Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Salthorae" data-source="post: 7844335" data-attributes="member: 1095">You're trying to narrow the abstraction down, but really you can't. It's like Schrödinger's cat... when you open the HP box to define it, you lose something related to its quantum nature.Ultimately they have different HD because game balance as others have said.Narratively, higher HD equate to beings who are potentially tough/more physical. I mean&nbsp; you could have a Wizard who rolls max every time on their HD who ends up with more Hit Points than a Barbarian who rolls minimum every time.HD just represents the potential toughness pool assigned to a given class.Barbarians are the toughest son-of-a-gun out there because they &quot;wrastle baars&quot;. What's a puny little magic missile to them?Wizards spend all their time inside, not facing threatening encounters. If you seriously think in the fiction that wizards get &quot;tougher&quot; at resisting damage by taking damage from spells, sorry but I think you're crazy. If they wanted to take damage they wouldn't have spent years learning how to alter reality to suit their whims. Why practice taking damage when I can learn a couple of spells that shield me from harm in the first place?As to the rough and tumble street rogue. Well, they do have better HP than wizards, etc. But not as much as people who've spent their early lives dealing with threats to themselves like Barbarians and Fighters.Personally I'd love it if they pushed the wizard back to d4's. I'd also put Warlocks down to a d6 with Sorcerers though. Everyone else is probably ok where they are.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Salthorae, post: 7844335, member: 1095"] You're trying to narrow the abstraction down, but really you can't. It's like Schrödinger's cat... when you open the HP box to define it, you lose something related to its quantum nature. Ultimately they have different HD because game balance as others have said. Narratively, higher HD equate to beings who are potentially tough/more physical. I mean you could have a Wizard who rolls max every time on their HD who ends up with more Hit Points than a Barbarian who rolls minimum every time. HD just represents the potential toughness pool assigned to a given class. Barbarians are the toughest son-of-a-gun out there because they "wrastle baars". What's a puny little magic missile to them? Wizards spend all their time inside, not facing threatening encounters. If you seriously think in the fiction that wizards get "tougher" at resisting damage by taking damage from spells, sorry but I think you're crazy. If they wanted to take damage they wouldn't have spent years learning how to alter reality to suit their whims. Why practice taking damage when I can learn a couple of spells that shield me from harm in the first place? As to the rough and tumble street rogue. Well, they do have better HP than wizards, etc. But not as much as people who've spent their early lives dealing with threats to themselves like Barbarians and Fighters. Personally I'd love it if they pushed the wizard back to d4's. I'd also put Warlocks down to a d6 with Sorcerers though. Everyone else is probably ok where they are. [/QUOTE]

Verification