Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6103507" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think any thinking person will quickly realize that hit points are an abstraction. It might take them a bit longer to understand the necessity of that sort of abstraction, and all of its ramifications, but they'll quickly 'get' that there's more to hit points than tracking wounds. If you introduce the concept of 'Gygaxian Hit Points' they'll pretty quickly learn to accept that. This is why Gary put that paragraph in the 1e DMG and PHB. He knew the question would come up often.I think the Army would disagree. Not all sergeants may be made equal, but you don't need to be on a first-name basis with them to have them light a fire under your arse! There is quite a bit of specialized training that goes into that too, as I'm sure many posters here can attest to. The problem with the notion that there are "many ways to do it" is that any way that doesn't allow the PCs to endure and continue the adventure and doesn't work relatively efficiently like healing does, won't fill the niche that the warlord is desired to fill, which is the party support role. Thus you are still left with the necessity for any really effective party to contain a cleric or pack some form of easily renewable healing magic. THAT is the problem with your line of reasoning. Its not flawed, it just doesn't arrive at the desired conclusion.</blockquote>