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: 4103643" data-attributes="member: 2011">It's an interesting theory.It has weaknesses though.1) SWSE still has a condition track and a damage threshold to handle certain aspects of combat. It is not just hit points. They can take a more abstract view of hit points because they resolved the "I'm not impaired at 1 hit point" problem with additional mechanics. So, comparing SWSE hit points to DND hit points is not apples and apples.2) This is a description by recent game designers. It says nothing about how the game has historically been played. The concept that someone "dodges" the first 9 attacks and then gets hit with the 10th presents real descriptive and NPC decision issues for DMs.If one considers hit points a measurement of damage (not one to one, but a percentage), then the DM can have the NPCs see that an opponent has been actually hit with at least glancing blows multiple times and the NPCs have a concept that they are wearing down the PC.If one considers hit points a measurement of dodging/parrying (as per the article), then the NPCs do not know if this PC is just good at Dodging (high Dex) which he can keep up all day or just good at Dodging (high hit points) which is limited. The NPCs have no knowledge that the PC is actually wearing down (shy of DM metagaming). Ditto for PCs versus NPCs. The metagaming concept of "I hit him 5 times now, why won't he fall?" doesn't work in a hit point dodging concept of "I missed him 5 times now, why won't he fall?". Sure, one could rationalize that they are actually near hits or glancing blows every single time (no exceptions), but then if one does that, they are not following what the article states that they are also parrying and dodging as well. They are following what I wrote here in the previous paragraph (i.e. how I view hit points).</blockquote>

Verification