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

Coroc

Adventurer
To all of you guys bemoaning Hit dice, hit points etc. Look at weapon damage dice for a change:

What does 1d10 mean in this context?

What is a grazing hit (1) for
a fighter with 100 HP
a fighter with 100 HP but only 1 HP left
a Wizard with 4 or 6 HP

What is on the opposite a full hit (10) for
a fighter with 100 HP
a fighter with 100 HP but only 1 HP left
a Wizard with 4 or 6 HP

Do you see what I am getting at?

Do you now realize that HP is, and has to stay, a totally abstract mechanic?
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
To all of you guys bemoaning Hit dice, hit points etc. Look at weapon damage dice for a change:

What does 1d10 mean in this context?

What is a grazing hit (1) for
a fighter with 100 HP
a fighter with 100 HP but only 1 HP left
a Wizard with 4 or 6 HP

What is on the opposite a full hit (10) for
a fighter with 100 HP
a fighter with 100 HP but only 1 HP left
a Wizard with 4 or 6 HP

Do you see what I am getting at?

Do you now realize that HP is, and has to stay, a totally abstract mechanic?
This argument has been going on since the 70s. Some people will never accept that HP, as terrible a construct as it is, works reasonably well and is probably the best option given the nature of the game.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
I could see it - as any nice thing one may try to give the fighter - spreading out like Extra Attack to some cleric domains, that way.

Then why does it scale with level?
And, why would that be an impediment to a class feature?

So wizards can't be proficient in weapons, at all, unless they choose a race that gives them a weapon proficiency?
So not just like, at all.

Now, admittedly, as soon as your EK starts casting spells, you have a rather serious comparison between him and the wizard... who might be a Bladesinger with Extra Attack.
Proficiency scales with level as a representation of experience, not superior knowledge in weapon use. That's why learning to use a weapon at 16 level still gives a +5 bonus instead of a +2 bonus having just learned it.

I would play a game house-ruled that wizards have no weapon proficiencies at all. That just means I would add the proficiency by race, or feat, or just rely on cantrips for damage. The class proficiencies aren't actually meaningful enough to matter.

My point with the fighter was the bonuses for the 1st level fighter who picks up cantrips or spells regardless of source are the same bonuses as the wizard. That's that exact same argument being used about weapons and proficiency. The argument that fighters cast spells as well as wizards is just as valid as the argument that wizards fight just as well as fighters because both arguments are using the exact same criteria. Both arguments are wrong, and I was illustrating the point.

5e proficiency is a lot more like the old non-weapon proficiencies from before the 3e skill system and all WotC did was add weapons to the mechanic. It's literally nothing more than learning how to use the weapon, or armor, or tool, or skill techniques.
 
The argument that fighters cast spells as well as wizards is just as valid as the argument that wizards fight just as well as fighters because both arguments are using the exact same criteria.
The comparison was at first level, and fighters do not cast spells at first level, all wizards do have some weapons they can use at first level.
If you want to 'complain' that some races cast spells as well as a same-INT wizard at 1st level, I suppose you could...
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
The comparison was at first level, and fighters do not cast spells at first level, all wizards do have some weapons they can use at first level.
If you want to 'complain' that some races cast spells as well as a same-INT wizard at 1st level, I suppose you could...
The race was necessary to give the wizard high enough DEX in the original comparison too. Not all races give the DEX bonus. It's a required condition to meet the argument in both cases.

All 1st level fighters can add spells so it's still just as valid a comparison. The shoe is just on the other foot.
 

Saelorn

Adventurer
To all of you guys bemoaning Hit dice, hit points etc. Look at weapon damage dice for a change:

What does 1d10 mean in this context?

What is a grazing hit (1) for
a fighter with 100 HP
a fighter with 100 HP but only 1 HP left
a Wizard with 4 or 6 HP

What is on the opposite a full hit (10) for
a fighter with 100 HP
a fighter with 100 HP but only 1 HP left
a Wizard with 4 or 6 HP

Do you see what I am getting at?

Do you now realize that HP is, and has to stay, a totally abstract mechanic?
The most consistent perspective is that damage numbers represent a consistent amount of force being applied, while HP totals reflect force-dissipation factors.

The damage of an arrow, whether that's 1 or 10, is intrinsic to that arrow. The damage value represents things like mass and speed. While the arrow is in flight, it carries the same amount of kinetic energy, regardless of what it later hits. It's the exact same arrow, regardless of whether it hits a wizard or a fighter, and regardless of whether or not the victim has been previously injured.

The maximum HP of a creature reflect how much force it can withstand while remaining active. If a standard arrow imparts 5 units of force, then a fighter with 100hp can withstand twenty such events before falling. A wizard with 6hp can only withstand one such impact. A fighter with 100hp, who only has 1hp left, cannot withstand any additional arrows.

There are definitely some abstractions involved here. The damage value of an arrow involves mass, speed, and shape; but we don't bother defining how much of each, because it's not important. Likewise, the ability to withstand injury without falling depends on experience (somehow) and toughness; but we don't bother defining how much of each, because it's not important. It's somewhat abstract, yes, but it isn't nearly as abstract as some people claim it to be.
 
The race was necessary to give the wizard high enough DEX in the original comparison too.
You can leave race out of it, entirely.

Besides, second-best stat in DEX is hardly implausible for a wizard, second-best stat in INT for a fighter is prettymuch laughable, so we are talking fairly theoretical/arbitrary examples, just to illustrate the sameness of proficiency.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
You can leave race out of it, entirely.

Besides, second-best stat in DEX is hardly implausible for a wizard, second-best stat in INT for a fighter is prettymuch laughable, so we are talking fairly theoretical/arbitrary examples, just to illustrate the sameness of proficiency.
You cannot leave race out of it entirely and still get that 16 DEX and INT required for the example. If race applies to one example it applies to all examples.

The fighter or rogue investing in INT isn't laughable because it's important to eldritch knights and arcane tricksters, or planning on using investigation.

I can make an elven fighter planning on going EK (possibly adding ritual casting) and it's worth my time to invest in INT. I would also have a cantrip at first level keyed off INT and matching the wizard DC's or attack role. It's an argument that works both ways, and being dismissive of that fact doesn't change it.
 

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
The fighter or rogue investing in INT isn't laughable because it's important to eldritch knights and arcane tricksters, or planning on using investigation.

I can make an elven fighter planning on going EK (possibly adding ritual casting) and it's worth my time to invest in INT. I would also have a cantrip at first level keyed off INT and matching the wizard DC's or attack role. It's an argument that works both ways, and being dismissive of that fact doesn't change it.
Dex is a very effective secondary stat for a wizard of any type because it boosts their AC, initiative, ability to avoid being shoved or grappled, reflex saves and stealth.
Outside of a single subclass, Int is not a good secondary stat for a fighter because it is competing with Dex (or Str) and Con, and generally grants less to the class as a whole than those two stats do.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Dex is a very effective secondary stat for a wizard of any type because it boosts their AC, initiative, ability to avoid being shoved or grappled, reflex saves and stealth.
Outside of a single subclass, Int is not a good secondary stat for a fighter because it is competing with Dex (or Str) and Con, and generally grants less to the class as a whole than those two stats do.
Where were you with optimization advice when there was a lizardman STR ranger?

:)
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
Dex is a very effective secondary stat for a wizard of any type because it boosts their AC, initiative, ability to avoid being shoved or grappled, reflex saves and stealth.
Outside of a single subclass, Int is not a good secondary stat for a fighter because it is competing with Dex (or Str) and Con, and generally grants less to the class as a whole than those two stats do.

That's good and all but doesn't respond to the problem. We are specifically looking at the bonus and nothing else matters.

Don't forget, WotC is obligated to support my opinion as a player and fighters shouldn't be capable of DC's as high as wizards. No fighter should be capable of wizard DC's because magic is special. Clearly the solution is to give all wizards a bonus. ;)

Pretty much every argument being given can be applied the other way.

Besides, based on the "but magic" comments and "players gravitate towards power gaming" comments on Enworld one would think EK's with high INT would be the default assumption. If magic is all that and players power game then INT would benefit most fighters. ;)
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
That's good and all but doesn't respond to the problem. We are specifically looking at the bonus and nothing else matters.

Don't forget, WotC is obligated to support my opinion as a player and fighters shouldn't be capable of DC's as high as wizards. No fighter should be capable of wizard DC's because magic is special. Clearly the solution is to give all wizards a bonus. ;)

Pretty much every argument being given can be applied the other way.

Besides, based on the "but magic" comments and "players gravitate towards power gaming" comments on Enworld one would think EK's with high INT would be the default assumption. If magic is all that and players power game then INT would benefit most fighters. ;)
Now you're getting it! WOTC should design a game specifically for you and if it isn't exactly what you want they're a bunch of lazy no-good-nicks with sloppy writing, terrible rules and have delivered an awful game! Because there should never be any rule that could have ambiguity or be improved in any way whatsoever. After all with a measly 212,919* words in the PHB there should be no flaws whatsoever.

P.S. No game with the complexity and design goals of D&D could ever be perfect, or be tailored to every gamer niche.

*At least according to a random web site I found with a quick google. How did we ever survive without an internet search engine?
 
Pretty much every argument being given can be applied the other way.
It can't, because literally absolutely every PC is proficient in at least some weapons, but, until a 5.5 or something changes it, there are in fact fighters (and rogues and barbarians who can't cast spells).
Besides, based on the "players gravitate towards power gaming" comments on Enworld one would think EK's with high INT would be the default assumption.
The conventional trick with EK is to abuse shield for AC. And INT is rather poorly regarded by that set, thus time around.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
It can't, because literally absolutely every PC is proficient in at least some weapons, but, until a 5.5 or something changes it, there are in fact fighters (and rogues and barbarians who can't cast spells).
The conventional trick with EK is to abuse shield for AC. And INT is rather poorly regarded by that set, thus time around.
Any goal post shift in a storm, eh?

Claim: wizards are as good as fighters in hitting with weapons with regard to attack bonus.
Caveats:
1. Provided specific build choices are made
2. Limited to only thise weapons wizards are proficient

Counterclaim: fighters are as good as wizards at casting a spell, in regards to attack bonus.
Caveats:
1. Same
2. Limited to spells available via 1.

Tony: it's just not realistic to expect caveat 1 on the counterclaims. Now, regarding claim, it's obvious caveats are acceptable, yes?
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
It can't, because literally absolutely every PC is proficient in at least some weapons, but, until a 5.5 or something changes it, there are in fact fighters (and rogues and barbarians who can't cast spells).
Are we focusing on what elven wizards have but not elven fighters?

The elf was cherry-picked for INT and DEX in order to meet the attack bonus argument in the first place. Using the exact same race for the fighter gives the fighter a cantrip. All high elves cast spells at 1st level.

They don't know as many spells but the spells being cast are just as effective. That's no different than the complaint the elven wizard using a finesse weapon has the same attack bonus.

If we go back to the tentpole argument supporting players that includes the players who have the opinion wizards should be more powerful than they are now.

The conventional trick with EK is to abuse shield for AC. And INT is rather poorly regarded by that set, thus time around.
Because a high DC status effect is powerful on a wizard and worthless on a fighter?

I need a "sounds legit" meme.

Not getting attacked at all seems like a solid alternative to blowing through spell slots on shield. It's almost like the same concepts apply in both cases. ;)
 

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
Where were you with optimization advice when there was a lizardman STR ranger?

:)
If a player wants their character to be a powerful melee predator for example, or similar mental image, I'm all for it. Optimisation isn't necessary, and certainly doesn't trump character concept.
Dex might be better mechanically, but as long as the player is aware of that and OK with giving up some mechanical power for the sake of a more interesting character, good.
That's good and all but doesn't respond to the problem. We are specifically looking at the bonus and nothing else matters.
I'm responding to the suggestion that Int is as valuable a stat to Fighters as Dex is to Wizards..

I don't have an issue with the quirk of the system that means that Wizards can have the same bonus to hit with a weapon than Fighters.
(I do have issues with the sheer gameplay capability differential between the two classes, but I don't regard the attack bonus as being a major part of that. :) )

Besides, based on the "but magic" comments and "players gravitate towards power gaming" comments on Enworld one would think EK's with high INT would be the default assumption. If magic is all that and players power game then INT would benefit most fighters. ;)
No, in general, while magic probably does make the EK the best Fighter subclass in terms of interest and contribution to all pillars of the game, its not a Wizard and probably shouldn't try to be.
Massive MAD issues mean that generally EKs seem to stick with a fairly modest Int score and rely on spells that don't require to hit rolls or saving throws.
Access to spells gives it better performance in the social and exploration pillars of the game than other Fighters, but limited level and selection, no rituals, and fewer slots mean that its still not contributing like a Wizard can. In combat, the general wisdom seems to be to stick to buffs rather than use actions throwing offensive spells that may miss or be resisted - the weapon attack capability of the Fighter makes it good enough there.

And at the end of the day, the reason the Fighter class is so popular is probably due to character concepts it evokes rather than mechanical power. The Eldritch Knight is one concept, but probably not the most popular when it comes to the mental image for someone who decides that they want to play a Fighter due to the Fighter class concept.
If a player is "gravitating towards power gaming" and wants to be solid in all aspects of the game, - they're probably not choosing to play a Fighter to start with. :sneaky:
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
If a player wants their character to be a powerful melee predator for example, or similar mental image, I'm all for it. Optimisation isn't necessary, and certainly doesn't trump character concept.
Dex might be better mechanically, but as long as the player is aware of that and OK with giving up some mechanical power for the sake of a more interesting character, good.
I'm responding to the suggestion that Int is as valuable a stat to Fighters as Dex is to Wizards..

I don't have an issue with the quirk of the system that means that Wizards can have the same bonus to hit with a weapon than Fighters.
(I do have issues with the sheer gameplay capability differential between the two classes, but I don't regard the attack bonus as being a major part of that. :) )

No, in general, while magic probably does make the EK the best Fighter subclass in terms of interest and contribution to all pillars of the game, its not a Wizard and probably shouldn't try to be.
Massive MAD issues mean that generally EKs seem to stick with a fairly modest Int score and rely on spells that don't require to hit rolls or saving throws.
Access to spells gives it better performance in the social and exploration pillars of the game than other Fighters, but limited level and selection, no rituals, and fewer slots mean that its still not contributing like a Wizard can. In combat, the general wisdom seems to be to stick to buffs rather than use actions throwing offensive spells that may miss or be resisted - the weapon attack capability of the Fighter makes it good enough there.

And at the end of the day, the reason the Fighter class is so popular is probably due to character concepts it evokes rather than mechanical power. The Eldritch Knight is one concept, but probably not the most popular when it comes to the mental image for someone who decides that they want to play a Fighter due to the Fighter class concept.
If a player is "gravitating towards power gaming" and wants to be solid in all aspects of the game, - they're probably not choosing to play a Fighter to start with. :sneaky:
You're missing the point. Nothing else matters in the comparison other than that single bonus. That's why wizards can fight just as well as fighters. ;)

I'm just holding up a mirror and reflecting back arguments. ;)
 
Last edited:

TiwazTyrsfist

Explorer
Eventually, with all these threads, we have to hit a point where the answer to "Why is [Blank] done in [blank] manner?" is "Because that's the way the game was made".

Why do different classes have different HD?
Why do Spells work like that?
Why do we roll These dice and not some other combination of dice?
Why does this class have this power but another doesn't?

Because that's the game.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
If a player wants their character to be a powerful melee predator for example, or similar mental image, I'm all for it. Optimisation isn't necessary, and certainly doesn't trump character concept.
Dex might be better mechanically, but as long as the player is aware of that and OK with giving up some mechanical power for the sake of a more interesting character, good.
I'm responding to the suggestion that Int is as valuable a stat to Fighters as Dex is to Wizards.
I think CON is better on wizards. Both experience, and other posters' guides to wizards, suggest that maintaining concentration is more important than have a higher AC against attacks that one shouldn't be in the way of anyway.
 

Advertisement

Top