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

[pemerton]

I understand the overt/covert distinction that is being presented, unfortunately it is illusory.

Why?

Pointing out the differences between changing things on the fly doesn't change the fact that things are being changed on the fly. Getting lost in the details fools one into thinking they are behaving differently)

I really don't follow. Feeding my kids Weet Bix and feeding them arsenic are both feeding them, but hardly have no relevant differences.

Adding a card to my hand by drawing one from the deck, and adding a card to my hand by palming one, are both ways of adding cards to my hand, but there are differences here too.

Is the GM's job that of a magician? Then s/he should be palming cards - and that play style has rightly been called illusionism.

Is the GM's job that of a game player? Then s/he should be drawing cards from the deck like everyone else. Personally this is my preferred style.

Changing a monster's hit points, fudging a die roll, adding more monsters to fight, having some run away, they are all the same thing

How are they the same thing?

In this encounter, I had a doppelganger NPC run away. The players, by deploying their resources cleverly and with a bit of luck, were able to stop it escaping. How is that the same as fudging its hit points, which is a covert thing to which the players can't knowingly respond?

You may not think it important, in RPG play, that the GM make moves overtly rather than covertly change things while pretending not to make moves. I take a different view. What gives you authority over me as to what matters at my table for me and my players?

 

[billd91]

Is the GM's job that of a magician? Then s/he should be palming cards - and that play style has rightly been called illusionism.

Is the GM's job that of a game player? Then s/he should be drawing cards from the deck like everyone else. Personally this is my preferred style.

They can't do a bit of both?

 

[billd91]

I would submit that if a scene is boring, it's not the hit points that are causing it, nor is the alteration of hit points by the DM necessarily a particularly good solution to making it more exciting. Rather it just helps bring a boring scene to an end faster. The takeaway for me is: "Don't create and run boring scenes."

That's pretty glib. You've never created and/or run a scene that ended up more boring for your players than you originally expected?

 

[iserith]

That's pretty glib. You've never created and/or run a scene that ended up more boring for your players than you originally expected?

I don't appreciate my comments being referred to as "glib" as they were a sincere and honest assessment of an underlying problem of boredom for which hit point adjustment mid-encounter is a band-aid in my view. I'd prefer to avoid the wound in the first place and my earnest advice to others is to do the same.

To answer your question, yes, I have created and run scenes that didn't turn out as well as I would hope with regard to achieving the goals of play. We all have. But ultimately reducing hit points to end the scene earlier wasn't the answer to the underlying problem. In addition to gaining experience in designing and presenting good scenes, the answer was everyone at the table being aware of and actively pursuing the goals of play (having a good time, creating an exciting, memorable story during play) no matter what is going on in the scene, be it a simple battle with a few goblins, a complex multi-stage fight with the villain, the exploration of some dungeon chambers, or chatting with NPCs at a noble's party. Making a scene engaging is on everyone at the table and has almost nothing to do with the amount of hit points a creature has or when they run out in my view.

Do go ahead and reduce the hit points of monsters during play if the encounter is boring, if you want. But isn't it worthwhile to look under the hood to see what is causing the encounter to be boring in the first place?

 

[Relax]

You may not think it important, in RPG play, that the GM make moves overtly rather than covertly change things while pretending not to make moves. I take a different view. What gives you authority over me as to what matters at my table for me and my players?

Absolutely nothing, and I apologize if I came across as trying to tell you how to run your game. I have no right nor desire to change the way you play and I'm glad 4e works so well for your style of play. I actually appreciate your methods and think they are as valid as any others presented here.

I only take issue when perfectly valid forms of play are referred to as cheating or wrong, mostly because saying such things really isn't very nice, and in this case also not accurate. A lot of different view points have been presented in this very long thread, so if I've misinterpreted some of your attitudes I again apologize.

I don't view the DM as just another player drawing cards from the same deck, but I do see the appeal of such play and wouldn't want to try and change your ways.

At any rate, it is probably time for me to withdraw from the discussion. I doubt I'll convince those that think the DM can cheat in a game of D&D 5e that they can't unless very specific house rules are in place. I also doubt that those that insist on stating fudging is cheating will ever realize how unfortunate, incorrect and petty such behaviour is.

I'm glad most of us enjoy this game, and I'm glad there are so many ways to enjoy it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is the GM's job that of a magician? Then s/he should be palming cards - and that play style has rightly been called illusionism.

In 5e & many approaches to classic D&D, including most of EGG's advice in the 1e DMG, yes. He's there to entertain his players, invoking their sense of wonder with his skill at various tricks and always keeping them guessing. And, it's a lot of fun for the DM - and the players, if they don't know too many of the tricks.

Is the GM's job that of a game player? Then s/he should be drawing cards from the deck like everyone else. Personally this is my preferred style.

In 3e & 4e, to an extent, yes. In 3e the DM could play by more or less the same rules as the PCs assuming a role more like a fellow player, just playing the opposition (and some DMs approached classic D&D that way, too, though, IMHO, it wasn't well-suited to it). 4e ran well open and 'above board,' because it was reasonably clear and consistent.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Wow...just wow.

I come here and give a simple post about how I prefer to adjust hp in big encounters because I want there to be tension for the players.
If I've made an encounter too hard, I "just barely miss" here and there, to allow the PCs a chance to recover.
If I've made an encounter too easy, I have the BBEG last a round longer, to give a good smack or two.

I'd prefer to make certain fights something to remember.
And I made the dang encounter, I can alter it as I choose.

For the big fights I want the party to earn the win, but my misjudging of their skills should not detract from it, nor should a freak effect of the dice kill a campaign.
So a hit point readjustment is a good way to tweak a combat.

But I get lambasted for not playing D&D right?
Get a grip.
I play this game to have fun and spend some time with friends.
You run your game as you please as well.
But don't tell me I'm doing it wrong.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's pretty glib. You've never created and/or run a scene that ended up more boring for your players than you originally expected?

Well in my case, this happens once in a while. The difference is, I don't see the need to fix it and my players are not complaining. For those DMs who do need to fix it, great. More power to them. I suspect that their bandaids do not always work as intended, just like their original scenarios are not always working as intended, but they shouldn't prevent them from trying if they strongly feel that they can do it better on the fly than they did with their original plans. Or alternatively, maybe they just don't like the outcome, so they modify it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Wow...just wow.

I come here and give a simple post about how I prefer to adjust hp in big encounters because I want there to be tension for the players.
If I've made an encounter too hard, I "just barely miss" here and there, to allow the PCs a chance to recover.
If I've made an encounter too easy, I have the BBEG last a round longer, to give a good smack or two.

I'd prefer to make certain fights something to remember.
And I made the dang encounter, I can alter it as I choose.

For the big fights I want the party to earn the win, but my misjudging of their skills should not detract from it, nor should a freak effect of the dice kill a campaign.
So a hit point readjustment is a good way to tweak a combat.

But I get lambasted for not playing D&D right?
Get a grip.
I play this game to have fun and spend some time with friends.
You run your game as you please as well.
But don't tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Wait. You said that you "change hit points all the time" because you cannot predict the future 100% (implying that you want to control the outcome of most fights mid-fight) and then stated that boring finales are meh, so someone suggests that hit points does not seem to be the problem or the solution, and suggests not making boring scenarios as the best solution and you consider that you got "lambasted for not playing D&D right"?

Seriously. He just made a suggestion. He never once mentioned that you were doing badwrongfun. He mentioned a good solution so that one does not need to adjust hit points "all the time" (the implied solution is to put the work in up front when designing encounters so that few adjustments have to be made, and learn from previous boring scenarios to design better ones in the future). You seem to be overly sensitive to something that he never wrote. Either that, or you did not mean to imply that you like controlling the outcome of most fights, but that was the take away that I got from your post. Or maybe you did not understand the implication of his post.

But, his statement makes sense. The takeaway for him (not for you) is: "Don't create and run boring scenes."

If one fixes that, then the rest is not needed.

 

[Pibby]

There was only one time I actually raised a creature's HP during battle (the original AP said to half it for a party of their APL), and that was when the Assassin in the party was smart enough to always get in his surprise round AND lucky enough to be first on the initiative. It turned out that mattered very little. The next encounter was the final battle and the druid more or less one shotted the BBEG. That AP was one of the most memorable ones I ran for D&D Encounters.

In all honestly, the "randomness", as far as how uncontrollably swingy the encounters are, is mitigated by the time PCs reach tier 2. Recently I took part in a tier 2 module in Expeditions. It was pretty tough. Our party rolled really badly, made some dumb decisions, and above all that our DM "somehow" got a bunch of crits on our party (and I know he doesn't lie about crits or misses because my dice are as swingy as his whenever I DM with open die rolls). But we still beat the module despite all the setbacks due to great forethought and intelligent battlefield strategies.

So with this real world experience to back up my point, I see no reason to change a monster's HP mid battle because TPK or total dominance by the party, at least for tier 2 or higher parties, is determined less by the dice and more by the players themselves. If problem of randomness of dice is felt a lot in tier 1 adventures, that's because the game actually was designed to be that way on purpose for tier 1. Even then I regret the decision and advise against changing monster HP in game, because that's the same as fudging dice. As a DM I feel that altering reality behind a DM screen is doing a disservice for the players. From previous experiences, I've learned that it's more fun to let RNGesus take the wheel in tier 1 games.