More Hit Points

[calithena]

One of the lessons of the con game this weekend was that single tough monsters are no match for parties of adventurers. I knew this, having experienced it for years, but somehow I had forgotten just how much hurt parties could dish out in old D&D relative to the amount of HP people have.

I would say that to be a credible challenge for a party of 8 5th-10th level adventurers, you need to be 20+ HD. There are no monsters like that in the books.

So, I guess the lesson I'm taking away is that I need to up the hit dice for certain big monsters that groups take on solo.

[makofan]

HP != Toughness

It's about Special Abilities baby!

[kesher]

You know, that's a good point. Sure, big parties have a lot of collective hp, but it's their particular arsenal of spells and magic items that make them truly dangerous. I would imagine a medium hd creature with a portfolio of special abilities, cleverly played, could do some damage...

[coffee]

Nov 24, 2008 18:27:47 GMT -6 calithena said:

So, I guess the lesson I'm taking away is that I need to up the hit dice for certain big monsters that groups take on solo.

Or just don't send these monsters in solo; send in two or three. Or give them allies.

[jcstephens]

Better tactics would be helpful as well.

[calithena]

I think there are times where you need monsters with more than 100 hit points, sometimes more than 200. The Single Big Monster is a legitimate thing to want to have sometimes.

You don't have to put such monsters in your games of course.

[Finarvyn]

I did a mathematical analysis of OD&D some years ago (maybe I can find some of the results if anyone is interested) and came up with some interesting results. Essentially, I looked at the points of damage a character could inflict against a "standard redshirt" and looked at the number of rounds a character could last against a similar standard and used those numbers to arrive at a general combat strength.

Where this notion ties into this particular thread was Phase II of that project, where I tried to match up a character against a larger number of the standard foes. Because of the multiple attacks and such, I found that the combat strenth of the mass of foes seemed increase more like the square of the number of foes who could attack in a given round. In other words, two men-at-arms attacking together seemed to have the effect of four, three fighting together worked more like nine, and so on. (Again, I would have to find my notes to reconstruct the logic that led me to this conclusion, since it sounds too high as I type it.)

Reverse the scenario and we have the D&D adventure. A band of characters fighting a single opponent (such as an ogre) tends to fight a lot better than an equivalent number of hit dice equal to the monster. Two 2nd level fighters seem to be able to take down the ogre becasue they have similar hit point totals but double the attacks and therefore double the potential damage.

My plan years ago was to construct a way to balance encounters a bit more, and maybe I need to go back to tinker with this again. Phase III was going to include spell use, and I found that this got to be tricky in a hurry....

[Deleted]

The chainsaw effect of multiple attackers on any creature comes from the combat system being used, adding more hit points is like throwing another log on the pile.

The Alternative Combat System of ODD compares the Attackers Level (or HD) to the Defenders Armor Class. I stopped the slaughter of my not so innocent NPC's and monsters by modifying the Alternative Combat System Attack Matrix.

Everything uses the same table.
Use column "level 1-3", re-label it "0".
Disregard all other columns.
Compare the levels of the two combatants.
Add or subtract this amount from the listed "to hit" number for that armor class.
Numbers under 1 "to Hit" are auto kills/capture.
Numbers over 20 usually mean your running in fear.

So, for the example of two 2nd level Fighters fighting an Ogre (4+1 HD = level 5). Each Fighter would need a 17 to hit the Ogre (5 - 2) + 14 from the chart for AC 5. In return (if the Fighters had the same AC), the Ogre would need an 11 (2 - 5) + 14 from the chart.

In the other example of eight 5th to 10th level Characters, try a 12 HD Dragon AC 2. Only 9th or 10th level Characters could attack the Dragon without "Special Aid" needing a 19 or 20 to Hit. While this Dragon would need a 10 to hit a 5th level AC2 PC, and a 15 to hit a 10th level AC2 PC.

I used this system for many years and it really works to bring the Dragons back into the game.

[Zulgyan]

I'm perflectly OK with the relevance OD&D might put in band numbers. I think that´s quite relevant in real life combat too. In any case, it´s something that plays both for and against PCs. I like the fact that low level critters can still be relevant in high levels.

[dwayanu]

Supplement One often changes combat and the single monster a bit with higher damage per attack and / or multiple attacks per combat turn -- especially effective in combination!

IIRC, The Dragon #50 included an article on making dragons tougher.

When total HP are on par, it's the ratio of damage dealt that's telling. If a single monster is a match for a party in that regard as well, then the advantage in the long run lies with it. That's because some fraction of total HP in damage can produce a casualty that henceforth reduces the party's output. It happens sooner if the monster concentrates on hitting one foe, but multiple attacks can allow more efficiency by avoiding overkill.

I think the original trilogy gives a different "power curve," in which supernormal types are more quickly able to best powerful monsters in single combat.

The approach rabbit described is nifty. Note, though, that the situation produced at high levels is significantly different from that in standard D&D.

You end up with the same basic chances to hit, rather than extremely easy ones. One result is that fights among high-level combatants tend to take longer. That may be appealing, or not; it's just something that might not leap out immediately.

[waysoftheearth]

I've been wondering about this same thing. I like the idea that single large monsters are much tougher and scarier than the PCs -- they are meant to be monsters after all. But their numbers don't seem to stack up, at least not against a party of PCs.

Then I saw this (Monsters and Treasure p. 5):

Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e., a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll.

Which I read to mean: monsters, similar to fighting-men, are allowed one attack per hit die versus 1 HD normal men.

But what if large monsters were allowed more attacks?

For instance, unless a monster is specifically described otherwise (like the Hydra), then allow large humanoids (like Ogres and Trolls) 2 attacks per round -- or a single attack which might hit 2 adjacent targets if you prefer.

Even larger monsters (like Giants and Dinosaurs) could be allowed progressively more attacks. A charging Triceratops, for instance, might be allowed to hit 4 PCs with its charge, rather than simply stopping in its tracks after hitting the front ranked fighting-man.

In general, it looks to me as though allowing 1 attack per 3 HD (or part thereof) is about right. This might help make larger monsters more monstrous -- even terrifying

[waysoftheearth]

I agree with Rabbit's post too -- adding more hit points is not a good solution.

Adding more hit-points is more or less what was done with each successive edition of D&D. Then end result is a cumbersome inflation of numbers to track. I have heard that there are now some monsters with over 1,000 hit-points in 4e -- though I haven't checked myself.

I think it comes down to getting the right balance between hit-points and damage output. Some of the OD&D monsters may match a PC party for hit-points, but they rarely match a PC party for damage output -- especially as the PCs gain powerful magic spell or magic items.

Which I guess is why I suggested additional attacks (read increased damage output) in my previous post.

[makofan]

On the attack front: I have my gelatinous cubes simply do a 'move thru' on whom it is attacking. He can engulf four characters at once!

[waysoftheearth]

Alternatively, one could tinker with the other side of the hit-points equation.

Instead of thinking about increased hit points for monsters, what about decreased hit-points for PCs? This could bring party hit-points more in line with the realistic damage output of monsters, making monsters more dangerous and avoiding numbers inflation.

I don't imagine this idea would be wildly popular with players, but just as an example, the DM could decide to give everyone (including the PCs) 1 HD to start (equivalent of 0th level). Then PCs could gain additional hit-dice each level -- including 1st level.

Fighting-men could gain half a hit die per level, clerics could gain one third of a hit die per level, and magic-users could gain one quarter of a hit die per level.

Scary huh?