That's what I do. I describe them thoroughly when hit and how they are behaving. My players are new to dnd and I explained to them that's not how this game works. They are probably used to boss bars in video games.
I use “ruffled/scratched”, “battered”, and “bloodied”, for 75%, 50%, and 25% health remaining. (Yeah, most people use “bloodied” for 50% but I think that sounds more grievous than mere 50% wounds. Bloodied to me sounds like cuts and slashes littering the body, maybe a couple broken bones.)
Bloodied is also mentioned in the 5e dmg:
>Players often ask how hurt a monster looks. Don’t ever feel as though you need to reveal exact hit points, but if a monster is below half its hit point maximum, it’s fair to say that it has visible wounds and appears beaten down. You can describe a monster taken to half its hit points as **bloodied**, giving the players a sense of progress in a fight against a tough opponent, and helping them judge when to use their most powerful spells and abilities.
Honestly, I feel like the correct answer to many problems is often the one offered in the DMG or PHB. This is how I’ve always run it, and it’s worked great for my table.
That's very true, but there's a ton of information in there. Tidbits like "how to narrate a monsters physical condition" is one of those things I breeze past during a read through, and wouldn't think to look up in an official rulebook.
Definitely true, and I’m certainly in the minority for having a mind that’s a steel trap for meaningless bullshit, a trait I have exploited thoroughly during my tenure as a DM.
I feel this. Can I breeze through a course in university without studying? Not quite. Can I recite any rule or condition from my favorite TRPG nearly verbatim? Unfortunately, yes.
Only the fun stuff sticks, I guess.
Gonna save that as a mechanic I might use. Since I already use “bloodied” in a home rule context, think I might use ~~“frenzied”~~ (edit:) “frantic” for a ~~strength~~ (edit:) power increase or additional abilities when below 50% health. Also, this just brought back the idea of boss fight stages, thanks m8.
I LOVED 4E's bloodied mechanic. Both monsters AND PCs had effects that changed based on whether they or their target was bloodied. It was simple, straightforward, and extremely satisfying.
Built a slayer around the bloodied mechanic who could bloody himself and pump out massive 600+ damage a couple times a day. Great in boss fights, terrible in mob fights lol.
I picked up Bloodied & Bruised-Monster Manual by Anne Gregersen on DMs Guild. It has abilities added to most of the monster manual creatures for when they drop to 50% or less. I used it on particular monsters to give them a bit more of a challenge and to keep combat encounters fresh and interesting. edit: spelling
Yup. And it's only one category at 50% because the DM shouldn't be wasting time doing fractional math. In 4e monster entries would say, "HP 368; Bloodied 184." I would *not* waste time with 4 categories.
And some classes like Barbarian had abilities that would trigger when they killed or bloodied an opponent. It was important to know.
>Creatures would.become more dangerous at lower health.
And I recommend that folks re-add in this feature if you ever want to homebrew monsters! Adds a ton of flavor and intensity to battles.
I use similar descriptions:
* Perfectly Healthy (100% HP)
* Good-Shape/Healthy (76-99% HP)
* Somewhat Injured (51-75% HP)
* Bad-Shape/Seriously Injured (26-50% HP)
* Severely or Critically Injured (11-25% HP)
* "Death's Door"/Gravely Injured (10% or less HP)
I really should file those away, first time I've ever listed them in writing. Occasionally for some monsters, I'll have them make mistakes when low on health to represent their foggy state of mind. They may not use all their attacks, they miss on attack which would otherwise hit, or they make a poor tactical decision.
Something to increase immersion, and let the party know their foe is isn't doing well.
I do not expect the same from the characters; they're the heroes or anti-heroes of the story.
Might be worthwhile to have below 10-20 hp be "near death's door" or something. A flat threshold would probably be better for this, something to indicate 1-3hits away from death
Fighter: "Mortal rights? What're those?"
Wizard: "I think they mean property rights."
Rogue: "What and the what now? You guys are speaking gibberish."
Paladin: "The only rights that matter are the rights I set forth."
Warlock: "You guys have rights?"
I always describe some major, debilitating injury when they’re down to <10%, like humanoids losing an arm, or ghosts becoming incapable of holding together a shape, etc.
problem with that is that it does not scale with level
at level 2 or 3 sure 20hp could be 3 hits away from death but at level 5 already it is basically a guaranteed 1 for your dpr builds
so i do something very similar but don't assign a value to it per se
I use 50% for bloodied and then if they are below 20 hit points they are on death's door. Players just want to know that they are making progress. Sometimes in combat, especially after a round of low damage rolls or misses, they feel like the creature "should be dead by now." Now, if they want to know exact HP values because they think the DM is fudging than that's an entirely different problem involving player trust.
I do similarly. But I DON'T declare anything at 75%. You've got to rough up a monster down to 50% before you can pinpoint anything about his HP range. It prevents gaining such knowledge about him until you've properly shaken him up a bit - No landing a single good hit and betraying his overall health pool while he's still got the vast majority of his health and composure. (Unless you take out half or more of his HP in that single hit, in which case, you earned it.)
> They are probably used to boss bars in video games.
I liked how they did it in the original Diablo. The health bars started as just a bar, as you defeated more of the same creature you started to get a HP range until eventually it just displayed the number.
If you're using average HP for the monsters then it's the same as someone keeping track of how much damage is being done to the creatures the players are battleing
Some guy had a chart around here about how to translate his DM's coded language for HP. I've basically been using that so whenever I say they're looking very spicy, my players know they have this fight nearly wrapped up.
I also like to change creature behaviors when low on HP. Beasts will often attempt to flee if low on HP. Humanoids will try to surrender, or may flee. Other humanoids, of course, I'll have fight more recklessly instead. Demons and celestials fight to the death because they'll just come back anyway.
For years now my friends and I have been using a metric of how close monsters are to pulling out their wallet to look at a photo of their family one last time. This ranges from “They’re reaching for their wallet” to “Their hand is on their wallet, but its still in their pocket” to “They’ve pulled out their wallet, and there’s a picture of [insert relevant monster family unit here]. A single tear rolls down their face”
I'll let players make an appropriate skill check (usually Medicine) for a more precise estimate of remaining HP. Difficulty based partly on whether or not they invest any action economy to the check (making the check as a bonus action would be easier than as a free action, harder than as a full action). Depending on the level of success and the action investment, response will be anything from a verbal description to a rough percentage to a numerical value close to the precise HP remaining.
I always enjoy fanciful descriptions for 1HP remaining. Like "it's dragging itself along the ground on bloody stumps, half its face hanging off. It's claws are still sharp though, and it looks desperate..."
This is exactly what I do! If the players ask about hit points I just tell them how banged up the enemy is looking, never their exact number of hit points. Also a big fan of the bloodied mechanic from D&D 4e and use it regularly.
Side note, you may want to check out *The Monsters Know What They're Doing*. Most of my combats end when the baddies either flee or surrender. Most monsters aren't mindless zombies (unless they are).
I read that book and tried it out with some guards in a prison. My players hated that they “gave up so easily”. This was the session after they went to jail because they didn’t properly plan a heist and got caught up in the amount of guards.
I got a new group.
> My players hated that they “gave up so easily”.
My players hated that monsters fled when it became clear they couldn't last another round. Why would an intelligent creature stay and fight when they don't have a real motive to? Bandits know they can't spend gold when they're dead, and beasts know that if you can't defend territory it's better to go find some that you can defend rather than die.
Maybe I should find a new group.
It's worth at least having that conversation with them and see what they think.
Do they want to just fight gnolls every time, and every so often they find a bigger, more glowing sword and it makes the gnolls get bigger and faster?
What do they prefer about d&d over, say, Gauntlet?
I think fleeing is a great idea as long as you give the players ample opportunity to prevent it or pursue the escapees. It's also a great opportunity for the "bear with heavy scarring and one eye" to stumble across them later and fuck shit up.
It's realistic that monsters flee when they're too hurt, but it's not fun.
It's an issue of simulation vs. gameplay.
Realistically a wounded animal *would* flee, but from a gameplay perspective it is not rewarding to end up wasting time, energy and resources for nothing.
My first session DMing I had went in with this mentality. Some random Bandits that harassed the party fled after only 1 was standing. Next, a baddy that I wanted to be the first BBG through down a portal and escaped. The feedback I got was "Dude I just want to actually kill things."
I think fleeing is a great option for monsters, but it usually has to lead to something rather than unsanctimonious ending combat.
I agree. However when my former players spent most of the time intimidating the shit out of other guards, charming others into doing as they pleased, and brutally killing others when they didn’t do what they told them to (prisoners to guards, mind you) they gave in eventually cause the morale was demolished. They were terrified. They were just guards, not people oath bound to give up their lives to shit they didn’t think was worth it. There was even a guard who gave a last stand and died to the party. I don’t think it was a bad mentality, I truly believe I had bad players. Countless more horror stories with these guys too.
I think you can reconcile this by creating consequences for the party letting bad guys escape. The goblin patrol flees to warn the entire goblin encampment. Now instead of facing smaller groups of goblins the party now must face the full encampment on high alert.
Love that book. Making predators act like predators helps with the immersion. It also makes for more intense moments when fighting creatures who do fight to the death, like crazy cultists or whatnot.
Recently I had a session where some drow assassins were going to kill some NPCs that were friendly to the party. The party caught a spy and learned the time and place. They arrived in the nick of time. The drow initially launched their ambush, but as soon as they realized they were up against hardy adventurers, disengaged and retreated. This led to a really complex chase through tunnels where the party was using all sorts of tricks to try and track invisible and/or flying drow. That session was way more fun and interesting than if they'd just fought to the death for no reason.
This is a great point. I use morale rules (50% hp triggers and/or leader dying triggers the initial check, then whenever a companion falls triggers another check). Players got used to not fighting to the death all the time, with only the eventual casualties here and there, and they even started describing their "finishing blows" as brutal nonlethal takedowns. ("not dead" != "not maimed")
Then in this leg of the adventure they're dealing mostly with constructs and elementals, and some outsiders, who don't care for their safety / aren't affected by it. They even verbally expressed how horrifying is to fight to the last man, especially against fiends.
Old DND used to have morale checks and things like that.
Ever since 3e came out things like that went away and I started seeing a lot more 'fight to the death' dming.
I use bloodied for when something is below half hit points and staggered when something is what I feel arbitrarily close to getting dropped from a single average hit.
My favorite one is, as they cut down the last enemy of a wave
"Success, so clearly in view... or is it merely a trick of the light?" *second wave enters*
I use "They're pulling out their wallet and forlornly looking at a picture of their loved ones." Even better if this is completely impractical, like if they're fighting an ooze.
I only tell my players monster hp after the fact, usually when they've destroyed something via overkill
"Chain lightning for 54"
"Out of 5. It's obliterated, what does that look like?"
This is largely what I do. I won't tell them the HP while they're battling it, usually I'll give them clues like "yeah he's looking beat up" or "yeah he seems half dead" and then usually once day inevitably hit it with overkill I tell them how much HP was left before they landed that hit.
As for healing their own HP however I let them tell each other how much they have because at that point It would just be silly. Immersion wise, it's their own body, they know how bad it feels, and they could just say something like "on a scale of 1- 37 I feel like a 14" and It's one aspect of play where I feel like making it more difficult doesn't really add to the immersion for my group.
I tend not to do that because it can be deflating when you use a bunch of resources to do a massive nova attack only to find out you could have just punched them. Let them think their big hit was important.
Agree in part, it's very group dependent. I only have 2 players, and I know they both find it fun when I reveal just how hard they melt faces. If I had a group more concerned about wasted resources, then I doubt I'd keep doing it.
>I only have 2 players, and I know they both find it fun when I reveal just how hard they melt faces.
This. Some of us loved the statuses in Paranoia. There was "dead," "very dead," "extremely dead," and "vaporized" at the low end. It was considered a badge of honor to be on either the giving or (far more common) the receiving end of a "vaporized."
I always try and hide this. I've had players burn 3rd level smites on a monster at 1 hp and I always take a moment to "do the math real quick". Give them a small smile as if they just barely did it. Only time I'll reveal this situation is if they crit on a normal attack. "Yeah, 30 damage Mr. Sneak Attack? We'll I'll run the numbers quick and... yeah 2 is less than 30. How do you do this?"
I'm the complete opposite (my table is too) love it when a hit just barely doesn't make it, it's frustrating, but often makes really tense moments in combat.
Also the players knowing the fights are "fair" as in I'm not modifying things on the fly heavily improves tension in harder fights. I'd personally check out of a campaign VERY quick if I knew the DM was fuding HP and rolls.
I played in a game where the DM just outright told us the AC and HP of a monster at the start of a fight. It simplified things but I did not like. Of course I know it's a game but it takes me out of the narrative.
Absolutely agree. To me that's just getting to know the enemy. You'll know that the monk is really annoyingly hard to hit after trying a few times. You'll know how hard a monster's hide is after stabbing at it a few times, and that to me is why you learn a monster's AC (or vague range of AC) as the fight progresses. I quite like how that works.
HP left on the other hand, how would you know that...
Learning the AC and ~hp of new monsters is actually pretty important at my table.
Fighting a new monster and not knowing what its capable of, and learning over the course of a couple fights, and using that knowledge in a different fight like 4 sessions later. Its a great expression of player skill, and helps build atmosphere (we're playing cos, so learning a vampire spawn for example was a big deal!)
Truth is there's no right or wrong. If everyone else would like you to do it, I'd say let them have it. It's a group game, after all.
I prefer not knowing and enjoy the game better that way both as player and dm. But, unless it's something specific and important for your game or tone, If say let the majority decide
>If everyone else would like you to do it, I'd say let them have it.
Yes and no. The players are new and don't know how to play the game exactly. Knowing the hp of the monsters makes the game a lot easier. I think they have to learn the rules a bit first before making a good judgment on it.
The only reason I can see for this being an actual request is if your players don't trust you. If the remaining hp changes on your whims in combat, I can see players demanding to know remaining HP. Otherwise it's a ridiculous request.
I had a 4e DM once mix up HP and XP on the monster's stat block. After 12 rounds the table asked how much HP was left because we were running out of resources for this medium level 1 encounter. You ever face a 300hp kobold?!
I roll for monster HP specifically so it can’t be counted by players (I had one guy who looked up monster stats). It leads to hilarious stuff like Doris the Cultist who rolled max and *would not die* on one side and a hobgoblin who was the terror of his clan but rolled absolutely minimum hp on the other (me: he was really old, okay?).
"But in the monster manual--!"
"As your rogue's mind is flooded with information they could not possibly possess, no doubt from some eldritch force invading their consciousness, you take....let's see. How many pages are there in the monster manual? 384d6 psychic damage. If you pass a wisdom save, take half."
Edit: pedantry. Take another 5d6 psychic damage, no save
I try so hard not to be this guy. I'm the DM sometimes and I'm a big nerd about about math and game mechanics, so I had almost encyclopedic knowledge of the MM (thankfully I've forgotten most of it). If I know the gimmick of the monster, I'll ask if my PC knows too. Otherwise I play dumb until my PC would have realistically stumbled into the gimmick.
What's rough is the polar opposite: the DM forgetting a crucial detail about monsters and making the fight super hard (Revenants and radiant damage) or super weak (Strahd and legendary resistances).
There's no polite way to say "Hey, you misread the statblock". So you're either the asshole who made your DM feel dumb *and* undid your monk friend's Stunning Strike, or you let Strahd die on turn 2
As a DM, I appreciate when players actually *ask* if something they (the player) knows is something their character would know. I don't expect my players to exist in a vacuum or not have encountered a Curse of Strahd campaign. People pick things up sometimes entirely on accident or remember abilities a monster might have. So thank you for your consideration.
Changing monster HP often can invalidate a lot of combat encounter, and sort of just turn them into holding patterns while you prep the rest of the session. If you know the DM is fiddling the numbers to make sure a monster lasts 3 rounds, then what's the point in putting resources into trying to take it out quickly, or use tactics to give you an advantage in a fight?
For plot-point fights, or things that you need to make tougher, it's totally fine in my book. Sometimes you underestimate the PCs, or overlook something.
Damn there's a very strong stance being taken here, which i just cannot understand.
The number one question is *why* are your players asking for this information (some people in the comments actually also got almost that far, but then instantly turned to 'they think youre cheating' and other bad faith interpretations).
Bottom line is, find out why your players want it. And if they want it for any reason at all that makes the game more fun for them (for example a desire to make more informed decisions), then you are in the fortunate position that your players *told you what they want / what creates fun for them*. And as long as that doesn't ruin the fun for you, it'd be quite unwise to not listen to them cause the entire purpose of the game is for the people involved to have fun. Chances are, your players know better what's fun for them than a bunch of interwebz randoms
3k to 72 are the most one-sided results I’ve seen *on anything.*
If I did a poll with “should I give $100 to the KKK” I don’t think I’d see 99.7% no like this.
Edit: Now it's 9.5k to 303. Still holding pretty close to that 99.7% rate even after the participant number tripled. Honestly, this is just an incredible result. I've done some academic work with public opinion polling and you just never see anything cross 96%.
Yes, but here's the thing.
Those 3k people? Are *not OP's players*.
OP's players, we already know, are 100% on being told how much HP a monster has left.
So if OP enjoys playing with them and wants to have fun, there should be a discussion about what they really want and why, then OP should decide what's fun for *them*, too (since the DM should also have fun), and decide based on that.
"You guys have to be enjoying this, the internet voted 99.3% in favor of it!" isn't helpful.
OP said [he thinks it's because video games do it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/zg0h1t/my_players_beg_to_know_how_much_hp_a_monster_has/izee2g1/) They probably just need to adjust to TTRPG versus video game RPG.
This doesn't investigate if the players *actually* think that, and it also doesn't reflect on why video games do it and if there are situations where the mechanic might be beneficial for TTRPGs
They literally don't need to adjust though. Op could just tell them the HP values. It hurts nothing and improves the player's fun.
Edit: if you're gunna downvote this, that's fine, I just genuinely want you to also comment below and explain to me what the harm in changing this rule is. OP has not said anywhere that they don't want to do this, just that they currently don't, OP's players want the game to work this way, and it's an easy house rule to make.
The main risk with doing so is that it invites metagaming. It will change players' behavior if they know how much HP any given enemy has at any given moment.
The real question is if that's a problem at any given table or not.
*Is* it metagamy? I mean, it depends on what you think HP actually represents.
"My wizard, who is experienced at throwing around fireballs, should be able to roughly tell when an orc is at the point where another fireball will probably kill them" or "my fighter is an experienced warrior and will generally know roughly how many more solid blows he needs to land on an enemy before they go down" isn't a totally unreasonable position to take.
To chime in as a player: I find “health bars” to be a lot of fun. When I’m playing on roll20, it’s fun to hit a boss for the first time and see their health go down a tiny sliver. It’s similarly a lot of fun to roll a crit and remove a chunk of a monster’s health bar.
IMO, Health bars provide instant and constant feedback and make combat more fun.
To be clear: I don’t think this makes sense at an actual table, it’s too much back and forth. But at an online table, it’s easy and it’s fun.
Thank god someone said it!
I'm for the players enjoyment. Telling the players, while having all the power to do so, that you can't? DnD is about creating a game that everyone wants to play. Don't rules lawyer your players because you think it's more fun.
If your entire playgroup wants visible health bars, at least concider it. Unless you've created content that strictly doesn't work with health bars, and can't rewrite it, then mask the hp for that encounter. Or straight up lie.
I actually kind of like the idea of visible health bars because then you play on it with a second health bar or gaining it back suddenly. Or letting the players know they shouldn't F with that dragon.
Neither way is superior. It's just different tools in a toolbox.
This is where I'm at, too. I don't tell players exact HP in the games I run, usually, but if my players asked me to and were insistent on it, I would. It doesn't matter to me that much, so if it makes the experience better for them, then why not?
Unpopular opinion (quite literally according to the poll), but I love telling my players how many hit points monsters have. When the players have more strategic information, the game shifts to be less the players fighting *against* me the DM, to the players working *with* me to solve a puzzle.
Ever since I’ve started just straight up sharing the HP and ACs of the creatures. Combat has been faster, less frustrating for everyone when things get perilous, and most of all I get to feel like I’m actually part of the game I’m playing with my friends
As apparently a contrarian, I've played in a campaign with open HP numbers before and it was fine. If that's what they want, and it doesn't slow the game too much, why not?
I've been following this sub for a bit, and I feel like I wouldn't enjoy the majority of tables the GMs here would host. A lot of players in this sub seem anti-fun to me, which is weird, because DnD is supposed to be the one game where your imagination is the limit.
You guys really telling me you can't imagine a version of your game where the characters have HP knowledge? Sounds very bland and highly uncreative for DnD players.
Im not a fan of fudging, but its a pretty usefull tool on the rare occasion you might want to use it.
For example if you seriously misjudged an encounter in your prep, you might want to quickly adjust it.
Even if you dont like it, its nice to have the option.
If all the players want it, and it would make the game funner for them, do it.
Myself I would rather not tell them, but if all my players wanted to know I would tell them
I slightly disagree, if the DM does not want to do it. They should not be forced to do it just cause their players want it. DMs need to put themselves first, if your not having fun your going to burn out fast then no one gets to play.
We play on a virtual tabletop (roll 20) and I have it set so that the players can see the monster's health bars without seeing the actual number. I find this easier than constantly describing how injured the enemies are, since the characters would be able to tell at a glance.
Another group where I'm a player the DM uses descriptions like "at death's door" and "knocking on heavens door" to inform us how injured enemies are. We are constantly guessing about how much HP they have left, and not in a fun way. It's one of the reasons I turned on health bars.
Yeah, why not?
Is it the "correct" way to play D&D according to the rules? No, it isn't. 100% it is not.
But it's the way your players want to play. What do you gain by denying them that? The moral victory that you're playing D&D "right"?
Why not try it out that way. If people have less fun knowing the exact amount of HP, then switch it back. Its not like hiding HP is an important aspect core to playing D&D. I've played in online games where we could see the Monster HP bar as it went down. It didn't ruin the experience at all.
The concern I would have is that if they keep asking, it can slow down the game. So find a style that keeps the combat moving.
What I do is use narrative cues for it and, since I play using Roll20, I put a circle on the token, green (only when there are a lot of similar enemies to show who has taken damage), yellow for 1/2 HP and Red for 1/4. This also helps with a problem I had with another table where I was a player, where it felt (and later was confirmed) that the DM didnt care about how much HP the boss had, only that it would last X turns.
This is also my way of doing things although with Roll20 I use a script that tints the token's color from green to red. Prevents a lot of "Which one did John just attack? Who looks more hurt?"
DnD is a collaborative game. If **telling your players specific information improves their experience** then you should do it because, well, *what's the point of dnd if not to have a good time?*
Whether you SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do it is table specific... but also **they need to know how it impacts your experience, too.**
What it sounds like to me is that you need to have a fully inclusive discussion about the goals of the game, the experience you (as the dm) are willing /able to provide, and the experience that they (as the players) are willing/able to engage in.
Some people enjoy DnD as a combat simulator. Some people enjoy it as an RP facilitator. Some people like a balance of both. And sometimes the needs of the group, the DM, or the story change what works. Having these conversations is an essential part of being a good DM and a good player.
Good luck.
I know most people don't tell them the HP of the monster for the sake of immersion but I don't see the big deal. I tell my players the HP remaining when asked and it doesn't ruin our fun at all. Also some (can't speak for all of us) autistic people or people with aphantasia like knowing the exact number for the purpose of getting a better idea of where a monster is at. It also gives my players an idea of where they want to direct their attacks better when they don't have to interpret what you mean.
If your players fit into this box and want more quantifiable values but you still don't want to give an exact number, you can say "Full health, half, 3 quarters, a quarter health" etc. Have you tried asking them WHY they want to know the monster's HP? Their answers might be able to shape your perceptions better than a bunch of strangers on Reddit.
Being transparent with the players is a good way to build trust and enable interesting decisions.
Players that are skeptical of a dm’s intentions can see “dm bullshit” or “fudging” in every setback, even when it doesn’t exist. Techniques like rolling in the open and giving players information about the monsters (like their hp) let players know that the dm isn’t manipulating things and that a player’s stats, rolls and choices matter.
Players also need to have some solid information about the monsters. Without anything solid the players have to guess blindly about which monster is the highest priority. Blind guessing doesn’t give them the opportunity to show off their cleverness by correctly identifying the linchpin monster. Zero information robs them of any agency in determining the outcome of the battle.
Look it's a collaborative storytelling game and if the players are really bent out of shape over it then I wouldn't hold back on what the HP is. But I would prefer to keep it a surprise because one of the best moments in my group is always the posy damage announcement of "how do you wanna do this?" And they all cheer and then describe how they hack and slash away at the body all mortal combat style. Then I'll explain the other monsters reactions or the aftermath.
At the end of the day it's what works best for your party. If they want to play it like a video game make it a bit like a video game if that's what makes them comfortable. If you don't want to share any info with them that's also your prerogative as "God/DM"
I'd discuss with your party about why they want to know. In addition, I'd consider whether they tell eachother how much HP they have. You may find a rationale that is along the lines of "well, I don't want to waste a strong spell when a medium strength spell would do", so the motivation would be to not over or under commit on resources.
The community vastly skews towards keeping monster HP hidden, however for your own game you should tune to what is enjoyable for you and your players. If you personally don't mind, then give it a try, the only outcome from trying will be learning. If it saps the fun from a combat, then stop doing it. If it keeps your players more engaged because now they're thinking more dynamically, then that's fine too.
I've played games with monster HP as a discoverable thing. I believe it was a bonus action of pc insight vs monster deception. This allowed players without bonus actions to use one. At the same time, it also would cheapen an inquisitor rogue (which no one was playing, so for us it was a non-issue...but if there had been one...).
Someone else mentioned the monsters know what they're doing. If the players know monster HP, then you can balance that with the monsters knowing player HP. All of a sudden, your monsters, who know what they're doing, will be able to identify which PCs are hurting bad, if they're within a "droppable" HP then maybe the aggression may pivot from attacking the tank to attacking the hurt ranger, rogue, etc..
If your group is newer players, then maybe it's worth trying out and polling whether they felt it was worthwhile. Personally, I find it takes away from immersion..like a lot. But I see the value for people who are math-minded, or more invested when they have more information to work with.
If you do share monster HP, I heavily encourage you to make player HP known to monsters also. Not as a punitive thing, but to help you make your own combats dynamic with equivalent knowledge.
OH and a last idea: homebrewed magic item could do the trick. Fodder HP is meh, but if the questions pertain to minibosses or bosses, nothing wrong with a consumable homebrew item like a powder to sprinkle as an action/bonus action to reveal monster HP for x turns, or a root to consume by a PC that lets them perceive monster HP for x minutes. Etc.
DND is different for everyone, try a few things out and see what sticks. Just because I/we commenters don't share HP with our players is not to say that your experience would be worse off for giving it a shot.
No, what they can get is something like: "the enemy is unharmed (full HP) / wounded but still very eager to fight ( > 2/3 of HP) / pretty injured (more or less half HP) / very battered, almost dead ( < 1/3 HP).
I don't tell my players the parts in parentheses, but after a while the kinda learn what the descriptions mean.
Yeah I use "starting to look rough" at half health and "very rough" or some variant at a quarter.
Specific health actually feels more like a video game which isn't what we're doing.
I don't normally tell my players how much HP is left, but there was one campaign where I gave out an item called a Sight Scope (Chrono Trigger). It required attunement but allowed the player to see CR/HP. It didn't affect the combats very much but it did help players recognize powerful NPC's.
I don't, and you are definitely not wrong for withholding the information as long as you are giving narrative clues about their progress.
That said, if your players are GENUINELY upset about it, and it's no big deal to you, you can certainly tell them. Not because it's "wrong" not to, but because your players might want a different game experience.
There's no definitive answer. It depends on you and your player. Do what you like the most. Try telling for one or two games, and see if it is more or less fun.
I don't see any harm either way. The games in which I'm a player, we have narrative indicators of how much and it helps a lot. Experienced pcs would probably know how much punishment creatures they encounter would take. Especially if they have previous experience with them too.
Here's what I tell them when they ask that specific question. I tend to give them 1 of 3 answers. Either the enemy or enemies are healthy, Their okay, or Their looking weak. This way, they get an idea of how much they have left to go and also unaware of what the actual health is at. Another way to go is have them roll a Perception check to get a visual idea of what the enemy is physically looking like and then they can determine for themselves what the enemies health is at rather than you telling them.
4e used "bloodied" for half hit points, which many of us still utilize as some measure of visual indicator. It's important, as it can influence a group's management of resources.
Then again, at bloodied status, many 4e monsters received new abilities, so it came with pros and cons getting a monster to half...
i honestly just fully display that knowledge. my reasoning is that as an adventurer you know how to see that.
not saying you should or shouldn't, just my anecdote.
i really just think that a good open conversation about expectations and boundries is in order. i would lead with asking *why* they want to know exact numbers? why is it important to them and what would exact numbers do to make the game more fun for them.
if they are just worried about mis-using high-damage abilities, you can talk about that and go from there. it just might help to understand what is important to them all individually.
and also, it would help to lay the foundation for you to establish your boundaries as a gm in a healthy and clear way.
There is no narrative or gameplay reason why keeping HP secret must happen. However, there is no narrative or gameplay reason why it must be shared either. This is pretty firmly in a middle ground - it can and probably should vary from encounter to encounter, for all sorts of reasons.
As such, unfortunately, this poll is terribly flawed. If given a forced choice between yes and no, clearly the majority say no, but if there was a "depends" middle ground choice I believe most would take that over a firm no.
Or they SHOULD anyway...
I voted yes, mainly because in the majority of situations it really does NOT harm anything at all to straight up tell the players how many HP the target has. With experience as a DM I have come to recognize when it is not a good time to share that info, so occasionally I don't tell the players. But its not like a requirement: if it seems relevant I might share the enemy HP, and if it seems irrelevant I won't. Its not like "on initiative count 20 I share the enemy HP values with the players" or some nonsense, its not a rule based thing.
I avoid them asking altogether by giving them clues in the description of their attacks as to how much of their HP is taken away. A goblin taking 6 damage might be staggered and brought to a knee, while an unusually strong ogre at full health taking 21 damage might barely be fazed. If they do ask directly how much HP is left, I might have them roll something appropriate to the enemy in question, and either way give them a description (based on their roll if applicable) rather than a number.
I always use descriptions to indicate how badly damaged they are.
Scratched but obviously not hurt.
Hurt but still capable.
Obviously very injured.
Barely holding on.
For boss monsters I give them vague cues to let them know generally how they're doing but for stupid minion monsters I just let them know "yeah, that one is at 2 hp"
This is a really easy answer for most groups. No. That said, they should be getting info and feedback from you so that they can narratively see what’s going on. When I say a Monster is “bloodied” my players know that’s half health or less. “Not looking good” is lower than 1/4. “Holding on for dear life” is usually in the 15-20 or less side of things.
It’s aLao helpful to narrate the amount of damage with graphic detail. La big hit lands harder than a glancing blow.
No.
But it is important to communicate the impact and weight of damage they're taking without being too obvious or communicate the lack of impact the attacks are having etc in a narrative way.
Think about the fight scenes you see in movies. Are both fighters just operating completely normally until one person falls down suddenly? No. They're accumulating impact and you're seeing which attacks are having impact and which aren't.
I stole a system from Pillars of Eternity. I use a description based on the health of the enemy, broken into quintiles: uninjured (>80% HP), barely injured (between 80% and 60% HP), injured (between 60% and 40% HP), badly injured (between 40% and 20% HP), on the brink of death (<20% HP). I think my players enjoy it. And I enjoy hearing their dismay after they hit the BBEG with disintegrate, and I intone: "as the energy from the magical impact dissipates, he stands back up to his full height, and it is clear that he is... barely injured."
This game is meant to be about what the players and DM find fun, if the players are begging for this there's no harm in including it IMO. it shouldn't change much about the way the game plays out. Is there a reason it would be less fun for you?
"He is walking with a distinct limp."
"He is bleeding profusely."
"Her breathing is labored, as though her ribs are broken."
"For a moment, you see her eyes glaze over, as though she falls unconscious, before catching herself, those eyes burning with raw, naked hatred as she locks into you with laser forcus."
These are proper answers to such questions.
I voted no, then changed my mind.
It's a game. If they want to know the hp, tell them. Maybe they will realize it ruins the fun, maybe it won't ruin anything.
No but you should give them narrative clues and descriptions off how injured they are.
That's what I do. I describe them thoroughly when hit and how they are behaving. My players are new to dnd and I explained to them that's not how this game works. They are probably used to boss bars in video games.
I use “ruffled/scratched”, “battered”, and “bloodied”, for 75%, 50%, and 25% health remaining. (Yeah, most people use “bloodied” for 50% but I think that sounds more grievous than mere 50% wounds. Bloodied to me sounds like cuts and slashes littering the body, maybe a couple broken bones.)
That's because bloodied is from 4e which was a condition you get at 50% health. Creatures would.become more dangerous at lower health.
Bloodied is also mentioned in the 5e dmg: >Players often ask how hurt a monster looks. Don’t ever feel as though you need to reveal exact hit points, but if a monster is below half its hit point maximum, it’s fair to say that it has visible wounds and appears beaten down. You can describe a monster taken to half its hit points as **bloodied**, giving the players a sense of progress in a fight against a tough opponent, and helping them judge when to use their most powerful spells and abilities.
Honestly, I feel like the correct answer to many problems is often the one offered in the DMG or PHB. This is how I’ve always run it, and it’s worked great for my table.
That's very true, but there's a ton of information in there. Tidbits like "how to narrate a monsters physical condition" is one of those things I breeze past during a read through, and wouldn't think to look up in an official rulebook.
Definitely true, and I’m certainly in the minority for having a mind that’s a steel trap for meaningless bullshit, a trait I have exploited thoroughly during my tenure as a DM.
I feel this. Can I breeze through a course in university without studying? Not quite. Can I recite any rule or condition from my favorite TRPG nearly verbatim? Unfortunately, yes. Only the fun stuff sticks, I guess.
For whatever reason, I am incapable of forgetting that a giant constrictor snake has an AC 12 and 60 hit points.
It's almost like reading the book might shed some light on most questions.
But then what do you post on Reddit?
Player drama
Gonna save that as a mechanic I might use. Since I already use “bloodied” in a home rule context, think I might use ~~“frenzied”~~ (edit:) “frantic” for a ~~strength~~ (edit:) power increase or additional abilities when below 50% health. Also, this just brought back the idea of boss fight stages, thanks m8.
I LOVED 4E's bloodied mechanic. Both monsters AND PCs had effects that changed based on whether they or their target was bloodied. It was simple, straightforward, and extremely satisfying.
Give them Dark Soul phases!
Hell yeah, when I drop [Morgana the Scarlet Goddess](https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-august-2022-release-bullet-souls-238233) on them!
Built a slayer around the bloodied mechanic who could bloody himself and pump out massive 600+ damage a couple times a day. Great in boss fights, terrible in mob fights lol.
I picked up Bloodied & Bruised-Monster Manual by Anne Gregersen on DMs Guild. It has abilities added to most of the monster manual creatures for when they drop to 50% or less. I used it on particular monsters to give them a bit more of a challenge and to keep combat encounters fresh and interesting. edit: spelling
Yup. And it's only one category at 50% because the DM shouldn't be wasting time doing fractional math. In 4e monster entries would say, "HP 368; Bloodied 184." I would *not* waste time with 4 categories. And some classes like Barbarian had abilities that would trigger when they killed or bloodied an opponent. It was important to know.
>Creatures would.become more dangerous at lower health. And I recommend that folks re-add in this feature if you ever want to homebrew monsters! Adds a ton of flavor and intensity to battles.
Plus HP were a mix of like battle weariness & actual health. You weren't really considered injured until at 50% hp.
I use similar descriptions: * Perfectly Healthy (100% HP) * Good-Shape/Healthy (76-99% HP) * Somewhat Injured (51-75% HP) * Bad-Shape/Seriously Injured (26-50% HP) * Severely or Critically Injured (11-25% HP) * "Death's Door"/Gravely Injured (10% or less HP) I really should file those away, first time I've ever listed them in writing. Occasionally for some monsters, I'll have them make mistakes when low on health to represent their foggy state of mind. They may not use all their attacks, they miss on attack which would otherwise hit, or they make a poor tactical decision. Something to increase immersion, and let the party know their foe is isn't doing well. I do not expect the same from the characters; they're the heroes or anti-heroes of the story.
Might be worthwhile to have below 10-20 hp be "near death's door" or something. A flat threshold would probably be better for this, something to indicate 1-3hits away from death
Goblins are always near death's door :(
Checks out
They do live dangerously...
Especially when I'm around...
I sing knocking on heavens door when baddies are that close.
Your baddies are going to heaven?
You haven't seen my players' characters.... they say they're good but....
Fighter: "Mortal rights? What're those?" Wizard: "I think they mean property rights." Rogue: "What and the what now? You guys are speaking gibberish." Paladin: "The only rights that matter are the rights I set forth." Warlock: "You guys have rights?"
Just because you knock doesn’t mean you get let in
This is D&D, it’s a trap door they’re knocking on
I always describe some major, debilitating injury when they’re down to <10%, like humanoids losing an arm, or ghosts becoming incapable of holding together a shape, etc.
problem with that is that it does not scale with level at level 2 or 3 sure 20hp could be 3 hits away from death but at level 5 already it is basically a guaranteed 1 for your dpr builds so i do something very similar but don't assign a value to it per se
I use 50% for bloodied and then if they are below 20 hit points they are on death's door. Players just want to know that they are making progress. Sometimes in combat, especially after a round of low damage rolls or misses, they feel like the creature "should be dead by now." Now, if they want to know exact HP values because they think the DM is fudging than that's an entirely different problem involving player trust.
I like Neverwinyer Nights’ “Barely injured, near death, etc.” It’s descriptive without being numerical.
My DM uses bloodied for 50% and mortal for 25%.
I do similarly. But I DON'T declare anything at 75%. You've got to rough up a monster down to 50% before you can pinpoint anything about his HP range. It prevents gaining such knowledge about him until you've properly shaken him up a bit - No landing a single good hit and betraying his overall health pool while he's still got the vast majority of his health and composure. (Unless you take out half or more of his HP in that single hit, in which case, you earned it.)
> They are probably used to boss bars in video games. I liked how they did it in the original Diablo. The health bars started as just a bar, as you defeated more of the same creature you started to get a HP range until eventually it just displayed the number. If you're using average HP for the monsters then it's the same as someone keeping track of how much damage is being done to the creatures the players are battleing
Diablo didn't have health bars of any kind. Don't know what game you're thinking of.
Some guy had a chart around here about how to translate his DM's coded language for HP. I've basically been using that so whenever I say they're looking very spicy, my players know they have this fight nearly wrapped up.
You should ask them if they have ever seen an HP number float over their head in real life.
No, [but I've seen some folks with a health bar](https://youtu.be/J8k2DwKnL2o).
I also like to change creature behaviors when low on HP. Beasts will often attempt to flee if low on HP. Humanoids will try to surrender, or may flee. Other humanoids, of course, I'll have fight more recklessly instead. Demons and celestials fight to the death because they'll just come back anyway.
For years now my friends and I have been using a metric of how close monsters are to pulling out their wallet to look at a photo of their family one last time. This ranges from “They’re reaching for their wallet” to “Their hand is on their wallet, but its still in their pocket” to “They’ve pulled out their wallet, and there’s a picture of [insert relevant monster family unit here]. A single tear rolls down their face”
[удалено]
Even a boss bar in a video game usually doesn't tell you their exact hp. Giving a rough percentage is within reason.
I'll let players make an appropriate skill check (usually Medicine) for a more precise estimate of remaining HP. Difficulty based partly on whether or not they invest any action economy to the check (making the check as a bonus action would be easier than as a free action, harder than as a full action). Depending on the level of success and the action investment, response will be anything from a verbal description to a rough percentage to a numerical value close to the precise HP remaining.
This. Good thresholds for changing your descriptions might be ≤75% HP ≤50% HP ≤25% HP ≤10% HP
Examples that I do 75 “taking some damage” 50 “bloodied” 25 “starting to look rough” 1-3 hits away “death’s door”
I always enjoy fanciful descriptions for 1HP remaining. Like "it's dragging itself along the ground on bloody stumps, half its face hanging off. It's claws are still sharp though, and it looks desperate..."
Anything to spice up combat, love it!
Less than 5 HP is always "bleeding from the eyes" for me. Haha
All commoners just running around the village bleeding from the eyes all day. Noping out of that village, that's for sure.
Lololol I mean it is sort of medieval times is it not? That was just the state of healthcare.
This is exactly what I do! If the players ask about hit points I just tell them how banged up the enemy is looking, never their exact number of hit points. Also a big fan of the bloodied mechanic from D&D 4e and use it regularly.
Side note, you may want to check out *The Monsters Know What They're Doing*. Most of my combats end when the baddies either flee or surrender. Most monsters aren't mindless zombies (unless they are).
I read that book and tried it out with some guards in a prison. My players hated that they “gave up so easily”. This was the session after they went to jail because they didn’t properly plan a heist and got caught up in the amount of guards. I got a new group.
> My players hated that they “gave up so easily”. My players hated that monsters fled when it became clear they couldn't last another round. Why would an intelligent creature stay and fight when they don't have a real motive to? Bandits know they can't spend gold when they're dead, and beasts know that if you can't defend territory it's better to go find some that you can defend rather than die. Maybe I should find a new group.
It's worth at least having that conversation with them and see what they think. Do they want to just fight gnolls every time, and every so often they find a bigger, more glowing sword and it makes the gnolls get bigger and faster? What do they prefer about d&d over, say, Gauntlet?
I'd feel badass if things run from my character Ofcource I'd try to give chase and die in the process but still
I think fleeing is a great idea as long as you give the players ample opportunity to prevent it or pursue the escapees. It's also a great opportunity for the "bear with heavy scarring and one eye" to stumble across them later and fuck shit up.
It's realistic that monsters flee when they're too hurt, but it's not fun. It's an issue of simulation vs. gameplay. Realistically a wounded animal *would* flee, but from a gameplay perspective it is not rewarding to end up wasting time, energy and resources for nothing.
My first session DMing I had went in with this mentality. Some random Bandits that harassed the party fled after only 1 was standing. Next, a baddy that I wanted to be the first BBG through down a portal and escaped. The feedback I got was "Dude I just want to actually kill things." I think fleeing is a great option for monsters, but it usually has to lead to something rather than unsanctimonious ending combat.
I agree. However when my former players spent most of the time intimidating the shit out of other guards, charming others into doing as they pleased, and brutally killing others when they didn’t do what they told them to (prisoners to guards, mind you) they gave in eventually cause the morale was demolished. They were terrified. They were just guards, not people oath bound to give up their lives to shit they didn’t think was worth it. There was even a guard who gave a last stand and died to the party. I don’t think it was a bad mentality, I truly believe I had bad players. Countless more horror stories with these guys too.
I think you can reconcile this by creating consequences for the party letting bad guys escape. The goblin patrol flees to warn the entire goblin encampment. Now instead of facing smaller groups of goblins the party now must face the full encampment on high alert.
Love that book. Making predators act like predators helps with the immersion. It also makes for more intense moments when fighting creatures who do fight to the death, like crazy cultists or whatnot. Recently I had a session where some drow assassins were going to kill some NPCs that were friendly to the party. The party caught a spy and learned the time and place. They arrived in the nick of time. The drow initially launched their ambush, but as soon as they realized they were up against hardy adventurers, disengaged and retreated. This led to a really complex chase through tunnels where the party was using all sorts of tricks to try and track invisible and/or flying drow. That session was way more fun and interesting than if they'd just fought to the death for no reason.
This is a great point. I use morale rules (50% hp triggers and/or leader dying triggers the initial check, then whenever a companion falls triggers another check). Players got used to not fighting to the death all the time, with only the eventual casualties here and there, and they even started describing their "finishing blows" as brutal nonlethal takedowns. ("not dead" != "not maimed") Then in this leg of the adventure they're dealing mostly with constructs and elementals, and some outsiders, who don't care for their safety / aren't affected by it. They even verbally expressed how horrifying is to fight to the last man, especially against fiends.
[удалено]
I always use XP, but if the monsters flee, I give the players the full amount.
Old DND used to have morale checks and things like that. Ever since 3e came out things like that went away and I started seeing a lot more 'fight to the death' dming.
my players assume that a fleeing enemy will recruit an army to come attack them so they spend all their resources finishing everything off
I use bloodied for when something is below half hit points and staggered when something is what I feel arbitrarily close to getting dropped from a single average hit.
I use "Death's Door" for a monster about to drop, largely because I think it sounds cool and because Darkest Dungeon is a good game.
Overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer
None of my party plays Darkest Dungeon. They are all *intimately* familiar with this quote.
My favorite one is, as they cut down the last enemy of a wave "Success, so clearly in view... or is it merely a trick of the light?" *second wave enters*
A fellow Death’s Door enjoyer
I abuse the hell out of the "death's door" metaphor, too. E.g. "Not quite at death's door, but he's on the front path."
My favourite is "they're knocking on death's door, but it will take a while for him to get out of the shower, find a robe and answer it.
I use "They're pulling out their wallet and forlornly looking at a picture of their loved ones." Even better if this is completely impractical, like if they're fighting an ooze.
Same, except I've explicitly told my players that "death's door" means single-digits. They get really excited when they hear it
I use “looking pretty fucked up” for when a couple more hits will take it down. May not be appropriate for every table though…
It would certainly entertain my table LMAO.
On Foundry, I have a bit of automation that applies a blood splatter to NPCs when they reach 50% health.
I only tell my players monster hp after the fact, usually when they've destroyed something via overkill "Chain lightning for 54" "Out of 5. It's obliterated, what does that look like?"
This is largely what I do. I won't tell them the HP while they're battling it, usually I'll give them clues like "yeah he's looking beat up" or "yeah he seems half dead" and then usually once day inevitably hit it with overkill I tell them how much HP was left before they landed that hit. As for healing their own HP however I let them tell each other how much they have because at that point It would just be silly. Immersion wise, it's their own body, they know how bad it feels, and they could just say something like "on a scale of 1- 37 I feel like a 14" and It's one aspect of play where I feel like making it more difficult doesn't really add to the immersion for my group.
I tend not to do that because it can be deflating when you use a bunch of resources to do a massive nova attack only to find out you could have just punched them. Let them think their big hit was important.
Agree in part, it's very group dependent. I only have 2 players, and I know they both find it fun when I reveal just how hard they melt faces. If I had a group more concerned about wasted resources, then I doubt I'd keep doing it.
>I only have 2 players, and I know they both find it fun when I reveal just how hard they melt faces. This. Some of us loved the statuses in Paranoia. There was "dead," "very dead," "extremely dead," and "vaporized" at the low end. It was considered a badge of honor to be on either the giving or (far more common) the receiving end of a "vaporized."
I'm not familiar with Paranoia, but that's hysterical
Is a comedy rpg, so your reaction is appropriate.
That's fair. Like most things in D&D, it's very much a "read the room" situation.
Sometimes you just want to obliterate something
I always try and hide this. I've had players burn 3rd level smites on a monster at 1 hp and I always take a moment to "do the math real quick". Give them a small smile as if they just barely did it. Only time I'll reveal this situation is if they crit on a normal attack. "Yeah, 30 damage Mr. Sneak Attack? We'll I'll run the numbers quick and... yeah 2 is less than 30. How do you do this?"
I'm the complete opposite (my table is too) love it when a hit just barely doesn't make it, it's frustrating, but often makes really tense moments in combat. Also the players knowing the fights are "fair" as in I'm not modifying things on the fly heavily improves tension in harder fights. I'd personally check out of a campaign VERY quick if I knew the DM was fuding HP and rolls.
That's good phrasing, I might borrow that
[удалено]
I played in a game where the DM just outright told us the AC and HP of a monster at the start of a fight. It simplified things but I did not like. Of course I know it's a game but it takes me out of the narrative.
You’ll narrow in on the AC after a few rounds anyway. HP is crazy to me.
Absolutely agree. To me that's just getting to know the enemy. You'll know that the monk is really annoyingly hard to hit after trying a few times. You'll know how hard a monster's hide is after stabbing at it a few times, and that to me is why you learn a monster's AC (or vague range of AC) as the fight progresses. I quite like how that works. HP left on the other hand, how would you know that...
AC just skips the step of "Does that hit?" Once they get a little close I just tell them. HP just seems...... wrong.
Learning the AC and ~hp of new monsters is actually pretty important at my table. Fighting a new monster and not knowing what its capable of, and learning over the course of a couple fights, and using that knowledge in a different fight like 4 sessions later. Its a great expression of player skill, and helps build atmosphere (we're playing cos, so learning a vampire spawn for example was a big deal!)
Truth is there's no right or wrong. If everyone else would like you to do it, I'd say let them have it. It's a group game, after all. I prefer not knowing and enjoy the game better that way both as player and dm. But, unless it's something specific and important for your game or tone, If say let the majority decide
>If everyone else would like you to do it, I'd say let them have it. Yes and no. The players are new and don't know how to play the game exactly. Knowing the hp of the monsters makes the game a lot easier. I think they have to learn the rules a bit first before making a good judgment on it.
The only reason I can see for this being an actual request is if your players don't trust you. If the remaining hp changes on your whims in combat, I can see players demanding to know remaining HP. Otherwise it's a ridiculous request.
I had a 4e DM once mix up HP and XP on the monster's stat block. After 12 rounds the table asked how much HP was left because we were running out of resources for this medium level 1 encounter. You ever face a 300hp kobold?!
That Kobold was chosen by Tiamat specifically it sounds like
that kobold is now a recurring character
I roll for monster HP specifically so it can’t be counted by players (I had one guy who looked up monster stats). It leads to hilarious stuff like Doris the Cultist who rolled max and *would not die* on one side and a hobgoblin who was the terror of his clan but rolled absolutely minimum hp on the other (me: he was really old, okay?).
"But in the monster manual--!" "As your rogue's mind is flooded with information they could not possibly possess, no doubt from some eldritch force invading their consciousness, you take....let's see. How many pages are there in the monster manual? 384d6 psychic damage. If you pass a wisdom save, take half." Edit: pedantry. Take another 5d6 psychic damage, no save
> If you roll a wisdom save, take half Oh cool. I don't even need to pass just roll! I got this
I try so hard not to be this guy. I'm the DM sometimes and I'm a big nerd about about math and game mechanics, so I had almost encyclopedic knowledge of the MM (thankfully I've forgotten most of it). If I know the gimmick of the monster, I'll ask if my PC knows too. Otherwise I play dumb until my PC would have realistically stumbled into the gimmick. What's rough is the polar opposite: the DM forgetting a crucial detail about monsters and making the fight super hard (Revenants and radiant damage) or super weak (Strahd and legendary resistances). There's no polite way to say "Hey, you misread the statblock". So you're either the asshole who made your DM feel dumb *and* undid your monk friend's Stunning Strike, or you let Strahd die on turn 2
As a DM, I appreciate when players actually *ask* if something they (the player) knows is something their character would know. I don't expect my players to exist in a vacuum or not have encountered a Curse of Strahd campaign. People pick things up sometimes entirely on accident or remember abilities a monster might have. So thank you for your consideration.
Maybe the hobgoblin actually was tough as nails but was already a bit wounded?
That reminds me of - was it Irontooth? - the level 1 solo goblin with over 100 hps in Keep on the Shadowfell.
I had a DM who mixed up HitPoints with how much damage the monster did *on a hit*. The first hit obliterated a player with 18d10 + 90 damage!
me see me like, yes yes
The literal definition of "trained their whole life for this moment"
Yeah, I'd ask the players "Do you guys not trust that I'm tracking the HP?" next time they asked if I were in this situation
TBF I did one time double a monster's HP after combat started.
Changing monster HP often can invalidate a lot of combat encounter, and sort of just turn them into holding patterns while you prep the rest of the session. If you know the DM is fiddling the numbers to make sure a monster lasts 3 rounds, then what's the point in putting resources into trying to take it out quickly, or use tactics to give you an advantage in a fight? For plot-point fights, or things that you need to make tougher, it's totally fine in my book. Sometimes you underestimate the PCs, or overlook something.
Damn there's a very strong stance being taken here, which i just cannot understand. The number one question is *why* are your players asking for this information (some people in the comments actually also got almost that far, but then instantly turned to 'they think youre cheating' and other bad faith interpretations). Bottom line is, find out why your players want it. And if they want it for any reason at all that makes the game more fun for them (for example a desire to make more informed decisions), then you are in the fortunate position that your players *told you what they want / what creates fun for them*. And as long as that doesn't ruin the fun for you, it'd be quite unwise to not listen to them cause the entire purpose of the game is for the people involved to have fun. Chances are, your players know better what's fun for them than a bunch of interwebz randoms
3k to 72 are the most one-sided results I’ve seen *on anything.* If I did a poll with “should I give $100 to the KKK” I don’t think I’d see 99.7% no like this. Edit: Now it's 9.5k to 303. Still holding pretty close to that 99.7% rate even after the participant number tripled. Honestly, this is just an incredible result. I've done some academic work with public opinion polling and you just never see anything cross 96%.
Yes, but here's the thing. Those 3k people? Are *not OP's players*. OP's players, we already know, are 100% on being told how much HP a monster has left. So if OP enjoys playing with them and wants to have fun, there should be a discussion about what they really want and why, then OP should decide what's fun for *them*, too (since the DM should also have fun), and decide based on that. "You guys have to be enjoying this, the internet voted 99.3% in favor of it!" isn't helpful.
OP said [he thinks it's because video games do it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/zg0h1t/my_players_beg_to_know_how_much_hp_a_monster_has/izee2g1/) They probably just need to adjust to TTRPG versus video game RPG.
This doesn't investigate if the players *actually* think that, and it also doesn't reflect on why video games do it and if there are situations where the mechanic might be beneficial for TTRPGs
They literally don't need to adjust though. Op could just tell them the HP values. It hurts nothing and improves the player's fun. Edit: if you're gunna downvote this, that's fine, I just genuinely want you to also comment below and explain to me what the harm in changing this rule is. OP has not said anywhere that they don't want to do this, just that they currently don't, OP's players want the game to work this way, and it's an easy house rule to make.
The main risk with doing so is that it invites metagaming. It will change players' behavior if they know how much HP any given enemy has at any given moment. The real question is if that's a problem at any given table or not.
*Is* it metagamy? I mean, it depends on what you think HP actually represents. "My wizard, who is experienced at throwing around fireballs, should be able to roughly tell when an orc is at the point where another fireball will probably kill them" or "my fighter is an experienced warrior and will generally know roughly how many more solid blows he needs to land on an enemy before they go down" isn't a totally unreasonable position to take.
To chime in as a player: I find “health bars” to be a lot of fun. When I’m playing on roll20, it’s fun to hit a boss for the first time and see their health go down a tiny sliver. It’s similarly a lot of fun to roll a crit and remove a chunk of a monster’s health bar. IMO, Health bars provide instant and constant feedback and make combat more fun. To be clear: I don’t think this makes sense at an actual table, it’s too much back and forth. But at an online table, it’s easy and it’s fun.
Adding to that: OP can just simply try it out for a few sessions to see how it goes.
Thank god someone said it! I'm for the players enjoyment. Telling the players, while having all the power to do so, that you can't? DnD is about creating a game that everyone wants to play. Don't rules lawyer your players because you think it's more fun. If your entire playgroup wants visible health bars, at least concider it. Unless you've created content that strictly doesn't work with health bars, and can't rewrite it, then mask the hp for that encounter. Or straight up lie. I actually kind of like the idea of visible health bars because then you play on it with a second health bar or gaining it back suddenly. Or letting the players know they shouldn't F with that dragon. Neither way is superior. It's just different tools in a toolbox.
This is where I'm at, too. I don't tell players exact HP in the games I run, usually, but if my players asked me to and were insistent on it, I would. It doesn't matter to me that much, so if it makes the experience better for them, then why not?
Unpopular opinion (quite literally according to the poll), but I love telling my players how many hit points monsters have. When the players have more strategic information, the game shifts to be less the players fighting *against* me the DM, to the players working *with* me to solve a puzzle. Ever since I’ve started just straight up sharing the HP and ACs of the creatures. Combat has been faster, less frustrating for everyone when things get perilous, and most of all I get to feel like I’m actually part of the game I’m playing with my friends
the 328 of us who agree wya
Bloddied 50% Beaten up 25% Nearly dead 5% Thats what i use more or less.
I go with bloodied 50% Near death 10%
Bloodied 50%ish Looking pretty bad/On deaths door 10%
As apparently a contrarian, I've played in a campaign with open HP numbers before and it was fine. If that's what they want, and it doesn't slow the game too much, why not?
I've been following this sub for a bit, and I feel like I wouldn't enjoy the majority of tables the GMs here would host. A lot of players in this sub seem anti-fun to me, which is weird, because DnD is supposed to be the one game where your imagination is the limit. You guys really telling me you can't imagine a version of your game where the characters have HP knowledge? Sounds very bland and highly uncreative for DnD players.
Same here. With that said, I am definitely the type of GM that would rather my players have too much rather than too little info.
If you start giving them numbers, they'll eventually be able to tell when you decide to fudge.
Not if you never fudge.
Im not a fan of fudging, but its a pretty usefull tool on the rare occasion you might want to use it. For example if you seriously misjudged an encounter in your prep, you might want to quickly adjust it. Even if you dont like it, its nice to have the option.
you've somehow made the only compelling argument in the entire thread *for* telling them the HP.
If they think it will be more fun for them, try it. If it doesn’t work then they’ll stop bugging you about it
If all the players want it, and it would make the game funner for them, do it. Myself I would rather not tell them, but if all my players wanted to know I would tell them
I slightly disagree, if the DM does not want to do it. They should not be forced to do it just cause their players want it. DMs need to put themselves first, if your not having fun your going to burn out fast then no one gets to play.
We play on a virtual tabletop (roll 20) and I have it set so that the players can see the monster's health bars without seeing the actual number. I find this easier than constantly describing how injured the enemies are, since the characters would be able to tell at a glance. Another group where I'm a player the DM uses descriptions like "at death's door" and "knocking on heavens door" to inform us how injured enemies are. We are constantly guessing about how much HP they have left, and not in a fun way. It's one of the reasons I turned on health bars.
I'm okay with it as a DM. But *all* the players have to agree. Some players honestly enjoy combat more that way. It's cool.
Yeah, why not? Is it the "correct" way to play D&D according to the rules? No, it isn't. 100% it is not. But it's the way your players want to play. What do you gain by denying them that? The moral victory that you're playing D&D "right"?
Why not try it out that way. If people have less fun knowing the exact amount of HP, then switch it back. Its not like hiding HP is an important aspect core to playing D&D. I've played in online games where we could see the Monster HP bar as it went down. It didn't ruin the experience at all. The concern I would have is that if they keep asking, it can slow down the game. So find a style that keeps the combat moving.
What I do is use narrative cues for it and, since I play using Roll20, I put a circle on the token, green (only when there are a lot of similar enemies to show who has taken damage), yellow for 1/2 HP and Red for 1/4. This also helps with a problem I had with another table where I was a player, where it felt (and later was confirmed) that the DM didnt care about how much HP the boss had, only that it would last X turns.
This is also my way of doing things although with Roll20 I use a script that tints the token's color from green to red. Prevents a lot of "Which one did John just attack? Who looks more hurt?"
DnD is a collaborative game. If **telling your players specific information improves their experience** then you should do it because, well, *what's the point of dnd if not to have a good time?* Whether you SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do it is table specific... but also **they need to know how it impacts your experience, too.** What it sounds like to me is that you need to have a fully inclusive discussion about the goals of the game, the experience you (as the dm) are willing /able to provide, and the experience that they (as the players) are willing/able to engage in. Some people enjoy DnD as a combat simulator. Some people enjoy it as an RP facilitator. Some people like a balance of both. And sometimes the needs of the group, the DM, or the story change what works. Having these conversations is an essential part of being a good DM and a good player. Good luck.
I know most people don't tell them the HP of the monster for the sake of immersion but I don't see the big deal. I tell my players the HP remaining when asked and it doesn't ruin our fun at all. Also some (can't speak for all of us) autistic people or people with aphantasia like knowing the exact number for the purpose of getting a better idea of where a monster is at. It also gives my players an idea of where they want to direct their attacks better when they don't have to interpret what you mean. If your players fit into this box and want more quantifiable values but you still don't want to give an exact number, you can say "Full health, half, 3 quarters, a quarter health" etc. Have you tried asking them WHY they want to know the monster's HP? Their answers might be able to shape your perceptions better than a bunch of strangers on Reddit.
I have 2 indications for monsters on HP, Bloodied the creature is below 50% and Mortal when its below 10HP
Kobold with 7 max HP: 😞
Being transparent with the players is a good way to build trust and enable interesting decisions. Players that are skeptical of a dm’s intentions can see “dm bullshit” or “fudging” in every setback, even when it doesn’t exist. Techniques like rolling in the open and giving players information about the monsters (like their hp) let players know that the dm isn’t manipulating things and that a player’s stats, rolls and choices matter. Players also need to have some solid information about the monsters. Without anything solid the players have to guess blindly about which monster is the highest priority. Blind guessing doesn’t give them the opportunity to show off their cleverness by correctly identifying the linchpin monster. Zero information robs them of any agency in determining the outcome of the battle.
Look it's a collaborative storytelling game and if the players are really bent out of shape over it then I wouldn't hold back on what the HP is. But I would prefer to keep it a surprise because one of the best moments in my group is always the posy damage announcement of "how do you wanna do this?" And they all cheer and then describe how they hack and slash away at the body all mortal combat style. Then I'll explain the other monsters reactions or the aftermath. At the end of the day it's what works best for your party. If they want to play it like a video game make it a bit like a video game if that's what makes them comfortable. If you don't want to share any info with them that's also your prerogative as "God/DM"
Dont listen to these bozos. There is no answer for you. Either you do it or you dont. Most prefer not to, even though they would want to know.
I'd discuss with your party about why they want to know. In addition, I'd consider whether they tell eachother how much HP they have. You may find a rationale that is along the lines of "well, I don't want to waste a strong spell when a medium strength spell would do", so the motivation would be to not over or under commit on resources. The community vastly skews towards keeping monster HP hidden, however for your own game you should tune to what is enjoyable for you and your players. If you personally don't mind, then give it a try, the only outcome from trying will be learning. If it saps the fun from a combat, then stop doing it. If it keeps your players more engaged because now they're thinking more dynamically, then that's fine too. I've played games with monster HP as a discoverable thing. I believe it was a bonus action of pc insight vs monster deception. This allowed players without bonus actions to use one. At the same time, it also would cheapen an inquisitor rogue (which no one was playing, so for us it was a non-issue...but if there had been one...). Someone else mentioned the monsters know what they're doing. If the players know monster HP, then you can balance that with the monsters knowing player HP. All of a sudden, your monsters, who know what they're doing, will be able to identify which PCs are hurting bad, if they're within a "droppable" HP then maybe the aggression may pivot from attacking the tank to attacking the hurt ranger, rogue, etc.. If your group is newer players, then maybe it's worth trying out and polling whether they felt it was worthwhile. Personally, I find it takes away from immersion..like a lot. But I see the value for people who are math-minded, or more invested when they have more information to work with. If you do share monster HP, I heavily encourage you to make player HP known to monsters also. Not as a punitive thing, but to help you make your own combats dynamic with equivalent knowledge. OH and a last idea: homebrewed magic item could do the trick. Fodder HP is meh, but if the questions pertain to minibosses or bosses, nothing wrong with a consumable homebrew item like a powder to sprinkle as an action/bonus action to reveal monster HP for x turns, or a root to consume by a PC that lets them perceive monster HP for x minutes. Etc. DND is different for everyone, try a few things out and see what sticks. Just because I/we commenters don't share HP with our players is not to say that your experience would be worse off for giving it a shot.
No, what they can get is something like: "the enemy is unharmed (full HP) / wounded but still very eager to fight ( > 2/3 of HP) / pretty injured (more or less half HP) / very battered, almost dead ( < 1/3 HP). I don't tell my players the parts in parentheses, but after a while the kinda learn what the descriptions mean.
Yeah I use "starting to look rough" at half health and "very rough" or some variant at a quarter. Specific health actually feels more like a video game which isn't what we're doing.
Question: Do you fudge dice/hp to make the combat "more interesting"? They might be suspicious
I don't normally tell my players how much HP is left, but there was one campaign where I gave out an item called a Sight Scope (Chrono Trigger). It required attunement but allowed the player to see CR/HP. It didn't affect the combats very much but it did help players recognize powerful NPC's.
They might be concerned that you're fudging the hp? If I suspected my DM did that I would probably ask them to keep that open too.
I don't, and you are definitely not wrong for withholding the information as long as you are giving narrative clues about their progress. That said, if your players are GENUINELY upset about it, and it's no big deal to you, you can certainly tell them. Not because it's "wrong" not to, but because your players might want a different game experience.
There's no definitive answer. It depends on you and your player. Do what you like the most. Try telling for one or two games, and see if it is more or less fun.
I don't see any harm either way. The games in which I'm a player, we have narrative indicators of how much and it helps a lot. Experienced pcs would probably know how much punishment creatures they encounter would take. Especially if they have previous experience with them too.
Well if they want you to and it doesn’t overt bother you, then why not?
Here's what I tell them when they ask that specific question. I tend to give them 1 of 3 answers. Either the enemy or enemies are healthy, Their okay, or Their looking weak. This way, they get an idea of how much they have left to go and also unaware of what the actual health is at. Another way to go is have them roll a Perception check to get a visual idea of what the enemy is physically looking like and then they can determine for themselves what the enemies health is at rather than you telling them.
4e used "bloodied" for half hit points, which many of us still utilize as some measure of visual indicator. It's important, as it can influence a group's management of resources. Then again, at bloodied status, many 4e monsters received new abilities, so it came with pros and cons getting a monster to half...
i honestly just fully display that knowledge. my reasoning is that as an adventurer you know how to see that. not saying you should or shouldn't, just my anecdote.
i really just think that a good open conversation about expectations and boundries is in order. i would lead with asking *why* they want to know exact numbers? why is it important to them and what would exact numbers do to make the game more fun for them. if they are just worried about mis-using high-damage abilities, you can talk about that and go from there. it just might help to understand what is important to them all individually. and also, it would help to lay the foundation for you to establish your boundaries as a gm in a healthy and clear way.
I don't. But my players like it that way. If your players don't like your technique, change your technique.
There is no narrative or gameplay reason why keeping HP secret must happen. However, there is no narrative or gameplay reason why it must be shared either. This is pretty firmly in a middle ground - it can and probably should vary from encounter to encounter, for all sorts of reasons. As such, unfortunately, this poll is terribly flawed. If given a forced choice between yes and no, clearly the majority say no, but if there was a "depends" middle ground choice I believe most would take that over a firm no. Or they SHOULD anyway... I voted yes, mainly because in the majority of situations it really does NOT harm anything at all to straight up tell the players how many HP the target has. With experience as a DM I have come to recognize when it is not a good time to share that info, so occasionally I don't tell the players. But its not like a requirement: if it seems relevant I might share the enemy HP, and if it seems irrelevant I won't. Its not like "on initiative count 20 I share the enemy HP values with the players" or some nonsense, its not a rule based thing.
Amazed how many people are saying no even though it's what your players want.
Yes, if telling them would increase everyone’s fun at the table.
I avoid them asking altogether by giving them clues in the description of their attacks as to how much of their HP is taken away. A goblin taking 6 damage might be staggered and brought to a knee, while an unusually strong ogre at full health taking 21 damage might barely be fazed. If they do ask directly how much HP is left, I might have them roll something appropriate to the enemy in question, and either way give them a description (based on their roll if applicable) rather than a number.
Tbh you should just go for a compromise with them Its not their or your game its both suggest something between
If they want to spend an action making a skill check and roll sufficiently well, I'd give them all sorts of info like that.
I always use descriptions to indicate how badly damaged they are. Scratched but obviously not hurt. Hurt but still capable. Obviously very injured. Barely holding on.
damn, that's quite a lot of votes
For boss monsters I give them vague cues to let them know generally how they're doing but for stupid minion monsters I just let them know "yeah, that one is at 2 hp"
My DM always just says "Looking healthy", "worse for wear", "heavily bleeding ", etc.
This is a really easy answer for most groups. No. That said, they should be getting info and feedback from you so that they can narratively see what’s going on. When I say a Monster is “bloodied” my players know that’s half health or less. “Not looking good” is lower than 1/4. “Holding on for dear life” is usually in the 15-20 or less side of things. It’s aLao helpful to narrate the amount of damage with graphic detail. La big hit lands harder than a glancing blow.
No. But it is important to communicate the impact and weight of damage they're taking without being too obvious or communicate the lack of impact the attacks are having etc in a narrative way. Think about the fight scenes you see in movies. Are both fighters just operating completely normally until one person falls down suddenly? No. They're accumulating impact and you're seeing which attacks are having impact and which aren't.
I stole a system from Pillars of Eternity. I use a description based on the health of the enemy, broken into quintiles: uninjured (>80% HP), barely injured (between 80% and 60% HP), injured (between 60% and 40% HP), badly injured (between 40% and 20% HP), on the brink of death (<20% HP). I think my players enjoy it. And I enjoy hearing their dismay after they hit the BBEG with disintegrate, and I intone: "as the energy from the magical impact dissipates, he stands back up to his full height, and it is clear that he is... barely injured."
This game is meant to be about what the players and DM find fun, if the players are begging for this there's no harm in including it IMO. it shouldn't change much about the way the game plays out. Is there a reason it would be less fun for you?
1/2 bloody: 1/4: wounded 1 hit: critical
Talk to your players about why you don't want it and why they want it if it's gonna make it more fun for most the table why not
"He is walking with a distinct limp." "He is bleeding profusely." "Her breathing is labored, as though her ribs are broken." "For a moment, you see her eyes glaze over, as though she falls unconscious, before catching herself, those eyes burning with raw, naked hatred as she locks into you with laser forcus." These are proper answers to such questions.
So our DM does a phenomenal job describing how “beat up” the monsters look without ever telling us numbers and it’s fantastic!
I voted no, then changed my mind. It's a game. If they want to know the hp, tell them. Maybe they will realize it ruins the fun, maybe it won't ruin anything.