Quote from: Sacrosanct;674578No, we're discussing the claim that HP loss and recovery is always tied to a physical condition. You were the one who tried to pull quotes...

Look. If you're too illiterate to follow the conversation, I don't have time for you.

Here's a quick cheat sheet for you:

My first post in the thread. Notice the complete absence of quotes.

Mistwell's direct response to that post. Notice that he's demanding an analysis of what Gygax wrote in the 1E core rulebooks.

My response to him. Notice that we are still specifically discussing what Gygax wrote in the 1E core rulebooks.

Once you understand what we're actually talking about, feel free to come back and participate in the discussion.

When you're back, we can pick up with this question: Do you have a quote from the AD&D core rulebooks stating that these other sources of hit point loss don't include a physical wound?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;674578if all hit point loss was due to wounds or injury, that seems like a redundant statement.  However, it was explicitly called out as only healing hit points lost due to wounds or injury, implying (or reinforcing) that not all hit point loss is due to wounds or injury.

Are you... trolling? I mean, you must know that English doesn't work like that, right?

Let's take a moment to analyze this. Your claim is that heal doesn't heal hit point damage taken from an imaginary category of damage which you don't think has any physical manifestation because it uses the phrase "wounds or injury".

So we back up one spell level of healing spells. We look at cure critical wounds and see the phrase "wounds or other damage", we could conclude that it must restore all hit point loss including your imaginary category.

So we back up another spell level to cure serious wounds and we see the phrase "wound or other injury damage". Okay, so this spell doesn't heal your imaginary category.

So a 3rd level healing spell won't heal damage in your imaginary category, but the 4th level healing spell will. But then at 5th level the healing spell goes back to not healing damage in your imaginary category despite the fact that of all these spells it's the only one which specifically counters purely mental effects (such as feeblemind and write).

None of that makes a lick of sense, of course, and your torturous interpretation of the phrase in question is obviously wrong.

QuoteFinger of Death is an example.

Not actually true, BTW.

Here's a thought.

Why does anyone care?

It seems like such a non-issue. Then again, I guess we're geeks, right? Arguing about pointless and trivial things is a way of life for us.

Quote from: The_Rooster;674724Here's a thought.

Why does anyone care?

Because if HP isn't 100% physical wounds, people might somewhere have to realize that maybe their objection to other rules isn't based on anything other than a subjective personal feeling rather than an objective truth.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;674723Look. If you're too illiterate to follow the conversation, I don't have time for you.

This friends, is irony.  You can be an asshole.  You can be an idiot.  But for the love of God Justin, why do you always have to be both?

QuoteHere's a quick cheat sheet for you:

My first post in the thread. Notice the complete absence of quotes.

Mistwell's direct response to that post. Notice that he's demanding an analysis of what Gygax wrote in the 1E core rulebooks.

My response to him. Notice that we are still specifically discussing what Gygax wrote in the 1E core rulebooks.

Once you understand what we're actually talking about, feel free to come back and participate in the discussion.

Read your own quote dude.  You are backing up the argument that loss of hit points is always due to physical harm.  No matter how many people or how many examples are shown to you where it's not the case, you insist on that argument, and now have doubled down to calling people names rather than address the argument made.

QuoteWhen you're back, we can pick up with this question: Do you have a quote from the AD&D core rulebooks stating that these other sources of hit point loss don't include a physical wound?

The description of some of the things that reduce hit points!  I am assuming that the authors of D&D through the ages didn't think that the readers were so fucking stupid that they'd read something like "You transfer life energy from you and give it to an ally" as a physical wound that they would feel the need to say "Nope, not a physical wound here.  We're talking about life force.  Just so you know."

QuoteAre you... trolling? I mean, you must know that English doesn't work like that, right?

Let's take a moment to analyze this. Your claim is that heal doesn't heal hit point damage taken from an imaginary category of damage which you don't think has any physical manifestation because it uses the phrase "wounds or injury".

More irony because you apparently have zero reading comprehension.  I'm saying that heal doesn't heal hit point loss from things that aren't physical wounds because it says so right in the spell description.  That fact that Gary specifically called that out means that there is hit point loss in the game that can come from things other than physical wounds.  This is proven by the examples that I have already provided.

QuoteNone of that makes a lick of sense, of course, and your torturous interpretation of the phrase in question is obviously wrong.

It doesn't make sense to your pea brain because you can't accept that your claim and argument you made in your reply to Mistwell is flat out wrong.  You can't bear to admit you were full of shit.  Because everyone else with a 1st grade reading level knows that when a spell says, "all hit point loss from only physical wounds", it means that there are other types of hit point loss.  It's not an imaginary category.  Not only by that description, but by the examples already given to you over and over again that show how hit points can be lost without any physical wounds.

QuoteNot actually true, BTW.

Yeah, it is.  You said pre-4e.  Or are you going to deny that one now too?  There are other variations of finger of death besides 1e's version that are still not 4e's version.  And on a failed save, you still take damage.

Just one more example of you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

I have a strong feeling that I'm going to have to add you to my short list in my sig.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;674728Because if HP isn't 100% physical wounds, people might somewhere have to realize that maybe their objection to other rules isn't based on anything other than a subjective personal feeling rather than an objective truth.

Just wanted to clarify a bit so people don't misunderstand:

A subjective personal FEEL is a perfectly good reason for you to personally dislike a game mechanic.

(Seriously, I still hate d100 rolls and I have no real reason why, I just hate them)

Quote from: The_Rooster;674724Here's a thought.

Why does anyone care?

It seems like such a non-issue. Then again, I guess we're geeks, right? Arguing about pointless and trivial things is a way of life for us.

An interesting question.

Why does anyone care?

I think it depends on the individuals comfort zone with logic and consistancy.

Many people intuitively and or actively spot logic flaws.

Some are able to ignore it, others it annoys the @^%$ out of them.




For me, I notice, but it does not usually make my head explode.

Quote from: Bill;674900Some are able to ignore it, others it annoys the @^%$ out of them.

Or others who think it's a feature and not a flaw to ignore or be annoyed by.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;674752A subjective personal FEEL is a perfectly good reason for you to personally dislike a game mechanic.

It doesn't make that rule 'poor design,' however.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;674728Because if HP isn't 100% physical wounds, people might somewhere have to realize that maybe their objection to other rules isn't based on anything other than a subjective personal feeling rather than an objective truth.

DING DING DING

It messes up a common premise, that OD&D doesn't have story game elements.  It also calls certain lengthy blog posts and arguments into question.

It messes with the world view.

But if you wanted to do that, 'levels' and particularly 'GP = XP' are a better hammer for that nail.

The 'hit points are plot immunity' post was the best of the thread, and unsurprisingly it was summarily ignored.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;674739This friends, is irony.  You can be an asshole.  You can be an idiot.  But for the love of God Justin, why do you always have to be both?

Just to be fair, he is posting not as just some dude with an opinion, but as "Justin Alexander who links to my own blog as an authoritative source".  So while you can say, "that's a good point, I didn't see it that way", dude really can't.   Not without damaging his 'brand'.  Not without cutting into the integrity of some tenant he wrote in 2008, etc.  So yeah, it's fun to call him on it, but it's also WAY too easy, so that it feels cheap.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;674916It doesn't make that rule 'poor design,' however.

That is actually my point entirely.

I hate d100 rolls. Doesn't mean I think BRP is a terribly designed system, its just not the one for me.

Quote from: The_Rooster;674906Or others who think it's a feature and not a flaw to ignore or be annoyed by.

True. Different people will see features and flaws very differently.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;674728Because if HP isn't 100% physical wounds, people might somewhere have to realize that maybe their objection to other rules isn't based on anything other than a subjective personal feeling rather than an objective truth.

Quote from: mcbobbo;674919DING DING DING

It messes up a common premise, that OD&D doesn't have story game elements.  It also calls certain lengthy blog posts and arguments into question.

Um, what?

Quote from: talysman;674935Um, what?

Honest to God, it's a meta-current that you're probably better off not diving off into.  'Innocence lost' and all that.

Assuming such a person who believed this hypothetically existed, it works roughly like so:

A) Story gaming is not roleplaying
B) Game elements that your character doesn't perceive in the same manner as you do are story gaming. (Not associated = story game / Associated = roleplaying game.)
[Relatively sound so far...]
C) D&D is obviously a roleplaying game.  And it makes a decent standard to judge other games by.
[Again, not too big of a deal]
D) Because D&D is never a story game, none of the elements in it can be story game elements.
E) Hit points are, therefore,  not plot related and always represent physical damage.
[And now we're in the ditch...]

Quote from: mcbobbo;674921Just to be fair, he is posting not as just some dude with an opinion, but as "Justin Alexander who links to my own blog as an authoritative source".  So while you can say, "that's a good point, I didn't see it that way", dude really can't.   Not without damaging his 'brand'.  Not without cutting into the integrity of some tenant . . .

[pedantic douchebag] Tenet. [/pedantic douchebag]

Quote from: mcbobbo;674921. . . he wrote in 2008, etc.  So yeah, it's fun to call him on it, but it's also WAY too easy, so that it feels cheap.

Too true.