Ahnehnois
First Post
Can't argue with facts, I guess.The fact is, I'm right.
Clearly, the break DC of a door and the amount of XP a 5th level wizard gets for killing a 5th level living spell are equally "metagame".
Can't argue with facts, I guess.The fact is, I'm right.
First, the fact that he says "by and large" is clearly indicating that his previous statement is not meant to be understood as an expressly literal definition; "by and large" means that there's a degree of flexibility.
What's more striking is that he's saying "as far as characters...are concerned." This is clearly him saying that hit points are a dissociated mechanic, as creatures don't have any conception of it (because, as he talks about more clearly later, the issue of damage scaling is too great for him to inore).
The first part of the emboldened areas shows that he is clearly saying that some degree of physical damage is being taken; he's simply saying it's scaled down to being "a mere nick or scratch."
Notice the emboldened part here; it clearly indicates that damage is being sustained, just not in proportion to the hit points marked off - damage scaling again.
Here Gary out-and-out says that increased hit points reflect the ability to withstand greater damage. He also talks about the "sixth sense," but doesn't say specifically what it relates to beyond increased hit points, which I believe talks about the issue of damage scaling (hence why he'd mentioned it so many times previously, and does again later).
There's no need to change what you emboldened here, since it out and out says it still grazes the fighter - physical damage again.
Simply put, I find there to be no support at all for hit points being anything other than physical wounds, at least in any edition of the game prior to 4E.
I can see why people would think the text was saying that hit point loss isn't a physical wound, but I don't believe that's what the text is saying or is attempting to say.
I fully sympathize. I find it rather unsatisfying to debate in-game causation with Step-On-Uppers -- because ultimately, the in-game fluff is irrelevant. They've already chosen the metagame mechanic. Any half-assed fluff explanation will suffice exactly because the fluff is not even close to the raison d'être...Are we really splitting hairs to justify this rubbish? 3 squares or 15 feet take your pick thats how far my fighter pushes you over and over and over til you run away or die. You can't see it coming, you can't stop it. Yet stabbing twice in the same round is unrepeatable needs special openings etc etc. its bologna pure and simple.
We then add fluff around it to make it fit, not the other way around.
Of course. Some hit point loss does involve wounds. And one way to lose hit points is by physically being wounded. Clear as day. Equally clear that "hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage" - they aren't strictly speaking wounds. What they are is a measure of ability to keep fighting. Which isn't just physical damage, although that is the most obvious way to inflict it.
They are dissassociated. You are trying to associate them by making them wounds. Thank you.
And nicks, scratches, and bruises are the most common way of lowering hit points. Wounds do hit point damage. This does not mean that hit point damage is wounds.
"In most cases" - in some cases none is sustained and some everything.
You aren't showing what you think you are. Damage scaling makes hit points being straight wounds laughable.
It's tiredness, fatigue, luck running out, bruising. Wounding someone does hit point damage.
This doesn't mean hit points are wounds. Starve someone and you lower there hit points.
Simply put, the ability to withstand physical wounds is explicitely called out below. As are a lot of other things. If you want to say wounds are one component of hit points, fine. But if you are saying that hit points are wounds and only wounds then I suggest you re-read the sentence and the bolded part.
Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection.
I believe it both is and that it's explicit on the subject. Wounds are one way through to exhausting someone's ability to keep going. They aren't the only one.
Can't argue with facts, I guess.
Clearly, the break DC of a door and the amount of XP a 5th level wizard gets for killing a 5th level living spell are equally "metagame".
He wrote "equally metagame", not "all metagame". That is, he's clearly using "metagame" as a quality or degree, not a binary (it IS metagame OR it isn't) meaning. You can't use the word "equally" otherwise ("that Nissan and that Toyota are equally automobile")Yes, they are. "Break DC", "XP" "5th Level" and "Spell" are all metagame constructs.equally "metagame".
Tide of IronSpeaking of a pile of horse crap are we really back on the opening fallacy again? So my fighter needs an opening to stab you twice with rain of blows after that you can see it coming and I can't do it. Yet I can stab you and knock you back 15 feet leaving you prone via tide of iron over and over again. You can't ever see it coming? It just doesn't add up sorry.
What power are you actually talking about?
From the 4e side of the edition warriors, yes. But let's not pretend it's a one sided argument, K?FWIW, even though you'll take some flak from the edition warriors, you're 100% right.
From the "I don't have a horse in the edition war race" and the "substantive discussion of mechanics is not an edition war" and "let's not insult newbie posters in a futile attempt to defend our game of choice" side of things, I think it's important to show support when someone tries to make and appropriate and reasonable contribution to the discussion and gets insulted.From the 4e side of the edition warriors, yes. But let's not pretend it's a one sided argument, K?