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.