Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6360503" data-attributes="member: 70709">I think it's fair to call hit dice the glue that binds hit points and Constitution.  That's useful because those two elements serve pretty different purposes in D&D.  Hit points are extremely abstract but have a direct impact on how creatures endure combat, and so are an excellent target when designing creatures.  Constitution is often understood to be more grounded in the fiction (e.g. as the in-world representation of "tough as an elephant" vs. "tough as a dog") and has impact on a bunch of other toughness-related quantities that shouldn't necessarily be tightly coupled to hit points.Pragmatically, then, suppose one is designing a creature and has both a sense of how tough it should be in the abstract game-driven sense (hp) and how tough it should be in a more fiction-driven sense (Constitution).  Hit dice adds a degree of freedom which allows one to hit both targets in the same mechanical framework.  And, of course, one could design from other starting points.  For example, one might approach monster design more "naturalistically", where the abstract toughness (hp and ultimately CR) is the output of monster design rather than an input.  In that case there might be a set of first principles based on Con and hit dice, and then hp are derived as a matter of course. Additionally, some people philosophically prefer creatures and characters to be built from the same mechanical components since it sweeps some of the arbitrariness of design under the rug.  (And I think hit dice stay sufficiently out-of-the-way that people who don't find that notion compelling won't find it too much a nuisance.)  Also keep in mind that hit dice already have defined mechanical effects for PCs.  Giving monsters that same quantity lets groups handle, for example, out-of-combat monster healing in the same as PCs if desired.  Even further afield are groups that like to experiment with monsters as PCs, something that would be difficult if hit dice were defined only for the latter.  And as you note, it also means other systems can be built on top of it at a later date.Finally, hit dice define a way to let hit points vary among otherwise identical monsters.  That variety can be both aesthetically and functionally useful, in particular when it diminishes metagaming.  Rolling those kinds of quantities isn't for everyone, and I'm glad monsters list mean hit points, but it's a nice boon with almost no cost for those who don't do it.So, overall, I think this iteration of hit dice looks fairly decent.  It appears to work with multiple philosophies of monster design, supports some playstyles that might otherwise be difficult, and avoids the ultimately unresolvable difficulties 3.x had in half-heartedly trying to make HD equal CR.</blockquote>

Verification