| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Question occured in another thread. Reposted here so as not to threadjack original post. I have always had player roll for HP on animal companions. It was posted that companions are to have thier average on hitpoint totals. I understand this IS the rule for society play. But is it the core rule?
Quoting opposing argument.
hp: The creature's hit points, followed by its Hit Dice (including modifiers from Constitution, favored class levels, creature type modifiers, and the Toughness feat). Creatures with PC class levels receive maximum hit points for their first HD, but all other HD rolls are assumed to be average. Fast healing and regeneration values, if any, follow the creature's HD.
Also from the FAQ
What creatures get max hit points for their first level or first Hit Die?
Creatures whose first Hit Die is from a PC-appropriate character class gain max hit points for that Hit Die. The current list of PC-appropriate character classes is alchemist, barbarian, bard, cavalier, cleric, druid, fighter, inquisitor, monk, oracle, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, summoner, witch, and wizard (including archetypes, subclasses, and other variants of these classes).
Creatures whose first Hit Die is from an NPC class (adept, aristocrat, commoner, expert, warrior) or from a racial Hit Die (such as most monsters) do not get maximum hit points for that Hit Die
So we see that only PC classes gain max HP at level one and all non pc classes, pets or monster are assumed to have average HP..which is 5.5 for the Eidolon. He would have 5 hp + con mod at level one
This is core rule not something from PFS.
If your looking for page number it is on page 6 of the bestiary.
EDIT I also am not concerned about companions getting MAX hp at first level. I never have thought that was an option. And the rules in the core book I "thought" covered that well. I do admit to being wary of a rule from bestiary taking precedence over a core rule book class feature. My other title idea was " To Average or not to Average, that is the question. "
The issues being you are assuming the bestiary is not a core book, which it is. If it is not a core book then summon spells are kinda useless.
Characters and their beasts are not the same thing as in the Bestiary. They get different skills, feats, abilities, sizes, and hit points. If it is in the control of a player then dice are rolled. Society play is of course different, but in normal play I give pets the same chance as players.
There is nothing anywhere in the rules stating that NPCs and monsters (or companion creatures) HAVE to have average HP. They are only listed as such in the Bestiary and similar products for consistency's sake.
Many GM's roll HP for each monster (even the developers do this in their modules where a group of like monsters will have differing HP) whereas others just use the listed amount to speed things up. Both are right.
I maintain that companion creatures should, RAW, roll their HP. Nothing in the rules says they don't, so they must as that is the default rule for HP/hit dice.
Sign no, by RAW if it does not have pc class HD then it uses average hp. If you roll them it is a house rule.
You are choosing to ignore a rule that covers the subject because it happens to not be in the main core book, but oddly enough in the 2nd core book about the subject at hand.
By RAW unless they have class level you do not roll them.
Yep, I have reread that section of the beastiary. To my way of thinking, it seems more of a description of how thier stat blocks work, and not a ruling for or against rolling of hit dice. And that is why they use the word ASSUMED. It is not saying the stats HAVE to be average, they are saying for ease, they have are giving the DM an Average.
The FAQ only seems to reference max hp. And doesn't seem to have anything to do with average vs rolling.
Greg
EDIT I guess what I mean is, if they wanted it to be a rule, it would have said "but all other HD rolls are to be average."
Sigh, even though it clearly back up what the Bestiary says about non pc class HD and hp, you are choosing to ignore a rule because it just happens to be in the book, which covers beasts?
Sorry man, but the rule covers all critters HD that do not have pc levels. This includes summoned beasts, Animal companions and Eidolons.
It is part of the rules.
I'm not ignoring anything. I just think you are reading far too far into things.
Yep, I have reread that section of the beastiary. To my way of thinking, it seems more of a description of how thier stat blocks work, and not a ruling for or against rolling of hit dice. And that is why they use the word ASSUMED. It is not saying the stats HAVE to be average, they are saying for ease, they have are giving the DM an Average.
The FAQ only seems to reference max hp. And doesn't seem to have anything to do with average vs rolling.
Greg pretty much describes my thoughts on the matter.
Alright me and my friend are having a discussion about the Toughness feat. If you say pick up Toughness at 12th level do you gain the entire package of that if you gained it at first level or does it pick up off of where you picked up the feat?
If you picked it up at level 12, you would immediately get 12 HP. Whenever you gain a new level, you would gain +1 bonus HP just as if your Constitution score were 2 points higher.
Alright me and my friend are having a discussion about the Toughness feat. If you say pick up Toughness at 12th level do you gain the entire package of that if you gained it at first level or does it pick up off of where you picked up the feat?
Toughness
You have enhanced physical stamina.Benefit: You gain +3 hit points. For every Hit Die you possess beyond 3, you gain an additional +1 hit point. If you have more than 3 Hit Dice, you gain +1 hit points whenever you gain a Hit Die (such as when you gain a level).
No where does it say anything about what level you pick it. It specifically says FOR EVERY HIT DIE. So yes, you get it all when you pick it.
Sign no, by RAW if it does not have pc class HD then it uses average hp. If you roll them it is a house rule.
You are choosing to ignore a rule that covers the subject because it happens to not be in the main core book, but oddly enough in the 2nd core book about the subject at hand.
By RAW unless they have class level you do not roll them.
No; the Bestiary does not say what you're saying.
Yes it does. Feel free to ignore it if you like. But you guys asked for the rule and the page so I provided them.
Your choosing to ignore what is in the book as it does not match the houserules you are using. As no PC class HD they do not roll hp's.
Yes it does. Feel free to ignore it if you like. But you guys asked for the rule and the page so I provided them.
Your choosing to ignore what is in the book as it does not match the houserules you are using. As no PC class HD they do not roll hp's.
I saw(from your quote) where it says they don't get max HP and I agree, but I don't see where it says they get half(average), in other words no rolls.
PS:Your quote about average hp is not a rule. It is just how showing how the monsters were built. It is just a way to avoid rolling dice if someone does not want to.
edit: I see what you mean now. The question now is does being a buddy to a PC make an animal companion(NPC) exempt from the following how things are done for other NPC's
The key word here is assumed. Not "always" or "must be". This wording was chosen deliberately I beleive, not to cause confusion, but to give a guideline for quick generation while leaving the option to roll stats at the discretion of the GM.
Creatures with PC class levels receive maximum hit points for their first HD, but all other HD rolls are assumed to be average.
I always assume everyone interprets rules the way I do. I am often proved wrong :)
Greg
edit: I see what you mean now. The question now is does being a buddy to a PC make an animal companion(NPC) exempt from the following how things are done for other NPC's
I would say no, they are not really the pc's char..does an NPC you make friendly that follows you around get to reroll his hps?
They are at best cohorts, and not fully under the players control anyhow really when you think about it. The animal companion isn't even tamed after all.
Nothing in the write up says they do HD any different then any other NPC.
Edit:Just want to point out the section on crafting monsters does point out HD use Average hps, except the first PC class level. Which gains full.
Of coarse this will also be ignored as well.
Yes it does. Feel free to ignore it if you like. But you guys asked for the rule and the page so I provided them.
Your choosing to ignore what is in the book as it does not match the houserules you are using. As no PC class HD they do not roll hp's.
The 1st rule is pretty clear..its for how the stat blocks work. It is litterly a standard member of its race..thats it. It does NOT say that creatures must use that. Modules often do simply bc its faster..but I bet if you check, most of them will have an animal companion that has rolled HD.
The 2nd rule just states that ONLY pcs get max Hp at 1st level..nothing about what gets rolled after that
hp: The creature's hit points, followed by its Hit Dice (including modifiers from Constitution, favored class levels, creature type modifiers, and the Toughness feat).
Fast healing and regeneration values, if any, follow the creature's HD.
Isolated and enlarged sentence that is causing issue.
Two things about this sentence. The powersthatbe use the word ROLLS and the PTB's use the word ASSUMED. It is my contention, if it were to be a rule of average, It would read entirely differently. Something along the way of ..." but all other Hit Points are to be the average amount of the total Hit dice."
Furthermore, as this is a pretty big exception to the hit point determination, I also would contend the AVERAGING interpretation would have been included in the Core rulebook with the companion rules. Its that big of a change.
Greg
EDIT sometimes my cat helps me type things out on the keyboard. [sarcasm] She can be so helpful. [/sarcasm]
Why would the core book have monster rules in it? The core book tells you have to make npc'S and it uses average.
Go read page 454. It uses the same language. NPC's ALWAYS assume average HP's
Page 6 of the bestiary just backs up what core already states.As does the monster creation guidelines.
Of coarse this will also be ignored as well.
Because I disagree with your interpretation of something does not mean I ignore what you say. In fact, to find myself disagreeing with you I am REALLY going back and re reading sections of rules. Honestly, you are one of the posters I look forward to reading. In this particular instance, I find myself reading same information and coming up with different interpretation.
Now, I will go to the crafting section you refered and read up there.
Please do not assume ( * wicked grin * ) I am ignoring your responces.
Greg
Thought I edited that out man. It came off as kinda jerkish..guess I missed it
edit: I see what you mean now. The question now is does being a buddy to a PC make an animal companion(NPC) exempt from the following how things are done for other NPC'sI would say no, they are not really the pc's char..does an NPC you make friendly that follows you around get to reroll his hps?
They are at best cohorts, and not fully under the players control anyhow really when you think about it. The animal companion isn't even tamed after all.
Nothing in the write up says they do HD any different then any other NPC.
Edit:Just want to point out the section on crafting monsters does point out HD use Average hps, except the first PC class level. Which gains full.
Of coarse this will also be ignored as well.
Whether or not a PC should control a companion creature is another debate entirely (and one that I'm largely neutral towards as I don't believe there is a right answer in that instance).
As for the average HP debate, I think the problem you, SoSL, are missing is context. You've taken one sentence in an isolated section of the Bestiary and applied it to the game as a whole, ignoring the context of the section it's located in.
As for the average HP debate, I think the problem you, SoSL, are missing is context. You've taken one sentence in an isolated section of the Bestiary and applied it to the game as a whole, ignoring the context of the section it's located in.
Not at all. That page just simply had it in writing. It is spread all over the core book. That was just the one place it was most clearly stated, and the one place that was all about none pc class HD
The core book talks about it in a few places, just harder to run down. The page I listed above states clearly NPC HD are not rolled.
Sign no, by RAW if it does not have pc class HD then it uses average hp. If you roll them it is a house rule.
Incorrect. The Bestiary, specifically just the Bestiary, ASSUMES that creatures listed in the Bestiary, specifically just the Bestiary, have average hp per HD if they don't have PC class levels, and max at first plus average afterwards if they do.
You're taking "assume average hit points" as "OMG IT MUST BE AVERAGE HIT POINTS YOU CHEATERS!".
As for the average HP debate, I think the problem you, SoSL, are missing is context. You've taken one sentence in an isolated section of the Bestiary and applied it to the game as a whole, ignoring the context of the section it's located in.
Not at all. That page just simply had it in writing. It is spread all over the core book. That was just the one place it was most clearly stated, and the one place that was all about none pc class HD
The core book talks about it in a few places, just harder to run down. The page I listed above states clearly NPC HD are not rolled.
Mind posting a few of the core book's examples? It may strengthen your argument.
It is on page 454, I'll see if I can run it down in the PRD.
Sign no, by RAW if it does not have pc class HD then it uses average hp. If you roll them it is a house rule.Incorrect. The Bestiary, specifically just the Bestiary, ASSUMES that creatures listed in the Bestiary, specifically just the Bestiary, have average hp per HD if they don't have PC class levels, and max at first plus average afterwards if they do.
You're taking "assume average hit points" as "OMG IT MUST BE AVERAGE HIT POINTS YOU CHEATERS!".
Come on Zurai, all caps and sarcasm aren't really called for.
.
.
.
Page 454 of the Core Rulebook states (in the NPC creation section):
"Step 7: Details
Once you have assigned all of the NPC’s gear, all that remains is to fill out the details. Determine the character’s attack and damage bonuses, CMB, CMD, initiative modifier, and Armor Class. If the character’s magic items affect his skills or ability scores, make sure to take those changes into account. Determine the character’s total hit points by assuming the average result. Finally, fill out any other important details, such as name, alignment, religion, and a few personality traits to round him out."
Emphasis mine. I think I'll wait to see what other have to say before commenting.
They use the word assume a bit really. Maybe not the way you would use it in a conversation, but how is that strange for RPG's?
Edit: You already found it and I messed up quotes anyhow.
They are using assume as {Use} it seems.
Come on Zurai, all caps and sarcasm aren't really called for.
You will never, ever, ever get him to change his mind. James Jacobs has flat out told him that he's wrong and he still continued to insist that he was right.
Come on Zurai, all caps and sarcasm aren't really called for.You will never, ever, ever get him to change his mind. James Jacobs has flat out told him that he's wrong and he still continued to insist that he was right.
On what? Only thing I know James told me I was wrong on and I disagreed with him was the bonded two handed weapon not being welded if it is in one hand, but a staff could as its not a weapon.
Other then that I have no clue what your talking about.
Come on Zurai, all caps and sarcasm aren't really called for.You will never, ever, ever get him to change his mind. James Jacobs has flat out told him that he's wrong and he still continued to insist that he was right.
Was that on another subject or this one? If the latter, I must have missed it.
Oh, and I've openly disagreed with James plenty of times. So what? :P
Was not this subject. I have no clue which he means.
Come on Zurai, all caps and sarcasm aren't really called for.You will never, ever, ever get him to change his mind. James Jacobs has flat out told him that he's wrong and he still continued to insist that he was right.
This thread may benefit from a link to James Jacobs saying that. Cause with my reading you all are grossly misusing the word "assumes"
So I would like to see the official ruling if you do not mind
Seeker of Shadow Light,
Okay, I have taken time to read the creature crafting section, and also the NPC section you have referenced.
The creature crafting reference to table 1-5 Simply says it CAN be used to determine average hit points. I disagree that it says you must use average HP.
HOWEVER, the section on creating NPC's from the core rules, does seem to follow your interpretation. It clearly states to figure hit points on an NPC, to " Determine the character's total hit points by assuming the average result. " ( page 454 for those following this stuff )
My contention on that one has to go back to the introduction of the NPC section on page 448. The last line reads: " The following rules govern all of the NPC classes and include information on generating quick NPC's for an evenings game. " I would contend that companions, mounts and other PC companions (including cohorts) are not quick NPC's for an evenings game. :) But, this is by far the strongest arguement I have seen for the averaging rule. Hence, my clicking the FAQ. This one is definitely open to the average interpretation. I still disagree, but would like confirmation.
Greg ( with a lil re editing b/c of my kitty, Patches.)
Was that on another subject or this one? If the latter, I must have missed it.
Oh, and I've openly disagreed with James plenty of times. So what? :P
It wasn't on this particular subject; it was a year or year and a half ago, so I don't remember the specifics of it. It may have been one of the "can a priest be something other than a cleric" threads, but I'm not sure.
And yeah, I've disagreed with him too, and even gotten him to reverse his ruling/opinion. Always on logical grounds, though, and with logical support to back me up. That never works on seeker, though. I've reversed my own position more than once (the specific example I can think of was in a "does level drain remove the ability to cast higher level spells" thread a while back) and admitted error quite a few times. Never once have I seen seeker change his mind and only once or twice have I seen him admit an error -- and then only on minor stuff, never an actual basis for one of his positions.
Dude, umm James and me agree on godless clerics in Golarion if that was the subject you meant. And when I am wrong I say so, if someone can show me I am wrong anyhow.
I often hosuerule calls I do not like, but if asked online and I know the official answer I give that one.{ Often with a statement of me not agreeing with it true}
Personally I question whether the intention was for this to be a hard and fast rule or merely a guide for quick and easy NPC generation, but taken verbatim as written, it is what it is.
The intention is explicitly stated, and it is explicitly stated to be used for quick and dirty NPCs that don't need much time investment.
It takes a monumental leap of logic to go from "use this for creating throwaway NPCs" to "use this for everything ever except for PCs".
Unless the intention is to try not to turn PC class abilities into second PC's, the more non-pro PC rules used, the more like a class ability it is
Edit: definitely FAQ'ing
as·sume   /əˈsum/ Show Spelled
[uh-soom] Show IPA
verb, -sumed, -sum·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit: to assume that everyone wants peace.
2. to take upon oneself; undertake: to assume an obligation.
3. to take over the duties or responsibilities of: to assume the office of treasurer.
4. to take on (a particular character, quality, mode of life, etc.); adopt: He assumed the style of an aggressive go-getter.
5. to take on; be invested or endowed with: The situation assumed a threatening character.
6. to pretend to have or be; feign: to assume a humble manner.
7. to appropriate or arrogate; seize; usurp: to assume a right to oneself; to assume control.
8. to take upon oneself (the debts or obligations of another).
9. Archaic . to take into relation or association; adopt.
–verb (used without object)
10. to take something for granted; presume.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Origin:
1400–50; late ME (< AF assumer ) < L assūmere to take to, adopt, equiv. to as- as- + sūmere to take up; see consume—Related forms
as·sum·er, noun
o·ver·as·sume, verb (used with object), -sumed, -sum·ing.
pre·as·sume, verb (used with object), -sumed, -sum·ing.
re·as·sume, verb (used with object), -sumed, -sum·ing.
su·per·as·sume, verb (used with object), -sumed, -sum·ing.—Synonyms
1. presuppose. 6. See pretend.
Not that I think it is really needed, but one must never assume to much.
Greg
heh, Greg you are enjoying the word play on assume way to much man :)
heh, Greg you are enjoying the word play on assume way to much man :)
I know. I need to stop. It isn't nearly as clever as I like to think. But I am easily humored. :P
Greg
EDIT but if you want to see a really humorous post, check out Freesword's alias posting. That one had me in stitches. Kudos to Jilted.
Personally I question whether the intention was for this to be a hard and fast rule or merely a guide for quick and easy NPC generation, but taken verbatim as written, it is what it is.The intention is explicitly stated, and it is explicitly stated to be used for quick and dirty NPCs that don't need much time investment.
It takes a monumental leap of logic to go from "use this for creating throwaway NPCs" to "use this for everything ever except for PCs".
And there's that context thing I was talking about. :D
** spoiler omitted **
Not that I think it is really needed, but one must never assume to much.
Greg
Edit: actually a lot of them work, I think a lot of people misuse the word
Not assumed as in "most often a certain way", but more like "you should use a particular way unless instructed otherwise"
Sign no, by RAW if it does not have pc class HD then it uses average hp. If you roll them it is a house rule.Incorrect. The Bestiary, specifically just the Bestiary, ASSUMES that creatures listed in the Bestiary, specifically just the Bestiary, have average hp per HD if they don't have PC class levels, and max at first plus average afterwards if they do.
You're taking "assume average hit points" as "OMG IT MUST BE AVERAGE HIT POINTS YOU CHEATERS!".
Come on Zurai, all caps and sarcasm aren't really called for.
.
.
.Page 454 of the Core Rulebook states (in the NPC creation section):
"Step 7: Details
Once you have assigned all of the NPC’s gear, all that remains is to fill out the details. Determine the character’s attack and damage bonuses, CMB, CMD, initiative modifier, and Armor Class. If the character’s magic items affect his skills or ability scores, make sure to take those changes into account. Determine the character’s total hit points by assuming the average result. Finally, fill out any other important details, such as name, alignment, religion, and a few personality traits to round him out."Emphasis mine. I think I'll wait to see what other have to say before commenting.
Sorry to jump in but if we are quoting text and argueing meaning then i feel i must note from before step 7 in the same section
Creating NPCs
The world that the player characters inhabit should be full
of rich and vibrant characters with whom they can interact.
While most need little more than names and general
descriptions, some require complete statistics, such as
town guards, local clerics, and wizened sages. The PCs
might find themselves in combat with these characters,
either against them or as allies. Alternatively the PCs
might find themselves relying on the skills and abilities
of the NPCs. In either case, the process for creating these
NPCs can be performed in seven simple steps.
Emphasis mine. The use of the word can would seem to make this whole section a guideline not a rule in my mind but then i see the whole book as guidelines so i'm not the best judge.
|
I suspect that when they write the rules as if they must be done a certain way (i.e. NPCs should assume average hit points rather than rolling them), it is because they are writing for the lowest common denominator, the weakest link, as it were, the players who necessarily follow the most strict interpretation of the rules - namely, the PFS. They can either write the rules so that those who follow the most strict interpretations have it all spelled out for them, or they can write numerous variations of the rules to try to anticipate everybody's interpretations. The latter would be impossible, so it is easiest to do the former, with the expectation (and indeed, perhaps the desire) that home gamers will apply their own flair to the rules. So when I read that NPCs are to assume average hp, I don't interpret that as meaning that I am expected to follow that to the letter, unless I'm running a PFS game.
ETA: As Bertious suggested above, I think the way it is worded in the rulebooks is an offering of what they believe is the simplest way to create npc's (and monsters), not necessarily the expected way.
Emphasis mine. The use of the word can would seem to make this whole section a guideline not a rule in my mind but then i see the whole book as guidelines so i'm not the best judge.
No. The use of the word can is not as an options of you can or can not do this. But they are using can to tell you how you can do something.
It goes back to how words are used. Maybe you do not use can like that, but a good many people do you it that way. It is not used as an option or choice word but as an direction word.
"You can take this left", "You can go inside now", "You can come in at 7, we need you in early" or "you can open that door now" Those may not be proper uses of the word but they are the very way can is used there.
|
|
Emphasis mine. The use of the word can would seem to make this whole section a guideline not a rule in my mind but then i see the whole book as guidelines so i'm not the best judge.No. The use of the word can is not as an options of you can or can not do this. But they are using can to tell you how you can do something.
It goes back to how words are used. Maybe you do not use can like that, but a good many people do you it that way. It is not used as an option or choice word but as an direction word.
"You can take this left" or "you can open that door now" Those may not be proper uses of the word but they are the very way can is used there.
I don't think so, SoSL. Given the way that passage seems to be emphasizing variation and dynamics, it seems that "can" is being used in the sense of "you are able to," as opposed to "you are permitted to." It seems like they are suggesting the simplest and most expedited way, and not necessarily the only way.
"these NPCs can be performed in seven simple steps." Is telling you how to do it.
Can is not being used as can or can not. It is being used as a directional word. "You can open the door by pulling the handle down" is the way this is being used.
|
|
"these NPCs can be performed in seven simple steps." Is telling you how to do it.
Can is not being used as can or can not. It is being used as a directional word. "You can open the door by pulling the handle down" is the way this is being used.
Seems to me that if they were intending that it be interpreted as the only way to create NPCs, they would have been better served by saying, "The process for creating these NPCS is performed in seven simple steps." Much more consise and to the point. The fact that they didn't use such direct language could have been an oversight (wouldn't be the first), or it could indicate that they didn't mean it in the way you're inferring.