Search results

No more ridiculous than assuming that a missed attack roll will still do any damage at all. In this case, it means that minions have a variable number of hit points. (odds to hit)% of the time, they have 1hp, but (odds to miss)% of the time, they have infinite hit points. An example: Fighter...

Drama or fate points are an excellent co-mechanic with D&D hit points. I will definitely be using a similar mechanic. Drop me a line sometime, I would like to further discuss your views on this.

In the strictest sense, yes. In the context of hit point discussions, there are seeming degrees of it. With 4e, the hit points have to be more or less totally divorced from physical damage - 'totally abstract' - in order for the Warlord yelling at someone have a 'healing' effect. In order to...

You are welcome Again, allow me to apologize, I realize it sounds like I am saying you are claiming such authourity, when it is clear you are not. Your page is very obviously your method of using the rules; in that regard, citing it as some kind of final word on a particular mechanic is...

True, but in the war of escalating hyperbole, each side must reach back a version farther. Quite correct, in the early days, physical damage was very much a component of hit points. As you note, sometimes the only component. I believe Chainmail wasn't exactly designed for long term play, so...

Yeah, you have some good stuff there. I will be quite larcenous when it comes to ideas for my own games. Keep up the good work, so I have more to steal. :) That said, I find it fairly ridiculous to point to your web page* as some kind of final authourity on the inner workings of Messers...

Here, let me highlight the parts you glossed over: There has been a physical component to hit points since day one.

Ah, yes. The lost blogs of Gary Gygax. That proves that hit points have been totally abstract since Chainmail. The only handwaving going on is the constant attempts to ret-con the definition of 'hit points'.

Agreed. :) I was thinking along these lines with a 3e revision Wiki that I have been neglecting for a bit. Go back to four classes, and bring the 'sub-classes' back. Except, they would be more 'specialization paths' for the main classes, with some fairly amorphous skills that aren't...

Heretic. :) Otherwise, I think your analysis is spot on.

Ok, so I am not hallucinating about the bit where it falls completely apart without the sarrukh? Whew. Thanks for the confirm. After all the talk about this Pun-pun, I thought I had missed something critical when I was reading it.

I think I see what you are getting at, but again, Pun-pun doesn't demonstrate that multi-classing is the problem. The only (core) class Pun-pun has is... Wizard. I don't necessarily disagree that some multi-classing choices are problematic, but see my reply above to JohnSnow. I mean, right...

I don't often agree with Mr. Snow, but I had to say: Thank God for you. I have been ranting about this for quite a while now when the subject of multi-classing comes up. Every time someone says how badly Class X and Class Y combine, I was almost at the point of tearing out my hair. And I...

That shows nothing whatsoever about multiclassing. The entire exercise is predicated solely on one monster. Pun-pun isn't the result of a horribly broken multi-class system, just one poorly thought out ability of an incredibly rare monster that only really exists in one campaign setting. I...

Seriously, it is quite clear you are terrified of someone using your work without your permission (even though you would never be materially harmed or even notice it), I kind of guess I can understand that. I mean, the GNU type Open Source License came about in an environment where about 80%+...

Hey, I didn't know he was doing some of the art. I haven't been keeping up on the previews clearly. Either way, he signed my GWB, so I'm good. :)

The hell? No one read Dynamo Joe? ;)

And with this latest assurance that the contents of the DMG Will Explain Everything(tm), I think the final tally will be something like 15,000 pages.

That is because it was misspelled. They meant 'teh'. :)

That is why I said 'more properly', rather than 'only can be called'. ;) For myself, I use a guideline of 'how long has it been in common usage?'. I will grant, this is ridiculously fuzzy, and applies in no way to anyone else's parameters. I don't either, honestly. But, as has been noted...