HD Gone?

[Gort]

To be honest, Nifft, your objections seem more a problem with your players memorising the hit points of every monster in the Monster Manual rather than a problem with fixed hitpoints.

Your players honestly (for instance) know that an athach has 133 hit points, count every point of damage done to it, and feel cheated if it dies faster or slower?

That's mind-blowing.

Edit: Oh, I see. You're implying that this would happen. Your implication is instead mind-blowing. Nobody is going to memorise the Monster Manual unless you just use one type of monster and never alter it in any way.

 

[Nifft]

To be honest, Nifft, your objections seem more a problem with your players memorising the hit points of every monster in the Monster Manual rather than a problem with fixed hitpoints.

Your players honestly (for instance) know that an athach has 133 hit points, count every point of damage done to it, and feel cheated if it dies faster or slower?

That's mind-blowing.

Would be, but you're wrong. My objection is with rewarding them if they did that.

What they do is:

1/ Summon stuff. So they know a subset of HP ranges right there.

2/ Remember how much damage they've done to important critters in combat. They're smart, it's not that hard to add, and if the critter has no DR, it's a very nice back up calculation for me. Even with DR, they keep a reasonable measure of which critter is more wounded, so they don't have to ask me. It's generally very beneficial... so long as critters don't always have the same number of HP.

- - -

I guess I'm supposed to flame back with something about how your group is too dumb to do addition? Let's not do that -- everyone has their own play style.

I'm sure you actually can tell the difference between secret DM fudging and the DM announcing "Oh hey guys, never mind, I just decided he's dead." I'm sure you can picture the difference in player reaction, even if they don't say out loud that they feel cheated.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Doug McCrae]

I guess I'm supposed to flame back with something about how your group is too dumb to do addition? Let's not do that -- everyone has their own play style.

You win at the internet.

 

[Archmage]

I'm sure you actually can tell the difference between secret DM fudging and the DM announcing "Oh hey guys, never mind, I just decided he's dead." I'm sure you can picture the difference in player reaction, even if they don't say out loud that they feel cheated.

Cheers, -- N

So they add up the hit points they've done to a meanie and A) it's dead before the last one they killed died or B) the last one was dead by now and this one is still going. How do they know if you're fudging or if you just decided to vary the hit points? I think you're really pushing it to make this out to be a bigger issue than it should be.

I decide on monster hit points without rolling all the time - sometimes I do roll, sometimes I use the average, sometimes I fix the number higher or lower than the average for various reasons. That's not even what I would call a house rule, that's just part of encounter design. I honestly don't see anything that would stop a DM from doing the exact same thing given the 4e stat block (HD equivalence should be easily determined once we have more than a sneak peek).

Rob

 

[Nifft]

So they add up the hit points they've done to a meanie and A) it's dead before the last one they killed died or B) the last one was dead by now and this one is still going. How do they know if you're fudging or if you just decided to vary the hit points?

They don't know. And that's exactly what allows me room to fudge.

They also don't bother to track exact HP for critters between fights. Because they know it wouldn't be rewarded. They know that monster HP are somewhat random.

But if the rules said that all Huge Red Dragons have exactly 250 HP, they'd remember that, because they're smart -- not because they're trying to cheat.

- - -

I'm good at house rules. I'm not worried about my ability to create a fair variable HP rule for monsters in 4e. But I'd rather 4e worked right by default.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Umbran]

Nobody is going to memorise the Monster Manual unless you just use one type of monster and never alter it in any way.

I will put this indelicately - you're talking about gamers - a group that includes folks who can frequently get to the point of being able to play Magic: the Gathering without actually reading the full text on the cards. Some people will memorize the stats - not out of some insane need to win, but just because they are rules-monkeys who retain such information well.

Once you know a thing, you can't un-know it. Having a monster's hit points be randomized protects the players from their own excesses of knowledge - they don't have to work as much to avoid using the meta-game knowledge, because they don't have it.

 

[Vigilance]

I still think we're going to have MORE randomness not less on monster HP (and this is a total surmise on my part).

I think A) monsters will go from level 1-30 with variable HD and B) the monster's role will alter the die size, meaning a skirmisher might have d6, while a brute might have d10.

 

[Paraxis]

I still think we're going to have MORE randomness not less on monster HP (and this is a total surmise on my part).

I agree with that part 100%.

I think A) monsters will go from level 1-30 with variable HD and B) the monster's role will alter the die size, meaning a skirmisher might have d6, while a brute might have d10

A) I think they will have a range of levels for most monsters but I wouldn't hold my breath for 1-30 of every monster or even most, but say a range of 1-10 for orcs would be good. In fact if they broke up monsters buy the 1-10,11-20,21-30 method that would rock.

B) Thinking of D6 or D10 is no longer valid those are hit dice, but yes I agree that skirmishers might have 5 hit points per level + Con bonus and brutes might have 10 hit points per level + Con bonus.

Another idea for flexibility, they said there would be different templates or something for minions and masterminds , maybe minions have less hit points.

 

[Archmage]

They don't know. And that's exactly what allows me room to fudge.

They also don't bother to track exact HP for critters between fights. Because they know it wouldn't be rewarded. They know that monster HP are somewhat random.

But if the rules said that all Huge Red Dragons have exactly 250 HP, they'd remember that, because they're smart -- not because they're trying to cheat.

- - -

I'm good at house rules. I'm not worried about my ability to create a fair variable HP rule for monsters in 4e. But I'd rather 4e worked right by default.

Cheers, -- N

But will the rules say "all Huge Red Dragons have exactly 250 HP?" The monster manual entry may say 250 hp, but (and I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know) that doesn't mean all red dragons have to have 250 hp. I think that either you're doing your players a disservice by suggesting they'd hold you to that, or you need new players

Maybe a valid argument is that "Yes, but hit dice provide a workable range for monster hit points." A young adult red dragon (huge) has 19d12 HD +95 (218 hp), but is a range of 115 to 323 really any more arbitrary than just giving a base line (the 218) and having the DM decide how many the creature actually has? There's obviously a tremendous difference in the challenge presented by a 115-hp dragon vs a 323-hp dragon, and it's up to the DM to decide if the number he rolls (or chooses) is appropriate for his PCs. I don't think you need the upper and lower bounds set by a number of hit dice to make that call.

Rob

 

[Pygon]

It will be interesting to find out how spells that affect a certain number of hit dice are handled in 4e. Perhaps they now affect total hit points' worth?

As for how to assign hp to a creature we set up, it's likely related to the XP they are to be worth when setting up the encounter.

I wonder if a 500 hp dragon will be worth double the XP of a 250 hp one - that wasn't even so in 1e, with the base + XP/hp formula...