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

[Jeff Albertson]

As an example, I was once running a dungeon in 3E. By the rules, a rogue gets to reduce damage on REF save to 0 with a successful save via evasion. An instance came up of a fireball going off while the rogue was in the center of a long 5' wide corridor. I ruled no REF save was possible as there was no place to enable evasion. That would have been the case for anyone in that corridor, PC or NPC.

That is total ad-hoc house-ruling (denying a class feature), I know a lot of people that would be furious if a DM did that, way more than if he/she fudged a roll. I can see where you are coming from, but that is not playing RAW.

 

[billd91]

It is different and it matters. It is the difference between understanding how rule 0 works and cheating.

As an example, I was once running a dungeon in 3E. By the rules, a rogue gets to reduce damage on REF save to 0 with a successful save via evasion. An instance came up of a fireball going off while the rogue was in the center of a long 5' wide corridor. I ruled no REF save was possible as there was no place to enable evasion. That would have been the case for anyone in that corridor, PC or NPC.

So what if you were playing the rogue and the DM told you to make your save, and you make it- THEN you are told that you can't evade and take the damage anyway. What would be more upsetting?

I think this just illustrates we have different game-fairness standards. I won't deny a PC save in pretty much any case - nor fudge it into failure. PCs get to do whatever they can do so save their bacon, even if it seems improbable (though I might have imposed a +2 to the DC for unfavorable conditions). That last ditch desperate defense is theirs and I'm not going to deny it, particularly when the situations in which they would be denied them are strictly under my control. That's one of their checks on me and my DMing powers.

But even so, when I make any edits to the game, they're on elements on my side of the screen - including my die rolls - not the players' side. Everyone on the "fudging is cheating" side seems to think that DMs who have no problem with fudging have no standards or limits. In general, I'd say we do. If I set a save DC and the PC's save makes the DC, then he saves. I won't fudge that. But if I do hit a PC with an unusually high spike of damage and it looks like that will disrupt the game more than I want it to, I'll reduce it - probably by leaving off part of a modifier as with a high strength crit I inflicted in one game. Of the literally hundreds of possible random outcomes, I probably shaved off a few dozen. I don't know how I live with myself - except that I don't buy into the idea that fudging dice is cheating any more than adjudicating anything else in D&D.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Edit (double-post).

 

[Relax]

So what if you were playing the rogue and the DM told you to make your save, and you make it- THEN you are told that you can't evade and take the damage anyway. What would be more upsetting?

I may have missed something, but I thought this discussion was about the DM changing his own rolls for the benefit of the story and enjoyment of all. The example you just gave has nothing to do with the discussion as far as I understand it.

 

[The Human Target]

A skilled DM factors in players plans BEFORE the odds of success are determined. If the plan is literally foolproof in a given instance there is nothing wrong with declaring the odds of success at 100% and just describing how well the plan worked. That isn't cheating.

The DM determines when the dice are rolled and what the odds of success are. A fair game means that once those odds are set and the die is cast, the result is the result. If you find the dice deciding things is too arbitrary then its time to put a bit more thought into factors being used to determine those odds. The rules can only provide a framework. It is still up to the DM to provide real time situational data that could impact the odds of a given die roll.

Simply put, if the dice could produce a result that is unacceptable-DON'T ROLL THEM.

This is a perfect explination of why the DM is not playing a game.

 

[Charles Wright]

To address the question from the original post - I would let the combat happen, learn my lesson, and adjust further encounters accordingly prior to combat.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I may have missed something, but I thought this discussion was about the DM changing his own rolls for the benefit of the story and enjoyment of all. The example you just gave has nothing to do with the discussion as far as I understand it.

That is all well and good assuming the players have come to the table with the expectation of telling a story. If that is the case then there is no controversy.

This is a perfect explination of why the DM is not playing a game.

Indeed. The $20,000 question is whether the players are or not? The DM, not being a player, of course can never win. The players,however, can still lose if the game is fairly run.

 

[tkstargazer]

Sure, I'd adjust the monster's hit points. If the players are getting frustrated (or having TOO easy of a time with the creature, then maybe I would adjust hit points.

To me, it's more important that the game be FUN instead of worrying about it being 'textbook'. If it's not fun, then why play?

 

[pemerton]

I may have missed something, but I thought this discussion was about the DM changing his own rolls for the benefit of the story and enjoyment of all.

That is all well and good assuming the players have come to the table with the expectation of telling a story. If that is the case then there is no controversy.

Here I am going to disagree with EW (not in a way that will surprise him, I don't think).

If the players have come to the table with the expectation of having the GM tell them a story, then GM fudging "for the benefit of the story" may be all well-and-good. This is White Wolf's "golden rule" from their 90s so-called "story teller" games.

If the players have come to the table with the expectation of playing the game, including making their choices and using their resources, in order to see what story results, then GM fudging is a unilateral assertion of authority that the players haven't agreed to. For instance, if the players choose to fight rather than to negotiate, or surrrender, or run away, then they have chosen to stake their PCs physical wellbeing against whatever good outcome they think will result from the fight. That's the starting point for the story. GM fudging is unauthorised authorship.

From my perspective, if the players didn't want to stake their PCs' physical wellbeing, they shouldn't have fought. And if the GM is constantly putting forward situations where the players don't have any emotional response and so don't deliberately care about what they are staking (eg filler combats) then the GM need to write better encounters!

Not everyone plays this way. But some do, and for us - just as much as for a Gygaxian like ExploderWizard - fudging action resolution is not a useful tool.

by skipping die rolling in many cases, you're already situationally fudging the rules.

It's overt. Which is one difference, and perhaps the most important.

Some games also have a rule along the lines of "say yes or roll the dice". 5e can be played as such a game: p 58 of the Basic PDF says "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." Nothing stops the GM from deciding that considerations of dramatic pacing, fairness etc can be one factor in determining whether or not there is a chance of failure.

 

[Umbran]

If the players have come to the table with the expectation of having the GM tell them a story, then GM fudging "for the benefit of the story" may be all well-and-good. This is White Wolf's "golden rule" from their 90s so-called "story teller" games.

If the players have come to the table with the expectation of playing the game, including making their choices and using their resources, in order to see what story results, then GM fudging is a unilateral assertion of authority that the players haven't agreed to. .

As is so often the case on the internet, this has been stated as a polar dichotomy, with only two states. The way this is put, the implication is that the situation is either *entirely* the GM telling them a story, or *entirely* playing the game to see the story that results.

As is so often the case in real life, the reality of a session or campaign may well lie between these polls - an admixture of seeing what story results, and occasional editorial control by a GM.