Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I am familiar with the passage, and regret that you felt it necessary to copy the whole thing out again. The thing is, that whole passage is what I described earlier as "a description of the rules, rather than the actual rules."

To put it another way, anyone can say how they think the rules work, but if the actual rules disagree with that interpretation, then that person is factually incorrect. I believe there's another passage, in more than one edition, which describes fighters as natural leaders who are capable of protecting their vulnerable teammates; but without mechanical support for that concept, it falls on its face. You can say that intelligence helps you fire a bow, but we know that's a lie, for exactly the same reason.

It doesn't matter who says that luck, a sixth sense, or magical protection accounts for any amount of HP. We know the formula for HP, and those factors simply aren't involved. We also know how luck, a sixth sense, and magical protections are actually reflected in terms of game mechanics (elsewhere in the book); and HP are not involved any way. Gygax's long-winded opinion is factually incorrect; and if that's what he was attempting for his rules to represent, then he failed spectacularly.

You are factually incorrect. The fact that you gain HP every level is where the rules are telling you it is more than meat points. The level represent combat experience and the improved ability to avoid serious damage. Simple getting older and more experienced doesn’t suddenly make my body 10x tougher.

If I hit my dad or my grandfather with a sword, it doesn’t matter that one is a combat trained veteran and one is not. Everyone understands that at a visceral level. The only plausible explanation in D&D is that your not really being hit.

also, the fact constitution is used in HP calculation and your class also tells you it is not meat points. If Strength and size were used, you might have an argument. But having a good constitution doesn’t make you more or less likely to survive a sword swing in RL, and again we all understand that at a visceral level. And Class should have nothing to do with the calculation if it was meat.

 

[MockingBird]

I like how Pillars of Eternity handled hit points and health. You have 2 levels of "health". I think the first layer is endurance and the second is actual health. Once endurance is depleted you start taking health damage until you die. Taken health damage can leave you with impacting injuries. The endurance always reset after combat without a rest and the health was only gained after taking a rest.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You can say that any hit it a physical impact in literally every edition. You can say that any hit is a phyical impact occasioning actual meaningful injury in exactly no editions (well, you can say it, but you will be talking bobbins).

If you claim that you are hit by an attack in 4E or 5E, and all of the damage from that attack is removed by taking a short nap, then one of the following things must be true: 1) You weren't actually hit; or 2) You can regenerate like Wolverine.

The rules have never been entirely consistent with "luck, stamina, and will to fight", even in 4e. But they have always been notably more consistant with that than with meat points.

In AD&D 2E, at the very least, the rules were perfectly consistent with meat points. There are no non-physical ways to increase your HP total (assuming there's at least some physical difference associated with class level), and there are no non-physical ways to inflict HP damage.

 

[GrahamWills]

If you claim that you are hit by an attack in 4E or 5E, and all of the damage from that attack is removed by taking a short nap, then one of the following things must be true: 1) You weren't actually hit; or 2) You can regenerate like Wolverine.

In AD&D 2E, at the very least, the rules were perfectly consistent with meat points. There are no non-physical ways to increase your HP total (assuming there's at least some physical difference associated with class level), and there are no non-physical ways to inflict HP damage.

So ... a commoner has d8 hit points in AD&D. 3 hit points is therefore a very reasonable number to expect to have. If a commoner with three hit points takes an arrow doing 3 hit points they drop unconscious and have about a 50-50 chance of dying if unaided.

So clearly 3 hit points of hit points that are "perfectly consistent with meat points" is a likely-fatal wound. One that would realistically take weeks or probably months to recover from, if at all. Most likely IRL you'd have a wound that would last forever.

So yes, unrealistic to assume an hour nap completely cures it. Also unrealistic to assume a day's nap does. Both AD&D and 5E are unrealistic vis-a-vis hit points.

As a slight aside, in Fate, a wound that is not quite fatal would be a severe consequence, which will stay around until the end of the scenario. Now that's a pretty variable amount of time, but it's meant to be 3-4 sessions, and so is likely to be at least several days, if not weeks, even in a pretty fast-paced game. Thinking about the Ages of Ashes PF2 game I'm playing, you'd only get to cure it at the end of each book, so you'd only get to recover from this level of damage 5 times in your entire 1-20 career. This really highlights that you cannot have a realistic damage system with just hit/stress points. You need a separate wound track also.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Because that would be a mistake. If a hit is a hit as you say, then hit points, death, dying, and recovery make no sense

It makes infinitely more sense than the alternative. The mechanics actually do model real-world processes, at least in a simplified form.

If I hit my dad or my grandfather with a sword, it doesn’t matter that one is a combat trained veteran and one is not. Everyone understands that at a visceral level. The only plausible explanation in D&D is that your not really being hit.

Put both of them in armor, and try to hit them with a sword, in an actual fight to the death. No, Hit Points don't make a ton of sense when you remove them entirely from the context they're designed for. You're presenting a strawman argument.

also, the fact constitution is used in HP calculation and your class also tells you it is not meat points. If Strength and size were used, you might have an argument. But having a good constitution doesn’t make you more or less likely to survive a sword swing in RL, and again we all understand that at a visceral level.

Now you're assuming that Constitution is distinct from physical size, and that Strength isn't distinct from physical size. That's a lot of unjustified assumptions you are presenting all at once.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So ... a commoner has d8 hit points in AD&D. 3 hit points is therefore a very reasonable number to expect to have. If a commoner with three hit points takes an arrow doing 3 hit points they drop unconscious and have about a 50-50 chance of dying if unaided.

So clearly 3 hit points of hit points that are "perfectly consistent with meat points" is a likely-fatal wound. One that would realistically take weeks or probably months to recover from, if at all. Most likely IRL you'd have a wound that would last forever.

So yes, unrealistic to assume an hour nap completely cures it. Also unrealistic to assume a day's nap does. Both AD&D and 5E are unrealistic vis-a-vis hit points.

If your interpretation is inconsistent with the rules, then you should change your interpretation until it isn't inconsistent. If it would be silly to recover from a severe wound in just a day, then the wound is not severe.

A consistent interpretation would be that the arrow impacting against the commoner's armor inflicted a wound which would heal in three days - i.e. a fairly minor wound, mostly bruising, which is only potentially-fatal because the one on the receiving end is such a chump.

There's nothing physically or logically inconsistent with a world where most commoners are like Glass Joe, and where the rare few adventurers have more in common with Mike Tyson.

As a slight aside, in Fate, a wound that is not quite fatal would be a severe consequence, which will stay around until the end of the scenario. Now that's a pretty variable amount of time, but it's meant to be 3-4 sessions, and so is likely to be at least several days, if not weeks, even in a pretty fast-paced game.

There is no world which is even remotely plausible, which operates on a "scenario" time-scale. You can't quantify physical processes in narrative terms, and attempting such a thing is an indication that you aren't taking the model seriously. If a not-quite-fatal wound is supposed to take two weeks to recover from, then it should do so regardless of any meta-game concerns.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

It makes infinitely more sense than the alternative. The mechanics actually do model real-world processes, at least in a simplified form.

maybe to you, certainly not to me and it apprears several others in this thread. Perhaps it is an issue with your viewpoint, not everyone else’s?

Put both of them in armor, and try to hit them with a sword, in an actual fight to the death. No, Hit Points don't make a ton of sense when you remove them entirely from the context they're designed for. You're presenting a strawman argument.

I’m sure not trying to. What context do you think they are designed for, perhaps that will make this discussion easier.

Now you're assuming that Constitution is distinct from physical size, and that Strength isn't distinct from physical size. That's a lot of unjustified assumptions you are presenting all at once.

I assume nothing, that was just an example. However, the fact that it could be either way is telling and hurts your argument.

Your assumption that class, level, and constitution = more meat is orders of magnitude more unjustified IMO. I don’t know how you can suggest such a thing with a straight face. Ahh - maybe you are Trolling me. Ok - you got me. Good one.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

There's nothing physically or logically inconsistent with a world where most commoners are like Glass Joe, and where the rare few adventurers have more in common with Mike Tyson.

House doues your interpreation explain how Mike Tyson can can be hit by 1 or 2 arrows at level one and 20+ arrows at level 10? Mike didn't get any bigger or tougher (his constitution didn't change, he isn't wearing more armor. How do you understand what is happening? The damage didn't change, only Mike's hit points changed. What do you think is going on?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I’m sure not trying to. What context do you think they are designed for, perhaps that will make this discussion easier.

For a starting point, everyone in combat is either wearing armor (like a fighter or thief), or is magic (like a wizard, priest, or monk). That's the reason why a single hit from a sword or arrow is not fatal. Everyone can suffer a finite, non-zero number of meaningful weapon impacts while wearing armor, before falling. Unarmored, non-magical, non-monstrous combatants are outside the context of the game design.

House doues your interpreation explain how Mike Tyson can can be hit by 1 or 2 arrows at level one and 20+ arrows at level 10? Mike didn't get any bigger or tougher (his constitution didn't change, he isn't wearing more armor. How do you understand what is happening? The damage didn't change, only Mike's hit points changed. What do you think is going on?

That's the thing. A world heavyweight champion is substantially bigger and tougher than a novice boxer. Gaining levels is the process by which a novice boxer becomes a heavyweight champion.

 

[Yardiff]

I'm with Saelorn on this to an extent. A hit that doesnt hit and still does damage makes no since to me especially when that hit also does poison damage from a creature like a wyvern, spider, scorpion, etc. This is why I've always considered a hit to be at least a minimal amount of 'meat'. It makes more since to me this way.