Do you roll monster/NPC hit points?

[Water Bob]

If time permits, I like to roll monster and NPC hit points instead of using the averaging method. (If I'm in a time crunch, I use every corner-cut I can find.) Heck, I'll roll stats, too.

I like to "individualize" my NPCs and monsters. Giving them different hit points is part of that. With my NPCs, I try to name them. I'll come up with an idea to make each one memorable and jot that note down. Maybe one isn't wearing shoes. Another carries 17 teeth, human/monster/animal, in one of his pouches. This one has a set of bones (dice) and has more coin than the rest. Another doesn't have a coin to his name.

This may seem like a lot of work (and, as I said, I skip this stuff if I'm behind and the game is tomorrow), but I re-use a lot of it. I may make up 6 NPC bandits, and if 3 of them get away, what they were carrying will probably show up on the next NPC the PCs meet. No prep work goes to waste.

I'll give interesting details about mundane weapons (this one has a moose-antler hilt). And, sometimes I'll just think of something strange (You notice that this NPC uses coins from different nations as buttons on his coat. And, the PCs might find some women's panties in his pocket.)

Sometimes doing this type of stuff leads to adventure. You never know how a player will interpret something. If its interesting, I'll take it and run with it, and I look like the genius who planned it all along.

I'm curious....how many other GM's operate this way?

I know I didn't used to. I've learned to be this way, and I believe its enhanced my game.

You?

 

[Pentius]

I like individualizing NPCs, and I do it myself, in the rare times when I actually DM. I also like to try and find(find, since I can't draw worth a damn) pictures to go with them. I don't do the rolling of HP though(or rather, I didn't, back before 4e when hit die were still a thing). I understand how it can add to the feel of individuality, but I find that it comes under the heading of things that the players could notice, in theory, but generally don't, in play. Basically, the time I would spend rolling for HP is better spent coming up with some small, yet fun detail, like a scraggly beard, a good scar, or a sketch of an old flame in their pocket.

 

[DragonLancer]

Monsters and NPC's have maximum HP unless I deem otherwise.

My reason is a simple one. Players only have to look after one character. As DM I need to handle everyone and this sometimes means that players can be too effective. Maxing out HP gives me as DM some breathing room and makes fights more heroic and memorable.

 

[Water Bob]

I also like to try and find(find, since I can't draw worth a damn) pictures to go with them.

Yes, Google Images is my friend.

But, I have to sneak around work and print out these rather expensive color photos...and...I find that I spend more time looking for the "right" photo than it takes me to completely detail an NPC!

I don't do the rolling of HP though(or rather, I didn't, back before 4e when hit die were still a thing). I understand how it can add to the feel of individuality, but I find that it comes under the heading of things that the players could notice, in theory, but generally don't, in play.

That's an interesting comment, and well taken. Food for thought on my side.

Still, it seems my sense of "fairness" to the players makes me want to make some monsters weaker than others. For example, if the PCs run into 6 goblins, I like to find the "leader" among them, usually (barring other factors) the one with the most HP. And, I look at their HP when I describe what the gobbies look like. The shy on HP ones are thin and frail compared to the beefier, muscular ones with more HP.

Monsters and NPC's have maximum HP unless I deem otherwise.

My reason is a simple one. Players only have to look after one character. As DM I need to handle everyone and this sometimes means that players can be too effective. Maxing out HP gives me as DM some breathing room and makes fights more heroic and memorable.

Interesting point of view. Again, it's well taken.

I wonder, though....every monster maxed out? Wow. If you count up all the bad guys a PC faces in his character career...do you have a lot of PC deaths in your game?

Just curious....it seems that as long as you have the same number of HP for each type of monster, the same point is served (easier on the GM). Why not use the standard averaging method, where each monster has an "average" number of HP?




NOTE: I'm glad I started this thread. I already picked up a couple of cool GM tweaks to consider.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some I roll, some I don't.

If I don't, I figure out how many HD the creature has (and what type) and pick a number. For example, a creature with 6d8 HD of average toughness and no constitution will be getting 6*4.5, or 27HP. OTOH, if that creature has a very tough buddy of the same approximate level, he might get 6*7.5 (45) + Con bonus (18), for a total of 63HP.

But their leader? He'll probably get rolled up. He may have fewer HP, but he will probably be more competent, and thus, a bigger challenge.

 

[DragonLancer]

Interesting point of view. Again, it's well taken.

I wonder, though....every monster maxed out? Wow. If you count up all the bad guys a PC faces in his character career...do you have a lot of PC deaths in your game?

No, not really. Not to monsters anyway. It's usually traps that get them. I would say in a typical campaign (1st through 12+ ) there are 3-4 character deaths.

Just curious....it seems that as long as you have the same number of HP for each type of monster, the same point is served (easier on the GM). Why not use the standard averaging method, where each monster has an "average" number of HP?

Because they die too easily. It comes back to what I said about players having one character to consider attacks, tactics, defence, spells, items...etc. As DM I need to consider that for everything. Low levels and what I call nuisance fights (the little griblies) I give the average HP.
Some might say giving max is too much, but I have players who don't min-max (casual play as opposed to min-max being bad) and would rather have the challenge, especially on the big bads and villains.

 

[Water Bob]

Because they die too easily.

I actually play the Conan RPG, not D&D. All the weapon damages are upped. Many do 1d10. A huge, honkin', two-handed warsword does 2-18 (1d10 + 1d8). Plus, Massive Damage is lowered to just 20 points. Armor reduces damage. Weapons have penetration values. And, even shields are marked with a damage rating in case the player decides is PC wants to use it to bash into his enemy's face, not to defend himself. And, it's quite viable to defend one's self in a loin cloth due to the Parry and Dodge defense styles.

Players respect combat, let me tell you. It's not like D&D where the fighter wades in because he's got a lot of hit points. It's easy in this game to kill something several levels higher than you, or be killed by something several hit dice lower than you. I find that the players are very tactical in the game, setting up ambushes, getting creative, keeping people hidden, and what not. That's the way to win battles in this dangerous game.

And, it's a game that "lives" in the low levels, 1-10. In a character's career, he can live and die and never see an NPC higher than 10th level.

Fantastic game.

Anyway, one of the things I like about it is that at least half of the foes characters meet are other humans--which are dangerous. This isn't a game where the PCs run into 6 or 8 goblins. It's a game where the PCs might run into 4 bandits, each as strong as they are.

 

[billd91]

I roll the hit points of major monsters and NPCs. It's only fair since I make them roll their PCs' hit points.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I almost always roll them. Usually, I'm running original D&D and using d6s for hit dice. I have a bunch of d6s. I'll roll the monster hit points and use the dice to keep track of them.

 

[Treebore]

No, not really. Not to monsters anyway. It's usually traps that get them. I would say in a typical campaign (1st through 12+ ) there are 3-4 character deaths.



Because they die too easily. It comes back to what I said about players having one character to consider attacks, tactics, defence, spells, items...etc. As DM I need to consider that for everything. Low levels and what I call nuisance fights (the little griblies) I give the average HP.
Some might say giving max is too much, but I have players who don't min-max (casual play as opposed to min-max being bad) and would rather have the challenge, especially on the big bads and villains.

Besides, you always have the option of taking some away if for some reason the encounter ends up too tough. I prefer starting high and lowering as needed.

So in reality MAX HP is what they can have, and are assumed to have, but I may adjust that down ward if the encounter is too tough. If its still to easy, then it goes too easy.