To MAX HP or not to MAX HP

[dpkress2]

I've always let my players have max HP, but in turn give my monsters MAX hp. Does this wreck the system?

Lately I've been thinking this is not a good idea, because it just draws out combat. It also ruins the fun of similar monsters with random HP values.

Thoughts? Experiences?

 

[Prakriti]

If you like 3-hour combat sessions, go for it.

It also devalues healing spells.

 

[Mistwell]

I've always let my players have max HP, but in turn give my monsters MAX hp. Does this wreck the system?

Lately I've been thinking this is not a good idea, because it just draws out combat. It also ruins the fun of similar monsters with random HP values.

Thoughts? Experiences?

I don't think it wrecks the system, but as you observed it drags out combat. And as your sessions are limited in length, it likely means the non-combat part of your games get less time because you've extended the time of your combats. It also makes things more predictable. If Target A went down after taking 100 hit points of damage, and Target B is another (from all appearances) of Target A, then the party will expect it will go down with the same 100 hit points of damage. So now you have a longer combat which is also less unpredictable and varied.

For me, I use fixed hit points for PCs (the average, as listed in the PHB), and I use rolled hit points for monsters unless I am in a real time crunch. If I am in a time crunch, I will use the fixed hit points for the monsters, sometimes altering them by a few points up or down just for variation without actually rolling.

 

[mellored]

I do it. Mostly because I think combat's too short to do have tactical battles. No reason to stun someone when you can just kill it. I don't like fireball always being the correct answer.


It does ruin the fun of random HP though. But frankly, that's too much extra rolling for me as the DM anyways.

 

[dpkress2]

I have thought about giving the players a choice. They can use the averages listed in the PHB or they can roll, taking whatever they get.

 

[iserith]

We use average HP for PCs and I generally use average HP for monsters. In some cases, I will max their HP if they are special in some way, perhaps a "leader" or the like. I imagine max HP for both PCs and monsters all the time would draw things out.

 

[MarkB]

For pretty much all my 5e games I've just had players use the averaged values from the PHB. It avoids nasty surprises, without messing with the maths.

 

[cooperjer]

You are correct in that it causes combat to run longer. I give my home game players the option of taking the average or rolling. When rolling re-roll 1s and 2s. They always roll and thus are at about 75% of the typical range for that class. Because of this I set the monsters at 75% of the die range plus con bonus. I give influential NPCs max HP. For example a hydra or aboleth selected by the evil elemental lord of water, Ol'hydra, get max HP.

 

[Enkhidu]

My group's table has done multiple 5e campaigns now, and we've hit upon the following:

* PCs gain max HP as Level 1, and then 1/2 hit die (flat) + 1/2 hit die (random) thereafter. So a 2nd level Fighter would have 15 + 1d5 + (Con Bonus x 2). This has been a good compromise for the table, and is our "new normal."

* Monsters/NPCs get average ("book value") hit points for mooks and normal encounters. The DM will vary this slightly for variety (one or two monsters might have 1/4 HP if they are meant to be "young" or something similar, and leaders will usually have max HP or more).

This has been working well enough across multiple DMs that it's just about SOP for the table.

 

[Li Shenron]

We use average HP for both PC and monsters.

I don't think that using max and thus almost doubling combat length would be a problem. 5e combats are short-ish anyway.