Ranger and Rogue

[Asisreo1]

4) RE: Reactions. Rogues get the same number of reactions as anyone else, they just have (at least) one additional use for it from 5th lvl. Sure, they might want to use it on an OA or Readied action...but so might anyone else. All other things being equal (i.e. in a fair test), the Rogue has more efficient HP than the Fighter. Would you care to offer a more generic, non-biased example that disproves or counters my (supposedly) "highly specific, biased" one?

The fact still remains that a Rogue with Uncanny Dodge only has to mitigate your current level in HP to draw even with a character with d10 HD in a given encounter. I contend that this is a common occurrence.

Uncanny dodge is a good feature, but you'll find its not as simple as "doubling your hp." Namely because it only halves one attack.

Its a potent ability against tier 1 threats, but it shows up right at tier 2. If creatures only have 1 attack per turn, chances are there's more than one of them. If there's only one creature, chances are they have more than 1 attack per round.

If they rely on AoE damage, that also doesn't help the rogue. Especially pre-7th level or against effects that target Wis, Con, or Str.

[JellyPooga]

Uncanny dodge is a good feature, but you'll find its not as simple as "doubling your hp."

Such was not my claim. I said it makes the Rogues HP more efficient over the course of a single encounter compared to d10 HD; an open ended efficiency based on how long the combat lasts (typically, the longer the combat, the more efficient the Rogues HP, due to further opportunity to use UD).

Multiple attacks are more of a problem for the d10 guy than for the Rogue once the "Uncanny Dodge has mitigated [your level] hit points" limit, because from that point onwards, the Rogue has more effective HP, no matter how little. Typically speaking (campaign dependent, of course) a Rogue need only use UD against a single level-appropriate attack to reach or even exceed that limit. From the 2nd hit onwards, the Rogue is likely to have more HP.

One potential mitigating circumstance is healing, but healing reaching or exceeding a characters maximum HP is inefficient play; better to spend such resources (primarily spell slots and actions) towards defeating your foe than "topping up" Hit Points. Thus the higher maximum possessed by the d10 guy only applies in practice until he goes below the d8 guys maximum, which is again likely to be a single hit, assuming average HP rolls/totals.

If they rely on AoE damage, that also doesn't help the rogue. Especially pre-7th level or against effects that target Wis, Con, or Str.

This is just about vague enough to be an entirely pointless statement. Assuming "fair test" parameters where all ability scores are equal, that statement says nothing to really disparage the Rogue compared to other Classes. Fighters suck at Dex saves as much as Rogues suck at Str saves, a lot of AoE targets Dex (pre and post 7th level) and it's pretty unusual that an encounter (particularly combat) will only inflict damage without attacks. Post 7th level, the Rogue fares significantly better against AoE because of Evasion and only under specific (unfair) conditions (e.g. only considering effects that target Str and Con) does the Fighter do better.

Whichever way you want to run the numbers, it would take a very unusual encounter inflicting multiple extremely low-value instances of damage (appropriate to your level) for Uncanny Dodge not to function as I describe.

I can't say it more plainly; d10 HD is not a significant enough an improvement, without further enhancement, to give a character more effective HP than one with d8 HD and Uncanny Dodge.

[Asisreo1]

This is just about vague enough to be an entirely pointless statement. Assuming "fair test" parameters where all ability scores are equal, that statement says nothing to really disparage the Rogue compared to other Classes. Fighters suck at Dex saves as much as Rogues suck at Str saves, a lot of AoE targets Dex (pre and post 7th level) and it's pretty unusual that an encounter (particularly combat) will only inflict damage without attacks. Post 7th level, the Rogue fares significantly better against AoE because of Evasion and only under specific (unfair) conditions (e.g. only considering effects that target Str and Con) does the Fighter do better.

The point isn't about Rogue's saving throws. As long as the rogue is targeted by something that requires a save, they cannot use their uncanny dodge to mitigate that damage. I brought up the other saves because they're likely to show up and the rogue isn't likely to succeed in them so more hp is strictly better in those instances. The other d10 character could simply be have resilient dex or whatever to put him in the same playing field up until level 7, as I said, since they'd have evasion and get to halve dex save damage or nullify it upon a success.

[JellyPooga]

The point isn't about Rogue's saving throws. As long as the rogue is targeted by something that requires a save, they cannot use their uncanny dodge to mitigate that damage. I brought up the other saves because they're likely to show up and the rogue isn't likely to succeed in them so more hp is strictly better in those instances. The other d10 character could simply be have resilient dex or whatever to put him in the same playing field up until level 7, as I said, since they'd have evasion and get to halve dex save damage or nullify it upon a success.

The Fighter is no more likely to pass a Wis save and as I mention, AoE and other damaging effects targeting Dex are common (perhaps even the most common, ?question?) from 1st level all the way into Tier 4. While I grant that those other Saves you mention do come up, the fact remains that UD can and likely will put the Rogue on at least an even playing field as far as HP goes, due to mitigating attack damage. So while it (UD) doesn't directly help against AoE damage, the Rogue is in a better position to resist all hp damage, regardless of source; like I said, it's an unusual circumstance where a party will be facing damage solely from AoE or other non-attack sources.

[Droppeddead]

You still want to beat this horse? Sure, I'm game. In no particular order...

No need to be rude and obtuse. You keep bringing up the same flawed arguments, is all. If you want to move the discussion along you are more than welcome to add something new to it.

1) Which bizarre version of D&D 5e are you playing or mathmatics are you using in which an average of +1hp/lvl over 20 levels equals +40hp?

The "mathmatics" I'm using is that the difference between a D8 hit die and a D10 hit die is at most 2 hitpoints per level which over 20 levels equals 40 HP. I think that's the standard 5E version, do you have a book that says otherwise?

2) You respond to my post, I assume you're talking about the same thing I am. No-one was saying to literally give all the features of both classes to a single class; if you missed the point and thought I (or anyone) was, that's on you. Both the OP and I were talking about creating a new class (OP) or subclass (me), not tacking features on top of existing ones.

I think you need to re-read what people have written. To simplify it a bit for you, the obvious problem with both of those suggestions is that you will never be able to capture the feel of both those classes in the class without making it overpowered. Yo u will either lose a lot of what makes the ranger a ranger or the rogue a rogue or you would have to give it enough of both that it will be very overpowered. Like has been mentioned, even the Scout (which is the official rogue as a ranger subclass) only captures a third of the ranger essence. And vice versa, the gloom Stalker lacks the expertise, sneak attack and some other stuff from the Rogue.

3) That was my rifle/machine gun metaphor that you over-analysed for a point that bore little bearing on the argument.

That's not what over-analyzed means but if my example made you understand my point, it served its purpose.

4) RE: Reactions. Rogues get the same number of reactions as anyone else, they just have (at least) one additional use for it from 5th lvl. Sure, they might want to use it on an OA or Readied action...but so might anyone else. All other things being equal (i.e. in a fair test), the Rogue has more efficient HP than the Fighter. Would you care to offer a more generic, non-biased example that disproves or counters my (supposedly) "highly specific, biased" one?

Well, yeah, good examples are always preferable to biased ones.

The fact still remains that a Rogue with Uncanny Dodge only has to mitigate your current level in HP to draw even with a character with d10 HD in a given encounter. I contend that this is a common occurrence.

That is purely hypothetical.

5) More hypothetical classes having access to Sneak Attack or a similar feature is as much "power creep" as giving new classes access to spellcasting.

So you agree with me? Cool.

6) I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just not overly familiar with them due to having a, largely speaking, low opinion of them. There's a difference.

Well, you are. If you want to replace an entire class that has seven subclasses with a single subclass for another class without losing what that class and those subclasses are you, naturally, have to take everything into account. If you do not you are ignoring them, semantics of the word "ignore" aside.

[JellyPooga]

The "mathmatics" I'm using is that the difference between a D8 hit die and a D10 hit die is at most 2 hitpoints per level which over 20 levels equals 40 HP. I think that's the standard 5E version, do you have a book that says otherwise?

One HP per level, or 40 in total.

Would you like to take another look at your...how did you put it? Ah yes, "flawed argument". You might also want to...

re-read what people have written.

...including what you've written yourself. Ok, I'll stop being obtuse now. It's served it's purpose.

To simplify it a bit for you, the obvious problem with both of those suggestions is that you will never be able to capture the feel of both those classes in the class without making it overpowered. Yo u will either lose a lot of what makes the ranger a ranger or the rogue a rogue or you would have to give it enough of both that it will be very overpowered. Like has been mentioned, even the Scout (which is the official rogue as a ranger subclass) only captures a third of the ranger essence. And vice versa, the gloom Stalker lacks the expertise, sneak attack and some other stuff from the Rogue.

If you want the "feel" of half a dozen Ranger subclasses all packed into a single Rogue subclass or Rogue/Ranger amalgam Class, yeah, I agree, there's too much to include to make something viable, but to get the core "Ranger" experience, adding a little extra martial, some spellcasting and some exploration features to the Rogue (or a different Class, I just happen to think the Rogue chassis would be good for it) might well do the trick, is all I'm saying. You're coming at the problem with the assumption that all the currently published material must be included; the "top-down" approach if you will, while I'm building from the ground up.

The question to ask is "What features are key to the Ranger experience?"; if your answer is "I need a swarm of bees to be an option in there, as well as an animal companion and this and that and the kitchen sink, or it's just not a Ranger", then the Ranger class with its own suite of subclasses is probably the only option. If the answer is more generic than that e.g. "an exploration focused warrior that can cast spells", then incorporating that into another class as a subclass might be more appropriate.

Well, yeah, good examples are always preferable to biased ones.

I'll ask again; would you care to provide one for comparison to mine?

That is purely hypothetical.

Well, sure, a Rogue that rolls all 1's for his hit points compared to a Fighter that rolls all 10's has a bigger gap to cover. Hypothetically.

On average (which is what I've explicitly been talking about), it's a fact.

[Droppeddead]

Would you like to take another look at your...how did you put it? Ah yes, "flawed argument". You might also want to......including what you've written yourself. Ok, I'll stop being obtuse now. It's served it's purpose.

If the purpose is to make us laugh, it certainly has. :) But obviously I need to explain since you don't udnertsand what you did wrong. You claimed that it's just "one HP per level" which isn't really the whole truth, I contrasted it with the "or" sentence since that shows the full scope of it.

If you want the "feel" of half a dozen Ranger subclasses all packed into a single Rogue subclass or Rogue/Ranger amalgam Class, yeah, I agree, there's too much to include to make something viable, but to get the core "Ranger" experience, adding a little extra martial, some spellcasting and some exploration features to the Rogue (or a different Class, I just happen to think the Rogue chassis would be good for it) might well do the trick, is all I'm saying. You're coming at the problem with the assumption that all the currently published material must be included; the "top-down" approach if you will, while I'm building from the ground up.

Except you're not even catching the core experience, as have been shown multiple times. If "might" is the best anyone can come up with it's a classic situation of "if it ain't broke, don't "fix" it".

The question to ask is "What features are key to the Ranger experience?"; if your answer is "I need a swarm of bees to be an option in there, as well as an animal companion and this and that and the kitchen sink, or it's just not a Ranger", then the Ranger class with its own suite of subclasses is probably the only option. If the answer is more generic than that e.g. "an exploration focused warrior that can cast spells", then incorporating that into another class as a subclass might be more appropriate.

You've yet to present an actual suggestion that comes even close to capturing the "core" ranger experience.

I'll ask again; would you care to provide one for comparison to mine?

Why would *I* have to present examples for the comparison *you* are trying to make? Or are you saying that you can't come up with any non-biased examples where your scenario will work?

Well, sure, a Rogue that rolls all 1's for his hit points compared to a Fighter that rolls all 10's has a bigger gap to cover. Hypothetically.

That's one of the aspects, yes.

On average (which is what I've explicitly been talking about), it's a fact.

In your own biased example? Sure.

[JellyPooga]

If the purpose is to make us laugh, it certainly has. :)

My sense of humour is somewhat dry, yes.

But obviously I need to explain since you don't udnertsand what you did wrong. You claimed that it's just "one HP per level" which isn't really the whole truth, I contrasted it with the "or" sentence since that shows the full scope of it.

I've repeatedly said that I've been using the average, which is one HP/lvl. You use of "or" was not a clear statement that you were suggesting the maximum possible, which is an unlikely scenario at best. If you want to include the full scope, we could talk about d10HD characters that roll lower hp than a Rogue, which puts the Rogue in an even better position, but that would be about as useful as talking about Dr. Max H. Pee, hit point exemplar (hint: it's not very useful).

Except you're not even catching the core experience, as have been shown multiple times.

I've literally quoted the PHB for what the "core experience" is (or at least supposed to be, according to its descriptive material) and how it relates to my suggestions. You've suggested that the supplemental material (i.e. non-core) is just as critical, if not moreso, to the Ranger identity. I'm fairly sure I know which I consider to be more "core", but I concede (and have done already) that it's only my opinion.

You've yet to present an actual suggestion that comes even close to capturing the "core" ranger experience.

You're suggesting that a nature-magic-wielding, exploration focused hunter/warrior isn't even close to the "core" Ranger experience? I...uh...don't really know how to respond to that.

Why would *I* have to present examples for the comparison *you* are trying to make? Or are you saying that you can't come up with any non-biased examples where your scenario will work?

You mean a comparison to this example I gave;

Lvl.5 Fighter vs. Lvl. 5 Rogue
- Both are attacked and hit (assuming the same Con, AC, etc.) three times for 10 damage per hit.
- Fighter has 34hp, Rogue has 28hp
- Fighter starts his next turn on 4hp having taken 30 damage.
- Rogue starts his next turn on 3hp, having taken 25 damage.

- Both are attacked three times (total) over two rounds for 10 damage per hit.
- Fighter starts his next turn on 4hp.
- Rogue starts on 8hp.

- Three attacks over three rounds, the Fighter still has 4hp, but the Rogue has 13hp.

...that you stated was a "highly specific, biased scenario"? Yes, I asked if you had a counter example that wasn't specific or biased. Twice. For the third time of asking, if you wish to prove my example and position faulty, you need to either provide an example of your own that proves my example biased or an explanation of why my example is at fault. Stating something is true or not does not make it so. Proof does. I've demonstrated my position using fair test conditions (i.e. equal level, ability scores, etc.), a reasonable and what I consider a common enough scenario and I've discussed the "best case scenario" of both parties. So yes, I expect you to provide a counter example or to concede your statement.

In your own biased example? Sure.

Could you explain how you consider using average results to be biased?

[Witty Username]

Could you explain how you consider using average results to be biased?

Not my post, but they may be getting at the damage works out that way because of the specific numbers, take five 6's.(same damage)
fighter takes 30 damage, Hp remaining 4 hp
rogue takes 27 damage, hp remaining 1 hp
or four 8's
fighter takes 32 damage, Hp remaining 2 hp
rogue takes 28 damage, hp remaining 0 hp
Edit: This is over 1 round.

This does demonstrate that uncanny dodge is different then double HP, or rather it behaves less like that the more attacks are being used.

the +40 hp, could be correct, if and only if, they are getting max hp every level up. My play group uses this for ease during level up, +20 hp is more likely though.

[JellyPooga]

Not my post, but they may be getting at the damage works out that way because of the specific numbers, take five 6's.(same damage)
fighter takes 30 damage, Hp remaining 4 hp
rogue takes 27 damage, hp remaining 1 hp
or four 8's
fighter takes 32 damage, Hp remaining 2 hp
rogue takes 28 damage, hp remaining 0 hp
Edit: This is over 1 round.

This does demonstrate that uncanny dodge is different then double HP, or rather it behaves less like that the more attacks are being used.

the +40 hp, could be correct, if and only if, they are getting max hp every level up. My play group uses this for ease during level up, +20 hp is more likely though.

At level 5, a foe dealing less than 10 damage per hit is somewhat unusual. Even CR:2 critters are typically dealing damage in the "2d6+mod" range (to pick a couple of critters out of my butt: Ghast (2d6 claw), Sabre-tooth (2d6 bite) aaaand Ogre (2d8 club)) which will often be an average of around 10 (which is why I chose it as a standard for my example, being the kind of creature you night see multiples of at lvl.5). So unless the party is regularly facing huge hordes of low Challenge foes and/or multiple creatures with 4+ attacks each, it would typically be an unusual scenario to be facing your proposed 5 hits for 6 damage or even four hits for 8 damage, making those the biased example rather than mine.

It's worth bearing in mind that this is also hits not attacks; assuming a decent AC and level appropriate enemy attack mod, a 50% hit rate wouldn't be an unusual expectation. For even four hits, that means 8 attacks against a single character. Assuming a roughly equal number of attacks being made against the party front-line of 2-3 members, we're looking at roughly 16-24 attacks against the party in a single turn. That's...a lot of attacks (noting that a party of four PC's is not likely to be making more than 8-12 attacks in round at any tier of play)

Further, you're probably not using UD against such incredibly low-damage attacks. If the foes are so weak, relative to your level, that UD becomes that ineffective, you're likely better using your reaction on an OA against the conga-line of goblins (or their equivalent) that the GM is having to use to get that many weak-sauce attacks against you.

I've said it once and I'll say it again; I didn't claim UD was double HP, only more efficient. Even against weak attacks, over multiple rounds it's very likely to match that "break limit" such that the d10 guy comes out worse. In the case that the Rogue goes down before the Fighter, it's insanely likely that the Fighter isn't far behind; a single round at most, while the opposite isn't always true, as in my example where the Rogue might get two rounds more than the Fighter before going down.

Max HP at every level is either highly unlikely or a house-rule. Either way supports my argument more than it doesn't.

I don't deny that UD is less effective with more incoming attacks. I even allowed for it in my so-called biased example. The reality is, though, that given a commonly expected scenario appropriate to your level, UD is likely to give the Rogue a HP advantage over a d10HD guy, all other things being equal.

[Theodoxus]

I'm on your side here, JP, though there is one thing that hasn't been mentioned re: hp disparity between Fighter and Rogue (and yeah, sorry DD, but your "+1 HP per level, or 40 HP at 20" isn't logical as written. But that's just a case of misused punctuation) - the fighter, 99.9% of the time will have a higher Con score. Even if using average HP per level (which is literally +1 HP per level) as a base, the Fighter will more often than not have at least +2 Con over the same level Rogue (especially if said Rogue is using an archetype that needs a 3rd stat to work - AT, SB, etc).

I'm curious, in general, if there was a feat, or feat chain that granted the base Ranger abilities: Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, or even Tasha's substitutions, and you were allowed to play gestalt with classes, would you rather have the Ranger (whichever iteration), or play a Druid/Rogue//Fighter or Druid/Fighter//Rogue to recreate the feel of the Ranger? (Halving the Druid is a requirement to keep the spells from being far more powerful than the bog-standard Ranger)

The point being, it seems if it's only FE/NE and the variants for them that make the Ranger a Ranger, then making them a Feat (or two if they're too powerful to group up), seems the better route. Let anyone "be a Ranger" who wants to spend the feat resource, and they can then play a class that fills in the gaps that they personally feel represents the iconic tropes for the class.

[sophontteks]

I'm on your side here, JP, though there is one thing that hasn't been mentioned re: hp disparity between Fighter and Rogue (and yeah, sorry DD, but your "+1 HP per level, or 40 HP at 20" isn't logical as written. But that's just a case of misused punctuation) - the fighter, 99.9% of the time will have a higher Con score. Even if using average HP per level (which is literally +1 HP per level) as a base, the Fighter will more often than not have at least +2 Con over the same level Rogue (especially if said Rogue is using an archetype that needs a 3rd stat to work - AT, SB, etc).

I'm curious, in general, if there was a feat, or feat chain that granted the base Ranger abilities: Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, or even Tasha's substitutions, and you were allowed to play gestalt with classes, would you rather have the Ranger (whichever iteration), or play a Druid/Rogue//Fighter or Druid/Fighter//Rogue to recreate the feel of the Ranger? (Halving the Druid is a requirement to keep the spells from being far more powerful than the bog-standard Ranger)

The point being, it seems if it's only FE/NE and the variants for them that make the Ranger a Ranger, then making them a Feat (or two if they're too powerful to group up), seems the better route. Let anyone "be a Ranger" who wants to spend the feat resource, and they can then play a class that fills in the gaps that they personally feel represents the iconic tropes for the class.

Ranger is subclass heavy. We went over this a couple pages back. You're giving up some of the coolest subclasses in the game for no reason.
Their base kit with Tashas is great too. Free expertise, free swim/climb speed, more skills, nature spells. I don't see this being split between two feats.
Why don't we just let the people who want to play a ranger, play a ranger? I don't see how this fixes, or improves anything.

[Kane0]

I'm curious, in general, if there was a feat, or feat chain that granted the base Ranger abilities: Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, or even Tasha's substitutions, and you were allowed to play gestalt with classes, would you rather have the Ranger (whichever iteration), or play a Druid/Rogue//Fighter or Druid/Fighter//Rogue to recreate the feel of the Ranger? (Halving the Druid is a requirement to keep the spells from being far more powerful than the bog-standard Ranger)

Under most gestalt rules you would rarely want to pick two spellcasting classes, as it generally wouldn't stack. Edit: Exception for warlock of course, because it's casting is unique.

Personally I'd go Druid | Fighter over Druid | Rogue, but I think that comes down to personally preferring to play a beatstick over a sneak. Edit: Gestalting to recreate the ranger would be a bit indicative of the argument here, no?

[JellyPooga]

I'm on your side here, JP, though there is one thing that hasn't been mentioned re: hp disparity between Fighter and Rogue (and yeah, sorry DD, but your "+1 HP per level, or 40 HP at 20" isn't logical as written. But that's just a case of misused punctuation) - the fighter, 99.9% of the time will have a higher Con score. Even if using average HP per level (which is literally +1 HP per level) as a base, the Fighter will more often than not have at least +2 Con over the same level Rogue (especially if said Rogue is using an archetype that needs a 3rd stat to work - AT, SB, etc).

I disagree. Rogue, as a rule, tends to be a little more SAD than the Fighter, needing Dex alone compared to the latter wanting Str as well (or to put it another way; while a Str-Fighter doesn't need Dex, he wants it more than a Dex-Rogue wants Str).

Neither is the Rogue alone with regard to secondary attributes desired by subclasses (Eldritch Knight), not to mention the other two d10 HD classes, Ranger and Paladin and their respective secondary/tertiary Ability Scores.

Of the four classes I just mentioned, the Rogue has the most freedom, if not incentive, to put a higher score in Con. Bear in mind that Con has no inherent skills tied to it and with more skill proficiencies and Expertise, the Rogue is more able to compensate lower scores in other Abilities and can thus afford to put more focus into Con. Add to that the fact that Rogues do have that lower HD; a melee Rogue needs to compensate that with a good Con score. Add to that the additional ASI Rogues have over the Ranger and Paladin and a tendency toward lower reliance on Feats like PAM and GWM compared to the Fighter...

Just because players feel like Fighters and the others should probably have high Con and be tough and burly and that Rogues are supposed to be squishy and have low Con, doesn't make them right Rogues have both the means and the incentive to pump Con as high as they can, while the d10 crew can both afford a little leeway on that front due to having the higher HD and tend to be more MAD.

[Theodoxus]

Ranger is subclass heavy. We went over this a couple pages back. You're giving up some of the coolest subclasses in the game for no reason.
Their base kit with Tashas is great too. Free expertise, free swim/climb speed, more skills, nature spells. I don't see this being split between two feats.
Why don't we just let the people who want to play a ranger, play a ranger? I don't see how this fixes, or improves anything.

Moving the goal posts, classic.

Anyway, this will blow your mind, but you can easily put any subclass on any class, provided they're gained at the same initial level. I.e. Champion Barbarians for that crit fishing build; Battlemaster Bard for an interesting diversion from Swords or Valor. And yes, Beastmaster Fighter or Hunter Rogue... even more interesting, Life "bloodline" Sorcerer. or Knowledge, or War; Circle of Land for a Paladin that wants to be a lot more connected to nature than your average Ancients Pally...

"But what about subclasses (Fey or Swarmkeeper) that provide spells to a spell-less base class?" Depending on how you / your DM feel, either ignore that aspect (it's a drag they get bonus spells when other Ranger subclasses don't), or allow them to be cast once per long rest unless/until the character multiclasses into something with spell slots.

Nearly all discussion I've seen regarding subclasses usually goes in the direction of making them more like Patron/Pact Magic with a level 1 subclass providing a lot of oomph, a level 2 list of class specific "invocations" and a level 3 boon to improve or expand their subclass. I think it would be far more interesting to just make them universal. Yeah, some don't make any sense, or would require a bit of re-work (basically any College on a non-Bard will be weakened without Inspiration Dice), but niche subs like that can be tuned to a more universal take. Why can't a Fighter go to Valor College? Seems right up their alley!

Now I want to play a Hunter Rogue...

[sophontteks]

Moving the goal posts, classic.

I'm sorry. What? I'm bringing up the last point I made.

I'm sure you'd love to play these combos. Because they are broken. None of the base classes are balanced. Some have most their kit in the base class, some put most their kit in subclasses.

Rogue subclasses are weak. They are weak because the base class is very strong. Then we have weak base classes that have some of the best and most unique subclasses. Of the two I prefer the later. Rogues are boring because too much is in the base class. Every rogue is basically the same. Rangers have everything I want in the base kit without being too strong. That is why their subclasses are so awesome.

I'm sure you'd love to put the strongest subclasses on the strongest base classes. But if you just combine rogue and ranger like this, you are just making something completely overpowered.

[Segev]

I'm sorry. What? I'm bringing up the last point I made.

I'm sure you'd love to play these combos. Because they are broken. None of the base classes are balanced. Some have most their kit in the base class, some put most their kit in subclasses.

Rogue subclasses are weak. They are weak because the base class is very strong. Then we have weak base classes that have some of the best and most unique subclasses. Of the two I prefer the later. Rogues are boring because too much is in the base class. Every rogue is basically the same. Rangers have everything I want in the base kit without being too strong. That is why their subclasses are so awesome.

I'm sure you'd love to put the strongest subclasses on the strongest base classes. But if you just combine rogue and ranger like this, you are just making something completely overpowered.

I would argue that, if rangers are supposed to be balanced against having a rather lackluster level 1 and a merely okay level 2 in the base class by having awesome subclasses, Ranger should get a subclass at level 1, not level 3.

[OldTrees1]

I would argue that, if rangers are supposed to be balanced against having a rather lackluster level 1 and a merely okay level 2 in the base class by having awesome subclasses, Ranger should get a subclass at level 1, not level 3.

I think this was referring to what fraction of the class builder resources were invested in the base class vs the subclass.

Consider the following (using "feat" as a unit for features):
A base class that gets 2 feats per level.
A base class that gets 1 feat per level, +1 feat every even level, and a subclass with 1 feat every odd level.
A base class that gets 2 feats every level not divisible by 3, and a subclass with 2 feats every level divisible by 3.
A base class that gets 1 feat per level, +1 feat every level not divisible by 4, and a subclass with 1 feat every level divisible by 4.

The first one has a 40:0 base class to subclass ratio
The second has a 30:10 ratio
The third has a 28:12 ratio
The fourth has a 35:5 ratio

So the general observation that some subclasses are bigger/smaller than others. I think it is commonly agreed that each level should be appropriate for its level rather than "UP now OP later".

[Amechra]

Just because players feel like Fighters and the others should probably have high Con and be tough and burly and that Rogues are supposed to be squishy and have low Con, doesn't make them right Rogues have both the means and the incentive to pump Con as high as they can, while the d10 crew can both afford a little leeway on that front due to having the higher HD and tend to be more MAD.

Honestly, this is one of my biggest issues with D&D in general since 3e. A lot of SAD classes should have lower Con for thematic reasons, but instead we end up with Wizards who could be yoga instructors in their spare time.

[Kane0]

I think it would be far more interesting to just make them universal. Yeah, some don't make any sense, or would require a bit of re-work (basically any College on a non-Bard will be weakened without Inspiration Dice), but niche subs like that can be tuned to a more universal take. Why can't a Fighter go to Valor College? Seems right up their alley!

3.X and 4e both had their own concept of that with prestige classes and paragon/destiny paths.

[Segev]

Honestly, this is one of my biggest issues with D&D in general since 3e. A lot of SAD classes should have lower Con for thematic reasons, but instead we end up with Wizards who could be yoga instructors in their spare time.

Well, your options are to make them SAD to the point that you question why stats exist, or you make having other stats worthwhile and thus encourage yoga-wizards.

[Tanarii]

Well, your options are to make them SAD to the point that you question why stats exist, or you make having other stats worthwhile and thus encourage yoga-wizards.

I think the point is to make non-primary stats worth having at least as much as Con.

[Morty]

Honestly, this is one of my biggest issues with D&D in general since 3e. A lot of SAD classes should have lower Con for thematic reasons, but instead we end up with Wizards who could be yoga instructors in their spare time.

Constitution is just a werid stat in general. It exists forever in a space where you don't want to lower it too much, because you'll die, but you can't do anything with it, so other stats usually take precedence.

3.X and 4e both had their own concept of that with prestige classes and paragon/destiny paths.

4E paragon paths were class-locked, though. Unless some supplements contained class-neutral ones. 3.X prestige classes were a failure of design even by 3E D&D standards. Destiny paths were indeed class neutral (or partly so), but they suffered from the usual fate of high-level content - that is, few players ever saw them.

A better comparison would be class tiers in Shadow of the Demon Lord. You start as a classless schmuck. Then if you survive to first level, you pick warrior/rogue/mage/priest (a major downside to the otherwise solid system). Then if you keep managing to survive, you choose two more tiers of classes, but they're entirely disconnected - you can pick a mage, scout and duelist, for instance.

[JellyPooga]

Honestly, this is one of my biggest issues with D&D in general since 3e. A lot of SAD classes should have lower Con for thematic reasons, but instead we end up with Wizards who could be yoga instructors in their spare time.

My opinion is that it's a failing of the HP system as a whole, from adding Con to HP to Class dictating your HD. Fixing it would basically mean re-writing the game, so yeah, I'm on the same page as you here.

Personally, I'd be inclined to tie HD to Race (Halflings are smol and can't take much of a beating, Goliaths are chonky so they can take a pounding), award bonus HP depending on Class and use Con for a Fatigue/Exhaustion system independent of (or at least only tangenitally linked to) HP.
OR
Scrap HP altogether, because HD could perform the same basic function of regulating whether you're conscious or not, without the artificial inflation and basically better in every way.

Seriously, HP is a terrible mechanic that is poorly written and even less well understood, even by those that write official content that interacts with it...case in point; Uncanny Dodge - a feature that throws the whole point of higher/lower HD out of whack and messes with archetypal expectations.

[Segev]

My opinion is that it's a failing of the HP system as a whole, from adding Con to HP to Class dictating your HD. Fixing it would basically mean re-writing the game, so yeah, I'm on the same page as you here.

Personally, I'd be inclined to tie HD to Race (Halflings are smol and can't take much of a beating, Goliaths are chonky so they can take a pounding), award bonus HP depending on Class and use Con for a Fatigue/Exhaustion system independent of (or at least only tangenitally linked to) HP.
OR
Scrap HP altogether, because HD could perform the same basic function of regulating whether you're conscious or not, without the artificial inflation and basically better in every way.

Seriously, HP is a terrible mechanic that is poorly written and even less well understood, even by those that write official content that interacts with it...case in point; Uncanny Dodge - a feature that throws the whole point of higher/lower HD out of whack and messes with archetypal expectations.

While I sympathize with desires to explore systems other than hp for tracking ability to keep fighting/living, I think you exaggerate the problems with hp here. Hit points are not hard to understand, mechanically. They're very easy to understand in that respect. It's why they're so popular and common. From a game design standpoint, they're straightforward and easy to use.

[JellyPooga]

While I sympathize with desires to explore systems other than hp for tracking ability to keep fighting/living, I think you exaggerate the problems with hp here. Hit points are not hard to understand, mechanically. They're very easy to understand in that respect. It's why they're so popular and common. From a game design standpoint, they're straightforward and easy to use.

I agree that they're straightforward from a game design/mechanical standpoint, but the conceptual dissonance of their implementation in D&D is a mess and the way in which Con interacts with them is part of that mess.

It's easy to say "HP is your health", but...that's not quite true.
There have been dozens of conversations about what HP are, how and why certain actions, scenarios and events affect them, what " "healing" actually represents and so on and so forth, with few, if any, of those conversations ever really coming to any firm conclusions. The D&D HP system has Fighters staring down crossbows to the face because they can't possibly be inconvenienced by it, jumping from lethal height or running across lava knowing they'll survive and sure, some of this contributes to a certain style of fantasy, but some of it also breaks other styles, requiring some serious mental crowbarring for players to justify.

Further, not only are they a conceptual mess, but from a mechanical standpoint, yes they're easy...but they're bad. Increasing in level largely comes down to little more than using bigger numbers; more HP, more damage, more attacks, more spell slots, etc. The qualitative difference is comparatively small and that is is no small part because of how the HP system works, being a fundamental building block, perhaps even one of the foundation stones, of how the game as a whole runs. Just about everything about them from the additive nature to their binary state contributes to their failing.

[Segev]

I agree that they're straightforward from a game design/mechanical standpoint, but the conceptual dissonance of their implementation in D&D is a mess and the way in which Con interacts with them is part of that mess.

It's easy to say "HP is your health", but...that's not quite true.
There have been dozens of conversations about what HP are, how and why certain actions, scenarios and events affect them, what " "healing" actually represents and so on and so forth, with few, if any, of those conversations ever really coming to any firm conclusions. The D&D HP system has Fighters staring down crossbows to the face because they can't possibly be inconvenienced by it, jumping from lethal height or running across lava knowing they'll survive and sure, some of this contributes to a certain style of fantasy, but some of it also breaks other styles, requiring some serious mental crowbarring for players to justify.

Further, not only are they a conceptual mess, but from a mechanical standpoint, yes they're easy...but they're bad. Increasing in level largely comes down to little more than using bigger numbers; more HP, more damage, more attacks, more spell slots, etc. The qualitative difference is comparatively small and that is is no small part because of how the HP system works, being a fundamental building block, perhaps even one of the foundation stones, of how the game as a whole runs. Just about everything about them from the additive nature to their binary state contributes to their failing.

I disagree that any of this is "bad." Nor that they're a "conceptual mess" more than they are an abstraction. We can have conversations on what they are, but in the end, they're easy enough to understand as your "are you still alive/conscious?" meter.

There's nothing wrong with Constitution being a mostly passive stat. There's nothing wrong with bigger levels having bigger numbers, but it's inaccurate to claim that that's "most" of what they are, since features are the big draw to higher levels and levels without features that excite people are frequently called "dead levels."

While I understand your arguments, you're confusing personal preference with objective fact: Objectively, hit points are one of the best systems to achieve what they're used to achieve, which is why none of the alternative systems to hit points proposed in other games have made their way into the mainstream.

With one exception that is actually still effectively hit points, just with a vastly-increased healing/resting factor: in a lot of FPSs, they've adopted a "so much damage in a short period of time" mechanic rather than a hit point bar. It's still hit points, but it's hit points that, after a brief period of taking no damage, restore VERY quickly (if not instantly).

[Morty]

I've frequently seen it said that D&D hit points don't have as great an effect on survivability as the game seems to assume it does. There's definitely something to it, especially in 5E, which can get pretty rocket taggy. 4E took a step towards rectifying that with healing surges - when the amount of healing you get depends on your HP maximum and tougher classes gain more healing surges, the difference is greater.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've frequently seen it said that D&D hit points don't have as great an effect on survivability as the game seems to assume it does. There's definitely something to it, especially in 5E, which can get pretty rocket taggy. 4E took a step towards rectifying that with healing surges - when the amount of healing you get depends on your HP maximum and tougher classes gain more healing surges, the difference is greater.

I think this strongly depends on the exact challenges you face.

If you only face Deadly+++ encounters, especially single monster (or even duo) Deadly+++ encounters (ie 1-2 monsters of CR >> level), then yes. Their damage output is so high that small differences in HP don't really matter. You either avoid it or you get splatted.

But that's way outside the design parameters for the system. The system assumes that most of what you face are multiple monsters of CR < level. Roughly (reverse engineering the encounter guidelines in Xanathars) CR = level / 2 for the median monster and roughly 1.5-2 monsters per PC. And that you'll do so over multiple encounters per day. In this case, the incoming damage from any monster's turn is small, but it's the cumulative effect (especially over the course of the day) that matters. So 10-20 extra HP matters quite a lot--it's a couple more rounds you can eat attacks before going down.