Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4469878" data-attributes="member: 30001">Actually, it's not all that funny so I'll assume you're being sarcastic.&nbsp; You don't leave me much of a choice other than to respond simply to what I think is going on here which is that you say you understand 1e hitpoints simply because you stopped thinking about them 15 years ago.&nbsp; And now that the mechanics have changed it requires you to develop a new set of strategies and rationalizations.&nbsp; But not knowing what you don't know is not the same thing as understanding.&nbsp; (The Holmes Box that I started with was colored - it was the booklet that was monochrome blue.&nbsp; Maybe that's our difference.)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apropos to what exactly?&nbsp; I didn't really &quot;understand&quot; 4e hitpoints when I first started - but when I thought about the vague rationalizations (&quot;why doesn't my guy get to hit penalties for being wounded&quot;) that I used in the 1E days, I found that 4E hitpoints wasn't much different in philosophy, just in the specifics.&nbsp; I started out not liking healing surges but I've come to develop a strategy where they fit as well as anything ever did, simulation wise, and actually make for a much better game experience mechanics wise on top of it.&nbsp;&nbsp;I saw you say something like this before.&nbsp; This is vaguely ad hominem in that it's really talking about people's judgement and stuff outside the scope of the hitpoints conversation.&nbsp; I have no reason to not admit anything.&nbsp; I'm not a 4E fanboy.&nbsp; It makes sense to me, and I was being honest and if you want to presume to know my mindset then I'm sure you can convince yourself that you &quot;understand&quot; that as readily as anything else.&nbsp; I'm inclined to think that such &quot;understanding&quot; is not of much value though.&nbsp; &nbsp;Understand this:&nbsp; I never played DnD expecting a fine correlation between hitpoints of &quot;damage&quot; and actually injury on the character. There were so many places in all editions where the results and rules were inconsistent with regards to physical injury that I pretty soon gave up (in fact, gave up so long ago I don't remember).&nbsp; And I don't care - combat simulation was never why I played the game anyway.&nbsp; Heck, I can't understand how anyone who played through the 1-minute combat rounds of 1E would expect anything else.&nbsp; In any case, it's entirely possible that 5E would have an even better hitpoint mechanic that 4E but that's almost irrelevant to what I'm saying.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4469878, member: 30001"] Actually, it's not all that funny so I'll assume you're being sarcastic. You don't leave me much of a choice other than to respond simply to what I think is going on here which is that you say you understand 1e hitpoints simply because you stopped thinking about them 15 years ago. And now that the mechanics have changed it requires you to develop a new set of strategies and rationalizations. But not knowing what you don't know is not the same thing as understanding. (The Holmes Box that I started with was colored - it was the booklet that was monochrome blue. Maybe that's our difference.) Apropos to what exactly? I didn't really "understand" 4e hitpoints when I first started - but when I thought about the vague rationalizations ("why doesn't my guy get to hit penalties for being wounded") that I used in the 1E days, I found that 4E hitpoints wasn't much different in philosophy, just in the specifics. I started out not liking healing surges but I've come to develop a strategy where they fit as well as anything ever did, simulation wise, and actually make for a much better game experience mechanics wise on top of it. I saw you say something like this before. This is vaguely ad hominem in that it's really talking about people's judgement and stuff outside the scope of the hitpoints conversation. I have no reason to not admit anything. I'm not a 4E fanboy. It makes sense to me, and I was being honest and if you want to presume to know my mindset then I'm sure you can convince yourself that you "understand" that as readily as anything else. I'm inclined to think that such "understanding" is not of much value though. Understand this: I never played DnD expecting a fine correlation between hitpoints of "damage" and actually injury on the character. There were so many places in all editions where the results and rules were inconsistent with regards to physical injury that I pretty soon gave up (in fact, gave up so long ago I don't remember). And I don't care - combat simulation was never why I played the game anyway. Heck, I can't understand how anyone who played through the 1-minute combat rounds of 1E would expect anything else. In any case, it's entirely possible that 5E would have an even better hitpoint mechanic that 4E but that's almost irrelevant to what I'm saying. [/QUOTE]

Verification