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

[FrogReaver]

Before you say anything, "Yes, yes, another hit point thread... ARG!"

(Deep breath...)

Okay, so I posted about this in my other thread, but not wanting to derail that I decided to start fresh.

Why do different classes have different HD types?

Now, for the purposes of my question, I am making an assumption that you prescribe to the "abstract" HP camp where HP are a combination of several factors: physical endurance, mental endurance, skill, luck, favor, sixth-sense, etc. If you are in the "HP = meat only (or meat mostly)" camp then larger HD size makes sense for warriors and lower ones for weaker wizardy-types.

You could argue a fighter is "tougher" and can take a beating better, sure, but in the same light I can argue a rogue could have better luck or a wizard a better sixth-sense. Are those weighted less compared to physical endurance? Do you think a battler's skill is superior in combat so they get more HP? Well, wouldn't a caster be better at resisting the damage caused by other spells? HP don't differentiate between the source of the damage, so to say a barbarian gets more HP, even to resist the damage from spells, doesn't make much sense if those HP are earned during a career where the character mostly resisted weapon and natural attack damage.

Also, since front-liners tend to have better Constitution scores anyway because they want more HP, what impact would a flat universal d8 have? Would it hurt them that much, really?

FWIW, I don't really have an issue with HD, this is more about understanding a consistent and logical rationale for different HD sizes if you subscribe to the abstract HP concept.

It seems to me that hit dice gain per level is best thought of as an estimation of your increasing skill. Skill at what you might ask? Well Fighter's increase their skill at fighting, rogues at roguing, wizard and wizarding etc. (Of course hit dice hp are not limited to skill alone).

To me this means the higher hit dice classes are thus more skilled, lucky, etc at defending themselves in combat. Then con increases hp and what it best represents is your ability not to get too tired to effectively defend yourself.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Yeah, you would find races disappearing LOL! So, I probably wouldn't go this route but if you have fun with it, cool enough.

 

[Ashrym]

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?

I'm just point out the flaws in your reasoning and discussing it so everyone understands various perspectives. A discussion with opposing viewpoints isn't a futile exercise.

And there isn't any mechanic or fluff that claims fighters train harder with crossbows than wizards. Only that fighters learn to properly handle more variety and martial weapons. That's where things like fighting style and extra attack come in. The class abilities support extra capability, not the proficiency. Proficiency bonus doesn't give the greater capability to these warrior classes -- that's just a preconceived notion from which you are basing your argument.

Proficiency is universal so that the same system applies whether it's a fighter with a weapon or a wizard with a spell making the attack. A simple proficiency easily makes sense. In that regard. It's also done that way to create emphasis on ability scores. Your examples prove that works as intended.

EDIT: I'll go back to my variant human heavy armor ranger with a feat and equal attack score to your elf wizard. Half-elf pally or wood-elf ranger. Take your pick.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm just point out the flaws in your reasoning and discussing it so everyone understands various perspectives. A discussion with opposing viewpoints isn't a futile exercise.

And there isn't any mechanic or fluff that claims fighters train harder with crossbows than wizards. Only that fighters learn to properly handle more variety and martial weapons. That's where things like fighting style and extra attack come in. The class abilities support extra capability, not the proficiency. Proficiency bonus doesn't give the greater capability to these warrior classes -- that's just a preconceived notion from which you are basing your argument.

Proficiency is universal so that the same system applies whether it's a fighter with a weapon or a wizard with a spell making the attack. A simple proficiency easily makes sense. In that regard. It's also done that way to create emphasis on ability scores. Your examples prove that works as intended.

I think you mean the strengths in my reasoning.

So fighters training harder with the weapons they know shouldn't make them better at hitting with them? That makes loads of sense... And the only Fighting Style that actually improves attack rolls is archery, so that isn't much help IMO since it is only applicable to a handful of weapons or so out of the dozens they learn.

Overly simplified, as I said, and the emphasis it creates on ability scores is another flaw in the game. It isn't something I think is a good thing. I've posted other threads about comparing base proficiency vs. max proficiency and the issues ability score cause. The idea that after 20 levels of adventuring, you are only 20% better at a skill is ridiculous. And the reliance on ability scores to increase that further means you have to invest in them at the expense of gaining a feat, which about 3/4 of games use and enjoy.

 

[Ashrym]

So fighters training harder with the weapons they know shouldn't make them better at hitting with them? That makes loads of sense... And the only Fighting Style that actually improves attack rolls is archery, so that isn't much help IMO since it is only applicable to a handful of weapons or so out of the dozens they learn.

Fighters do hit more often than wizards in weapons with which fighter's have trained and wizards have not. +2 better based on proficiency.

Other fighting styles tend to increase defense or damage. The presumption that attack bonus is the only indication of combat ability is still looking at it in a vacuum. A variant human fighter with GWM, 16 STR, and the great weapon fighting style is far more effective in combat than your 16 DEX wizard. Using the type of comparison you've been doing, we should use a lizard folk wizard because "that's what the player wants to play" compared to the variant human fighter.

Overly simplified, as I said, and the emphasis it creates on ability scores is another flaw in the game. It isn't something I think is a good thing. I've posted other threads about comparing base proficiency vs. max proficiency and the issues ability score cause. The idea that after 20 levels of adventuring, you are only 20% better at a skill is ridiculous. And the reliance on ability scores to increase that further means you have to invest in them at the expense of gaining a feat, which about 3/4 of games use and enjoy.

It can't be a flaw since it was one of the design goals. That's like playing axis and allies then complaining it's not risk. It's also like ordering a coke even though you want a mountain dew and then complaining about coke. 5e is built this way intentionally. It also works this way. Anyone investing in 2 or 3 levels or more is easily going to see how much better warrior types are than your wizard with a crossbow and 16 DEX and it gets more obvious as levels increase.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hmm... I am a wizard, an elf, and have low hp and can't wear armor... I guess I WON'T put my second highest score in DEX... yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Did the other player roll higher and have a 17 for his STR? Oh, gee, he did. Wait, his race doesn't get a STR +2 so he can't get higher? Nope.

Hold it! We both get the same proficiency bonus? Cool! So my wizard, who only knows how to use a handful of weapons, can attack as well as the fighter (well, ok ranger and paladin in this case...)-- actually, better even!, even though that fighter has training in EVERY single and martial weapon and all the armors and I spent most of my time studying to learn about magic? WOW!

Yeah... I cooked up all that just to waste my morning posting about it.

I really can’t wrap my head around what the issue even is, here.

The fighter is always better at beating things with sticks, and the wizard is always wasting their time trying to do so, unless they don’t have a melee spell of any kind. (And even then, disengage or dodge might be a better Action)

Even if the wizard has 1 point better attack bonus, so what? The fighter has Action Surge and a Fighting Style, at level 3 they get a significant boost to weapon-based combat efficacy from subclass.

Meanwhile the wizard knows at least half a dozen spells, plus cantrips, and their only proficient finesse weapon deals 1d4 damage.

If they’re a Bladesinger, then being more accurate but doing less damage without burning slots is exactly thematically correct.

If they aren’t, then they’re just a wizard who trained with very few weapons but is pretty damn accurate with those few, and that should be something the player thinks about when determining their backstory.

 

[Fenris-77]

The fact that a Fighter and Wizard at first level with equal strength (or Dex) have the same bonus to hit and possibly to damage is a little weird, no matter what happens at later levels. In a featless game the fighter has very few options to increase his hit and damage bonuses too. Yes, he gets actions surge, and eventually a bunch of extra attacks, but that wasn't really the point. I get why the example of number of weapons trained in came up too, but that also misses the point. That first level fighter should be better with a dagger than a Wizard with equal stats, or indeed better with any of the weapons he has in common with the wizard, but he isn't.

The above is really neither here nor there when it come to the actual topic, and I'm not trying to jump into the middle, I just wanted to point out that that one discrete example does strike me as odd.

 

[FrogReaver]

The idea that after 20 levels of adventuring, you are only 20% better at a skill is ridiculous. And the reliance on ability scores to increase that further means you have to invest in them at the expense of gaining a feat, which about 3/4 of games use and enjoy.

Why? What is it about a level that correlates with overall skillfulness?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Fighters do hit more often than wizards in weapons with which fighter's have trained and wizards have not. +2 better based on proficiency.

Other fighting styles tend to increase defense or damage. The presumption that attack bonus is the only indication of combat ability is still looking at it in a vacuum. A variant human fighter with GWM, 16 STR, and the great weapon fighting style is far more effective in combat than your 16 DEX wizard. Using the type of comparison you've been doing, we should use a lizard folk wizard because "that's what the player wants to play" compared to the variant human fighter.

It can't be a flaw since it was one of the design goals. That's like playing axis and allies then complaining it's not risk. It's also like ordering a coke even though you want a mountain dew and then complaining about coke. 5e is built this way intentionally. It also works this way. Anyone investing in 2 or 3 levels or more is easily going to see how much better warrior types are than your wizard with a crossbow and 16 DEX and it gets more obvious as levels increase.

Sure, and wizards can cast spells that fighters cannot. That isn't the point. The issue is with all the addition training a fighter should be better at hitting in combat than a wizard at level 1 given equal ability scores. A level 1 fighter punching something should hit more often than a level 1 wizard punching it, the same is true if they use any weapon in which they are both proficient.

I am not looking at over combat ability (true, I did in one post simply to demonstrate how a wizard compares in AC, damage, and hit points), from the beginning I have been addressing attack bonus.

I know how 5E was designed. And yes, I don't agree with many of those design decisions. Overall, the game plays well all things considered, but it could be better and more sensible. Better design would eliminate such issues.

 

[Garthanos]

The fact that a Fighter and Wizard at first level with equal strength (or Dex) have the same bonus to hit and possibly to damage is a little weird, no matter what happens at later levels.

Finding twice the openings in a round is allot better I think they wanted the first levels to support multiclassing so that being a fighter you didnt get all of the fighter awesome immediately at level 1. This plus the multi-attacking... makes a bumpy progression