Maximum Hit Points

[joela]

If you give a monster its maximum hitpoints, does that change its Challenge Rating (CR)?

 

[Crothian]

Maybe

I think it would depend on the monster and abilities.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Prior to 4e's inception, I created a 'minion' template for 3e, as well as an 'elite' template. The latter included maximum HP (and the former included minimum HP, incidentally).

Anyway, I decided that the LA (I eschewed the use of CR altogether a while back, in favour of ECL across the board) should scale with, well, ECL actually. I'm not sure how I would configure *just* max. HP, especially going back to CR on top of that. . .

But anyway, yeah, what Crothian said.

 

[Alzrius]

If you give a monster its maximum hitpoints, does that change its Challenge Rating (CR)?

This comes up in Bad Axe Games's Trailblazer. It recommends that if you want to make a monster into an "elite" monster, double its hit points (and give it 1 action point) - this doesn't increase their CR.

Since monsters use the average of their Hit Dice, which is just slightly over half, this is almost the same as giving them maximum hit points per die (it's actually a bit more, since Trailblazer's method also doubles hit points from a high Con score). Hence, that seems to lay down that maximum hp alone doesn't warrant a CR increase.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This comes up in Bad Axe Games's Trailblazer. It recommends that if you want to make a monster into an "elite" monster, double its hit points (and give it 1 action point) - this doesn't increase their CR.

Since monsters use the average of their Hit Dice, which is just slightly over half, this is almost the same as giving them maximum hit points per die (it's actually a bit more, since Trailblazer's method also doubles hit points from a high Con score). Hence, that seems to lay down that maximum hp alone doesn't warrant a CR increase.

It's complicated, and as Crothian mentioned, highly dependent on the critter in question. For creatures packing asymmetric threats (think beholder, or mind flayer) the extra hit points will grant longevity, which permits the critter more rounds to live and hence more actions, which ultimately exposes the players to more danger.

Lanchester's Square Law gets involved here, too, but let's not get too deep into that.

Rather, in summary of Lanchester's, consider that two creatures have the same number of hit points as one creature with double hit points-- but two creatures have twice as many actions, and they force the players to divide their actions.

As we all know by now, two creatures increases the EL by +2-- ergo the increase must be less than CR+2, and I posit it's considerably less.

One creature-- albeit with twice as many hit points-- has half as many actions and is likely to die twice as fast under the combined fire of 4 PCs.

You can't ignore the effects of doubling/maximizing hit points, but neither does it necessarily raise the CR by +1. In concert with other things that make an encounter more difficult (allied creatures, terrain, etc.), perhaps it's worth a +1 bump.

My inclination is to round it down to +0-- but I am a rat bastard.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

The difference between average and maximum is negligible for all but high HD Dragons, Undead, and Constructs. Less than the damage dealt by an extra sneak attack or spell, or a couple of clean hits by the Fighter or Monk.

I just use full HD for everything. PCs, NPCs, monsters. Some things shouldn't be random, and some of my players whine about "average" HD-- even rounded up-- because they insist that they'd do better rolling.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Some things shouldn't be random, and some of my players whine about "average" HD-- even rounded up-- because they insist that they'd do better rolling.

On the weeks where your D&D game is on hiatus, I highly recommend playing poker with those players instead.

 

[drothgery]

I just use full HD for everything. PCs, NPCs, monsters. Some things shouldn't be random, and some of my players whine about "average" HD-- even rounded up-- because they insist that they'd do better rolling.

Unless stats and HP are rolled in front of rat-bastard DMs who watch their players like a hawk, you will almost certainly end up with better than statistically average results, unless you're playing with a bunch of lawful good players.

 

[Nikosandros]

Unless stats and HP are rolled in front of rat-bastard DMs who watch their players like a hawk, you will almost certainly end up with better than statistically average results, unless you're playing with a bunch of lawful good players.

Hmm... if we are generating stats by rolling, I'll check them and besides I really wouldn't want to play with fellows who cheat on their dice rolls.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

In my gestalt game, i was already giving the players and NPCs max first HD and 3/4 of all the others. But the players were doing SO much damage I ended up maxing any "boss" or important NPC's hp. The original reasoning was to give them a buffer zone of hp so they could fight as long as the 3/4 HD enemies and still have time to try and escape or do something else interesting.

In time, that turned into just giving every enemy full hp, just because the party's onslaught was so great. The whole time the transition happened, I was afraid to take that step because I didn't want to make battlefield control spells, save-or-dies, tripping, etc... even MORE advantageous than damage dealing. But the PCs largely ignored those things for damage, so it didn't unbalance anything in that game. (It may have also helped that as a gestalt game, everyone's saves were really high and thus save-or-dies / save-or-sucks were only rarely a viable tactic).