Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7842470" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well, no.  What you quoted previously is indeed the definition of abstraction -- the verb.  The noun is the second para of the wikipedia article you posted and totally in-line with what I was saying.  We're not engaged in (v.) abstraction because we aren't figuring out what things in surviving fights we want to abstract into hitpoints -- this is done for us already.Well, yes, I said that.  What I was addressing in your previous post was that you quoted the verb definition, which was incorrect for the discussion.This is exactly what I said it was, though.  The fun thing about an abstraction is that the abstraction stands in for the whole -- it's not differentiated into it's concrete components in any way; it's a blur of all the things that went into it.  So, when you change what goes into the abstraction, you've changed the abstraction.  In 5e, as you've helpfully posted multiple times, that abstraction covers many things -- health, mental fortitude, luck, etc.  Those are not separable into how much or how little because they've all been melded into the abstraction of hitpoints.  We can't say how much mental fortitude is in a single hitpoint, nor how much physical damage, nor how much luck.  The hitpoint abstraction is a well-blended smoothie.When you start to say that hitpoints are mostly meat, you've changed the nature of the fundamental abstraction.  You're still doing an abstraction, as you aren't specifying the specifics of the meat damage, but you're moved the abstraction from an unknown and unknowable mix of many things to a mix of primarily this one thing.  You've change the ingredients in the smoothie.  Now, you can say you still have a smoothie -- it's still an abstraction -- but it's not the same smoothie as the previous one.  You can't alter the ingredients in a smoothie and claim it's the same kind or type or whatever as a smoothie with different ingredients.  And you can't alter the inputs to an abstraction and claim it's the same abstraction.  It's not, that's not how that works.  You're fundamentally redefining hitpoints and claiming it's okay because it's still an abstraction, but that hitpoints are an abstraction isn't the important thing about them -- it's not fungible with other abstractions.  You've created a different abstraction from how hitpoints are defined in 5e.And, that's fine, you can do that, but you can't claim that because you've used physical damage in your abstraction that it's the same as how 5e defines hitpoints because 5e also uses physical damage in their abstraction.  This is like saying your banana smoothie, featuring bananas, is the same thing as a strawberry-blueberry-banana smoothie because you both have banana.This is easily not true if you look at damage types as a modifier to hitpoint cost, which is how it functions in game.  The damage keywords are utterly unimportant unless and until you have a mechanic that engages them.  Fire damage does the same kind of hitpoint damage as a slashing sword unless you are resistant or vunerable (or immune) to one or the other. At which point it's hitpoint cost changes.  Damage types do not require hitpoint to be mostly meat, at all.I disagree emphatically.  If I'm vulnerable to fire and am hit with a 10 point firebolt, I take 20 points of damage.  Is that due to me needing more luck to avoid that fire because it has to go further astray to avoid critically searing my vulnerable flesh, or do I need more mental fortitude to tamp down the fear of buring as the bolt splashes across my armor, or do I really just cook a bit more than most when it hits me?  Can't say, because hitpoints are an abstraction of all of those things in no particular quantity.  Insisting that it must be that I take more damage because I actually burn more is your assumption, not a requirement of damage types.Well, yes, it is odd that your formatting choices haven't carried the day.  I'd speak to your copy editor about the failure, but I'd maybe first address your broken shift key.Still, I was perhaps imprecise.  By traits, I meant what things have gone into the abstraction.  5e uses a broader set of things in their abstraction than you do.  I explain this above.This is having your cake and eating it, too.  And, no, you really can't.  Because hitpoints as an abstraction aren't definable into quantity.  Those specific things have been abstracted into the construct of hitpoints.  They are not longer extractable in quantity.  You aren't, for instance, okay with an all balls abstraction that says that your all balls is only soccer balls.  That's not the abstraction, that's just soccer balls.  And no amount of 'but, but, if I twist it this way' actually changes that.  Hitpoints are a multi ingredient smoothie, where the ingredients are in no defined amounts.  If you define the amounts, even to say that it's predominately one thing, then it's not the same kind of smoothie.  Again, it's fine if you do this, it just doesn't logically fall out of hitpoints for it to be that way -- it's just your preference. And that's awesome, this game is great because we can do this.  And, if you stop insisting that your interpretation is the only one possible according to RAW because of damage types (which is really a stretch) and instead present it as how you do things because it works for you, you'll find much better reception for your ideas.Personally, I don't care how you do hitpoints at your table.  Well, actually I do, I hope it's the way that makes your game totes awesome for you, because that's the only real one true way to play -- finding your awesome.  I do, however, have a problem with arguments that present your way as the way, especially when coupled with tortured arguments about what RAW must mean.Yup, it's an abstraction -- it's a blanket concept that covers, in no particular quantity, the things you've abstracted into it.No, it really doesn't.  I don't have to assume anything about hitpoints, for instance, to use hitpoints.  I can, which is cool, but I don't have to determine what hitpoints really are in my game to use them.  That's how abstractions work.  They rub people looking for more simulation the wrong way, and you appear to be that kind of person, but it's not required to nail down the abstraction to play.Like when you play Pandemic and use one of your activations to move -- did you use a moped, a car, a plane, or a boat?  Did you walk, maybe?  Doesn't matter, and I don't have to define it to play the game -- I don't have to assume anything about the mode of transportation to use the mechanic.  The same goes for hitpoints.I did -- you've brought in the assumption that hitpoints are mostly meat damage.  That's you, there's no such thing in the RAW, certainly not fundamental.Yes, it will be difficult for me to find examples of hitpoints added to classes that specifically says "these are not supernatural durability hitpoints" because 5e doesn't equate hitpoints to supernatural durability.  This means that there's no need to call out exceptions to a requirement that does not exist in the rules.  If this is an argument you feel is strong, then perhaps we should agree to disagree as I can't see any path forward in a discussion where you ask me to show you a rule that contradicts a non-existent rule you've imagined.</blockquote>

Verification