Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Carnivorous_Bean" data-source="post: 4100029" data-attributes="member: 57974">Permit me to explain. I am trying to explain why healing surges and quick rests make sense in certain types of fight.&nbsp; I am trying to explain why hit points do not necessarily HAVE TO represent &quot;meat resistance.&quot;&nbsp; I am trying to explain why hit points CAN work the way they are shown.I am not trying to say that this the ONLY way to represent combat. Let me say it once more.I am trying to say that the Hector and Achilles fight explains how a fighter CAN lose most of his hit points without being injured.The key word is CAN.People keep saying &quot;Hit points in 4th edition are stupid, they make it so you can be hacked to pieces and get up and fiight again in 6 hours!!! How videogamey!!! How Anime!!!&quot;All I am saying is that loss of hit points does not imply that you're being hacked to pieces. It doesn't imply that you aren't, either. &nbsp; What does imply one or the other is recovery. If you take 95 points of damage out of 96, and take 6 months to heal, then yes, you've received 95 almost-mortal wounds. If you can rest 6 hours and be ready to fight, then you've been tired out, demoralized, put at a disadvantage, but you're not hurt, or at least not too much.Yes, it would be more realistic if you had two pools of hit points -- one representing fighting ability, one physical resilience. Maybe you could have crits bypass the fighting ability and cause direct damage to the physical resilience (that is, Constitution). Or make individual defensive powers that you can use as counters to attacks. ANd make armor a LOT better than it is, like it really was.At this point, though, you're going to add so much complexity to the system that nobody is going to enjoy playing it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Carnivorous_Bean, post: 4100029, member: 57974"] Permit me to explain. I am trying to explain why healing surges and quick rests make sense in certain types of fight. I am trying to explain why hit points do not necessarily HAVE TO represent "meat resistance." I am trying to explain why hit points CAN work the way they are shown. I am not trying to say that this the ONLY way to represent combat. Let me say it once more. I am trying to say that the Hector and Achilles fight explains how a fighter CAN lose most of his hit points without being injured. The key word is CAN. People keep saying "Hit points in 4th edition are stupid, they make it so you can be hacked to pieces and get up and fiight again in 6 hours!!! How videogamey!!! How Anime!!!" All I am saying is that [B]loss of hit points does not imply that you're being hacked to pieces[/B]. [B]It doesn't imply that you aren't, either. [/B] What does imply one or the other is recovery. If you take 95 points of damage out of 96, and take 6 months to heal, then yes, you've received 95 almost-mortal wounds. If you can rest 6 hours and be ready to fight, then you've been tired out, demoralized, put at a disadvantage, but you're not hurt, or at least not too much. Yes, it would be more realistic if you had two pools of hit points -- one representing fighting ability, one physical resilience. Maybe you could have crits bypass the fighting ability and cause direct damage to the physical resilience (that is, Constitution). Or make individual defensive powers that you can use as counters to attacks. ANd make armor a LOT better than it is, like it really was. At this point, though, you're going to add so much complexity to the system that nobody is going to enjoy playing it. [/QUOTE]

Verification