Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arch-Fiend" data-source="post: 7843441" data-attributes="member: 7016641">so we've gotten to nearly unreadable levels of responding to each otheralso im going to think hard about if i actually respond again, because its effecting my life to take 2-3 hours a post writing a response.didint capitalize my last onei think ill be ok if we dont have to talk about the definition of an abstraction again and can just get down to whether a blind and deaf skeleton feels sad when stabbed by a longsword.wait i just looked it up skeletons arnt resistant to piercing anymore? what kind of savages made 5e? well just humor me and imagine skeletons are resistant to piercing.i think will to live has more to do with commenting on internet forums than hitpoints[HR][/HR]in my response to tony i point out that its possible that you could argue that regardless of what the logical subordinate concept that the loss of health should be applied to due to the context of how the damage occurs; that damage can be argued to still be applied to all the subordinate concepts, not simply because they are all part of the abstract hitpoints but simply because part of the damage is your reaction to it and "luck" just rides on top of it anyway.if this is the case, then it can be argued that all forms of damage apply to the subordinate concepts of hitpoints evenly because "reasons". and i cant argue against that, i dont even want to argue against that. heres the thing, i started this whole thing to argue against an interpretation that said "hitpoints are this" and that interpretation was concrete implying hitpoints are always that. if hitpoints are always everything, because everything is connected, IE any damage which would only rationally be initiated by physical durability loss would always also cause all the other ingredients to also deplete equally to physical durability. then that already argues against the point i was arguing with. but it also means that you cant interpret damage as anything but that, unless you can, if you can say that whenever you want damage means a loss of one ingredient of hitpoints without effecting other ingredients of hitpoints but also when i have you dead to rights that physical durability has to go down and still have "everything goes down with it" then congrats you have an inconsistent game.this isnt fun anymore, its not useful to anyone, sure it might be informative on how far this argument can go, or might teach everyone what an abstract is. but this is honestly bottom the the barrel  i think at this point my idea for having hitpoints as all meat, or just as much as i want until its not justified and then just having hitpoints work via the other ideas of what hitpoints mean situationally is validated. because while it might be true that you can argue that if a character takes damage that has to apply to their physical durability it can still apply to all others equally, you cant argue that in those cases it has to apply, and then we go to the matter of consistency, is it meant to be consistent or not? if not then that dissonant but i guess no one cares so why should i care?sorry if im preempting any responses that might be made to what i wrote earlier to tony, but you can at least see where im coming from with this mess. weve worked this out to the point where im happy but tired. i dont really think anyone's going to say anything enlightening after this point, id love to be surprised though, so i will keep checking if the conversation continues and covers any meaningful ground, but i dont expect it to. someone might agree with what i said, but theres ultimately a hole and everything below that horizontal cant be undone</blockquote>

Verification