Friday, July 11, 2014

HOW to RUN – I am not buying it

As children we learned, different people have different opinions.
As adults we accept that sometimes people will argue.
No one should have to tolerate abuse or derision.
I will not patronize a ‘professional author’ who makes sport of 
insulting his potential customers in a public format.
My latest experience with Alexis (YMMV)
He wrote something about hit points on July 7th.

You are correct, it is highly unlikely a humanoid with one hit point would survive a single prolonged fight yet alone twenty years. Hit points is an abstract term reflecting the current status of an opponent.
Monster or humanoids with low hit points are nursing and recovering wounds from previous battles. The violent existence of humanoids assures that at a given time a large percent of their population is recover from previous conflicts or inter-tribal brawls.
.. .
For untrained and uninjured ‘0’ level NPCs minimum hit point total equals 1/3rd their strength adjusted by one’s constitution modifier.
July 7, 2014 at 1:33 PM


Well, that's an argument for the status quo, Clovis, but "abstract term reflecting the current status of an opponent" is only a different pound of shit pulled out of your ass.

Why does THIS humanoid have 1 hit point at this time? Based on what? The fact that 1/8th of all 1 HD humanoids are feeling 'down' this morning? Who says they had a battle just previously? Where are these other creatures who so conveniently fought these particular humanoids as of a day or two ago? Really? A tribal brawl every three days? Given the numbers, its amazing ANY humanoids are left. In the very least, they'd know not to brawl before going on patrol.

If these humanoids are injured, why are they now ambushing the party or otherwise joining in with their squad of perfectly healthy associates? Why are there always some humanoids that are 'recovering'?

I don't know where that rule is about NPCs minimum hit points. Can you point to it in the DMG? I hope you're not referring to something in 3e or such, since I was very specific what edition I was addressing.

Why is it your quoted bullshit rule is so different from my proposed rule for 7 to 8 hp per die? Hm? I suspect you think there is something special about the way your shit smells.

Damn. It is good to be back.
July 7, 2014 at 1:47 PM

I comment – not published
NO need for obscenities, you are a better writer than that

I am only a 'better writer' when it's convenient for you, Clovis. The word 'shit' is perfectly clear, everyone knows what it means, it is easy to spell, it is recognizable in multiple languages and EVERYONE DOES IT EVERY DAY. I wish every word in the English language was as commonplace and perfectly comprehensible. That must be why a significant portion of the population shies away from it - the difficulty of accomplishing mendacity without the accompanying odor.

Show your math, JD. I only get that an '8' will show up 1 in 4, not 1 in 3. That is a hell of a difference. I believe you are basing YOUR arguments on the one-time 3 round battle, while I'm basing MY arguments on the multiple battle principle . . . that only grows more and more in my favour and not yours as time passes. But then, you don't care, because you have your way of doing it, created on the spur of the moment AFTER you took half the idea from me. See point (2) above? Where it says don't piggyback your shit on this blog? there's that word again). Well, don't piggyback your shit on this blog.
July 7, 2014 at 2:37 PM

One last appeal to reason, 
again not  published
You  do not need a ‘story’ to justify low hit points …  most non-garrison units are not a full efficiency: 
 . . .
Many real things in the world would cause attrition in a monsters CURRENT  hit points;
disease, starvation, fatigue, sleep deprivation, festering wounds and merely traveling:
The victorious British Army at Agincort was truly in a pathetic physical state (low hit points) , yet they conquered:
John Keegan, The Face of Battle