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

[Umbran]

If you change monster HP on the fly you can also abolish HP altogether and just let them die when you think the players had enough "fun" playing whack-a-mole with the punching bags.

Oh, please, Derren. At least pretend to pay some respect to the reasons others give for a practice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you change monster HP on the fly you can also abolish HP altogether and just let them die when you think the players had enough "fun"

Saves the trouble of prepping those stats in the first place, yes. It's not like you have to roll a certain number of HD for the monster, it's hp total is going to be arbitrary anyway - arbitrary at the table isn't that different from arbitrary when making notes the night before.

 

[The Human Target]

If you change monster HP on the fly you can also abolish HP altogether and just let them die when you think the players had enough "fun" playing whack-a-mole with the punching bags.

An unsurprisingly dumb and hostile post from you in an otherwise interesting and polite thread.

One day you may learn how to interact with other people or effectively get your point across.

But not today.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

An unsurprisingly dumb and hostile post from you in an otherwise interesting and polite thread.

One day you may learn how to interact with other people or effectively get your point across.

But not today.

Personal attacks are uncalled-for.

 

[The Human Target]

Personal attacks are uncalled-for.

I agree with you, but sometimes I fudge the rules.

 

[Derren]

Saves the trouble of prepping those stats in the first place, yes. It's not like you have to roll a certain number of HD for the monster, it's hp total is going to be arbitrary anyway - arbitrary at the table isn't that different from arbitrary when making notes the night before.

There is a difference between making up HP before the game and then sticking to it and deciding mid combat that the PCs are not doing well enough in the fight (or doing too well by killing the enemies too fast) and arbitrarily decide that the combat needs to be made longer or shorter by adjusting HP.
In the latter case where the DM decides anyway on the spot when monsters die or not its easier to not have HP at all. The result is the same as the combat takes exactly as long as the DM wants it to be and ends with the result the DM intended. Abolishing HP is just the more honest way for the DM to ensure it (and also removes preparation time).

Oh, please, Derren. At least pretend to pay some respect to the reasons others give for a practice.

I have no great love for this technique and no intention to pretend otherwise.
No matter the reason, be it the BBEG dying too fast, the encounter being harder than expected or just not memorable enough, changing HP is just a way for the DM to lengthen or shorten an encounter to what he wants it to be or ensuring that the outcome is what he wants. And if that is his goal, to control the flow of combat so that it has the intended (dramatic) effect instead of letting the dice fall where they will, why fiddle around with HP instead of just deciding when a monster dies?
Because then the damage, or rather the whole fighting ability, of the PC does not matter any more (in a game where a big part of the rules is about fighting)? Do they matter when you decide after a first round of good rolls from the players that the monster they are fighting has twice the HP so that it can have the intended dramatic effect?

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is a difference between making up HP before the game and then sticking to it and deciding mid combat that the PCs are not doing well enough in the fight (or doing too well by killing the enemies too fast) and arbitrarily decide that the combat needs to be made longer or shorter by adjusting HP.
In the latter case where the DM decides anyway on the spot when monsters die or not its easier to not have HP at all. The result is the same as the combat takes exactly as long as the DM wants it to be and ends with the result the DM intended. Abolishing HP is just the more honest way for the DM to ensure it (and also removes preparation time).



I have no great love for this technique and no intention to pretend otherwise.
No matter the reason, be it the BBEG dying too fast, the encounter being harder than expected or just not memorable enough, changing HP is just a way for the DM to lengthen or shorten an encounter to what he wants it to be or ensuring that the outcome is what he wants. And if that is his goal, to control the flow of combat so that it has the intended (dramatic) effect instead of letting the dice fall where they will, why fiddle around with HP instead of just deciding when a monster dies?
Because then the damage, or rather the whole fighting ability, of the PC does not matter any more (in a game where a big part of the rules is about fighting)? Do they matter when you decide after a first round of good rolls from the players that the monster they are fighting has twice the HP so that it can have the intended dramatic effect?

We certainly could just ignore HP altogether. Many of us in the "story usually trumps mechanics" camp could probably improvise D&D combat to the point where that was possible. We could also play a game like Fiasco where that kind of thing is a part of gameplay (deciding via shared agreement when things "fall down".)

Why do we NOT do that all the time then?

Because it isn't necessary to. We have HP in the game specifically so that we don't HAVE to make group decisions and agreements on when things should "fall down" all the time. We certainly COULD if we wanted to... but that's an extra layer in the roleplaying that is not always necessary to make the story we are telling fun. And fortunately, D&D has created rules to use that make that group agreement into a GAME for us to play while we come to a consensus on when things "fall down".

That's the glory of RPGs. We don't NEED any rules to create our stories... but they are usually fun to use in conjunction with it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And to turn things around... the same exact questions could be asked of the "no fudging" side.

If you are so beholden to the dice, why do you bother roleplaying and making player/DM decisions at all? If what the dice say is that important, why add in all that story stuff that could run counter to it? If you are going to use dice so stringently for combat, why aren't you using dice stringently for everything?

Heck... the way the game was set up... 4E was in many ways perfect for you people.

(See how silly the argument sounds when looked at from the other side?)

 

[JWO]

We certainly could just ignore HP altogether. Many of us in the "story usually trumps mechanics" camp could probably improvise D&D combat to the point where that was possible. We could also play a game like Fiasco where that kind of thing is a part of gameplay (deciding via shared agreement when things "fall down".)

Why do we NOT do that all the time then?

Because it isn't necessary to. We have HP in the game specifically so that we don't HAVE to make group decisions and agreements on when things should "fall down" all the time. We certainly COULD if we wanted to... but that's an extra layer in the roleplaying that is not always necessary to make the story we are telling fun. And fortunately, D&D has created rules to use that make that group agreement into a GAME for us to play while we come to a consensus on when things "fall down".

That's the glory of RPGs. We don't NEED any rules to create our stories... but they are usually fun to use in conjunction with it.

Quoted for truth!

 

[Umbran]

I have no great love for this technique and no intention to pretend otherwise.

I didn't ask you to, Derren. I asked you to show some respect for the people.

And if that is his goal, to control the flow of combat so that it has the intended (dramatic) effect instead of letting the dice fall where they will, why fiddle around with HP instead of just deciding when a monster dies?

Given this is the second time in a row where you're responses don't really match what we've been saying, I am not sure I want to answer. There's a fundamental disconnect here, and your tone suggests to me that it lies in you already having made up your mind that this is BadWrongFun. I am fine with discussing it with someone who doesn't understand, and wants to learn. But there's no percentage in anyone for beating their heads against a wall. I know that for some folks, "Fudge/No Fudge" is a Dichotomy War (like a 3e/4e Edtition War, but over a style or mechanic, not an edition). I'm not interested in that - partisans make for arguments, not discussions.

So, show me that you aren't a wall, and we can continue. Anyone else not want to be a wall, I can answer the question for you, if not for Derren.