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

[77IM]

Is it arbitrary, and are the players unaware of it?

I think what's missing in this discussion is the idea of WHY the hit points are set to a particular value. When you put a monster into the game world with X hit points, why didn't you give him X+10 hit points or X-2 hit points? What was the criteria upon which you based X? (And don't just say "hit dice, Con mod, and size" because that begs the question; it makes me turn around and say, "Why didn't you give it more hit dice or higher Con mod? Why is that mage a 5th-level caster with 5 HD and not a 6th-level caster with 6 HD?") Some criteria I've seen include: how many hit points would make this monster an appropriate challenge; how many hit points does this monster need to fulfill its role in the story; how many hit points make sense for this monster to have in the game world; and I'm sure there are many other ways to do it.

Whatever criteria you use for assigning hit points, THAT should not change mid-fight. If, according to your criteria, you just made a mistake and got the HP value wrong, then adjust it on-the-fly, like you would fix any other mistake. Tell the players you're doing it, or not, depending on their preferences and expectations and your table's social contract. But it strikes me as weird to think that once a hit point figure is decided upon, it is written in stone and can never be changed mid-play, even if it turns out to be incorrect.

 

[Umbran]

Some good points here, and were you write that you think my assumption is incorrect, I think you are right.

My admittedly informal discussions indicates to me that the story-telling assumption is not a solid generalization. That better? It is a bit beyond just my own personal thought, but it isn't a real scientific survey.

I do think that if you are in a situation where you want to end a combat, the way isn't to fudge, but to just say something in the lines of: "And then you mop up the remaining forces".

I don't see a major functional difference between telling them they mop up those forces, and making it so those forces are mopped up by a final round of combat. For this kind of case, it is already pretty clear the party will win. The only difference is how that win is presented - by your "wrap up" statement, by having having it play out in full, or having it play out faster with decreased hit points.

Note that I already do discuss this with groups ahead of time - it is agreed that I may occasionally fudge, and that they don't actually want to know when I do it.

I think I am mainly opposed to behind-the-scenes adjustment of combat than I am against adjusting combat.

And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with having personal preferences, for your own table.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's more short-term disruptive, yes. But the long-term repercussions are less. Either is to be avoided if possible, but fudging can destroy enjoyment of a whole campaign (even the scenes where you didn't actually fudge) and not just a scene. Depends on the player of course, but right now I'm strongly considering quitting a campaign because the evil archlich who casts 10th level spells and destroys armies of high-level characters went up against a lone PC, played stupidly, and then died in a fistfight, showing only a fraction of the power he had against the party united. I'll give the DM a chance to show cohesion (maybe the treasure we walked off with is his phylactery and it was all a setup), but if the lich really "died" that easily, I suspect fudging (a.k.a. Heisenfoes), and that ruins enjoyment. We'll see though.

I absolutely hate this as a player.

1) I want to be challenged.

2) I can often tell if the DM is fudging, especially when he is fudging dice rolls. There might be some DMs out there who could fool me, but there is often a pause when a DM is fudging. A portion of their brain has to kick in that normally would not.

So, the game is less enjoyable when I can tell that a DM is fudging. I don't want a DM to spoon feed the players. I want a DM to be impartial and fair.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't see a major functional difference between telling them they mop up those forces, and making it so those forces are mopped up by a final round of combat. For this kind of case, it is already pretty clear the party will win. The only difference is how that win is presented - by your "wrap up" statement, by having having it play out in full, or having it play out faster with decreased hit points.

There could be hit point / resource differences when the last remaining foe does a critical.

This is one area where I do fudge. If the foe has a few hit points remaining and there are 3 or 4 PCs in the initiative order that get to attack it before it gets to attack, I do just end combat at that point. My players are ok with it, but if one player had an issue, I would play it out (and/or ask the player why he has an issue with it).

Note that I already do discuss this with groups ahead of time - it is agreed that I may occasionally fudge, and that they don't actually want to know when I do it.

This to me is an issue though. DMs might think that they are clever in their fudging, but you'd be surprised at how often a perceptive player (or players) know when the DM is doing it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

99% of the people who have ever sat behind the screen have at one point or another "fudged" or "pulled something left field and unplanned out of their butt."

Fudging and creating content on the fly are different things. Spontaneous creation of NPCs or even entire areas when the PCs wander off the edge of the map is simply world building done on the fly. Changing the results of die rolls to suit a desired outcome isn't creating any content, its simply an erosion of the integrity of the game.

From my perspective, the game is much more interesting if both the players and the DM discover the results of play together. Unexpected decisions made by the players combined with the randomness of a die roll make the experience less predictable and thus more interesting.

By this I don't mean that every detail is random. It would be hard to maintain a consistent world in those circumstances. My point is that when the dice are used to determine something, I like to abide by the result. The whole point of dice is that the result is random and can take the game in unexpected directions. Disregarding results you do not like means that the dice shouldn't have been rolled in the first place. The stakes and the odds on many rolls, can be determined beforehand. If there is a consequence that you cannot bear as a result of a die roll then don't include it.

 

[halfling rogue]

I just changed HP in my last session. I realized the PCs were going to take it out before it even had a chance to do anything. It was a Story Plot monster though (in that the direction of the story was depending on the outcome of the battle). It was a kracken attacking a ship. The scene needed flavor and the flavor it needed was danger. If they killed the sucker before a tentacle could do anything then, meh. But I bumped up HP and everything was great, more than great, it was memorable and awesome and something that will be talked about.

 

[Umbran]

There could be hit point / resource differences when the last remaining foe does a critical.

Yes, that is, in theory, possible. And as I said before, if your primary fun is coming from the tactical wargame aspects, then this can be an issue.

But, let us face it - it is a low-probability event. The risk assessment there isn't all that hard to do.

This to me is an issue though. DMs might think that they are clever in their fudging, but you'd be surprised at how often a perceptive player (or players) know when the DM is doing it.

No, I wouldn't be surprised. Because I occasionally ask my players, just to see.

 

[KarinsDad]

I just changed HP in my last session. I realized the PCs were going to take it out before it even had a chance to do anything. It was a Story Plot monster though (in that the direction of the story was depending on the outcome of the battle). It was a kracken attacking a ship. The scene needed flavor and the flavor it needed was danger. If they killed the sucker before a tentacle could do anything then, meh. But I bumped up HP and everything was great, more than great, it was memorable and awesome and something that will be talked about.

Or alternatively, I know that our group has wiped out a real tough foe in a single round before it could attack and that "was memorable and awesome and something that is still talked about".

Both flavor possibilities exist. The flavor of making the BBEG useful and more threatening (which tends to occur a lot with BBEGs anyway), and the more rare and cool flavor of the PCs being super kick butt to take out a BBEG before it could do a single thing about it once in a blue moon.

 

[TwoSix]

I just changed HP in my last session. I realized the PCs were going to take it out before it even had a chance to do anything. It was a Story Plot monster though (in that the direction of the story was depending on the outcome of the battle). It was a kracken attacking a ship. The scene needed flavor and the flavor it needed was danger. If they killed the sucker before a tentacle could do anything then, meh. But I bumped up HP and everything was great, more than great, it was memorable and awesome and something that will be talked about.

Honestly, if you know you need your monster to live at least 2 rounds to be able to show off its cool move, don't even bother tracking damage the first round. Just assume it has plot immunity the first round.

 

[halfling rogue]

Honestly, if you know you need your monster to live at least 2 rounds to be able to show off its cool move, don't even bother tracking damage the first round. Just assume it has plot immunity the first round.

Pretty a good idea. But in game change allowed me to adjust quickly to make it a good fight even beyond round 2. I could instantly see, "aha, this much will do just fine for this battle here on out."

Sometimes I'll even cheat for story effect. Like with the kracken, I stat'ed each tentacle and when one PC had an amazing moment, saving the life of another PC in the process, they rolled enough damage to knock the HP down to 1 or 2 and I just ruled she hacked it all the way through. I'm pretty loose with HP I guess.