Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7842599" data-attributes="member: 6795602">1.&nbsp; 5e hp is defined as a mix of various things.&nbsp; Removing all but 1 ingredient from that mixture creates a new mixture that is not the same mixture as the other mixture.&nbsp; I tried to say this when I started talking about abstract hp but did a poor job of adequately and correctly explaining my thoughts.2.&nbsp; Damage types have no mechanical impact unless a mechanic like vulnerability is invoked.&nbsp; The importance of that point has always been that damage types do nothing on their own.&nbsp; Instead it's the vulnerability mechanic that causes a monster to take additional hp damage and not the damage type mechanic at all.&nbsp; As such your claim shouldn't have been about the existence of damage types, but instead the existence of vulnerabilities.&nbsp; All that's happening with your argument is that you are assuming that the vulnerability condition's only explanation is due to meat, but when put in the context of vulnerability, it's trivial to see that all the vulnerability mechanic does is make you lose additional hp when a criteria is met and since hp is defined as a mixture of more than meat in the rules then there's no implication based on the vulnerability meachanic that the damage being inflicted needs to be meat damage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7842599, member: 6795602"] 1. 5e hp is defined as a mix of various things. Removing all but 1 ingredient from that mixture creates a new mixture that is not the same mixture as the other mixture. I tried to say this when I started talking about abstract hp but did a poor job of adequately and correctly explaining my thoughts. 2. Damage types have no mechanical impact unless a mechanic like vulnerability is invoked. The importance of that point has always been that damage types do nothing on their own. Instead it's the vulnerability mechanic that causes a monster to take additional hp damage and not the damage type mechanic at all. As such your claim shouldn't have been about the existence of damage types, but instead the existence of vulnerabilities. All that's happening with your argument is that you are assuming that the vulnerability condition's only explanation is due to meat, but when put in the context of vulnerability, it's trivial to see that all the vulnerability mechanic does is make you lose additional hp when a criteria is met and since hp is defined as a mixture of more than meat in the rules then there's no implication based on the vulnerability meachanic that the damage being inflicted needs to be meat damage. [/QUOTE]

Verification