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

[DND_Reborn]

Wizard isn't proficient in short sword, so no proficency bonus. Advantage, fighter.

If you're a bladesinger, then the training argument is out the window as bladesingers get their 1 weapon proficiency as part if extensive martial training in it.

Your example high elf wizard vs lizardman ranger actually only exceeds the martial character with a dagger, the bow selected for elven training, or light c-bow -- it falls behind on all other weapons, including other finesse or ranged weapons. Your argument is very narrow but you're trying to limit the discussion to your narrow point to hide the deficiencies. This is called special pleading. And that's only looking at attack bonuses. Expand to a broader look at combat and it's worse.

This all began with me discussing my character, an elf wizard. Regardless, dagger, staff, or any weapon wizards are proficient with, take your pick. A wizard SHOULD NOT have the ability to hit as often in melee or ranged combat as a FIGHTER, even at level 1. Period.

No one is going to convince me otherwise. The universal proficiency bonus applying equally to all things is at fault and should be reversed to prior editions. I'm done and not watching this further. Have fun with it and I'll work on my house-rules, like I've had to do with much of 5E...

 

[clearstream]

Sure, of couse I would lose the longsword and go with shortsword. As a finesse weapon, the wizard becomes +6 attack (same as your fighter) and d6+3 damage, which is a better average than d8+1 and means I don't have to invest in STR at all really.

Also, if this character goes Bladesinger as you mention, then while in Bladesong the AC would probably be 19 assuming INT 16. If you boost INT with the level 4 ASI then the AC would be 20 (same as the fighter). On the other hand, the fighter if a Battle Master can boost damage output and has other options as well.

So, yes, Fighter as a "whole package" is fine (well, sort of), but that is why I am just talking about attack bonus, which with the swordsword is the same +6 as the fighter.

True, one might go with shortsword for a couple of points less damage per hit than the fighter. Narrowing the argument to that one dimension - attack bonus - results in a trivial claim without much force to it. Far more telling is that a wizard won't get Second Wind, Action Surge or Extra Attack. It's like saying an EK is as good as a wizard at casting, because both have spell slots.

As an aside, bladesinger is frankly BS as an archetype. To my taste, fighters, not wizards, should be best at tanking. I will gladly admit that if you use bladesinger, wizards can melee as well as fighters (while still also being full casters).

 

[clearstream]

No one is going to convince me otherwise. The universal proficiency bonus applying equally to all things is at fault and should be reversed to prior editions. I'm done and not watching this further. Have fun with it and I'll work on my house-rules, like I've had to do with much of 5E...

The culprit is far more finesse based on what you have argued.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This all began with me discussing my character, an elf wizard. Regardless, dagger, staff, or any weapon wizards are proficient with, take your pick. A wizard SHOULD NOT have the ability to hit as often in melee or ranged combat as a FIGHTER, even at level 1. Period.

No one is going to convince me otherwise. The universal proficiency bonus applying equally to all things is at fault and should be reversed to prior editions. I'm done and not watching this further. Have fun with it and I'll work on my house-rules, like I've had to do with much of 5E...

Perfectly valid. The issue, though, isn't with 5e -- it doesn't owe you anything. It's not a flaw in 5e that it fails to match your requirements. That's you. And, again, perfectly valid. I recommend looking for a system that meets your requirements, or asking for suggestions for house rules that may do so. Trying to convince others that there's something wrong with 5e seems like a less than worthwhile use of time.

 

[Ashrym]

This all began with me discussing my character, an elf wizard. Regardless, dagger, staff, or any weapon wizards are proficient with, take your pick. A wizard SHOULD NOT have the ability to hit as often in melee or ranged combat as a FIGHTER, even at level 1. Period.

No one is going to convince me otherwise. The universal proficiency bonus applying equally to all things is at fault and should be reversed to prior editions. I'm done and not watching this further. Have fun with it and I'll work on my house-rules, like I've had to do with much of 5E...

The staff isn't a finesse weapon so if you really want me to take my pick your DEX wiz sucks with it as a weapon.

"No one is going to convince me otherwise" looks close-minded to me and like the opposite is true where you came into the discussion with the intent to convince everyone else your opinion was the only way things should be.

I know you said you were done with this (which sounds like your mad people are disagreeing with you, tbh) but I bolded a part of your post because that get back to something I was touching on earlier. You are trying to play a different game from how 5e is intended to play. It's not that you had to change the game, it's that the game you were playing had different design goals than you. It's the equivalent of calling boardwalk OP and complaining you had to redesign monopoly.

The game is what it was meant to be. Unfortunately, that cannot encompass everything to everyone. Some changes are easy, but redesigning the core mechanics is less so.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perfectly valid. The issue, though, isn't with 5e -- it doesn't owe you anything. It's not a flaw in 5e that it fails to match your requirements.

5e was supposed to be the big tent edition, for fans of all prior versions of the game. And, yes, it quite literally owes everything to the mass of fans like dnd4vr.

And, FWIW, in all prior versions of the game, the 1st level fighter was going to hit better with a weapon than the first level wizard, even if, through some fluke, they had the same relevant stat bonus adding to the attack.

It was only by +1, so little more than symbolic, but it was there.

In 5e, it holds true for Archery style, I suppose.

 

[Ovinomancer]

5e was supposed to be the big tent edition, for fans of all prior versions of the game. And, yes, it quite literally owes everything to the mass of fans like dnd4vr.

Ah, so I, as a fan not like dnd4vr, am owed nothing? Or, is it the unsupported claim that dnd4vr is reoresentarive of the "masses"?

These are silly statements, Tony. 5e is extremely popular; implying that it's flawed because of a hidden mass of malcontents dusturbed over a minutia of the combat engine is downright ridiculous.

And, FWIW, in all prior versions of the game, the 1st level fighter was going to hit better with a weapon than the first level wizard, even if, through some fluke, they had the same relevant stat bonus adding to the attack.

It was only by +1, so little more than symbolic, but it was there.

In 5e, it holds true for Archery style, I suppose.

5e altered the combat engine such that highly differentiated attack bonuses between classes isn't the primary means of differentiation in combat /effectiveness/. Making this argument is soecial pleading that, somehow, this makes wizards as effect in martial combat as fighters. The reality is that fighters are even better at the job in 5e than in previous editions.

 

[Ashrym]

5e was supposed to be the big tent edition, for fans of all prior versions of the game. And, yes, it quite literally owes everything to the mass of fans like dnd4vr.

And, FWIW, in all prior versions of the game, the 1st level fighter was going to hit better with a weapon than the first level wizard, even if, through some fluke, they had the same relevant stat bonus adding to the attack.

It was only by +1, so little more than symbolic, but it was there.

In 5e, it holds true for Archery style, I suppose.

One edition fits all is an unrealistic goal, however; the best a person can hope for is to cover as many bases for as many people as possible. No matter what the results someone will always see some other way as better for him or her.

Endorsing dnd4vr's opinion that fighters should have a better attack bonus with weapons contradicts someone else's opinion that these are two low level characters in the infancy of their experience who are both trained in using weapons. The warrior mage trope existed before the specific creation of gish styles. It was really the only reason for magic-users to advance in THAC0 at all at one point. That's only one example. Everyone has their own ideas on where many classes fall into the combat ability hierarchy.

It certainly doesn't makes sense that wizards cannot attack with spells as well as fighter.

Building separate spell and weapon attacks for 4 tiers of ability is more than awkward and goes very much against simple design goals. Adding modifiers based on class is extra bookkeeping and goes against the design goal of limiting bonuses and penalties on top of going against a simple design goal.

It's easier for a fan to accept that proficiency isn't actually an indicator of superior ability between classes in a system that focuses on ability scores as much as 5e does than it is to meet any unrealistic expectation of a system that does everything for everyone. The tentpole concept was more about how the character feels in play than specific mechanics.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One edition fits all is an unrealistic goal, however

Doesn't let it off the hook.

Endorsing dnd4vr's opinion that fighters should have a better attack bonus with weapons contradicts someone else's opinion that these are two low level characters in the infancy of their experience who are both trained in using weapons. …

Seriously, of anyone remotely familiar with the idea that wizards spend their training reading books and practicing spells, and fighter training with weapons, who's really going to think they should have equal skill with weapons?

It certainly doesn't makes sense that wizards cannot attack with spells as well as fighter.

You'd expect a wizard to attack better with spells than a fighter would, with spells. And, at first level, he does, quite unequivocally. So no worries on that point.

Building separate spell and weapon attacks for 4 tiers of ability is more than awkward and goes very much against simple design goals.

You don't need 4 tiers. A class feature for the fighter would be just fine.

Adding modifiers based on class is extra bookkeeping and goes against the design goal of limiting bonuses and penalties on top of going against a simple design goal.

Yet there's plenty of modifiers and features and abilities and such based on class.

It's easier for a fan to accept that proficiency isn't actually an indicator of superior ability between classes in a system that focuses on ability scores as much as 5e does than it is to meet any unrealistic expectation of a system that does everything for everyone.

It'd've been easier for a fan to accept that exploits and spells were different, then roll a new rev, but we went with rolling a new rev, because it had to be D&D for EVERYONE.

The tentpole concept was more about how the character feels in play than specific mechanics.

A fighter who's no better at hitting his target than the wizard feels different from one who is better.

Ah, so I, as a fan not like dnd4vr, am owed nothing?

Quite possibly! If you're the kind of fan who started with 5e, for instance.
5e was shaped by the community that played D&D - and who very pointedly didn't pay D&D anymore - at the time of the Next playtest.

It was touted as being 'for' all of them, and for everyone else who'd ever loved any past edition of D&D. So saying "it owes you nothing" to such a fan is repudiating the very foundation of 5e.

These are silly statements, Tony. 5e is extremely popular; implying that it's flawed because of a hidden mass of malcontents dusturbed over a minutia of the combat engine is downright ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than asserting that it's flawless because it's "extremely popular." I mean, I'm going to wear the letters in ad populum right off my keyboard at this rate!

5e altered the combat engine such that highly differentiated attack bonuses between classes

To be fair, we're talking 1st-level fighter, here. And it's a 1 on a d20 difference. That's not highly-differentiated. That's downright nominal. It wouldn't've killed BA if each combat style or a weapon specialization feature or somesuch gave the fighter a +1.

isn't the primary means of differentiation in combat /effectiveness/. Making this argument is soecial pleading that, somehow, this makes wizards as effect in martial combat as fighters.

Well, most classes in 5e are perfectly effective in combat, anyway. So there's nothing special about it. It's just a specific example of how there isn't even a razor-edge, nominal, or marginal advantage given the fighter in that most basic mechanic of the attack roll. In contrast, for instance, Expertise outruns the proficiency treadmill much more dramatically than a mere +1.

The reality is that fighters are even better at the job in 5e than in previous editions.

That can be very hard to judge because of some of the differences among the systems. But there's some quite dramatic things fighters can't do in 5e that they could in past editions. Nothing remotely like Great Cleave or WWA, for instance (let alone C&GI). You'd have to get up the capstone number of extra attacks, and blow an Action Surge to even be comparable to one of those, at a reach 1. They were available as early as 3rd or 6th, depending on edition (and which one).

Then there's the muting effect of BA. A 5e fighter can make a number of attacks without penalty that'd make a 3e fighter without WWA envious, but it can't stand up to a large number of opponents, even much lower level, the way it could in earlier editions. That's touted as a feature, but it does bring the fighter down a number of pegs in conceptual power.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Quite possibly! If you're the kind of fan who started with 5e, for instance.
5e was shaped by the community that played D&D - and who very pointedly didn't pay D&D anymore - at the time of the Next playtest.

I did not. I also playtested. Red Box Basic Set initiate, myself. Then every edition after.

It was touted as being 'for' all of them, and for everyone else who'd ever loved any past edition of D&D. So saying "it owes you nothing" to such a fan is repudiating the very foundation of 5e.

No, it isn't. Music is for everyone, but it doesn't owe you anything. You're mistaking the claim as a guarantee of happiness when it decidedly is not.

No more ridiculous than asserting that it's flawless because it's "extremely popular." I mean, I'm going to wear the letters in ad populum right off my keyboard at this rate!

Sure, right after you brush the straw off -- no one made this argument. You claimed 5e was failing as a big tent game because people, like dnd4vr were discontented. I pointed out that the size of the tent is, indeed, very big. You now claim that addressing your claim of lack of popularity with evidence of popularity is an appeal to popularity? Protip -- when popularity is brought up, it isn't an appeal to popularity to point out how popular something is. That's, like, on topic. And, no one has claimed it's flawless due to popularity -- I was addressing your big tent claim.

To be fair, we're talking 1st-level fighter, here. And it's a 1 on a d20 difference. That's not highly-differentiated. That's downright nominal. It wouldn't've killed BA if each combat style or a weapon specialization feature or somesuch gave the fighter a +1.

If it's not a big difference, why the big complaint it's missing? If it adds little, why is it a problem? It doesn't conceptually address anything aside from the legacy that fighters get a higher number in this column that non-fighters. That's not a sufficient argument, while it may be a valid feeling.

Well, most classes in 5e are perfectly effective in combat, anyway. So there's nothing special about it. It's just a specific example of how there isn't even a razor-edge, nominal, or marginal advantage given the fighter in that most basic mechanic of the attack roll. In contrast, for instance, Expertise outruns the proficiency treadmill much more dramatically than a mere +1.

No, the fighter is given edges in many other areas of the combat engine -- damage output, number of attacks, ability to surge, higher AC, higher hitpoints, subclass abilities, etc. This is, effectively, a spreadsheet argument that since the fighter doesn't have a legacy plus 1 in this column, there's a problem. It's flawed, because the biggest change in 5e is to the probability engine. Noticing this also affects the 'to hit' column, which is in the probability engine, is like noticing that you still roll a d20 -- trivially uninteresting.

That can be very hard to judge because of some of the differences among the systems. But there's some quite dramatic things fighters can't do in 5e that they could in past editions. Nothing remotely like Great Cleave or WWA, for instance (let alone C&GI). You'd have to get up the capstone number of extra attacks, and blow an Action Surge to even be comparable to one of those, at a reach 1. They were available as early as 3rd or 6th, depending on edition (and which one).

Oh, I guess wizards are ruined because spell descriptions changed, then? Rogues don't roll percentiles, so they suck now, too?

This is splitting hairs. Fighters are more effective in 5e because they're not overshadowed by magic as easily or as quickly and they strongly hold their own even in the optimization races. Hard to argue fighters are worse off when they still are tier 1 for optimizers.

Then there's the muting effect of BA. A 5e fighter can make a number of attacks without penalty that'd make a 3e fighter without WWA envious, but it can't stand up to a large number of opponents, even much lower level, the way it could in earlier editions. That's touted as a feature, but it does bring the fighter down a number of pegs in conceptual power.

No one can in 5e, so that's not a fighter specific complaint. Pick a goalpost, Tony.