Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5884499" data-attributes="member: 59506">I understand what you're saying.&nbsp; HP's being at the levels they are, or climbing to the levels they do, does seem to be a problem to some.&nbsp; It's not a problem to me, because I don't see Hit Points as purely physical, I see them as an abstract quantification of luck, stamina, ability to avoid or turn damage, fatigue, and yes, a bit of phyisical damage.&nbsp; I'm fine with other people thinking differently.&nbsp; But I don't think Hit Point levels are the core of the problem.&nbsp; I think that, mechanically, fixing the problem with realism (like falling) by reducing Hit Points is a mechanically poor way to do it.&nbsp; I'd much rather want the damage expression of a fall to be changed.&nbsp; Like what Elf Witch was saying.&nbsp; Higher Hip Point loss for falls (more than just 1d10 per 10 foot), and a save vs. death after a certain height (for me, anything above 20&quot;).&nbsp;As for Archers, I'd fix it by not allowing Dex or Defense bonuses to be part of avoiding an arrow, only armor and shields.&nbsp; In real life, nobody has the ability to &quot;dodge&quot; arrows in real combat.&nbsp; People do put on exhibitions of this, but it's from a specific distance, and constistently practiced at that distance, with the same bow, same arrows, same everything, so that it's just a matter of timing.&nbsp; In real combat, those are variables one can only guess at, and though someone might occasionally get lucky and dodge or bat away an arrow, they are still going to be hit more times than they succeed.&nbsp;I don't feel though that the amount of damage an archery hit inflicts needs to be increased.&nbsp; People live through arrow wounds all the time.&nbsp; But it should be more realistic in &quot;defending&quot; against them.&nbsp;&nbsp;While I don't want to cease increasing Hit Points as one levels, I can see that those that do would still have an use for levels.&nbsp; They are still a representation of &quot;aquired experience&quot; and would still determing when one learns new Feats, Skills, or Abilities.&nbsp; Even in the real world, we continue to grow and learn new things.&nbsp;&nbsp;True.&nbsp; But I'd also point out that all levels had titles which had very little to do with actual experience level or abilities...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;&nbsp;It's ability to support different play styles can be inclusive of other play styles (by supporting them), or exclusive of other play styles (by not supporting them or supporting one exclusively).&nbsp;As to the rest, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.&nbsp;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 5884499, member: 59506"] I understand what you're saying. HP's being at the levels they are, or climbing to the levels they do, does seem to be a problem to some. It's not a problem to me, because I don't see Hit Points as purely physical, I see them as an abstract quantification of luck, stamina, ability to avoid or turn damage, fatigue, and yes, a bit of phyisical damage. I'm fine with other people thinking differently. But I don't think Hit Point levels are the core of the problem. I think that, mechanically, fixing the problem with realism (like falling) by reducing Hit Points is a mechanically poor way to do it. I'd much rather want the damage expression of a fall to be changed. Like what Elf Witch was saying. Higher Hip Point loss for falls (more than just 1d10 per 10 foot), and a save vs. death after a certain height (for me, anything above 20"). As for Archers, I'd fix it by not allowing Dex or Defense bonuses to be part of avoiding an arrow, only armor and shields. In real life, nobody has the ability to "dodge" arrows in real combat. People do put on exhibitions of this, but it's from a specific distance, and constistently practiced at that distance, with the same bow, same arrows, same everything, so that it's just a matter of timing. In real combat, those are variables one can only guess at, and though someone might occasionally get lucky and dodge or bat away an arrow, they are still going to be hit more times than they succeed. I don't feel though that the amount of damage an archery hit inflicts needs to be increased. People live through arrow wounds all the time. But it should be more realistic in "defending" against them. While I don't want to cease increasing Hit Points as one levels, I can see that those that do would still have an use for levels. They are still a representation of "aquired experience" and would still determing when one learns new Feats, Skills, or Abilities. Even in the real world, we continue to grow and learn new things. True. But I'd also point out that all levels had titles which had very little to do with actual experience level or abilities...;) It's ability to support different play styles can be inclusive of other play styles (by supporting them), or exclusive of other play styles (by not supporting them or supporting one exclusively). As to the rest, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :cool: [/QUOTE]

Verification