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

[Umbran]

In these cases, why not have the bad guy surrender or try to flee?

Those would be among the tricks in the hat that I've already stipulated they don't have.

You ask that question as if I'm some newbie, or somehow not intelligent or experienced enough to have thought my position (and when I use it) through. Thanks for thinking that the totally obvious would escape my notice.

 

[Rocksome]

I only ever increase HPs. It sounds mean, but I like to make my players work for it. I generally don't do it for nooks, but bosses and sub-bosses become epic.

 

[SirAntoine]

Do adult players not know most DMs fudge?

I mean you shouldn't highlight it, but let's be real.

From the players' point of view, if something is fudged the DM should apologize and take it back.

 

[neobolts]

If they're rolling well or poorly no, that is the player's responsibility to deal with that situation. They know what the dice are doing and they can withdraw or celebrate a lucky fight. If I misjudged the encounter difficulty however, then yes.

This is not an unreasonable view. Even if a group takes a more tactical combat view of the game, the DM should own their mistakes.

 

[KingsRule77]

I've only done this when l

 

[Chocolategravy]

I don't like modifying h.p mid fight, I put it in the same camp as fudging dice rolls and I don't do that either. That being said I alter h.p when encounter building all the time, most of my players are optimizers so I go with slightly higher h.p values for almost all my monsters going into the fight.

So you increase monster HP before the fight when you have the least information and will make the worst judgement about how many HP to add, but during the fight when you have more information and can make a better decision you refuse to alter HP? I don't really see the rationale, but as long as you're consistent it should work out for your players.

 

[Unwise]

From the players' point of view, if something is fudged the DM should apologize and take it back.

This is what I find puzzling, is it the idea of fairness being offended? It's not that I do or don't think it is fair to fudge, it is that in my mind, the concept of 'fair' just does not really enter into consideration in an RPG. It seems rather non-sequiter to me, like if somebody said it was unfair to eat icecream on a Tuesday, I am just left puzzled.

Bad rulings certainly can annoy me, poor rules interpretations leading to silliness or boring outcomes, some oddball rulings making some classes redundant etc. I guess those could seem unfair. The actual DM-craft though, it has just never entered my mind that a fight being too hard, or an enemy having even blatant plot armor was unfair. I guess I should be more mindful of that as I would certainly annoy some players.

 

[The Human Target]

From the players' point of view, if something is fudged the DM should apologize and take it back.

"Listen guys, I was trying to make this game I spent hours and hours working on more fun for you by fudging a roll or hit point total now and again. I'm sorry for ruining everything."

 

[travathian]

Those would be among the tricks in the hat that I've already stipulated they don't have.

And how would we know that from reading your post? How is surrendering or fleeing a 'trick in a hat' anyway? What trick is there in throwing your hands up in the air or just turning and running?

You ask that question as if I'm some newbie, or somehow not intelligent or experienced enough to have thought my position (and when I use it) through. Thanks for thinking that the totally obvious would escape my notice.

Or maybe they were just asking a simple question?

Here, I will ask it again, maybe you can give a more thought out answer, with less vitriol, that might help some other DMs who dont have as many years of experience.

Hey Umbran, in your example of fudging hit points when the enemy has no more resources/tricks, can you provide some specific examples or reasons why you wouldn't just have an enemy surrender or try to flee?

 

[redrick]

I don't like the idea of modifying hit dice during an encounter. It reminds me of elementary school gym class where the teacher would constantly change the parameters of the game to keep a 1-2 point spread. Blow-outs are part of games and, as a former athlete, I'll say that I absolutely love blow-outs. Going up against a feared rival and completely dominating was satisfying. Blow-outs are only a bummer when either a) you lose, or b) you have no personal stake in the game. (Like most super bowls I watch.) As a GM, I almost always lose, so I just have to embrace it, and if my players get mopped up, well, that happens rarely enough that I'll just call it a growing experience.

I imagine my sessions would be easier to run if I kept my finger on the scales a bit more — it would let me keep the pacing on track with whatever I'd planned before-hand and keep things a little more predictable for me. But I'd like to force myself to look for more innovative ways to up the ante or keep up with my wily players.

I will fudge rolls or hp when a combat is clearly over and there is no believable way for opponents to surrender or flee. For instance, I have fudged zombie constitution saves to keep those bastards from getting up. Again. And again. And again. (The player characters were in between the zombies and the only exit. Zombies don't surrender. Honestly, it's a big downfall of undead encounters — undead just don't give you a lot of options beyond braiiiinzzzz --).