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

[The Human Target]

A fleeing enemy will almost always be chased by the PCs, which often leads to an even further dragged out fight.

An unimportant enemy who surrenders is often going to be a time sink that doesn't really go anywhere.

The point in this example is to end a fight that has served its purpose quickly so the game can move on. Those things, while interesting sometimes, do not allow the game to move on quickly.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

To me this is the kind of thinking that can hurt a game.

I will give you an example. I was playing in an Eberron game and the DM gave us all magical weapons or items at character creation mine was a bow that did extra damage to elves. For five levels and months of actual play time we never saw any elves where the bow could be used. I was patient even if I was slightly bummed and kind of wished I had a magic item that fit better in the game. But finally evil elves and me with one darn arrow left. The baddie was about to murder a hostage so I fired my bow at a range penalty and I rolled a 20 and then rolled another 20 and then rolled max damage it was a thing of beauty the table went wild until the DM tells us the bad guy show no effect to any of the damage and then proceeds to kill the hostage,

The DM then explained that he wrote the encounter with the bad guy wearing a brooch of shielding and even showed me his typed up notes that he didn't cheat. And technically he didn't cheat but that din't change the sour taste in my mouth over it. As a DM I have a lot of power to make the game fun for players and in case like this the player fun would outweigh any desire to 'not cheat".

I don't see any reason to prolong a combat that is dragging on and on and no one is having fun just because I wrote one number down for HP.

Now I won't change a big baddie just so he can go if the players take him down first then that is how I let it stand.

The DM most important job is to facilitate the fun at the table and that should always take precedence over the rules.

You're saying "facilitate fun at the table" like the only thing that does that is the outcome of individual encounters. There's a lot of other things that make the game fun. For me, one of them is feeling like my character is really in danger. It makes the game exciting and it makes victory a lot more satisfying. I've always played with smart players. If I fudged dice or hitpoints on a regular basis they would figure it out. And then the fun goes pffffft like a deflating balloon. As a player, if I know I'm in no danger because the DM is going to fudge for me the challenge is gone and I'm instantly bored. Aside from personal danger, a sure win is boring too. Changing hit points to make a win quicker is not as bad, but there's still better ways to accomplish that. The baddie could surrender or run. Reinforcements could arrive. The DM could just say "let's cut to the chase, it takes 8 more rounds that are exactly the same as this one, but you win."

 

[The Human Target]

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 --).

Absolutely blow outs can be great.

But circumstances can lead to them happening at times that are less than fun, like say if the first 3 encounters of a night are one sided PCs thrashing on monsters, and encounter 4 is looking the same way.

Adding in an extra monster in that moment is the same as tweaking the monsters that are already involved hitpoints up 25%. And I don't know of many DMs who are against adding in monsters on the fly to spice things up.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Rarely, but not never. I can't recall the last time I did, but if I really wanted to drag out a fight or reward a clever player or fantastic die roll, I might.

 

[The Human Target]

Changing hit points to make a win quicker is not as bad, but there's still better ways to accomplish that. The baddie could surrender or run. Reinforcements could arrive. The DM could just say "let's cut to the chase, it takes 8 more rounds that are exactly the same as this one, but you win."

How is that more fun, interesting, or satisfying than shaving down some hit points but letting the players score a quick victory?

 

[Lancelot]

Yes, I would... and have... changed hp in mid-fight. I do it sparingly; maybe once every 4-5 sessions at most.

In my opinion, one of the key roles of a DM is to create dramatic tension. Sometimes, the dice simply don't cooperate with that. I'm reminded of a classic Judge Dredd comic story ("Mechanismo"). The Mega-City Justice Department introduces robot judges to police the citizens; their knowledge and execution of the law is supposedly flawless. But they lack empathy and a sense of humanity in their actions. These are intangible attributes which, theoretically, make human judges inferior to machines (due to inconsistencies or inaccuracies in rulings)... but are ultimately essential to creating an outcome that is more psychologically acceptable to us flawed humans.

For me, DM'ing is the same thing. RPGs are more than just the strict, accurate and fair application of the rules. The DM is just as responsible for creating the story and the excitement as the players, and he/she has more tools available to achieve this... including manipulating numbers behind the screen (without the players knowing), changing the plot or encounters on the fly, and changing or creating monster abilities/powers as required to suit the purposes of the story. As long as these changes are invisible to the players (and that's part of the skill of being a good DM), then there is no challenge to suspension-of-disbelief or sense-of-fairness.

I almost never change hp to change the outcome of the fight. No villain in my campaign has "plot shields". However, he might stick around (before losing) for another round or two simply to make the players sweat... which increases their sense of excitement and accomplishment.

Similarly, I'll sometimes lower monster hp to hasten the conclusion (and reduce the boredom) of an obvious PC victory. I used to do this more frequently in 4e, where it was a real problem. Fortunately, 5e combats are a lot faster-paced. I can only recall one combat in the last 6 months where I've felt the urge to lower monster hp.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

How is that more fun, interesting, or satisfying than shaving down some hit points but letting the players score a quick victory?

Because it doesn't involve the DM changing the established parameters of the game.

 

[The Human Target]

Because it doesn't involve the DM changing the established parameters of the game.

I would argue the DM is absolutely doing so.

Choosing to fast forward through a combat and telling players the result is a break from the traditional parameters.

And a very unsatisfying one to me personally.

In that instance, you are outright breaking the immersion of the game and removing choice and fun from the players.

 

[redrick]

Absolutely blow outs can be great.

But circumstances can lead to them happening at times that are less than fun, like say if the first 3 encounters of a night are one sided PCs thrashing on monsters, and encounter 4 is looking the same way.

Adding in an extra monster in that moment is the same as tweaking the monsters that are already involved hitpoints up 25%. And I don't know of many DMs who are against adding in monsters on the fly to spice things up.

I think there's a distinct difference between adding monsters (or HP) before an encounter begins, say in response to several encounters beforehand being cakewalks, and modifying an encounter once it has already begun. I'm failing to articulate that difference in this moment, but I think its important for me, as a GM, to have a moment where the die is cast and the outcome is no longer in my meta-gaming control (just my terrible monster tactics). This is usually around the point where the players first observe or interact with creatures or objects.

 

[Psikerlord#]

If you do this, don't let your players know you do ever.

Yeah, I think this is very important. It's one of the DM illusions, linked to appearing impartial.

I roll monster HP. And 95% of the time I stick to it. If a fight's too easy, no worries, add more monsters next time. If it's too hard, and I'm staring down the barrel of a TPK (not just a death, but a TPK) I will adjust HP a bit to allow close run victory. I consider this one of the DM tools to avoid TPKs. We roll all dice in the open, so I dont have the option to say he misses at just the right time. And the players know the damage dice by the time things are getting TPKish. HP however I am in control of, and the players can only guess, depending on how I describe things.

I do think if you change HP, it ought to be rare, and you should not tell your players you're doing so (or have done so). Many players want to believe in legitimate risk, and winning a fight "fairly", and you are taking that away from them when you modify HP to help them live.