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

[Umbran]

I get all that, but that doesn't balance out the issue of how abstract HP are gained. I'll give you an example of how luck/favor works out.

When I was in 7th grade I was hit, full on, by a car when I was skateboarding.

Yes, but... you were a commoner, without any class levels. You might, at best, be hit-point equivalent to a 1st-level wizard, but not even a 1st level fighter. The game is not really intended to worry too much about 7th grade you. It is worried about much more adventurous sorts - people who can leap off 4 story buildings, and walk away.

There are very few real-world examples that are anything like 7th-level Conan in a fight. 7th level Conan would see the car coming, and stop-kick it, and walk away. He took the same number of points of damage as you in the hit, but his capacity is literally fantastic.

You can bring up the "game balance" argument, but there are other ways the game is balanced out, so I really can't buy that anymore.

There are other ways a game can be balanced, sure. And in 5e, this is used slightly less - with wizard-types using d6s. And, yes, if you built a game from the ground up, you could, in theory, even things up across the board. But 5e is not that game.

Most games are not that game, either. Most games have at least the option for a character to use part of their overall build resources to enhance their damage capability. In D&D, you do it via a class package. In Gumshoe games, Health is bought the same way every other skill is - so if you have lots of health, you are less of a general skill monkey, and you can't have as much spellcasting (or whatever high weirdness the system allows). Fate games have skills and stunts you can buy to enhance your damage capacity - and as a balance if you buy them, you can't have other things.

Broadly speaking, in role playing games, the ability to absorb damage is no less an important capability than the ability to dish it out in any particular mode. You should then expect that some character types will want more of it, other less of it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While the wizard spent his time studying spells, the fighter spent her time practicing getting hit by things.

That explains so much....

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I was in 7th grade I was hit, full on, by a car when I was skateboarding. Honestly, it easily could have killed me. I was lucky.

RL is a real bad example, but, to go there, what's the damage from an auto accident? If it's, like 2d12 or something, you could have been lucky in the sense of the car rolling, a pair of 1s for damage, not in the sense of having 3 meat points and 20 luck points.

My point is that a wizard could just as easily have 10 HP with a decent CON due to those other factors as a fighter with 10 HP (assuming d8) and a similar CON would have from other factors.

IDK, the wizard effs around with arcane forces of the universe, maybe that washes off luck, courage, divine favor and other ineffable factors that tend to glom onto the more down-to-earth fighter?

You can bring up the "game balance" argument, but there are other ways the game is balanced out, so I really can't buy that anymore.

Really, if it were based on game balance, the Wizard would lose hit points as he leveled up.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

If you think you have found an inconsistency in the HP rules, then you have. The game is simply not so well-designed as to avoid inconsistencies, and this is one of the oldest and most pervasive. Regardless of which side you take in the debate, there will be rules that only make sense from the opposing perspective. Your options are to either stop caring about it, or to house rule it.

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?

Honestly, it would be fine. Ever since 3E, the hit die has been less important than the Con modifier. This change would encourage fighter-types to invest slightly more in Con, instead of counting on their hit die to cover it, which might put a small burden on Paladins specifically.

 

[Yaarel]

Classes are designed with something like a ‘point buy system’. Designers trust their ‘gut instincts’ and playtest results, more than a theoretical model, but there is a model.

There is some sense of how much a hit point is worth. The Fighter class is given more hit points at the opportunity cost of less options elsewhere.

 

[Phazonfish]

What are you agreeing to? You realize in my OP I am actually for giving full casters d8 for HP??? What is this obsession with d4's and casters....

I mean, we can make it a d3 if you'd prefer something different. I'm agreeing with the sentiment I quoted. As I said, I play almost exclusively full casters. Ya know why? Because I look at full casters and there is so much they can do. In the Venn Diagram of Tasks a Good Full Caster is Prepared to Handle vs Tasks a Good Non-Caster is Prepared to Handle, the latter is a smaller circle located entirely inside the circle representing the former. As such, if there is a way to throw the other classes a bone that doesn't detract from the casters' ability to do what makes them feel special (that is to say, casting), and the implementation is simple and intuitive, why would I oppose it? If you need an in-universe reason for this minor statistical discrepancy in such an abstraction, I think you should find a different game; simulationism was never a design priority for 5e (yet ironically, by abolishing the d4 HD, they are one step closer to your goal than some earlier editions, which were notorious for this).

There is no reason to make a joke (even a stupid one) when someone wants to actually have a discussion on the topic.

Jeez, you act like they were actively snuffing out the other responses. Excuse us for trying to have fun in this discussion of a game we play for fun.

It is a curious fact that people are never so trivial as when they take themselves seriously;

It isn't a fact.

Wait, are you trying to tell that this has been the happy fun time, laid back, non-serious dnd4vr that we've been dealing with? In that case you'll get your wish; if I can be of no further assistance, I'll leave you to it.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I disagree that different HD make sense for different classes if you assume HP = meat. If your in that camp, more hit points (bigger HD) makes sense if your character is bigger, stronger, and tougher. But that, IMO, is describe by your attributes (STR & CON), not your HD. For me, it makes no sense that a STR 10 / CON 10 barbarian could gave 12 HP and a STR 16 / CON 16 rogue could have 4 HP.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I disagree that different HD make sense for different classes if you assume HP = meat. If your in that camp, more hit points (bigger HD) makes sense if your character is bigger, stronger, and tougher. But that, IMO, is describe by your attributes (STR & CON), not your HD.

Size/Race should also play a major part, then - Dwarves & humans should have more hit points than Elves, and a LOT more than halflings & gnomes. CON bonus makes sense, but so would STR bonus.

But there'd have to be some sort of consistent mapping between size/composition and hit points to really pull it together. A human could never have anywhere near the hit points of even the least of Giants, who, in turn would not have anywhere near the hps of a similar-size iron golem.

Maybe you could still have HD, but they're just used for healing, your hit points don't increase with level, since you're not getting bigger or anything?

And Temp HP? I guess they'd have to be fairly literal ablative shielding of some sort.

 

[Hriston]

I’d like to echo what others have already said; hit dice are used as a class-balancing mechanism. This has been the case since the first supplement, Greyhawk, introduced differential damage/hit dice in 1975. Classes that didn’t have spells or other special abilities were compensated with bigger hit dice. This is also true in 5th Edition.

 

[dave2008]

Size/Race should also play a major part, then - Dwarves & humans should have more hit points than Elves, and a LOT more than halflings & gnomes. CON bonus makes sense, but so would STR bonus.

But there'd have to be some sort of consistent mapping between size/composition and hit points to really pull it together. A human could never have anywhere near the hit points of even the least of Giants, who, in turn would not have anywhere near the hps of a similar-size iron golem.

Maybe you could still have HD, but they're just used for healing, your hit points don't increase with level, since you're not getting bigger or anything?

And Temp HP? I guess they'd have to be fairly literal ablative shielding of some sort.

To be clear I like the abstraction of HP has a way to play the game. However, I don't use them as meat points. We track meat points (bloodied HP) separately.