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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5832940" data-attributes="member: 53980">One of points that I've been trying to make in this thread has been that both the 4e and 3e approaches leverage the meta concept for defense, unlike hp as meat. The damage divisor is effectively that meta concept in action, allowing a high level fighter to take significantly less injury from damage than he would have a few levels ago.I see the two styles (3e/4e) as just different sides of the coin. 3e uses the meta concept, but states that some physical injury must occur in order for meta elements to be affected. Of course, it contradicts itself in this respect numerous times, such as with the psionic power Inflict Pain. Pain isn't an injury; it's just a sensation that can occur from injury. Therefore, why does pain result in hp loss in 3e, if not for the meta element?The only thing that 4e changes is the idea that when taking damage, some fraction thereof must be physical. You can attack the meta hp without having to cut through the "meat" hp. And I'll freely admit, the implementation wasn't perfect. But that could be solved very easily, by placing a keyword on Vicious Mockery and the like to prevent them from reducing a target below 1 hp. This was the first time they attempted such an approach blatantly. They were bound to make a few mistakes. With another go at it, I think they could significantly improve upon the implementation, to address the concerns of most people.The magical meat approach is what I refer to when I say anime-like. As I've said, I've got no qualms with its sense of versimilitude, but it isn't the type of game I typically want to play.Okay, thanks for clearing that up. That's why I like the meta approach (or abstract approach if you prefer). Hp are whatever you want them to be, but when you reach zero you're dying. Then I can have my deft swashbuckler who almost never (from a narrative perspective) suffers injury despite losing hp, while someone else can play their revenant barbarian as having magical meat hp.And the nice part about it is, when hp are abstract, you don't need to squint as much to make it work. It's about freedom. You can describe hp any which way you want. More importantly, you have a lot more freedom to express certain mechanics. It allows you to create the following:Fear SpellWhile affected by the fear spell, every round you must either take a full movement action away from the caster of this spell, or suffer 15 ongoing psychic damage.When I played fighters and barbarians in 3e, I absolutely abhorred how my supposedly brave warrior could be routed so easily by fear effects (because their willpower saving throws typically were terrible). This allows those warriors to dig deep and stand their ground, albeit at significant risk.I fail to see what's so bad about that.As I've said, I don't see any contradiction whatsoever. He explained in one section how hp work. He explained in another section how psionics cause harm. He didn't go out of his way in the equipment section to restate how weapons interact with meta aspects either. Presumably, two essays were considered to be sufficient commentary on the matter.</blockquote>

Verification