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

[Celtavian]

No. Players can't do it to survive, so I don't do it to improve monster survivability. I usually know average DPR prior to a fight and give a monster appropriate hit points to endure as long as I want it to endure.

I feel that changing hit points or any monster stats during a fight damages verisimilitude and trust between DM and player.

 

[LostSoul]

Part of the game is feeling like you are in danger and I am not suggesting you fudge hp or dice rolls on a regular basis. But there are times that being so rigid that you miss opportunities to let the players have a cinematic victory or even do something a simple as move the game forward when everyone is bored out of their frakking mind.

Why are you playing a game that generates results that bore you out of your mind?

 

[Elf Witch]

Ah, but that's roleplaying the !monster.

I'm more talking about giving an in game explanation for the metagame action of taking it easy on the players because a fights has gotten harder than intended.

But I'm interested in what you said as well. Monster tactics and roleplayng is an aspect of the game where the DM can exert a huge amount of "fair" nudging, whether they're doing it for meta reasons or in game reasons.

Having that dragon react to being insulted by becoming enraged and sloppy is a decision you made that hugely impacts the difficulty of a fight after it began.

Does that bother people?

This is all very interesting to think about.

Is it metagaming though if it makes sense for the monster to do so?

Is it metagaming if you decide that the NPC would rather take the PCs alive then kill them?

Maybe there is a valid reason why the monster is taking it easy an in game plot hook.

I had situation where my NPC was kicking the players butt I had badly designed the encounter. Now I knew that their was a firth column in the bad guys and I had planned on introducing them soon. So to salvage the situation and not TPK the party from a bad design on my part I made an on the fly decision that this guy was in the fifth column and he allowed himself to be wounded in a away that would cover his butt with his superiors and he fled. I didn't change his HP or fudge I just had him play a little recklessly like put himself in the path of an attack of opportunity.

I know the players who are smart were trying to figure it out they kept saying that he should have killed them and finally one said do you think it is possible that not all of them are as dedicated to their leaders plans. And like that plot hook introduced and party saved from my blunder and I kept my reputation of being such a savvy DM when it came to introducing cool new plots.

 

[Celtavian]

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

Sometimes I have done this if I create an encounter that kills the party because I misjudged their power and capabilities. I don't like TPKs. An occasional PC death I expect and adds to the drama of the story, TPKs ruin an entire campaign I spent a lot of time creating and running. I don't enjoy them. I try to carefully balance encounters to create a sense of danger. If I make a mistake, I don't mind doing it over.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And again I don't think a sure win is what people are talking about. I have never as a DM allowed the players a sure win that is not what we are talking about. When I shave off hit points it is when it is obvious that the PCs are going to win and we are just dragging out the inevitable and the combat has become boring for everyone.

The time to end an encounter is "when the dramatic question has been answered," unless the players want to play out the aftermath for fun. If the outcome is no longer in doubt and the players are bored, end the encounter. Don't alter HP or anything, just skip to the end. "Long story short: you throw a few more Call Lightnings and eventually all the kobolds are dead or fled. Then Prince Rupert says..."

If you feel obliged to play round by round until everyone on one side hits zero HP before moving on, something is wrong with the pacing in your game.

 

[Elf Witch]

Why are you playing a game that generates results that bore you out of your mind?

Because I am a masochist is that the answer you are looking for? I mean really are you going to claim that you have never found an encounter, or combat boring? if you haven't then bless you and consider yourself lucky.

I think many of us have had an encounter that was not really supposed to be that important and you end up with the monsters almost dead and the PCs hardly hurt but the dice rolls start sucking and the players keep missing and so do the monsters and you can see the players enjoyment just going out the window as the encounter drags on and on. In a case like that it is just easier to say when they finally hit that killed him.

 

[Elf Witch]

The time to end an encounter is "when the dramatic question has been answered," unless the players want to play out the aftermath for fun. If the outcome is no longer in doubt and the players are bored, end the encounter. Don't alter HP or anything, just skip to the end. "Long story short: you throw a few more Call Lightnings and eventually all the kobolds are dead or fled. Then Prince Rupert says..."

If you feel obliged to play round by round until everyone on one side hits zero HP before moving on, something is wrong with the pacing in your game.

I have done this too.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sometimes I have done this if I create an encounter that kills the party because I misjudged their power and capabilities. I don't like TPKs. An occasional PC death I expect and adds to the drama of the story, TPKs ruin an entire campaign I spent a lot of time creating and running. I don't enjoy them. I try to carefully balance encounters to create a sense of danger. If I make a mistake, I don't mind doing it over.

None of my players enjoy a TPK they have made that quite clear over the years we have been playing. I don't enjoy a TPK because as you said it usually ruins the campaign. I know as a player i would rather have a DM who fudges when he has created an encounter that is overpowered or no matter how well we planned the dice is just against us that day. I get that not all groups are like this and prefer the roll in the open and let the dice fall as they may and that is certainly one way to play the game but it is not the only way to play the game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Speaking of monster tactics- its another great way of nudging the outcome of a fight. What is everyone's stance on that? Is it acceptable to have a monster use bad tactics to say take it easy on the party because of fear or anger or bloodlust?

Sure. That's independent of the state of the party though: orcs aren't straightforward smashers because the party is weak/low-level. They're like that because that's what orcs are like.

When in doubt I play my monsters on the side of stupid/lazy tactics (not using cover, not holding actions, not playing for time, etc.). There aren't many monsters out there with the experience and discipline to fight truly smart. That makes the ones that do more interesting: liches, beholders, hobgoblins, some giants, some dragons, some demons, etc. Not to mention the odd exceptional orc tribe (Dugkash and his Scro!) with exactly the same stats as normal orcs but much better tactics/equipment.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sure. That's independent of the state of the party though: orcs aren't straightforward smashers because the party is weak/low-level. They're like that because that's what orcs are like.

When in doubt I play my monsters on the side of stupid/lazy tactics (not using cover, not holding actions, not playing for time, etc.). There aren't many monsters out there with the experience and discipline to fight truly smart. That makes the ones that do more interesting: liches, beholders, hobgoblins, some giants, some dragons, some demons, etc. Not to mention the odd exceptional orc tribe (Dugkash and his Scro!) with exactly the same stats as normal orcs but much better tactics/equipment.

That reminds me of game with a DM who was a tactical whiz I loved when he was a player because he kept us alive. But as a DM he couldn't help himself and everything we encountered knew how to be tactical even oozes and rats. We used to joke about it that somewhere there was an advanced school of military tactics for monsters on his world.