Greetings players, I have started a campaign with some friends of mine, and one of our players is telling us to change our HP gain to manual, instead of fixed. I've only played a few campaigns on DnD Beyond and have only used fixed HP.
I have taken a look at the changes to the HP, if I switch to manual, and there is no difference at this point. However, I'm stuck as to how the system calculates the HP if I do decide to swap.
What are the pros/cons to using manual HP gain VS fixed?
In terms of game mechanics? The advantage of rolling (which you put in manually) is that it can be higher. The disadvantage is that it can be lower.
The main advantage of Fixed us thstyou know that you'll be getting a reasonable increase, and not, say, a 1.
Technically, taking a fixed value is best since you get more HP. If you are a Wizard say, with a d6, the average roll will be 3.5, but the fixed value that they offer is 4. You will, on average, get 0.5 extra HP if you take the fixed value over rolling. However, even with a Wizard with a Constition modifier of 0 (almost the worst case scenario), this will amount to less than 1/8th extra health, which is not worth fretting about. If you're a Barbarian with a +5, it would be 1/12th. As you can see, technically fixed is better, but not by an amount worth thinking about. The gamble of whether you'll get a good roll or not can be worth losing half an HP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
in general, anytime someone describes an "average" of dice rolls, they're misusing the word. But it's just the lexicon that's been adopted. As Linklite stated, a D6 "average" is 4 because you cant roll a 3.5...unless you're REALLY good at rolling dice i guess.
You'll see this calculation in a lot of places, Creature hit points being the most obvious.
If you are switching after you've already created and leveled up characters, i dont think the character sheet will convert already rolled and entered hit points up. It should just apply the average from that point on. at least i *think* that's how it should work
Fixed HP ensures you meet a baseline. Monster damage scaling is based on that baseline. The chance of getting luck rolls is nice, but not worth the risk of falling below that baseline in my opinion.
But then again, I don't like rolling for stats either. I'm not a fan of random rolls having permanent repercussions for a PC. I just don't like to believe that getting lucky - or unlucky - once makes you lucky/unlucky for life.
Aside from the potentiality of rolling better than the fixed value, another attraction of manual HP for some players is simply getting to roll clicky-clacks and letting the dice gods have their say. Not to everyone's taste, certainly, but some folks enjoy the unpredictability.
in general, anytime someone describes an "average" of dice rolls, they're misusing the word. But it's just the lexicon that's been adopted. As Linklite stated, a D6 "average" is 4 because you cant roll a 3.5...
That's not right.
It makes more sense as you roll more dice. Obviously none are 3.5. But if you roll a d6 10 times, there's a high chance your result will be between 30 and 40, and about half of all "players" who roll 10 times will have a total of 35 or under. Only about 15% of players will get *over* 40, with most getting less than 40, and an unlucky 15% of players getting under 30.
The average is *not* 4. It's 3.5. People will have on average 35 after 10 rolls, not 40.
To put it another way, if you roll, you've only got about a 15% chance of beating the player that just picked 4 per level, after ten level-ups. There's a 50-50 chance you'll be a full 5 points (or more) behind.
in general, anytime someone describes an "average" of dice rolls, they're misusing the word. But it's just the lexicon that's been adopted. As Linklite stated, a D6 "average" is 4 because you cant roll a 3.5...
That's not right.
It makes more sense as you roll more dice. Obviously none are 3.5. But if you roll a d6 10 times, there's a high chance your result will be between 30 and 40, and about half of all "players" who roll 10 times will have a total of 35 or under. Only about 15% of players will get *over* 40, with most getting less than 40, and an unlucky 15% of players getting under 30.
The average is *not* 4. It's 3.5. People will have on average 35 after 10 rolls, not 40.
To put it another way, if you roll, you've only got about a 15% chance of beating the player that just picked 4 per level, after ten level-ups. There's a 50-50 chance you'll be a full 5 points (or more) behind.
Whether that matters to you is another... matter.
none of that was anything i was remotely referring too. in terms of hit points (literally the point of the entire thread, as per the title), it would only be accurate if each level up gave alternating amounts of hit points, 4 one level and then 3 the next. But it doesn't, every level's "average" will reward 4. So in the end, a player will most likely come out slightly ahead if using "Average".
That might be actually be a interesting home brew rule, players take alternating amounts each level up. Rounded down one level, rounded up the next.
in general, anytime someone describes an "average" of dice rolls, they're misusing the word. But it's just the lexicon that's been adopted. As Linklite stated, a D6 "average" is 4 because you cant roll a 3.5...
That's not right.
It makes more sense as you roll more dice. Obviously none are 3.5. But if you roll a d6 10 times, there's a high chance your result will be between 30 and 40, and about half of all "players" who roll 10 times will have a total of 35 or under. Only about 15% of players will get *over* 40, with most getting less than 40, and an unlucky 15% of players getting under 30.
The average is *not* 4. It's 3.5. People will have on average 35 after 10 rolls, not 40.
To put it another way, if you roll, you've only got about a 15% chance of beating the player that just picked 4 per level, after ten level-ups. There's a 50-50 chance you'll be a full 5 points (or more) behind.
Whether that matters to you is another... matter.
none of that was anything i was remotely referring too. in terms of hit points (literally the point of the entire thread, as per the title), it would only be accurate if each level up gave alternating amounts of hit points, 4 one level and then 3 the next. But it doesn't, every level's "average" will reward 4. So in the end, a player will most likely come out slightly ahead if using "Average".
That might be actually be a interesting home brew rule, players take alternating amounts each level up. Rounded down one level, rounded up the next.
That is just not how averages work.
Why did you pick 4 as the average? A 3 is exactly as likely, and also in the middle. Why not say 3 is the average, since it's a number you can roll?
Put it another way: there is a 50% chance of getting 3 or less, and a 50% chance of getting 4 or more.
Or another way: if you roll 6000 times, you'll get roughly 1000 of each number. The same number of 1's as 2's as 3's and so on.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 21.
21 divided by the 6 options = 3.5
1000 + 2000 + 3000 + 4000 + 5000 + 6000 = 21000
21000 divided by the 6000 rolls = 3.5
You don't always get exactly 35 points after 10 rolls - that's why we say "average". But the average is, seriously, trust me on this, 3.5.
in general, anytime someone describes an "average" of dice rolls, they're misusing the word. But it's just the lexicon that's been adopted. As Linklite stated, a D6 "average" is 4 because you cant roll a 3.5...
That's not right.
It makes more sense as you roll more dice. Obviously none are 3.5. But if you roll a d6 10 times, there's a high chance your result will be between 30 and 40, and about half of all "players" who roll 10 times will have a total of 35 or under. Only about 15% of players will get *over* 40, with most getting less than 40, and an unlucky 15% of players getting under 30.
The average is *not* 4. It's 3.5. People will have on average 35 after 10 rolls, not 40.
To put it another way, if you roll, you've only got about a 15% chance of beating the player that just picked 4 per level, after ten level-ups. There's a 50-50 chance you'll be a full 5 points (or more) behind.
Whether that matters to you is another... matter.
none of that was anything i was remotely referring too. in terms of hit points (literally the point of the entire thread, as per the title), it would only be accurate if each level up gave alternating amounts of hit points, 4 one level and then 3 the next. But it doesn't, every level's "average" will reward 4. So in the end, a player will most likely come out slightly ahead if using "Average".
That might be actually be a interesting home brew rule, players take alternating amounts each level up. Rounded down one level, rounded up the next.
That is just not how averages work.
Why did you pick 4 as the average? A 3 is exactly as likely, and also in the middle. Why not say 3 is the average, since it's a number you can roll?
Put it another way: there is a 50% chance of getting 3 or less, and a 50% chance of getting 4 or more.
Or another way: if you roll 6000 times, you'll get roughly 1000 of each number. The same number of 1's as 2's as 3's and so on.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 21.
21 divided by the 6 options = 3.5
1000 + 2000 + 3000 + 4000 + 5000 + 6000 = 21000
21000 divided by the 6000 rolls = 3.5
You don't always get exactly 35 points after 10 rolls - that's why we say "average". But the average is, seriously, trust me on this, 3.5.
D&D always use the average-rounded-up number, so wizards always get 4 when using the "fixed" HP system.
Other systems use the round-up one level, round-down the next, to ensure that a closer value to the average is maintained throughout the levelling process.
Not sure if the op is referring to this but in the dndbeyond sheets you enter the total of your dice rolls.
For example a level 1 Fighter with +3 con has 13hp no need to put anything into the manual box. At level 2 say he rolls an 8. Put 8 in the manual box and the hp will be correctly calculated as 24. At level 3 say you roll a 2. Replace the 8 with a 10 as that is the total of your dice rolls.
I think another con of rolling is that the party can become imbalanced. You can have two fighters in a party and Fighter A has twice as many HP as Fighter B. Or the player who rolled a Paladin tank keeps rolling 1s and 2s and now he's more frail than the wizard. So how does the DM handle that? How do you challenge Fighter A without grinding Fighter B into the dirt every encounter? How do you not drop Mr. Glass the Paladin while still trying to threaten the Muscle Wizard he's protecting? Or are the Paladin and Wizard expected to rewrite their character motives and personalities to reflect their HP dice?
These things are doable, but they either make more work for the DM as they actively try not to kill certain players or they just result in bad HP rolls meaning that your character will die. Personally, I have found character deaths to be a lot more meaningful if they happen as a consequence of the player's choices rather than just because they rolled poorly every time they leveled up.
in general, anytime someone describes an "average" of dice rolls, they're misusing the word. But it's just the lexicon that's been adopted. As Linklite stated, a D6 "average" is 4 because you cant roll a 3.5...
That's not right.
It makes more sense as you roll more dice. Obviously none are 3.5. But if you roll a d6 10 times, there's a high chance your result will be between 30 and 40, and about half of all "players" who roll 10 times will have a total of 35 or under. Only about 15% of players will get *over* 40, with most getting less than 40, and an unlucky 15% of players getting under 30.
The average is *not* 4. It's 3.5. People will have on average 35 after 10 rolls, not 40.
To put it another way, if you roll, you've only got about a 15% chance of beating the player that just picked 4 per level, after ten level-ups. There's a 50-50 chance you'll be a full 5 points (or more) behind.
Whether that matters to you is another... matter.
none of that was anything i was remotely referring too. in terms of hit points (literally the point of the entire thread, as per the title), it would only be accurate if each level up gave alternating amounts of hit points, 4 one level and then 3 the next. But it doesn't, every level's "average" will reward 4. So in the end, a player will most likely come out slightly ahead if using "Average".
That might be actually be a interesting home brew rule, players take alternating amounts each level up. Rounded down one level, rounded up the next.
That is just not how averages work.
Why did you pick 4 as the average? A 3 is exactly as likely, and also in the middle. Why not say 3 is the average, since it's a number you can roll?
Put it another way: there is a 50% chance of getting 3 or less, and a 50% chance of getting 4 or more.
Or another way: if you roll 6000 times, you'll get roughly 1000 of each number. The same number of 1's as 2's as 3's and so on.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 21.
21 divided by the 6 options = 3.5
1000 + 2000 + 3000 + 4000 + 5000 + 6000 = 21000
21000 divided by the 6000 rolls = 3.5
You don't always get exactly 35 points after 10 rolls - that's why we say "average". But the average is, seriously, trust me on this, 3.5.
I don't how to explain it any simpler terms. Other posters get it, and they've tried to explain it as well.
We're not actually talking about averages. Hit points in dnd always round up, I pick 4, because on a d6 that is what dnd will use as it's average everytime a character levels up using the fixed system. If using a d8, a character will get 5 hp (plus con mod) every level.
This is mechanics issue with how hit points are tabulated in DnD, not an actual definition of average.
I think another con of rolling is that the party can become imbalanced. You can have two fighters in a party and Fighter A has twice as many HP as Fighter B. Or the player who rolled a Paladin tank keeps rolling 1s and 2s and now he's more frail than the wizard. So how does the DM handle that? How do you challenge Fighter A without grinding Fighter B into the dirt every encounter? How do you not drop Mr. Glass the Paladin while still trying to threaten the Muscle Wizard he's protecting? Or are the Paladin and Wizard expected to rewrite their character motives and personalities to reflect their HP dice?
These things are doable, but they either make more work for the DM as they actively try not to kill certain players or they just result in bad HP rolls meaning that your character will die. Personally, I have found character deaths to be a lot more meaningful if they happen as a consequence of the player's choices rather than just because they rolled poorly every time they leveled up.
You have a point there. It would suck to be the one with the case of the dropsy because you had a run of 1s or something. I've not come across it yet, I'm not even sure how I'd counter it. Maybe drop an item that buffs max HP or something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Pretty much everyone I know who does manual HP has homebrew rules that mitigate this, such as allowing rerolls for 1s or letting you take the average if you roll below half the hit die value. Mind you, my sample size is small so I'm sure there are plenty of cases where there has been some swingy intra-party HP. At higher levels, this probably evens out due to probability and magic items, but I expect a low-level party with manual HP rolls could potentially be problematic.
I'm always pretty torn. Yes rolling bad on hit points once is bad. Getting a run of bad level up rolls is devastating.
But the reverse is also applicable, there's gotta be a euphoria when a barbarian sees that 12 sitting up.
I get fixed hit points are the most obvious way to keep balance. It's a good system. I guess it comes down to who's willing to take the emotional Rollercoaster and who isn't.
D&D always use the average-rounded-up number, so wizards always get 4 when using the "fixed" HP system.
Other systems use the round-up one level, round-down the next, to ensure that a closer value to the average is maintained throughout the levelling process.
D&D uses the option to pick 4. You can roll too. That's what we're talking about.
"Hit Points at Higher Levels: 1d6 (or 4) + your Constitution modifier per wizard level after 1st"
That's the point of the discussion. The difference between manual rolled HP and fixed every level.
Fixed gives 4. Rolling gives an average of 3.5, but with a chance of more than 4.
I don't how to explain it any simpler terms. Other posters get it, and they've tried to explain it as well.
We're not actually talking about averages. Hit points in dnd always round up, I pick 4, because on a d6 that is what dnd will use as it's average everytime a character levels up using the fixed system. If using a d8, a character will get 5 hp (plus con mod) every level.
This is mechanics issue with how hit points are tabulated in DnD, not an actual definition of average.
As above. The discussion is about whether to roll manually or take 4.
When you roll, the average is 3.5. When you pick, the "average" isn't really relevant, since it's always 4. But yes, it's 4.
I can't really reconcile you (maybe?) saying that picking 4 is what you mean, and that you're not talking about averages, when you said this: "As Linklite stated, a D6 "average" is 4 because you cant roll a 3.5..."
CHOOSING 4 has an average of 4. Rolling has an average of 3.5. That's why choosing is mathematically a bit better, but rolling might be fun too.
Genuinely confused this is even a discussion. Just... google it or something.
Greetings players, I have started a campaign with some friends of mine, and one of our players is telling us to change our HP gain to manual, instead of fixed. I've only played a few campaigns on DnD Beyond and have only used fixed HP.
I have taken a look at the changes to the HP, if I switch to manual, and there is no difference at this point. However, I'm stuck as to how the system calculates the HP if I do decide to swap.
What are the pros/cons to using manual HP gain VS fixed?
IF you are on fixed then, on average, your HP will be higher than if you are rolling dice - since the "fixed" is always the average rounded up.
IF you are on manual, then dndbeyond doesn't increase your HP at all.
You need to apply the normal rules for manual HP, which is max HP at 1st level, then roll the relevant die + CON bonus for each level beyond 1st.
Not exactly true. If you are on manual, dndbeyond will increase (or decrease) your hp at each level by your con bonus. You need to input the total of all your dice rolled for hp (including the maximized die for level 1) to get the correct hp total.
The way my current DM does it is that the DM and PC both roll the hit die and you take the average of the two, rounded up. It's helps make it more of a bell curve, and it has worked for us so far.
I personally tell my players to roll and if they roll lower than the fixed amount they can take that instead. I basically treat the fixed amount as their guaranteed minimum. They like it because they get the best of both worlds, they get to “roll clicky-clacks,” but also know they can never get hosed on HP either. (I like it too because I get to throw the kitchen sink at them because they’re all so buff. 😉)
Greetings players, I have started a campaign with some friends of mine, and one of our players is telling us to change our HP gain to manual, instead of fixed. I've only played a few campaigns on DnD Beyond and have only used fixed HP.
I have taken a look at the changes to the HP, if I switch to manual, and there is no difference at this point. However, I'm stuck as to how the system calculates the HP if I do decide to swap.
What are the pros/cons to using manual HP gain VS fixed?
In terms of game mechanics? The advantage of rolling (which you put in manually) is that it can be higher. The disadvantage is that it can be lower.
The main advantage of Fixed us thstyou know that you'll be getting a reasonable increase, and not, say, a 1.
Technically, taking a fixed value is best since you get more HP. If you are a Wizard say, with a d6, the average roll will be 3.5, but the fixed value that they offer is 4. You will, on average, get 0.5 extra HP if you take the fixed value over rolling. However, even with a Wizard with a Constition modifier of 0 (almost the worst case scenario), this will amount to less than 1/8th extra health, which is not worth fretting about. If you're a Barbarian with a +5, it would be 1/12th. As you can see, technically fixed is better, but not by an amount worth thinking about. The gamble of whether you'll get a good roll or not can be worth losing half an HP.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
IF you are on manual, then dndbeyond doesn't increase your HP at all.
You need to apply the normal rules for manual HP, which is max HP at 1st level, then roll the relevant die + CON bonus for each level beyond 1st.
in general, anytime someone describes an "average" of dice rolls, they're misusing the word. But it's just the lexicon that's been adopted. As Linklite stated, a D6 "average" is 4 because you cant roll a 3.5...unless you're REALLY good at rolling dice i guess.
You'll see this calculation in a lot of places, Creature hit points being the most obvious.
If you are switching after you've already created and leveled up characters, i dont think the character sheet will convert already rolled and entered hit points up. It should just apply the average from that point on. at least i *think* that's how it should work
Fixed HP ensures you meet a baseline. Monster damage scaling is based on that baseline. The chance of getting luck rolls is nice, but not worth the risk of falling below that baseline in my opinion.
But then again, I don't like rolling for stats either. I'm not a fan of random rolls having permanent repercussions for a PC. I just don't like to believe that getting lucky - or unlucky - once makes you lucky/unlucky for life.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Aside from the potentiality of rolling better than the fixed value, another attraction of manual HP for some players is simply getting to roll clicky-clacks and letting the dice gods have their say. Not to everyone's taste, certainly, but some folks enjoy the unpredictability.
That's not right.
It makes more sense as you roll more dice. Obviously none are 3.5. But if you roll a d6 10 times, there's a high chance your result will be between 30 and 40, and about half of all "players" who roll 10 times will have a total of 35 or under. Only about 15% of players will get *over* 40, with most getting less than 40, and an unlucky 15% of players getting under 30.
The average is *not* 4. It's 3.5. People will have on average 35 after 10 rolls, not 40.
To put it another way, if you roll, you've only got about a 15% chance of beating the player that just picked 4 per level, after ten level-ups. There's a 50-50 chance you'll be a full 5 points (or more) behind.
Whether that matters to you is another... matter.
none of that was anything i was remotely referring too. in terms of hit points (literally the point of the entire thread, as per the title), it would only be accurate if each level up gave alternating amounts of hit points, 4 one level and then 3 the next. But it doesn't, every level's "average" will reward 4. So in the end, a player will most likely come out slightly ahead if using "Average".
That might be actually be a interesting home brew rule, players take alternating amounts each level up. Rounded down one level, rounded up the next.
That is just not how averages work.
Why did you pick 4 as the average? A 3 is exactly as likely, and also in the middle. Why not say 3 is the average, since it's a number you can roll?
Put it another way: there is a 50% chance of getting 3 or less, and a 50% chance of getting 4 or more.
Or another way: if you roll 6000 times, you'll get roughly 1000 of each number. The same number of 1's as 2's as 3's and so on.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 21.
21 divided by the 6 options = 3.5
1000 + 2000 + 3000 + 4000 + 5000 + 6000 = 21000
21000 divided by the 6000 rolls = 3.5
You don't always get exactly 35 points after 10 rolls - that's why we say "average". But the average is, seriously, trust me on this, 3.5.
D&D always use the average-rounded-up number, so wizards always get 4 when using the "fixed" HP system.
Other systems use the round-up one level, round-down the next, to ensure that a closer value to the average is maintained throughout the levelling process.
Not sure if the op is referring to this but in the dndbeyond sheets you enter the total of your dice rolls.
For example a level 1 Fighter with +3 con has 13hp no need to put anything into the manual box. At level 2 say he rolls an 8. Put 8 in the manual box and the hp will be correctly calculated as 24. At level 3 say you roll a 2. Replace the 8 with a 10 as that is the total of your dice rolls.
I think another con of rolling is that the party can become imbalanced. You can have two fighters in a party and Fighter A has twice as many HP as Fighter B. Or the player who rolled a Paladin tank keeps rolling 1s and 2s and now he's more frail than the wizard. So how does the DM handle that? How do you challenge Fighter A without grinding Fighter B into the dirt every encounter? How do you not drop Mr. Glass the Paladin while still trying to threaten the Muscle Wizard he's protecting? Or are the Paladin and Wizard expected to rewrite their character motives and personalities to reflect their HP dice?
These things are doable, but they either make more work for the DM as they actively try not to kill certain players or they just result in bad HP rolls meaning that your character will die. Personally, I have found character deaths to be a lot more meaningful if they happen as a consequence of the player's choices rather than just because they rolled poorly every time they leveled up.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I don't how to explain it any simpler terms. Other posters get it, and they've tried to explain it as well.
We're not actually talking about averages. Hit points in dnd always round up, I pick 4, because on a d6 that is what dnd will use as it's average everytime a character levels up using the fixed system. If using a d8, a character will get 5 hp (plus con mod) every level.
This is mechanics issue with how hit points are tabulated in DnD, not an actual definition of average.
You have a point there. It would suck to be the one with the case of the dropsy because you had a run of 1s or something. I've not come across it yet, I'm not even sure how I'd counter it. Maybe drop an item that buffs max HP or something.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Pretty much everyone I know who does manual HP has homebrew rules that mitigate this, such as allowing rerolls for 1s or letting you take the average if you roll below half the hit die value. Mind you, my sample size is small so I'm sure there are plenty of cases where there has been some swingy intra-party HP. At higher levels, this probably evens out due to probability and magic items, but I expect a low-level party with manual HP rolls could potentially be problematic.
I'm always pretty torn. Yes rolling bad on hit points once is bad. Getting a run of bad level up rolls is devastating.
But the reverse is also applicable, there's gotta be a euphoria when a barbarian sees that 12 sitting up.
I get fixed hit points are the most obvious way to keep balance. It's a good system. I guess it comes down to who's willing to take the emotional Rollercoaster and who isn't.
D&D uses the option to pick 4. You can roll too. That's what we're talking about.
"Hit Points at Higher Levels: 1d6 (or 4) + your Constitution modifier per wizard level after 1st"
That's the point of the discussion. The difference between manual rolled HP and fixed every level.
Fixed gives 4. Rolling gives an average of 3.5, but with a chance of more than 4.
As above. The discussion is about whether to roll manually or take 4.
When you roll, the average is 3.5. When you pick, the "average" isn't really relevant, since it's always 4. But yes, it's 4.
I can't really reconcile you (maybe?) saying that picking 4 is what you mean, and that you're not talking about averages, when you said this: "As Linklite stated, a D6 "average" is 4 because you cant roll a 3.5..."
CHOOSING 4 has an average of 4. Rolling has an average of 3.5. That's why choosing is mathematically a bit better, but rolling might be fun too.
Genuinely confused this is even a discussion. Just... google it or something.
IF you are on fixed then, on average, your HP will be higher than if you are rolling dice - since the "fixed" is always the average rounded up.
Not exactly true. If you are on manual, dndbeyond will increase (or decrease) your hp at each level by your con bonus. You need to input the total of all your dice rolled for hp (including the maximized die for level 1) to get the correct hp total.
I personally tell my players to roll and if they roll lower than the fixed amount they can take that instead. I basically treat the fixed amount as their guaranteed minimum. They like it because they get the best of both worlds, they get to “roll clicky-clacks,” but also know they can never get hosed on HP either. (I like it too because I get to throw the kitchen sink at them because they’re all so buff. 😉)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting