Different classes still get different HP: why?

[Lacyon]

It seems like the assumption is that "wizards will have better powers," and to a certain extent I can see how this is true: I doubt we'll see a fighter flying or teleporting or planeshifting. At the same time, isn't that just like the old system where a wizard would pay now for getting the good stuff later on?

Looks to me like the 1st-level Wizard is the MVP in terms of damage output. At will hit up to 9 targets for ~8 damage each? Sounds like he's paying now to get the good stuff now (and he'll keep paying later to get even more good stuff later).

Perhaps a better idea would be to make the wizard pay for his abilities as he goes: suppose you get flying at level 15, teleport at level 20 and plane shift at level 25, why not have the wizard pay a HP tax to get those powers? I know that's perhaps a bit over metagamey, but haven't we left the days of "I'll suck now but be teh awesome later on!" behind us?

Sounds like exactly what is happening, except that he's paying every level and getting something cool every level.

On the point of daily powers: the wizards from D&D Experience had the same number of dailys as everyone else, or else my GM did it wrong. If they actually get more daily powers, that would certainly be a reason for less HP: more boom!

He had 2 daily powers, but had to prep only one of them each day, vancian-style, which could be seen as a pretty decent advantage.

 

[deathdonut]

Hopefully the decision used a little math beyond the assumption that the warrior will be "front line" and therefore needs HP.

In general, balance should be based around Survivability * Effectiveness = Power. Unfortunately, neither the Survivability nor the Effectiveness numbers are easily quantifiable.

Survivability:
By HP alone, the warrior has almost twice the survivability.
Adding in about 5 points of armor, you probably average a total melee suvivability factor of 4 times that of the wizard.

The problem is that you aren't doing an apples-to-apples comparison. Wizards have most of their effectiveness at range. How much survivability do you get from this? Obviously it depends upon the campaign and is difficult to quantify. If the Wizard has a Defender friend between him and his opponent, that survivability edge is quite large.

Effectiveness:
Warriors are Defenders, so while most warriors will stack defensibility we will assume here (as we did above) that the warrior goes for as much offense as the mage. This means that they are on equal footing on offense numbers.

The problem is that Warriors are limited (mostly) to attacks that go against AC. If we give NPC's the same AC bonus (5ish) as we did the warrior in the survivability example, a wizard attacking a non-AC stat is going to be roughly twice as effective offensively. Add to that a likely variety in defensive stat targets (Will vs Fort?) and the gap expands.

The wizard also gains the nebulous effectiveness of the Controller role. I think this is where most people expect things will be swayed by wizards "getting more powerful abilities". The role itself is defined by being able to effect multiple enemies and portions of the battlefield. This means that where a warrior or other defender is going to be limited to swinging at a single opponent (with perhaps a little cleave bonus), the Wizard will be doing similar damage to a clump of opponents.

If we expect the Wizard to be "dealing with" an average of two opponents per action, the power numbers are suddenly swayed toward the Wizard.

Add in some localized control (Opportunity) abilities of the Warrior and some Wizard-based Utility rituals/spells, and I think we have two reasonably balanced but quite unique polar ends of the class spectrum.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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

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).

Ideally, you want the flow of battle to work such that all the enemies are attacking the defender, with maybe some stray shots on leaders and possibly strikers, and almost nobody going after the wizard. Most of the powers in the game are designed to support this system. So a fighter may be able to take more hits, but along with that, the majority of his class abilities and powers are designed to ensure that he GETS hit. The wizard has lower HP and armor, but his abilities are designed to make sure everyone leaves him alone.

 

[ShinRyuuBR]

Actually, while attack, defenses and skills have an universal PROGRESSION, they still differ in BASE BONUSES. Do we know if HP progression is in fact different, or only the base value? Even if it is different, I doubt it would be by a significant value, compared to the weight of your Con score and your base HP value and armor factored in.

 

[Gryffyn]

After that, the next step would be to give all classes the same powers....

 

[Felon]

Looks to me like the 1st-level Wizard is the MVP in terms of damage output. At will hit up to 9 targets for ~8 damage each? Sounds like he's paying now to get the good stuff now (and he'll keep paying later to get even more good stuff later).

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.

 

[keterys]

I'd hope that powers are roughly on par with each other and that hp progression instead compares to class abilities (for instance, cantrips, spellbook) and ability focus... that is, a wizard only needs Int so can have higher attack and damage bonuses than a paladin. That's definitely worth something.

 

[Felon]

It seems like the assumption is that "wizards will have better powers," and to a certain extent I can see how this is true: I doubt we'll see a fighter flying or teleporting or planeshifting.

Well, you will see a fighter teleporting and planeshifting; when the wizard completes the ritual, I doubt he'll decided to leave his defender buddies behind. Those abilities are pretty much party resources--the wizard just owns the ladel.

Hit points and offense are the two trade-offs at work here. The defender contributes the least offense, while the wizard contributes the most (because the majority of fights involve minions, which is what a wizard is built to take out).

 

[Cadfan]

Actually, while attack, defenses and skills have an universal PROGRESSION, they still differ in BASE BONUSES. Do we know if HP progression is in fact different, or only the base value? Even if it is different, I doubt it would be by a significant value, compared to the weight of your Con score and your base HP value and armor factored in.

We don't know if HP progression is in fact different.

But I feel confident in asserting that it is, because mathematically, it HAS to be.

Hit points on their own are meaningless in terms of estimating your characters survivability. What matters is (Hit Points)/[(Chance of Being Hit)*(Average Damage Per Hit)]. This produces a ratio that gives you an estimate of how long you survive in combat. Lets call it Survivability. Survivability is what matters, NOT hit points.

Now, (Chance of Being Hit) stays about the same as you level up. That's part of the "fixing the math" thing the designers are always talking about. But (Average Damage Per Hit) goes up.

This means that (Hit Points) have to go up in order to keep pace, if you want Survivability to stay the same regardless of level.

Now lets say that a level 1 wizard and a level 1 fighter have different Survivability, and we want their Survivability ratings to be about the same with respect to one another as they level up.

You can go ahead and do the math yourself. This means that Hit Points MUST increase differently for each character. If the Fighter has Survivability 10, and the Wizard has Survivability 7, and their hit points increase the same amount per level, you get problems. If you hold the Wizard's Survivability constant by setting the Hit Points to assure that it stays the same regardless of level, the Fighter's Survivability slowly falls. And if you set the Fighter's Survivability constant, and make hit point gain the same for both classes, the Wizard's Survivability slowly rises.

You have to make them different for the math to work. A one time bonus frontloaded onto the class won't work because it will eventually get swamped by increased damage, destroying the Survivability factor, which is what really matters.

 

[deathdonut]

A wizard only needs Int so can have higher attack and damage bonuses than a paladin. That's definitely worth something.

You could similarly say that a warrior only needs Str because his base HP numbers compensate for lack of Con and armor compensates for lack of Dex. In actuality, if the speculation that Fort saves are based off of the higher of Str/Con, it would further make sense to invest in only one of those two abilities.

As it happens, the reason a warrior/pally is more likely to invest in Con (other than his obvious job of getting kicked in the face) is that his extra (class given) healing surges give him more benefit than a wizard would get from the same stats.