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

[FormerlyHemlock]

If that's the case in their world, then I'd like to understand where fairness ends and cheating begins. I think if someone feels as strongly about it as this thread length implies that that should not be a difficult task.

So, I ask again: Is it fair to set an NPC's hp to maximum hp? Is it fair to do that *after* initiative? Is that *really* that different? Is it fair to set an NPC's hp to higher than maximum hp? Is it fair to do that *before* initiative? So, is it fair to set *all* NPCs to maximum hp?

Okay, I'll bite. No, no, no, no, no, and no, as far as my game is concerned or games I would be interested in playing. If you want a tougher NPC, do it at the design stage by giving him more levels/higher CR, and then follow the consequences.

There are people who would answer differently but I take responsibility only for the answers I personally have given, above.

 

[pemerton]

the inevitable reference to the book that discusses the role of the GM...the D&D 5th Edition DMG.

<snip>

The DM has the right to adjudicate as he sees fit - this is plainly explained in the DMG.

In this sort of discussion, though, I don't think it's helpful to just quote the DMG. I quoted the 4e DMG upthread, which talks about fudging; and the Rules Compendium also. That doesn't meant that, in my 4e game at my table, fudging action resolution is acceptable, nor that it is something which I have the authority to do but am choosing not to.

The DMG is not the source of any GM's authority at a given table, and does not establish the scope of that authority: it comes from the group as whole. And different groups take different view on what authority the GM has.

To give an example completely unrelated to the current one (of fudging/hit points), at my table it's taken completely for granted that my authority over the campaign backstory, as GM, includes bringing into play elements of PC backstories that my players have authored. Whereas there are other posters on these boards who themselves take the view, or have played with RPGers who take the view, that a PC's backstory is off-limits as far as the GM is concerned.

These are fairly deep differences of playstyle, with associated differences of GMing technique. The fact that the DMG happens to advocate for one of them tells us something about what the author of the DMG prefers, but - forty-odd years down the track - I don't think it establishes any sort of truth about, or even default approach to, D&D.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

This is how I see it. If your players trust you, they don't worry about what you're doing behind the screen to make the game fun.

 

[Elf Witch]

On 4e and fudging: the 4e DMG contemplates fudging (p 15):

What about you, the DM? Do you make your die rolls where the players can see, or hide them behind
your Dungeon Master’s Screen with your adventure notes? It’s up to you, but consider:

* If you roll where players can see, they know that you’re playing fair. You’re not going to fudge the dice either in their favor or against them. . . .

* Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you might want to change the second critical hit to a normal hit, or even a miss. Don’t do it too often, though, and don’t let on that you’re doing it, or the other players feel as though they don’t face any real risk—or worse, that you’re playing favorites.​

The 4e PHB didn't say anything about fudging in the role of the DM, but this changed in Essentials (compare PHB p 6 to Rules Compendium p 9):

Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and
adjudicate the story.

Versus

Referee: The DM decides how to apply the game rules and guides the story. If the rules don’t cover a situation, the DM determines what to do. At times, the DM might alter or even ignore the result of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.​

Of these three passages, I think the one in the PHB is the truest to the overall spirit of 4e.

The mistake I was talking about was not fudging but Mike Mearls admitting that when developing 4E they developed it aa a narrower playstlyle. I believe his quote went something along the lines of there were more than one way to play a guitar and they had focused on on playing it one way with 4E. I was trying to point out the poster that even the designers admit that it s better to support more than one style of play.

Though I think they are making it clear that DMs need to choose what tool works best in their game.

 

[Elf Witch]

There is no objective answer. They're rhetorical questions. If you're trying to answer the questions and present an argument to me instead of reflecting on why I asked those questions, you've failed to understand why they were asked.

The idea is to get people to explore what is and isn't cheating. Some people here seem very adamant that changing max hp during an encounter isn't "fair." If that's the case in their world, then I'd like to understand where fairness ends and cheating begins. I think if someone feels as strongly about it as this thread length implies that that should not be a difficult task.

So, I ask again: Is it fair to set an NPC's hp to maximum hp? Is it fair to do that *after* initiative? Is that *really* that different? Is it fair to set an NPC's hp to higher than maximum hp? Is it fair to do that *before* initiative? So, is it fair to set *all* NPCs to maximum hp?

600+ replies in and nobody has come up with a good answer. It's time to explore different models because the example presented by OP is not adequate any longer.

Look, the point of a discussion is not to win. This isn't a trial. There ain't no judge. There ain't no jury. This isn't high school debate. There ain't nobody polling the audience. Ain't nobody going to give you a root beer and pizza party. The point of a discussion is to understand what the other person is thinking. To give yourself another perspective to consider. If you go into a discussion with the goal of legitimately changing someone's mind even when they disagree with you, you're not going to do it. You can keep arguing and make sure that you get the last word. That's all you'll get, though. But ain't nobody going to hear it. Worse, by going in with the mindset that you're going to win or change someone else's mind, you're not keeping an open mind yourself. If you're not open to what other people say, and don't honestly consider their opinions, why should they continue to do the same? And if they're not listening to you... well, what's even the point?

I don't think you are going to get one good answer. I think that is because it depends on why you are doing something. If you have a table full of power gamers the only way to challenge them may be to give monsters maximum hit points. Maybe yes is the answer to should you raise hit points after combat has been rolled and you realize that your players are bored out of their minds.

So much of this depends on the DM and the players what is going on in the game for example two almost TPKs back to back may not be something certain players enjoy and may be enough for them to say enough so maybe in that case fudging if the dice gods are out to get the PCs that day is the answer. For other groups they view two TPKs in a row as something funny and something to over come next time.

The only right answer I see is do what you think as DM serves your players best.

 

[pemerton]

The mistake I was talking about was not fudging but Mike Mearls admitting that when developing 4E they developed it aa a narrower playstlyle.

Sorry, I didn't meant to be unclear.

Your point was perfectly clear - ie the one you're just elaborated. I was just using your post as a launching pad for saying what it was that 4e had to say about fudging. (And that it changed over the life of the edition.)

 

[pemerton]

Is it fair to set an NPC's hp to maximum hp? Is it fair to do that *after* initiative? Is that *really* that different? Is it fair to set an NPC's hp to higher than maximum hp? Is it fair to do that *before* initiative? So, is it fair to set *all* NPCs to maximum hp?

In the version of D&D that I am currently GMing - namely, 4e - there is no such thing as "maximum hp".

It is fair to double a monster or NPC's hit points - that makes it into an elite, and requires some other changes too (+2 to saves, 1 AP for the encounter - very similar to a 5e fighter's action surge, and a boost in action economy, not unlike Legendary Actions in 5e). This in turn affects the XP budget of the encounter, which in turn interacts with other aspects of the mechanics (XP earned by the players, and milestones accrued, are the two main ones).

Is it fair to make all NPCs/monsters elite? Sure, though that can have weird pacing consequences. I've run encounters where the PCs fight multiple solos, or a solo with an elite or two for company; but I wouldn't run all encounters that way. It makes for a lack of variety in pacing, tactics etc.

Restatting a monster/NPC after initiative is rolled isn't something that I would do, though. It's the wrong point in time, as far as play procedures are concerned.

Back when I used to GM AD&D, I used an XP system (a variant of Don Turnbull's MonsterMark from the early days of White Dwarf) which made XP dependent on hit points (on the simple principle that hit points determined staying power in combat). So in this system, if an NPC had more hp it was worth more XP - similar to 4e in that respect.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't think you are going to get one good answer. I think that is because it depends on why you are doing something. If you have a table full of power gamers the only way to challenge them may be to give monsters maximum hit points. Maybe yes is the answer to should you raise hit points after combat has been rolled and you realize that your players are bored out of their minds.

That is never the case. Sure, you can send them up against tougher monsters, but you can always do so straightforwardly: just give them more and better enemies with higher CR. There is absolutely no necessity to covertly send them up against enemies who all just happen to come from the extreme right end of the bell curve when it comes to HP rolls. If you want Fire Giants who all have 234 HP instead of 162, knock yourself out--but those things aren't CR 9 any more, they're CR 11 (they probably have 18d12 + 108 HP instead of 13d12 + 78) and worth 7200 XP each instead of 5000. And there should be some visible signs that these fire giants are burlier than the normal kind. Maybe they're part Storm Giant or something, I dunno, but the point is that you never need to give anything max HP in order to "challenge" anyone.

 

[Celtavian]

That is never the case. Sure, you can send them up against tougher monsters, but you can always do so straightforwardly: just give them more and better enemies with higher CR. There is absolutely no necessity to covertly send them up against enemies who all just happen to come from the extreme right end of the bell curve when it comes to HP rolls. If you want Fire Giants who all have 234 HP instead of 162, knock yourself out--but those things aren't CR 9 any more, they're CR 11 (they probably have 18d12 + 108 HP instead of 13d12 + 78) and worth 7200 XP each instead of 5000. And there should be some visible signs that these fire giants are burlier than the normal kind. Maybe they're part Storm Giant or something, I dunno, but the point is that you never need to give anything max HP in order to "challenge" anyone.

I had to do crazy stuff in 3E to challenge my party when they fought single monsters that were supposed to be physically powerful like a solo crag linnorm or owlbear. Those creatures are poorly designed to be big brutes. I had to go way off the hit point to scale to make the fights seem like what they were supposed to be. I gave an already improved owlbear 700 hit points and it still lasted only 5 to 7 rounds doing minimal damage. I gave an ancient guardian crag linnorm 4000 hit points so that it could last an amount of time you would expect a legendary gate guardian to last. 3E martial characters (especially the barbarian and two-hander fighter) in 3E. Glad the 3E crits are gone. They were the main reason fights didn't last long. One crit and most of the opponents hit points were gone. Two and the fight was over. PCs invested heavily in fortification armor because crits were scarier than getting hit. Glad that mechanic is gone. One of the best choices 5E made was to get rid of the insane crit damage.

 

[Elf Witch]

That is never the case. Sure, you can send them up against tougher monsters, but you can always do so straightforwardly: just give them more and better enemies with higher CR. There is absolutely no necessity to covertly send them up against enemies who all just happen to come from the extreme right end of the bell curve when it comes to HP rolls. If you want Fire Giants who all have 234 HP instead of 162, knock yourself out--but those things aren't CR 9 any more, they're CR 11 (they probably have 18d12 + 108 HP instead of 13d12 + 78) and worth 7200 XP each instead of 5000. And there should be some visible signs that these fire giants are burlier than the normal kind. Maybe they're part Storm Giant or something, I dunno, but the point is that you never need to give anything max HP in order to "challenge" anyone.

I very much disagree with this. It really depends on the party how many of the party there is and what their strengths are. Right now I am running Hoard of the Dragon Queen and I am finding with seven players with three of them power gamers if I don't up the hit points of some of the creatures they are cake walking through the encounters and a cake walk can be fun but not if it is every encounter. More is not always the answer. If I have two giants and I up the hit points that is still only two giants attacking the party if I up to say three or four then there is a possibility that I have over powered the encounter because now instead of two attacking the party there is more.

It really depends I ran a published encounter now those are written for a party of four with the basics covered. I had a party of six. One of the suggestions is to up the challenge is to add more monsters. In this case they were undead and we didn't have a cleric. Adding more monsters would have overwhelmed the party because they had no way to turn some of the them which the module assumed could happen. With more undead attacking that raised the chance of someone failing save a d being paralyzed. So I gave then more hit points which made it the perfect challenge for my party.

When running an encounter it is not just how many hit points the monsters have but what special abilities do they have. You need to take those special abilities in consideration as well.