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?

Quote

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")

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.