Calculating Temp Hitpoints Gained in Rage

Remove all ads!

I have a multiclass Druid/Barbarian. I took my first level in Barbarian. PHB 3.5 is not clear what my effective level is when calculating hitpoints gained by rage if character is multiclassed. Would I rage as a Level 1 Barbarian? Or would it be my combined level of both my classes?

 

Your rage will be the equivalent of a 1st level Barbarian. However, a Constitution increase applies to all hit die... so your new HP will be 12+d8+Twice Con Bonus+4 (for the increase due to your new con bonus).

 

Temp hit points = 2 x [HD].

[ August 02, 2005, 21:01: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

No, Oaz, because it is a constitution bonus, not a true temporary HP bonus.

Temporary hit points sit "on top" of your normal hit points... they're subtracted first, and when they run out of duration, they simply disappear.

Constitution modifiers change all of your HD totals (in the case of rage's +4 bonus, increasing it by 2 per HD). This is true if it comes from rage, or from Bear's Endurance. These can be dangerous, because when the Constitution bonus ends, those extra HP are taken from the "bottom" of your HP total, meaning you can die from the end of a Constitution bonus, if you're hurt badly enough.

For example, let's take a Druid 1/Barbarian 1 with a 10 Constitution. His normal HP total is 15 (8 for level 1 Druid, 7 for level 1 Barbarian). When he rages, his Constitution goes up by 4 to 14, meaning he has a +2 Constitution modifier. That's applied to every Hit Die, so he now has 19 Hit Points (10 for level 1 Druid, 9 for level 1 Barbarian). If, during a fight, he's injured by 5 points, when his Constitution returns to normal he'll still be injured by 5 points.... only instead of being at 14 Hit Points out of 19, he's now at 10/15. If he were instead injured for 16 points, when his rage ends he'll go from being at 3/19 to being -1/15... he's dying.

Constitution bonuses are great, but they can really endanger your character when they go away.

 

Bah, you're right. What am I thinking?

 

Hey, I don't mind. It helped me develop the "on top/on bottom" way of explaining it.