Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeavenShallBurn" data-source="post: 4157148" data-attributes="member: 39593">This is in regards to prior editions not 4e.  In previous editions the description of HP has said they were abstract, but the mechanics themselves have never supported it.  In fact the mechanics have generally supported the opposite interpretation.  The problem has always been with a group of people who could not admit that there was a dissonance between fluff and rules in previous editions.  The game is for those who play it either interpretation works fine in play.  The conflict is because one side argues that the rules don't match the fluff and the disconnect should be fixed while the other says the fluff is good so just ignore the implications of the mechanics without realizing nobody is raining on their parade.Now one of the few things I don't mind about 4e is the abstraction of hit points.  Because previously the abstraction was in fluff only and instigated the drama.  The new version is abstract enough that it can represent both extremes without raising issues of the mechanical disconnect.  The fluff text of the book is meaningless as the mechanics have reached a point where they can support both sides of the issue equally well.</blockquote>