Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6476386" data-attributes="member: 22779">Hang on.  Who says it has to be one or the other all the time?  Why can't it be both or either as needed?I think that's what I find hard to follow in this.  Even 4e didn't necessitate an absolute answer in either direction.In AD&D, HP was defined as being mostly mojo, but, in play, it didn't really matter because virtually all healing was done by magic and, frankly, about the only way to deal damage was with stuff that physically hurt you.  Ability damage was fairly rare and almost always permanent and most often the result of magic.  Poisons didn't reduce your abilities, they typically outright killed you.  3e changed that.  3e uses Ability scores as a measure of health with all sorts of effects ignoring HP and dealing damage to ability scores.  IOW, you effectively had two pools of health - HP and Ability scores.  4e went back to the AD&D model where almost all effects dealt HP damage.  Where 4e changed things was they greatly expanded what could deal HP damage.  So poison, which in AD&D would have flat out killed you, or in 3e would have dealt ability damage, now straight up deals HP damage.  Rider effects were either very temporary, or dealt with using the disease track mechanics.But, in none of the editions, are you forced to use a single strand of narration.</blockquote>