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

[iserith]

Bias on the part of the DM when it comes to achieving the goals of play - that is, contributing to everyone's good time and helping to create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play - is no vice in my opinion. After all, that's how you "win" at D&D according to the Basic Rules.

Having said that, if I'm going to choose to use a mechanic or roll a die, I'm going to abide by the results. The rules serve the DM, not the other way around, and are only brought into play at the DM's discretion. If I'd rather a particular result occur - which is fully within the DM's purview - then I'm just going to say said result occurs without bringing mechanics or dice into play.

With regard to hit points specifically, once a fight kicks off where there is an uncertain outcome in my view, I establish the monsters' hit points. That number changes depending on the damage they take or healing they receive and I do not adjust that number up or down for any other reason. If a fight kicks off where there is a certain outcome, then I don't need to establish the monsters' hit points. I can just say what happens.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I think most people have an established opinion on the topic, so maybe a tangential one will help. Not sure if these have been asked before. If so, please ignore.

Is it "cheating" for the DM to automatically set hp to maximum for every NPC?

Is it "cheating" for the DM to change hp to maximum for an NPC after combat has begun?

Is it "cheating" for the DM to change hp to beyond the maximum for an NPC at any point?

 

[BlueBlackRed]

I change hit points all the time.
It has to be done otherwise the DM has to understand how everything in the game works 100% perfectly and predict the future properly.

Nothing like a boring finale to a BBEG campaign to make everyone go "meh".

 

[spinozajack]

I'm fine with people playing D&D however they want, fudging rolls, ignoring attacks, adding extra healing potions to their backpacks, doubling monster HP or halving it on the fly without changing the XP value, that's all fine by me. They can do whatever hijinx they want to in their games, I just won't play in them and they won't play in mine. When I play games, I play by the rules. If an optional rule says I do not have to play by the rules, without a very good reason to ignore them (this doesn't count), then I ignore it. The PHB and DMG are rulebooks, not suggestion books. I did not pay a hundred dollars to get a bunch of suggestions. I have plenty of fun playing the game by the rules, and I never find myself restricted as a DM to modify challenge or to react dynamically to changing circumstances. I do not think players dying suddenly or monsters dying too quickly or too slowly are even problems that need addressing. They are core features of D&D, why should players survive all combats, when a string of crits land on their character? Same thing for the big bad, if players get the drop on them and they manage to wipe them out in one round, good for them! That's great.

But what I do take exception to, is the very idea that people can claim that fudging is not a synonym with cheating! I posted a link to the dictionary definition. It is literally cheating. Like, literally. Like, without a shadow of a doubt.

Since the DMG endorses fudging dice rolls or HP, it's endorsing the DM cheating dice rolls or HP, by application of the meaning of synonyms. They can be interchanged without changing the meaning of the sentence. That's how the language we use works. I'm sorry if this sounds pedantic, because it most definitely is, but if some of you persist in pretending that fudging doesn't mean the same thing as cheating, pedantry is called for.

You do not get to choose your own meaning for words when it suits you to win a debate. Not in this forum, nor in any other. Not IRL either.

 

[iserith]

Nothing like a boring finale to a BBEG campaign to make everyone go "meh".

I would submit that if a scene is boring, it's not the hit points that are causing it, nor is the alteration of hit points by the DM necessarily a particularly good solution to making it more exciting. Rather it just helps bring a boring scene to an end faster. The takeaway for me is: "Don't create and run boring scenes."

 

[spinozajack]

I would submit that if a scene is boring, it's not the hit points that are causing it, nor does the alteration of hit points by the DM necessarily a particular good solution to making it more exciting. Rather it just helps bring a boring scene to an end faster. The takeaway for me is: "Don't create and run boring scenes."

If the players plan strategically and it allows them to one round the end boss, they deserve their flawless victory. Same thing as when the BBEG wins initiative and everyone fails their save and they get TPK'ed from their death breath or whatever. Those two extremes are permitted by the game, and are valid possibilities. Trying to guarantee the most satisfying outcome by "fudging the hand of god (dice rolls)" is a sure way to make the opposite occur, players realizing that the game is in fact a prerendered cutscene at exactly the time when it shouldn't be. If you're guaranteed to win, but not too quickly, that deprives the game of all kinds of dramatic tension and surprises.

We had one campaign end with the fighter running up to the evil cleric and doing a called shot to the neck and severing his head with a natural 20 in a single hit. One of the best and most memorable kills ever. HP attrition is not really that exciting, when you think about it. Sudden death is way scarier and more fun.

 

[Relax]

I understand the overt/covert distinction that is being presented, unfortunately it is illusory. Changing a monster's hit points, fudging a die roll, adding more monsters to fight, having some run away, they are all the same thing, but that sameness is being lost in the all too common practice of over complicating of things. To try and keep things simple, just because one tree has round leaves and another has pointy leaves doesn't mean they aren't both trees. Pointing out the differences between changing things on the fly doesn't change the fact that things are being changed on the fly. Getting lost in the details fools one into thinking they are behaving differently, and therefore correctly, while others misbehave, but if the larger picture can be kept in perspective, that of playing a game of make believe, the minor, insignificant details fade into the background and the moral outrage that some have expressed reveals itself as an honest error.

Play the game as you will, and allow others to do the same, and you will become a happier person, or at least more peaceful.

 

[iserith]

If the players plan strategically and it allows them to one round the end boss, they deserve their flawless victory. Same thing as when the BBEG wins initiative and everyone fails their save and they get TPK'ed from their death breath or whatever. Those two extremes are permitted by the game, and are valid possibilities.

Sure. There's still the issue of the goals of play, of course. Was killing the "end boss" in a single round entertaining for everyone? Did failing initiative and getting TPK'ed result in an exciting, memorable story? If everyone in those two situations can answer "Yes" to both questions, then awesome!

Trying to guarantee the most satisfying outcome by "fudging the hand of god (dice rolls)" is a sure way to make the opposite occur, players realizing that the game is in fact a prerendered cutscene at exactly the time when it shouldn't be.

I wouldn't call it a "sure way" even if fudging isn't a practice I endorse.

If you're guaranteed to win, but not too quickly, that deprives the game of all kinds of dramatic tension and surprises.

It depends on the stakes with which the group plays, so I would stop short of making that assertion, personally.

HP attrition is not really that exciting, when you think about it. Sudden death is way scarier and more fun.

For some, that is true. For others, it is not true.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think we're seeing some misuse of the term arbitrary here. There are systemic elements of play that may generate the events of a story, but each event itself (as encapsulated in a die roll) is the very definition of arbitrary, while choosing an outcome based on a preferred outcome is not.

Misuse? There are a couple of uses of arbitrary that are in play here. There is the randomness of a die roll which is arbitrary, and the randomness of a whim, which is arbitrary. Choosing an outcome based on what you want to happen in response to a die roll that didn't skew that way IS arbitrary. Choosing a preferred outcome in lieu of using any game play method of determining success isn't. If the result can only EVER be X then it it is simply X. There is no need to founder about with a method that could produce Y.

Bias on the part of the DM when it comes to achieving the goals of play - that is, contributing to everyone's good time and helping to create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play - is no vice in my opinion. After all, that's how you "win" at D&D according to the Basic Rules.

Having said that, if I'm going to choose to use a mechanic or roll a die, I'm going to abide by the results. The rules serve the DM, not the other way around, and are only brought into play at the DM's discretion. If I'd rather a particular result occur - which is fully within the DM's purview - then I'm just going to say said result occurs without bringing mechanics or dice into play.

With regard to hit points specifically, once a fight kicks off where there is an uncertain outcome in my view, I establish the monsters' hit points. That number changes depending on the damage they take or healing they receive and I do not adjust that number up or down for any other reason. If a fight kicks off where there is a certain outcome, then I don't need to establish the monsters' hit points. I can just say what happens.

Exactly. In the last session I ran, the party was mopping up the last few areas of a dungeon level. They were fourth level and kicked in a door occupied by 4 kobolds with nowhere to run. I didn't bother playing out the combat. It was such a one sided affair I hand-waved victory for the PCs. It saved time that could be used for more interesting areas. This occurrence happens quite often in starting 5E sandbox adventures. You design an area suited for low level exploration and before you know it, the PCs are 4th level still stomping around in areas that are survivable for 1st level.

I think most people have an established opinion on the topic, so maybe a tangential one will help. Not sure if these have been asked before. If so, please ignore.

Is it "cheating" for the DM to automatically set hp to maximum for every NPC?

Is it "cheating" for the DM to change hp to maximum for an NPC after combat has begun?

Is it "cheating" for the DM to change hp to beyond the maximum for an NPC at any point?

The answers to all of these depend on the group and the game that they have all agreed to play.

I change hit points all the time.
It has to be done otherwise the DM has to understand how everything in the game works 100% perfectly and predict the future properly.

Nothing like a boring finale to a BBEG campaign to make everyone go "meh".

Why must the DM predict the future? Surprises that arise out of play are what keep the game fresh and interesting. If I knew exactly what was going to transpire at every game session I probably wouldn't even bother to show up and run it.

 

[Relax]

Since the DMG endorses fudging dice rolls or HP, it's endorsing the DM cheating dice rolls or HP, by application of the meaning of synonyms. They can be interchanged without changing the meaning of the sentence. That's how the language we use works. I'm sorry if this sounds pedantic, because it most definitely is, but if some of you persist in pretending that fudging doesn't mean the same thing as cheating, pedantry is called for.

You do not get to choose your own meaning for words when it suits you to win a debate. Not in this forum, nor in any other. Not IRL either.

Why is the concept of words having more than one meaning, especially when looked at in context, so difficult for you to get? The DM fudging the dice is not cheating. The DM fudging the dice is also not covering them with a rich soft candy. The DM fudging the dice is also not acting in an indecisive manor. The DM fudging the dice is, however, the DM tampering with them, falsifying them. The DM can do this within the rules of the game, therefore it is not cheating.

You are right, we don't get to choose the meaning of a word, so please stop doing it, it was old the first time.