D&D 5E Why the disparity in hit dice between classes? between classes vs. creatures?

[DND_Reborn]

The monk and ranger were different, and while I don't remember the monk

First off, nice recap for people who don't know it.

FWIW, monks also started with 2 hit die, albeit only d4. The great thing about monks and rangers in AD&D each having 2 hit dice at level 1, was your Con HP bonus applied to each hit die, not just once for your level! With an 18 CON, a ranger could (and I only ever saw this once) have 24 HP at level 1!

Also, Barbarians in Unearthed Arcana in 1E applied double the CON HP bonus to each die. So a CON 18 barbarian added +8 hp per die to the d12.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I've always wondered why monsters have varying numbers of hit dice, and how to decide when to give them 1 versus 2 versus 10.

We have a precedent in the Monster Manual linking creature size to hit die type, and we have a precedent in the Players Handbook linking number of hit dice to experience.

One monster that encapsulates these two things are dragons.

Red dragon wyrmling, 10d8 hit dice, CR 4.
Young red dragon has 17d10 hit dice, CR 10.
Adult red dragon has 19d12 hit dice, CR 17.
Ancient red dragon has 28d20 hit dice, CR 24.

But, where do those hit dice numbers come from? Why is there only a 2 hit dice difference between the young dragon and the adult? It seems arbitrary, or perhaps focused on making the Challenge Ratings progress smoothly. I will have have to look at the other dragons to see if that holds true.

Anyway I've done a similar analysis of beasts and their giant counterparts. Again, there was no dependable pattern.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've always wondered why monsters have varying numbers of hit dice, and how to decide when to give them 1 versus 2 versus 10.

We have a precedent in the Monster Manual linking creature size to hit die type, and we have a precedent in the Players Handbook linking number of hit dice to experience.

One monster that encapsulates these two things are dragons.

Red dragon wyrmling, 10d8 hit dice, CR 4.
Young red dragon has 17d10 hit dice, CR 10.
Adult red dragon has 19d12 hit dice, CR 17.
Ancient red dragon has 28d20 hit dice, CR 24.

But, where do those hit dice numbers come from? Why is there only a 2 hit dice difference between the young dragon and the adult? It seems arbitrary, or perhaps focused on making the Challenge Ratings progress smoothly. I will have have to look at the other dragons to see if that holds true.

Anyway I've done a similar analysis of beasts and their giant counterparts. Again, there was no dependable pattern.

Funny you should look at red dragons. Of the 50 creatures I've been working with, the 4 stages of the red dragon was 4 of them.

As you know, the hit dice type comes from the size of the creature. And as you surmise, the number of hit dice from the "experience" or "how combat effective" so to say you want this creature to be.

According the the rules outlined in the DMG on creating monsters, once you determine the hit points, it helps set the CR (or maybe it is vice versa?). With the exception of CR 4 to 10, the other CR increases are 7 each time, and 6 the first time, which is close.

Anyway, a lot of it does seem hand-waving. You get the number of hp you want, figure out how much CON bonus is adding to hp, and reverse engineer the number of HD needed to get the hp.

 

[GreyLord]

1. A barbarian has more hp than a sorcerer because they are meant to be tougher. That said, I think that the HD difference is largely due to legacy. You could certainly give barbarians and sorcerers the same HD, and then simply give barbarians additional mitigation to compensate. However, one of the nice things about HP is that the disparity is minimal at low level (around 6 HP at level 1) but increases significantly with level (63 HP at level 20).

2. You could give all medium sized characters a d8, assuming you provide classes that are meant to be tough with alternative mitigation. Small sized creatures could have a d6, but would need some additional mitigation as well.

Of course, you could go the other way and take away mitigation from less tough classes. For example, imagine if casting a spell reduced a caster's max HP by X for the rest of the day. A caster could have the same HP (and even AC) as the barbarian, but would be less tough than the the barbarian if they cast any spells.

These are actually some fascinating ideas.

I could imagine something for Warriors/Barbarians that would work to do the same idea, but differently would be hit mitigation.

If they were hit they could mitigate (or negate) one hit/level per long rest. Similar idea, but without utilizing random numbers. In some ways it is more reliable and steady, even if it does the same thing in some ways, but at the same time different.

In regards to spellcasters, perhaps they lose 1 HP/level of spell cast. So, if they had 10 HP, they could cast their spell slots but lose 1 HP/level of spell (being mostly cantrips and 1st level spells at 1st level). This could start to drastically affect HP when they are able to cast higher level spells.

Just some thoughts on how to implement stuff like that off the top of my head. Warriors probably could use more imagination in the department to make them more tough but not with the HP they have today, but I haven't thought of how yet, but I like the idea.

 

[jasper]

1 Tradition

2. tradition starts singing the song

3. Tradition Looks to fellow posters and sing in four part harmony.

4. Some magic items in other editions did grant HP.

5. Yes. See other additions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

4. Some magic items in other editions did grant HP.

Just to be clear, I am not talking bonus HP, but extra HD. In terms of 5E, an example might be armor that grants you +1 HD. Note, this is not HP, but HD.

So, if you wore such armor and were a Fighter 9, you would have 10d10 HD for healing/recovery, but your maximum HP would still be based on your 9d10 default HD.

 

[aco175]

I'm kind of glad that nobody suggested by now that my wizard could be raised in a barbarian society and thus get the d12 hit die.

 

[ECMO3]

QUESTIONS:

1. Why would a barbarian earn a d12 for hit dice, while a sorcerer gains only a d6? What is the reason why some classes have larger hit die types than others?

Because wizards with a d6 are already the most powerful class.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

QUESTIONS:

1. Why would a barbarian earn a d12 for hit dice, while a sorcerer gains only a d6? What is the reason why some classes have larger hit die types than others?

Because sorcerers are scrawny and/or untrained in battle while barbarians are trained from birth to be hard as stone.

2. Medium creatures use a d8. Most PCs are medium in size, so why not give them the same d8 for hit dice? If we did, would it be too harsh on small characters to give them the d6 small creatures gain for hit dice?

I'd be willing to try it and I don't think it would be harsh to give small races a d6 hit die.

3. Due to the metaphysical or abstract nature of hit points, why is only the Constitution modifier used? Would the other abilities represent other abstract aspects of hit points, such as Dexterity representing the reflexes aspect, equally well? What about Wisdom or Charisma representing divine favor or luck, etc.?

Because constitution is a measure of frailty. I would be up for experimenting with other modifiers from other ability scores.

4. Could hit dice be gained in ways other than by leveling, such as a magic item?

Again, sure, I'd try it.

5. Could a creature or character have more hit dice than its level?

Yes, but on the other hand, they could also have less.
---------------------------

I've long been interested in reigning in Hit Points and keeping them somewhat static throughout an adventurer's career.

Perhaps all medium-sized Player Characters have one d8 hit die. Current d8 hit die classes (e.g. ranger, rogue, etc) would get an extra hit die, while current d10 hit die classes would get two extra and the barbarian would get three extra hit dice. Then at each level gained, Players choose to take another hit die or an advancement in their powers--in the order in which they are listed on their advancement table.

Armor, as you have pointed out already, could be a source of temporary hit dice/hit points that are tracked separately.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is just to be a discussion about hit dice (and the hit points gained from them). I'll start by stating a few premises about hit points (and thus hit dice) as I see it. Of course many of you might not agree with some or all of these premises, but for the sake of discussion I would appreciate it if you respond in agreement with them and thanks.

1. Watsonian answer: Because Barbarians train their physical bodies more, and must have a greater amount of luck or preternatural survivability due to the fighting styles they employ. Their connection to nature, primal spirits, or other vital forces also tends to inure them to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
Doylist answer: Because the game is balanced around some classes having more HP and others having less. If you gave Barbarians a lower hit die and Sorcerers a higher hit die, Barbarians would no longer be nearly as worthwhile to play, especially because Barbarians pretty much always have to fight in melee, while Sorcerers almost always fight at range if they have a choice.

2. See above. There may be Watsonian reasons in either direction, but the Doylist answer is that it's a balance consideration. You would be powering up Wizards (the class that least needs additional power) and weakening Barbarians and Fighters (the classes that most need attention to not fall behind). It would absolutely be unfair to punish small races by giving them smaller HD without giving them anything else in the exchange, and I'm very surprised you even ask the question (unless it was purely to see what people would say) because...yeah that seems pretty blatantly unfair to me.

3. Again, balance concerns. 4e actually allowed HP to be calculated from other stats...but only if you spent resources to MAKE it calculate from something else. I believe the backgrounds Auspicious Birth and Born Under a Bad Sign were the main ways to do this, which gave up the alternative benefits a BG could give in order to give you a few more baseline HP. Didn't affect healing surges though, so it was of limited effect in the grand scheme. Just letting it happen, without any effort or resources invested, would again seriously and deleteriously affect the balance of the game. Dexterity is already a god stat, granting initiative, a bunch of skill benefits, AC, one of the "strong" saves, higher to-hit, AND damage (the last two if using a finesse weapon). Letting it ALSO improve HP...why would anyone specialize in anything but Dexterity after that? You'd be creating an obvious dominant strategy, that's clearly Not Good, and Constitution would become a dump stat for most characters.

4. I could see temporary hit dice, as in the healing mechanic, being acquired via magic items. Actual permanent hit dice should not be tied to things that can be lost, stolen, or passed to other party members because that could create serious bookkeeping headaches that are not worth the effort. Permanent or semi-permanent (that is, they can be lost, but not easily) boons or enchantments, on the other hand, would be fine. I am leery of just outright granting extra HP especially from magic items. Perhaps THP instead? Maybe call them "innate" THP, so you have the "innate" layer tracked separately from the regular THP layer to avoid issues with either not stacking or accidentally making all THP stack.

5. Given my answer to 4, yes, but again I am leery of such things being tied to the relatively flimsy and porous connection of "a magic item I'm wearing/wielding/using."