dcs wrote:John Stark wrote:This to me is a nice bit of evidence that multiclass hit points are supposed to be averaged from each of the class hit dice every level gained. Notice how hit points are figured here per double class level for a F/MU.
That's just an average. In general, an F/MU won't progress in both of his classes simultaneously. I would agree with you if the progression were simultaneous, but it isn't.
This is a reductionist argument. Proclaiming that something is "just x" does not necessarily make it so.
Further, the whole point of that example, given the rules on pg. 19 for figuring multiclass hit points, is that an average between the character's class hit dice
is the way you figure hit points
per double class level.
When you say that "in general the F/MU won't progress simultaneaously in both of his classes," I would say that does nothing but bolster my point. Obviously, looking at the XP charts, no two classes are going to advance simultaneaously. If we wanted to give an accurate example of hit points for a multiclass character using a method that only takes into account each class's hit die when that class gains a level, we certainly wouldn't use the above example since it doesn't match that method at all.
If a F/MU gains a level, and is supposed to get his normal HD divided by the number of classes that he has, then a proper example would show (5.5/2) for fighter hit points gained per whenever a fighter level is gained, and (2.5/2) whenever a MU level is gained. But what does the example say? It says that (5.5 + 2.5 = 8/2 = 4 hit points per double-classed level) are gained. A formula is being applied
per double class level. What is a double class level? Its simply a level gained by a multiclass in one of his classes. Double classed level certainly does not mean "from both classes," as the writer of the text must have been aware that NO multiclassed characters will ever gain levels in two classes simultaneaously. Thus, I submit here that double classed level, in the context of pg. 19 (wherein a formula is given for determining multiclass hit points, and NOT a straight die roll as per single class characters) and in the broader context of the XP requirements of each class (which clearly show that no two classes will ever advance at the same time), means each level gained by the multiclass character. If double classed level is defined as such, then the formula from pg. 19 is applied, and the example on page 32 is an example of that formula.
What happens when the character in question gains a level in the Fighter class, but not in the Magic-user class? The answer to that question, I submit, is the key to interpreting how hit points are generated at first level.
A reread of page 19 is certainly in order I guess:
Hit Dice Type shows the type of die to be rolled by a character of the appropriate class at each level of experience (q.v.) he or she has gained so as to determine how many hit points (q.v.) the character has. Multiclassed characters determine their hit points as follows:
1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character is professing.
2. Total the sum of all dice so rolled, and adjust for constitution (q.v.).
3. Divide the total by the character's classes (two or three), dropping fractions under 1/2, rounding fractions of 1/2 or greater upwards to the next whole number.
4. The number derived (quotient) is the number of hit points the multi-classed character gains with the rise in that experience level.
Note that when multi-classed characters are no longer able to progress in any given class, they no longer gain the hit dice for that class. (See CHARACTER HIT POINTS).
I think that once this passage is considered in context, and the wording of the passage is carefully considered, that its meaning becomes eminently clear.
Point #1: What is the general thrust of the passage? To determine the hit die
types for characters.
"
Hit Dice Type shows the type of die to be rolled by a character of the appropriate class at each level of experience (q.v.) he or she has gained so as to determine how many hit points (q.v.) the character has."
Clearly the point of this note is to clarify what is meant by "Hit Die Type" in the table above this note on pg. 19. And what does it say? The "Hit Die Type" column indicates the type of die to be rolled "at each level of experience... gained."
Point #2: What comes next?
"Multiclassed characters determine their hit points as follows:"
This clearly follows after the former point, and needs to be read
in that context, wherein the context is explaining what "hit die type" means as a character advances.
Point #3: A method is then given, with several steps listed on how to determine hit points for a multiclass character, and this method MUST be considered in the above context; to whit, the context wherein "hit die type" is explained and how that pertains to character advancement "at each level of experience... gained."
Point #4: No where in this context does pg. 19 say that the method given changes from 1st level for a multiclass to when other levels are gained.
"Multiclassed characters determine their hit points as follows:"
This passage does not give different methods for determining multiclass hit points between 1st level and later levels. Certainly the
same method for determining hit points for a single class character is ALWAYS the same, whether at 1st level or later levels. This would also argue strongly that the given method for determining multiclass HP is uniform as well.
Point #5: The first step clearly states that dice are rolled "appropriate to each class the character is professing."
"1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character is
professing."
The above does not say, "Roll only the die for the class that has gained a level." This step, taken in the context of determining "hit die type" "at each level of experience... gained," rightly means to "roll the hit die or dice for each class the character is professing." This method is not varied from first level to beyond anywhere in this passage.
Point #5: The total of all dice rolled, considered in the proper context of "hit die type" "at each level of experience... gained" shows that there is a totalling of dice
each level.
"2. Total the sum of all dice so rolled, and adjust for constitution (q.v.)."
There can only be a totalling "of all dice rolled" when there are
more than one die rolled. This ONLY makes sense in two instances; at first level, when there will
certainly be more than one die type to consider given that we are talking about a multiclass character, AND at later levels when an average between different class hit die types are being used to determine hit points when one of the classes has gained a level. If only ONE die is rolled when a multiclass character gains a level, then there would be no need to TOTAL up the dice.
And again, the proper context here is "hit die
type" "at each level of experience... gained" and the unvarying method (i.e., the formula) given for determining multiclass hit points.
Whether or not Constitution is applied to each hit die type in the formula is a question of dispute. I'm inclined to say that the whole point of "totalling" the hit dice points to the idea that you do this before you adjust for Constitution. Otherwise, this passage would say, "Adjust each hit die for Con, then total." Either way, it doesn't make alot of difference in terms of the method (i.e., formula) that is being given for determining hit points for a multiclass "at each level gained."
Point #6: Step 3 is self explanatory and clear. It would pertain regardless of our interpretation of this passage as a whole.
"3. Divide the total by the character's classes (two or three), dropping fractions under 1/2, rounding fractions of 1/2 or greater upwards to the next whole number."
Notice however that this states to "divide the total by the character's classes (two or three)." How do we divide "the total" if there was nothing to "total up?" We certainly don't "total up" a single hit die roll, as there is nothing to "total up;" we merely read the result of the die roll if it were the case that we only roll one die when a multiclass character gains a level in one of his classes.
Point #7: Step 4 clearly points us back to the original context of "hit die type" "at each level of experience... gained."
"4. The number derived (quotient) is the number of hit points the multi-classed character gains
with the rise in that experience level."
In other words, the method given in 1-4 are the method used "
with the rise in that experience level."
No other method is given in this passage.
Point #8: The final sentence given after the method laid out in 1-4 points to the idea that each class level gained means we use the method given.
"Note that when multi-classed characters are no longer able to progress in any given class, they no longer gain the hit dice for that class. (See CHARACTER HIT POINTS)."
As I stated up thread, why would this need to be stated if multiclass characters gain only the hit die relevant to each class when that class gains a level? It should be obvious that a multiclassed character would no longer gain HD from a class that is maxed out if we only roll the hit die that the class would normally get when it gains a level.
However, if HD are determined for multiclass characters via a formula wherein hit dice for each class is rolled every time any one of the classes gains a level, this final note makes perfect sense. In other words, this statement at the end of the check list would not be needed if we weren't using the given formula of averaging class hit dice each time a class gains a level. Its only when that formula is being used throughout the multiclassed character's career that we would need this statement to clarify what we should do once a class has maxed out.
In light of this passage on pg. 19, and its context, I think the example given on page 32 for figuring hit points for a F/MU shows the proper method to be used; i.e., averaging the hit die types of each class every time a multiclass character gains a level in one of his classes.
The words of the passage have meaning, and make sense only in the given context. Once the context is properly understood, the rest of the passage falls into line pretty clearly. Its only when we ignore the context in question that confusion arises. The point here, once again, is to determine what the passage actually says so that we know the RAW. After that, if we think the method is too complicated, unwieldy, or unbalanced, its certainly within our purview as DMs and/or players to use a different method. But let's not declare a method "BtB" or the "RAW" that does not take into account the actual language and context of the passage in question.
