A PC Mage class uses the d6, regardless of character size, for their hit dice. However, medium creatures use a d8, so the stat blocks of any medium-sized creature show them having more HP than a PC Mage could ever have. Even magic-based humanoid monsters (like a Cultist, Mage, or Archmage) use the d8 and have more HP.
If a PC Mage had chosen to stay a Commoner, they would use a higher hit dice, so somehow using magic makes them intrinsically weaker than any other medium-sized creature simply because they are a player character.
So what is the mechanical reasoning to have a PC Mage use a smaller hit die size, forcing them to have less possible HP, than basic humanoids of the same size, instead of using a d8 as the bottom tier and then just having other classes use higher dice?
Because they're supposed to be bookish, deep in studies, and not as physically active as your average farmer. The d8s are classes who aren't really any more or less physically active than most people (+monk), the d10s are combat trained individuals (-monk), and the d12 is pissed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Game balance. Mages can stop time and alter reality and shoot lightning from their fingers. They need a weakness, and low hp/low AC is it. Heck, in 1e, they had a d4 for hit die, and you rolled every level, even 1st. It was quite common to have a level 1 magic user with 1 hit point. So, they’ve actually gotten much more durable over the years.
Also, commoners don’t ever level up. Those 4 hp they have is all they’ll ever have. Meanwhile the mage will hit level 2 on basically their first or second day as an adventurer, and start pulling ahead.
It's supposed to be a counterbalance, because mages are objectively better PCs than anything else and needed a drawback. It's extremely negligible though, and should be a d4.
If this is the case then, why do npc mage stat blocks not use the same structure?
Also:
The balance for using magic is spell slots. Once you're out of spells slots, you're more or less useless.
A lower AC makes sense, but sorcerers are explicitly not bookish. And there are plenty options for wizards to want a higher constitution.
The idea that any class can use a soldier background but then not have that confer any sort of bonus other than a skill prof. seems pointless.
NPC mage stat blocks do not use the same structure because monsters use different rules than PCs. Why don't fighter NPCs have d10s? Because they're not PCs. In fact, they're NPCs. Instead of having different hit dice, mage NPCs have their bookishness represented by having fewer hit dice. It's the same end result, just with more internal consistency.
Just because you can't do it infinitely doesn't mean spellcasting is just as good as any other class feature. Slapping a single limitation onto every feature would not make perfect balance as you seem to believe it would.
Sorcerers are assumed by the rules to spend lots of time practicing their innate magic to grow more powerful with it.
Backgrounds aren't what you are, but what you were before. If you want to play a soldier, make a fighter. If you want to play a wizard who used to be a soldier, use the soldier background. I'm not even sure what you're implying with this, like the soldier background and only the soldier background should provide extra hit points. Anyways, you're using 1D&D terminology, and in the playtests having a soldier background can confer to a wizard weapon proficiencies, medium armor proficiency, or 2 extra hp per level (effectively bringing their hit dice to d10s).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
First, I'm not really sure where the salt is coming from, I'm literally just curious. Like I get that an NPC is not a PC, I'm legit just curious why this is the direction they took.
That being said, I don't understand how bookishness makes someone have less HP/health. Or why that makes sorcerers the same because they work with their own magic that could tear them apart.
A characters HP is what keeps a character at the table. I simply don't understand why (in fiction) they would take away HP from a character instead of just making the other classes stronger.
And my perspective here is that your background is still part of your character, so it's strange how little your Background actually gives your character and how disjointed the narrative can be mechanically because of how little a background actually confers.
And thanks for the 1D&D info. I've never looked into 1st edition, so I didn't know. Might find some nice homebrew ideas in there.
I get that. Ill just let everyone know now that I understand the difference in player characters and non-playable characters. My question is just why is this the direction they took.
Plus, bards, clerics, druids, some fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, some rogues, and warlocks have access to cantrips, so that doesn't really make sense.
The comment about cantrips was in reference to the comment about the mages being more or less useless when the run out of spell slots. These characters have options the player can invest in to keep the character productive should they use up all their spell slots. So the class is not more or less useless because of how spell slots work.
But on the subject of cantrips, let's discuss the other classes' capabilities with them. Several of the classes you named do not start off with cantrips at level 1: and not all of the classes have the option to select the cantrips they can use. So there is not an equivalency here.
Next look at the role the class plays with the respect to the game. Mages tend to not be melee combat oriented. Classes that get the d8 and rely on spell casting are expected to have a much larger role on the front line than the mages. Bards, Clerics, and Druids serve has healers and revivers. This can require them to enter the battlefield to serve this purpose and thus expose them to additional melee attacks. The the game designers consider the Warlock to be a hybrid, and there are paths and subclass options that allows the Warlock to more of a melee combatant. The intention is not for these classes to be the front line fighters (like Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, etc.) but there is a reasonable expectation they engage more on the battlefield.
In contrast, it is possible to build out Sorcerers and Wizards to be extremely effect from ranges that that exceed many standard attacks. They do come into danger at times and there will be times they have to engage in the battlefield; but there is more potential for them to engage form distance and the back of the line. The creators giving them a d6 vs a d8 reinforces this concept and aids in inspiring the players on the classes role within the game. Again, not an absolute, but from the general concept of the classes design and roles.
Lastly, you bring up background. The class is what defines character's robustness, not the background. The class represents how the character trains, lives, and focuses on their development. This why when you multiclass and gain a level, the hit dice is associated with the class level you again: A Fighter is doing more physical activity vs a Cleric who might train in medicine and attempt to connect to a deity vs Sorcerer who's practices is in discovering arcane secrets. If it helps, consider this scenario of the former solider who is now a Bard. As a Bard, the character spends their days writing and practicing tunes while sitting in a pub. Their diet consists of ale and prime rib. Their exercise regime comes after the third pitcher when they dance with other patrons of the house until dawn. This life style will probably counter effect the benefits from years of military use.
The mage class is not one built on physical prowess. The d6 is just another game mechanic to remind players of where the class ranks in physicality.
I like all of your points! These are good details and what I'm looking for.
That being said, I think the reliance of the concept of the battlefield is what is so frustrating because there are so many other ways that a characters life can be in jeopardy other than just pure combat. Traps, poison, natural weather, etc. Plus, the difference in AC really should outline a class' role on the battlefield. You can have all the HP you want, but if your AC is low, you're going to not last as long up front.
And that limited conceptual character building is what makes D&D so boring when it comes to roleplaying. Like, the idea here with a Bard is kinda silly considering the idea that singers in our world can be fit af. The sheer stamina and physicality you need to sing or play an instrument isn't a drop in the bucket. And saying that a Bard with a background in soldier automatically will not train anymore is weird considering I could make the same character and literally just have them do that.
It's not that I want all classes to be the same. But the idea that your HP is based on your class seems a bit silly in the same way that trying your Ability Score Improvements off of race isn't the best either.
Why is HP being based off of class silly? If you want to represent a character with more physical fitness and training than their class is assumed to have, give them a higher Constitution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Being fit isn’t the same as being tough. Cardio doesn’t help you take a punch.
A big thing to remember is hp are not just meat. It also includes things like, well, being able to take a hit, and dodging out of the way, getting tired, gritting your teeth through the pain. That’s where the bookishness come into play. Fighters are used to getting knocked around a bit. Mages are not.
The reason mages (Wizards and Sorcerers) use the d6 HD is in order to balance them against the other classes. That much has been discussed and explained already, so I won’t get into it any deeper than that.
The reasons NPC mages have HD based on creature size are the same reasons all monsters and NPCs have HD based on creature size. Those reasons being that it makes them simpler for DMs to run and build. This way a DM doesn’t have to remember or keep track of which types of NPCs/Monsters get which size die. They also don’t have to make distinctions between a martial NPC who can cast spells Vs a spellcaster NPC that has martial capabilities, and where that line gets drawn or how fixed it is. They just get a d6 if their Small, or a d8 if they’re Medium, or a d10 if they’re Large, and that’s it. Simple.
In addition, a PC’s number of HD is entirely level dependent, but an NPC’s are not. A 5th level PC gets 5 HD, a 10th level PC gets 10, etc. However, NPCs don’t typically get class levels. This way DMs don’t need to figure out who’s what level and do all of the cross checking and calculating that Players have to do. DM’s have enough on their plates without all of that extra work. It’s entirely up to the DM how many HD any given NPC has based on how survivable they want it to be. So it really doesn’t matter what size an NPC’s HD are, because the DM can up an NPC’s HP just by piling on more of them, or just as easily drop it’s HP by removing some HD.
Being fit isn’t the same as being tough. Cardio doesn’t help you take a punch.
A big thing to remember is hp are not just meat. It also includes things like, well, being able to take a hit, and dodging out of the way, getting tired, gritting your teeth through the pain. That’s where the bookishness come into play. Fighters are used to getting knocked around a bit. Mages are not.
The reason mages (Wizards and Sorcerers) use the d6 HD is in order to balance them against the other classes. That much has been discussed and explained already, so I won’t get into it any deeper than that.
The reasons NPC mages have HD based on creature size are the same reasons all monsters and NPCs have HD based on creature size. Those reasons being that it makes them simpler for DMs to run and build. This way a DM doesn’t have to remember or keep track of which types of NPCs/Monsters get which size die. They also don’t have to make distinctions between a martial NPC who can cast spells Vs a spellcaster NPC that has martial capabilities, and where that line gets drawn or how fixed it is. They just get a d6 if their Small, or a d8 if they’re Medium, or a d10 if they’re Large, and that’s it. Simple.
In addition, a PC’s number of HD is entirely level dependent, but an NPC’s are not. A 5th level PC gets 5 HD, a 10th level PC gets 10, etc. However, NPCs don’t typically get class levels. This way DMs don’t need to figure out who’s what level and do all of the cross checking and calculating that Players have to do. DM’s have enough on their plates without all of that extra work. It’s entirely up to the DM how many HD any given NPC has based on how survivable they want it to be. So it really doesn’t matter what size an NPC’s HD are, because the DM can up an NPC’s HP just by piling on more of them, or just as easily drop it’s HP by removing some HD.
Having it based on convenience makes a lot of sense!
As a DM, I feel like it would be more intuitive if it was based on skill set rather than size (the same way PCs are), but I also get that having it be size-based is a useful way to simplify things.
Why is my example so silly? What rules of the game did I violate in its creation? At no point did I state this was requirement or the only option to build as a Bard. You are correct that you can use the characters background as building block and evolve into a class; I never stated this wasn't allowed. The scenario intentional used hyperbole to demonstrate how the hit die of class should not be related the background of the character because the characters features are based on the level of class they have achieved. The line "As a Bard, the character...." was to distinguish the time for this hypothetical character as the class of a Bard is no longer focussing a regime and lifestyle that would keep them fit as a current solider's life would. There is nothing in my statement saying that Bards with a background as a solider will automatically stop training; nor did I state a player was unable to create character that couldn't be a Bard who continues to live a solider's lifestyle. This was never the point. The scenario was to demonstrate that the character's attributes, in this case the hit die, is based on the current class they are leveling up in.
The character's class and level is a representation of where they are now in their development. I will try a real world example, currently right now the NFL draft is occurring. There are commentators who are former players. Several of them are in incredible shape. Very, very fit. But if you ask them if they could still play in the NFL today the majority would admit that they cannot. Age, lifestyles, physical ailments, and their focus on being journalists and analysts is keeping them from putting in the necessary training to be fit enough to be in this level. Where they are now in their lives makes a difference. That is the point I was making in my pervious post. But I would never object to, and more so I would defend, your choice to make a Bard that is physically fit. There is subclass called School of Swords, so obviously there is that option.
The point being made, and still stands, that the character's background is not the most defining factor for the current state of where the character is for the game; that is defined by the character's class (or classes).
So I didn't mean to mislead you with the term "battlefield" and imply it only means combat (even that my example may have hinted solely to that). That is on me, so I will clarify and call it "danger zone". The definition of danger zone is any area where the characters are at risk of any adverse effect. This can be damage, loss of control, spell effects, conditions, etc. I don't want to limit the potential of this.
Now the difference in AC is not what should define the role of a class in the danger zone. Armor class is not a set thing, and is not directly related to any class. A character's armor class can change based on a variety of reasons. Her is a scenario: The party has just finished a long rest on a galleon. Before they can start getting ready for the day, they hear a bell sound and ruckus from the crew. In just their plain clothing they rush to deck to see pirates are attempting to board. No character had time to put armor on. The Paladin has their shield and +1 form DEX (AC 13); the Rogue has a +3 DEX (AC 13); the Barbarian has +2 DEX and +2 CON (AC 14); and the Mage casts Mage Armor and has +2 DEX (AC 15). Does this mean the Mage should now become the Tank of the party?
Outside of the above example there is also examples of spells and areas of effect that require a saving throw and not AC to determine if a character avoids damage. If the danger zone is room with falling beams and embers of fire, and a party member is down the fact that the high AC but low DEX of the Cleric does not change the fact that one of the roles of the Cleric is heal party members. Sure, if you have a Druid with a high DEX then they can be used in this example; but many parties are limited to say the Cleric and Paladin with access to healing features. Making the Cleric a little bit more durable than a Mage supports the position they have to enter into the danger zone to aid party members. And while the Paladin with a d10 can also assist here, the fact they have proficiency in more martial weapons means they have a role in engagement of enemies and may not be able to expend an action to heal.
AC helps you avoid Attacks being successful; but HP dictate how many rounds you sustain damage in. A character can take damage from more than Attacks and you did point this out.
Yes, I agree with your point that the danger zone can consist of a large range of damage causing effects. But let's explore them. The Rogue or Ranger should be scouting and looking for traps; and they are built with features to assist surviving them. Characters with a high WIS should try to decipher poisons or players with a high CON should sample the items in hopes they can hold off the effects. Natural Weather is probably best handled by members with high STR or DEX; though I agree this something that probably can't be avoided at times. But the majority of the danger zone scenarios should be primarily addressed by characters other than the mages unless they are specifically designed to require the mage to interact with it (this is a vague scenario, and I apologize, but I am trying to keep my long post limited as much as I can).
The Ability Score modifications based on character race poses a problem much larger than any game mechanic. The perception of this could mean something I think game designs are very much concern with and eliminating this element does not hurt a game in anyway. With that said, I do think applying bonus to Ability Score based on class and offering an optional additional bonus with a deficiency based on class is more than fair. Class is a choice and represents how a character may invest their time and development. This is also why HP based on class makes sense. Someone who must endure pain would have higher HP than someone who does not train for this. Classes should be the driving force for these character elements. A fit AF performer is in no way physically in the same field as a professional athlete. They are all fine people but their professions will dictate the range of their abilities.
Last thing: "And that limited conceptual character building is what makes D&D so boring when it comes to roleplaying." Can you elaborate on this more. I want to understand why you feel this way. I don't see the a limited conceptual character building in this game. I would like to discuss this more, if you don't mind, to see if we can get this in a range for understanding each other. Cheers!
Why is HP being based off of class silly? If you want to represent a character with more physical fitness and training than their class is assumed to have, give them a higher Constitution.
It's arbitrary benefits, some get more, some get less. In 5E Wizards aren't less physically fit than anyone else since they have access to the same Consitution modifier where in previous Editions at some point only the Fighter class or the Warrior group could get higher modifier where all others were limited to +2. HD are arbitrary, Barbarian gets the biggest with HD12 and they aren't more physically fit than Fighter, Ranger or Paladin necessarily.
Just as an additional observation: if you’re playing a Small mage, then their hit die is the normal one for monsters of their size.
There are also a few ways to break the usual archetype of the fragile mage, if that’s what you’re looking for. Taking the Tough feat for a wizard or sorcerer is on average equal to having a d10 hit dice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A PC Mage class uses the d6, regardless of character size, for their hit dice. However, medium creatures use a d8, so the stat blocks of any medium-sized creature show them having more HP than a PC Mage could ever have. Even magic-based humanoid monsters (like a Cultist, Mage, or Archmage) use the d8 and have more HP.
If a PC Mage had chosen to stay a Commoner, they would use a higher hit dice, so somehow using magic makes them intrinsically weaker than any other medium-sized creature simply because they are a player character.
So what is the mechanical reasoning to have a PC Mage use a smaller hit die size, forcing them to have less possible HP, than basic humanoids of the same size, instead of using a d8 as the bottom tier and then just having other classes use higher dice?
So:
d8 - Mage
d10 - Expert & Priest
d12 - Warrior
Because they're supposed to be bookish, deep in studies, and not as physically active as your average farmer. The d8s are classes who aren't really any more or less physically active than most people (+monk), the d10s are combat trained individuals (-monk), and the d12 is pissed.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Game balance. Mages can stop time and alter reality and shoot lightning from their fingers. They need a weakness, and low hp/low AC is it. Heck, in 1e, they had a d4 for hit die, and you rolled every level, even 1st. It was quite common to have a level 1 magic user with 1 hit point. So, they’ve actually gotten much more durable over the years.
Also, commoners don’t ever level up. Those 4 hp they have is all they’ll ever have. Meanwhile the mage will hit level 2 on basically their first or second day as an adventurer, and start pulling ahead.
It's supposed to be a counterbalance, because mages are objectively better PCs than anything else and needed a drawback. It's extremely negligible though, and should be a d4.
If this is the case then, why do npc mage stat blocks not use the same structure?
Also:
The balance for using magic is spell slots. Once you're out of spells slots, you're more or less useless.
A lower AC makes sense, but sorcerers are explicitly not bookish. And there are plenty options for wizards to want a higher constitution.
The idea that any class can use a soldier background but then not have that confer any sort of bonus other than a skill prof. seems pointless.
NPC mage stat blocks do not use the same structure because monsters use different rules than PCs. Why don't fighter NPCs have d10s? Because they're not PCs. In fact, they're NPCs. Instead of having different hit dice, mage NPCs have their bookishness represented by having fewer hit dice. It's the same end result, just with more internal consistency.
Just because you can't do it infinitely doesn't mean spellcasting is just as good as any other class feature. Slapping a single limitation onto every feature would not make perfect balance as you seem to believe it would.
Sorcerers are assumed by the rules to spend lots of time practicing their innate magic to grow more powerful with it.
Backgrounds aren't what you are, but what you were before. If you want to play a soldier, make a fighter. If you want to play a wizard who used to be a soldier, use the soldier background. I'm not even sure what you're implying with this, like the soldier background and only the soldier background should provide extra hit points. Anyways, you're using 1D&D terminology, and in the playtests having a soldier background can confer to a wizard weapon proficiencies, medium armor proficiency, or 2 extra hp per level (effectively bringing their hit dice to d10s).
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Because they are NCPs. The process to build an NPC and their roll within the game is not the same a player's character.
Mages also have cantrips. So in essence they can have an endless supply of ranged attacks.
First, I'm not really sure where the salt is coming from, I'm literally just curious. Like I get that an NPC is not a PC, I'm legit just curious why this is the direction they took.
That being said, I don't understand how bookishness makes someone have less HP/health. Or why that makes sorcerers the same because they work with their own magic that could tear them apart.
A characters HP is what keeps a character at the table. I simply don't understand why (in fiction) they would take away HP from a character instead of just making the other classes stronger.
And my perspective here is that your background is still part of your character, so it's strange how little your Background actually gives your character and how disjointed the narrative can be mechanically because of how little a background actually confers.
And thanks for the 1D&D info. I've never looked into 1st edition, so I didn't know. Might find some nice homebrew ideas in there.
I get that. Ill just let everyone know now that I understand the difference in player characters and non-playable characters. My question is just why is this the direction they took.
Plus, bards, clerics, druids, some fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, some rogues, and warlocks have access to cantrips, so that doesn't really make sense.
NPCs and monsters uses different rules. Wizards have HD6 because WoTC decided to give them a bump from DH4 to be less squishy.
The comment about cantrips was in reference to the comment about the mages being more or less useless when the run out of spell slots. These characters have options the player can invest in to keep the character productive should they use up all their spell slots. So the class is not more or less useless because of how spell slots work.
But on the subject of cantrips, let's discuss the other classes' capabilities with them. Several of the classes you named do not start off with cantrips at level 1: and not all of the classes have the option to select the cantrips they can use. So there is not an equivalency here.
Next look at the role the class plays with the respect to the game. Mages tend to not be melee combat oriented. Classes that get the d8 and rely on spell casting are expected to have a much larger role on the front line than the mages. Bards, Clerics, and Druids serve has healers and revivers. This can require them to enter the battlefield to serve this purpose and thus expose them to additional melee attacks. The the game designers consider the Warlock to be a hybrid, and there are paths and subclass options that allows the Warlock to more of a melee combatant. The intention is not for these classes to be the front line fighters (like Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, etc.) but there is a reasonable expectation they engage more on the battlefield.
In contrast, it is possible to build out Sorcerers and Wizards to be extremely effect from ranges that that exceed many standard attacks. They do come into danger at times and there will be times they have to engage in the battlefield; but there is more potential for them to engage form distance and the back of the line. The creators giving them a d6 vs a d8 reinforces this concept and aids in inspiring the players on the classes role within the game. Again, not an absolute, but from the general concept of the classes design and roles.
Lastly, you bring up background. The class is what defines character's robustness, not the background. The class represents how the character trains, lives, and focuses on their development. This why when you multiclass and gain a level, the hit dice is associated with the class level you again: A Fighter is doing more physical activity vs a Cleric who might train in medicine and attempt to connect to a deity vs Sorcerer who's practices is in discovering arcane secrets. If it helps, consider this scenario of the former solider who is now a Bard. As a Bard, the character spends their days writing and practicing tunes while sitting in a pub. Their diet consists of ale and prime rib. Their exercise regime comes after the third pitcher when they dance with other patrons of the house until dawn. This life style will probably counter effect the benefits from years of military use.
The mage class is not one built on physical prowess. The d6 is just another game mechanic to remind players of where the class ranks in physicality.
I like all of your points! These are good details and what I'm looking for.
That being said, I think the reliance of the concept of the battlefield is what is so frustrating because there are so many other ways that a characters life can be in jeopardy other than just pure combat. Traps, poison, natural weather, etc. Plus, the difference in AC really should outline a class' role on the battlefield. You can have all the HP you want, but if your AC is low, you're going to not last as long up front.
And that limited conceptual character building is what makes D&D so boring when it comes to roleplaying. Like, the idea here with a Bard is kinda silly considering the idea that singers in our world can be fit af. The sheer stamina and physicality you need to sing or play an instrument isn't a drop in the bucket. And saying that a Bard with a background in soldier automatically will not train anymore is weird considering I could make the same character and literally just have them do that.
It's not that I want all classes to be the same. But the idea that your HP is based on your class seems a bit silly in the same way that trying your Ability Score Improvements off of race isn't the best either.
Why is HP being based off of class silly? If you want to represent a character with more physical fitness and training than their class is assumed to have, give them a higher Constitution.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Being fit isn’t the same as being tough. Cardio doesn’t help you take a punch.
A big thing to remember is hp are not just meat. It also includes things like, well, being able to take a hit, and dodging out of the way, getting tired, gritting your teeth through the pain. That’s where the bookishness come into play. Fighters are used to getting knocked around a bit. Mages are not.
The reason mages (Wizards and Sorcerers) use the d6 HD is in order to balance them against the other classes. That much has been discussed and explained already, so I won’t get into it any deeper than that.
The reasons NPC mages have HD based on creature size are the same reasons all monsters and NPCs have HD based on creature size. Those reasons being that it makes them simpler for DMs to run and build. This way a DM doesn’t have to remember or keep track of which types of NPCs/Monsters get which size die. They also don’t have to make distinctions between a martial NPC who can cast spells Vs a spellcaster NPC that has martial capabilities, and where that line gets drawn or how fixed it is. They just get a d6 if their Small, or a d8 if they’re Medium, or a d10 if they’re Large, and that’s it. Simple.
In addition, a PC’s number of HD is entirely level dependent, but an NPC’s are not. A 5th level PC gets 5 HD, a 10th level PC gets 10, etc. However, NPCs don’t typically get class levels. This way DMs don’t need to figure out who’s what level and do all of the cross checking and calculating that Players have to do. DM’s have enough on their plates without all of that extra work. It’s entirely up to the DM how many HD any given NPC has based on how survivable they want it to be. So it really doesn’t matter what size an NPC’s HD are, because the DM can up an NPC’s HP just by piling on more of them, or just as easily drop it’s HP by removing some HD.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This perspective helps, thanks!
Having it based on convenience makes a lot of sense!
As a DM, I feel like it would be more intuitive if it was based on skill set rather than size (the same way PCs are), but I also get that having it be size-based is a useful way to simplify things.
Thanks!
Why is my example so silly? What rules of the game did I violate in its creation? At no point did I state this was requirement or the only option to build as a Bard. You are correct that you can use the characters background as building block and evolve into a class; I never stated this wasn't allowed. The scenario intentional used hyperbole to demonstrate how the hit die of class should not be related the background of the character because the characters features are based on the level of class they have achieved. The line "As a Bard, the character...." was to distinguish the time for this hypothetical character as the class of a Bard is no longer focussing a regime and lifestyle that would keep them fit as a current solider's life would. There is nothing in my statement saying that Bards with a background as a solider will automatically stop training; nor did I state a player was unable to create character that couldn't be a Bard who continues to live a solider's lifestyle. This was never the point. The scenario was to demonstrate that the character's attributes, in this case the hit die, is based on the current class they are leveling up in.
The character's class and level is a representation of where they are now in their development. I will try a real world example, currently right now the NFL draft is occurring. There are commentators who are former players. Several of them are in incredible shape. Very, very fit. But if you ask them if they could still play in the NFL today the majority would admit that they cannot. Age, lifestyles, physical ailments, and their focus on being journalists and analysts is keeping them from putting in the necessary training to be fit enough to be in this level. Where they are now in their lives makes a difference. That is the point I was making in my pervious post. But I would never object to, and more so I would defend, your choice to make a Bard that is physically fit. There is subclass called School of Swords, so obviously there is that option.
The point being made, and still stands, that the character's background is not the most defining factor for the current state of where the character is for the game; that is defined by the character's class (or classes).
So I didn't mean to mislead you with the term "battlefield" and imply it only means combat (even that my example may have hinted solely to that). That is on me, so I will clarify and call it "danger zone". The definition of danger zone is any area where the characters are at risk of any adverse effect. This can be damage, loss of control, spell effects, conditions, etc. I don't want to limit the potential of this.
Now the difference in AC is not what should define the role of a class in the danger zone. Armor class is not a set thing, and is not directly related to any class. A character's armor class can change based on a variety of reasons. Her is a scenario: The party has just finished a long rest on a galleon. Before they can start getting ready for the day, they hear a bell sound and ruckus from the crew. In just their plain clothing they rush to deck to see pirates are attempting to board. No character had time to put armor on. The Paladin has their shield and +1 form DEX (AC 13); the Rogue has a +3 DEX (AC 13); the Barbarian has +2 DEX and +2 CON (AC 14); and the Mage casts Mage Armor and has +2 DEX (AC 15). Does this mean the Mage should now become the Tank of the party?
Outside of the above example there is also examples of spells and areas of effect that require a saving throw and not AC to determine if a character avoids damage. If the danger zone is room with falling beams and embers of fire, and a party member is down the fact that the high AC but low DEX of the Cleric does not change the fact that one of the roles of the Cleric is heal party members. Sure, if you have a Druid with a high DEX then they can be used in this example; but many parties are limited to say the Cleric and Paladin with access to healing features. Making the Cleric a little bit more durable than a Mage supports the position they have to enter into the danger zone to aid party members. And while the Paladin with a d10 can also assist here, the fact they have proficiency in more martial weapons means they have a role in engagement of enemies and may not be able to expend an action to heal.
AC helps you avoid Attacks being successful; but HP dictate how many rounds you sustain damage in. A character can take damage from more than Attacks and you did point this out.
Yes, I agree with your point that the danger zone can consist of a large range of damage causing effects. But let's explore them. The Rogue or Ranger should be scouting and looking for traps; and they are built with features to assist surviving them. Characters with a high WIS should try to decipher poisons or players with a high CON should sample the items in hopes they can hold off the effects. Natural Weather is probably best handled by members with high STR or DEX; though I agree this something that probably can't be avoided at times. But the majority of the danger zone scenarios should be primarily addressed by characters other than the mages unless they are specifically designed to require the mage to interact with it (this is a vague scenario, and I apologize, but I am trying to keep my long post limited as much as I can).
The Ability Score modifications based on character race poses a problem much larger than any game mechanic. The perception of this could mean something I think game designs are very much concern with and eliminating this element does not hurt a game in anyway. With that said, I do think applying bonus to Ability Score based on class and offering an optional additional bonus with a deficiency based on class is more than fair. Class is a choice and represents how a character may invest their time and development. This is also why HP based on class makes sense. Someone who must endure pain would have higher HP than someone who does not train for this. Classes should be the driving force for these character elements. A fit AF performer is in no way physically in the same field as a professional athlete. They are all fine people but their professions will dictate the range of their abilities.
Last thing: "And that limited conceptual character building is what makes D&D so boring when it comes to roleplaying." Can you elaborate on this more. I want to understand why you feel this way. I don't see the a limited conceptual character building in this game. I would like to discuss this more, if you don't mind, to see if we can get this in a range for understanding each other. Cheers!
It's arbitrary benefits, some get more, some get less. In 5E Wizards aren't less physically fit than anyone else since they have access to the same Consitution modifier where in previous Editions at some point only the Fighter class or the Warrior group could get higher modifier where all others were limited to +2. HD are arbitrary, Barbarian gets the biggest with HD12 and they aren't more physically fit than Fighter, Ranger or Paladin necessarily.
Just as an additional observation: if you’re playing a Small mage, then their hit die is the normal one for monsters of their size.
There are also a few ways to break the usual archetype of the fragile mage, if that’s what you’re looking for. Taking the Tough feat for a wizard or sorcerer is on average equal to having a d10 hit dice.