NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5868843" data-attributes="member: 22779">I would point out that the default assumption is 4 (ish) encounters per adventuring day.  That's how 3e is balanced.  If you only have one encounter per day, then, by definition, you are having a 15 MAD.  That's what a 15 MAD IS.  Sure you could spend 7 hours poncing about doing other stuff, but, when the dice hit the table, the adventuring day is now 15 minutes long.Considering how much verbiage has gone on against adding spell point systems to D&D, I would disagree with this.  From Gygax, onwards, spell point systems are not something most people consider to be something for D&D.------------Eldritch Lord - I think the mistake you make here is that there can be only one interpretation for something and that interpretation must always be true for it to be consistent.  That's not really true.  Saying that HP are sometimes morale and sometimes meat is perfectly consistent so long as the times when you treat it as one or the other is consistent.There never has been a consistent fluff to hit points and that's what, I think, makes a lot of people pull out their hair in these discussions.  HP=Meat doesn't work because then you have, as you say, superhumans walking around.  Somehow killing goblins means that I'm now tougher, actually physically tougher, than an elephant.  True, it is consistent, but, not terribly believable.And there are all sorts of other issues.  Which isn't to say that there isn't issues with making HP more abstract.  Again, I get that.  But, one of those issues isn't consistency.  It is consistent.  When you get scared by something nasty and lose hp, HP=morale, when you fall into a well and Lassie has to go get Timmy, HP=meat.  When you wander through the desert and suffer from exposure, HP=toughness.  What would be inconsistent would be to try to say that HP= one and only one thing all the time and we should simply mold the in game reality around that mechanic./edit for another thoughtThe danger, though, of providing a single, coherent explanation is twofold.  First, you are dictating the game to the players.  The players and the fiction in the game, MUST follow this explanation, no matter what.  The second problem comes when the provided explanation is lacking.  Sure, it might cover this or that, but, it doesn't cover these other things.  So, you wind up right back with the problem of endless errata.  Additionally, any subsequent mechanics also must follow this single, coherent explanation, meaning that the design space is necessarily smaller because all new mechanics must not stray from the original explanation.  I'd much rather give DM's and players the benefit of the doubt that they can, as a group, come up with plausible explanations, if they need to.</blockquote>

Verification