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

[Fralex]

No, 5e rejects the idea that the DM can't be trusted. I saw the distrust issue pop up a lot during the transition to previous editions ( including some folks worried about 5th). The argument made to me was that a game with lots of specific rules "prevented" a bad DM from ruining the game. I think 5e rejects this idea totally.

Yeah, I always thought it was kind of a weird way of thinking. I'd rather the game be designed under the assumption that the person running it will not be unfair to the others. Just let the bad DMs learn to be better. I mean, some general rules to help them know what they're allowed to do is fine, but if the players and DM are lead to feel like the rules are the weapons they must use to defend their choices, you're doing something wrong. Or the people playing it are doing something wrong.

 

[77IM]

Consistent, comprehensive rules aren't about trust or "winning." It's about predictability.

A game is a series of interesting decisions. For a decision to be interesting, there should be a certain amount of predictability, and but not total predictability; and how much of each varies per person.

3.x is for players who love predictability, not necessarily because they don't trust the DM; they just prefer to make informed decisions.

 

[Umbran]

That would be bad DMing. The DM should never try to arrange for the party to lose.

You are jumping to a conclusion, not knowing the situation.

One of the players was leaving to go away to school. For dramatic purposes, the GM suggested he give her a major death scene, and she agreed. In this case, setting us up to lose was entirely appropriate. Afterwards, when it all played out (there was a resurrection involved) and he told us what was going on, we all agreed it was a good thing.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Consistent, comprehensive rules aren't about trust or "winning." It's about predictability.

A game is a series of interesting decisions. For a decision to be interesting, there should be a certain amount of predictability, and but not total predictability; and how much of each varies per person.

3.x is for players who love predictability, not necessarily because they don't trust the DM; they just prefer to make informed decisions.

There's a tradeoff though. The more consistent and predictable you want outcomes to be, the more rules you need in the book. You can quickly get to the point where there are too many rules to easily remember, too many to thoroughly playtest, and too many unpredictable interactions between rules. The classic "rules bloat" issues.

The alternative approach is for the DM and players to have a shared understanding of the game fiction and both make their decisions on that basis. As an extreme off top of my head example, a monster is known to hate bright light, so the PC breaks a window, letting sunlight into the room where he's fighting the monster. The player doesn't know exactly what the benefit of this will be, but the DM provides one and they're both happy. 5E is of course more defined than this, but I think this example does a nice job of illustrating the point. You don't need precisely predictable results to have fun; you just need results that are close enough to your expectations.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As an aside, in response to so other posts to me, I totally reject the idea that, once the dice start rolling, the DM becomes a passive referee. Not only does that ignore all of the setup for an encounter, it's not how any table I've ever been at plays. The choice of tactics, grouping, morale, and any other non-crunch based decision plays an important role in who wins, and I don't think that can be done without a subconscious bias. The games where I'm told the DMs are "fair" almost always translate into a DM who is actively endeavoring to kill the players (and subconsciously "win" for himself) by any means available. I'm not saying that isn't fun or isn't a good playstyle... I'm just saying that it isn't "neutral."

Haha, that paragraph didn't end how I expected it too. I thought you were going to claim an unconscious bias FOR the PCs, for the sake of the DM's friendship with the players. I endeavor to run the monsters correctly but I do err on the side of stupidity/fear, partly for good RP reasons but also because Niven's Law for DMs: "it is a sin to waste the players' time."

I don't think anyone could accuse me of leaning toward the monsters during combat.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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...

Your assumption here, particularly about 'taking the win' is false. The DM is not a player and thus cannot win or lose the game. Not understanding the fundamental roles of DM and player lead to many other misunderstandings.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't do this. I don't run monsters to "win the combat." I run them to achieve their goals. If the allosaurs have the numbers to eke out a combat win, barely, they probably won't do so. As soon as they get a tasty morsel, or a dead packmate, they're going to leave. They don't care who wins, they just want to eat and not die.

Quite right. Some monsters have goals beyond or instead of defeating the enemy. Some are hungry, some may just want to protect their homes or offspring, etc. Even some intelligent NPCs have goals that might be better served by doing something other than demolishing the PCs even if they are able. Forcing a retreat so that they can send a stealthy spy to find out where the PCs came from might be a worthwhile plan.

Why not? Do characters lose in stories? This is a role-playing game. Part of developing a character is learning to occasionally retreat or accepting loss. How can I have them escape from prison or build up the drama of defeating a BBEG if the party never loses to the BBEG? I've designed plenty of adventures where the party initially loses and has to retreat. When they win, they feel like they really accomplished something. It's a very fine line to walk. You have to have a party that thinks of their characters as real and wants them to survive. It's a blast building up scenarios where the party initially loses, only to triumph later.

I had a lot of the party assassinated at one point. They had to recover, find out who did it, and retaliate. Fun campaign.

That's one reason I miss hero points. Hero points allowed you to do manage encounters such as a successful assassination attempt against a PC without ending the campaign. I'm probably going to need to bring some semblance of hero points back into 5E to be able to create such encounters again.

Some players may enjoy this, but as a player, I would be equally unhappy with a loss or victory predetermined by the DM. I have no trouble winning some and losing some ( it is a game after all), but those victories and losses are more satisfying if they come about due to the quality of play along with the random element of resolution.

 

[SuperTD]

I don't fudge hit points without telling my players. I can't in fact, as I run on roll20. All rolls, stats and hp are in the open. If a fight seems to be dragging then I'll straight up ask the players if they want to wrap it up. There's nothing wrong with players knowing stats of enemies in my games-I design encounters so that they are challenging without having to hide things from the players to make it so.

Something I've learned from iserith is to conclude scenes (whether combat or other) when the dramatic question has been resolved. This lets us spend the most time possible on interesting things as opposed to the players trying to guess what hp and ac of monsters are. Not that there's anything wrong with people finding that fun, it's just not for us. In my view, if you're doing what makes things fun for YOUR table, you're doing it right.

 

[Derren]

Why not? Do characters lose in stories? This is a role-playing game. Part of developing a character is learning to occasionally retreat or accepting loss. How can I have them escape from prison or build up the drama of defeating a BBEG if the party never loses to the BBEG? I've designed plenty of adventures where the party initially loses and has to retreat. When they win, they feel like they really accomplished something. It's a very fine line to walk. You have to have a party that thinks of their characters as real and wants them to survive. It's a blast building up scenarios where the party initially loses, only to triumph later.

Yes, its a role-playing game. That means that the players "win" or "lose" based on the role they play, not because the DM thinks it would be enhance his idea of the story by the PCs losing now or making them win despite multiple blunders on their side.
You can of course stack an encounter in a way to encourage a certain result. But this is at first just another situation for the players to deal with. If they manage to win an encounter they are supposed to lose they should get that victory despite it throwing off your "awesome dramatic idea". And if they lose an encounter they are supposed to win then it leads to another situation for them to deal with in game. Don't make them win just so that the railroad can continue.

 

[ForceUser]

As the title asks: it's the middle of an encounter, would you change a monster's hit points?

This might be during a boss fight where the PCs roll well and it looks like the big bad is going to die before taking a turn. Or maybe during a long fight that looks like it might drag. Or perhaps a tense fight where the party is toeing on a TPK.

Would you?

Sure. If the PCs are winning, victory is assured, and the boss has few hit points remaining, I'm not against fudging the results to end the fight sooner rather than later.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm a neutral referee. I'm not there to make the monsters win, or make the players win, I'm there to enforce the rules, adjudicate things that may be iffy, and present the scenario to the players. Of course they are going to run into things now and then they can't possibly overcome with force of arms or whatnot, but that doesn't mean they can't accomplish some goal, even if that goal is getting away from that encounter without death. Just keep it fair I say.

On a side note, and lets keep this between us. I changed monster HP once. I felt dirty and had to take a shower. Not sure if that was the worst or if it was the time I went to a wine bar.

But lets keep that on the down low.