Different classes still get different HP: why?

[Lacyon]

And if there's only one tough solo monster--a dragon or beholder, for instance--he's hitting for a lousy 8 damage total. he's the LVP at that point. Then you'll be calling your rogue, warlock, or ranger--the strikers of the team--the MVP.

Then the wizard switches to Magic Missile for the at-will for ~10 per hit compared to the fighter's ~10.5, and the wizard makes this attack at range, and against a typically lower defense score (Reflex instead of AC). The ranger's doing ~14 and the warlock's doing ~13.

Comparing encounter powers, the fighter's got nothing (he needs a second target to make it better than his at will), the warlock's got ~14.5, the ranger has no extra damage over his at will (but does get a +2 to hit), and the wizard's got ~14 damage.

Comparing dailies, the fighter's got ~26.5, warlock ~21, and the wizard does ~14 plus 5 ongoing (minimum 19, because the ongoing damage happens before the save). The wizard also gets to do half damage on a miss, though the fighter can keep trying his if he misses (reliable). This also assumes that the wizard is going to damage the enemy rather than put it to sleep. (The poor ranger doesn't even get to use his daily against a single target).

The wizard powers on the whole are comparable to the other classes against single foe. Add in even one secondary target and he outstrips every other class in damage.

We haven't seen every option, but the data we have just doesn't support the idea that wizards suck terribly hard in single-enemy fights (and it would be pretty bad design if they did).

 

[xechnao]

As I was posting to the Multiclassing thread, it occurred to me that 4E is removing almost all of the differences between the level progression for different classes.

BAB and saves are gone now: replaced with flat bonuses that are class abilities. Classes all have a standard progression of at-will, encounter and daily abilities, that are, apparently, intended to be balanced against each other. All classes are said to have access to rituals, which are purchased with cash.

Given that, why does a wizard get fewer HP than a fighter? Tradition? At this point I don't think so, really...so what does a wizard get to compensate for his continued lack of HP?

Your thoughts?

--Steve

Ha!

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215220

 

[Benimoto]

It's not so much that the wizard has straight-out "better" powers than the fighter, IMO; it's more that the wizard's powers are designed to be used from range, and/or to keep him at range, whereas the fighter's powers are designed to keep him in melee (where he's gonna get hit more).

I would agree with ZombieRoboNinja.

To look it at another way, the fighter needs to be in melee to take damage. The wizard can do damage at range. That means that the fighter is going to be taking damage from enemy melee types, like enemy fighters, but also from enemy artillery types, like enemy wizards. That's why the fighter needs more HP.

The different monster types also seem to get different HP. From what we've seen, a brute has more HP than a soldier, which has more HP than a lurker. The HP seem to reinforce their roles, where creatures or monsters with more HP are supposed to get hit more, and those with less are supposed to look for tactical opportunities to avoid getting hit as much.

 

[Felon]

Then the wizard switches to Magic Missile for the at-will for ~10 per hit compared to the fighter's ~10.5, and the wizard makes this attack at range, and against a typically lower defense score (Reflex instead of AC). The ranger's doing ~14 and the warlock's doing ~13.

Comparing encounter powers, the fighter's got nothing (he needs a second target to make it better than his at will), the warlock's got ~14.5, the ranger has no extra damage over his at will (but does get a +2 to hit), and the wizard's got ~14 damage.

Comparing dailies, the fighter's got ~26.5, warlock ~21, and the wizard does ~14 plus 5 ongoing (minimum 19, because the ongoing damage happens before the save). The wizard also gets to do half damage on a miss, though the fighter can keep trying his if he misses (reliable). This also assumes that the wizard is going to damage the enemy rather than put it to sleep. (The poor ranger doesn't even get to use his daily against a single target).

The wizard powers on the whole are comparable to the other classes against single foe. Add in even one secondary target and he outstrips every other class in damage.

We haven't seen every option, but the data we have just doesn't support the idea that wizards suck terribly hard in single-enemy fights (and it would be pretty bad design if they did).

So, by your figures, the wizard has the lowest at-will damage, and that's despite the fact that all of the other attacks enjoy a rider (i.e. an additional benefit) whereas the wizard's only inflicting damage.

The encounter are skewed by their difference in application. The warlock basically picked a debuff with a damage rider, and the ranger's getting a free attack and a shift as a reaction. You lament that the fighter needs a secondary target, which rather seems to contradict lauding the wizard for his ability to damage multiple creatures.

In regards to daily powers, I believe the ongoing damage from the acid arrow takes place on the wizard's next turn, so the target does indeed get a chance to save before the ongoing damage. And again, you lament that the "poor ranger" only benefits if he attacks multiple targets (for a paltry 2d10+4 without taking his +1d8 quarry bonus into account).

Seems to me, coming in second or third place in damage when all you're doing is damage (while your allies's powers have riders) is worth noting. It's also worth noting that the wizard's spells don't even affect multiple targets unless they're adjacent (the exception is scorching burst, which inarguably sacrifices damage output in order to affect a 3x3 area).

Having said all that, who said the wizard would suck at single-target combat? I just said other classes would be more valuable.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I'm not sure wizards "get" anything for lower HP. I'm not sure they should, either.

A Fighter's job is to get up in front and soak up damage, keeping the bad guys from attacking the more vulnerable members of the party. In order for this to work, the fighter needs to be tough (he's getting hit a lot) and the vulnerable members need to be vulnerable (otherwise, why would they need to be protected?).

Works for me!

 

[Iron Sky]

In regards to daily powers, I believe the ongoing damage from the acid arrow takes place on the wizard's next turn, so the target does indeed get a chance to save before the ongoing damage. And again, you lament that the "poor ranger" only benefits if he attacks multiple targets (for a paltry 2d10+4 without taking his +1d8 quarry bonus into account).

Ongoing damage takes place at the beginning of the round, saves take place at the end, so the first batch is guaranteed.

 

[SadisticFishing]

Well, the Fighter has more health because they have more practice getting hit. Take an MMA fighter and a college professor. Hit both in the stomache repeatedly. Which goes down first?

 

[Ahglock]

And if there's only one tough solo monster--a dragon or beholder, for instance--he's hitting for a lousy 8 damage total. he's the LVP at that point. Then you'll be calling your rogue, warlock, or ranger--the strikers of the team--the MVP.

That's the nature of a controller: quantity over quality. They rock against minions. Bosses and lieutenants tend to brush them off.

I hope the level of difference ends up being fairly minor in this regard. Being the best by a large margin against the solo mobs the dragons etc, is another way of saying you are the hero of the story while everyone else is your sidekick.

Being the master of the mook mop-up is a fairly lame trait. Oh yeah its a inconsequential unimportant fight, now its my time to shine.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I'm not sure wizards "get" anything for lower HP. I'm not sure they should, either.

A Fighter's job is to get up in front and soak up damage, keeping the bad guys from attacking the more vulnerable members of the party. In order for this to work, the fighter needs to be tough (he's getting hit a lot) and the vulnerable members need to be vulnerable (otherwise, why would they need to be protected?).

Works for me!

They should get something, otherwise why would you play one? Why would you take that hit if you don't get anything out of it? But I don't see why they would need anything more that the longest ranged attacks, the most area effects, and the most debuffs.

 

[GSHamster]

It has to do with how things scale. It has nothing to do with compensation, and everything to do with scaling HP so that ratios stay roughly the same across multiple levels.

Suppose a level 1 Fighter has 40 hp, and a level 1 Wizard has 25 HP (made up numbers for easy example). To keep "the math" equal, you'd want a higher level fighter to reach 80 hp at the same time the wizard reaches 50 hp, and so forth. So the fighter has to increase in hit points at a faster rate than the wizard.

Hit points versus attack damage is something that only really matters in terms of ratio, because that gets you to the REAL important number, which is "how many rounds of this can I take before I'm dead." Hit points versus AC matter in a direct comparison. To keep a ratio the same as one part increases, the other has to increase at a different rate. With direct comparisons, they have to increase at the same rate.

There's a flaw in your logic. Why did having ratios of BAB fail for different classes (+1/level, +1/2 levels) in the previous edition?

Because the total bonuses diverge rapidly, and you get into a situation where where one character cannot hit and one character cannot miss.

Similarly, with hitpoints, if they are ratio-based, you will eventually get a situation where an attack will one-shot the wizard, but the fighter will ignore it. So the monsters will have to do insane damage to even threaten the fighters, but that would be overly lethal to the wizards.

If you play WoW, something similar is happening at the high end. In the expansion they changed the ratio at which health is given out, and now tanks are sporting 20K health, while regular classes are around 9K. So the monsters are doing something like 8K per hit, which is absolutely lethal to non-tanks.