Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 6469540" data-attributes="member: 82779">I entirely agree with you about the futility of attempting to convince others to adopt a different view of Hit Points, and I think you have a good idea for a more productive angle to this thread.For me, I like variety.  When I DM, I like being able to describe a blow that does damage as either a full-on hit (though I usually only do that with bludgeoning weapons), as a nick/partial hit, or as being avoided/deflected/parried at the last moment.  I also like being able to describe a miss as a hit that does no damage, especially as the opening blow in a fistfight (nothing says you could be screwed like punching someone and noticing that they barely feel it).I also like being able to describe the HP loss for things that I consider obviously fatal, like falling in lava, as avoiding those things.  Instead of falling into lava and surviving it because it was "just a quick dip" in the lava, the character uses up a great deal of her good fortune (and possibly strains a muscle or two) in avoiding the deadly lava.For me, HPs are a very poor way to model specific injury because there is no impact other than HP loss: an arrow in the calf is just one die of damage, but you can still walk, run, swim, jump, and climb without any problems.  Because of that view, I see HPs as largely being a meter to determine if a character can keep fighting, and that's probably part of why I have no problem with them refreshing each day.  If I want to impose a specific and lasting injury on a PC, I will; PCs in my games tend to sprain ankles or break bones when they fall too far.</blockquote>

Verification