Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lackhand" data-source="post: 3964473" data-attributes="member: 36160">The logic in here seems a little bit biased by personal taste.I don't mean that in a bad way: a game that used the definitions of the OP for how hit points should behave would not be a bad game. But D&D doesn't use hit points for that.I had a big long post trying to build this game system. But it was unnecessary for my point, which is this: If you model hit points with defenses, people will miss more.Missing isn't as much fun as hitting, especially for players with limited availability options.Hit points represent a trend towards a final goal.Statistics don't: After flipping a coin and getting heads, the probability of the next flip being heads doesn't change from 50%.So, while more realistic, fighters should have more hit points than wizards do because it's their job to be masochists and chewed on by monsters, and to be able to be consumed by this treatment in an ablative fashion. This goes double when fair is fair -- they're going to be facing beasties that work similarly, and they don't want to whiff all the time.The dynamic of the game would change if you changed this fact. That would be okay, but the change is neutral (not better, not worse), so doesn't justify changing the model, as modeling realism for the sake of modeling realism is best done by realism.</blockquote>