D&D 5E "Once an encounter begins, I will make changes to it for balance, fun, or rules reasons." (a poll)

[delericho]

I said true false, but it's not quite absolute.

The one exception is if it becomes clear that I've screwed up somewhere along the line and that that mistake is going to have major undesirable consequences (that is, the death of a PC, or even a TPK). The most recent example I can think of was when running "Shackled City" about 20 years ago, I messed up one encounter by accidentally using the Storm Giant stats in place of the Stone Giant stats. We ended up stopping that encounter and having a do-over.

But I won't make adjustments to increase fun, or because an encounter is "too easy" - in both those cases, I'll let is slide, as there's always another encounter.

(I should note, incidentally, that many of my encounters have built in changes - the enemy get reinforced after 2 rounds, or whatever. But since that's pre-planned, I don't think it's quite the same thing!)

Edit: I just realised I'd read the question backwards. Should have voted "false"!

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think it's easy to forget that for most modern playstyles, the focus of play isn't the challenge, it's the performance.

*DING DING DING * We have a winner!

 

[FireLance]

False. If the players get an outcome they don't want, they can jolly well reload from the last save point like the silicon gods of gaming intended.

(Whaddya mean using Roll20 doesn't make it a computer game?)

 

[Helldritch]

How is pulling punches not making changes to the battle In the middle of it?

I will not pull punches, but make tactical errors. Such as attacking the highest AC character when I could have attacked the lowest one.
Ignoring that I have a clear line to the healer and just attack the closest target. Or not disengaging before going to the weakest target and so on. The combat will still be and feel dangerous. But mistakes will be made and if a TPK occurs, so be it.

But if the players put themselves into the mess without heeding warnings and such, they will not have the above.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The question is poorly phrased, because yes I absolutely will, but I have strict rules about what kinds of changes are and aren't acceptable to make.

Sooooo...saying "yes" is the correct answer for me, but it's a "yes" with an asterisk the size of the Sun.

 

[Hussar]

How is pulling punches not making changes to the battle In the middle of it?

See, this is why this kind of question has a lot of nuance to it. If I honestly make a tactical mistake, am I changing the battle? If I deliberately make one, am I changing the battle? How much of a mistake do I have to make? What kind of mistake? So on and so forth. I would think that in context, the question is more connected to changing numbers and stats - adding or subtracting HP, fudging die rolls, that sort of thing. Playing a monster that makes a mistake and attacks the fighter with the 22 AC instead of eating an OA to move past the fighter and obliterate the Mage is a mistake or not? Depends on the creature. Depends on all sorts of things.

It's not a black and white issue.

 

[ad_hoc]

I will not pull punches, but make tactical errors. Such as attacking the highest AC character when I could have attacked the lowest one.
Ignoring that I have a clear line to the healer and just attack the closest target. Or not disengaging before going to the weakest target and so on. The combat will still be and feel dangerous. But mistakes will be made and if a TPK occurs, so be it.

But if the players put themselves into the mess without heeding warnings and such, they will not have the above.

That is what 'pulling punches' means.

 

[Helldritch]

That is what 'pulling punches' means.

For me, "pulling punches" means lowering the number of monsters, making them suddenly flee for no reasons, fudging die roll and such. Making bad tactical decisions "voluntarily" might go into that line of thought too if you really insist. But not in my book.

Monsters/foes will keep fighting to maximum efficiency anyways. If I hit, I hit. If a crit lands. It will land. If I roll 12 damage on 2d6, it will be 12 damage, even if it means killing a character outright. On this, I will not budge one iota. Monsters will not flee if they are "winning", but if winning means taking a shot at a hated leader/rival in the fight, why not? These are enhancing the game and make it more "alive" and believable. This is the kind of things we have in novels. Hey I was watching the old Riddick movie last night with my wife (the second one) and the second in command, when seeing his lord wounded, decided to try his luck and tried to kill the Lord Commander. Of course, the Lord dodged but was killed by the wounded and exhausted Riddick who took the opportunity of the fleeing Lord to put a dagger into his skull. This is what I mean by making bad tactical decisions. It must fit into the narrative or else I will not budge.

And orc (or whatever) seeing his leader wounded might try to take advantage of it, especially if "his" side is about to win. Evil often turns upon itself. We see that so often. But if there are no reasons for a creature to make bad tactical decisions, there won't be any. A dragon will not ignore the healer or the most dangerous threat even if it means to TPK a group. There must be a narrative incentive/logic to do it. Otherwise, tough luck people.