"Hit Points" Discussion Flowchart

[jeffh]

Wouldn't it be funnier if it accurately described the debate? I'm not aware of anyone who thinks hit points are entirely physical unless they mean something by "physical" that is, as Ahnehnois says, itself quite abstract. No-one thinks it's literally the case that a high-level fighter can soak up physical punishment that would kill an elephant. The points of disagreement are usually about the degree and exact sites of abstraction, and over whether this has changed significantly from one edition to another.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd XP you if I could only.

You know, maybe I should start defining Hit Points as candy. No one can argue against candy. Except dentists and who cares what dentists thinks. 4 out of 5 of them can't even agree.

 

[CleverNickName]

Wouldn't it be funnier if it accurately described the debate? I'm not aware of anyone who thinks hit points are entirely physical unless they mean something by "physical" that is, as Ahnehnois says, itself quite abstract.

I intended for the the 6th box, right column, to address this point. Maybe I should have elaborated.

 

[Andor]

Wouldn't it be funnier if it accurately described the debate? I'm not aware of anyone who thinks hit points are entirely physical unless they mean something by "physical" that is, as Ahnehnois says, itself quite abstract. No-one thinks it's literally the case that a high-level fighter can soak up physical punishment that would kill an elephant. The points of disagreement are usually about the degree and exact sites of abstraction, and over whether this has changed significantly from one edition to another.

Actually I know of at least two hit point models that disagree with you. I don't intend to get into it however since there could be nothing sadder than turning a parody thread into another HP debate thread. PM me if you are curious and wish to know details.