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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Glyfair" data-source="post: 4011137" data-attributes="member: 53">One thing to consider is that most DMs don't worry too much about carefully enforcing the abstract part of hit points always.  It's quite reasonable that the stinger attack that hits actually misses you physically but wears you down when you make your fortitude save.Real life, maybe.  However, the Joker (in several variations of his origin), managed to survive falling into a pit of acid.Look at real life.  An RAF tailgunner jumped from his flaming turret without a parachute at 18,000 feet and survived.  A Czech flight attendant was in a plane when a terrorist bomb went off at 33,330 feet and she survived the fall (partially in the plane, still in her chair) and survived although with severe injuries (the Guiness World Record for surviving a fall without a parachute).  You can find lots of stories of people falling huge distances and surviving.  None of them are "godlike beings."Are these best situations represented by hit points?  Probably not.  However, any system that accurately portrays the ability to survive these sort of situations, and yet also portrays the ability to die from the very minor things we can die from (like sitting too long and dieing from a blood clot) isn't particularly enjoyable.  I think the hit point system does a fine job.  I think where the improvement in the willing suspension of belief is in better educating the players and DMs in this concept.  Make sure they understand that every hit doesn't necessarily indicate a physical wound so that the attacks are described in such a way that they aren't all physical wounds.  4th edition isn't adding this new concept, they seem like they are just better portraying the concept that has been around since at least the AD&D days.</blockquote>

Verification