NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9217643" data-attributes="member: 29398">I don't think he was lying; but I do think he missed a design step that, if taken would have made the mechanics and the fiction connect much better with each other: different types of hit points for different things.Here, we call them body points (mostly representing real physical injuries) and fatigue points (mostly representing the luck-fatigue-notmeat side of hit points).Note that I very carefully (and very intentionally) say "mostly" for both of those....... because - while not to the hyperventilated degree of these boards - we did go through these discussions and arguments a long time ago, and concluded that fatigue points always had a meat aspect to them (though oftentimes this would be trivial, expressed as minor nicks and scratches) in order to both allow poison to work as intended and to allow combatants to vaguely assess the condition of their foes; and that body points much less often had a not-meat aspect to them.What the 4e designers did here, I think, was take a tricky game element (i.e. "what are hit ponbts, anyway?") that many up until then had kinda swept under the rug, and try to actively incorporate it into the design; and in so doing they (maybe unintentionally) shone a spotlight on it.Necessary move?  Opinions will vary; I personally don't see the point of having done this, but that merely squares with my view of a fair number of 4e's design decisions.Wise move?  Hindsight would suggest probably not.</blockquote>

Verification