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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4044004" data-attributes="member: 2011">I'm not sure we are communicating.Hit points are an abstraction. I do not disagree with that.But, a powerful attack is a powerful attack as per my previous example. The fact that hit points are an abstraction does not in any way diminish the fact that an attack that does 100 points of damage is more powerful than an attack that does 50 points of damage.The problem with the new death and dying rules is that the PC at 0 hit points can take a LOT more damage from additional sources such as fire auras (based on what we know so far) whereas the PC at -50 can hardly take another scratch.But, the PC at -50 has the same chance of survival as the 0 hit point PC with these rules.That is where your abstraction POV becomes over the top and an extremeist POV for me. That's carrying the idea of hit point abstraction too far. IMO. It's supporting the new rules, just to support the new rules, regardless of whether those rules really make sense.I too believe that hit points are abstractions, but in my model, they are abstractions that actually mean something real. They represent something. A combination of luck, intuition, actual damage, etc. But, the PC at 0 hit points still has luck remaining. The PC at -50 has very little luck remaining. A single fire aura will kill him, it will not kill the PC at 0 hit points.One does not ignore what hit points represent, a scale of current health / luck / intuition, just because WotC put up a new death and dying rule that allows the PC basically on the verge of death to survive and the one barely unconscious to die.It's difficult to explain such an extremeist view of abstraction to some people. At least it would be difficult for me to explain it to some of my players when I find it a lacking position in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification