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

[DND_Reborn]

I have seen people do all kinds of reaching for corner cases to e-war on whatever the latest edition is it has probably tainted my view on it. I am not overly fond of the latest edition but honestly fighters in 5e make the 1e ones look terrible by level 5 overwhelmingly so.

I get that but this is an actual case and it points to why the universal proficiency bonus, while vastly simpler, is at fault.

It's obviously cooked when the 18 DEX is based on the elven wizard's second best roll. Pointing out the low hit points and no armor doesn't change that. That only demonstrates why the high score is less useful for the wizard in the first place.

Dex based fighters work well. Showing a DEX wizard will still be behind the fighter at 1st level. Apples to apples that's a light crossbow vs a light crossbow or better weapon and the archery fighting style.

LOL how is that "cooked"?

We rolled for stats, the default method in 5E, I had a 17 (which I put in INT) and a 16 (for DEX). His highest roll was also a 17 which he put in STR. He had no racial bonus for it. So, my "combat" stat is better. But he is a warrior, with a vast amount of additional weapon and armor training, and more hp, but my wizard is better at hitting because our proficiency bonus is the same and we both use that exact same number for attack rolls.

And saying that I put the score in DEX because of lower hp and no armor completely makes sense and is an important reason for doing it. How does that demonstrate the high score is less useful for the wizard?

And the wizard, with the same DEX, won't be behind the fighter at first level, they will be the same, despite all the time the fighter spent training over the wizard.

 

[Garthanos]

I get that but this is an actual case and it points to why the universal proficiency bonus, while vastly simpler, is at fault.

Based on some of your other posts... starting below level 3 seems more an issue (you might prefer higher). I am not fond of rolled attributes either in more recent games attributes are way more impactful than in 1e rolling them is introducing a bigger initial chaos swing. More corner cases.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Based on some of your other posts... starting below level 3 seems more an issue (you might prefer higher). I am not fond of rolled attributes either in more recent games attributes are way more impactful than in 1e rolling them is introducing a bigger initial chaos swing. More corner cases.

That is definitely a valid point in 5E about rolling for stats and the swing factor due to the randomness of luck. We've been doing point-buy, but frankly it just always feels the same without the randomness. In 1E only the really higher scores made a big difference.

In 1E for most of the classes the power creep was slower when it came to leveling. You gained some HP, you might improve your attack rolls, or your saves, or pick up a proficiency. Some classes you would get a feature once in a great while. Because of this, other than HP increasing, power came later in the game if that makes sense?

In 5E the goal is to not have "dead" levels where all you got was HP. Power comes with all the features, but the tightness of proficiency bonus from +2 to +6, ever soaring HP, and other issues make the things I like about 5E start to wane.

As an aside, I find it funny that the problem with the treadmill effect (for those who felt it, I never did) was a problem in prior editions is the way I feel about HP and the inflated HP numbers in 5E. Bounded accuracy didn't solve the problem, it just shifted the focus.

 

[Tony Vargas]

LOL how is that "cooked"?

The opposite of RaW?

And the wizard, with the same DEX, won't be behind the fighter at first level, they will be the same, despite all the time the fighter spent training over the wizard.

Unless combat style comes into it: like archery.

But, really, Extra Attack, at 5th, is what makes the fighter clearly better in spite of having the same prof bonus to hit.

But, by the same token, a fighter with the same INT as a given wizard has the same save DC for his spells, since that's also based on proficiency.

 

[Ashrym]

LOL how is that "cooked"?

It's an argument based on blind luck that assumes a high roll outside of standard probability for the wizard and not the compared classes.

We rolled for stats, the default method in 5E, I had a 17 (which I put in INT) and a 16 (for DEX). His highest roll was also a 17 which he put in STR. He had no racial bonus for it. So, my "combat" stat is better. But he is a warrior, with a vast amount of additional weapon and armor training, and more hp, but my wizard is better at hitting because our proficiency bonus is the same and we both use that exact same number for attack rolls.

You are arguing an issue with the rules because you rolled high random numbers and another player went in a different direction

That's why the standard spread and point buy systems exist.

Having a better combat score by random chance is caused by your rules choice. Rolling is to avoid cookie cutters. WAI for the creation method chosen. Not an accurate representation of a system flaw.

And saying that I put the score in DEX because of lower hp and no armor completely makes sense and is an important reason for doing it. How does that demonstrate the high score is less useful for the wizard?

No one said using DEX without armor doesn't make sense.

The high DEX is anecdotal in the first place. The standard array is what to expect on average. The argument is basically "random numbers don't work because I rolled high and didn't compare apples to apples". The compared character could have taken the same race and DEX.

DEX is less useful because wizards have worse DEX combat options compared to other classes. Your choices are TWF daggers vs TWF shortswords and poor hit points, or a light crossbow vs any bow and archery style. The DEX doesn't improve the options.

And the wizard, with the same DEX, won't be behind the fighter at first level, they will be the same, despite all the time the fighter spent training over the wizard.

I explained why twice the wizard is still behind twice now. The wizard has worse weapons and no combat style. Action surge and extra attack increases that gap

 

[Garthanos]

In 5E the goal is to not have "dead" levels where all you got was HP. Power comes with all the features, but the tightness of proficiency bonus from +2 to +6, ever soaring HP, and other issues make the things I like about 5E start to wane.

Well no dead levels is something I approve of generally speaking but in those early levels they spread out the defining attributes of a class over the first 5 levels and it means the distinction you wanted in this particular case isn't as obviously there. (it starts to be at 2 and gets blatant by 5) - and by 5 its strongly enough that your random die roll influence is not even noticeable.

I also do not get much out of proficiency being so bound tightly but its because of skill in general outside of combat we do not have well defined "skill degree of effect" the way hit points and multi-action awesome are able to demonstrate advancement for combat activity. That 4 points of skill bump hardly seems to describe the difference between epic and in-training.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's an argument based on blind luck that assumes a high roll outside of standard probability for the wizard and not the compared classes.

You are arguing an issue with the rules because you rolled high random numbers and another player went in a different direction

That's why the standard spread and point buy systems exist.

Having a better combat score by random chance is caused by your rules choice. Rolling is to avoid cookie cutters. WAI for the creation method chosen. Not an accurate representation of a system flaw.

No one said using DEX without armor doesn't make sense.

The high DEX is anecdotal in the first place. The standard array is what to expect on average. The argument is basically "random numbers don't work because I rolled high and didn't compare apples to apples". The compared character could have taken the same race and DEX.

DEX is less useful because wizards have worse DEX combat options compared to other classes. Your choices are TWF daggers vs TWF shortswords and poor hit points, or a light crossbow vs any bow and archery style. The DEX doesn't improve the options.

I explained why twice the wizard is still behind twice now. The wizard has worse weapons and no combat style. Action surge and extra attack increases that gap

Fine. Standard array then. Best two scores are 15 and 14.

High-Elf wizard: DEX 16 (14+2), INT 16 (15+1)
Lizard-man Ranger: DEX 15 (no mod), STR 12 (+2 race)

No random numbers. No unreasonable race/class choices.

The DEX totally improves the combat options. You cite daggers and shortswords, even, both finesse weapons!

Anyway, let's go further.

Attack is +5 for wizard, +4 for ranger. Granted, at 2nd level the Ranger will probably take the Archery Fighting style, but I am just talking about level ONE, when after a lot of training has occurred.

Damage is equivalent: d6+3 vs d8+2, both average 5.5.

AC is 16 for wizard with mage armor (which of course I have since I know my HP suck) but only AC 15 for ranger due to chain shirt, no shield (he is an archer). He wants stealth so decided to avoid scale mail due to the disadvantage and extra weight.

HP favors the ranger at least: 12 vs only 7 for the wizard. I guess this is necessary for the "game balance" everyone keeps insisting on... of course this could have been accomplished in better ways...

SUMMARY:
Attack roll: WIZARD
Damage roll: SAME
AC: WIZARD
HP: RANGER

Sure, I am using one of two spell slots for my protection, but that still leaves the other for offense or utility. Not an uncommon practice again considering the low HP for wizards.

Still, overall, it seems sad and wrong that in more ways than not a wizard is better than a ranger at combat. Yes, the ranger has a lot more HP, nearly double, but from the OP of this thread I don't like or think using HP that way is the answer to addressing balance. There are a lot of way to fix this, like reducing the proficiency bonus for wizards with weapon attacks.

For our actual character, the high DEX wasn't even intended to be for offense! I just wanted a good AC because knew my hp would not be good. The side-effect when we finished our characters and were filling out the weapon section was I had the same attack roll (or better) than the ranger and paladin, and that just seemed wrong when you consider I am a wizard and they are warriors. They should be better.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That 4 points of skill bump hardly seems to describe the difference between epic and in-training.

Yeah, I've been harping on that for months. We bumped up proficiency to +2 to +8 progression. It isn't great, but it is better.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Fine. Standard array then. Best two scores are 15 and 14.

High-Elf wizard: DEX 16 (14+2), INT 16 (15+1)
Lizard-man Ranger: DEX 15 (no mod), STR 12 (+2 race)

No random numbers. No unreasonable race/class choices.

The DEX totally improves the combat options. You cite daggers and shortswords, even, both finesse weapons!

Anyway, let's go further.

Attack is +5 for wizard, +4 for ranger. Granted, at 2nd level the Ranger will probably take the Archery Fighting style, but I am just talking about level ONE, when after a lot of training has occurred.

Damage is equivalent: d6+3 vs d8+2, both average 5.5.

AC is 16 for wizard with mage armor (which of course I have since I know my HP suck) but only AC 15 for ranger due to chain shirt, no shield (he is an archer). He wants stealth so decided to avoid scale mail due to the disadvantage and extra weight.

HP favors the ranger at least: 12 vs only 7 for the wizard. I guess this is necessary for the "game balance" everyone keeps insisting on... of course this could have been accomplished in better ways...

SUMMARY:
Attack roll: WIZARD
Damage roll: SAME
AC: WIZARD
HP: RANGER

Sure, I am using one of two spell slots for my protection, but that still leaves the other for offense or utility. Not an uncommon practice again considering the low HP for wizards.

Still, overall, it seems sad and wrong that in more ways than not a wizard is better than a ranger at combat. Yes, the ranger has a lot more HP, nearly double, but from the OP of this thread I don't like or think using HP that way is the answer to addressing balance. There are a lot of way to fix this, like reducing the proficiency bonus for wizards with weapon attacks.

For our actual character, the high DEX wasn't even intended to be for offense! I just wanted a good AC because knew my hp would not be good. The side-effect when we finished our characters and were filling out the weapon section was I had the same attack roll (or better) than the ranger and paladin, and that just seemed wrong when you consider I am a wizard and they are warriors. They should be better.

Why are you using a Lizardfolk for Ranger? They're better as Clerics and Druids. Your problem here is with the racial ability score increases, not with the Dex stat itself.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why are you using a Lizardfolk for Ranger? They're better as Clerics and Druids. Your problem here is with the racial ability score increases, not with the Dex stat itself.

Because that is what the other player wanted to play. You know, playing something just because it is fun?

I lizardfolk hunter/archer turned ranger when his tribe was wiped out. He was out hunting at the time. That's the backstory IIRC from the other player.

The game is supposed to work regardless of such choices, and when it doesn't is when issues show themselves.