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

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

Whether or not the GM has the authority that you describe depends upon the individual group.

It is simply not true to say that if the GM has any authority, his/her authority must be unlimited; and that the only recourse the players have is to leave the game. That is one way to arrange things, sure, but not the only one.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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."

Adversarial play implies the need for parity between DM and players, but the converse is not true.

Wanting reality to be concrete does not imply distrust of the DM, even though discovering that it was NOT concrete (Schroedinger's HP) might erode that trust. E.g. I have one player who really, really needs me to abide by the rules, to the extent of getting stressed out if we realize that the attack roll he made last turn should really have been at disadvantage due to being barely at long range--he didn't feel right about it until I told him to reroll, and found he would have hit anyway, which made him relax. If he's not comfortable with me handwaving away honest mistakes in a non-critical situation, just imagine how uncomfortable he'd be if I were covertly altering the outcome of important events. And yet it's not an adversarial relationship at all.

 

[iserith]

Adversarial play implies the need for parity between DM and players, but the converse is not true.

Wanting reality to be concrete does not imply distrust of the DM, even though discovering that it was NOT concrete (Schroedinger's HP) might erode that trust. E.g. I have one player who really, really needs me to abide by the rules, to the extent of getting stressed out if we realize that the attack roll he made last turn should really have been at disadvantage due to being barely at long range--he didn't feel right about it until I told him to reroll, and found he would have hit anyway, which made him relax. If he's not comfortable with me handwaving away honest mistakes in a non-critical situation, just imagine how uncomfortable he'd be if I were covertly altering the outcome of important events. And yet it's not an adversarial relationship at all.

If I were faced with such a player, I'd just suggest he take a chill pill. Or a hike, if that didn't work. No offense intended to your player. Such niggling wouldn't be welcome at our table.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

It's not possible for a game designer to write two different sentences that appear to partially contradict themselves, one implying one thing (or easily interpreted to mean one thing) and another, a different thing?

Or one sentence that leads to one style of play, and a different sentence that leads to a different style of play?


Mearls could have written both and meant both and either could be applicable to a given table, even though one supports one POV and the other supports the other POV.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If I were faced with such a player, I'd just suggest he take a chill pill. Or a hike, if that didn't work. No offense intended to your player. Such niggling wouldn't be welcome at our table.

Good thing we don't play at the same table then. We probably don't enjoy the same aspects of D&D.

 

[Elf Witch]

It's not possible for a game designer to write two different sentences that appear to partially contradict themselves, one implying one thing (or easily interpreted to mean one thing) and another, a different thing?

Or one sentence that leads to one style of play, and a different sentence that leads to a different style of play?


Mearls could have written both and meant both and either could be applicable to a given table, even though one supports one POV and the other supports the other POV.

That was the point I was trying to make. That Mearls writing the one thing was not in support of never fudging and that writing where it can be used as DM tool was not support that you had to have fudging in your game. The designers have made a point of acknowledging the mistake they made with 4E. There are many ways to play the game and they anted to design a game that supported that.

 

[Bacon Bits]

An objective answer to these questions implies that there is only a single way to play. If you believe that then the Emperor has already won.....

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?

 

[pemerton]

The designers have made a point of acknowledging the mistake they made with 4E.

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.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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 haven't been opposing ways to play different from what I generally prefer, just dishonesty in general. I don't compromise or take seriously different opinions on that matter.

 

[Talmek]

Whether or not the GM has the authority that you describe depends upon the individual group.

It is simply not true to say that if the GM has any authority, his/her authority must be unlimited; and that the only recourse the players have is to leave the game. That is one way to arrange things, sure, but not the only one.

I feel my previous statements were/are being taken a bit out of context but I'm willing to forgo that for the sake of mutual courtesy.

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

Page 4 Paragraph 7 states - "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and YOU are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more!

Page 235 Paragraph 9 Bullet 3 addresses directly the option to fudge rolls and the like - "Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to.

While I understand that fudging dice rolls and changing the HP of a monster are not the same there is an undeniable parallel that can be drawn - modifying the outcome of a situation in-game (again, both of which are at the DM's discretion per the DMG and not at my table).

The motive behind these decisions are the primary driver for whether or not it's "right" to do so. If a GM chose to add HP to a monster in the middle of a fight and the decision was to provide a more challenging encounter, then I could at least empathize with the GM while I would not do the same in my game. However, if the decision to do so had a more adversarial motive (payback for killing a BBEG in an unplanned manner or too quickly) then that would be my time to have a different discussion altogether with the DM.

The DM has the right to adjudicate as he sees fit - this is plainly explained in the DMG. However, behaving too far out of line with the rules is a surefire method to run players away from your table.

In other words - just because you can, doesn't mean you necessarily should.