Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5924489" data-attributes="member: 51942">This is pretty traditional.&nbsp; It was very apparent in 3e, and less so (but still there) in 4e.I'm not sure it really matters.Though your qualitatively right, your math is off; you don't always roll the average hit die; there's a probability distribution here.&nbsp; The net effect is a little smaller.&nbsp; Additionally, which isn't quite captured by averages, this mechanic means that the peak isn't changed (the maximum hit points rolled don't change); the Con mod just ensures you can't roll particularly poorly.I don't think it really matters in any case.&nbsp; The distinction is purely a balancing issue, and then it kind of depends what sorts of hit point numbers you want to reach.&nbsp; Here, lower numbers are probably easier to work with at the table, so I prefer this proposed approach to the hit-die+con mod approach.&nbsp; Again, not that it really matters much.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 5924489, member: 51942"] This is pretty traditional. It was very apparent in 3e, and less so (but still there) in 4e. I'm not sure it really matters. Though your qualitatively right, your math is off; you don't always roll the average hit die; there's a probability distribution here. The net effect is a little smaller. Additionally, which isn't quite captured by averages, this mechanic means that the peak isn't changed (the maximum hit points rolled don't change); the Con mod just ensures you can't roll particularly poorly. I don't think it really matters in any case. The distinction is purely a balancing issue, and then it kind of depends what sorts of hit point numbers you want to reach. Here, lower numbers are probably easier to work with at the table, so I prefer this proposed approach to the hit-die+con mod approach. Again, not that it really matters much. [/QUOTE]

Verification