Quote from: Venka on August 13, 2023, 12:52:02 PM

Quote from: Domina on August 13, 2023, 02:02:22 AM
Nah. The light passes through, and you can see. I'll use whatever interpretation I feel like, when I feel like.

Nope, you can't.  You have to either pick a specific interpretation about how invisibility works via some in-game mechanism, or you simply have to play it as a game, use the rules, and then do that.  If you say you are doing the first- that it's light or photons or whatever- and then someone finds an exploit which you immediately rule 0, guess what?  You're doing the second.  You're just running the spell in the game in the way that works best.  Which is what you should do, according to my argument. 

But you can do either the first, or the second.  Claim to do both?  Wrong, that's the second case.  Everyone ends up there eventually, it's just how much struggling and how cunning of players before you land there.

Yes, I actually can. And I do.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 13, 2023, 04:09:57 PM
The idea of "all HP but the last few are luck/magic/intuition" works as a justification up to a point... but it takes days or weeks to replace your luck.

The problem with these criticisms is that they require asserting an interpretation not given by the rules. I could assert my own interpretation that works, and I'd be on at least equal ground. But if my interpretation also is supported by what's actually in the rulebook, that it works then strongly suggests it's actually the correct interpretation.

First, I have to correct, that the rules are clear that every hit causes some actual physical damage. "All but the last few" may be a fine way to put it if you're trying to convey the general idea. But it is not an accurate statement as to the details. And if you're going to be picking at the details, you need to get the premise correct on the details.

Second, given that at least some of the damage of every hit is actual physical, consider the plain facts that if one fighter has 10 hit points and is hit for 5 damage, that drops the fighter's hit points down from 100% to 50%. If a different fighter has 50 hit points and is hit for 5 damage, their hit points drop down from 100% to 90%. What's happening is not that you're taking "luck" damage to your abstract hit points that must later be "healed." Rather, the luck of the second fighter is resulting in a reduction of actual physical damage.

Third, the way the damage reduction works is by a skilled (or lucky) defender shifting an otherwise fatal wound to a non-vital area. This interpretation is 100% backed by an example provided in the rules. A cut deep enough that would result in death if applied to the jugular would prove superficial if an equally deep cut is taken in a non-vital area.

Fourth, there's no reason to assume the non-vital hit would necessarily heal faster. If the cut is the same size, just in a less critical location, it's the same amount of flesh that needs healing.

My assumption on hit points is that the percentage of the total represents meat points so if you've taken 50% you're getting pretty beaten up but when you've taken 90% you're in rough shape but still standing, your moves are more desperate and crude.  You could probably work up a curve or something but it's sufficient for the purpose.  In essence the increase in hit points really represents taking less damage from the hits.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 14, 2023, 01:05:11 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 13, 2023, 04:09:57 PM
The idea of "all HP but the last few are luck/magic/intuition" works as a justification up to a point... but it takes days or weeks to replace your luck.

The problem with these criticisms is that they require asserting an interpretation not given by the rules. I could assert my own interpretation that works, and I'd be on at least equal ground. But if my interpretation also is supported by what's actually in the rulebook, that it works then strongly suggests it's actually the correct interpretation.

First, I have to correct, that the rules are clear that every hit causes some actual physical damage. "All but the last few" may be a fine way to put it if you're trying to convey the general idea. But it is not an accurate statement as to the details. And if you're going to be picking at the details, you need to get the premise correct on the details.

Second, given that at least some of the damage of every hit is actual physical, consider the plain facts that if one fighter has 10 hit points and is hit for 5 damage, that drops the fighter's hit points down from 100% to 50%. If a different fighter has 50 hit points and is hit for 5 damage, their hit points drop down from 100% to 90%. What's happening is not that you're taking "luck" damage to your abstract hit points that must later be "healed." Rather, the luck of the second fighter is resulting in a reduction of actual physical damage.

Third, the way the damage reduction works is by a skilled (or lucky) defender shifting an otherwise fatal wound to a non-vital area. This interpretation is 100% backed by an example provided in the rules. A cut deep enough that would result in death if applied to the jugular would prove superficial if an equally deep cut is taken in a non-vital area.

Fourth, there's no reason to assume the non-vital hit would necessarily heal faster. If the cut is the same size, just in a less critical location, it's the same amount of flesh that needs healing.

So, yes, it works as a justification. Up to a point.

Some of your points seem to contradict one another.

- The bit you quoted from the DMG seems to support "all but the last few".
- Your second point ... I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Is 50% of the HP loss actual damage? Or 10%? Or "all but the last few"?
- Your fourth point says "it's the same amount of flesh" but it is not the same time in AD&D, the supposed "superficial" cuts take longer (not the same) to heal. I do not think it is reasonable to assume a first level fighter can heal a cut to the jugular that left him with 1 HP in a couple of days.

But I think this is all an abstraction, with no exact percentage of HP being this or that. It would be nice if we could separate wounds from luck and stamina, but AD&D very explicitly avoids that, and would make the game a bit more complex (although I do think you could potentially avoid this discussion by making ALL HP explicitly "not wounds" until you reach 0 HP, and then you need to roll to see if you're wounded, etc. - somewhat like ACKS).

EDIT: "the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment." A sword that "merely grazes" is not the same as a deep cut to a non-vital area that takes weeks to heal.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 14, 2023, 01:33:00 PM
So, yes, it works as a justification. Up to a point.

No. Not up to a point. It works period.

Some of your points seem to contradict one another.

Quote- The bit you quoted from the DMG seems to support "all but the last few".

No, absolutely not. You need to pay close attention to detail here. I said "all but the last few" is fine as broad strokes goes. Where I'm differing from your claim is specifically in that every single hit does some physical damage. That is not "all but the last few." Suppose a fighter has 50 hit points, 10 of which are actual physical hit points. If the rule is "all but the last few", then when that fighter takes 5 damage, none of it will be physical. The fighter would have to take 41 damage before any actual physical damage is done. But the rules actually state that some actual physical damage is done on every single hit. That means out of that 5 damage, at least some of it is actual physical, even if it's only a fraction of a point. And that's the difference. How you would describe that first hit for 5 damage against this fighter is going to be different if you're following "all but the last few" versus if you're following the rules as written.

Quote- Your second point ... I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Is 50% of the HP loss actual damage? Or 10%? Or "all but the last few"?

I wouldn't really call it a point, as in this step I am not making any claims as to what portion of each hit is actual physical. It's really just a way to illustrate a way that that if you focus on the percentages, it can look like "Luck" is actually working as a form of damage reduction rather than a depletable resource. And so it to speak of luck as just another ablative resource added to that hit point pool is assuming facts not in evidence.

Quote- Your fourth point says "it's the same amount of flesh" but it is not the same time in AD&D, the supposed "superficial" cuts take longer (not the same) to heal. I do not think it is reasonable to assume a first level fighter can heal a cut to the jugular that left him with 1 HP in a couple of days.

This you've just misunderstood entirely. Each fighter has taken the same 5 points of damage, representing the same size cut, and those 5 hit points take the same amount of time to heal. For fighter #2, the damage is more superficial because his superior luck/skill allowed him to take the cut on a non-vital area. Whereas fighter #1, with less luck/skill, has taken the same size cut in a more vital area, leaving him much closer to death. But it's still the same amount of flesh to heal, and so both will be fully healed in 5 days.

QuoteBut I think this is all an abstraction, with no exact percentage of HP being this or that. It would be nice if we could separate wounds from luck and stamina, but AD&D very explicitly avoids that, and would make the game a bit more complex

Yes, it does. And for a really good reason. The game is presenting a vast variety of adversaries, lacking common biology and anatomy. Hit points need to be flexible enough in their meaning for it to work with a 10th level fighter, a giant, a gelatinous cube, and a ghost. I think the alternative would be to make the game not a bit more complex but a lot more complex.

Quote from: Domina on August 14, 2023, 12:24:58 AM
Yes, I actually can. And I do.

Which is the second case.  The two cases are exclusive.  You can argue all you like, but you'll never be right, because the two cases are fully disjoint with no intersection.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 14, 2023, 07:13:06 PM
has taken the same size cut in a more vital area, leaving him much closer to death. But it's still the same amount of flesh to heal, and so both will be fully healed in 5 days.

I do not think this is a reasonable interpretation (you are close to death but you heal as quickly because healing is per "amount of flesh").

I think AD&D itself explicitly tries to bridge that game saying "well, if you have 60 HP you are healed within a month anyway". It would be even more reasonable, without adding significant complexity, to say "you recover one quarter of your HP per week" or something of the sort.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 14, 2023, 07:13:06 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 14, 2023, 01:33:00 PM
But I think this is all an abstraction, with no exact percentage of HP being this or that. It would be nice if we could separate wounds from luck and stamina, but AD&D very explicitly avoids that, and would make the game a bit more complex

Yes, it does. And for a really good reason. The game is presenting a vast variety of adversaries, lacking common biology and anatomy. Hit points need to be flexible enough in their meaning for it to work with a 10th level fighter, a giant, a gelatinous cube, and a ghost. I think the alternative would be to make the game not a bit more complex but a lot more complex.

Okay, we agree here. "Lacking common biology and anatomy" is exactly the opposite of we were discussing. But yes, the abstraction is needed to avoid making the game more complex, so we are in full agreement about the essential part.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 15, 2023, 08:23:16 AM
I do not think this is a reasonable interpretation (you are close to death but you heal as quickly because healing is per "amount of flesh").

Not reasonable by what measure? If we're talking about realism, I don't think there is a whole lot of correlation between potential deadliness of an injury and recovery time from an injury. If we're talking about the game, it's not obvious that a character with more hit points should recover faster. than one with fewer hit points after taking the goblin's best hit.

QuoteI think AD&D itself explicitly tries to bridge that game saying "well, if you have 60 HP you are healed within a month anyway". It would be even more reasonable, without adding significant complexity, to say "you recover one quarter of your HP per week" or something of the sort.

Fighter A with 10 hit points takes 5 damage from a fight with a goblin. Fighter B with 50 hit points takes 25 damage from a fight with a dragon. It's not immediately obvious that both fighters should have the same recovery time just because they're knocked down to the same percentage of their hit points. It seems perfectly reasonable to expect it to take longer to recover from the dragon battle than the goblin battle.

The problem is you're only examining one perspective on this. When you understand that there are other ways to look at it, like this one, then you start to understand a good system is going to have to juggle or balance them out somehow.

Should tougher characters have a faster recovery rate regardless of the attack? Sure.
Should more damaging attacks take longer to recover from regardless of how tough the character is? Sure.
Should the "actual physical" hit points be weighted more heavily towards the last few? Sure. I mean, if death occurs crossing the zero line, it's reasonable that the most vital hits occur near the zero line.
Should the "actual physical" hit points be distributed throughout the full total? Sure. A hit should be a hit, for a lot of different reasons.

What's unreasonable is to form your opinions on the basis of only a singular perspective. What's needed is to account for these perspectives and others to be solved almost as a system of equations.

And the 1E hit point system does that. Dragon fights take more recovery time than goblin fights. A character with a higher CON (and thus more hit points) gets the benefit of the CON bonus for each full week of bed rest and thus has a higher healing rate. The 4-week rule accelerates the healing time for those with so many hit points--whether from CON bonus or otherwise--that it would otherwise take more than 4 weeks to recover.




Here's the thing. You had trouble knowing what I was talking about when I talked about two guys taking a 5 hit point hit and having the same recovery time. You said the high level guy's recovery was slower. And the reason you misunderstood me I think is because you're locked into a single perspective on this. You're fixated on how many hit points the character has. When I lay out the goblin fight vs the dragon fight, I'm using a perspective from the damage being dealt.

That's the thing. There are a lot of different perspectives on this. And I don't think you are being reasonable, or neutral, or faithful to the rules, or even necessarily making any sense at all to fetishize just one measure.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 14, 2023, 01:33:00 PM
Okay, we agree here. "Lacking common biology and anatomy" is exactly the opposite of we were discussing. But yes, the abstraction is needed to avoid making the game more complex, so we are in full agreement about the essential part.

Well, no. Lacking common biology and anatomy is NOT the exact opposite of what we were discussing. From my first comment here, I've been blasting the average know-nothing know-it-all gamer for holding a perspective on this issue that confuses the logic of hit points for the high level character with the hit point system in general. Everything I'm saying here is railing against the abject myopic omission of considering the wide variety of creatures in the game. And I think that's been the big contributor to the majority just plain getting this wrong. Not having a different opinion. Objectively wrong about how hit points as a system works. This is my entire point here. And if you're replying to my comments, then that's what we're discussing. If you don't realize that, you're going to get everything wrong.

Okay, I realize we can discuss this point forever and not reach an agreement.

Just a couple of things:

"I don't think there is a whole lot of correlation between potential deadliness of an injury and recovery time from an injury.".

I think there is a correlation and this is why we disagree here.

"And I don't think you are being reasonable, or neutral, or faithful to the rules, or even necessarily making any sense at all to fetishize just one measure."

Well, of course; I don't think you're being reasonable either. Or neutral (you are obviously a bigger fan of AD&D than me, while I prefer simpler systems). Faithful to the rules I WILL concede that you are, I'd even say you "fetishize" RAW if we are playing this game. But I think it is mostly a matter of taste (you're an "AD&D RAW" guy, I'm more a "B/X with house-rules" guy).

"The 4-week rule accelerates the healing time for those with so many hit points--whether from CON bonus or otherwise--that it would otherwise take more than 4 weeks to recover."

Why? What is the purpose of this rule, and why would it be a problem to make a simpler "one fourth per week if you have more than 30 HP"?

In another thread I mentioned a passage from "La Morte d'Arthur" where King Arthur and Ser Plellinor fight "from dawn until dusk" until "the field is drenched by they blood."

And there began a strong battle with many great strokes, and so hewed with their swords that the cantels flew in the fields, and much blood they bled both, that all the place there as they fought was overbled with blood

Maybe high HP are just that - the capability to fight and bleed for a whole day. Of course you have to become "someone" before you can do that.

I'm tired of all the old arguments...


X-Cards.

But the old ones are the best!

Banded mail.

Quote from: Venka on August 14, 2023, 10:46:30 PM

Quote from: Domina on August 14, 2023, 12:24:58 AM
Yes, I actually can. And I do.

Which is the second case.  The two cases are exclusive.  You can argue all you like, but you'll never be right, because the two cases are fully disjoint with no intersection.

False.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 17, 2023, 08:05:06 AM
But the old ones are the best!

Banded mail.

haha!

Leather armor was never real. - Leather was too expensive to mass produce as armor.

"You can't shoot a fireball spell into a dark room." - Requires line of sight.

I can't believe you guys are re-litigating the HP debate. It's fucking DUMB.

HP is clearly an abstraction of skill in avoiding meaningful damage (which itself is odd since there is no loss of effectiveness. You're either at 100% or you're out cold). It's a weird bifurcation of the AC system which abstracts this bizarre idea armor makes you harder to hit. When in reality it absorbs damage. They acknowledge this partially in Unearthed Arcana when they made Full Plate and Field Plate absorb damage on each hit.

This doesn't address the HP issue of course.

This is why having HP/Vitality split is a better abstraction for D20 systems.