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

[Ovinomancer]

Dex is a very effective secondary stat for a wizard of any type because it boosts their AC, initiative, ability to avoid being shoved or grappled, reflex saves and stealth.
Outside of a single subclass, Int is not a good secondary stat for a fighter because it is competing with Dex (or Str) and Con, and generally grants less to the class as a whole than those two stats do.

Where were you with optimization advice when there was a lizardman STR ranger?

 

[Ashrym]

Dex is a very effective secondary stat for a wizard of any type because it boosts their AC, initiative, ability to avoid being shoved or grappled, reflex saves and stealth.
Outside of a single subclass, Int is not a good secondary stat for a fighter because it is competing with Dex (or Str) and Con, and generally grants less to the class as a whole than those two stats do.

That's good and all but doesn't respond to the problem. We are specifically looking at the bonus and nothing else matters.

Don't forget, WotC is obligated to support my opinion as a player and fighters shouldn't be capable of DC's as high as wizards. No fighter should be capable of wizard DC's because magic is special. Clearly the solution is to give all wizards a bonus.

Pretty much every argument being given can be applied the other way.

Besides, based on the "but magic" comments and "players gravitate towards power gaming" comments on Enworld one would think EK's with high INT would be the default assumption. If magic is all that and players power game then INT would benefit most fighters.

 

[Oofta]

That's good and all but doesn't respond to the problem. We are specifically looking at the bonus and nothing else matters.

Don't forget, WotC is obligated to support my opinion as a player and fighters shouldn't be capable of DC's as high as wizards. No fighter should be capable of wizard DC's because magic is special. Clearly the solution is to give all wizards a bonus.

Pretty much every argument being given can be applied the other way.

Besides, based on the "but magic" comments and "players gravitate towards power gaming" comments on Enworld one would think EK's with high INT would be the default assumption. If magic is all that and players power game then INT would benefit most fighters.

Now you're getting it! WOTC should design a game specifically for you and if it isn't exactly what you want they're a bunch of lazy no-good-nicks with sloppy writing, terrible rules and have delivered an awful game! Because there should never be any rule that could have ambiguity or be improved in any way whatsoever. After all with a measly 212,919* words in the PHB there should be no flaws whatsoever.

P.S. No game with the complexity and design goals of D&D could ever be perfect, or be tailored to every gamer niche.

*At least according to a random web site I found with a quick google. How did we ever survive without an internet search engine?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Pretty much every argument being given can be applied the other way.

It can't, because literally absolutely every PC is proficient in at least some weapons, but, until a 5.5 or something changes it, there are in fact fighters (and rogues and barbarians who can't cast spells).

Besides, based on the "players gravitate towards power gaming" comments on Enworld one would think EK's with high INT would be the default assumption.

The conventional trick with EK is to abuse shield for AC. And INT is rather poorly regarded by that set, thus time around.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It can't, because literally absolutely every PC is proficient in at least some weapons, but, until a 5.5 or something changes it, there are in fact fighters (and rogues and barbarians who can't cast spells).
The conventional trick with EK is to abuse shield for AC. And INT is rather poorly regarded by that set, thus time around.

Any goal post shift in a storm, eh?

Claim: wizards are as good as fighters in hitting with weapons with regard to attack bonus.
Caveats:
1. Provided specific build choices are made
2. Limited to only thise weapons wizards are proficient

Counterclaim: fighters are as good as wizards at casting a spell, in regards to attack bonus.
Caveats:
1. Same
2. Limited to spells available via 1.

Tony: it's just not realistic to expect caveat 1 on the counterclaims. Now, regarding claim, it's obvious caveats are acceptable, yes?

 

[Ashrym]

It can't, because literally absolutely every PC is proficient in at least some weapons, but, until a 5.5 or something changes it, there are in fact fighters (and rogues and barbarians who can't cast spells).

Are we focusing on what elven wizards have but not elven fighters?

The elf was cherry-picked for INT and DEX in order to meet the attack bonus argument in the first place. Using the exact same race for the fighter gives the fighter a cantrip. All high elves cast spells at 1st level.

They don't know as many spells but the spells being cast are just as effective. That's no different than the complaint the elven wizard using a finesse weapon has the same attack bonus.

If we go back to the tentpole argument supporting players that includes the players who have the opinion wizards should be more powerful than they are now.

The conventional trick with EK is to abuse shield for AC. And INT is rather poorly regarded by that set, thus time around.

Because a high DC status effect is powerful on a wizard and worthless on a fighter?

I need a "sounds legit" meme.

Not getting attacked at all seems like a solid alternative to blowing through spell slots on shield. It's almost like the same concepts apply in both cases.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Where were you with optimization advice when there was a lizardman STR ranger?

If a player wants their character to be a powerful melee predator for example, or similar mental image, I'm all for it. Optimisation isn't necessary, and certainly doesn't trump character concept.
Dex might be better mechanically, but as long as the player is aware of that and OK with giving up some mechanical power for the sake of a more interesting character, good.

That's good and all but doesn't respond to the problem. We are specifically looking at the bonus and nothing else matters.

I'm responding to the suggestion that Int is as valuable a stat to Fighters as Dex is to Wizards..

I don't have an issue with the quirk of the system that means that Wizards can have the same bonus to hit with a weapon than Fighters.
(I do have issues with the sheer gameplay capability differential between the two classes, but I don't regard the attack bonus as being a major part of that. )

Besides, based on the "but magic" comments and "players gravitate towards power gaming" comments on Enworld one would think EK's with high INT would be the default assumption. If magic is all that and players power game then INT would benefit most fighters.

No, in general, while magic probably does make the EK the best Fighter subclass in terms of interest and contribution to all pillars of the game, its not a Wizard and probably shouldn't try to be.
Massive MAD issues mean that generally EKs seem to stick with a fairly modest Int score and rely on spells that don't require to hit rolls or saving throws.
Access to spells gives it better performance in the social and exploration pillars of the game than other Fighters, but limited level and selection, no rituals, and fewer slots mean that its still not contributing like a Wizard can. In combat, the general wisdom seems to be to stick to buffs rather than use actions throwing offensive spells that may miss or be resisted - the weapon attack capability of the Fighter makes it good enough there.

And at the end of the day, the reason the Fighter class is so popular is probably due to character concepts it evokes rather than mechanical power. The Eldritch Knight is one concept, but probably not the most popular when it comes to the mental image for someone who decides that they want to play a Fighter due to the Fighter class concept.
If a player is "gravitating towards power gaming" and wants to be solid in all aspects of the game, - they're probably not choosing to play a Fighter to start with.

 

[Ashrym]

If a player wants their character to be a powerful melee predator for example, or similar mental image, I'm all for it. Optimisation isn't necessary, and certainly doesn't trump character concept.
Dex might be better mechanically, but as long as the player is aware of that and OK with giving up some mechanical power for the sake of a more interesting character, good.
I'm responding to the suggestion that Int is as valuable a stat to Fighters as Dex is to Wizards..

I don't have an issue with the quirk of the system that means that Wizards can have the same bonus to hit with a weapon than Fighters.
(I do have issues with the sheer gameplay capability differential between the two classes, but I don't regard the attack bonus as being a major part of that. )

No, in general, while magic probably does make the EK the best Fighter subclass in terms of interest and contribution to all pillars of the game, its not a Wizard and probably shouldn't try to be.
Massive MAD issues mean that generally EKs seem to stick with a fairly modest Int score and rely on spells that don't require to hit rolls or saving throws.
Access to spells gives it better performance in the social and exploration pillars of the game than other Fighters, but limited level and selection, no rituals, and fewer slots mean that its still not contributing like a Wizard can. In combat, the general wisdom seems to be to stick to buffs rather than use actions throwing offensive spells that may miss or be resisted - the weapon attack capability of the Fighter makes it good enough there.

And at the end of the day, the reason the Fighter class is so popular is probably due to character concepts it evokes rather than mechanical power. The Eldritch Knight is one concept, but probably not the most popular when it comes to the mental image for someone who decides that they want to play a Fighter due to the Fighter class concept.
If a player is "gravitating towards power gaming" and wants to be solid in all aspects of the game, - they're probably not choosing to play a Fighter to start with.

You're missing the point. Nothing else matters in the comparison other than that single bonus. That's why wizards can fight just as well as fighters.

I'm just holding up a mirror and reflecting back arguments.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

Eventually, with all these threads, we have to hit a point where the answer to "Why is [Blank] done in [blank] manner?" is "Because that's the way the game was made".

Why do different classes have different HD?
Why do Spells work like that?
Why do we roll These dice and not some other combination of dice?
Why does this class have this power but another doesn't?

Because that's the game.

 

[clearstream]

If a player wants their character to be a powerful melee predator for example, or similar mental image, I'm all for it. Optimisation isn't necessary, and certainly doesn't trump character concept.
Dex might be better mechanically, but as long as the player is aware of that and OK with giving up some mechanical power for the sake of a more interesting character, good.
I'm responding to the suggestion that Int is as valuable a stat to Fighters as Dex is to Wizards.

I think CON is better on wizards. Both experience, and other posters' guides to wizards, suggest that maintaining concentration is more important than have a higher AC against attacks that one shouldn't be in the way of anyway.