Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="urLordy" data-source="post: 6147137" data-attributes="member: 6747028">RE: warlords, unity edition, and hit pointsThe hit point mechanic may suck, but in a way, its faults are genius.It is its very ambiguity that once unified at least 2 conflicting playstyles.For years, D&D hit points got away with it.The warlord was contentious exactly because it forces a closer examination and requires the gaming table to get on the same page in a way they were never asked to before.The problem is not entirely "what do/should hit points represent" but "should any aspect of the game (like a 4e warlord) compel us to examine more closely what hit points represents?" Because once we examine it, we have to decide which is what, and probably splinter D&D into subset playstyles (which, based on the intended design philosophy of a core game and optional modules, is exactly what quite a few people are expecting, I think).We will ever again see that imperfect pragmatic truce between a pro-meat-hp player and an anti-meat-hp player at the same table? Do you guys agree that metagame expressions like the warlord has already heralded the inevitable splintering of D&D into two or more denominations?</blockquote>