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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5598721" data-attributes="member: 6668292">At least I'm not alone <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Nobody said that. However, people are using hit points in unconventional ways. Or talking about using them as such. More to come on this.Damage reduction isn't unconventional. 15 hit points for a dragon of such power is. That's the unconventional use of hit points I was referring to, especially if you're talking about 3.X edition rules (which you've indicated you prefer to 4e minions, in this very post I'm replying to).When you say something like this:... I feel you're talking in terms of 3.X. Within that rule set, you're not going to have a dragon that has 15 hit points when it's as old and as powerful as Smaug without using hit points in an unconventional way. And I'm all for unconventional uses when it comes to game play or mechanics. However, talking about house-ruled critical hit tables or 15 hit point dragons within the context of 3.X or Pathfinder seems very unconventional when we're talking about a powerful, old dragon.I prefer hit points. Like I said. I even use two different forms of hit points <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />You can definitely simulate a certain type of minion with hit points, but again, I hold that it's an unconventional use of them within certain contexts. If you're talking about having a 15 hit point dragon in a 3.X game, it's unconventional.Additionally, like I pointed out, critical hit charts and slaying arrows that can potentially bypass the hit point mechanic do not help the assertion that hit points are simulating what they're supposed to correctly. If it's necessary to have a slaying weapon or a critical hit chart explain away a creature dying, then it's not based on hit points any more. To that end, hit points aren't simulating the effect anymore.Also, keep in mind that my post was not solely in response to you. Certain other statements in the thread seem to be doing some mental gymnastics in my mind.In a quote like this, there is the assertion that Smaug is being hit and injured mechanically, even though he is described as the following: "As with most dragons, Smaug's scaly hide is nigh invulnerable, yet his softer underside is more vulnerable to attack. However, centuries spent sleeping atop his gold hoard has caused gold and gemstones to become embedded in his flesh, creating essentially an impenetrable armour." Bard, who defeated Smaug, is also described firing his bow at Smaug prior to the black arrow, in addition to all the other archers that Bard is rallying, and their arrows seemingly have no effect:It's apparent that the arrows are not damaging Smaug in the least. They are not whittling him down in any way, since he's taking the time to dive through an "arrow-storm" with no mention of injuries (in fact, "no arrow hindered Smaug or hurt him more than a fly from the marshes").Thus, when people begin to talk about other mechanics dealing with someone like Smaug (slaying arrow, critical hit chart), it seems like they're trying to bypass the hit point mechanic in an attempt to show that the hit point mechanic simulates something, which is kind of baffling to me.As I quoted earlier, you said, "Further, you can perfectly simulate the death of Smaug by simply assuming he only has 15 hit points." You also upped his hit points later, but not by much: "You could say he has 30 hit points and DR 10/magic." While it's true that a very small pool of hit points can simulate his death, it doesn't mean that it's conventional. In fact, especially since you're mentioning Pathfinder, it's pretty unconventional (based on how hit die and Constitution works in relation to hit points).Again, if you're assigning a D&D 3.X edition critter 1 hit point, but it's not a 1/4 hit die critter with a 10 Constitution, then it's an unconventional usage of hit points within that system.I'm not advocating minion rules. I am actually very opposed to minion rules. I'm not advocating changing away from hit points. I very much like hit points. However, when people are talking about using hit points in ways they aren't normally used in systems, adding homebrew critical hit charts and/or slaying arrows or magic weapons to bypass hit points, then it feels like mental gymnastics to me to say that it's still the hit point system that's simulating what you want.Yes, hit points can simulate many things. Yes, they're flexible. No, I don't think they're enough by themselves in many cases.I'm against the idea of minions just in general, so we're not quite aligned here. However, I'd rather see a 3.X solution, too, as it's farther from a minion rule when compared to 4e (since 4e specifically has minion rules).Yep, you can certainly do that (in fact, I did that in my game). I think that's a great way to go.I just see a lot of justification in this thread for hit points as an exceptional simulation tool, when in reality, it's merely good. Only my opinion, of course. I'm not speaking for anyone else, or claiming they're wrong.As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification