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

[DND_Reborn]

I've always preferred hit dice as a function of race, instead of class. Something like...

d12: Dwarf
d10: Half-orc
d8: Human, Half-elf, Tiefling
d6: Elf, Gnome, Halfling

But I'm probably in a very small minority.

Interesting notion. So do you think of HP as mostly physical then? Also, wouldn't the CON bonus your tougher races get as racial adjustments represent that boost normally instead of using larger die types?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The game should present viable, meaningful choices.

Looks like it did. If, instead, choice of class overrides choice of stat and race, that"s an example of no viable, meaningful choices.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

LOL maybe I'll bother reading all this at some point, but I doubt it. I don't read long posts. Sorry.

Considering that half the post was your own quotes, that LOL is really coming across as dismissive. But if you really need somebody to break it down for you, then some of the key points of his post were:

• Optimization matters. Like it or not, certain races and certain classes gel well with each other, or not at all. Trying to compare a well-optimized character to a poorly-optimized one is disingenuous.
• The attack bonus isn't the end-all be-all. Weapon type, fighting styles, HP count, etc. also have big effects on viability in melee.
• Tying into the point above, "AC is only lower by choices made. Attack roll is only lower by choices made. Damage isn't actually the same but the difference is negligible at 1st level. Hit points greatly favor the ranger. So do ability checks given favored terrain will match the starting setting. "
• "A single level that blinks by is not concerning based on a deliberate choice to have a lower DEX than the wizard in the first place instead of a matching build." Speaks for itself.
• Take the armour off if you want to stealth. Also (my own thoughts), the Ranger is a Lizardfolk, WHO HAVE 13+DEX NATURAL ARMOUR, WHY IS HE EVEN WEARING THAT CHAIN SHIRT?

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.

No it's not. Why is why @Ovinomancer said that you were in essence saying "The game should protect me from.my choices!" Which quite frankly, I agree with them that that's what you were saying.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Looks like it did.

Doesn't look like it when someone cries foul on an example because of the race/class combo.

Either the example is valid, and with it the complaint about proficiency (which ultimately argues against choice of class being meaningfu)...
...or the example is invalid because the race/class combo isn't viable.

Full disclosure, I'm not really down with either alternative.
5e isn't balanced carefully enough for such analysis.

But asserting that balance is not a desirable quality in a game by insulting anyone who might imply otherwise, that I take issue with.
And that's all I took issue with, so if that wasn't your intent, case closed.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Considering that half the post was your own quotes, that LOL is really coming across as dismissive. But if you really need somebody to break it down for you, then some of the key points of his post were:

• Optimization matters. Like it or not, certain races and certain classes gel well with each other, or not at all. Trying to compare a well-optimized character to a poorly-optimized one is disingenuous.
• The attack bonus isn't the end-all be-all. Weapon type, fighting styles, HP count, etc. also have big effects on viability in melee.
• Tying into the point above, "AC is only lower by choices made. Attack roll is only lower by choices made. Damage isn't actually the same but the difference is negligible at 1st level. Hit points greatly favor the ranger. So do ability checks given favored terrain will match the starting setting. "
• "A single level that blinks by is not concerning based on a deliberate choice to have a lower DEX than the wizard in the first place instead of a matching build." Speaks for itself.
• Take the armour off if you want to stealth. Also (my own thoughts), the Ranger is a Lizardfolk, WHO HAVE 13+DEX NATURAL ARMOUR, WHY IS HE EVEN WEARING THAT CHAIN SHIRT?

No it's not. Why is why @Ovinomancer said that you were in essence saying "The game should protect me from.my choices!" Which quite frankly, I agree with them that that's what you were saying.

First off, thanks for doing that. It is nice and concise and easy to address.

Let's take optimization out of it then. The issue is with flat proficiency bonus a fighter with all 10's and a wizard with all 10's are just as likely to hit on a melee weapon attack despite the enormous amount of weapon (and presumably) combat training the fighter has had compared to the practically non-existent training a wizard has based on class.

Attack bonus isn't but they shouldn't be equal--it makes no sense. You take those all 10's fighter and wizard in plain clothes with daggers and the only reason the fighter would likely win in fight is due to higher HP. Which, as I have said in other posts, is a bloated mechanic that only switches perceived problems in other mechanics to HP.

How fast level 1 blinks by depends greatly on the table. As quickly as it is supposed to go by in 5E, why even bother having it? Why not just bloat HP to level 3, give all kinds of stuff, and start there? Oh, wait, a lot of people do just that... Might as well have just 18 levels then.

The chain shirt armor thing is my bad. There were two warriors, paladin and ranger, and the paladin wore the chain shirt. I just recalled the lizardfolk's AC and thought that was why (he isn't my character and I've never played one...). So, my apologies for that oversight on my part.

As for Ovi's comment, provided both parties are at least average 10's, a level 1 warrior-type should be able to hit more often than a level 1 wizard in combat. And you know what, he doesn't. Yeah, it is only level 1, but so what? It's the beginning, it's where our new characters are at, and it's nonsense IMO.

 

[CleverNickName]

Interesting notion. So do you think of HP as mostly physical then? Also, wouldn't the CON bonus your tougher races get as racial adjustments represent that boost normally instead of using larger die types?

Yes, I tend to think of hit points as being a purely physical construct...it helps me wrap my head around things like fire, poison, and weapons causing them to diminish, Constitution giving them a bonus, healing spells restoring them, and that sort of thing. It's not perfect, but it works for my brain.

You make an excellent point about racial ability scores, though...the racial bonus to Constitution that some races give is designed to model this as well. If I ever implement this "racial hit dice" thing as a house rule, I'd have to take a hard look at racial ability score adjustments and decide if they are worth fiddling with, or if they would be fine as-is. (My gut tells me they would probably be fine as-is, but my gut tells me a lot of things.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, I tend to think of hit points as being a purely physical construct...it helps me wrap my head around things like fire, poison, and weapons causing them to diminish, Constitution giving them a bonus, healing spells restoring them, and that sort of thing.

You make an excellent point about racial ability scores, though...the racial bonus to Constitution that some races give is designed to model that as well. So if I ever implement this "racial hit dice" thing as a house rule, I'd have to take a hard look at racial ability score adjustments and decide if they are worth fiddling with, or if they would be fine as-is.

Thinking of them physically is fine if it works for you. I like to think of much of them as abstract.

Anyway, my only word of caution is this house-rule would lead to even more race/class synergy I think. Who would play an halfling fighter with a d6 for hp when they could be a dwarf with d12? Heck, a dwarf wizard would also have d12 hp.

I've toyed with an idea a long time ago that might work for you if you like it. Combining race and class for hp.

Race: Dwarf, Half-Orc, etc. get 1d6, other races might get 1d4 or even a 1d3 for smaller races.
Class: Warrior types get 1d6 or 1d8 (maybe...), and caster-types get 1d4. Or you could split them up into three groups for 1d8, 1d6, and 1d4.

So, a gnome wizard might get 1d3 plus 1d4 where a half-orc paladin maybe 1d6 plus 1d8.

This would maybe only be for level 1. Or you could alternate after level 1, granting race hp one level and then class hp the next? I don't know, it's a thought.

 

[Ashrym]

Let's take optimization out of it then. The issue is with flat proficiency bonus a fighter with all 10's and a wizard with all 10's are just as likely to hit on a melee weapon attack despite the enormous amount of weapon (and presumably) combat training the fighter has had compared to the practically non-existent training a wizard has based on class.

Attack bonus isn't but they shouldn't be equal--it makes no sense. You take those all 10's fighter and wizard in plain clothes with daggers and the only reason the fighter would likely win in fight is due to higher HP. Which, as I have said in other posts, is a bloated mechanic that only switches perceived problems in other mechanics to HP.

The bold part isn't true. The amount of training with a light crossbow is the same in game mechanics terms. There aren't different types of proficiency. There is trained and there is not trained. Fighters are trained in a wider variety of weapons and armor. Wizards train with some weapons.

What you did earlier was switch from a STR based example to a DEX based ranger where the race didn't match up to the class abilities. That's like complaining someone's half-orc wizard doesn't have the same spell DC as an elven fighter. Making a choice for flavor doesn't invalidate other options. It's easy to match a race to warrior classes and not struggle here. Fighters, monks, paladins, rogues, barbarians, and even rangers with the right class are better at combat than a wizard with some DEX. Even the cherry-picked anecdote you used earlier is better for 19/20 levels.


EDIT: It's not an issue with mechanics. It's just your perception of "how things should be".

 

[CleverNickName]

Well now I can't stop thinking about it. So let's see what happens with my "racial hit dice" idea in Post #146. Let's all put on our min-maxer hats and see if we can break it.

Spoiler: Sleepy, distracted attempt at testing game theory while drinking beer and watching Undeadwood on YouTube

Case 1: A dwarf wizard, using the rules as-written (RAW).
Case 2: A dwarf wizard, using my racial hit dice and PHB racial adjustments.
Case 3: A dwarf wizard, using my racial hit dice but no other PHB racial adjustments.

For all cases, let's assume the player has decided to optimize Constitution at the cost of all other stats. So they put their highest stat in Constitution (15), and advance it to 20 at the earliest opportunity.

Case 1 starts with 9 hit points at 1st level. By 4th level, they have 20 in Constitution, and end up with a maximum possible 212 hit points.

Case 2 starts with 15 hit points at 1st level. By 4th level, they have 20 in Constitution, and end up with a maximum possible 332 hit points.

Case 3 starts with 14 hit points at 1st level. It takes them until 12th level to reach 20 in Constitution, so they end up with a maximum possible 316 hit points.

The difference between changing or keeping the racial ability score adjustments seems negligible (4.8%) compared to the changes wrought by racial hit dice (36.1%). So it feels like my gut was right; if I were to implement this "Racial Hit Dice" houserule, the racial ability score adjustments would probably be fine as-is.

The bigger problem, I think, is that you would see a lot more dwarves in the world, and gnomes would become nearly extinct. Maybe this is a good thing, maybe it isn't, depending on the campaign you are trying to run.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The bold part isn't true. The amount of training with a light crossbow is the same in game mechanics terms. There aren't different types of proficiency. There is trained and there is not trained. Fighters are trained in a wider variety of weapons and armor. Wizards train with some weapons.

What you did earlier was switch from a STR based example to a DEX based ranger where the race didn't match up to the class abilities. That's like complaining someone's half-orc wizard doesn't have the same spell DC as an elven fighter. Making a choice for flavor doesn't invalidate other options. It's easy to match a race to warrior classes and not struggle here. Fighters, monks, paladins, rogues, barbarians, and even rangers with the right class are better at combat than a wizard with some DEX. Even the cherry-picked anecdote you used earlier is better for 19/20 levels.

EDIT: It's not an issue with mechanics. It's just your perception of "how things should be".

The bold part is certainly true. Warriors (fighters, rangers, barbarians, and paladins) learn all simple and martial weapons. There are something like 35 or so I think, compared to the 5 that wizards learn! That is a lot of combat training no matter how you try to twist it.

I would argue as well that while a wizard might learn how to use a light crossbow (for mechanics purposes), a warrior is going to learn more about using those weapons. A wizard's weapon training is likely to be cursory at best.

Take your pick. STR-based hill dwarf paladin or DEX-based lizardfolk ranger. Both warriors had attack bonuses equal to or less than my wizard.

The mechanic issues with 5E are oversimplified proficiency bonus that doesn't make sense compared to prior editions and bloated HP which is a result of the BA used in 5E. Same issue (if you have it-- never bothered me personally), different mechanic.

And how I think things should be is what makes sense to me and is why I take issue with it. A flaw in the mechanics. If you don't have a problem with it (seems you don't), then why are you trying to convince me?