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

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

I think that this is the essence of my discomfort with with changing hp arbitrarily too. RPGs are a lot of things: role playing, story telling, games, exploration, and on and on. I enjoy all of these parts. Arbitrarily changing hp throws out the "game" part. The players win when the DM feels like it, not when you win according to the rules of the game.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

 

[SirAntoine]

The players should feel they win when they take it. It shouldn't feel like it's when the DM or even the adventure path lets them or expects them to.

 

[Umbran]

Arbitrarily changing hp throws out the "game" part. The players win when the DM feels like it, not when you win according to the rules of the game.

Here's the thing - it isn't arbitrary, at least for me. It isn't random. It isn't whim. Not "just because". It is considered, based on what's going on in the game. There is a reason I can elucidate - so not arbitrary.

Nor is it entirely throwing out the "game" part, in that it isn't constant, or even frequent. Every once in a while this comes up. Most of the time, the game plays by the rules.

 

[The Human Target]

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

Hello kettle!

 

[Sunseeker]

Here's the thing - it isn't arbitrary, at least for me. It isn't random. It isn't whim. Not "just because". It is considered, based on what's going on in the game. There is a reason I can elucidate - so not arbitrary.

Nor is it entirely throwing out the "game" part, in that it isn't constant, or even frequent. Every once in a while this comes up. Most of the time, the game plays by the rules.

Right, and for me at least, the primary reason is to facilitate the other elements of the game. Encouraging players to try out of the box things, getting your players pumped about their victory instead of just robotically rolling the dice until something dies. I can, from the first round of combat, calculate exactly how many rounds it will take for my monster to die. If my party does something unexpected and exciting between now and then that's worth rewarding. Sometimes if death is near, victory is the reward.

I usually don't fudge my monster's HP up though, simply because everything I home-brew has some way to heal in a pinch. Life drain, external forces, second-wind style, etc...

 

[Eirikrautha]

The players should feel they win when they take it. It shouldn't feel like it's when the DM or even the adventure path lets them or expects them to.

It is only because of self-delusion if anyone thinks this isn't the case already. The DM sets the encounter, picks the monsters, adjudicates the events in combat, and chooses the tactics of the enemy. He DOES determine when the players win. The idea that the players can "take" the win from the DM is a specific playstyle related to the old set piece dungeon-crawls (along with some philosophy from the crunchier editions). It definitely doesn't apply very well to high-narrative games or AP style games.

It's the same old DM trust issue... the one that 5e pretty much rejects in its design...

 

[Mishihari Lord]

It is only because of self-delusion if anyone thinks this isn't the case already. The DM sets the encounter, picks the monsters, adjudicates the events in combat, and chooses the tactics of the enemy.

Agreed, the DM does all of those things.

He DOES determine when the players win.

And here's where I disagree. Once the combat is defined and in play it's "game on." The DM and players both try to win the combat within the constraints of defined characteristics and acting in character. The is the "Game" part of "RPG." I recognize that others have different play preferences, but I wouldn't want to play a version of D&D where I didn't get to flex my tactical muscles one in a while.

The idea that the players can "take" the win from the DM is a specific playstyle related to the old set piece dungeon-crawls (along with some philosophy from the crunchier editions). It definitely doesn't apply very well to high-narrative games or AP style games.

Agreed again, players can't force a win against the DM even in my preferred playstyle because he can set up an overwhelming encounter. But I would consider this bad DMing.

It's the same old DM trust issue... the one that 5e pretty much rejects in its design...

And disagreed again. 5E seems to support my preferred playstyle quite well. And it at least purports to support a wide variety of styles.

The ironic part of this discussion for me is that I'm a strong proponent of the "the DM can't cheat philosophy." But as I constantly tell my kids, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I generally feel the best place to exercise DM authority is in the setup part of the combat, not in tweaking parameters on the fly, i.e. "fudging."

 

[Umbran]

He DOES determine when the players win.

Well, yes and no.

Some GMs are not comfortable with creating adversaries that "just win", without worrying about stats. So, they make up adversaries that are within the rules, but ridiculously overpowered for the PCs, that really, by the stats, should win. But, if it has stats, and sticks by the rules, generally speaking, a PC win is possible - it may be a low-probability event, or it may require the PCs to take a path that is still thoroughly within the rules (so, doesn't require a new ruling from the GM about how it works), but the GM simply didn't think of, but it is possible.

I mean, almost anything is possible if you roll enough consecutive 20s and the bad guys roll enough 1s.

 

[SirAntoine]

It is only because of self-delusion if anyone thinks this isn't the case already. The DM sets the encounter, picks the monsters, adjudicates the events in combat, and chooses the tactics of the enemy. He DOES determine when the players win. The idea that the players can "take" the win from the DM is a specific playstyle related to the old set piece dungeon-crawls (along with some philosophy from the crunchier editions). It definitely doesn't apply very well to high-narrative games or AP style games.

It's the same old DM trust issue... the one that 5e pretty much rejects in its design...

Shocking.