Should a player know their mount's exact HP?

Question

So the question in general isn't as cruel as it sounds — requiring the DM to manage all animal companions really isn't necessary (though Handle Animal checks exist and should be used when applicable). The question here stems from when a character purchases an animal to be used as a mount.

For example, a halfling paladin purchases a (combat-trained) riding dog at level 2 to cruise around on as a mount. Should the player know how many hit points the mount has at any given time? Granted, the best players probably could hold onto the sheet and HP and act without the use of metaknowledge of the animals' hit points, but I'm speaking conceptually first.

But if we wanted to be as cruel as the rules can be (despite my introduction) what exactly should allow a player to know the hit points of an animal companion, even if it was granted through a class feature (like a Druid's Nature Bond or a Cavalier's Mount)? A common houserule at tables I've played at is that Heal can be used to roughly gauge enemy hitpoints, but even with that being granted, does it become the only way to do so?

Answer 1

Yes, a player should know their mount's exact HP.

It's so clear-cut that even if the rules clearly said otherwise, you would want to override them to work differently.

I have never yet seen a DM with enough bandwidth to manage all the things which they already need to keep track of (myself included) and every addition to that reduces the quality of DMing they provide. Some cope with it well, but even so, the more you can reduce that burden, then better the game will be.

At the same time, there is a very short list of situations where keeping players in the dark about mechanical features will improve your game, even if the GM has infinite bandwidth. It inevitably feels arbitrary and capricious, and the list of games where that's a good thing is approximately [Cthulhu, Paranoia, End-of-list].

Similarly, you should write down initiatives someplace visible, and allow players to zero in on ACs after a few attempts. Your players are already tracking these things anyway. If you pretend game states are mysterious, they'll play along to humor you. But after a few attacks, everyone knows darn well that the beastie's AC is either 21 or 22, and the Mother-May-I ritual of "Does a 26 hit?" loses appeal fast.

Source: have played in multiple games on each side of the table in each situation. This isn't even close.

Answer 2

The Player's knowledge of mount HP should remain consistent with other HP knowledge within a game/campaign.

As I've learned from the comments, this can mean different things depending on how your run your game. Therefore if Players in your game know their animal companion's HP, then another character with a purchased mount would know their mount's HP. Or if they require a roll, or know they are 'doing bad' or 'okay' then keep it consistent.

I would say this because of the prevalence of mount and mounted combat related feats and abilities, which are applied even to characters who have just purchased a mount.

Additionally do what ever is right for the game/campaign you're running. GM/DM's have a lot going on and if you can have Players handle something, then I say do it. Do whatever makes sense for your game and have fun. Don't let mount HP get in the way of that.

Answer 3

In my GM experience, they should know the HP. Management of animal companions, pets, mounts, familiars, etc, falls to each player's personal responsibility - just like all other elements of their character. Note that "management" is not the same as "control" - which indeed the GM will often have (or at least the final call in how the creature acts).

Otherwise, where would you draw the line? Should a player know their equipment's exact state (provided the system in question has a notion of structural hit points or the like)? Their limit for carry weight? Their exact mana points? Their exact stats?

Ultimately, all of these could be managed by the GM and replaced with vague descriptive statements - "your plate mail is pretty battered", "the arcane energies can flow through you almost unhampered", etc. But that is both a logistical nightmare and mostly pointless. The numbers are an abstraction of exactly these descriptions. In most player's heads "the mount has 5HP/50HP" will translate to "pretty bad" - just as if it were 4, 6 or 8 HP.

Situations where knowing the exact value can be abused for metagaming purposes are those when...

• ... some value is exactly quantified that is not so for a PC (the actual ingame person) and...
• ... a player knows the exact amount of damage/resource depletion that is likely to happen and...
• ... that amount would result in a meaningful outcome for the player and...
• ... that result is not immediately foreseeable for the PC with his non-quantified ingame view of the resource that is being affected (dropping a house on someone barely clinging to life has a pretty foreseeable result, e.g.).

All of these coinciding is rather uncommon in systems involving dice (with the biggest offender probably being mana costs and wizards being able to precisely judge their remaining ability to draw arcane powers), and does not justify burdening the GM with such extensive bookkeeping.

Answer 4

Yes the PLAYER should know. As the above answers highlight well, the GM doesn't have time to manage all the stats and rules and counts and HP and....

But NO the player CHARACTER should not know. Player knowledge vs. character knowledge is always a painful sticking point in RPGs. The PLAYER can memorize a great deal of the monster manual, for example. But the player CHARACTER wouldn't know any of that stuff. And HP are no exception. The character should be aware of whether the mount is injured or not. And, unless they're just oblivious, should know whether the mount is seriously injured or just slightly injured. But they should never know precisely how healthy the mount is. Think about it from a real-world viewpoint: I saw my horse get hit by a rock thrown by a rowdy teenager. My horse was pissed. It probably bruised my horse. But I doubt my horse is really suffering from the injury. That kind of assessment makes logical sense and works. A seasoned adventurer ought to have the ability to assess an injury and decide if it's life-threatening vs. safe-to-ignore.

FWIW, I believe the same applies to the PC itself. Bob the Bard would know he's been hit by a sword and that he's hurting. Ooof! THAT HURT! But Bob the Bard wouldn't really know that he's now at exactly 57.5% of his total HP remaining before death.

That disconnect between stats on paper (player knowledge) vs. character knowledge is the crux of this issue.

Answer 5

Yes, they should.

I will answer from the perspective of 3.x, as that is also tagged. The animal companion and paladin's mount (as well as other similar effects, such as a psion's psicyrstal) are a class feature, and as such are part of the player's character and thus recorded on the character sheet. All information pertaining to the class feature(s) are to be entered on the character sheets. There are even official sheets (the Companion Creature sheet) for recording this specific information. As with all other information on a player's character sheets, maintenance and upkeep are the player's responsibility, subject to the occasional DM check for accuracy.

Likewise, as a class feature, the player has complete control over any and all effects accomplished through said class feature, subject to the rules listed in the class feature description, and for those class features where another entity is involved, what rules apply to said entities (typically an animal) that are not overrode by the class feature rules.

Addendum

As noted in the comment for this question, a non-class feature mount in the party is also a possibility, among other possible methods of obtaining tag-alongs such as trained animals, magical beasts, befriended creatures, and even more oddball possibilities. Such creatures would count as NPCs and in such a case, would fall under the DM's aegis and the HP would not be known.

See however the status and greater status spells which somewhat answer to the desire in question.

It is also worth noting that many DMs are willing to cede a certain amount of minor control and meta-knowledge to the players regarding such minor NPCs for various reasons (less upkeep and tracking for the DM being a common one; extreme party attachment being another).

Answer 6

First of all, I think this is a question for tags like "Game Mastering" because is something the rulebook won't tell you and the answers probably will be personal opinions about it.

At least, my opinion and what I use as DM is always, don't do things to allow "Metagaming". If you tell him the exactly amount of HP he will play with it.

I usually prefer some "narrative" descriptions in things like that, something like "poor" or "badly" physical aspect, or "seems to be exhausted just by looking at it".