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

[Jeff Albertson]

Oh, and no one enjoys how Boba died, made the story, which is what we're doing here, less fun.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Or the DM can make sure no one is let down. Nip the argument in the bud: always say you never fudge, and do it anyway if you want.

I have no idea how other groups are organized but I play with friends. I respect my friends and try and treat them better than that.

 

[Umbran]

Well...it would certainly be diminished, wouldn't it? There's an obvious analogy here with, um, human relations and the possibility of one participant, um, faking in order to produce what, in their view, would be a better experience. No one likes a faker.

Or the DM can make sure no one is let down. Nip the argument in the bud: always say you never fudge, and do it anyway if you want.

Gah. I did some moderation here earlier, and that would normally mean I step out of the discussion. But, I have a point to make that doesn't really fit either side, so I hope I won't cheese anyone off too much.

It is very true that relationships should not be built on a bed of lies. I'm sorry, SirAntoine, but the fundamental dishonesty there is problematic for any long-term arrangement.

However, to Greg's note.... faking it *occasionally* is not necessarily a sin, and can in fact be healthy. This is because failing to do so makes perfect the enemy of good, and can leave you in the situation where an experience that was Great for A, and OK, but not perfect, for B, becomes a really bad experience for both through trying too hard. My understanding is that human social mores are not based on so called "radical honesty", and that our relationships tend to break down if we do not include a buffer for polite fictions. Greg says nobody likes a faker - but the truth is that nobody likes a stream of unvarnished truth, either.

This is where I get my approach - fundamental honesty overall, that lays the groundwork for the polite fiction of the moment.

And if someone doesn't agree with where you want polite fictions... don't play with them. That's okay. We don't all have to like the same things.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Gah. I did some moderation here earlier, and that would normally mean I step out of the discussion. But, I have a point to make that doesn't really fit either side, so I hope I won't cheese anyone off too much.

It is very true that relationships should not be built on a bed of lies. I'm sorry, SirAntoine, but the fundamental dishonesty there is problematic for any long-term arrangement.

However, to Greg's note.... faking it *occasionally* is not necessarily a sin, and can in fact be healthy. This is because failing to do so makes perfect the enemy of good, and can leave you in the situation where an experience that was Great for A, and OK, but not perfect, for B, becomes a really bad experience for both through trying too hard. My understanding is that human social mores are not based on so called "radical honesty", and that our relationships tend to break down if we do not include a buffer for polite fictions. Greg says nobody likes a faker - but the truth is that nobody likes a stream of unvarnished truth, either.

This is where I get my approach - fundamental honesty overall, that lays the groundwork for the polite fiction of the moment.

And if someone doesn't agree with where you want polite fictions... don't play with them. That's okay. We don't all have to like the same things.

That bit about the unvarnished truth made me think of that old classic Bloom County strip. Ah memories.

 

[airwalkrr]

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?

I would, and I have. Of course the situation varies on the experience of the PCs and the type of game they are expecting. I have done so in the Adventurers League for Tier 1 adventures where the players are new when the fight turns against them solely (IMO) because of really bad luck. In one situation, I rolled three natural 20s in a single round (there were quite a few enemies, but it was enough to take two PCs down). One PC died in that fight, but I felt it was unnecessary to potentially TPK the party which consisted of mostly new players, so I massaged the hp down a bit. I allowed enemies to go down if they fell to 1-5 hp. It seemed that one PC death was a powerful enough reminder of PC mortality, and I did not want to seem a mean-spirited DM to mostly new players.

In my home campaign, things are different. I have seasoned players, most of whom have been playing for years, even decades. I roll behind a screen to keep my secrets, but I do not change things mid-fight. I allow the dice to fall where they may. My home campaign is a sandbox, and my players know this. They understand that sometimes they may stumble into a fight that they simply cannot defeat without incredible cost, so they usually try to research an area before delving or exploring it. Sometimes they find themselves in over their head because their information was not thoroughly researched or because they underestimated its difficulty, and discretion is the better part of valor, so they flee. On occasion a PC death has occurred due to bad luck, but my players understand this is part of the game. A few other PC deaths have occurred over the years, mostly due to player mistakes, foolishness, or poor planning. Again, my players accept this as part of the game and try to learn from their mistakes.

It is not adversarial; it makes the world feel more real to them and myself. They have come to appreciate the fact that I am fair and that the world does not "level up" along with them. For the most part, we avoid "Adventure Paths" and other tailored challenges. When I do use them, I tailor them to the world, not my PCs. This usually involves quite a few changes to the order of the storyline.

Incidentally, your OP seems to suggest that one would only adjust hp downward. I have done the opposite. Occasionally I am gauging monster CR and find its hp seems particularly low for its CR. I usually adjust the hp upward unless the creature has very special or unique special attacks or defenses. In these cases I might increase monster hp so that the fight seems a more appropriate challenge. This is especially common with templates applied to low CR monsters in 3e and PF.

 

[SirAntoine]

I have no idea how other groups are organized but I play with friends. I respect my friends and try and treat them better than that.

Not letting them down is treating them badly?! It should be re-assuring to a player with objections to it. The DM who says he never does it isn't likely to do it very often, now is he? It becomes important to him to keep the illusion going.

 

[SirAntoine]

Gah. I did some moderation here earlier, and that would normally mean I step out of the discussion. But, I have a point to make that doesn't really fit either side, so I hope I won't cheese anyone off too much.

It is very true that relationships should not be built on a bed of lies. I'm sorry, SirAntoine, but the fundamental dishonesty there is problematic for any long-term arrangement.

However, to Greg's note.... faking it *occasionally* is not necessarily a sin, and can in fact be healthy. This is because failing to do so makes perfect the enemy of good, and can leave you in the situation where an experience that was Great for A, and OK, but not perfect, for B, becomes a really bad experience for both through trying too hard. My understanding is that human social mores are not based on so called "radical honesty", and that our relationships tend to break down if we do not include a buffer for polite fictions. Greg says nobody likes a faker - but the truth is that nobody likes a stream of unvarnished truth, either.

This is where I get my approach - fundamental honesty overall, that lays the groundwork for the polite fiction of the moment.

And if someone doesn't agree with where you want polite fictions... don't play with them. That's okay. We don't all have to like the same things.

Now you are the blowing it out of proportion, good sir. I said nothing of building a relationship on a bed of lies. It is curious you make exceptions for lying in other circumstances. I don't even fudge myself, I just want to stop people from calling it cheating and get them to accept that it's the right way to play the game for anyone who wants to. As you can see from this thread, it can be very unpleasant, and futile, to try to convince people of that. I even have the rules on my side, but I can't convince them.

 

[Celtavian]

I know how I feel as a DM when I feel a player is cheating on rolls. I would hate to make a player feel the same way about me.

What if a player were making up his rolls as he felt appropriate to the adventure? Should the DM and other players tolerate that? The player is rolling behind his hand and happens to get 20s whenever he needs one.

I played with a few players like that. No one trusted them and gave them a hard time. It made quite a few players not want to play with those players. One was a guy that would roll behind his hand and say, "Got It', meaning he hit, in nearly every critical situation. It grew tiresome.

If the players don't get to make up rolls to suit their view of how things should go, why should I as a DM? That's cheese to me. I'm sure a player would love to give himself more hit points when he needs to keep standing to save his friends or fudge a roll to win a battle that looks like it is going bad. I don't allow it as a DM. I feel what's the point of playing a game with dice if you're not going to use the result good or bad. I have the same philosophy when it comes to modifying hit points or other factors on the fly.

 

[Umbran]

Now you are the blowing it out of proportion, good sir. I said nothing of building a relationship on a bed of lies.

You have spoken of a GM telling players they don't ever fudge, but then going ahead and doing it anyway. That sounds like a pretty fundamental and active lie, to me, and a misrepresentation of the GM's basic GMing style. If you tell players that when they join your campaign, then yes, your gaming relationship with them is founded on a lie, one that is rather serious to some players.

It is curious you make exceptions for lying in other circumstances.

I thought I was fairly clear - I am merely noting what I know of human psychology. Some small fibs are generally acceptable (even required, from a social standpoint), but others aren't. Humans aren't an "all or nothing" creature. We have subtleties.

I don't even fudge myself, I just want to stop people from calling it cheating and get them to accept that it's the right way to play the game for anyone who wants to.

I know that's what you are trying to do. But you will not convince them of that when your argument is, "It is okay to tell people the rule is X, but then you play with rule Y" (tell them you don't fudge, but go ahead and do it). That's going to come across as the very essence of cheating, no matter what the rulebooks say.

Meanwhile, my approach makes occasional fudging one of the rules, so I am not cheating.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not letting them down is treating them badly?! It should be re-assuring to a player with objections to it. The DM who says he never does it isn't likely to do it very often, now is he? It becomes important to him to keep the illusion going.

It should be re-assuring? Do you even realize how arrogant it is to treat your players like children, simply because you assume that you are acting in their best interest? Who knows, perhaps you do game with children who would throw a tantrum if things didn't work out as expected. Most adult players that I know prefer to make their own gaming choices.