My daughter has leveled her Ranger to 3 and is selecting Beast Master with a wolf as her companion. The PHB says that the companion's hit point maximum is "equal its normal maximum or four times your Ranger level, whichever is higher". Under Wolf, in Appendix B, it says "hit points: 11 (2d8+2)." So what are the wolf's starting hit points? 12 hp, 18 hp, or something else? I'm no sure what "normal maximum" means here.
It means the normal "unwounded" amount, not the maximum possible roll on your dice: so either 11 (2d8+2) or 12 (level * 4). In this case, a wolf for a 3rd level Ranger should have 12 hp.
(You could choose to let your daughter roll the 2d8+2 instead, and possibly get more than 12 hp for her wolf, but on average, she'll roll less than 12, and after level 4 Ranger, the wolf should have 16 hp anyway.)
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
To me its dodgy wording on part of the PHB. The hit points they give animals is the average for the die and not the maximum. 4.5 + 4.5 + 2 = 11. To me, the maximum for 2d8+2 is 18. If they meant 11, they should having worded it as the "normal hit points for that creature."
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Yikes. I've been reading it both correctly, yet incorrectly at the same time perhaps? o_O
I interpretted "maximum" meaning "Yo, it's like they rolled max HP each time" and not "Your DM can't be a jerk and give you a wolf with 1 HP left out of 12." Because the latter seemed so dumb that I thought that it HAD to be the former...
Edit: Not that I often take TOO much stake in tweets, anyone have a tweet stating one way or the other?
I read it as 18 HP as well. (20 HP at level 5).
I read it as 18 hp too. That's the normal maximum instead of the normal standard.
Maybe it's time to get a more official ruling. I'll be back. 
Ashrym wrote:
It's normal maximum hit points, not normal maximum of the hit dice.
This talk of "average maximums is complete BS. You can't have such a thing, by it's nature an average is a fixed number. To further my point, it doesn't doesn't ask for the maximum HP of a specific wolf, it asks for the maximum HP of ALL normal wolves. Which is the max of the HP formula, not the freaking average.
Yunru wrote:
Basic Rules, Healing p. 75 wrote:
Also Hit Point Maximum =/= Maximum Hit Points. Your Hit Point Maximum is the result of what you roll for HP (or the average if you don't roll). Your Maximum Hit Points is the highest amount of Hit Points you could have, which is obvious all dice maxed.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
As said you have to methods of determining HP: The normal way, and the companion specific way. "Normal" therefore refers to the way that's not Lvl*4. so "normal maximum" is the same as the maximum would be if it weren't a ranger companion.
I think that if they intended for us to use the normal hit points as given in the book, they would have just said, "Use the normal hit points as listed in the creature's entry." Instead they added the word maximum which implies the most that creature can have. The modifieer of normal means baring any outside unfluences that would change that maximum.
Knight_Marshal wrote:
...How is this a question? Max HP is 18. Same as if a Druid Wild Shaped into one. This is not something that needs clearification, the language is not ambiguous.
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
So you can heal the average wolf up to 18 HPs? Even though they only normally run around with 11?
"Hit point maximum" is defined in the PHB/ basic rules as a character's "unwounded" hit point total. A character cannot heal above his or her hit point maximum, and when you gain a level you add a die roll (or the average value) to your hit point maximum.
"Normal (hit point) maximum" thus means "your unwounded hit point total, without any special considerations."
The normal (hit point) maximum for a 10-Con, 2nd-level Fighter is 15. (10 + 1d10 [5]).
The normal (hit point) maximum for an unwounded wolf is 11. Alternatively, if you prefer to roll, the normal hit point maximum for a wolf is 2d8+2. As I've said earlier, this is different than the "maximum normal," or "maximum normal maximum" if you really want to get specific.
This is pretty clear from a strict reading.
If you deem that a wolf's "hit point maximum" is 18, because "that's the highest you can possibly roll," then you are also by extension saying that any second level Fighter with a 10 Con can heal until he or she has 20 hp, even if the player rolled less than 20 hp initially.
You're also saying that a 10-Con level 20 Fighter always can heal up to 200 hp, even though using the average values for level-ups would give 105 hp.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
It does not say "maximum normal hit points."
It says "normal maximum," does it not?
I addressed this earlier in the post.
So what is "normal"?
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Irrelevant? But isn't the "11", you know, normal?
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
Yunru wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Look. I get that you have a vested interest in this. You wouldn't want your character, Dirttz's, black panther to lose some of its potential hit points. It's a tough spot to be in. I can appreciate how much is riding on this for you.
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
@OP: The maximum is either 11, 18, or ? depending on how you opt to generate HPs for monsters (taking the listed average, taking the maximum possible result, or actually rolling the listed dice). Since this is an adventurer's league PC who isn't allowed to roll her own HPs, I imagine that convetnion would also be applied to the ranger's pet.
@virtually everyone else: Get over yourselves. There is no right answer because there is more than one way to determine how many HPs are the maximum HPs for a given creature. Whether you want the maximum to be 11 or 18, that's the right answer for you. Just stop thinking that the right answer for you is some kind of objectively right answer.
At the beginning of the thread, before it sadly got a bit vicious, these alternative options were discussed, but the OP mentioned that his or her daughter's character is an Adventure League character.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think the answer to this question is: "DM fiat." Personally, I think the ranger's companion should be an exceptional, not average, specimen of its kind. Therefore, in my game, I'd allow maximum hit points (as in, the max that can be rolled on its hit dice...in the case of the wolf, 18). Otherwise the ranger would have to get a new companion all too often. And that would just make me sad.
SterlingRat wrote:
I don't think the "maximum maximum" (18 for wolf) is either too powerful or too necessary, so I wouldn't have a problem with adopting either the "maximum maximum" (18) or the "average maximum" (2d8+2 or 11).
However, from a strictly rherotical standpoint, I think "average maximum" (2d8+2 or 11) is the book's intention.
Keep in mind that animal companions already have a way to get more hit points that will beat both methods of "maximum normal hit points" after only a few levels. The Ranger level * 4 method is going to quickly overtake even an 18-hp wolf, rendering this whole issue relatively unimportant for actual gameplay- by level 5, a Ranger's wolf is already tougher than other wolves.
@OP, I'm pretty sure nobody is critiquing your behavior in this thead- just us other folks
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Hreth wrote:
SterlingRat wrote:
11 is the average of 2d8+2. If they wanted 11 to be the number you use, why wouldn't they just say average?
Also the only candiates for the hunter pet that have an average HP greater than 12 are Panther(13), Giant Badger (13), Constrictor Snake (13), and Giant Frog (18). Why allow players to take anything but Ranger Level * 4 when it is the superior choice for all but 4 beasts (and 3 of those 4 its only very slightly worse)?
I don't think a level 3 ranger is supposed to be in danger of losing his wolf pet versus a regular old wolf they find in the forest.
slumgum wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
slumgum wrote:
Except your entire argument revolves around "Hit Points equal to the normal maximum" to mean "normal Hit Point Maximum", rather than "normal maximum Hit Points".
Take any other occurance of similar language and you can see that's wrong:
"Fuel equal to the capacity maximum" is the "maximum fuel capacity". True "fuel capacity maximum" also works, but it's not the natural reading. Normally that wouldn't make a difference but here HPMax and max HP are two different things.
Yunru wrote:
7he_professor wrote:
Hreth wrote:
I think many here are putting the cart before the horse.
If normal maximum is a reference to the wolfs unwounded hp total then the rule statement would never define the wolfs hit point maximum because we don't know what the wolfs unwounded hp value would be.
it makes no sense to refer to "u wounded hp" when trying to reference how much hp something has (unless the hp value was already established some other way)
The only argument in favor of using the average 11 hp value is if you take normal to mean average in the normal maximum phrase. I think that's a poor reading though since average would have been much better and obvious word to use in that situation.
Hreth wrote:
I think some people are confused here.
The argument is not that "a ranger companion gets the average hit point maximum."
The argument is that "a ranger companion gets the normal (maximum) hit point maximum."
At no time is 11 (or the average) stated as the "normal maximum."
However, 2d8+2 is the "normal maximum." Additionally, the creature stats provide the average of this dice roll as an optional way to figure maximum hp. At no time is 18 given as an option for the normal maximum hit points of a wolf.
Moreover, the rules use different language when they want to refer to "taking the highest value possible to be rolled on a die (or dice)" - which is what would call for a result of 18. This is never mentioned for animal companions.
Some people are hung up on the fact that a creature's hit point maximum has a special meaning in 5e D&D. It has nothing to do with taking the highest roll of a die. It simply means the highest hp a creature can achieve at a given time.
The reason why 11 is given as the answer to the OP is because in standardized play, average results for character creation die rolls are generally used. Whereas, in a home campaign, a 3rd-level Ranger's wolf could have 2d8+2 rolled hit points, in standardized play, it is simpler and more balanced to just say "11."
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Note that an animal companion is not an abstract concept of an animal, but a specific animal. If it dies, you can replace it, but you need to find another actual animal. You don't summon a new one. As such, the animal already has a hit point maximum, which is how many hit points it has while fully healed. So when the ranger feature refers to "normal maximum", that means that specific animal's maximum hit points. A specific wolf does not have "2d8+2" hit points. It has a given number, whether you rolled for that number or used the average.
This means that if you encounter a wolf with 18 hit points, you can tame it, and its "normal maximum", which is to say it's maximum before it was your animal companion, is 18, but it needs to have that many hit point prior to becoming part of your character, and in a world where the DM isn't rolling for monster hit points, which is likely the case for Adventurer's League, a wolf will always have a hit point maximum of 11 pre-taming.
Goober4473 wrote:
The hit point maximum seems to be the issue here. I know it's causing some head-scratching for me.
Page 12 pretty clearly defines the hit point maximum as being equal to your maximum starting hit points (so max hit die roll plus CON mod). However it doesn't really define it beyond that initial correlation.
Page 17 adds to this by indicating that the hit point maximum actually is your "total hit points" or the most you can have by die roll. Why? Because in the example provided, Bruenor gets an additional +1 to CON going from +3 to +4 on his modifier at 8th level. They then indicate that means his hit point maximum also jumped 8 points, which means hit point maximum must be the total hit points that character has, based on his combination of hit die rolls by level gain, plus max initial hit points, plus any accruals due to CON improvement or feats and such. They all go into the collective hit point maximum" basket.
So on page 177 under the Constitution discussion it further clarifies the point illustrated on page 17.
So what this would mean for ranger companions is that they either get the hit point total for their creature by roll (if you roll hit dice plus con mods) or the static value (if you're in organized play or don't want to roll) or 4 times the ranger's level. So when my ranger picks up an axe beak with 19 hit points, at level 5 I would bump the axe beak to 20 hit points since 4Xlevel 5 is better than 19 (unless I had rolled for hit points and gotten better). At level 6 I'd increase it again to 24 hit points and so on.
This is my table ruling, anyway.....but I sort of think it's what the rule intended.
Here's how I would approach this as an AL DM. I've had similar things happen at the table.
If I'm at a table five minutes before the game, and this guy and his daughter hand me their character sheets to look over, and I happen to notice she's got the wolf's hit points at 18, and I remember that it's supposed to be 11, then I say still say absolutely nothing. Because it's five minutes before the game, and I have to think of the fun of the other five people at the table as well, and it's not going to break the game or other players' enjoyment of it (if they even notice), and I think their time is better served by my starting and ending on-time than by forty-five minutes of bickering that rises to the level of name-calling and character assassination. Your mileage may vary.
If I'm at the table an hour beforehand, and this guy and his daughter sit down to make characters, and we talk the whole thing through, then I would have said, "I think they meant 11 hit points, not 18, but you can ask Mike Mearls via Twitter if you like" and left it at that.
Frankly I think the beast master ranger and the animal companion are weak enough without going out of the way to gimp the animal, even for only a level. I would rule that the animal companion gets the maximum possible roll or ranger level times 4 because I find saddling the ranger with an average animal companion boring.
No one else adds in the Con bonus for the 4*Lvl method? (example: Lvl 5 Ranger Wolf Companion, 22 HP)
Forgember wrote:
Timborama wrote:
And really, what this all comes down to (just like every other argument over rules) is that it doesn't matter. DM's will take a stand one way or the other and all the arguing on the forums won't matter. However, things that are good to think about when addressing rules issues (for players and DM's respectively):
Player: Your DM has made a ruling on the rules. If you disagree, maybe explain why you disagree, but the DM has final say in this matter. They are the referee and when they make a ruling, that ruling needs to be followed.
DM: Okay, so you can give the wolf either 12 or 18 hit points. This decision will be relevant for 1 to 2 levels, depending on which interpretation you chose. It's not that big of an issue. But as you make your decision, keep in mind that the rules are not set in stone. They are just there to facilitate the running of the game. To quote Pirates of the Caribbean, "They're more like guidelines anyway". If you feel that it would break your game to give the wolf 6 more hit points, then by all means, only give it twelve. But if you instead enjoy giving you players power (such as a shield while firing multiple bolts in 1 round from a hand crossbow), making them the heroes, and letting them feel that they truly are adventurers, then give the wolf 18 hit points.
I could care less what anybody says about the rules on the forums. It's nice to see what others have to say, but ultimately it's my decision. I can make the call based on the needs of my group. And if something is OP (I'm looking at you Crossbow Expert feat), then awesome. That just lets me throw another dragon at them during the next battle 
I would go under the assumption that a beastmaster ranger would be able to seek out, recognize, and bond with the strongest, healthiest animal in their favored region to become their companion for life. I would reflect that by giving them maximum or near maximum hit points for an animal of their type. I don't consider a ranger's beast to be average in any regard - only the strongest and healthiest are worthy to be a ranger's companion... Unless the ranger PC decides on something different for story reasons.
AlHazred wrote: