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

[Oofta]

I listened to an interview with a boxer the other day. I don't remember the guy's name since I'm not a fan, but he was apparently champion of his weight class.

What was interesting was his description of how he won fights. A big part of it was simply being able to fight through the pain, to not let (in his case) the pain of a broken nose stop you.

So I think that "grit" for lack of a better term is a big part of it. Taking blow after blow and just shrugging the pain off.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But I think you could do what you're suggesting and even out hit dice, and then to compensate, give fighters, paladins, rangers and barbarians extra features to compensate, and give wizards and sorcerers some other penalty. As with any other change you want to make, it's going to mess with game balance if you do it on its own, but if you make the cascade of other changes that would help keep things in balance, then you're fine. It's just hard.

Fighters have Second Wind, Barbarians can Rage, Paladins Lay on Hands, and Rangers... well, they might have something but then again they might have been left out (as usual... ).

And why penalize other classes?

Lots of people make the mistake of ”not buying” something that is still, nevertheless, true.

Oh, I understand why it is done (the "truth"), I just don't think game balance is a valid reason when you consider the idea of abstract hit points.

Most of those justifications for hit points aren't based on the class however, but are abstract values that anyone could have more or less of. Luck is not a specifically Rogue thing, neither is Sixth Sense a specifically Wizard thing (although fits in with Barbarians and maybe Monks pretty well.)

Combat training and experience is something that Fighters as a class have. Feral senses and endurance are part of the Barbarian class identity. These are class-based justifications for higher hit points.

Having said that, hit points are abstract enough that if you really want to reduce all classes to d8, you can probably make a justification for it.

The balance issue this would cause can be rectified by further house rules. - You will need something to rein in casters, particularly gishes since these are the types that actively encroach upon the role of the higher-HD classes. Bladesingers are an example: they are close to being as good combatants as fighters for example, in addition to the full-caster suite of combat and out-of-combat capabilities. Giving them the same hitpoints would risk marginalising someone who wanted to play a fighter even more.

Luck for Rogues and the others were just examples. Anyone can have more of anything that compensates for the over-bloated physical endurance aspect. Maybe a fighter has most of his HP from luck? Who knows?

 

[Arnwolf666]

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.

Why don’t we have all weapons so 1d8 damage also. After all go are abstract.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I listened to an interview with a boxer the other day. I don't remember the guy's name since I'm not a fan, but he was apparently champion of his weight class.

What was interesting was his description of how he won fights. A big part of it was simply being able to fight through the pain, to not let (in his case) the pain of a broken nose stop you.

So I think that "grit" for lack of a better term is a big part of it. Taking blow after blow and just shrugging the pain off.

Sure, that is the physical endurance component of HP. And I totally see warriors having more of that aspect of HP than other classes (possibly), but I can just as easily see other classes having more of the other stuff.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Did you just basically say, "Yeah, but no"?

As others have said, the reasoning is game balance. It's not about anything more than that. If you want an in-game fictional reason, you can posit that the fighter has more hps because, despite that rogue's hard life, the rogue wasn't actively trained to take hits and be a meat shield. The fighter was. Same with your crusader-priest- for every day of training in prayer and the like, he misses a day of training in how to be a meat shield.

the reason isnt game balance as much as fighters are more badass in a fight.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why don’t we have all weapons so 1d8 damage also. After all go are abstract.

All weapons used to be d6 IIRC.

the reason isnt game balance as much as fighters are more badass in a fight.

And HP represent more than just ability to take damage in a fight. Resisting poisons, elemental conditions, falling, traps, etc. all deal damage as well.

 

[Arnwolf666]

All weapons used to be d6 IIRC.



And HP represent more than just ability to take damage in a fight. Resisting poisons, elemental conditions, falling, traps, etc. all deal damage as well.

All badass things

 

[DND_Reborn]

All badass things

So, none of the non-warrior classes can be "badass"? No badass rogues or clerics or anything?

Boy, that would be disappointing.

 

[Arnwolf666]

So, none of the non-warrior classes can be "badass"? No badass rogues or clerics or anything?

Boy, that would be disappointing.

Nope. They can be badass. It’s just the fighters are more badass.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Is it not mechanical balance? It states (through the mechanics) that casters and striker/skill-monkeys should not risk going toe-to-toe. CON counts, but is not mechanically sufficient to make this happen, i.e. to make martials strongly-enough differentiated in their role.

Groups should attach to that whatever fluff they find satisfactory