Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5925836" data-attributes="member: 3192">What do you think about static HP for all Monsters and NPCs?I remember the 3e Monster Manual showed mean averages for HPs of monsters. It wasn't a big deal, but I liked having the variety of rolls. I think the rationale for PCs having rolled HPs is, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" or "If the PCs can dish it out, so can the monsters." Now 3.e was a bit inflated for HPs and the rolled HPs of high HD creatures pretty much feel the same no matter what. There's very little variation. I think the same result occurs the higher level characters are too. But at low level that variance really, really means something. And I think it being so meaningful is what's not liked. No matter what my Fighter should have more HPs than any Wizard. Here's my thinking. The character classes are variations of the same theme. They are branches from the same trunk. Only a 1st level classed character is very close to the trunk, while a high level classed one is largely divergent from it.  The characters are so similar at 1st level that a 4 HP magic-user and a 1 hp fighter aren't going to ruin the game.Random HP are an easy option either way. I'm glad they are sticking with it for the "Feels like D&D" iteration and I expect many will ditch them later. If for no other reason than many see no reason to ever randomize HPs. And that's okay. Use only what you want.</blockquote>