely to use this if I DM, but I found it interesting: one idea is to treat the combat system as non-diegetic, that is to say treat it basically like the songs in a musical. What happens during a system-defined combat isn't what's literally happening in the fight in-universe, but an exaggerated depiction meant to highlight aspects of the characters involved. So a high HP PC isn't actually being beaten in the face multiple times, it's a poetic hyperbole emphasizing how tough he or she is.
Both of the above, kind of. Generally I don't visualize hp as such. I do the moves to make combat seem interesting - describe the barbarians mighty axeblow shearing off the left thigh muscle of a baddie, how a bbeg fills a characters mind with high-pitched screams of unfathomable pain (and you take, eh, 24 psychic damage). But to me as a DM it's really just numbers and a constant evaluation of how to challenge the players just the right amount and be a round ahead of tactics etc. I personally find the beeg:s twirling mustache monologue more fun than the actual battle. And I find my pleasure in DM:ing out of setting as good conditions as possible for the players to co-create memorable stories and have truck loads of fun.
So I see hp as just a component in the collective process of having fun and generating stories, and a tool for converting math to enjoyment. If that makes sense.
Ok I love this