What are some of the biggest uproars/flamewars over rules interpretations or loopholes in published games that you've seen over the years? We're talking about Rules As Written, not houseruling or homebrew. It can be for either online communities or your own gaming table.
One of the funniest was the whole cavalier vs. fighter debate that raged in The Dragon forum for quite a while. A flamewar at the speed of a monthly print magazine is fun to go back and re-read. :)
This multi-thousand post beast in rec.games.frp.dnd from the early 2000s that involved whether or not casting Invisibility on a door would allow you to see through it.
People kept trolling that thing (and by people I mean different handles used by werebat) and keeping it going and going and going. Hilarious.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;616645This multi-thousand post beast in rec.games.frp.dnd from the early 2000s that involved whether or not casting Invisibility on a door would allow you to see through it.
People kept trolling that thing (and by people I mean different handles used by werebat) and keeping it going and going and going. Hilarious.
Was there a centralized argument for/against?
Discussions involving Alignment and the Paladin's Code of Conduct are some of the most infamous and timeless of rules arguments on the 'net.
Also, Fighter vs. Wizard threads. No matter the message board, they just never seem to go away.
Quote from: Libertad;616709Also, Fighter vs. Wizard threads. No matter the message board, they just never seem to go away.
I'd disagree with the last part. I know at least one D&D message board that rarely has Fighter vs. Wizard arguments.
Several arguments around abstraction levels are perennial favorites: Are hit points a measure of damage? Are one-minute rounds too long? Should attributes be tied to real-world measurements? The hit point argument in particular has a recurring variant "9th level Fighter jumping off a cliff". The one-minute round argument sometimes surfaces in the form of "should a thief with a dagger get more attacks per round than a fighter with a greatsword?"
Does anyone have issue references for these great Dragon wars of old?
Quote from: thedungeondelver;616645This multi-thousand post beast in rec.games.frp.dnd from the early 2000s that involved whether or not casting Invisibility on a door would allow you to see through it.
Uhu? I missed that, but I guess that you CAN see through an invisible door. What are supposed to see instead: a rerun of the original Star Wars Trilogy?
IIRC in many fables things are made invisible so that people can see through them - often with dire results. It is one of the two classics uses of the spell.
Quote from: Zachary The First;616652Was there a centralized argument for/against?
I can't recall; I think common sense kicked in fairly quickly but one of the biggest douchebags who used to post there (he was so much of one I'm amazed he's not a mod at rpg.net these days) wouldn't let the "nay" side go, and a couple of trolls stepped in to periodically throw dry kindling and dump gas so it kept going like the energizer bunny.
Alignment arguments would be right up there. Not only Paladin code but also any discussion involving Druids and 'true neutral'.
Throwing in real world physics is a sure fire winner too.
Quote from: Piestrio;616733Does anyone have issue references for these great Dragon wars of old?
The whole "Forum" department during almost the whole (print) run of Dragon Magazine?
I remember many year-long, ongoing discussions about diverse things -- alignment, invisibility, female characters in D&D, (sexist artwork in D&D) etc. When one of them lost steam another one came up.
Alignment wars, and their variations. The "what is Compassionate/Temperate/Valorous?" is particularly bad, because the game specifically says there's not a right answer, and I've still seen circles argue over it for thirty-plus minutes. Least it actually means something, unlike the druid neutrality bull.
Stupidest one, bar none,
Scrabble. Yeah, that board game. Can you use proper nouns? Folk have written death threats over this. Why the hell would you care?
As a less conventional rule matter, the Mind's Eye Theatre licensing fee/pay-to-play thing from 2005 was ridiculous.
Quote from: Piestrio;616733Does anyone have issue references for these great Dragon wars of old?
At least judging from (un)reason's Let's Read (http://forum.rpg.net/printthread.php?t=386864&pp=200&page=1) of early Dragon magazine issues, the answer's going to be "most of them", given that they ran into unending pedantry over converting Tolkien's elves to D&D by issue 5.
Quote from: Reckall;616856Uhu? I missed that, but I guess that you CAN see through an invisible door. What are supposed to see instead: a rerun of the original Star Wars Trilogy?
I could see Invincibility through illusions, technology, or similar trickery-based stuff conceivably result in seeing
what the caster or technique expects is in the next room, but it's certainly not be my first interpretation of the rules in a D&D-derived universe.
I still don't know exactly how the burst rules are supposed to work in RIFTS, but I know if I ask the wrong person about it I'm going to get in a fight.
Rules discussions can be pretty antagonistic. One that I've seen that can get pretty bad is probably over what...exactly...wish is supposed to be capable of. I see a lot of DMs (bad ones) that make what a wish can do very, very, very limited, but if the wish is phrased badly, it can remake all of reality to screw the players.
I've seen lots of disagreement over how stealth should work and/or sneak attack. Particularly from people that seem to think that it would be 'fair' if they completely ignore the 'non-rogue' attacker and focus all their attention on the rogue, so that he can't get sneak attack... Of course, if they're completely ignoring the other opponent, it seems like he'd have little trouble completely decapitating you since you ignore him completely.
Discussions of how intelligent 'mindless' creatures can be also gets ugly - usually comes up when the DM is being a dick. Mindless creatures solve complex problems to give the PCs 'trouble' when such things should probably be beyond them.
Quote from: Zachary The First;616641What are some of the biggest uproars/flamewars over rules interpretations or loopholes in published games that you've seen over the years? We're talking about Rules As Written, not houseruling or homebrew. It can be for either online communities or your own gaming table.
Not RAW, but the TML is full of awesome flamewars over things like Space Pirates (can they exist economically with realism), Near-C Rocks (ultimate weapons or just a great name for a rock band), and Female Aslan in Comfortable Shoes (with a 3 to 1 female to male ratio in Aslan society, does this mean that bisexuality/lesbianism is rampant in Aslan society?).
I'd have to say alignment arguments and 1e AD&D initiative arguments.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;617176I'd have to say alignment arguments and 1e AD&D initiative arguments.
I also remember the arguments over THAC0. Those got pretty heated during the 2e era and faired up again briefly after 3e came out.
This is Piestro's 666th post.
Skeletor is now an unholy icon of Evil.
All the really bad rules arguments I've seen were all in wargames, not RPG's.
(Usually GW's games.)
For RPG's, the worst seem to be debates about "balance", what constitutes Munchkinism, and "why-your-favorite-game-sucks-and-nobody-should-like-it".
I'd cite specific threads, but over the years all of them seem to blur together to me.
Quote from: Fiasco;616861Throwing in real world physics is a sure fire winner too.
What would be examples of this?
Over the years in the middle of numerous rpg games, I was asked various questions related to real world physics or statistics. (The DM and/or other players incorrectly thought that somebody with an engineering background would know something more).
In most cases, I didn't have a good answer for many of these types of questions. Many such questions don't have any simple scenarios which were clear cut with well defined equations.
Do Dwarven women have beards?
Less a game mechanics argument and more of a setting one.
Quote from: ggroy;617267What would be examples of this?
Over the years in the middle of numerous rpg games, I was asked various questions related to real world physics or statistics. (The DM and/or other players incorrectly thought that somebody with an engineering background would know something more).
In most cases, I didn't have a good answer for many of these types of questions. Many such questions don't have any simple scenarios which were clear cut with well defined equations.
An example is arguing about how many people can fit in a 5 foot square. You know, like if you have a mini sized map that shows the 'steppong stones' in a river of lava.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;617355An example is arguing about how many people can fit in a 5 foot square. You know, like if you have a mini sized map that shows the 'steppong stones' in a river of lava.
A river of lava turns to ashes everything within the visible horizon.
Lava is molten rock. Imagine the heat it gives off. Just to give an example, trees within
hundreds of yards spontaneously combust. Just look on Yt for a documentary about it.
Yet, the image of the half-naked evil priestess with two gargoyles pouring lava from their mouths (pro tip: if lava is melted rock the gargoyles melt too) still remains a trope. In my games nothing without special resistances survives near a river of lava.
I would nominate how the "sneak" skill (in various systems and editions) is regularly interpreted by players as a kind of invisibility power.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Reckall;617393A river of lava turns to ashes everything within the visible horizon.
Lava is molten rock. Imagine the heat it gives off. Just to give an example, trees within hundreds of yards spontaneously combust. Just look on Yt for a documentary about it.
Yet, the image of the half-naked evil priestess with two gargoyles pouring lava from their mouths (pro tip: if lava is melted rock the gargoyles melt too) still remains a trope. In my games nothing without special resistances survives near a river of lava.
Yeah, its funny how many rule systems will count falling into lava as instant death while simultaneouly imposing no ill effects for standing right next to it. :D
Two fantastic "debates" came out of the 4e release, each spawning multi-thousand post threads on the Wizard's community site.
1: Choose two at-wills,
While each new character gets to choose two at-will powers by default, Warlock are(where) assigned their at-wills by other choices during the character process. They got Eldritch Blast and one other depending on their pact (fey, infernal, star). Some however felt that since they did not technically 'choose' to have these at-wills by RAW Warlock got all 4.
2: Range of Commander's strike,
Warlords could use the Commander's Strike at-will to substitute their attack with that of an ally. The range on the power was 'Melee Weapon' and the internal logic could be likened to the Warlord using his or her action to force the enemy to provoke an opportunity attack thereby granting the allies attack (this is how I normally rationalized it). Others concluded that the 'Melee Weapon' in question referred to the weapon used in the attack, meaning the Warlord could command that attack at any range. Thanks to the inconsistent way the rest of the power was worded there could be different interpretations.
People got so entrenched that even the designers and customer service indicating that the Warlord needed to be threatening the target was not enough to dislodge them
Quote from: Reckall;617393A river of lava turns to ashes everything within the visible horizon.
Lava is molten rock. Imagine the heat it gives off. Just to give an example, trees within hundreds of yards spontaneously combust. Just look on Yt for a documentary about it.
Yet, the image of the half-naked evil priestess with two gargoyles pouring lava from their mouths (pro tip: if lava is melted rock the gargoyles melt too) still remains a trope. In my games nothing without special resistances survives near a river of lava.
And yet (http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-42-21781661.jpg?size=67&uid=4e00a22d-a2b5-408e-a561-aafc4a40ca16)...
Here's some info on getting near lava. (http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-close-can-i-get-lava-and-will-it-hurt-or-kill-me)
Quote from: CRKrueger;618155Here's some info on getting near lava. (http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-close-can-i-get-lava-and-will-it-hurt-or-kill-me)
Pretty much, I recall reading about some Scottish tribes who managed to melt rock for their fortifications. A nifty trick, if somewhat useless as it just made the stone brittle and prone to shattering.
Quote from: RPGPundit;617736I would nominate how the "sneak" skill (in various systems and editions) is regularly interpreted by players as a kind of invisibility power.
RPGPundit
I ran an RC game for some guys and half had played before and half had only played some 3E and a lot of video games. Every time they walked into a room, the younger guys would say, "I Hide in Shadows." As if that would magically enshroud them in darkness and make them unseen.
After about two dozen times of me asking, "Who are you hiding from?" they either got the picture or got tired of me asking.
Quote from: Kaz;618178I ran an RC game for some guys and half had played before and half had only played some 3E and a lot of video games. Every time they walked into a room, the younger guys would say, "I Hide in Shadows." As if that would magically enshroud them in darkness and make them unseen.
a lot of old school players actually interpret "hide in shadows"
exactly like that. and at least one who actually played with gary, as i recall.
Quote from: The Traveller;618142And yet (http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-42-21781661.jpg?size=67&uid=4e00a22d-a2b5-408e-a561-aafc4a40ca16)...
Or indeed - (http://geotripperimages.com/images/Dsc00107%20Garry%20and%20lava%20flow.jpg)
Quote from: ICFTI;618180a lot of old school players actually interpret "hide in shadows" exactly like that. and at least one who actually played with gary, as i recall.
Climb walls as well... the number of guys who ignore the actual description of the skill and instead make the thief spiderman...
anyone can climb walls but a thief can climb sheer walls... in total contravention of the actual description of the skill.
Or maybe:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZkgGCickg#/watch?v=sGZkgGCickg
Quote from: jibbajibba;618182Climb walls as well... the number of guys who ignore the actual description of the skill and instead make the thief spiderman...anyone can climb walls but a thief can climb sheer walls... in total contravention of the actual description of the skill.
actually, that's totally in line with the description of the skill in several sources. frex, in the 2e phb:
QuoteAlthough everyone can climb rocky cliffs and steep slopes, the thief is far superior to others in this ability. Not only does he have a better climbing percentage than other characters, he can also climb most surfaces without tools, ropes, or devices. Only the thief can climb smooth and very smooth surfaces without climbing gear. Of course, the thief is very limited in his actions while climbing--he is unable to fight or effectively defend himself.
;)
Quote from: Reckall;618186Or maybe:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZkgGCickg#/watch?v=sGZkgGCickg
Yeah it just depends what type it is, one type of flow the superheated air would incinerate your lungs before you got to it, another you can stand right next to, another the poison gas would kill you, etc...
Quote from: ggroyQuote from: Fiasco;616861Throwing in real world physics is a sure fire winner too.
What would be examples of this?
I remember one in particular, actually had to do with my "flying brick" character is a game of SAS. He had a max speed of Mach 1. The GM decreed that was sufficient for me to go out into outer space, under my own power.
I and the physics student looked at each other, and said, "Uh, you know that's not true, right? The Space Shuttle does like Mach 16 or some such, and it only gets into low orbit. It has to do with acceleration off a circular curve..."
To which he replied, "We're playing a game where tank rounds bounce off your ass. You can fly into space, because I said so."
..."Okay, boss."
Quote from: Novastar;618198I remember one in particular, actually had to do with my "flying brick" character is a game of SAS. He had a max speed of Mach 1. The GM decreed that was sufficient for me to go out into outer space, under my own power.
I and the physics student looked at each other, and said, "Uh, you know that's not true, right? The Space Shuttle does like Mach 16 or some such, and it only gets into low orbit. It has to do with acceleration off a circular curve..."
Um, reaching space is not the same as achieving orbit. Neither are the ballistics of a limited fuel rocket comparable to a constant no-fuel-used type of flight. For example a helium balloon can reach the edge of space and it only travels at a fraction of Mach 1.
Providing the hero can generate enough flying 'force' to counteract Earth's gravitational acceleration (and keep it switched on), then they can reach space. So I'm afraid the GM was right, in more ways than one! ;)
Quote from: thedungeondelver on January 10, 2013, 09:27:35 AM
This multi-thousand post beast in rec.games.frp.dnd from the early 2000s that involved whether or not casting Invisibility on a door would allow you to see through it.
People kept trolling that thing (and by people I mean different handles used by werebat) and keeping it going and going and going. Hilarious.
Is there an archive of this somewhere?
Quote from: allison-kaas on April 14, 2022, 10:15:22 PM
Quote from: thedungeondelver on January 10, 2013, 09:27:35 AM
This multi-thousand post beast in rec.games.frp.dnd from the early 2000s that involved whether or not casting Invisibility on a door would allow you to see through it.
People kept trolling that thing (and by people I mean different handles used by werebat) and keeping it going and going and going. Hilarious.
Is there an archive of this somewhere?
Here are some threads. I searched on "invisible door".
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.frp.dnd/c/7QYF7v2NUlc/m/N00xLFLzBHUJ
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.frp.dnd/c/Stwu1e0H5J8/m/OVc-MbniWyUJ
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.frp.dnd/c/Stwu1e0H5J8/m/OVc-MbniWyUJ
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.frp.dnd/c/5cJzeY8t0AQ/m/hC_BfwCW80cJ
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.frp.dnd/c/FbHggkr9fso/m/V27t8vN_VwkJ
Yeah, most people have no concept of orbit involving massive amounts of velocity. A related annoyance is people who think things burn up in the upper atmosphere because it's very hot. No it's because of the friction because you're going very fast. With their anti-gravity and reactionless thrusters, Traveller ships will almost never generate heat on reentry. Also, a free trader can get into space and achieve orbit. It's 1 g acceleration AND the ability to switch gravity on and off.
There was this one supers game where a character teleported a submarine into space to use as a space station. Not a bad idea since it can handle many times one atmosphere of pressure. But it fell straight down again...
Climb sheer surfaces and hide in shadows are much better than realistic hiding and climbing but not superhumanly so. But yeah, if a character has good cover or hand holds these things are not what the thief's skills are for. Unless you're specifically playing XXVc. in which case they're just skills and everyone gets skills not just thieves.
Hitpoints and what they represent and the weapon verses armour table are a couple good arguments.
Dagger to the throat
Quote from: allison-kaas on April 14, 2022, 10:15:22 PM
Quote from: thedungeondelver on January 10, 2013, 09:27:35 AM
This multi-thousand post beast in rec.games.frp.dnd from the early 2000s that involved whether or not casting Invisibility on a door would allow you to see through it.
People kept trolling that thing (and by people I mean different handles used by werebat) and keeping it going and going and going. Hilarious.
Is there an archive of this somewhere?
Damn, came back nearly a decade later to ask about this one? I guess the original thread itself must now be almost 20 years old!
Heh. Kind of funny but I actually agree with the troller. An invisibility spell being an illusion should work more like a blind spot rather than turning yourself transparent. So casting invisibility on a door would just make it appear to be a regular part of the wall rather than seeing through it into the corridor beyond. Now, if the spell was alteration magic...
The original cavalier vs fighter argument spawned from an article in Dragon #118, "Surely You Joust!", in which the author made some very... um, interesting assertions as to what would give bonuses and penalties in a joust.
It culminated in a positively mind boggling scenario where a female high elf 6th level cavalier defeats a male human 8th level fighter, unhorsing him and then (without any details, of course) slaying him when he refuses to yield.
What.
The crowning glory, in my opinion, was this:
"Females Although female fighters are considered to be at a disadvantage in most melee situations, jousting is one form of combat where a case can be made for a slight female advantage. Female knights gain a +1 to save vs. unhorsing due to their low center of gravity. A womans center of gravity is located in her hips, while a mans is higher up in his abdomen. As women have a smaller percentage of total body weight located above the waist compared to men, female knights are less likely to be knocked off-balance by a lance blow to the upper body."
Uh huh. Let's not take into account that the male combatant can weigh anywhere from 50 to 100 percent MORE than the female combatant. Suuuuuuure.
Anything to do with sex/gender differences in stat/ability values.
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 14, 2013, 02:34:25 AM
I would nominate how the "sneak" skill (in various systems and editions) is regularly interpreted by players as a kind of invisibility power.
RPGPundit
Agreed. Off-line, anyway, I have seen more arguments started over this than anything. As a Dungeon Master, I have always ruled that Thin Air nor Broad Daylight is going to afford you anything to hide behind from anyone but I regularly receive player arguments about Stealth/Hide/Sneak rules...
Male/female modifiers for ability scores are a perennial dumpster fire. Not really about interpretation though.
I also remember some discussions about the "Seduction" skill of some games, and what exactly it does. As in, was Hitler seductive? As opposed to, say, the seductiveness of Salma Hayek in From Dusk Till Dawn. But they're clearly not doing the same thing :D
I bet it also got into "raep" territory but I didn't take part in it for long enough.
The huge debate about invisibility on doors likely made the 5e condition that the spell only is cast on a creature via touch. I think 2e and 3e did it like 100 lbs. per caster level of any object.
Quote from: zend0g on April 15, 2022, 12:16:55 PM
Heh. Kind of funny but I actually agree with the troller. An invisibility spell being an illusion should work more like a blind spot rather than turning yourself transparent. So casting invisibility on a door would just make it appear to be a regular part of the wall rather than seeing through it into the corridor beyond. Now, if the spell was alteration magic...
Of course not. The spell is Invisibility, not Invisibility plus Minor Illusion. You're adding capabilities to the spell that don't exist in the rules.
Quote from: Domina on August 11, 2023, 11:56:45 PM
Quote from: zend0g on April 15, 2022, 12:16:55 PM
Heh. Kind of funny but I actually agree with the troller. An invisibility spell being an illusion should work more like a blind spot rather than turning yourself transparent. So casting invisibility on a door would just make it appear to be a regular part of the wall rather than seeing through it into the corridor beyond. Now, if the spell was alteration magic...
Of course not. The spell is Invisibility, not Invisibility plus Minor Illusion. You're adding capabilities to the spell that don't exist in the rules.
+1
Quote from: talysman on January 10, 2013, 02:25:17 PM
Several arguments around abstraction levels are perennial favorites: Are hit points a measure of damage?
That's weird as the rules state exactly what it is. Glad I was too busy back then for that.
This is a pretty wild thread, because most of it happened like ten years ago and then we have these pickups, like the April comment with an August +1.
Reading through this, only a few of these are actual rules debates, some of them are just "this is what I want it to be", whether the rules support it or not. For instance, are hit points abstract? Very obviously so, according to a variety of period documents. The contrary points show that there are several spots in the rules where hit points are treated as meat points. To this day, many games will assure you that a successful hit roll is abstract and may not represent an actual physical blow being struck, but then will have rules for on-hit injection poisons, a rule written with the idea of each physical roll being at least one physical blow if successful, or list hit point values for things like falling or the explosion of a gunpowder barrel or consuming a set amount of cyanide or whatever, usually in values that a high level fighter can shrug off. So while the intention is clear, and what it is underneath are made clear by rules (or in the case of hit points, rules and an in-PHB High Gygaxian rant about them being abstract), it's equally clear that this intention wasn't kept in place in all places in the rules. So someone wanting to argue that they are meat-points, while wrong, has been provided with plenty of ground to stand on. Usually this is part of a two-part argument, and isn't actually about what the rules say. Usually it's like "Because of argument X, hit points are meat points; therefore fighters should be able to do magical stuff except it's because they're just so fightery, because it's a made up game world", or "Because of argument X, hit points are meat points; therefore I'm going to houserule a variant where hit points don't progress."
So those arguments aren't really about what the rules say.
Arguments about how stealth works in various games, however, are often honest rules questions. Stealth rules are really bad in most games. Usually there will be at least one point stating that you can use some stealth power to sneak up and attack someone, and then there will be some other spot stating that if you try to sneak up to someone you are always detected, or something like that- there's almost always some internal conflict, and some times the game won't even offer a real answer. Of the ones that do, it's usually "ignore this statement, it's superceded by this other one through a various handwave or hiercarchy".
Finally, there are times where the rules answer is clear, but everyone has to address it because it makes the game awful. In AD&D 2e, someone wrote in to dragon magazine and was basically asking about why polymorph was so good, with examples that were by-the-book correct and totally bullshit for a mid level spell. The editorial response was to cope and seethe, and try to smooth it over. Later versions would change polymorph each and every time, trying to make it possible to be useful and powerful without becoming a hydra with twelve attacks or whatever.
Similarly, the "invisible door" has a straightforward rules interpretation, but it sucks and leaves open other questions as soon as the DM decides on the first one, ones less covered by the rules. The door becoming invisible would in fact be transparent, creating the image behind it just as it would allow you to see through an invisible giant to see your friend Sally, otherwise totally obscured. No "blind spot" or whatever, easy. But would it allow a laser beam through it, or be burned by the laser beam, or both? If it would stop and burn the door, would a torch on one side illuminate the otherwise dark room on the other side? The way this is actually solved is by finding a way to make it so that doors and walls and constructions composed of needle-thin steel spikes cannot be made invisible, something in which the rules are generally helpful (the low and medium level invisibility spells in all versions only affect creatures, most versions have rules for if you drop something it becomes visible again, and generally it's very rare to find a creature that would qualify or a spell that would accomplish it, and if your players persist you have other ways to say no). You can see why someone would prefer a houserule about a "blind spot"- it avoids questions about optics, heat, and other science crap. You can also see why a DM would simply state that an object can't be invisible, and then come up with reason why object-like creatures cannot be either (if a door can't be invisible, well, I pay a mimic to be a door and then invis the mimic, or this door is a wood golem now, or I animated this mirror and now it's an invisible mirror creature let me get out my optics set and my laser rifle and then...).
Quote from: Venka on August 12, 2023, 11:12:57 AM
Reading through this, only a few of these are actual rules debates, some of them are just "this is what I want it to be", whether the rules support it or not.
Thank God for rule Zero. The laser question is easy. If the laser is in the visible part of the spectrum (for any race's vision) it goes through (or around as light is bent). In over 40 years of DMing there was never any REALLY difficult rule questions I ran into.
Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 11:20:47 AM
Thank God for rule Zero. The laser question is easy. If the laser is in the visible part of the spectrum (for any race's vision) it goes through (or around as light is bent).
No it's not easy!
Ok, obviously the light can't be bent because the door is flush against the wall. It has to pass through without being absorbed, right, it's transparent? By making it a question of optics though, now a creature who is invisible
can't see, because the light that would normally hit his retina passes through his whole body, eyes included. Once down the strictly scientific optics interpretation path you go, forever will it consume your destiny!
The rules are easy- you can see through the door. But the ramifications become undesired.
Quote from: Venka on August 12, 2023, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 11:20:47 AM
Thank God for rule Zero. The laser question is easy. If the laser is in the visible part of the spectrum (for any race's vision) it goes through (or around as light is bent).
No it's not easy!
Ok, obviously the light can't be bent because the door is flush against the wall. I
No, there is HUGE amount of space between the door and the wall in terms of angstroms. Which is all the space needed. An education is a GMs friend. ;)
Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 11:46:03 AM
No, there is HUGE amount of space between the door and the wall in terms of angstroms. Which is all the space needed. An education is a GMs friend. ;)
No this is worse! Now the players can make a flood of light much more easier, because a square meter of luminance is moving around some nearly one dimensional space! Now the players can invis the door and melt the wall around it ahh you're falling down new pitfalls ahhhhhhhhh!
Edit: The bigger issue with it causing light to pass through or wraparound is that an invisible creature can no longer see, as no light reaches his eyes. Now you either need to make the spell create light that he can see, or make him
think he sees what is actually there, and both suck for another pile of reasons. /edit
The optics interpretation is subject to all kinds of crazy stuff. Of course, you simply rule 0 it- but at that point, why even have an optics interpretation to begin with?
Quote from: Venka on August 12, 2023, 12:46:40 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 11:46:03 AM
No, there is HUGE amount of space between the door and the wall in terms of angstroms. Which is all the space needed. An education is a GMs friend. ;)
No this is worse! Now the players can make a flood of light much more easier, because a square meter of luminance is moving around some nearly one dimensional space! Now the players can invis the door and melt the wall around it ahh you're falling down new pitfalls ahhhhhhhhh!
Edit: The bigger issue with it causing light to pass through or wraparound is that an invisible creature can no longer see, as no light reaches his eyes. Now you either need to make the spell create light that he can see, or make him think he sees what is actually there, and both suck for another pile of reasons. /edit
The optics interpretation is subject to all kinds of crazy stuff. Of course, you simply rule 0 it- but at that point, why even have an optics interpretation to begin with?
Or... it's fukken MAGIC !!! Don't overthink it and just have fun.
Quote from: Effete on August 12, 2023, 03:19:41 PM
Or... it's fukken MAGIC !!! Don't overthink it and just have fun.
Who said it WASN'T magic? What are you going on about?
One I'm surprised hasn't come up is illusions and disbelief.
Quote from: David Johansen on August 12, 2023, 03:56:22 PM
One I'm surprised hasn't come up is illusions and disbelief.
The game that definitively dealt with this is what I am playing right now. "Second, an illusionist's magic does not require belief. As noted above, this is a misconception of the class and its abilities; the illusionist is no trickster, and one cannot simply choose to "disbelieve" the illusionist's magic, thereby rendering their spells ineffective. This is simply not the case. ..."
There about 5-6 paragraphs dealing with the class and its magic.
Quote from: Venka on August 12, 2023, 11:12:57 AM
Reading through this, only a few of these are actual rules debates, some of them are just "this is what I want it to be", whether the rules support it or not. For instance, are hit points abstract? Very obviously so, according to a variety of period documents. The contrary points show that there are several spots in the rules where hit points are treated as meat points. To this day, many games will assure you that a successful hit roll is abstract and may not represent an actual physical blow being struck, but then will have rules for on-hit injection poisons, a rule written with the idea of each physical roll being at least one physical blow if successful, or list hit point values for things like falling or the explosion of a gunpowder barrel or consuming a set amount of cyanide or whatever, usually in values that a high level fighter can shrug off. So while the intention is clear, and what it is underneath are made clear by rules (or in the case of hit points, rules and an in-PHB High Gygaxian rant about them being abstract), it's equally clear that this intention wasn't kept in place in all places in the rules. So someone wanting to argue that they are meat-points, while wrong, has been provided with plenty of ground to stand on.
I don't think this is correct at all.
I don't know that I've seen anyone push back on the "hit points are not meat" claim more than me, and my argument has never been from edge cases. I examine the rule itself straight on. For the sake of reference, let's start by looking at the PHB section. Most of the section deals with explaining how to actually use hit points in the game. Only a single paragraph is dedicated to discussing what hit points represent.
Quote from: 1E PHBEach character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The same holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.
Let's unpack this a bit.
What is the actual rule here? It says a certain amount of hit points are actual physical, and the remainder stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. But it doesn't say anything about what portion is physical and what portion is abstract. Technically the physical portion for a given character or creature could be 100% leaving a 0% remainder. The only hint we're given is that
at higher levels the portion of abstract hit points is "significant."
What does that mean? Does that mean if you're not high level, then no significant portion of your hit points is abstract?
The answer to that can be found in the example comparing the 10th level fighter with four war horses. If we don't make allowances for some portion of the hit points being non-physical, we end up with ridiculous things like the fighter being physically tougher than four warhorses. That's the purpose of this rule. But that carries with it the implication that the war horse's hit points are physical. Because if the fighter's hit points are mostly abstract AND the war horse's hit points are also mostly abstract, then this rule doesn't actually solve the problem.
The 5 hit points the man-at-arms has that's mentioned as a reference point also seems to imply all 5 of those hit points are likewise physical. There seems to be a strong inference here that the hit points of animals, beasts, and large creatures that actually are physically tough are fully attributable to that physical toughness. And that ordinary (non-leveled) characters that don't have extra hit points are likewise 100% meat. The majority of monsters be all meat as well with some exceptions. Obviously a ghost is not going to have physical hit points.
So when the actual rule says the abstract hit points are significant at high levels, it appears that it does also intend the inverse--outside of high level characters, the portion of hit points which are abstract is not significant. And the hit points of something like 98% of all inhabitants of the game world are meat.
Now I get it. The characters players play happen to fit in that narrow band of freaky rare exceptions. And so it's no mystery why how hit points work for player characters can be mistaken for what hit points usually represent in the game and how the hit point system works. But it is a mistake nonetheless.
I should mention, because some might feel ripped off that there was no rant and no "high Gygaxian" anywhere in the one paragraph in the PHB, that the DMG has a more in-depth discussion of hit points. It covers all the same points, but it expands the discussion in two areas.
First, it gives an upper physical hit point range for a character with 18 CON as 15-23. It maps out the physical hit points for this character, including how many of his hit points were physical at each level, 1st through 7th. Although there is no mention of how many non-physical hit points the character would have, it does show that there is some front-loading effect of the physical hit points towards 1st level, and also that physical hit points continue to accumulate well beyond 1st level. Characters are getting physically tougher to a substantial degree as they level.
Second, it talks about how to interpret "hits" against characters who do have a substantial number of abstract hit points (this time using a 10th level fighter with 18 CON and 95 hit points). "Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm--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."
It's plainly stated. Hits are still hits. It's just the amount of actual physical harm a hit causes is diminished when the target has a high number of non-physical hit points. All of a sudden those edge cases are not edge cases at all. A hit that has a chance of injecting a poison is still going to have a chance of injecting its poison because it's still a hit. It's not a mistake. It's not an oversight. It's not a mechanic designed with different assumptions in mind.
Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 03:39:32 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 12, 2023, 03:19:41 PM
Or... it's fukken MAGIC !!! Don't overthink it and just have fun.
Who said it WASN'T magic? What are you going on about?
My point was that maybe the spell "just works" because magic defies explanation. Trying to ground it in modern physics is unnecessary and often counter-productive.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 12, 2023, 06:38:14 PM
[
What is the actual rule here? It says a certain amount of hit points are actual physical, and the remainder stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. But it doesn't say anything about what portion is physical and what portion is abstract.
Talk about confirmation bias blinding one. This statement is 100% wrong. Go back and read page 82. AD&D 1st Ed DMG section on Hit Points. Gary get very specific and down to a named amount of HP being the max representing purely physical HP. The remainder having to be luck, Gods, etc.
Quote from: Effete on August 12, 2023, 07:39:51 PM
My point was that maybe the spell "just works" because magic defies explanation. Trying to ground it in modern physics is unnecessary and often counter-productive.
Who said it wasn't magic? Just because the heat from a magical fireball causes damage by increasing the motion of the molecules in the body doesn't mean magic isn't the cause
Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 07:43:52 PM
Talk about confirmation bias blinding one.
This statement is 100% wrong. Go back and read page 82. AD&D 1st Ed DMG section on Hit Points. Gary get very specific and down to a named amount of HP being the max representing purely physical HP. The remainder having to be luck, Gods, etc.
You must be talking about yourself being blind and 100% wrong since I cited that exact passage and named that exact example as part of my formulation.
I mean, I realize you're not a real person. That your schtick is to just make stupid and dishonest comments, so I'm not taking it seriously. It's just with this having already been covered, you're just being lazy.
By the way, why did you name your fake account something that means one who has diarrhea?
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 12, 2023, 09:01:19 PM
You must be talking about yourself being blind and 100% wrong since I cited that exact passage and named that exact example as part of my formulation.
God, how insane you are. You stated, "But it doesn't say anything about what portion is physical and what portion is abstract."
Which is WRONG! It DOES state what portions are what. Take some ESL classes
Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
Quote from: David Johansen on August 12, 2023, 03:56:22 PM
One I'm surprised hasn't come up is illusions and disbelief.
The game that definitively dealt with this is what I am playing right now. "Second, an illusionist's magic does not require belief. As noted above, this is a misconception of the class and its abilities; the illusionist is no trickster, and one cannot simply choose to "disbelieve" the illusionist's magic, thereby rendering their spells ineffective. This is simply not the case. ..."
There about 5-6 paragraphs dealing with the class and its magic.
Castles and Crusades! I just read that passage last night. Good stuff.
Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 09:05:50 PM
God, how insane you are. You stated, "But it doesn't say anything about what portion is physical and what portion is abstract."
Which is WRONG! It DOES state what portions are what. Take some ESL classes
Yes, you dumb pants-shitting liar, I did say that. Speaking of ESL classes, here's one for you. The word "it" is a pronoun that refers to a thing previously mentioned. In this instance, the thing previously mentioned was the quoted paragraph from the PHB. Which, in case you never noticed, is not page 82 of the DMG. That was addressed later. It's called being complete. As opposed to what you do--dishonestly cherry-picking, being too stupid to follow a complete post, while spearing as much diarrhea on the message board as is in your shorts.
Quote from: Aglondir on August 12, 2023, 09:11:39 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
Quote from: David Johansen on August 12, 2023, 03:56:22 PM
One I'm surprised hasn't come up is illusions and disbelief.
The game that definitively dealt with this is what I am playing right now. "Second, an illusionist's magic does not require belief. As noted above, this is a misconception of the class and its abilities; the illusionist is no trickster, and one cannot simply choose to "disbelieve" the illusionist's magic, thereby rendering their spells ineffective. This is simply not the case. ..."
There about 5-6 paragraphs dealing with the class and its magic.
Castles and Crusades! I just read that passage last night. Good stuff.
Yes, after 40 years the Class was finally defined well
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 12, 2023, 06:38:14 PM
I don't know that I've seen anyone push back on the "hit points are not meat" claim more than me, and my argument has never been from edge cases
The books explicitly state that hit points are not meat points. I believe every version has something to that extent, or close enough.
QuoteFor the sake of reference, let's start by looking at the PHB section
Who cares though? The argument from the hit-points-are-meat team (at least the well read ones) doesn't pretend that the books don't say what they do. It is focused on pointing out the myriad of inconsistencies that have plagued pretty much every edition.
QuoteI should mention, because some might feel ripped off that there was no rant and no "high Gygaxian" anywhere in the one paragraph in the PHB, that the DMG has a more in-depth discussion of hit points. It covers all the same points, but it expands the discussion in two areas.
Yes, the DMG has another rant, but this kind of stuff is absolutely High Gygaxian:
QuoteA certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors.
You immediately spent several paragraphs trying to unpack this
allegedly clear writing, working backwords to the point that warhorses must be mostly meat points and then coming to the conclusion that most hit points are meat points, contradicting Gygax's rant (which is also partially self contradictory). If this had actually gone through an editor, it could simply have stated that hit points partially represent physical stamina and partially represent luck, etc., and done so without stacking warhorses, roundabout walking through classes, and even doing math kind of. This kind of nonsense is the essence of Gygaxian! It's ok to enjoy it, as you obviously do, but there's no use pretending that it's normal writing.
QuoteIt's plainly stated. Hits are still hits. It's just the amount of actual physical harm a hit causes is diminished when the target has a high number of non-physical hit points.
Here's Gygax in Dragon magazine (I think):
QuoteTen points of damage dealt to a rhino indicated a considerable wound, while the same damage sustained by the 8th level fighter indicates a near miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, a bit of fatigue piling up against his or her skill at avoiding the fatal cut or thrust.
(obviously, a poisoned blade striking a target and having a chance to apply poison makes no sense were it "a near miss")
And in the DMG:
Quote...Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm - 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...
There's no intention that each hit represent an actual physical hit- and assuredly not enough to, say, inject poison. Of course, team meat point isn't limited to this! A variety of adventure writers have written in environmental damage in ways that clearly imply hit points to be meat points. The DMG in 5e even has sample damage for "wading through lava", which is absurd for several reasons, and isn't clear what is meant by "wading". Obviously, if a man were somehow to be weighed down enough to be shin-deep in lava, he's in a physically impossible situation. But all throughout the years, these sorts of things make their way into source books- usually not as bad as the DMG, of course, but still. Team Meatpoint is provided with all manner of ladders to assail the walls of written intention, and decades later, they still are.
You can also find people on this very forum who have a beef with hit points shooting upwards. While much of this seems to be a concern about scaling and world building (having 200 hit points in a world where a gun does 12 means that you can stand against a gang, if not a squad of infantry), but some of this clearly comes from the sense that there's more meat point than hit point- though I doubt any of them would disagree with the intended definition of hit points.
QuoteAll of a sudden those edge cases are not edge cases at all. A hit that has a chance of injecting a poison is still going to have a chance of injecting its poison because it's still a hit
This isn't true in AD&D 1e (at least not according to Gary Gygax), but other versions don't provide nearly as much to go on, so who knows. I provided "hits are abstract but poison assumes that they are real" as merely one of many things for Team Meatpoint, not because I consider it compelling, but because
this example spans multiple editions. If you pick an edition specifically I could look for more Meatpoint Anomalies somewhere within the version, but I really think you see my point here- in any version there's several anomalies that walk away from the intended abstraction of hit points and treat them as meat points. Definitely 1st edition AD&D though, in the event I'm talking with an AD&D-1e-stan.
Quote from: Effete on August 12, 2023, 07:39:51 PM
My point was that maybe the spell "just works" because magic defies explanation. Trying to ground it in modern physics is unnecessary and often counter-productive.
Then why did you respond to my post with your earlier statement? My entire point there was that using the optical explanation just opened up your narration to all manner of engineering and science schemes, and you are better off not doing that. It looked like you were arguing with me, but you obviously agree with me.
My point is, if you say "invisibility does X to photons", I can take you down some absurd path. If you say "invisibility makes things invisible", then you don't need to sweat all that.
Quote from: David Johansen on August 12, 2023, 03:56:22 PM
One I'm surprised hasn't come up is illusions and disbelief.
It's version-specific. Here's a quote from 2e:
QuoteAn illusion spell, therefore, depends on its believability. Believability is determined by the situation and a saving throw. Under normal circumstances, those observing the illusion are allowed a saving throw vs. spell
if they actively disbelieve the illusion. For player characters, disbelieving is an action in itself and takes a round.
Now, even in 2e, certain spells don't require belief, while others do. Also, if someone throws a fake fireball at you and you disbelieve, congrats! But if you disbelieved a real fireball, uh...
QuoteIllusions usually cease to affect a character if they are actively disbelieved. Disbelief must be stated by the player, based on clues provided by the DM. Players stating disbelief must give a reason for disbelief based on sensory information available to the character. Failure to give such a reason results in failure to disbelieve. The DM can impose additional requirements or delays in recognizing illusions (such as Intelligence checks)
as needed, such as when one player is obviously parroting a discovery made by another. Disbelief automatically forfeits a saving throw if the effect is real.
But I saw plenty of 3.X players bringing this forward. And in 2e, players would sometimes try to disbelieve
Invisibility or something that was not allowed.
I will say that illusions in general are often subject to rule debates, but in some cases the interactions are absolutely clear.
Quote from: Venka on August 12, 2023, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 11:20:47 AM
Thank God for rule Zero. The laser question is easy. If the laser is in the visible part of the spectrum (for any race's vision) it goes through (or around as light is bent).
No it's not easy!
Ok, obviously the light can't be bent because the door is flush against the wall. It has to pass through without being absorbed, right, it's transparent? By making it a question of optics though, now a creature who is invisible can't see, because the light that would normally hit his retina passes through his whole body, eyes included. Once down the strictly scientific optics interpretation path you go, forever will it consume your destiny!
The rules are easy- you can see through the door. But the ramifications become undesired.
Nah. The light passes through, and you can see. I'll use whatever interpretation I feel like, when I feel like.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 12, 2023, 06:38:14 PM
Quote from: Venka on August 12, 2023, 11:12:57 AM
Reading through this, only a few of these are actual rules debates, some of them are just "this is what I want it to be", whether the rules support it or not. For instance, are hit points abstract? Very obviously so, according to a variety of period documents. The contrary points show that there are several spots in the rules where hit points are treated as meat points. To this day, many games will assure you that a successful hit roll is abstract and may not represent an actual physical blow being struck, but then will have rules for on-hit injection poisons, a rule written with the idea of each physical roll being at least one physical blow if successful, or list hit point values for things like falling or the explosion of a gunpowder barrel or consuming a set amount of cyanide or whatever, usually in values that a high level fighter can shrug off. So while the intention is clear, and what it is underneath are made clear by rules (or in the case of hit points, rules and an in-PHB High Gygaxian rant about them being abstract), it's equally clear that this intention wasn't kept in place in all places in the rules. So someone wanting to argue that they are meat-points, while wrong, has been provided with plenty of ground to stand on.
I don't think this is correct at all.
I don't know that I've seen anyone push back on the "hit points are not meat" claim more than me, and my argument has never been from edge cases. I examine the rule itself straight on. For the sake of reference, let's start by looking at the PHB section. Most of the section deals with explaining how to actually use hit points in the game. Only a single paragraph is dedicated to discussing what hit points represent.
Quote from: 1E PHBEach character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The same holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.
Let's unpack this a bit.
What is the actual rule here? It says a certain amount of hit points are actual physical, and the remainder stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. But it doesn't say anything about what portion is physical and what portion is abstract. Technically the physical portion for a given character or creature could be 100% leaving a 0% remainder. The only hint we're given is that at higher levels the portion of abstract hit points is "significant."
What does that mean? Does that mean if you're not high level, then no significant portion of your hit points is abstract?
The answer to that can be found in the example comparing the 10th level fighter with four war horses. If we don't make allowances for some portion of the hit points being non-physical, we end up with ridiculous things like the fighter being physically tougher than four warhorses. That's the purpose of this rule. But that carries with it the implication that the war horse's hit points are physical. Because if the fighter's hit points are mostly abstract AND the war horse's hit points are also mostly abstract, then this rule doesn't actually solve the problem.
The 5 hit points the man-at-arms has that's mentioned as a reference point also seems to imply all 5 of those hit points are likewise physical. There seems to be a strong inference here that the hit points of animals, beasts, and large creatures that actually are physically tough are fully attributable to that physical toughness. And that ordinary (non-leveled) characters that don't have extra hit points are likewise 100% meat. The majority of monsters be all meat as well with some exceptions. Obviously a ghost is not going to have physical hit points.
So when the actual rule says the abstract hit points are significant at high levels, it appears that it does also intend the inverse--outside of high level characters, the portion of hit points which are abstract is not significant. And the hit points of something like 98% of all inhabitants of the game world are meat.
Now I get it. The characters players play happen to fit in that narrow band of freaky rare exceptions. And so it's no mystery why how hit points work for player characters can be mistaken for what hit points usually represent in the game and how the hit point system works. But it is a mistake nonetheless.
I should mention, because some might feel ripped off that there was no rant and no "high Gygaxian" anywhere in the one paragraph in the PHB, that the DMG has a more in-depth discussion of hit points. It covers all the same points, but it expands the discussion in two areas.
First, it gives an upper physical hit point range for a character with 18 CON as 15-23. It maps out the physical hit points for this character, including how many of his hit points were physical at each level, 1st through 7th. Although there is no mention of how many non-physical hit points the character would have, it does show that there is some front-loading effect of the physical hit points towards 1st level, and also that physical hit points continue to accumulate well beyond 1st level. Characters are getting physically tougher to a substantial degree as they level.
Second, it talks about how to interpret "hits" against characters who do have a substantial number of abstract hit points (this time using a 10th level fighter with 18 CON and 95 hit points). "Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm--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."
It's plainly stated. Hits are still hits. It's just the amount of actual physical harm a hit causes is diminished when the target has a high number of non-physical hit points. All of a sudden those edge cases are not edge cases at all. A hit that has a chance of injecting a poison is still going to have a chance of injecting its poison because it's still a hit. It's not a mistake. It's not an oversight. It's not a mechanic designed with different assumptions in mind.
Why shouldn't the fantasy hero be tougher than four war horses? That's not unbelievable, or even particularly impressive.
Quote from: Venka on August 13, 2023, 12:43:44 AM
Quote from: Effete on August 12, 2023, 07:39:51 PM
My point was that maybe the spell "just works" because magic defies explanation. Trying to ground it in modern physics is unnecessary and often counter-productive.
Then why did you respond to my post with your earlier statement? My entire point there was that using the optical explanation just opened up your narration to all manner of engineering and science schemes, and you are better off not doing that. It looked like you were arguing with me, but you obviously agree with me.
My point is, if you say "invisibility does X to photons", I can take you down some absurd path. If you say "invisibility makes things invisible", then you don't need to sweat all that.
Oh no, the players might be able to do cool things and have fun! Anything but that!
Quote from: Venka on August 13, 2023, 12:41:18 AM
The books explicitly state that hit points are not meat points. I believe every version has something to that extent, or close enough.
No it doesn't. You clearly don't know the material, You referenced the PHB and I quoted the full paragraph on it and it simply doesn't say what you claim it says. You're straight up objectively wrong on this, full stop.
QuoteWho cares though?
You're the one that referenced the PHB. I quoted what you referenced. It doesn't say what you claim it said. And this meaningless question is your attempt to weasel out because you'd rather be dishonest than admit you're wrong and have no idea what you're even talking about.
QuoteThe argument from the hit-points-are-meat team (at least the well read ones) doesn't pretend that the books don't say what they do. It is focused on pointing out the myriad of inconsistencies that have plagued pretty much every edition.
You make this claim with zero citations. I'm right here making the case. Address my case. I'm not pretending the books don't say what they do. That's what you are doing when I quote the book to you and your response is who cares.
QuoteYes, the DMG has another rant, but this kind of stuff is absolutely High Gygaxian:
No it isn't. The quote I posted was a series of fairly direct, simple statements. You utter high Gygaxian as a default because you have no idea at all what you're talking about.
QuoteYou immediately spent several paragraphs trying to unpack this allegedly clear writing,
It's not allegedly clear. It is clear as day. I shouldn't have to break it down. But apparently the fact that so many people have gotten this wrong suggests maybe I do.
I don't think anyone who's actually read this or even got the general gist of it is confused on the point that the abstraction for high level characters is to avoid the absurdity of having a human who is as tough as four war horses. What people are apparently missing is the inescapable corollary that you cannot be applying this adjustment equally across the board to everything. It only works if the thing you're adjusting for is the exception to the rule.
Quoteworking backwords
There is zero working backwards going on.
Quoteto the point that warhorses must be mostly meat points and then coming to the conclusion that most hit points are meat points, contradicting Gygax's rant
There was no rant other than the one in your imagination. I posted the exact and full quotation. And it simply doesn't say what you've been asserting. It makes a provision specifically for characters at high levels. Nothing more. You may infer it applies more broadly than that, but that's all it is is your inference. The book doesn't say it. And so I really don't need to make any case at all. I just decided to go the extra mile and make the case because the book doesn't explicitly forbid applying the idea more broadly. But to apply it so broadly as to assert abstract hit points as the norm rather than the exception does go directly against the clear purpose of the rule. Any reasonable reading of this has to conclude that it cannot be applied that broadly.
Quote(which is also partially self contradictory). If this had actually gone through an editor, it could simply [blah blah blah...]
In other words, if the book were written differently it might say what you claim it says. But it wasn't and it doesn't. And it's just a really weird claim to make that the book is partially self contradictory. As the saying goes, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." I've managed to interpret it just fine without any contradictions. If you're finding contradictions, you might have to at some point admit it's because you've gotten it wrong.
Quotehave stated that hit points partially represent physical stamina and partially represent luck, etc., and done so without stacking warhorses, roundabout walking through classes, and even doing math kind of. This kind of nonsense is the essence of Gygaxian! It's ok to enjoy it, as you obviously do, but there's no use pretending that it's normal writing.
I copied the entire quote. None of this nonsense you're babbling about appears there. What does appear is perfectly normal writing. There isn't even any complex sentence structure. You simply have no idea what you're talking about and are ranting against something it seems like you've completely made up.
QuoteHere's Gygax in Dragon magazine (I think):
You think?
QuoteQuoteTen points of damage dealt to a rhino indicated a considerable wound, while the same damage sustained by the 8th level fighter indicates a near miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, a bit of fatigue piling up against his or her skill at avoiding the fatal cut or thrust.
(obviously, a poisoned blade striking a target and having a chance to apply poison makes no sense were it "a near miss")
First, I have to point out, you just got done making dishonest arguments about the warhorse like I was making stuff up and working backwards, and now, in the very quote you cite sourced from "Dragon I think" is strongly suggesting exactly that. Why is 10 hit points considerable damage to a rhino but not an 8th level fighter? A rhino has 8 to 9 hit dice, so it's going to have a very similar amount of hit points as the fighter. It's because clearly the rhino, like 98% of the game's denizens, has hit points that are 100% meat, while the exception that is the 8th level fighter has a substantial number of hit points that are non-physical.
As to "near miss", the phrase by itself is ambiguous. It's often used colloquially to refer to something that misses but almost hit. But the plain meaning of the words refers to something that nearly missed--but in fact hit. George Carlin literally did a bit on this.
In this quote, there's context. The quote doesn't say "a near miss, a slight wound,
or a bit of luck used up" like this is a list of different things. It's saying
and. These things are all describing the exact same happening. If it's causing a slight wound, it wasn't a miss. It may have been close to a miss, a "near miss", but it's not a miss.
If you're seeing a contradiction in this, it's because you're misreading it by not giving sufficient consideration to context.
By the way, in the quote I cited from the DMG does the exact same thing you see in this quote, where he's talking about something that correctly interpreted is a hit, but then says "movement to avoid the attack." You see a clear, consistent pattern to how Gary discusses this. Which if you aren't processing context could appear to be a contradiction, but when correctly seen in context it means something like avoiding the seriousness of the attack in the sense of avoiding being stabbed through the heart, taking a superficial flesh wound instead.
You want to call that High Gygaxian? I simply call it writing above an 8th grade reading level. But whatever you want to call it, you can't simultaneously make the claim that you have difficulty understanding his writing while also claiming that you're the one of us who is on firmer ground in interpreting what his words mean. That is what you might call a contradiction. I don't, because I've checked my premises, and I strongly suspect the premise that you are being honest is likely wrong.
QuoteThere's no intention that each hit represent an actual physical hit
Of course there is. It literally says it does a small amount of actual physical harm. Are you seriously suggesting the intent here is to go through all the trouble of distinguishing actual physical hit points from the remainder, only to then go back and allow actual physical damage on an attack that only "hits" in mechanics terms but is not actually described a hit? And for what? To say the fighter dodged a fatal blow to the heart and escaped with, not a scratch but rather sprained his ankle while dodging? Notice how hard you have to try, how much meaning you have to twist, just to be able to get to a place where a poison attack doesn't make sense. It's not the rules that don't make sense. It's your strained interpretation that doesn't.
QuoteThis isn't true in AD&D 1e (at least not according to Gary Gygax),
Yes it is true in 1E, and that is according to Gary Gygax. You simply have no idea at all what you're talking about and are throwing in baseless assertions with no evidence.
Quotebut other versions don't provide nearly as much to go on, so who knows. I provided "hits are abstract but poison assumes that they are real" as merely one of many things for Team Meatpoint, not because I consider it compelling, but because this example spans multiple editions.
I don't know who Team Meatpoint is and I don't care about multiple editions. I only care about 1E, I'm only talking about 1E, and all the rules that are actually in 1E support what I am saying.
QuoteIf you pick an edition specifically I could look for more Meatpoint Anomalies somewhere within the version,
Sure. Here's an example. In 2E, taking 50 points of damage in one shot calls for a Sys Shock roll. Why? What possible shock could there be to the system from losing 50 points of abstract damage. It's got nothing to do with anything I'm talking about.
Quotebut I really think you see my point here-
I see that you've dug into a position repeated by many luminary know-nothing know-it-alls, but when push comes to shove you can't actually produce the receipts. And I also have noted that for all the time you spent making the goofiest arguments about goofy points, you managed to dodge entirely what I place at the center of this issue. Which is the fact that the characters played by the players are the exception to the rule of the meat-based hit point system, and because attention is focused on them, abstract hit points are confused for being the rule when they are actually the exception.
Not in a single one of your counterarguments do you note any nuance or distinction in this vein. And the problem there is if you're not making the distinction you will be easily fooled into thinking something said about a high level character is something that is true for the system as a whole. Which it isn't. Note I have always maintained, as is the literal written word of the rule, that high level characters do indeed have a substantial number of abstract hit points. Therefore you cannot refute my position by citing examples of references to abstract hit points. That's already part of the case I'm making. To argue against what I'm saying, you would need to make the case that the rhino is mostly abstract hit points. Which when you finally got around to quoting something, your quote demonstrated the exact opposite.
Quote from: Domina on August 13, 2023, 02:04:29 AM
Why shouldn't the fantasy hero be tougher than four war horses? That's not unbelievable, or even particularly impressive.
I never said they shouldn't. There are no shoulds or oughts here. As I was very specific to point out, the rule we're discussing has a clear purpose. And that purpose is to pacify those who would find such a thing unreasonable. Some do and some don't. And if you don't, then there's nothing to worry about and nothing to discuss. But if you do, the game was designed with an answer to that in mind.
Quote from: Venka on August 13, 2023, 12:43:44 AM
Quote from: Effete on August 12, 2023, 07:39:51 PM
My point was that maybe the spell "just works" because magic defies explanation. Trying to ground it in modern physics is unnecessary and often counter-productive.
Then why did you respond to my post with your earlier statement? My entire point there was that using the optical explanation just opened up your narration to all manner of engineering and science schemes, and you are better off not doing that. It looked like you were arguing with me, but you obviously agree with me.
My point is, if you say "invisibility does X to photons", I can take you down some absurd path. If you say "invisibility makes things invisible", then you don't need to sweat all that.
Right.
Chalk it up to the limits of written word. Mode of voice often gets lost. My bad.
Quote from: Effete on August 13, 2023, 04:30:38 AM
Quote from: Venka on August 13, 2023, 12:43:44 AM
Quote from: Effete on August 12, 2023, 07:39:51 PM
My point was that maybe the spell "just works" because magic defies explanation. Trying to ground it in modern physics is unnecessary and often counter-productive.
Then why did you respond to my post with your earlier statement? My entire point there was that using the optical explanation just opened up your narration to all manner of engineering and science schemes, and you are better off not doing that. It looked like you were arguing with me, but you obviously agree with me.
My point is, if you say "invisibility does X to photons", I can take you down some absurd path. If you say "invisibility makes things invisible", then you don't need to sweat all that.
Right.
Chalk it up to the limits of written word. Mode of voice often gets lost. My bad.
I got your original meaning. It's obvious you were trying to be flippant, and "It's magic! Don't think about it so hard!" is a common refrain in this type of discussions. Some people just like to lash onto any perceived flaw (real or imagined) in what someone else says to start an argument over it.
It's magic, and you shouldn't think so hard.
Quote from: Domina on August 13, 2023, 12:10:58 PM
It's magic, and you shouldn't think so hard.
Only the low IQ find it hard to think on such simple things.
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.
Quote from: Scooter on August 13, 2023, 12:32:24 PM
Quote from: Domina on August 13, 2023, 12:10:58 PM
It's magic, and you shouldn't think so hard.
Only the low IQ find it hard to think on such simple things.
If it's a question of accepting race/sex swapping, like something being fantasy means you're forced to accept violations of the world's internal logic without question, then "It's fantasy/an elf gaem!" is a low IQ dismissal. But if you're resorting to science to determine whether Invisibility works on a door, then you're thinking about it too hard.
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.
OTOH, a 1st level fighter reduced to 1 HP - and his HP are mostly "meat" - can recover from his wounds (actual wounds) in a couple of days.
(in practice, HP are plot amor and that's okay. Auntie May will always have more HP than the random thug).
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 11, 2013, 11:47:37 PM
I'd have to say alignment arguments and 1e AD&D initiative arguments.
These are the first that came to mind for me too.
I think the idea of "Luck/Magic/Stamina/Skill" HP is ultimately silly and counterintuitive, and open to heated arguments about WTF HP are even meant to represent. I've always considered HP to be a combination of Meat and Toughness, and HP in D&D to be badly proportioned based on level (too few at level 1, way too many at higher levels).
Let me just say, the irony of arguing about rules in a thread designed to list the dumbest rules-arguments is probably lost on some people.
Quote from: Scooter on August 13, 2023, 12:32:24 PM
Quote from: Domina on August 13, 2023, 12:10:58 PM
It's magic, and you shouldn't think so hard.
Only the low IQ find it hard to think on such simple things.
Did anyone say they find it hard? No. Don't be dishonest.
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.
:D
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.
:D
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.
Quote from: tenbones on August 17, 2023, 10:28:48 AM
I can't believe you guys are re-litigating the HP debate. It's fucking DUMB.
This is TheRPGSite. We have to re-litigate
something.
Quote from: tenbones on August 17, 2023, 10:28:48 AM
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.
I find that a lot of the AC issue is solved if you just explain it as "how difficult you are to wound", rather than "how difficult you are to hit". It's not perfect, but neither is giving armor a flat damage soak value. Just to give one example: Take being wacked in the chest with a mace, versus being stabbed in the chest with a dagger. To a plate-armored man, the the mace is probably the deadlier blow, whereas to an unarmored man, the dagger is. To come close to "realism", you almost have to give every weapon a different rating versus each type of armor, which is just impracticable. Personally my favorite compromise for armor is probably using armor saves or the dragon warriors system where each weapon has an armor piercing die separate from it's damage value.
I do like a split between health and something like "stamina" or "vitality" for D20 systems. It kind of formalizes a lot of people's head-canon about how HP works, and also you can use stamina as a spendable resource which opens up some interesting options. But as health systems go, I think I still prefer a toughness+wounds system like you get in something like WFRP or Savage Worlds. At least it works for more "heroic" tones where it's fine for heroes to take a hit and shrug it off, and it's easier to track wound penalties if there's only two or three wound levels.
Quote from: tenbones on August 17, 2023, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 17, 2023, 08:05:06 AM
But the old ones are the best!
Banded mail.
:D
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've always understood "banded armor" to refer to something like the Roman Lorica Segmentata, so that's definitely real.
Leather at least makes some sense as armor, even if it's not historical, and I believe there is at least some evidence for boiled leather (including that it's a possible origin for the term "cuirass").
"Studded Leather" is where the goof patrol rides in.
Quote from: tenbones on August 17, 2023, 10:28:48 AM
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.
>Can't believe we reignited the age old HP debate
>Proceeds to pile onto it
Perhaps you can now understand why we just can't let this one go. D&D HP are just too DUMB to ignore. ;D
This discussion has clearly branched into my specialty of pedantic metamechanical philosophy.
The problem with HP is not that it's hybrid between applying your character's skill and experience and your character's raw stamina and "meat points," but it took all the bad attributes of both. Like a stamina system, it has a ton of bookkeeping minutia, and like a skill system, it's abstract and hard to explain. In fact, it's even harder to explain than a pure system would be because players so strongly gravitate to understanding HP as meat points. It isn't quite "the worst of both worlds" but it certainly isn't as streamlined as a unified system should be and it definitely isn't as intuitive as an isolated system would be.
It's very meh, and the fewer games which use it, the better.
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 17, 2023, 10:24:17 PM
Quote from: tenbones on August 17, 2023, 10:28:48 AM
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.
>Can't believe we reignited the age old HP debate
>Proceeds to pile onto it
Perhaps you can now understand why we just can't let this one go. D&D HP are just too DUMB to ignore. ;D
Touche!
Quote from: tenbones on August 18, 2023, 09:56:22 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 17, 2023, 10:24:17 PM
Quote from: tenbones on August 17, 2023, 10:28:48 AM
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.
>Can't believe we reignited the age old HP debate
>Proceeds to pile onto it
Perhaps you can now understand why we just can't let this one go. D&D HP are just too DUMB to ignore. ;D
Touche!
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 16, 2023, 01:39:27 PM
Okay, I realize we can discuss this point forever and not reach an agreement.
Well, yeah, because you're completely wrong, and I'm never going to agree to something wrong just for the fuzzy warm vibes. Just because wrong people speak up doesn't mean a fact is in debate.
I only replied here because some dude arrogantly posted a statement that is definitely false acting like there does not even exist a valid counterargument, and when push came to shove he didn't even have a single valid argument for his position.
QuoteJust 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.
Yeah, but that would be an inaccurate framing of what's going on. It's not like you have yer opinion and I have muh opinion and they just clash. You have your opinion and there are at least half a dozen other opinions out there for this narrow slice of a rule, and the big tent position is going to be the one that takes them all into consideration. In my estimate, that's what the rules are doing. And as far as I know, you haven't even claimed you're trying to do that.
QuoteWell, 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).
Yeah, but you're just being childish. I called you out for fetishizing something that you actually are fetishizing and don't deny it. You need to make up facts just to be able to use the word right back because I don't fetishize RAW. I advise DMs all the time to go with their gut. I just believe in being honest. When people are pointing out flaws that are actually a manifestation of their own erroneous assumptions, I don't that should go unchallenged.
Quote
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"?
I literally stated it in the post you're replying to and provided a specific example. You managed to snip around it. You want to have an opinion, then have an opinion, and I can respect that. But if this is what you have to do to justify your opinion, you don't get to come back and act like we're just having a difference of opinion here.
My options are stone cold facts based on the most accurate interpretation of the rules, while your opinions are purposefully dishonest distortions of objective reality based on feels and fuzzies. But it is YOU who fetishizes the rules. I'm just setting people straight on their arrogantly posted statements about the rules that I don't fetishize. And your continued attempts to respectfully bow out of this endless argument I won't let go of are just childish attempts to hide how objectively wrong you are about this topic. And present an inaccurate framing of what's actually going on. When I'm right, you're wrong, but you're pretending that we're just having a difference of opinion. >:(
If I didn't know any better, I'd say someone just dredged up an old rec.games.frp thread and posted it here...
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2023, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 16, 2023, 01:39:27 PM
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.
Yeah, but that would be an inaccurate framing of what's going on. It's not like you have yer opinion and I have muh opinion and they just clash. You have your opinion and there are at least half a dozen other opinions out there for this narrow slice of a rule, and the big tent position is going to be the one that takes them all into consideration. In my estimate, that's what the rules are doing. And as far as I know, you haven't even claimed you're trying to do that.
You said this sentence. I disagreed. I think there is a correlation, you think there is not. I think this should be the end of it, at least of this one single point, but apparently it is not.
I don't know what the rest of your paragraph is going on about; apparently I'd need to discuss half a dozen opinions before I disagree with a single sentence, et cetera ad nauseam.
If we cannot even agree on wether we disagree (!) about a simple yes/no point ("I don't think there is a whole lot of correlation between potential deadliness of an injury and recovery time from an injury.") we are not getting anywhere.
Thanks for giving it a try anyway (at least I hope you did).
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 18, 2023, 07:01:23 PM
My options are stone cold facts based on the most accurate interpretation of the rules, while your opinions are purposefully dishonest distortions of objective reality based on feels and fuzzies. But it is YOU who fetishizes the rules. I'm just setting people straight on their arrogantly posted statements about the rules that I don't fetishize. And your continued attempts to respectfully bow out of this endless argument I won't let go of are just childish attempts to hide how objectively wrong you are about this topic. And present an inaccurate framing of what's actually going on. When I'm right, you're wrong, but you're pretending that we're just having a difference of opinion. >:(
Hahaha thanks for putting the argument so plainly and directly so I can understand! :D
The stupideststupidstupidity that happens at least once every other session:
GM: Player 1 make a perception check ...
Player 1: *rolls* Nailed it!
GM: okay you see blahblahblah over yonder ...
Player 2: wh ... my character can't see it? *rolls*
GM: Oops you fail
Player 2: That's besides the point! I'm standing right next to his character ... why wouldn't I see-
GM: Because you said you were looting the body! How could you see?
Player 2: But I'm right there! I'd notice Player 1's guy saw something! *proceeds to perform a RL reenactment of his PC being able to notice due to proximity and peripheral vision*
Rest of the table: Well if that's the case, we all could've seen it *everyone starts rolling*
GM:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9b/fa/64/9bfa64a3edc4d83773b37c9141341370.gif)
Quote from: Theory of Games on August 20, 2023, 04:28:46 PM
The stupideststupidstupidity that happens at least once every other session:
GM: Player 1 make a perception check ...
Player 1: *rolls* Nailed it!
GM: okay you see blahblahblah over yonder ...
Player 2: wh ... my character can't see it? *rolls*
GM: Oops you fail
Player 2: That's besides the point! I'm standing right next to his character ... why wouldn't I see-
GM: Because you said you were looting the body! How could you see?
Player 2: But I'm right there! I'd notice Player 1's guy saw something! *proceeds to perform a RL reenactment of his PC being able to notice due to proximity and peripheral vision*
Rest of the table: Well if that's the case, we all could've seen it *everyone starts rolling*
Rookie mistake. Telling and letting the player make a check for something they don't know about. I print off about 200 random D20 rolls and feed them through a sleeve with a cut out window. As I use them I cross it out. So I will only say something if a PC notices the lurking Orc 1/4 mile away. No one ask about their PC because I will tell them if they see it or what ever.
Quote from: Scooter on August 20, 2023, 04:37:25 PM
Quote from: Theory of Games on August 20, 2023, 04:28:46 PM
The stupideststupidstupidity that happens at least once every other session:
GM: Player 1 make a perception check ...
Player 1: *rolls* Nailed it!
GM: okay you see blahblahblah over yonder ...
Player 2: wh ... my character can't see it? *rolls*
GM: Oops you fail
Player 2: That's besides the point! I'm standing right next to his character ... why wouldn't I see-
GM: Because you said you were looting the body! How could you see?
Player 2: But I'm right there! I'd notice Player 1's guy saw something! *proceeds to perform a RL reenactment of his PC being able to notice due to proximity and peripheral vision*
Rest of the table: Well if that's the case, we all could've seen it *everyone starts rolling*
Rookie mistake. Telling and letting the player make a check for something they don't know about. I print off about 200 random D20 rolls and feed them through a sleeve with a cut out window. As I use them I cross it out. So I will only say something if a PC notices the lurking Orc 1/4 mile away. No one ask about their PC because I will tell them if they see it or what ever.
WTFLOL@printing.off.2HUNDRED.rolls ;D ;D ;D