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

[DEFCON 1]

So, you do value meat and dodging over sixth-sense, favor, luck, or whatever else is involved that the wizard has? Why is that (other than game balance)?

He doesn't value it... he's making a descriptive statement to explain why the fighter has more HP. And the reason the fighter has more HP is because of game balance.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Truth be told... if you are looking for a number that is "representative" of a character's meat/luck/sixth sense (in whatever quantities/proportions you want)... that number is the CON modifier. Any character can have high CON score regardless of class, and everyone gets the same amount of HP per CON score regardless of class. So your "tough" rogue or your "intuitive" fighter or your "lucky" wizard all have that shown off by the HP they get from their CON modifier.

The HP gained from hit dice are there as a game balance mechanic-- narratively-speaking nothing more, nothing less.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Funny coincidence, my next character might be a bladesinger for 5E.

But the question is why should his HD, and thus HP, be less? As I said in the OP, the other front-liners probably have better CON scores, so their increased HP is reflected in that already.

Is the luck, skill, favor, etc. your character have equal or less than the front-liners? Does their extra meat ability outweigh everything else? That's fine if you think that, but I feel like it goes against the abstract-theory of HP.

IME, Con exist in a total range of 13-16, for all character types except some barbarians who max it out.

So, yeah, IME the actual die makes a pretty big difference.

Also a single die step makes a noticeable difference if you’re using the static HP gain rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, legacy indeed.

So what of the rogue who grew up on the tough streets, getting in fights and such, surviving both on physical toughness and conditioning as well as luck and sixth-sense? What of the cleric who served as a soldier before adventuring and was crusader of sorts, getting in battles as well as having the favor of his god to protect him?

Why should these classes have d8 and a fighter or other such have d10 or better?

I mean. They have d8, which is higher than the frail casters and lower than the fighters who do this stuff full-time.

 

[Salthorae]

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?

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.

You're trying to narrow the abstraction down, but really you can't. It's like Schrödinger's cat... when you open the HP box to define it, you lose something related to its quantum nature.

Ultimately they have different HD because game balance as others have said.

Narratively, higher HD equate to beings who are potentially tough/more physical. I mean you could have a Wizard who rolls max every time on their HD who ends up with more Hit Points than a Barbarian who rolls minimum every time.

HD just represents the potential toughness pool assigned to a given class.

Barbarians are the toughest son-of-a-gun out there because they "wrastle baars". What's a puny little magic missile to them?

Wizards spend all their time inside, not facing threatening encounters. If you seriously think in the fiction that wizards get "tougher" at resisting damage by taking damage from spells, sorry but I think you're crazy. If they wanted to take damage they wouldn't have spent years learning how to alter reality to suit their whims. Why practice taking damage when I can learn a couple of spells that shield me from harm in the first place?

As to the rough and tumble street rogue. Well, they do have better HP than wizards, etc. But not as much as people who've spent their early lives dealing with threats to themselves like Barbarians and Fighters.

Personally I'd love it if they pushed the wizard back to d4's. I'd also put Warlocks down to a d6 with Sorcerers though. Everyone else is probably ok where they are.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, legacy indeed.

So what of the rogue who grew up on the tough streets, getting in fights and such, surviving both on physical toughness and conditioning as well as luck and sixth-sense? What of the cleric who served as a soldier before adventuring and was crusader of sorts, getting in battles as well as having the favor of his god to protect him?

Why should these classes have d8 and a fighter or other such have d10 or better?

Did you just basically say, "Yeah, but no"?

As others have said, the reasoning is game balance. It's not about anything more than that. If you want an in-game fictional reason, you can posit that the fighter has more hps because, despite that rogue's hard life, the rogue wasn't actively trained to take hits and be a meat shield. The fighter was. Same with your crusader-priest- for every day of training in prayer and the like, he misses a day of training in how to be a meat shield.

 

[the Jester]

So, he has more skill, luck, favor, and all the other abstract features that comprise HP? I see no reason why that is true.

Sure you do- because he has more hit points.

Which is because of game balance.

You can insert whatever campaign-appropriate reasoning you like, but that's the real reason right there.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And of course those caster-types practiced getting in fights with other casters so they would know better how to handle spells they might face. This includes damaging spells where saves are part of it maybe, of also aren't. I could easily imagine an apprentice wizard tossing a single magic missile at another to practice learning to shrug off damage.

And that wizard would benefit from a higher Con score.

But he still spent most of his time studying magic.

 

[Charlaquin]

And of course those caster-types practiced getting in fights with other casters so they would know better how to handle spells they might face. This includes damaging spells where saves are part of it maybe, of also aren't. I could easily imagine an apprentice wizard tossing a single magic missile at another to practice learning to shrug off damage.

I don’t think that’s part of the story of the D&D wizard.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why do different classes have different HD types?

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.

It Does? The Gnome Barbarian has d12 HD and the Human Wizard d6 because "meat?"
Seriously, best not to even go there.

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
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.

The fighter is also a highly trained combatant. Could have something to do with it.

Well, wouldn't a caster be better at resisting the damage caused by other spells?

In 1e he was: his save vs spells was superior, on the theory he could interfere with the other magic. In 5e he can cast Counterspell, so, that possibility is covered, and then some.

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.

One thing to consider is that even a 1st level character has had a lot of training - they already have one-third the proficiency bonus they're going to have at 20th! - yet they don't have many hps, at all. Over 20 levels, your skill-based bonus goes from +2 to +6 (triple) your attacks/round (at most if you're a fighter) from 1 to 4 (quadruple), your spells from 1st level to 9th (er … x9) but your Hit Dice go from 1 to 20!!

Hit Dice seem to be more about adventuring experience than anything else in the game.

And, it's not for nothing that the guys with the biggest HD seem to be out there in the front, getting beaten down prettymuch all the time.