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

[Demonspell]

As a DM, over several years, I have learned that what is that the story is more important than game play. I have been known to take all kinds of drastic efforts to maintain the story. I have added HP to bosses, and halfed damage to players whatever it takes to maintain the story and keep the players engaged.

I design every encounter with my players in mind, and when I discover that they are dealling damage too quickly in what should be an epic battle, I do what is necessary to make the battle epic. It is about the players and what they will enjoy, and how that enjoyment can become a great story. I ask myself what stories will this adventure provide their characters with. Is that an acceptable story from my perspective? If that story goes something like this:

"We walked in on Drow Priestess, Lloth's top Acolyte just as she was completing the final incantation for the destruction of the human race. Zelda fired a single arrow with perfect precision that pierced her neck causing her own blood to drip onto the focus instead of the human slaves, and all the drow around her started writhing on the ground. It was amazingly easy, drow were such a pathetic race..."

Then I needed to make some adjustments in how the event turned out. Maybe the boss needed more HP, maybe that perfect roll should have caused a different affect, but sacrificing storyline, just because of amazing rolls, and great damage isn't going to make my players happy in the long run. I have to know what it will take to engage them, and make it a truly epic fight.

You have to use this sparingly though, its not like you can adjust everything constantly because you have a well coordinated group of players that make really lucky rolls. And this goes both ways, both for and against the players.

In one adventure I was running, the group finished a rather minor battle, and had made some great rolls, killing off the baddies in little less that 2 rounds. They cleaned up, but their battle got the attention of a Bodac a couple of rooms over. It started walking their way, and group finished up their rummaging, gathered up and headed out of the room and rounded the corner of a long hallway. The bodac surprised them and using its stare attacked instantly killed their lead fighter due to a roll of 1 for his Save. Frankly, there was nothing I could have done, but it made a great story as the group scrambled to kill a mob that just slew one of their members without even touching him. They finished the adventure without the fighter, and brought the body back to a nearby temple. Using most of the treasure they collected they managed to get the fighter ressurected and it made a great story, both in and out of the game. In fact, the players mention that adventure to me fairly regularly when we meet.

My point is, I knew there was a risk that I would lost a character when I put the bodac in the game, and I had to decide if that risk was worthwhile, for the game and the players. It clearly was, and that is all that really matters. That is what you have to consider when you make on the fly adjustments to your NPCs. If it makes the story better, then go for it, it is doesn't don't change a thing.

 

[Bupp]

I usually use the average hit point total, but have dropped a creature with 1 or 2 hit points or even given a solo up to max hit points after the fight began when it looked like the party would take it down in a round or two.

It's rare I do it, but will to aid the narrative.

 

[Nebulous]

As the title asks: it's the middle of an encounter, would you change a monster's hit points?

This might be during a boss fight where the PCs roll well and it looks like the big bad is going to die before taking a turn. Or maybe during a long fight that looks like it might drag. Or perhaps a tense fight where the party is toeing on a TPK.

Would you?

Absolutely. I have added to and subtracted from the original hit points depending on how the fight is going. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

 

[Nebulous]

Ask yourself, if the players kill this boss what story would the character tell in a tavern. If it goes something liKe, "We walked in on Gearhard, Lloth's top Acolyte just as he was completing the final incantation for the destruction of the human race. Zelda fired a single arrow with perfect precision that pierced his neck causing his own blood to drip onto the focus instead of the human slaves, and all the drow around him started writhing on the ground. It was amazingly easy, drow were such a pathetic race..." Then you needed to make some adjustments in how the event turned out. Maybe he needed more HP, maybe that perfect roll should have caused a different affect, but sacrificing storyline, just because of amazing rolls, and great damage isn't going to make your players happy in the long run. You have to use this sparingly though, its not like you can adjust everything constantly because you have a good group of players.

This reminds me of recently when my players in LMoP focus-fired on the Black Spider, killing him in one round. I mentally DID bump up his hit points, but after they'd already dealt some 60 points of damage, and they knew they'd dealt that, i could not justify him standing any longer and let him die. He didn't get a single attack off. Fortunately, I was aware that this was a possibility and had some contingencies planned.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The DM could just say "let's cut to the chase, it takes 8 more rounds that are exactly the same as this one, but you win."

As one who hates the idea of modifying hit points (or whatever) on the fly, I actually have no problem with this particular tactic you are describing, and have used it myself on occasion.

What some people apparently aren't getting is how different those 2 tactics are from the perspective of certain playstyles. In this case you are explicitly "deactivating" the normal parameters and fast-forwarding--in plain view of the players. Everyone is in on it. If the players wanted to they could say, "hey, I'd rather not do that," and I'd let them continue to play through it normally. But the normal parameters of this playstyle demonstrate a consistency of world interactions, and part of the enjoyment and satisfaction is knowing that the DM is following the same expectations that you are. The only way I can see the hp alterations type of thing working is if the players had a similar power--perhaps they could give themselves more hit points (or some other benefit) at any time in exchange for something else later on. The players would know the DM could do something similar (and he wouldn't necessarily need to pause the game to tell them when he did), and everyone is still on the same page.

I despise the idea of DMs fudging things with the idea of just not letting me know. That's a complete violation of the social contract from my perspective. So, sure, if the DM is a good enough liar that I never catch on, feel free. But if I catch on I am not going to be happy.

The time to end an encounter is "when the dramatic question has been answered," unless the players want to play out the aftermath for fun. If the outcome is no longer in doubt and the players are bored, end the encounter. Don't alter HP or anything, just skip to the end. "Long story short: you throw a few more Call Lightnings and eventually all the kobolds are dead or fled. Then Prince Rupert says..."

If you feel obliged to play round by round until everyone on one side hits zero HP before moving on, something is wrong with the pacing in your game.

This is a perfectly wonderful playstyle that I quite enjoy in a story driven system, and which I thoroughly despise in D&D. D&D isn't the "every game." Some types of games (in the case of D&D, I think those would be narrativism, highly balanced gamism, or tactical combat simulationism) are poorly suited for some systems.

 

[Dausuul]

As the title asks: it's the middle of an encounter, would you change a monster's hit points?

This might be during a boss fight where the PCs roll well and it looks like the big bad is going to die before taking a turn. Or maybe during a long fight that looks like it might drag. Or perhaps a tense fight where the party is toeing on a TPK.

Would you?

I used to do this all the time. These days, I try to avoid it, but I don't rule it out entirely.

When I design an encounter, I usually have an intention for how difficult it should be. If it turns out I miscalculated, I may tweak the monster's hit points (up, not down) to bring it more in line with my intent. I don't do this to compensate for clever player tactics; that would be grossly unfair to the players. If you think up an ingenious way to crush your enemies, you get to crush them. But if it's a standard, straight-up fight, I might adjust on the fly.

I'm okay with this because, as a player, I'd be okay with the DM occasionally "cheating" a bit in the monsters' favor; it means the world has a little extra edge of nastiness to it which makes victory that much more satisfying. I'd be much less okay with "cheating" in the players' favor.

If it looks like the players are getting bored, and the outcome of the fight is clear, I typically address that in other ways. Often the monsters run away; if the outcome is clear to me and to the players, then it's clear to the monsters too, and not many monsters are interested in fighting to the death. Other times, I just handwave it: "You mop up the last few zombies."

 

[The Human Target]

I might cut hit points but I don't add to them because of PC success. If luck (or good plans) foil the plans of or even embarrass my NPCs, that's fine with me.

I would never use plot armor or extra hit points to screw the players out of an earned victory, I agree with you there.

 

[The Human Target]

Most, but not all. Some DMs hold themselves to a higher standard. I am one of them.

That's cool. Its always good to know everyone on the internet is superior to me at DMing. Or in weird gaming morality.

 

[The Human Target]

As one who hates the idea of modifying hit points (or whatever) on the fly, I actually have no problem with this particular tactic you are describing, and have used it myself on occasion.

What some people apparently aren't getting is how different those 2 tactics are from the perspective of certain playstyles. In this case you are explicitly "deactivating" the normal parameters and fast-forwarding--in plain view of the players. Everyone is in on it. If the players wanted to they could say, "hey, I'd rather not do that," and I'd let them continue to play through it normally. But the normal parameters of this playstyle demonstrate a consistency of world interactions, and part of the enjoyment and satisfaction is knowing that the DM is following the same expectations that you are. The only way I can see the hp alterations type of thing working is if the players had a similar power--perhaps they could give themselves more hit points (or some other benefit) at any time in exchange for something else later on. The players would know the DM could do something similar (and he wouldn't necessarily need to pause the game to tell them when he did), and everyone is still on the same page.

I despise the idea of DMs fudging things with the idea of just not letting me know. That's a complete violation of the social contract from my perspective. So, sure, if the DM is a good enough liar that I never catch on, feel free. But if I catch on I am not going to be happy.



This is a perfectly wonderful playstyle that I quite enjoy in a story driven system, and which I thoroughly despise in D&D. D&D isn't the "every game." Some types of games (in the case of D&D, I think those would be narrativism, highly balanced gamism, or tactical combat simulationism) are poorly suited for some systems.

I mean, I get the differences. I just think one is vastly superior to the other.

Some players I'm sure don't want to see the handwaving up front. I am one of them. Hearing the DM say "blah blah blah you kill the rest of the kobolds moving on" kills it for me. It glosses over the game aspect. It punches a hole in my immersion in the stakes of the game. It makes me wonder what the point if the battle was if its end is meaningless. It would make me wonder if the DM is invested in making this a fun game for the players, and not just some sort of rote D&D exercise.

 

[Demonspell]

I mean, I get the differences. I just think one is vastly superior to the other.

Some players I'm sure don't want to see the handwaving up front. I am one of them. Hearing the DM say "blah blah blah you kill the rest of the kobolds moving on" kills it for me. It glosses over the game aspect. It punches a hole in my immersion in the stakes of the game. It makes me wonder what the point if the battle was if its end is meaningless. It would make me wonder if the DM is invested in making this a fun game for the players, and not just some sort of rote D&D exercise.

I have to agree. When I run a game, the players and I are telling a story. When a player rolls a crit on the Orc Chieftain, I describe in detail what that hit looks like, and my players love it. Thats what brings them back to the table over and over again.

Simply glossing over events takes away the fun. When I see that my players are getting bored, I either implement an exit strategy for the monsters, or give them another round and drop the HP of the monsters. Remember, its about the story not the gameplay. Game mechanics are there for us to use to keep the game moving. If they are suddenly bogging down the game, and causing problems for the story then it is up to the DM to make adjustments to continue the story.