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

[DND_Reborn]

I really can’t wrap my head around what the issue even is, here.

The fighter is always better at beating things with sticks, and the wizard is always wasting their time trying to do so, unless they don’t have a melee spell of any kind. (And even then, disengage or dodge might be a better Action)

Even if the wizard has 1 point better attack bonus, so what? The fighter has Action Surge and a Fighting Style, at level 3 they get a significant boost to weapon-based combat efficacy from subclass.

Meanwhile the wizard knows at least half a dozen spells, plus cantrips, and their only proficient finesse weapon deals 1d4 damage.

If they’re a Bladesinger, then being more accurate but doing less damage without burning slots is exactly thematically correct.

If they aren’t, then they’re just a wizard who trained with very few weapons but is pretty damn accurate with those few, and that should be something the player thinks about when determining their backstory.

First, despite my vehemence, the original issue was on HD. At this point, I don't even recall how I started about wizards and my attack bonus.

NUTSHELL: a level 1 fighter and wizard, with equal stats, both have the same attack bonus with weapons. IMO, that makes not sense due to all the training in various weapons and armor a fighter gets prior to starting his adventuring career as where a wizard would train enough to have an idea of what to do with a handful of weapons, but spent the majority of his time mastering his art of magic.

Warriors should hit more often in combat with weapons than non-warriors and there is little support for this, especially at lower levels.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why? What is it about a level that correlates with overall skillfulness?

Well, I've gone over this in other threads so I will try to be brief. Consider a character with stealth and how often they use it over the course of hundreds of thousands of XP and use, how many rolls the player makes for its use. Now, 20 levels later, against the same orc they snuck by a level 1, they are only 20% better (the 4 point increase from +2 to +6) than they were all that experience and uses before. True, their DEX might increase a +1 or so depending on class, feat selection, etc. but that is another failing as I see in 5E since to my mind skill should trump ability at higher levels. I know in 5E, the bonus from ability can represent some skill, and not just natural talent, but that is also sort of a band-aid solution IMO.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Finding twice the openings in a round is allot better I think they wanted the first levels to support multiclassing so that being a fighter you didnt get all of the fighter awesome immediately at level 1. This plus the multi-attacking... makes a bumpy progression

Yes, Extra Attack becomes a great equalizer, but that is several levels after 1st and not the point in contention. If we consider overall combat ability, of course warriors have other things that makes them superior to a wizard, but my issue is solely concerned with the attack roll and that a fighter is no better than a wizard in this regard assuming equal ability scores.

 

[Tony Vargas]

NUTSHELL: a level 1 fighter and wizard, with equal stats, both have the same attack bonus with weapons. IMO, that makes not sense due to all the training

It also makes no sense that they'd have the same HD, for the same reason.

I think the reason, though, was that there was no point in making characters dramatically inferior in combat, when every class would need to have its own way of contributing meaningfully in combat.

For instance, in 3e, the wizard had half BAB, so her (generic/hypothetical 3e Wizard is Mialee, remember) crossbow/staff/dagger rapidly became useless, but her Touch Attack spells were easily able to hit because of monsters' very high natural armor being ignored.
Similarly, in 4e class features, stats, feats &c would make each class's good at hitting with their own things, be they weapon or spell.

5e doesn't do delicate balancing acts like that - also BA doesn't leave room for them - so it just gives the same level-based proficiency progression to everyone. Ability scores make the difference - in random generation that can get a little whacked, of course, but that's part of the point (of random generation).

 

[DND_Reborn]

It also makes no sense that they'd have the same HD, for the same reason.

I think the point, though, was that there was no point in making characters dramatically inferior in combat, when every class would need to have its own way of contributing meaningfully in combat.

For instance, in 3e, the wizard had half BAB, so her (generic/hypothetical 3e Wizard is Mialee, remember) crossbow/staff/dagger rapidly became useless, but her Touch Attack spells were easily able to hit because of monsters' very high natural armor being ignored.
Similarly, in 4e class features, stats, feats &c would make each class's good at hitting with their own things, be they weapon or spell.

5e doesn't do delicate balancing acts like that - also BA doesn't leave room for them - so it just gives the same level-based proficiency progression to everyone. Ability scores make the difference - in random generation that can get a little whacked, of course, but that's part of the point.

Well, getting back to the OP, the idea of them having the same HD (e.g. flat d8 for medium, d6 for small, as per all other creatures) was because although a fighter might have more HP due to skill and physical endurance, a wizard might have more due to sixth-sense, will-to-live, etc. This issue has been resolved to my satisfaction by removing the max HP at level one and insisting players roll for HP thereafter. It is the set HP that created the case where a fighter (given the same CON at least) will always have more HP than any d8 or d6 class. By re-introducing randomness, the problem goes away.

Yep, I know how BA limits 5E and was designed to do so, but it creates issues of sense for me and others I play with because IMO they bound it too tightly. The separate progressions in prior editions makes more sense. I know they strove for simplicity and they succeeded in that respect, much to my lament.

I am also aware that many players took issue in earlier editions with wizards once their spells were spent. To me that was never a problem. Choosing when to use their powerful magic during the adventure was part of the challenge of playing them. In such a way they did contribute meaningfully. Also, wizard could always use the weapons they knew well enough to help out in combat. For purposes of 5E, giving warriors a slight boost to attack rolls or reducing other classes a point or two is all I am really talking about to make things a bit more sensible to my thinking.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

First, despite my vehemence, the original issue was on HD. At this point, I don't even recall how I started about wizards and my attack bonus.

NUTSHELL: a level 1 fighter and wizard, with equal stats, both have the same attack bonus with weapons. IMO, that makes not sense due to all the training in various weapons and armor a fighter gets prior to starting his adventuring career as where a wizard would train enough to have an idea of what to do with a handful of weapons, but spent the majority of his time mastering his art of magic.

Warriors should hit more often in combat with weapons than non-warriors and there is little support for this, especially at lower levels.

But the fighter is still better at beating people up than the wizard. They get to choose how, via Fighting Style, but that isn’t any less valid a measure of “how good at beat up” they are than to-hit.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But the fighter is still better at beating people up than the wizard. They get to choose how, via Fighting Style, but that isn’t any less valid a measure of “how good at beat up” they are than to-hit.

I will make this clear: forget everything else.

For this discussion, I am only concerned wit the attack roll in weapon combat and a fighter is no better than a wizard at this given equal ability scores since their proficiency bonus is equal. The sole exception is the archery style granting a +2 on attack rolls. That is ranged weapons only, so doesn't include melee or thrown weapons.

Yes, that is all I am looking at as far as I am concerned because it doesn't make sense for the game to operate this way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I will make this clear: forget everything else.

For this discussion, I am only concerned wit the attack roll in weapon combat and a fighter is no better than a wizard at this given equal ability scores since their proficiency bonus is equal. The sole exception is the archery style granting a +2 on attack rolls. That is ranged weapons only, so doesn't include melee or thrown weapons.

Yes, that is all I am looking at as far as I am concerned because it doesn't make sense for the game to operate this way.

No, I know what you’re focused on. I’m saying that it doesn’t make sense to focus on that.

Your attack bonus isn’t what determines how good you are with a weapon in 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Your attack bonus isn’t what determines how good you are with a weapon in 5e.

In a very basic sense, that's exactly what it does. Can you hit that target down range? Attack bonus.

I'm not sure why the reliance of stat over class/level is a big deal, though, for someone on the verge of going back to 1e. In 1e, your fighter hit 1 better than the next guy (including the MU), unless he had a 17 STR, then he didn't hit any better than the next guy with 17 or 18 STR.

Only when the fighter got a lucky 18 and rolled % STR - /and/ rolled better than 50 on that - statistically, if you were rolling 3d6, that'd've been 1 in 800 fighters, 1 in 20k with the coveted 18/00 (that you'd probably get later from Gauntlets of Ogre Power, anyway). Even then, 18/00, you were +3 on a 1-better combat matrix vs +0 on a lesser one.

Now, at higher levels, I get the point: you're not progressing faster than everyone else, so you're just, well, on a treadmill, really. ;P

 

[Ashrym]

The fact that a Fighter and Wizard at first level with equal strength (or Dex) have the same bonus to hit and possibly to damage is a little weird, no matter what happens at later levels. In a featless game the fighter has very few options to increase his hit and damage bonuses too. Yes, he gets actions surge, and eventually a bunch of extra attacks, but that wasn't really the point. I get why the example of number of weapons trained in came up too, but that also misses the point. That first level fighter should be better with a dagger than a Wizard with equal stats, or indeed better with any of the weapons he has in common with the wizard, but he isn't.

The fighter is better because fighting styles improve that ability. The only thing proficiency gives is knowing how to use a weapon.

The first tier was called the apprentice tier at one point for a reason.

Well, I've gone over this in other threads so I will try to be brief. Consider a character with stealth and how often they use it over the course of hundreds of thousands of XP and use, how many rolls the player makes for its use. Now, 20 levels later, against the same orc they snuck by a level 1, they are only 20% better (the 4 point increase from +2 to +6) than they were all that experience and uses before. True, their DEX might increase a +1 or so depending on class, feat selection, etc. but that is another failing as I see in 5E since to my mind skill should trump ability at higher levels. I know in 5E, the bonus from ability can represent some skill, and not just natural talent, but that is also sort of a band-aid solution IMO.

Yes, you have told us how your opinion is righter than other people's opinions (which are flawed because they differ from your opinion) who like the design.

A different philosophy or approach isn't wrong or needs fixing. It's just different. The scale is there so lower CR monsters keep relevance longer and at one point skill proficiencies was considered to be optional at all. (edit: also to not significantly outweigh ability scores)

Skills also focus on ability checks predominantly. Also bt design.

All you are doing when you point out these "issues" is show you wanted 5e to be designed with a different set of premises than WotC determined from their feedback.

Yes, Extra Attack becomes a great equalizer, but that is several levels after 1st and not the point in contention. If we consider overall combat ability, of course warriors have other things that makes them superior to a wizard, but my issue is solely concerned with the attack roll and that a fighter is no better than a wizard in this regard assuming equal ability scores.

Which is still flawed reasoning. Proficient is knowing how to use, not knowing how to use better. Knowing how to use better comes from other features so ignoring them defeats the purpose of an overall comparison.

You're creating head-context for proficiency that only needs to exist because you believe it needs to exist because of the context you've added. It's circular.