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

[GSHamster]

Those would be among the tricks in the hat that I've already stipulated they don't have.

You ask that question as if I'm some newbie, or somehow not intelligent or experienced enough to have thought my position (and when I use it) through. Thanks for thinking that the totally obvious would escape my notice.

I did not mean it in that way. I guess I feel that surrendering or running is a common reflex for an outmatched opponent, rather than a "trick". The combination of an opponent who won't surrender or run, and has excessive number of hitpoints, and can blow through all its specials and have no chance of winning seems rare to me.

 

[GX.Sigma]

If a player almost kills a monster (like it's within 1-3 hp of dying), I "roll its hit dice" to see if it's a below-average specimen. I roll a random die, and if it's low, the monster dies. But I suppose that's just a variation of the "roll to see how nice/cruel I want to be" technique.

 

[LostSoul]

I probably would if I felt that the monster/NPC in question was poorly designed (by whoever created it, probably me) and then stick to those numbers as long as my initial decision to change them didn't prove to be a poor one.

This is what I find puzzling, is it the idea of fairness being offended? It's not that I do or don't think it is fair to fudge, it is that in my mind, the concept of 'fair' just does not really enter into consideration in an RPG. It seems rather non-sequiter to me, like if somebody said it was unfair to eat icecream on a Tuesday, I am just left puzzled.

Bad rulings certainly can annoy me, poor rules interpretations leading to silliness or boring outcomes, some oddball rulings making some classes redundant etc. I guess those could seem unfair. The actual DM-craft though, it has just never entered my mind that a fight being too hard, or an enemy having even blatant plot armor was unfair. I guess I should be more mindful of that as I would certainly annoy some players.

I believe that it has to do with player agency. As a player you make choices about what to do in the game based on how the mechanics work. Changing HP based on meta-game considerations means that it's difficult for the players to make concrete choices, because those meta-game facts are not as clear to the players as the mechanics written down in ink. If they are that clear, then that's something else (welcome to game design!).

 

[S'mon]

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?

Nothing like what you describe - I would never change monster hp in response to how well the PCs are
doing - but in my 4e game the last two sessions I was running monsters straight out of MM3, and quickly realised I was using so many Cthonic Apostles,
I needed to go back to my old half hit point standard, not the PC-level hp I had been using, or it would be an incredibly boring* fight. I also realised they appeared not to have received the message on MM3 damage output and needed a +12 increase to damage just to match the standard L+8 formula. So I did both those changes in round 1, early in the fight. When a Cthonic Stoneshaper appeared I also realised he needed the same+12 to damage.

This was my fault for using/trusting the monster manual I guess, usually I use edited printouts of monster stats and would have made necessary changes pre-fight.

*I could justify their hp tally in-world in reflecting that they were 14th level critters before the earth power boosted them to 24th... but this was the real reason.

 

[Elf Witch]

You're saying "facilitate fun at the table" like the only thing that does that is the outcome of individual encounters. There's a lot of other things that make the game fun. For me, one of them is feeling like my character is really in danger. It makes the game exciting and it makes victory a lot more satisfying. I've always played with smart players. If I fudged dice or hitpoints on a regular basis they would figure it out. And then the fun goes pffffft like a deflating balloon. As a player, if I know I'm in no danger because the DM is going to fudge for me the challenge is gone and I'm instantly bored. Aside from personal danger, a sure win is boring too. Changing hit points to make a win quicker is not as bad, but there's still better ways to accomplish that. The baddie could surrender or run. Reinforcements could arrive. 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."

Because it doesn't involve the DM changing the established parameters of the game.

To me that looks more like an opportunity to cheapen every other awesome moment ever by inflating them with near-misses. It's not awesome unless it genuinely works.

Part of the game is feeling like you are in danger and I am not suggesting you fudge hp or dice rolls on a regular basis. But there are times that being so rigid that you miss opportunities to let the players have a cinematic victory or even do something a simple as move the game forward when everyone is bored out of their frakking mind. Let me ask you something if the DM had let my attack stand and just quietly decided that the baddie didn't have broach of shielding on how would anyone at the table have known? I would have just assumed like everyone else that I had using the rules of the game had rolled great and at one of those moments when everything goes right. I think trust is important and I trust my DM to do what is needed to run a game that everyone enjoys how he accomplishes this I don't need to know. I don't need or want to see behind the screen.

And again I don't think a sure win is what people are talking about. I have never as a DM allowed the players a sure win that is not what we are talking about. When I shave off hit points it is when it is obvious that the PCs are going to win and we are just dragging out the inevitable and the combat has become boring for everyone.

In the players handbook it suggest that DMs let NPCs die when they hit 0 and not go through the whole die to see if they stabilize. Most of the time I think I will do that except when it is a named important NPC.

AS a DM I make decisions all the time on what encounter to run on how to have NPC react. I have made up encounters on the fly and winged it not even deciding how many HP the bad guys having a rough idea. Since I have never had a complaint I am pretty confident on my ability to give my players a game they enjoy.

Right because the opportunity to make a shot like that from the furthest range increment with one arrow left and then roll a crit and then roll max damage, oh and the DM had a house rule that if you rolled a natural 20 to confirm a crit you got to add an extra D6 of damage to the roll, is going to happen all that often.

 

[S'mon]

If a player almost kills a monster (like it's within 1-3 hp of dying), I "roll its hit dice" to see if it's a below-average specimen. I roll a random die, and if it's low, the monster dies. But I suppose that's just a variation of the "roll to see how nice/cruel I want to be" technique.

I tell my players "he has 2 hp left!"

 

[The Human Target]

I think there's a distinct difference between adding monsters (or HP) before an encounter begins, say in response to several encounters beforehand being cakewalks, and modifying an encounter once it has already begun. I'm failing to articulate that difference in this moment, but I think its important for me, as a GM, to have a moment where the die is cast and the outcome is no longer in my meta-gaming control (just my terrible monster tactics). This is usually around the point where the players first observe or interact with creatures or objects.

You did a fine job articulating the idea.

Speaking of monster tactics- its another great way of nudging the outcome of a fight. What is everyone's stance on that? Is it acceptable to have a monster use bad tactics to say take it easy on the party because of fear or anger or bloodlust?

 

[Elf Witch]

You did a fine job articulating the idea.

Speaking of monster tactics- its another great way of nudging the outcome of a fight. What are peoples stance on that? Is it acceptable to have a monster use bad tactics to say take it easy on the party because of fear or anger or bloodlust?

Of course it is. I don't think I would enjoy a game where the DM played every monster as a tactical whiz just because he is.

When I DM I often take in my NPC state of mind. For example in my game dragons rarely fight to the death hurt them bad enough they will try to flee. But I had an encounter where the party taunted the dragon on how they killed its mate and smashed her eggs. She was blinded with anger and rage and I played it that way. which meant she just wanted to kill as many as she could and she didn't care if she lived though it. Since she was mad with rage I figured she would not be as tactical as normal.

 

[Prickly]

I would do it if I feel it makes the game better.

 

[The Human Target]

Of course it is. I don't think I would enjoy a game where the DM played every monster as a tactical whiz just because he is.

When I DM I often take in my NPC state of mind. For example in my game dragons rarely fight to the death hurt them bad enough they will try to flee. But I had an encounter where the party taunted the dragon on how they killed its mate and smashed her eggs. She was blinded with anger and rage and I played it that way. which meant she just wanted to kill as many as she could and she didn't care if she lived though it. Since she was mad with rage I figured she would not be as tactical as normal.

Ah, but that's roleplaying the !monster.

I'm more talking about giving an in game explanation for the metagame action of taking it easy on the players because a fights has gotten harder than intended.

But I'm interested in what you said as well. Monster tactics and roleplayng is an aspect of the game where the DM can exert a huge amount of "fair" nudging, whether they're doing it for meta reasons or in game reasons.

Having that dragon react to being insulted by becoming enraged and sloppy is a decision you made that hugely impacts the difficulty of a fight after it began.

Does that bother people?

This is all very interesting to think about.