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

[Arnwolf666]

I always go back to that if you want more realistic hit points play runequest or call of Cthulhu. Those games can be brutally realistic. Or even true20 which doesn’t have hit points.

 

[Ashrym]

The only classes that have below Commoner (d8) hp are the Wizard and the Sorcerer. You could argue that's strange, but it's also sort of reflected in the fluff of Warlocks, who canonically "cheat" to get their arcane prowess by having an intermediary like Clerics and Druids do. Which leaves Bards as the only class that doesn't really fit the mold, though you could argue that they are all cheats too.

I find hit points are part of physical combat training mechanics. Bards and warlocks simply represent better combat characteristics than wizards and sorcerers. That justification is also reflected in things like armor and weapon proficiencies.

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?

That's reflected in CON bonus. Want a character who's tough add CON. It's also reflected in d8 hit points instead of d6 hit points to demonstrate that type of history compared to studing tomes; and clerics are already described with military aspects that are also reflected in armor and hit die.

It's also likely you simply didn't choose the right class. What you described is a fighter with the urchin background.

It's a class-based game which means class-based differences. Hit dice are one of those differences.

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

No, the fighter has a bigger abstract pool. Luck or divine favor isn't the same from day to day for the same character. Defining those specific attributes as more or less opens up issues. If that specificity is what you want then you should skip the group abstract and give a variety of scores instead.

On that same note, the ability to ignore pain or level of stamina are also part of hit points so it's easier to envision characters who practice sparring in heavy armor to build more stamina and pain tolerance than someone practicing vocal exercises, finged wriggling, and magical recipes. That gets back to being part of the combat mechanics.

If we consided luck equal but stamina higher we have justification. Jusfification isn't necessary because it's a class-based mechanic in a class-based system, but if it keeps you up at night...

And HP represent more than just ability to take damage in a fight. Resisting poisons, elemental conditions, falling, traps, etc. all deal damage as well.

Representing an abstract doesn't preclude a class having a larger pool of the abstract concept based specifically on the pool.

True, that takes care of some randomness, but that doesn't eliminate the issue I addressed because now any warriors will always have more hp than a wizard could possibly have (again, assuming equal CON scores...).

I do like that they all have a base d4, though.

That's assuming warriors shouldn't have more hit points than wizards. Different classes get benefits. The hit die on the fighter is a benefit.

CON bonuses already allow spellcasters to exceed warriors in hit points even if it's unlikely. A 16 CON dwarven wizard can have more hit points than a 12 CON elven fighter.

TBH, changing to a uniform hit die only takes advantages away from some classes while matching the mechanic to the description instead of the description to the mechanic. Your though flow is reversing the design process on top of taking advantages away.

 

[Arnwolf666]

The warlock having any combat ability better than the wizard has never made sense to me. He didn’t train he just made a deal (pact) with someone. That’s my opinion anyway.

 

[Ashrym]

The warlock having any combat ability better than the wizard has never made sense to me. He didn’t train he just made a deal (pact) with someone. That’s my opinion anyway.

I don't disagree, fluff-wise. Light armor training and d8 hit dice show it, however; plus a gish-like path.

I'd be good with d4 wizards and d6 warlocks based on my view of the classes.

 

[Garthanos]

I always go back to that if you want more realistic hit points play runequest or call of Cthulhu. Those games can be brutally realistic. Or even true20 which doesn’t have hit points.

Mutants and Mastermind has a saving throw system that if configured for heroic instead of superheroic? might feel too realistic perhaps add more advancement.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Mutants and Mastermind has a saving throw system that if configured for heroic instead of superheroic? might feel too realistic perhaps add more advancement.

Been there done that. It’s awesome.

 

[Garthanos]

Been there done that. It’s awesome.

I made my own made for d100 that was just too brutal

 

[clearstream]

The warlock having any combat ability better than the wizard has never made sense to me. He didn’t train he just made a deal (pact) with someone. That’s my opinion anyway.

I think of them as Dragoons from Final Fantasy Tactics. Just give them Otherworldly Leap!

 

[Garthanos]

The warlock having any combat ability better than the wizard has never made sense to me. He didn’t train he just made a deal (pact) with someone. That’s my opinion anyway.

If you arent busy training on spells how did you spend your time... that is my opinion. Might have been playing at the game of thrones as a nobleman vying for position (fending off assassins), might have been as a travelling duellist, who knows. Point being if magic ability is just suddenly tossed at you in theory the rest could be whatever.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That is the entire point. Hit points are abstract and so are ideal to use as a game balance since it is easily justified how the martial classes would get more of them.
For example, attacks are also abstract, but why does a Fighter get more than a Wizard despite them both having the same level of proficiency with their weapon?

Well, for one thing the universal proficiency bonus, while simpler, is a big issue as well. I don't think a wizard should have the same chance of hitting with their weapon as a fighter given equal ability scores, but that is another issue.

Maybe indeed. The training and experience are just something the class adds on to the base. Since randomly-rolled HP can vary quite a bit it is entirely possible that the reason a particular sorceror has more HP than a particular Fighter could be down to luck for example: The Sorceror is just luckier than the Fighter, even beyond the extent that the Fighter's training can compensate.

By "Physical endurance", are you referring to the the CON modifier? Why do you feel that that is over-bloated?

CON adds to both the physical endurance aspect of HP and the energy/fatigue aspect.

I think returning to random rolls for HP will solve the issue and is the easiest solution. No more max HP at level one at my table or taking the average after that. It's time to go old-school.

Just to not be a total meanie-DM, I will probably grant average HP at level 1 if you roll below that. This way a wizard could roll a 6, but a fighter might roll under 6 and get 6 as well.