Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Puggins" data-source="post: 4099881" data-attributes="member: 12386">Your description of someone dying more quickly meshes up with my definition of hit points extremely well.  Clearly the problem is what we define as serious injury.The problem is that your definition of serious injury is extremely nebulous.  You define it as "an injury that will cause the next injury to hurt even more," for all intents and purposes.  That is a fine abstraction for hit points, but not for a serious injury.  Is, for example, a broken nose a serious injury?  It certainly is in terms of impairing your ability to fight- no one who has suffered one will tell you that your ability to hit the guy across from you remains the same- but you choose to abstract it as merely making the next injury (or the third one down the line) more serious.  That's fine, but it's no more realistic than the way 4e does it.As long as the game was balanced that way, sure.  Note that I wouldn't be against some form of exhaustion effect or something along those lines.  I also wouldn't be against some form of long-term injury rule.  But mixing it in directly with hit points is simply not a good idea in terms of suspension of disbelief- which you've amply shown.Only in the most abstract sense.  A fighter with 2hp in 1e (they existed, unfortunately) would be on death's door when they took a 1hp wound, but they'd always heal up to their full fighting strength overnight.  A second fighter with 24hp would take FOREVER to heal back to full from 1hp, which doesn't make much sense if you think hp models real, physical injury.  The number of fallacies injected is pretty daunting.</blockquote>

Verification