D&D 5E Would you change a monster's hit points mid-fight?

[Sunseeker]

It's the same old DM trust issue... the one that 5e pretty much rejects in its design...

I'm a little confused on your post. Are you saying 5th rejects the idea of trusting the DM?

 

[SirAntoine]

Well, yes and no.

Some GMs are not comfortable with creating adversaries that "just win", without worrying about stats. So, they make up adversaries that are within the rules, but ridiculously overpowered for the PCs, that really, by the stats, should win. But, if it has stats, and sticks by the rules, generally speaking, a PC win is possible - it may be a low-probability event, or it may require the PCs to take a path that is still thoroughly within the rules (so, doesn't require a new ruling from the GM about how it works), but the GM simply didn't think of, but it is possible.

I mean, almost anything is possible if you roll enough consecutive 20s and the bad guys roll enough 1s.

That would be bad DMing. The DM should never try to arrange for the party to lose.

 

[CM]

That would be bad DMing. The DM should never try to arrange for the party to lose.

Arrange for a TPK? of course not. Arrange for a complication or unforseen consequence from a failed (or successful) objective? Certainly.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The DM and players both try to win the combat within the constraints of defined characteristics and acting in character.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't do this. I don't run monsters to "win the combat." I run them to achieve their goals. If the allosaurs have the numbers to eke out a combat win, barely, they probably won't do so. As soon as they get a tasty morsel, or a dead packmate, they're going to leave. They don't care who wins, they just want to eat and not die.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't do this. I don't run monsters to "win the combat." I run them to achieve their goals. If the allosaurs have the numbers to eke out a combat win, barely, they probably won't do so. As soon as they get a tasty morsel, or a dead packmate, they're going to leave. They don't care who wins, they just want to eat and not die.

That's a really good point. While my monsters sometimes do have goals other then "win" I think I would have a better game if I did this more often. It's something I know I should do but frequently gets lost in the execution. Food for thought.

 

[the_eaps]

As a player (not a DM at all), I'd be more interested in having a good time. My message to DMs that run the games I play, "check the pulse of the table. Feel free to adjust to keep the good times going."

Keep in mind, I'm getting back in after years away. I'm mostly looking to have a good time.

 

[Celtavian]

That would be bad DMing. The DM should never try to arrange for the party to lose.

Why not? Do characters lose in stories? This is a role-playing game. Part of developing a character is learning to occasionally retreat or accepting loss. How can I have them escape from prison or build up the drama of defeating a BBEG if the party never loses to the BBEG? I've designed plenty of adventures where the party initially loses and has to retreat. When they win, they feel like they really accomplished something. It's a very fine line to walk. You have to have a party that thinks of their characters as real and wants them to survive. It's a blast building up scenarios where the party initially loses, only to triumph later.

I had a lot of the party assassinated at one point. They had to recover, find out who did it, and retaliate. Fun campaign.

That's one reason I miss hero points. Hero points allowed you to do manage encounters such as a successful assassination attempt against a PC without ending the campaign. I'm probably going to need to bring some semblance of hero points back into 5E to be able to create such encounters again.

 

[Celtavian]

wrong topic.

 

[Fralex]

Maybe, if it was REALLY bad. But while I've had encounters that were longer or shorter than I expected, I don't think I've ever felt the need to do this sort of thing since the playtest. If a monster is too tough, I can just give the players a chance to escape. If a monster is too wimpy, I'll leave it at 1 HP and have it try to escape. Or just laugh and let it die! Sometimes it's funny when a scary monster falls in one hit. I try not to create stories that depend on the players being predictable.

 

[Eirikrautha]

I'm a little confused on your post. Are you saying 5th rejects the idea of trusting the DM?

No, 5e rejects the idea that the DM can't be trusted. I saw the distrust issue pop up a lot during the transition to previous editions ( including some folks worried about 5th). The argument made to me was that a game with lots of specific rules "prevented" a bad DM from ruining the game. I think 5e rejects this idea totally.

As an aside, in response to so other posts to me, I totally reject the idea that, once the dice start rolling, the DM becomes a passive referee. Not only does that ignore all of the setup for an encounter, it's not how any table I've ever been at plays. The choice of tactics, grouping, morale, and any other non-crunch based decision plays an important role in who wins, and I don't think that can be done without a subconscious bias. The games where I'm told the DMs are "fair" almost always translate into a DM who is actively endeavoring to kill the players (and subconsciously "win" for himself) by any means available. I'm not saying that isn't fun or isn't a good playstyle... I'm just saying that it isn't "neutral."

If you do have a truly "neutral" DM, then hold on to him! He's exceedingly rare (and probably an android)...