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

[jrowland]

Saying that a GM should change things around to shape the narrative because "the rules are guidelines" is not really pertinent, in my opinion, because this matter is really about the style of the game and the social contract between the players.

The Hard vs Guideline is part of the style and contract. A DM following Rules as Guidelines will run a different game than RAW and that could have consequences for player expectations in the contract.

For me: RAW DMing is a bore, on both sides of the screen. As a DM, being a slave to the "pre-written" story/stats means awesome moments can be lost. Sure, a DM can be capricious and thwart things to make things un-awesome, that's where mutual trust comes in. As a player, knowing that the encounter I face is "Hard" vs our PCs and the DM wouldn't dare throw in more monsters even though we are decimating them, is a bore. I'll take the occasional disappointment in my own choices in return for a good story.

 

[aramis erak]

If your purpose of play is to craft epic stories, there is nothing wrong with that.

If the players are there to play a game, with any story emerging only through events as they occur via play then it defeats the whole purpose of the game.

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. After all, my 5-6th level party just participated in a battle against the forces from hell. (82 cambions vs 6 PC's, 3 NPC leaders, and 420 soldiers of the crown.)

What's incompatible with emergent play is mary sue/marty stu bovine excrement.

So be clear in your purpose with everyone at the table on the same page and you can't go wrong.

It helps if everyone is on the same page, not just aware of. on the other hand, I have found that the important part for me is the game side of things.

 

[Atmo]

Already did that a few times in the past, when my players get nice criticals that one-shot the bosses at the second/third turn.

 

[rollingForInit]

Yes. I've done it. Never for my sake, though. I will add hit points if the fight would be more enjoyable to the players to go an extra round and there's no chance of death to a PC.

I'd be especially inclined to do this in our group. We can sometimes go for 5+ sessions with no combat, and when it finally happens, if I miscalculated the HP and the monster goes down before everyone has had a chance to do something, I might just add some HP (or throw in additional monsters) to prolong the fight. It can feel pretty embittering when that combat finally happens, and then you roll low and don't even get to act.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd be especially inclined to do this in our group. We can sometimes go for 5+ sessions with no combat, and when it finally happens, if I miscalculated the HP and the monster goes down before everyone has had a chance to do something, I might just add some HP (or throw in additional monsters) to prolong the fight. It can feel pretty embittering when that combat finally happens, and then you roll low and don't even get to act.

So, are you doing this for your group, or are you doing it for yourself?

Because your initial statements make it sound like you're doing this to make sure everyone has a better time, but the last thing you said only makes sense for your own feelings ("pretty embittering.")

And if this is happening a lot, maybe you should just increase monster HP a bit and decrease some other stat instead?

 

[IgnatiusJ.Reilly]

No, more health is the last thing most 5E monsters need.

 

[rollingForInit]

So, are you doing this for your group, or are you doing it for yourself?

Because your initial statements make it sound like you're doing this to make sure everyone has a better time, but the last thing you said only makes sense for your own feelings ("pretty embittering.")

And if this is happening a lot, maybe you should just increase monster HP a bit and decrease some other stat instead?

I know that most of the players (except maybe 1) would be pretty disappointed if they didn't get to act in the combat.

Of course, depending on the circumstances, I might also just throw in a few additional monsters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I know that most of the players (except maybe 1) would be pretty disappointed if they didn't get to act in the combat.

Alright, I grant that that would be something that could apply to the PCs. On the flipside, combat is dangerous and difficult, and an expenditure of resources. Not having to spend those resources is a boon; not having to take risks is beneficial.

There's also something to think about, in terms of frequency--"sometimes go[ing] 5+ sessions without a combat" could mean anything from "this happens fairly often but not all the time" to "it's happened more than once in 10 years of play." Given that we're already talking about another relatively-rare event, PCs doing so phenomenally well that they defeat a big enemy (or full party of smaller enemies) before the end of the first round, such an intersection of at least an uncommon event with a very rare event should be even rarer--rare enough to be not really worth worrying about in the grand scheme.

Speaking as someone who's never DMed, I usually feel rather relieved when combat ends. There might be a twinge of...feeling miffed, I guess, that I had an idea or whatnot that now doesn't matter. But it doesn't matter because my allies were FLIPPIN AWESOME, not because I did anything wrong. Any negative feeling on my part will be completely overwhelmed by congratulatory feeling for my fellow players--the dice were with them, and they totally owned whatever we were fighting.

Which is part of why I find it a little hard to believe that the players are going to feel particularly "embittered" about not getting to act. If the player doesn't get to act because her allies already ended the combat, that seems like a generally good thing. She'll have other chances to face death bravely, for now she can take heart that her allies are strong (or lucky!) and therefore good to have around. For me, the bitterness would make sense if instead I had been robbed of my action while the combat continued. Few there are who delight in being stun-locked, mind-controlled, etc. for a whole fight, and therefore having a bunch of opportunities noticeably pass them by while their friends suffer. But that's a very different situation from never having the opportunity at all, because success landed in your party's lap unexpectedly early.

I guess...it just sounds...petty and petulant, to feel "slighted" or "denied" by your friends' good fortune. Looking a gift horse in the mouth because it's chestnut and everyone knows your favorite coat is palomino, that sort of thing. It's fine to have some mixed feelings, I suppose, but "embittered" sounds way too strong for "that was super cool, and I'm relieved it's over, even if I didn't get a chance to help."

Of course, depending on the circumstances, I might also just throw in a few additional monsters.

Which sits much better with me than adding HP, if there's a modicum of in-world justification for their appearance. E.g. the party hasn't destroyed all of the golems defending the evil wizard's tower and some heard a commotion; the party tried to avoid alerting the noble-but-misguided guardsmen of the castle; the dungeon is infested with the kinds of creatures that like dungeons, and many more live there than the party would ever clear out; the shadow-druid keeps her forest well-stocked with creatures of death and darkness that could prowl through at any moment. Etc.

 

[rollingForInit]

...

In our group, it's not uncommon to go several sessions without combat, so getting to spend those resources might not be a detriment then It goes in waves, really. Depending on how the campaigns run. I mean, usually that'd mean that when there is a combat, there will be plenty of opportunity for everyone to fight, but ... you know, sometimes things turn out much easier than planned.

 

[Doctorbatman]

I fudge it sometimes. Just to make things fun. If they'd bloody a beholder in one round, yeah, I'm gonna boost it. I made it too easy thinking it'd be too hard.