Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 240849" data-attributes="member: 537">Everyone brings up this stupid example.One trivial inconsistency in the model does not result in an invalid model. Last I checked, PCs did not purposely jump off cliffs in adventure after adventure; if anything, falls from great heights tend to cause deaths more often than not, because you take a _lot_ of damage. The fact that a 15th level fighter at full health with high Con could survive 20d6 is neither here nor there, because not every character is 15th level, nor do they have high Con, and they certainly won't be at full health all the time. If you really wanted to "fix" this (and I'm not sure why it's such a big deal), have falls and other such hazards deal Con damage. Hey presto, problem solved.I reiterate, as far as combat skill and presenting a particular atmosphere goes, there's nothing wrong with hit points.Strangely enough, I have no problems relating to a world where heroes have lots of hit points.You can think anything you like."Hideously incompetent" would be a better term. Not that there's anything wrong with that, in a swashbuckling movie -- or campaign.Which is perfectly adequately represented in current D&D terms. Just replace "stormtroopers" with "orcs" or any other faceless generic mook.Why bother?</blockquote>