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

[Dausuul]

If the point of the battle is "will the Iron Golem ambush kill Prince Harry?" and there are three golems surrounding Harry at the start of the fight, and Harry has winged boots, then once Harry has escaped to open air and so have the PCs, there's no more dramatic question. At that point the encounter is trivialized. Either the party can hurt the golems or they can't, either the golems will chase them or they won't, but there is no need to do it in combat time if the players are no longer feeling excited. If they are enjoying spending sixty rounds plinking away while the golems roar and futilely chase after them on their horses, every round, then have at it.

Even if the players were enjoying spending sixty rounds plinking away while the golems futilely chased them, I'd skip over most of that, because I would be bored out of my skull. When the players have declared tactics that guarantee a win, and I as DM determine that the monsters have no answer to these tactics--you win. You want to just sit there rolling dice and watching golem hit points tick inexorably down, do it on your own time.

Now, if there remains a question about how much damage the monsters do before they go, I am open to playing things out.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really dislike...adjusting the encounters up in difficulty mid-encounter. It makes (players) using strategies to get as easy fights as possible pointless and in my opinion, that's really detrimental to the game.

The idea with 'fudging,' IMHO whether it's hps, rolls, or adding or omitting a second wave or whatever - is to fix a problem caused by the system (be it structural or random) or a mistake made by the DM. If players blow extra resources or come up with a brutally effective battle plan, there's no need to block them from enjoying the fruits of their efforts. By the same token, if they overreach or choose a poor tactic, there's little reason to shield them so directly from the consequences - though it would probably be a good idea to use a 'fail forward' strategy of some sort to keep the campaign moving.

If players don't feel like their choices are meaningful, it doesn't matter whether it's because the system has balance issues or you're 'leveling' the results of everything they try - either way it sucks some of the fun right out of it.

 

[Demonspell]

Have you asked them? If they said they preferred to stick with the rolls, would you go with that?

Yes, I did ask my group and that is a major reason why I established this opinion. My players don't get together to play the game, they get together because of the story we create as a group.

If I were to taken a new group, I would ask them, but I would also work to impart upon them the importance of the storyline, instead of just playing the game.

 

[Blue]

Yes. Most likely case if that a good hit from an appropriate PC that leaves a monster with 1-3 HPs left often I will just kill it unless it's more dramatic for it to hang on. Like if the paladin is killing zealots against his religion, his crit isn't going to leave the guy with 2 HPs for someone else to finish off, he'll get the kill. Yes, that's a whole extra action I'm not using up, but it's a tighter story.

 

[Blue]

Some DMs hold themselves to a higher standard. I am one of them.

Excellent, I hold myself to a higher standard as well. I try to make the most fun at the table.

Not only will I occasionally change HPs, I'll change other things if need be. Not often, but there are times when it's needed. Maybe I mess up too tough or too easy. Maybe that crit just kills the opponent instead of leaving them with 2 hps and the player gets the satisfaction.

I also fail forward, so a failed skill check might not mean that the players miss the secret door to the rest of the adventure, but that they take so long they find it as it's opened from the other side by a patrol.

With all of the incompatibilities of our higher standards, I guess the LG Paladins of Me and the LG Paladins of You could get into a rumble. But I'd prefer they go out and party, in a LG Paladin sort of way of course.

 

[The Human Target]

If the point of the battle is "will the Iron Golem ambush kill Prince Harry?" and there are three golems surrounding Harry at the start of the fight, and Harry has winged boots, then once Harry has escaped to open air and so have the PCs, there's no more dramatic question. At that point the encounter is trivialized. Either the party can hurt the golems or they can't, either the golems will chase them or they won't, but there is no need to do it in combat time if the players are no longer feeling excited. If they are enjoying spending sixty rounds plinking away while the golems roar and futilely chase after them on their horses, every round, then have at it. My experience though is that the players don't really care about round-by-round combat once it's clear they're winning. They do like declaring actions though, so if this iron golem ambush happened in my game (hmmmm) I'd probably say, "once out of the catacombs, the golems chase you determinedly, beady iron eyes fixed on Rupert flying above the whole time, but your horses are too fast and Rupert is flying for all he's got. Roll ten rounds of attacks," and then I'd extrapolate from those ten attacks to say how long it took to kill them and who did the must damage. But I wouldn't play out ten rounds of combat normally, because the combat rules at that point (initiative, etc.) are just getting in the way of the new dramatic question, which is "which PC is best at an iron golem turkey-shoot?"

I guess my question in that case would be why to have that scenario at all for several reasons.

But even so, that's not a combat scenario in and of itself. If the PCs then did decide to fight the golems, I certainly wouldn't wait until the right was assured to GE a victory then say " blah blah blah you win" because that's super anticlimactic and if the PCs attacked its because they wanted to thump some golems. But I might for shorten it a bit if it was getting tedious, and I might ramp it up if it was dull. That's good DMng to me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I guess my question in that case would be why to have that scenario at all for several reasons.

But even so, that's not a combat scenario in and of itself. If the PCs then did decide to fight the golems, I certainly wouldn't wait until the right was assured to GE a victory then say " blah blah blah you win" because that's super anticlimactic and if the PCs attacked its because they wanted to thump some golems. But I might for shorten it a bit if it was getting tedious, and I might ramp it up if it was dull. That's good DMng to me.

RE: your question in bold, that's easy: it's because you want to see if Prince Harry gets squished like a bug while the PCs are escorting him through the ancient tomb (he's trying to prove himself a man so his parents will let him marry his love interest). The golems are pre-placed, so the things that matter are party decisions like "what formation are you using?", "do you have anyone scouting ahead?", "is anyone protecting the prince?", and "did you say Klaatu Verata Nikto before pushing the big red button?" If the golems wake up, is Harry right in the middle? Does he run away or bravely stand and fight? (Does a PC grapple him and drag him free?) There's lots of interesting questions, but the key thing is that the tension ends when Harry and the PCs escape, and not when the golems hit zero HP. They may never even hit zero HP at all.

Hopefully that helps you see why the scenario exists. The question is "do the golems kill Harry?" and the scenario ends when that question is answered, unless the players clearly have a new dramatic question on their minds like "(how fast) can we waste these golems?" Zero HP is not and should not be the end condition for all or perhaps even most encounters.

For your second paragraph, I can't tell if you were agreeing with and expanding on what I said, or disagreeing with it, or misunderstanding it and disagreeing with the misunderstanding while agreeing with the actual point. I certainly agree that if the PCs want to roll dice and thump golems, they can do so, just as they can attempt to befriend random triceratopses that they find while travelling. I run a sandbox, which means that I live to serve. My observation however is that I've never yet gotten pushback from dropping out of combat mode into story mode using combat stats, a la "everyone gets two free rounds of attacks while the neogi are running for their ship!" If I did get pushback, and someone wanted to keep rolling initiative round-by-round while the neogi are running, I would oblige. But it hasn't happened yet.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ah, yes. And now the moralizing begins.

It isn't a "higher" standard, EW. Just a different standard.

Quite so. The difference between being a referee of a game and a facilitator of collaborative storytelling. If one is doing the latter, then yes there is no higher or lower comparison, merely a large divide in activity purpose and source of fun.

 

[Ranes]

Would you?

No. Not ever. This attitude has resulted in some TPKs that were not the fault of the players, that's true. I try to learn from these events.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Quite so. The difference between being a referee of a game and a facilitator of collaborative storytelling. If one is doing the latter, then yes there is no higher or lower comparison, merely a large divide in activity purpose and source of fun.

Public service annotation:

For the sake of anyone who has lost track, the subject of conversation is the claim that 'Do adult players not know most DMs fudge? I mean you shouldn't highlight it, but let's be real.' It is in this context that ExploderWizard mentioned a "higher standard," which seems appropriate to me given the "everybody's doing it" tone of the original claim.

 

[Colmarr]

"Listen guys, I was trying to make this game I spent hours and hours working on more fun for you by fudging a roll or hit point total now and again. I'm sorry for ruining everything."

Sorry to res a post from 7 pages back but I thought it was important to point out that it's equally valid to say "Listen guys, I was trying to make this game I spent hours and hours working on more fun for me by fudging a roll or hit point total now and again. I'm sorry for ruining everything".

DMs have just as much right to enjoy the game as the players do. If giving your BBEG extra HP so that the combat lasts longer than it took you to stat him up is necessary for the DM's enjoyment of the game, go right ahead. Within reasonable limits of course.

 

[travathian]

Not only am I rolling in the open, but I keep the sheet with the monster hp in the open as well. Keeps me from cheating there too.

So essentially all you are as a DM is a dice roller and the voice of the NPCs?


This is the problem with so many of the responses in this thread. You make it seem like it is the DM vs PCs and in order to make it 'fair' you roll in the open, so regardless of the outcome you can just throw your arms up and say "well I didn't cheat!" D&D isn't a tabletop wargame. There is no such thing as cheating.

Is it cheating to play with Legos and not build what is on the outside of the box?

Is it cheating to play with Play-doh and not make what is on the outside of the package?

D&D is a game of make believe. Treat it as such. Again, it isn't DM against PCs, it is a bunch of friends hanging out having fun playing make believe.

I can't help but notice the join dates of people in the die hard "omg that's cheating!" camp and wonder if this attitude is mostly prevalent in the 4E/WoW generation.

 

[Greg Benage]

I don't fudge and would prefer not to play in a game where the DM is fudging. I also don't just slog through wood-chopping simulations, though, if an opponent has "too many" hit points and a combat is taking "too long." I try to run encounters that are sufficiently dynamic that something will change after a couple-few rounds of wood-chopping: the opponent changes tactics, the extended combat draws the attention of something/someone else, the environment changes, whatever, or better yet, the players decide to change things up before one of the above developments occur.

If you want to talk about it in Threefold terms, I prefer games where player and DM decisions are made for some mix of gamist and simulationist reasons. I've found that, in my experience, fudging doesn't support that style of play very well. I love dramatic moments in the game, of course (doesn't everyone?), but not if I know the drama has been dictated, rather than emerging spontaneously from play.

Note that the DM still has a lot of control in that kind of game. Someone earlier in thread mentioned getting an elf-killer bow, waiting around for many sessions with no elves showing up, then being shot-blocked by a broach of shielding when he finally rolled a crit on an elf. In my view, the DM made a mistake in that game, but the mistake wasn't playing the opponent as written. It was giving the PC an elf-killer bow and then not providing opportunities to kill elves -- ideally because the PC decides to go hunt some evil elves and the DM is ready and able to support that course of action. Chekov's gun, I guess.

I also know there are lots of players who just want drama, narrative and story in their games and don't want to wait around for the dice to land right. That's cool, too -- different strokes. If you and your players are having fun, you're doing it right.

 

[Elf Witch]

No, the answer I am looking for is the answer to the question I posed.

edit: There are obviously many reasons why you'd want to do this (play a system that generates results that bore you out of your mind), but I'm curious. I would like to know what your reasons are.

I am seriously have an issue understand what you think on this. If I said went to see a SF movie and it was so boring would ask me well if you find this one SF movie why would go see another movie.

98% of the time the game is fun it why I have been playing for +30 years. But every so often the session just sucks big time. It could be that there is to much off topic talk, or we are spinning our wheels going nowhere. The pacing can be of. The DM may not be able to handle a party that is split up and some of us are left twiddling our thumbs for hours. Instead of being exciting combat is dull.

Right of the top of my head I can think of two examples one in a Shadowrun game that I loved where the DM had myself and another player just sit at the table from 12 PM to 7PM and we didn't get to play once because he never got around to us. Another time myself and another player got stuck on the ship while the other players who access to magic went and explored underwater for the entire session.

The place where I have felt the most bored is often combat. Combat should be exciting you should feel your heart pumping and be worried that your PC may die. And when combat is like that it is wonderful. But when it turns into a darn chess game with players taking forever to take their action while they figure out the best move, or you have rules arguing going on and on and on you can see the energy as the table start to dwindle. You see the players start fooling with their phones or making dice towers or in my roommate case drawing horses.

DMs need to be intune with their players and and when they see them just disengaging they did to have ways to fix it. If it is a boring combat wrap it up quickly , if the party is spinning their wheels give them some guidance.

DMs need to know their players they need to know that the tactical players need time to plan but balance it wit the need of the story tellers to get the story moving. If you can't then your bored out of their mind story teller or method actor is going to lose patience with how long the tactical guys are taking to get on with the plan and do something to force their hands.

It is usually not the system fault that boredom happens it is usually a people issue.

 

[Elf Witch]

This is a good point. If there's a perceived need to fudge in this manner, it should be a rare need. I expect that just about anyone can learn to design appropriate encounters quickly enough that this shouldn't be an ongoing issue. This plays into my preference in the matter. If there's only a rare issue with a too difficult or easy encounter, I would prefer to have the issue to damaging the integrity of the game with fudging. If it's a constant issue, constant fudging might be preferable to constant hassle, but I find neither tolerable. I this case it's time for a new DM or a new game.

I think there is a large difference between very occasionally having this problem where you need to change things (whether numerically fudging numbers or narratively) and having to do it on a frequent basis. If this happens a lot, it means the DM is having issues using the (encounter building) rules to create desired scenarios. This may be due to lack of experience or bad judgement calls on the DM's behalf, or it could be a problem with the rules themselves. For example, the scenario you just provided could be avoided using something like 13th Age's escalation die to add a bonus to all rolls each round, or having a "lucky" ability or Action Points to allow rerolls or bonuses on misses... Which reminds me I need to reread the Inspiration and variant rules regarding that again.

I have noticed when ever this issue of fudging comes up there seems to be this disconnect where the people who oppose it seem to think it happens all the time. I answered yes I have changed hit die to lower on NPCs during combat and I have fudged to save a PCs life. And I firmly believe that fudging is a tool in the DMs tool box that can make the game run better. But That does not mean it should be the first tool pulled out or should be used all the time.

I can count on one hand in all the years I have been dming how many times I have fudged to save a PCs life.

I have run hundreds of encounters without having to change anything.

But it is nice to know that I have these options if I think they are needed. And personally I would not want to play with a DM who was so rigid that he puts sticking to the rules 100% of the time over making the game more enjoyable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't help but notice the join dates of people in the die hard "omg that's cheating!" camp and wonder if this attitude is mostly prevalent in the 4E/WoW generation.

It'd make sense. I WoW, there is no DM to 'fudge' rolls, and in 4e there's little need for the DM to do so. So the idea might seem alien or at least surprising. A case of "kids theses days, don't how good they got it."

But, "let the dice fall where they may" has its old-school admirers, too.

 

[Greg Benage]

It'd make sense. I WoW, there is no DM to 'fudge' rolls, and in 4e there's little need for the DM to do so. So the idea might seem alien or at least surprising. A case of "kids theses days, don't how good they got it."

But, "let the dice fall where they may" has its old-school admirers, too.

Yeah, this one started playing in 1980.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sorry, but I'm confused. A Broach of Shielding shouldn't do anything to bow dmg, unless I'm missing something.

What can I say it had designed a magic item that was a broach of shielding that protected from all range attacks up to 100 points.

 

[The Human Target]

Yeah I've found the opposite to be true, in my experience old schoolers tend towards running it like a simulation and letting the dice fall where they may.

But I doubt sweeping generalizations help the conversation.

I started in 3e and love 4e, and am a dirty cheater.

 

[The Human Target]

What can I say it had designed a magic item that was a broach of shielding that protected from all range attacks up to 100 points.

I'm not super competent at 5e yet, but that seems like an artifact of unimaginable power in all versions of D&D.