1. You have no right to dictate what form a rebuttal to your statements take.
2. Multiple rebuttals to your statements have already been provided and ignored by you.
3. I am not going to go back through pages of discussion and dig them up for you to ignore again.
For completeness sake I will give one example. Please refer to PHB 196.
1. i dont have the right, i know that, ill still pose what i think you should do in order to argue against my entire point instead of just peaces of it.
2. i have not ignored any rebuttal to my statements, but my rebuttals to those rebuttals can be ignored or forgotten at times, like the one bring up below
3. if you dont want put the effort of finding someone else's arguments against me, then dont claim they exist, i did say you could just argue them yourself but i expressed that i was willing to simply respond again to what has already been argued because you claim it should be enough.
One of your main arguments revolves around the existence of damage types and right here we have the PHB telling us that there aren't even rules for them. The only reason damage types exist are so resistance and vulnerability and a few other mechanics can refer to them.
Seems like a flimsy argument would be to base anything on damage types when the rules themselves say they don't have any rules.
theres a problem with the dmg telling us there are no rules for damage types, its lying. a harsh statement i know however if the dmg is being touted here as if its undisputed and infallible words of the truth then thats the only interpretation that can be made, we know damage types have rules, you say as much yourself, you can not both say that damage types have no rules then site rules that involve damage types, those resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities were just as much a part of my argument as the damage types themselves BECAUSE my point was about how both of them reflect a narrative behind how damage works in the game. if you want to tell me that my claim about how damage types are important in determining the best interpretation of damage as a whole mechanic, then your going to have to argue that with context to the rest of my point, not just isolate it from my thesis like it was never connected to anything.
@Arch-Fiend
Hit points are abstract. Thus they reflect the mechanics of damage by being a measure of a characters durability (how tough they are to defeat/kill). They also are an expression of endurance expended by a character avoiding a lethal attack. And finally, they can also be whatever you need them to be in any given damage instance.
However, what hitpoints are not, they are not
always meat. They are not
always anything.
yeah i dont disagree that hitpoints are abstract, but being abstract means that what they can be is anything you want them to be, what they do have to be though is some element that involves constitution, which i still agree can reflect many different narratives as to what hitpoints are in relation to what losing them represents. ive also never argued against the idea that hitpoints can be whatever the gm wants them to be, ive only ever argued that if the GAME wants to say that they ONLY mean one thing then thats where ive made my argument and i think thats where my argument actually matters, outside that i have absolutely no idea why you keep arguing with me like i mean more than ive said.
Have you forgotten more about D&D than I will ever know?
