Hit Points--A study of humanoids.

[Kingreaper]

Oh. Man.

One of my favorite meta-D&D moments, from wayyy back when we were kids:

One of the worst DM's ever ruled that if you decided to disbelieve an illusion, that wasn't an illusion, you would cause yourself to be unable to see the not-illusion you were disbelieving.

"I disbelieve in his/her clothing" is the appropriate immature response to that.

 

[Amaroq]

Lmao!

 

[the Jester]

Sorry guys but I know all about that particular quote and I whole-heartedly disagree with it. That particular bit of fluff is total rubbish, imho.

@Fanaelialae

That quote from the 1st edition PHB was really helpful. I've never read that book and I doubt I'll ever have the chance, so thanks for including that.

I think it comes down to a fundamental difference in perception that I have from many others when it coms to what HP represent. An analogy: some people say that money is a measure of a person's success in life. Others say money is a catalyst for confict, or the root of all evil. I see $$$ as nothing deeper than it's physical implications: it is a way to purchase goods and service. Nothing more. Everything else is existential to that. Kind of like how I see HP. Hit points are physical damage.
Luck, fortune, will to survive/persevere....all addressed by other things.

The problem here is that you're having an issue understanding an aspect of the game because you have chosen to change how another aspect of the game works.

If you fight a 350-hp goblin, most of the hits you get on him are scratches, bumps, near misses and such. This is explicitly stated in every edition of D&D from at least 1e onward. If you don't like it, that's fine, but that is the intent of the game- and you are absolutely right that it's much harder to reconcile a humanoid with that many hit points if it's just physical damage.

But that is a problem you are creating yourself.

Really, if hps are only physical damage, you should regrade everything in the game's hit points. No humanoid should have more hps than any adult horse; so the problem really starts in the neighborhood of 20-40 hps. More than that doesn't make sense, if you insist that hps are just physical damage.

 

[Rachel]

Do you disagree with the games fluff and then imply that something doesn't make sense anymore? The fluff you don't like explains the things that you disagree with.

Whatever this is supposed to mean, it sure doesn't sound like anything I've ever intended/intimated/insinuated on this topic....

I've always regarded hit points as 'more than physical endurance', but everyone else is free to interpret rules as they like.

And I do interpret them differently (as pure damage measurements).

Some people prefer that AC and dice handle luck, and that HP is physical endurance. You can do this, but you don't have to change monster HP when you do.

I looked at altering HP on monsters for entirely different reasons (which I have stressed over 4 topic pages).

Keep in mind that some of these sources of HP make real sense. A rogue is better at rolling with attacks than a fighter, a wizard is surrounded by a field of deflecting force, and any divine classes can be protected by their deity or just insanely zealous. Some of their powers already cover these facets, but there is no reason that HP in general cannot come from these sources.

Everyone knows this (it's elementary). Not really on-topic...

Healing surges are considered part of a player's hit points though. Players have way more than (non-solo) monsters. I would expect each player to have access to at least 2 surges per combat if they needed. My group has one leader, and they can easily access about this much healing.

Even if you assume that a player is fighting a monster on their own (in which case discussions about balance become moot) they still have potions, maybe a few powers, and a second wind as a last resort. (Again, second wind is devalued when you don't have a party).

Some early responders to the topic reminded me about the PC's healing surges and how important they are to balancing their HP totals compared to monsters. A very important point!

Monster HP are too high in general. Feel free to nerf them and increase damage. If you prefer humanoid monsters to have less HP than monstrous monsters, make it so.

This.

But monster HP is not balanced by comparing to PC HP. Apples and oranges.

It is always fair to compare two things which come into direct conflict.
Apples to apples.

Thanx for responding!

 

[Rachel]

The problem here is that you're having an issue understanding an aspect of the game because you have chosen to change how another aspect of the game works.

Actually, I've chosen to interpret an aspect of the game differently than others. Sorry if you don't care for that. Also, that little rant was something of a cheap shot (to say I don't understand b/c I happen to disagree).

If you fight a 350-hp goblin, most of the hits you get on him are scratches, bumps, near misses and such. This is explicitly stated in every edition of D&D from at least 1e onward. If you don't like it, that's fine, but that is the intent of the game- and you are absolutely right that it's much harder to reconcile a humanoid with that many hit points if it's just physical damage.

Fair enough.

But that is a problem you are creating yourself.

Harsh. Thanks for demeaning what I consider to be a legitimate question for debate by more-or-less tagging it as a "personal problem".

Really, if hps are only physical damage, you should regrade everything in the game's hit points. No humanoid should have more hps than any adult horse; so the problem really starts in the neighborhood of 20-40 hps. More than that doesn't make sense, if you insist that hps are just physical damage.

I absolutely never said I wanted to get all crazy with it and try to balance everything with everything else and even with the real life natural world.
I merely suggested that maybe humanoid monsters could use a bit of a shave in the HP department. You make it sound as if my intent was something much more dramatic. You've gone a bit overboard there.

Thanx for responding.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Here is what you wrote in your initial post:

So, am I way off here thinking that we should totally lower humanoid monster HP to more reasonable amounts, all other things being comparative? Am I on to something or way off?

My comment is - you are way off. For the reasons already outlined. And a few additional ones:
Let's say you do what you suggest - reduce hit points, and to make monster still worth their level, give them extra benefits. What does this mean? Does this mean they get more powerful attacks? More powerful attacks than those of Dragons or Beholders and other non-humanod monsters? Does that make sense to you? Will every humanoid monster now have strong magical abilities? Or will humanoid monsters that just use weapons now have more attacks, or deal more damage with them than they did before? How does that compare to the PCs?
Or will you just rule that non-magical humanoids can't have a higher level than, say, 10 so they don't have too many hit points? Are higher level humanoids automatically rife with magical powers for their powerful offense, or are they all some kind of mob/swarm type of creature. (So if it says Dragonborn Champion - Level 16 it is actually Dragon Horde - Level 16).
But what about the player characters then? Will the stop gaining hit points at a certain level?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A certain realization about Hit Points has been bouncing around in my head for a while now, and I want to put it out there b/c I don't know if I'm on to something, or what?

Theory: Humanoid monsters have too many Hit Points. Far too many.
Controls: My Gnome fighter vs. some Orcs (a common low-mid lvl foe).

Reasoning and "The Math":

When she reaches 4th level, she will have 52 HP vs. the Orc Berserker's (Level 4 Brute) 66. Already she is getting a bit outclassed, considering that--as a fighter--she is very likely to be going directly up against this monster. (Bear in mind, we are looking at one-on-one matchups simply b/c it is assumed that both will have teammates assisting them and factoring what help they may or not be is beyond the scope of this theory).

Continuing, a 4th Level Orc encounter as given in the MM (pg. 205) would see two of these Berserkers, along with 2 Raiders and 1 Dire Boar. Assuming their are 5 PCs, it is even odds numerically. Again, Myria is likely to be facing one of these Berserker's dead-on.
And as we see, just looking at HP, Myria is "behind the eightball" already. This only gets worse....

Yes, but this monster is a brute. It has more hit points but it also has weaker defenses and a lower accuracy. In any case you're character has an HS value of 13, so even assuming nothing but Second Wind you have 65 hit points readily available, an action point, a daily power, a magic item daily power use, and possibly other item powers/etc. You also have 2 feats and probably a potion or two. Meanwhile the orc has a 16 point healing power and a basic attack. So yes, its about an even match, and with ANY amount of support from the rest of the party should present no problem.

The issue of teamwork unfortunately can't really be put 'beyond the discussion' either. You and your team mates will certain provide each other flanking and other benefits.

By 9th Level, Myria will have 88 HP (after 6/lvl advances). Compare this with the Level 9 Orc Encounter in the MM. The Orc Chieftain (yes, he is an Elite) has a whopping 216 HP! Now, let's say that Myria's four companions managed to mostly neutralize the 8 companions of the Chieftain (as listed in the encounter--that's 2-1 odds but doiable for PC's working together), it is possible that Myria (again, as a fighter) may be asked to tackle the "big guy". In any game, this should be a big challenge, but doable. Again, looking at the HP's of Myria and the Chieftain, it looks next to impossible that she could succeed.
(Note: Attacks/Saves and other abilities scale up for both the Orcs and Myria/other PC's, so we are assuming that those are relative equal in terms of capability. Again, we are just looking at HP.)

So what you have, in effect, are two combatants who may be relatively equal in most terms. But! With one (the Orc) having such vastly superior HP, it's almost a no-win for our dear gnomie (excluding some amazing luck). It's 88 HP vs. 216 HP!
Now, of course if her allies are up to it and can really help out, say make it 3-on-1 vs. the big baddie Chieftain, this evens out. But in an encounter when the group is already outnumbered 9-5 (again, using 5 PC's vs. the Level 9 Orc Encounter as listed in the MM), Myria's friends may not be able to help much and she may herself not be at 100%.

Except I find your analysis of the encounter to be wanting. 5 of the 9 combatants are minions and have 1 hit point. The warlock or the wizard or the invoker or the sorcerer etc will likely finish those off in round 1 or maybe some will linger to round 2. So the encounter is effectively 4 orcs, one of which is an elite and thus worth about 2 monsters. A STANDARD monster of level 8 has 108 hit points as a brute. This is quite comparable to the PCs 88 hit points plus 22 point guaranteed available surge healing. The Orc Chieftain does effectively have 270 hit points with its healing but again has modest defenses and fairly low attack numbers.

So the answer really is here that you wouldn't fight an Orc Chieftain 1-on-1. You'd maybe hold him off for a round while the other PCs dealt with the minions and got set up to take out the leader. At that point you'd have the assistance of at least 1 other PC all the time. Again cooperation between the PCs will count for a lot and you now have 2 daily powers, 4 encounter powers, and 2 utility powers, plus all your stuff to work with. The Orc has a basic melee attack, a healing power that takes its full standard action for a round, and a recharge power that is useful but not going to shake up the battlefield.

So, am I way off here thinking that we should totally lower humanoid monster HP to more reasonable amounts, all other things being comparative? Am I on to something or way off?

Comments?

I think the way things work now is basically fine. What would the alternative be? That monsters have much higher defenses and do a lot more damage on every attack. The result of which is that frequently a lucky shot by a monster will KO a PC in one attack. The PCs on the flip side are desperately trying to get high numbers so they hit at all against their difficult foes. Sure each hit counts for a lot more but the battle is much less predictable and thus tactics is devalued in favor of high damage attacks that can be gotten off with the least fuss. In essence you're going back to a 3.x style of combat, though maybe not to the same degree.

As far as what is 'realistic' for an orc. Is it that realistic for a gnome to have 88 hit points? Obviously hit points do represent a lot of things besides sheer physical ability to absorb punishment. This has of course been discussed 1000's of times and need not be repeated here. Powerful monsters are powerful because of their mystical nature, training, etc. that gives them the hit points to be able to combat other things of similar levels. The Mind Flayer is far beyond the ability of an orc and thus has a good bit more hit points. If the Orc Chieftain was confronted with the Mind Flayer, he'd most likely either die or yield to its superior power.

My advice is to just shed the whole excessive reliance on simulationism entirely. Embrace 4e for what it is, a cinematic RPG of heroes. Really its not even appreciably less simulationist in any practical sense than any other edition of D&D has ever been. None of them are close to simulating reality at all. Its like worrying about something that is 97% unrealistic and comparing it to something that is only 94% unrealistic. Both situations are totally unrealistic. This is the great thing about 4e, the designers realized that and they write things to be fun and exciting. The 216 hit point Orc Chieftain will take some effort to kill, and that is why it has the right hit points. No other reason is necessary. I say all this as a LONG time player that has slowly evolved past the simulationist phase of gaming and into what I would call higher modes of play. Embrace it and you will be enlightened!

 

[Nytmare]

Embrace it and you will be enlightened!

So what you're saying is that if you see the Orc Chieftan on the side of the road, kill him?

 

[eriktheguy]

Not trying to be a jerk here or anything Rachel, but the idea that HPs describe "more than just physical endurance" fits in really well with your deathblow house rule (for that one attack that just couldn't be dodged, deflected, etc.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Honestly I think 4e has actually done more in this direction than any previous edition of D&D ever did. A character has hit points, representing 'ability to fight' in all its forms. Then they have a bloodied value at which they are presumably in some way showing obvious signs of being worn down, have a minor wound, etc. Then you have unconscious at 0 hit points where you're in real trouble and incapacitated, and finally -bloodied where you're mincemeat.

On top of that you have your healing surges to represent longer term resilience and extra reserves of ability you can call on.

Realistic? No, but it was never realistic in 1e that a character could stand there and let an orc hack on him and not die if he was a fighter of anything above 2nd level. No matter how hard that orc hit him it could not kill him in one blow. Nothing realistic about it at all. Never was, never will be. I think 4e has edged about as far in the direction of gritty and realistic in that sense as an RPG of this type is ever likely to.