Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7350010" data-attributes="member: 4937">And look there goes Ratskinner with the goal posts running at full speed.I never tried to claim that the hit point was realistic.  In fact, I explicitly said it was not elsewhere in the thread.  For that matter, neither did Gygax try to claim the hit point was realistic.  I was only addressing a very narrow question pertinent to the OP's questions that started the thread.  I think that the quote in question shows that the intention of the hit point system is that each hit is intended to have some physical component to it, that a certain portion of hit points represent 'meat', and that those 'meat' hit points are not deducted last after the non-physical hit points are removed but are continuously eroded by hits, and that this erosion is narratively represented by a large number of nicks, scratches and bruises, and further that Gygax on the whole was very clear about that.I in no way attempted to show that this was 'realistic' or any other crap like that, but only that this was the intended meaning of the hit point and that it was largely internally consistent.   Moreover, to the extent that it is not internally consistent, as I warned the OP, any other narrative interpretation would be less internally consistent.   For example, while you think you are being 'pedantic', in fact you are actually supporting my position with your goal post moving.   If in fact that it is narratively inconsistent for a fighter that has been covered with nicks, scratches and bruises to require 'Cure Serious Wounds' or weeks of healing to fully recover, how much more narratively inconsistent would it have been for the fighter to require 'Cure Serious Wounds' or weeks of healing to fully recover when he had no physical injuries at all?Yes, I do know that 4e in particular moved the definition of the hit point around, but I'd argue that 4e never gave much thought to narrative consistency anyway.   Likewise 5e by default also has a slightly different definition of the hit point, though I'm not convinced 5e is as narratively consistent or interested in being narratively consistent either.  Likewise, people are free to change the definition of the hit point and house rule around that change, and if it makes them happy then by all means let them do so.   My only position in the thread has been that the original definition was provided and the game's logic was subtly built around that definition, so that if you change it you'll find yourself needing to change narration in a lot of other subtle ways.</blockquote>

Verification