Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3774594" data-attributes="member: 30001">There's an important part of the interpretation here that you're not stating.&nbsp; The idea that you are agile and rested enough to not be killed by the swing of a longsword is what having lots of hitpoints represents.&nbsp; You, therefore, *aren't* as functional from this perspective when you're at few hitpoints because you can't protect yourself from those single sword swings anymore.&nbsp; Sure, you were probably talking about the absence of modifiers to hit, or spell failure, or something like that - but the point and spirit of the hitpoint rules is what I've said above and I think it contradicts the spirit of what you're suggesting.The truth or falsehood of this doesn't quite jump out at me.&nbsp; IMO:&nbsp; Cuchulainn &gt; Conan &gt; Finn MacCumhal.&nbsp; Conan = Lancelot/Tristan &gt; Aragorn.&nbsp; Chuchulainn &gt; Achilles. These comparisons are based on my hazy recollection of how these characters performed relative to the other warriors in mass combat situations.&nbsp; I actually can't think of examples besides the Tain from Irish myth that depict mass battle situations.&nbsp; So Finn probably doesn't belong on an apples-to-apples comparison.Basically when you say &quot;mythic&quot; I think of that word as covering much more than Cuchulainn, whom I find to be at an extreme scale of power for a myth.&nbsp; (One of the problems could be that the story of Cuchulainn could have been that of a god cast into the form of a mortal by Christian writers, though he's much more substantial then the other characters more readily identified as gods.&nbsp; I suppose such nuances are better left to persons not relying on English translations which may lose some details.)I'm ok with mythic as a characterization of high level DnD heroes, but that's a pretty broad range of possible meanings in terms of power level.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3774594, member: 30001"] There's an important part of the interpretation here that you're not stating. The idea that you are agile and rested enough to not be killed by the swing of a longsword is what having lots of hitpoints represents. You, therefore, *aren't* as functional from this perspective when you're at few hitpoints because you can't protect yourself from those single sword swings anymore. Sure, you were probably talking about the absence of modifiers to hit, or spell failure, or something like that - but the point and spirit of the hitpoint rules is what I've said above and I think it contradicts the spirit of what you're suggesting. The truth or falsehood of this doesn't quite jump out at me. IMO: Cuchulainn > Conan > Finn MacCumhal. Conan = Lancelot/Tristan > Aragorn. Chuchulainn > Achilles. These comparisons are based on my hazy recollection of how these characters performed relative to the other warriors in mass combat situations. I actually can't think of examples besides the Tain from Irish myth that depict mass battle situations. So Finn probably doesn't belong on an apples-to-apples comparison. Basically when you say "mythic" I think of that word as covering much more than Cuchulainn, whom I find to be at an extreme scale of power for a myth. (One of the problems could be that the story of Cuchulainn could have been that of a god cast into the form of a mortal by Christian writers, though he's much more substantial then the other characters more readily identified as gods. I suppose such nuances are better left to persons not relying on English translations which may lose some details.) I'm ok with mythic as a characterization of high level DnD heroes, but that's a pretty broad range of possible meanings in terms of power level. [/QUOTE]

Verification