HD Gone?

[Nifft]

If the "bloodied" rule applies to all creatures (which I hope not, but I'm quite sure it does), soon we'll learn to figure it out quite easily by counting how much damage the monster was dealt before it got blooded.

And that's fine -- for individual monsters.

I just don't want players to be rewarded for thinking about such meta-game stuff. Or for them to feel cheated if the numbers don't match up with what they expect.

Cheers, -- N

EDIT: To be more clear: I expect attacks to deal more than one point of damage, so knowing that a critter is now "bloodied" only gives the players a range of numbers which could be the half-way mark. So long as they don't know exactly, I can fudge a bit.

 

[Shroomy]

I'd have to think that hit points are determined by a combination or level, role, and Con modifier. The players would have to determine all three to really guestimate the hit points.

 

[The Little Raven]

So players don't know exactly how dead the monsters are.

Anyone with abilities that activate upon the enemy becoming Blooded will have a good chance of estimating an enemy's hit points, since most indications show us that Bloodied occurs at 1/2 hit points.

 

[Nifft]

Anyone with abilities that activate upon the enemy becoming Blooded will have a good chance of estimating an enemy's hit points, since most indications show us that Bloodied occurs at 1/2 hit points.

They'll know a range, and that's fine with me. As long as I have some room to fudge. (Them knowing a range is exactly what they know now.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Imp]

It's easy enough to add variations to a monster's hit points ad-hoc, which is what I'd be doing under such a scheme, and what I usually do in 3e starting from the average hp figure anyway. I can see why this change would get under people's skin, but it wouldn't functionally affect me much, until somebody tells me that by adding house-ruled randomness I am Throwing Off The Delicately Pre-Designed Balance Of The Game or whatever.

 

[Lanefan]

Back to the broader question here: should a monster's combat ability (expressed as HD or HD+level) or type (mook, brute, boss, etc.) have any bearing on its base hit points?

It's a nice efficient mechanic to say they do...in every previous edition HD has represented both at once and saving throws as well. But can they...and should they...all be broken out, such that hit points are independent of combat ability and both are independent of saving throws? I think they should, and it seems the 4e designers agree at least for saves.

For most common monsters the end result would likely be about the same as we're used to. But for things like constructs, demons, undead...the oddball stuff...designers and DMs could have a field day!

Lanefan

 

[Vigilance]

Back to the broader question here: should a monster's combat ability (expressed as HD or HD+level) or type (mook, brute, boss, etc.) have any bearing on its base hit points?

It's a nice efficient mechanic to say they do...in every previous edition HD has represented both at once and saving throws as well. But can they...and should they...all be broken out, such that hit points are independent of combat ability and both are independent of saving throws? I think they should, and it seems the 4e designers agree at least for saves.

For most common monsters the end result would likely be about the same as we're used to. But for things like constructs, demons, undead...the oddball stuff...designers and DMs could have a field day!

Lanefan

We know there are going to be minion monsters and elite monsters, and that elites will be tougher than normal monsters, while minions will be less powerful than normal monsters.

I really have the impression that making monsters variable will be much easier than in previous editions, and I think that's why we're being told the Bone Devil's level and not its HD.

If all monsters have classes now, variation just became much more granular. Orcs can go from level 1-30 just like PCs.

 

[Nifft]

It's easy enough to add variations to a monster's hit points ad-hoc, which is what I'd be doing under such a scheme, and what I usually do in 3e starting from the average hp figure anyway.

For me it's more a matter of player expectations.

In all previous editions, they've known that monsters have a variable number of HP, so they don't invest too much in learning or remembering exactly how many HP each monster has.

If monsters have fixed HP, I'll just have to make it a prominent house rule that, in fact, they don't. My first 4e house rule. :\

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't like random hit points that much, because they might screw around a monsters balance in unexpected ways. Okay, I admit, considering that CR is just a rough guideline in practice, that might not really be important.

But as a possible house rule if you want to keep random hit points, how about this:
Reduce the monsters HD by 25 %. Divice 25 % percent of its hit points by 3,5 and roll that number of d6. Add that number to the HD. You keep the same average, but have some variations (but not too much. Though admittedly, at higher levels you will roll so many dice that the "law of averages" will cancel most outliers anyway)

Okay, it's probably nothing you couldn't come up with yourself (and something you might have to discuss in your group to avoid them relying on meta-game assumptions), but it at least shows that adding random hit points back isn't that difficult.

 

[delericho]

I would have thought hit dice was tied tightly to level, so there seems little point in listing both.

It's also possible that the "stats for use" of the monster aren't exactly the same as the "design stats" for the monster. That is, the Monster Manual might include more detail on monster stats than do the DDM stat cards, to allow DMs to more easily adjust and customise the monsters. "Showing the working" as it were.