D&D 5E Would you change a monster's hit points mid-fight?
Sword of Spirit
Legend
I don't change hp mid fight as a DM, and I would not enjoy my DM doing it to me as a player. It is taking too much control away from my ability to influence the world as a player. (Those of you who are involved in my World-Building DM thread may or may not be surprised by that statement.) If I can't rely on the world having some solidity, if it is all fluid and the DM can just overrule anything at any moment, then I feel like my player power has been taken away. (This has nothing to do with me knowing what the monsters hp are--I'd actually prefer not to. It's about the number being changed after it has been established.)
I would actually find that the least offensive way of doing it if a DM insisted on doing it. I would, however, want to be informed that the DM runs his monsters that way so we are on the same page.
I would actually find that the least offensive way of doing it if a DM insisted on doing it. I would, however, want to be informed that the DM runs his monsters that way so we are on the same page.
Satyrn
First Post
I can't change HP during combat anymore, not since I started tracking it in view of the players a few months ago.
(I do regularly modify how many the monsters do have right before announcing it to them, though; mostly because I haven't given it any thought right up until that point. Same for the damage they deal, too. And special abilities. huh. Turns out I've started inventing my monsters on the fly.)
(I do regularly modify how many the monsters do have right before announcing it to them, though; mostly because I haven't given it any thought right up until that point. Same for the damage they deal, too. And special abilities. huh. Turns out I've started inventing my monsters on the fly.)
aramis erak
Legend
I stopped doing so many years ago, because my players now realize that, while I may strive for a mix of encounter threats, once they commit, it's fixed in stone, and success or failure, it depends upon them, their actions, and the dice. This awareness heightens their sense of risk, and makes for a more exciting game.
Imaculata
Hero
Look at it this way: Suppose the party is fighting a dragon, and the barbarian rolls a critical, and does a huge amount of damage to the beast. He describes how he leaps from a nearby rock and plunges the sword down into the neck of the beast.... blood is spraying everywhere.... but statistically the dragon still has 1 hp left.
The next turn, someone throws a rock at the dragon it hits and deals 1 damage, thus slaying the dragon.
Why not have the dragon die from the attack the barbarian did? It's an epic moment, and from a story telling point of view, that is when the dragon should have died in my opinion. The remaining 1 hp is irrelevant. I think a DM should give his players their well earned victory, and occasionally fudge the numbers a little.
MrZeddaPiras
[insert something clever]
Because I'm playing a tactical game of problem solving and resource management, and the epic moments have value only if they emerge naturally.
ExploderWizard
Hero
If your purpose of play is to craft epic stories, there is nothing wrong with that.
If the players are there to play a game, with any story emerging only through events as they occur via play then it defeats the whole purpose of the game.
So be clear in your purpose with everyone at the table on the same page and you can't go wrong.
Imaculata
Hero
They still emerge naturally, because its in response to an action by a player. But it is up to the DM what to do with those numbers. I've been in situations where a player scored a critical when throwing a spear at a fleeing guard, just as he was reaching for the door. Statistically the guard still had 1 or 2 hit points left. I ruled that the guard was pinned to the door, still struggling, but basically helpless and awaiting the inevitable execution.
I could have ruled it either way. I could have had the guard shrug it off, and continue to fight with what few HP he had remaining. But D&D is also about story telling. And having an enemy die 1 HP earlier is not going to invalidate any of the problem solving, strategy or resource management. I could have continued the fight one more round, and have the guard die from a normal attack. But from a storytelling perspective, this was way more exciting.
I'll give another example. Recently my players had to fight the undead avatar of a lesser evil deity. One of the players had borrowed the holy relic of the local order of paladins: A massive holy hammer. He covered the hammer in flaming oil, and set the relic on fire. He then smashed the creature's head in, and scored a critical. If we're going purely by the rules, undead are immune to crits. But given the context of the player's actions, I ruled that this was an extraordinary situation, and I felt the crit should still be rewarded. So I decided that since he was wielding a holy relic, the crit did take effect.
The rules are only there as guidelines, in my opinion. They should never get in the way of telling a good story.
Last edited:
MrZeddaPiras
[insert something clever]
Yep, but that's not the issue here, at all. It's a matter of what style and feel you want for your game. Do you tell your players you're glossing over 1 or 2 hp, or that you're making a little exception to a rule to have a more epic story? If you do and they're ok with that, then it's all good. But if you don't tell them, then you're misrepresenting what's happening at the table, and that might create tensions later. For example, having a monster die 1 hp sooner doesn't make a difference in terms of resource management, but you get to decide who delivers the killing blow, and that might bother certain players, especially if you present the occurence as the result of chance and players' actions.
I think there is really no right or wrong in gamemastering, but all the "smoke & mirrors" techniques that a lot of people use yeld, in my experience, ever diminishing returns. So the topic of this thread, to me, is not really about hard rules vs guidelines. It's more a matter of transparence.
That begs the question: Transparency to what? If you mean the degree of transparency to the "rules", then we are talking about Hard Rules vs. Guidelines.
The trouble is, in my opinion, is expectations. Every player, including he DM, has different expectations. Even if everyone laid them bare, those expectations change, are not articulated well, and are interpreted poorly.
To circle this back to the OP, HP are a gaming device to determine when a combatant is no longer "in the fight". There is a base assumptions here that I don't think is valid: A DM doesn't arbitrarily assign HP but rather perfectly pre-determines HP to create encounter to create a perfect challenge. Obviously this isn't true (beyond the semantics of "perfect"). DMs typically us MM HP and just go, or if they do roll HP or pre-determine them, it's rarely with an eye towards adjusting encounter difficulty. Perhaps a BBEG gets max HP or a bunch of mooks get half, for speed of play or something. But here is the thing: By doing so, the DM is "adjusting" encounter to create a feel/challenge/narrative. Doing it on the fly or not doesn't change the fact that its up to the DM.
DMs do a LOT of things not seen by the players. They must. Transparency is good for a game of Lawyers and Litigation, but D&D doesn't need it.
What it needs is a DM you can trust. Games thus fall into these camps:
Lawyer and Litigation (Maximum transparency and RAW adherence)
Adversary and Advocating (Some Transparency leading to mistrust and/or auditing of Rules)
Loremaster and Listening (Minimum Transparency with trust and shared wonder)
(excuse the poor the alliteration) - we could sub-divide and categorize further, but the point being between the two extremes is the muddy waters (Adversary and Advocates) that at worst is mistrust and poor feelings and at best Rules auditing and questioning.
My sense is that most games fall in that middle category with either the good or bad outcome. Its hard to get 5 people on the same page, so as a rule, the muddied middle is where games are.
My advise to that muddy middle: DMs try to establish trust that your not fudging to thwart/help players but to propel the narrative if you must fudge. Players try not to get too hung up on every point of damage or bonus. DMs can always up the ante or dial it down (next encounter or on the fly) so play it straight. It is what is. For both, the muddied middle means compromise is required to keep the game going, you'll just have to accept some things that bother you or you'll have to find another game.
For those on the extremes, enjoy!
Similar Threads
