monster hit points...average?

[JeffB]

This is for PF DMs too...

When designing encounters, do you roll for monster HP, use the average HP listed in the monster manual/bestiary, or use some other combination?

Whenever I have used 3.x, or PF I have used the avg HP in the stat block. I have even been using average HP for my OD&D game recently. I guess it is just a convenience thing. But I am starting to wonder if I should do some adjusting, perhaps keeping avg for ELs that are 1-2 levels higher than the party, but max HP for the same EL or 1 lower than the party. Combats run pretty fast anyways, so it would likely would not add any significant amount of time, but would probably make the combat more interesting/tense without taxing the PC resources too much.

Thoughts?

 

[Hautamaki]

I always give monsters random HP in the range of their possible HP. I don't roll dice though, that takes too long, I just pick a random number off the top of my head for each monster. Outlier monsters get a special description: 'This orc looks a lot tougher than his fellows'; 'one particularly wimpy looking goblin is cringing in the back of the group' etc.

Monsters that all have exactly the same HP (and exactly the same everything else) seem too much like robotic manufactured CRPG-type enemies. That can be appropriate (for things like golems, war-forged, formians, etc) but for the most part giving monsters different HPs makes them more individuals in my mind which tends to influence the way I run and describe the battles which in turn helps to turn combat encounters more into mini-stories than merely dice and math.

 

[Bolcien]

I usualy Max out the HP. helps give my encounters a challenge, unless they are facing already high HP, high CR encounters.

 

[Grogg of the North]

If it's just something straight from a monster manual, then they get whatever is listed.

If I'm adding levels, advancing HD, or doing something else to alter the monster I tend to give it 1/2 HD +1. Puts a little more meat on them and helps distinguish that they're a little tougher than the rest.

 

[Jester David]

I stick to the hard rules for the most part (average hp) for classed and unclassed monsters, especially when running out of the book. If they PCs are fighting several of the same monster (goblins, orcs, etc) I might roll for some variety.

 

[JustinAlexander]

I stick to the hard rules for the most part (average hp)

That's not actually a hard rule in 3E. Or a rule at all.

I generally vary the hit points of creatures. This is particularly true for encounters involving large numbers of creatures: It provides a better pace, IME, if the creatures have slightly different levels of endurance and presence.

If you're dealing with a solo monster in an encounter, though, varying hit points can have a disproportionate effect on the encounter's difficulty. Max hit points aren't enough to actually increase the creature's CR (you would need to quadruple their average hit points, not double them), but it will be tougher. As you skew towards minimum values, a lot of creatures will end up being paper tigers that are trivially dispatched.

 

[FireLance]

I think that varying monster hit points is one of those ideas which look good in theory, but hardly ever get noticed at the table during actual gameplay.

IMO, if you want to vary your monsters, varying ability scores and/or actual class levels and/or abilities is a better (if more complex and fiddly) way to do it.

At some tables, hit points may not always be "meat", especially for humanoid opponents, and a "wimpy-looking" NPC (with low Strength and/or Constitution scores) may actually be a high-level character with high hit points.

Some other tables might prefer a more direct correlation between risk and reward, and would want to adjust XP for higher or lower hit points as well. (As a side note, three monsters with low, average and high hit points are usually easier to defeat than three monsters with average hit points as the party can focus fire on the monster with the least hit points and remove an additional enemy earlier).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I could never be arsed to roll HP, for all the reasons FireLance mentions. Extra prep for questionable benefit = why bother?

I'd be interested to hear from the rollin' DM who describe hit points as intended*, how exactly do you describe one goblin as being 'wimpy' and another as 'tough' when they have comparable Str/Con? I mean what do hit points look like?

*I.e., at least somewhat abstract. HPs represent luck, dodge skillz, divine favor, etc. in addition to physical toughness.

 

[billd91]

I don't usually roll for rank and file monster encountered in significant numbers. The players won't typically notice the variations much. But for significant monsters and named NPCs, I roll hit points. Encounters that are supposed to really stand out get rolled, even if it means poor rolls.

 

[DragonLancer]

I give maximum HP for monsters. My group prefer the challenge.