Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fifth Element" data-source="post: 5934058" data-attributes="member: 48135">There's a world of difference between &quot;hit points are abstract&quot; and &quot;hit points are abstract, and the game designers have always done a good job of reflecting that in a consistent way.&quot;The 1E DMG has a long passage about the abstract nature of hit points, and then only Con bonus affects it. That is incongruous.However, in terms of &quot;making sense&quot;, hit points must be abstract, otherwise mid- to high-level characters can withstand many sword blows to their naked body that would literally cut an armoured commoner in half. They survive falls that would turn a commoner into paste.So the problematic part is not the &quot;hit points are abstract&quot; but the &quot;Con bonus to hit points.&quot;Now, since part of hit points is certainly physical stamina, then it makes some sense to have Con affect it. I'd suggest that the 4E/5E method of having it affect the score only once, instead of every level, makes more sense. Probably.You've got this backwards. If you realize that the combat system is abstract, then each individual part of said system do not have to make sense on its own. So someone who is comfortable with the abstract nature of HP is likely also comfortable with the abstract nature of attack rolls and AC.Who said the attack rolls doesn't matter? That's not a logical conclusion at all, that's a strawman. Even with a very abstract system, you need to have *something* to resolve it.I agree. There's no reason not to do it. Shifting Dex from AC to hit points would be fine in an abstract system such as this. Not necessary, mind you, because again abstract, but it would be justifiable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fifth Element, post: 5934058, member: 48135"] There's a world of difference between "hit points are abstract" and "hit points are abstract, and the game designers have always done a good job of reflecting that in a consistent way." The 1E DMG has a long passage about the abstract nature of hit points, and then only Con bonus affects it. That is incongruous. However, in terms of "making sense", hit points must be abstract, otherwise mid- to high-level characters can withstand many sword blows to their naked body that would literally cut an armoured commoner in half. They survive falls that would turn a commoner into paste. So the problematic part is not the "hit points are abstract" but the "Con bonus to hit points." Now, since [B]part[/B] of hit points is certainly physical stamina, then it makes some sense to have Con affect it. I'd suggest that the 4E/5E method of having it affect the score only once, instead of every level, makes more sense. Probably. You've got this backwards. If you realize that the combat system is abstract, then each individual part of said system do not have to make sense on its own. So someone who is comfortable with the abstract nature of HP is likely also comfortable with the abstract nature of attack rolls and AC. Who said the attack rolls doesn't matter? That's not a logical conclusion at all, that's a strawman. Even with a very abstract system, you need to have *something* to resolve it. I agree. There's no reason not to do it. Shifting Dex from AC to hit points would be fine in an abstract system such as this. Not necessary, mind you, because again [I]abstract[/I], but it would be justifiable. [/QUOTE]

Verification