D&D 5E Why different HD types for classes? (Another HP thread...)

[DND_Reborn]

Before you say anything, "Yes, yes, another hit point thread... ARG!"

(Deep breath...)

Okay, so I posted about this in my other thread, but not wanting to derail that I decided to start fresh.

Why do different classes have different HD types?

Now, for the purposes of my question, I am making an assumption that you prescribe to the "abstract" HP camp where HP are a combination of several factors: physical endurance, mental endurance, skill, luck, favor, sixth-sense, etc. If you are in the "HP = meat only (or meat mostly)" camp then larger HD size makes sense for warriors and lower ones for weaker wizardy-types.

You could argue a fighter is "tougher" and can take a beating better, sure, but in the same light I can argue a rogue could have better luck or a wizard a better sixth-sense. Are those weighted less compared to physical endurance? Do you think a battler's skill is superior in combat so they get more HP? Well, wouldn't a caster be better at resisting the damage caused by other spells? HP don't differentiate between the source of the damage, so to say a barbarian gets more HP, even to resist the damage from spells, doesn't make much sense if those HP are earned during a career where the character mostly resisted weapon and natural attack damage.

Also, since front-liners tend to have better Constitution scores anyway because they want more HP, what impact would a flat universal d8 have? Would it hurt them that much, really?

FWIW, I don't really have an issue with HD, this is more about understanding a consistent and logical rationale for different HD sizes if you subscribe to the abstract HP concept.

 

[billd91]

So they play differently. Let's look at an example .I've got a bladesinger wizard in our 3e game. Offensively, he can pack a pretty good punch in melee with his sword and has a great AC while in his method of combat (even better with a shield spell) because he has a good Dex and very good Int. What's stopping me from taking him front line and playing like a fighter? Relatively low hit points. He's got a punch but not the endurance so I play him differently than I'd play a fighter.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DND_Reborn]

So they play differently. Let's look at an example .I've got a bladesinger wizard in our 3e game. Offensively, he can pack a pretty good punch in melee with his sword and has a great AC while in his method of combat (even better with a shield spell) because he has a good Dex and very good Int. What's stopping me from taking him front line and playing like a fighter? Relatively low hit points. He's got a punch but not the endurance so I play him differently than I'd play a fighter.

Funny coincidence, my next character might be a bladesinger for 5E.

But the question is why should his HD, and thus HP, be less? As I said in the OP, the other front-liners probably have better CON scores, so their increased HP is reflected in that already.

Is the luck, skill, favor, etc. your character have equal or less than the front-liners? Does their extra meat ability outweigh everything else? That's fine if you think that, but I feel like it goes against the abstract-theory of HP.

 

[Phazonfish]

Yes.

If anything, we should kick full casters to the curb with d4s for hit dice.

Not just because it would better differentiate them, but because people should be punished for playing full casters. And nothing is more punishing than being made to "roll"* a d4.


*Actual rolling not included.

As someone who plays almost exclusively full casters, I agree wholeheartedly. Except that last sentence, there are definitely more punishing situations involving d4's than rolling them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes.

If anything, we should kick full casters to the curb with d4s for hit dice.

Not just because it would better differentiate them, but because people should be punished for playing full casters. And nothing is more punishing than being made to "roll"* a d4.


*Actual rolling not included.

Yes ... and so?

What, if anything, is this post supposed to be contributing. I little more clarity would be appreciated.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As someone who plays almost exclusively full casters, I agree wholeheartedly. Except that last sentence, there are definitely more punishing situations involving d4's than rolling them.

What are you agreeing to? You realize in my OP I am actually for giving full casters d8 for HP??? What is this obsession with d4's and casters....

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

Okay, so I posted about this in my other thread, but not wanting to derail that I decided to start fresh.

Why do different classes have different HD types?

Honestly? Because hit dice are determined by game balance.

Now, for the purposes of my question, I am making an assumption that you prescribe to the "abstract" HP camp where HP are a combination of several factors: physical endurance, mental endurance, skill, luck, favor, sixth-sense, etc. If you are in the "HP = meat only (or meat mostly)" camp then larger HD size makes sense for warriors and lower ones for weaker wizardy-types.

So, here's what's happening:

Back in time, an abstract mechanic was created, to make a game playable. Some units were a bit low-damage output, but tough, others were high damage, acting largely at range, but glass canons. And there were varying degrees on this spectrum (d4s through d12s for hit dice).

An interpretation/description of the mechanic in narrative terms was developed, so it made at least a little sense in the fiction that results from play.

Now, you are using that narrative description, assuming it is a statement of simulation intent, to go back and adjust the mechanic - as if the description was the important and real functional bit, when it isn't. You are thus putting the cart before the horse.