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

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Either your party can handle up-sized giants or they can't. You can't reasonably argue that CR 9 Fire Giants with max HP are fine, but CR 11 Fire Giants with an unusually-burly appearance and a greater XP award (and possibly +1 higher proficiency bonus in addition) will cause problems.

If you're going to make the monsters tougher, you can do it within the rules. You don't have to dictate max HP on all the HP rolls in order to make it challenging.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Yes. No. Yes. Potentially. Potentially. I don't understand the question. (In that order.)

Unless otherwise stated, "normal status is full health" is the default assumption of every group I've played in, witnessed, overheard, heard about, or in any other way received any information regarding, ever. So when an NPC is made to actually "exist" as a mechanical implementation rather than purely a narrative character (using my previous meaning of "exist"), that NPC will be assumed to be in default status. If, and only if, there is a narrative justification for deviation from that status, then there will be a change. For example, it's our second fight with a particular enemy in as many days, but this time the enemy has been given a dangerous alchemical potion that temporarily lets them shrug off wounds (perhaps with nasty, but delayed, side-effects). This is a perfectly valid narrative justification for a being which "exists," mechanically, to deviate from its default normal state (full health) to a different state (beyond normal health). Alternatively, we kicked this enemy's butt pretty hard last time, and for whatever reason they didn't get a chance to recover. That would be a perfectly valid justification for going the other way.

These changes CAN occur after initiative is rolled, but I consider it relatively unlikely that such narrative justifications could simply appear in the course of combat. Not impossible, but unlikely.

It really, truly is that different. Again: One is the DM deciding what will enter into mechanically-realized "existence." The other is tampering with things that *already* exist. Such tampering, unless it is explicitly called out (via narrative justification, presumably) inherently invalidates the players' ability to make informed decisions: the world is not what they think it is, but they are intentionally denied the ability to learn that the world is other than what they think it is. If the difference is in their favor, they will not learn what choices are bad or dangerous; if it is against them, then even their good choices may be thwarted. Either way, they will have a mistaken understanding of what makes their choices good or bad. And yes, I still hold that even knowing that "good choices" can be invalidated by especially unlucky rolls (from the players' perspective). If the choice involves a percentage chance of risk, that percentage chance should be factored into the choice; if it was not, then a lesson can be learned about accounting for the chance of terrible things maybe happening (which, over the long run of many D&D sessions, is essentially guaranteed eventually).

Edit:
Also, to explain the "I don't understand the question," I think I do know what you meant, but I see a different and equally valid interpretation of the question, and which interpretation I take would radically change my answer, so I cannot answer the question as stated. However, I hope that my above explanations have given an adequate answer nonetheless.

 

[billd91]

Now you're contradicting yourself. Either your party can handle up-sized giants or they can't. You can't reasonably argue that CR 9 Fire Giants with max HP are fine, but CR 11 Fire Giants with an unusually-burly appearance and a greater XP award (and possibly +1 higher proficiency bonus in addition) will cause problems.

If you're going to make the monsters tougher, you can do it within the rules. You don't have to dictate max HP on all the HP rolls in order to make it challenging.

Where's the contradiction here (particularly when she's specifically contrasting maxing hit points with adding giants)? Why exactly is maxing hit points bad if it's working for her?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Where's the contradiction here (particularly when she's specifically contrasting maxing hit points with adding giants)? Why exactly is maxing hit points bad if it's working for her?

Because she is responding to my post in which I discuss scaling up giants without adding more of them. She says, "no, that would be problematic," but simply fiating their HP to be improbably high is fine. Since mechanically they're the exact same (they differ only at the realism/RP layer), these two things cannot both be true. Hence, contradiction.

 

[billd91]

Because she is responding to my post in which I discuss scaling up giants without adding more of them. She says, "no, that would be problematic," but simply fiating their HP to be improbably high is fine. Since mechanically they're the exact same (they differ only at the realism/RP layer), these two things cannot both be true. Hence, contradiction.

I think you're missing that she caught on to and responded to your comment: "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." (emphasis mine) Right there you suggested more and upgunned enemies, so I don't see any problem at all with her response to you.

 

[Sunseeker]

Because she is responding to my post in which I discuss scaling up giants without adding more of them. She says, "no, that would be problematic," but simply fiating their HP to be improbably high is fine. Since mechanically they're the exact same (they differ only at the realism/RP layer), these two things cannot both be true. Hence, contradiction.

I know I said I was done but this argument is simply agonizing because I don't see how you arrive at "more HP" and "more inititives, more attacks per turn, more targets on the field, more chances for advantage, more saves to roll and more bookeeping" to be "exactly the same" as more HP.

Because there isn't a single measure by which more HP and more monsters on the field play the same, except in that the sum total of HP required to kill them.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Looks like there's been a misunderstanding.

I know I said I was done but this argument is simply agonizing because I don't see how you arrive at "more HP" and "more inititives, more attacks per turn, more targets on the field, more chances for advantage, more saves to roll and more bookeeping" to be "exactly the same" as more HP.

Because there isn't a single measure by which more HP and more monsters on the field play the same, except in that the sum total of HP required to kill them.

Since I don't think you're deliberately debating a straw man (i.e. refuting an inaccurate characterization of someone else's claims), I think you probably just misunderstood. It's easy to lose track of context on Enworld because it automatically deletes prior quotes. Here we go:

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.

Now, in what way do three burly CR 11 Fire Giants with Storm Giant blood and more HD have "more inititives, more attacks per turn, more targets on the field, more chances for advantage, more saves to roll and more bookeeping" than three vanilla Fire Giants? Mechanically, they are the same as three regular Fire Giants who all just happened to roll that 1 in 106,993,205,379,072 chance of getting max HP. At a RP level though, they are not so astronomically improbable, and furthermore the PCs have the chance to see visible differences and know that these things are tougher than normal Fire Giants, and perhaps later on to figure out why. (They also get more kill XP, if you're into that sort of thing.) As this thread has pointed out multiple times before, it's the difference between overt content introduction and covert system manipulation.

Giving maximum HP is never your only option for challenging powergamers. Do you disagree?

 

[Elf Witch]

Now you're contradicting yourself. Either your party can handle up-sized giants or they can't. You can't reasonably argue that CR 9 Fire Giants with max HP are fine, but CR 11 Fire Giants with an unusually-burly appearance and a greater XP award (and possibly +1 higher proficiency bonus in addition) will cause problems.

If you're going to make the monsters tougher, you can do it within the rules. You don't have to dictate max HP on all the HP rolls in order to make it challenging.

I think you are missing my point which is two giants only means two attacks on two PCs if you add more then that is more monsters to be taking attacks on PCs. Sometimes the PCs are equipped to handle one monster with max hit points because they are damage dealing titans but they are not strong enough to deal with multiple who are also getting attacks.

 

[Elf Witch]

Looks like there's been a misunderstanding.



Since I don't think you're deliberately debating a straw man (i.e. refuting an inaccurate characterization of someone else's claims), I think you probably just misunderstood. It's easy to lose track of context on Enworld because it automatically deletes prior quotes. Here we go:



Now, in what way do three burly CR 11 Fire Giants with Storm Giant blood and more HD have "more inititives, more attacks per turn, more targets on the field, more chances for advantage, more saves to roll and more bookeeping" than three vanilla Fire Giants? Mechanically, they are the same as three regular Fire Giants who all just happened to roll that 1 in 106,993,205,379,072 chance of getting max HP. At a RP level though, they are not so astronomically improbable, and furthermore the PCs have the chance to see visible differences and know that these things are tougher than normal Fire Giants, and perhaps later on to figure out why. (They also get more kill XP, if you're into that sort of thing.) As this thread has pointed out multiple times before, it's the difference between overt content introduction and covert system manipulation.

Giving maximum HP is never your only option for challenging powergamers. Do you disagree?

I see the problem. I have posted I have issues with writing because of my brain injury. I thought I was being clear with using may be to give monsters max hit points. Reading it now I can see the confusion. I am sorry. What I meant was that in certain situations giving max hit points maybe the way to go.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I see the problem. I have posted I have issues with writing because of my brain injury. I thought I was being clear with using may be to give monsters max hit points. Reading it now I can see the confusion. I am sorry. What I meant was that in certain situations giving max hit points maybe the way to go.

I'm sorry for your injury, that sounds terrible.

As a simulationist, I wouldn't mess with die rolls including hit point rolls for monsters--I'd change the probability distribution, not the sample drawn from that distribution--but not everybody is or has to be a simulationist. Play the game the way you like it. As long as your fellow players are happy with the game you're all playing, everything is fine. Peace to you and happy gaming.