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

[Psikerlord#]

I did that in OGL Conan - every time the GM screwed the PCs over by eg having them be shipwrecked, they would get a Fate Point. Worked great there, I'd be hesitant to do it in most versions of D&D but I could maybe see it in 5e - every time the GM/Fate intervenes to screw over the PCs, give them Inspiration.

Hah I really like that idea of a Fate Point when a DM complicates the PCs lives - possibly in the form of a Paizo Plot Twist card!

 

[delericho]

Speaking of monster tactics- its another great way of nudging the outcome of a fight. What is everyone's stance on that?

I expect players to employ tactics that match up with what their character "would" do in the given situation - so the rage-filled berserker should act differently from the tactically-adept warlord. (Of course, ideally the game should facilitate that by rewarding PCs whose behaviour matches their build.)

The reason I mention that is that when running monsters I likewise try to employ tactics that match up with that those monsters "would" do in the situation. That pack of wolves should act differently from the life-hating zombies, which should be different from the super-genius dragon, and so forth.

As with all absolute rules, I have an exception:

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?

There are occasions when I discover that I've screwed up my preparation - most recently because I miscounted the CR of the monsters I was using so that the encounter was vastly more difficult than it should have been and vastly more difficult than intended. In a situation like that, I will indeed revert to suboptimal tactics to give the PCs opportunity to flee.

Of course, if the PCs don't flee and continue fighting in the face of near-certain defeat, that's on them - and I won't hesitate to enforce a TPK. But if they win... well, that's the stuff of legends.

 

[delericho]

I use morale checks. Failure on a morale check simply means that the NPCs must change their tactics and/or goals. It's a nice way to keep things fresh.

Nice idea. I'm going to have to steal that one.

 

[ehenning]

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".

Sorry, but I'm confused. A Broach of Shielding shouldn't do anything to bow dmg, unless I'm missing something.

 

[Uchawi]

Really does depend on the Agenda - what the group has more fun with. Most of my groups stand more on story than on mechanics, so enemy death is more a matter of pacing than of addition and subtraction, so there it's fine (but should still be done consciously). But a group more focused on challenges or on smart play or on emergent events I wouldn't, because the rules interactions is part of the fun for that group. In a mixed crowd, I generally err in favor of not doing it - stories can adapt themselves to the circumstances.

I believe that is the true test, i.e. if your players discover through observation, or admission by the DM, that some encounters were modified on the fly, would you continue to do it if the player(s) had a negative reaction. Even if it was just one player at the table, but the rest had no opinion.

 

[MrZeddaPiras]

As a DM, I roll my dice in the open, so the players know I'm not fudging anything. That said, last night I was DMing Hoard Of The Dragon Queen and the party (5 lev 3 characters) encountered the blue half-dragon and 3 berserkers. I summarily calculated the CR (I should have done that beforehand, I know...) and it amounted to "OMG, they're so screwed." So I deployed the berserkers with 35 pf. I mean, I will loosen up on my old-school principles to fix a mistake.

 

[billd91]

I might cut hit points but I don't add to them because of PC success. If luck (or good plans) foil the plans of or even embarrass my NPCs, that's fine with me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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".

But he did cheat, unless your bow was firing magic missiles instead of arrows. That situation sounds more like a scripted scene he wanted to take place than anything else. Even if your bow DID fire magic missiles, he deliberately gave you an item that was guaranteed to be worthless the first opportunity you had to use it. That is being a dick and he shouldn't be behind the screen according to Wheaton's law.

Sorry, but I'm confused. A Broach of Shielding shouldn't do anything to bow dmg, unless I'm missing something.

Nope. Not missing anything. That DM is a dick.

Do adult players not know most DMs fudge?

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

Most, but not all. Some DMs hold themselves to a higher standard. I am one of them.

 

[delericho]

But he did cheat, unless your bow was firing magic missiles instead of arrows. That situation sounds more like a scripted scene he wanted to take place than anything else. Even if your bow DID fire magic missiles, he deliberately gave you an item that was guaranteed to be worthless the first opportunity you had to use it. That is being a dick and he shouldn't be behind the screen according to Wheaton's law.

Unless of course he just made a mistake. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What I don't get is how a brooch of shielding stopped your arrow crit - don't they just stop magic
missiles?

Even if the Elf had had anti-arrow magic, in that situation good GMing would have been to rule that the hand of the gods steered your arrow and it went through his sorcerous defences. It's common though just to stick to RAW, either due to tiredness and other causes of mediocre GMing, or because the GMing is running a hardcore Gamist game. But breaking the rules to negate your achievement would be terrible GMing, even if done by mistake.

Or hardcore simulationist. Only a narrativist would intervene.