Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Carnivorous_Bean" data-source="post: 4101022" data-attributes="member: 57974">Yes, I will argue this point. Because if this was what the previous rules were really modeling (and yes, I agree that this was implied), then they both did a lousy job of what they were supposed to be doing, and were so illogical and, IMO, stupid, that you can't even talk about suspending disbelief. More like hanging it by the neck until dead and then leaving it for the crows.Stating that hit points indicate increased meat resistance is infinitely more unbelievable (I'm not getting into that verisimilitude stuff, it's too clumsy -- what the heck am I supposed to say, "unverisimilitudinous"? Mary Poppins lives....), than saying that they represent combat readiness and can be recovered between fights.If you accept hit points as wound points, then you have to also accept that, 1. nearly every hit causes physical damage, which is absolutely absurd, 2. that a character with 50 near-mortal wounds can function at full capacity, because previous-edition hit point damage has NO PRACTICAL EFFECT WHATSOEVER, except making it easier to kill you in the future, so it doesn't "model" injury any better than 4th edition does, it just makes Hit Points into something so dumb that you wince when you think about them, and 3. that fatigue and combat advantage/disadvantage doesn't exist. I happen to think that no edition of D&D models wounds at all, in any realistic sense. I also happen to prefer the idea that hit points represent "combat readiness," which is eroded by combat, rather than adding the complexity of calculating fatigue, opponents getting advantage, and specific defensive maneuvers which you'd have to put in if you were to replace it with a more detailed divide between "combat readiness" and "hit points." You would need two systems in place -- an active defensive mechanic which would be whittled away by fatigue and loss of morale, and a wound mechanic that would trace the precise consequences of hits that passed the defensive mechanic.That would be a lot of frustrating complexity for very little reward. I will agree that I would prefer a wounding system under 0 hit points, rather than '3 strikes and you're dead,' but them's the breaks, and it's a very minor point, IMO. I believe that having hit points represent "combat readiness" rather than "meat resistance" is more interesting, satisfying, and intuitive idea, and increases suspension of disbelief, and verisimilitude. I'd put in the Hector & Achilles thing again, but I've already typed it once and I'm getting sick of reiterating it, even though it illustrates the modeling of "hit points as combat readiness" very clearly and succinctly.</blockquote>

Verification