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

[spinozajack]

I wasn't offended; I was just curious as to which part of my comments triggered your statement.

In my experience, the mystery of monsters and traps dissipates quickly. Once a player has encountered a kobold, a dragon, or a unicorn it is hard to keep them mysterious in future encounters. The players already know their capabilities! Where I may be lucky is that my players are really good at not exploiting player knowledge. They are really good at deciding what information their character would likely know, and then act accordingly.

You can always add caster or fighter levels or feats or spells or magic items or special abilities to any monster you want, to keep the game fresh. That's not the same as saying suddenly this healing potion magically appears in the BBEG's backpack and he regains HP as if he had spent an action taking it out of his backpack to drink it.

Boosting HP, seen in this light, is a total sham. It requires not only ignoring the usual HP rules, but ignoring all kinds of other rules like having to use an action to cast a spell or drink a potion to restore their HP instead of attacking the players one more time. It's cheap. And in my opinion, it's cheating. Obfuscatory language aside, everybody here acknowledges that because they constantly use the term "fudging" which means the same thing. The only difference is is that they rationalize it because it's an easy tool to alter the number of rounds a combat takes. That's not a power the DM should have, unless it's a foregone conclusion. In which case they can just end the combat anyway without subterfuge.

My main point in this thread is that I have tried it, and found over the years it's better to just let the chips fall where they may. You can always make another NPC or monster to take the place of the fallen one, players can always roll another PC, and the story goes on.

Once you've opened up the can of worms that fudging is okay in your game, it sets a precedent that players don't see doing it as wrong. And they do end up fudging their own HP. Do people here at least acknowledge that's cheating? If DMs can fudge HP without a rules reason for it to justify the change, why can't PCs? DMs are supposedly doing it for the good of the story, why is it bad for the story for PCs to heave a little extra plot padding? The rationalizations cut both ways. Either DMs want PCs to win regardless of the dice, in which case it's absurd to not allow PCs to fudge their own HP, or they let the dice have their way and let the chips fall where they may.

You lose all pretense of DMs as impartial combat referee when you give them that power. And that to me means in fairness, I can't as a player feel guilty if I do the same thing. Fair's fair. That's the whole concept of fair play. Fudging HP mid-combat is not fair play, it's rigged.

There is no real challenge if combat outcomes are forced one way or another. At that point you might as well watch a movie or read a book. That's all I have to say on the topic, thanks for listening guys.

 

[iserith]

I brought this question up to my players and the only consensus that could be reached between them was that "it doesn't seem fair" since they can't just add hp to their PCs mid-fight if it's excessively difficult for them.

From this perspective I can understand their position a bit more clearly. However, I suppose that each DM has the right/discretion to modify the game as they see fit for their players.

I don't know. To me, this speaks to an adversarial relationship between the DM and players. In a game where it's DM vs. players (which I submit D&D is not even though the DM plays the opposition), it would be important that the DM and players have parity with regard to things they can do e.g. if the DM can adjust hit points as he or she will, so too should the players. This would make the game "fair."

But since D&D is not a game like that and has goals of play that amount to "have a good time!" and "create an exciting, memorable story!" through a structured conversation with some die rolls to introduce chaos, such parity is completely unnecessary and obviously nonexistent in D&D 5e. To this end, I understand why some DMs would adjust monster hit points during play and I do not consider it "cheating." I just don't have a need to do it myself.

 

[The Human Target]

Aaaaaaand I'm out.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't know. To me, this speaks to an adversarial relationship between the DM and players. In a game where it's DM vs. players (which I submit D&D is not even though the DM plays the opposition), it would be important that the DM and players have parity with regard to things they can do e.g. if the DM can adjust hit points as he or she will, so too should the players. This would make the game "fair."

But since D&D is not a game like that and has goals of play that amount to "have a good time!" and "create an exciting, memorable story!" through a structured conversation with some die rolls to introduce chaos, such parity is completely unnecessary and obviously nonexistent in D&D 5e. To this end, I understand why some DMs would adjust monster hit points during play and I do not consider it "cheating." I just don't have a need to do it myself.

But are the die rolls really introducing chaos if they are ignored or adjusted to produce a desired outcome? No. Instead they become an unnecessary window dressing that doesn't have impact on outcomes. Of course it is up to the DM to decide when the dice will become a deciding factor.

 

[iserith]

But are the die rolls really introducing chaos if they are ignored or adjusted to produce a desired outcome? No. Instead they become an unnecessary window dressing that doesn't have impact on outcomes. Of course it is up to the DM to decide when the dice will become a deciding factor.

You're right on all scores here in my view. I don't see the need to roll dice if I desire a particular outcome enough that I'd be willing to fudge. I've noticed that some DMs, however, ask for rolls without figuring a DC, then just use the result as a basis for improvising what follows. (I think this was even mentioned as a standard DM practice in the playtest!) That's not my way of doing things, but it seems common enough and more power to 'em if it helps them achieve the goals of play.

 

[pemerton]

I think the start of that conversation was= players can't know you aren't fudging unless everything is exposed. So rolling in front of the screen isn't a guarantee of no fudging.

The players can know a GM is not fudging if, for instance, s/he tells them as much and is known by them to be a truth-teller.

Me fudging a monsters hit points down or up a few points is no different than me choosing to not have a 17th level red dragon in the cave my 3rd level PCs found.

That is equating action resolution to content introduction. For at least some players of RPGs, these are not the same thing.

I suppose that each DM has the right/discretion to modify the game as they see fit for their players.

I don't see how this is true, in general, either. Some groups may confer that authority on their GM. Others may not. I don't think there is any universal rule.

The diversity of approaches to D&D play (and RPG play more generally) is a real phenomenon! Discussions of permissible GM techniques, scope of GM authority etc need to have regard to it or else they will misfire.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree with the systemic "fix" to prevent boring finales. What's boring to you is not boring to me.

<snip>

Like Mike Mearls wrote "D&D is about the thrill of a natural 20, and the agony of a natural 1".

What he's saying is that the dice should have a say in when and how things turn out.

I don't really understand this. You seem to be pointing to features of the game system - in this case, the roll played by dice rolls - and explaining how, for you, they ensure the game is not boring. So I don't see how you're disagreeing with me.

The DM doesn't dictate the outcomes of the battle or how many rounds it should take. If he does, I really believe playing D&D is just fancy window dressing

And I understand this even less. What does this have to do with using a game system that precludes boring results? Or with the particular system that I expressed my preference for (namely, 4e)?

 

[Talmek]

The players can know a GM is not fudging if, for instance, s/he tells them as much and is known by them to be a truth-teller.

That is equating action resolution to content introduction. For at least some players of RPGs, these are not the same thing.

I don't see how this is true, in general, either. Some groups may confer that authority on their GM. Others may not. I don't think there is any universal rule.

The diversity of approaches to D&D play (and RPG play more generally) is a real phenomenon! Discussions of permissible GM techniques, scope of GM authority etc need to have regard to it or else they will misfire.

I agree with your statement that "groups may confer that authority on their GM"; however, as the primary arbiter of the game this decision allows the GM to make decisions as he/she sees fit, and at the same time allows the PCs to vote with their feet, so to speak.

Ultimately I believe this could be solved in an up-front discussion between all members rather than deciding on the fly. The second option I could foresee resentment and other issues hot on the heels of deciding to modify HP.

<Disclaimer> I do not advocate changing HP on either side (PC or monsters); however, D&D being what it is by design, that is, customizable to individual groups, this does allow for rules modification/adjudication based upon the situation. Too much of this begs the question though of the "purity" of D&D and whether or not you're truly playing it.

 

[Elf Witch]

I disagree with the systemic "fix" to prevent boring finales. What's boring to you is not boring to me. Chopping the head off the evil boss unceremoniously is a terrific possibility that rolling a natural 20 should possibly allow. Not force, not every time, but not prevent, either.

With enough analysis, you can smooth out any gameplay issue so that what appears to be randomly generated by the dice, is actually precisely controlled. The question is how precise is this control. If it forces your version of a non-boring finale on the rest of us, I'll pass. I'd rather fudge the monster HP than have that fudging obfuscated into the rules to try and prevent sudden and surprising things from happening from time to time.

Like Mike Mearls wrote "D&D is about the thrill of a natural 20, and the agony of a natural 1".

What he's saying is that the dice should have a say in when and how things turn out. And that means by definition, taking some of that control away from the DM. The DM doesn't dictate the outcomes of the battle or how many rounds it should take. If he does, I really believe playing D&D is just fancy window dressing and I'd rather not waste my time with playing a game I'm guaranteed to win. I can't imagine any system more boring than that.

No that is not what he is saying if it was then he would not have written in the DMG that DMs have the power to change dice rolls. He would ave written that under no circumstances should a DM ever change a dice roll.

I can't believe you can't understand this. Even DMs who don't change dice roll ever don't agree that the rules are saying you can't ever do it. It is like everything else in gaming a choice made at individual tables.

 

[Elf Witch]

Exactly. It isn't fair and it isn't necessary either. If DMs can alter monster's HP without justification, players should be able to as well. Even people who admit they do that in this thread say they feel awkward doing it. As they should, because cheating is generally considered wrong by most people.

I asked my players about this and every one of them said they have no issue with me changing monster hit points and they don't see it as unfair because I am the DM and they trust me. They view it as no different than my changing how monsters work or any of the decisions I make when it comes to running the game.

Now are you willing to accept that there is no right or wrong way to answer this question and that it depends on the individual tables playing the game. What one group sees as unfair another group sees as perfectly fine and you know what neither is wrong.