If you want to save a character from dying for whatever reason then attack a different character or grapple them or shove them or even use non lethal damage in an effort to capture them....so much better than making the dice rolls irrelevant.
This is worth a signal boost. I think too often DMs forget that we have control over how consequences play out, meaning we overlook the fact that we have more options than just negating the consequences as a whole. Granted, non-lethal Fireball damage is kinda hard to justify narratively, though I suppose the limiting factor there is creativity. One could, for example, say the Fireball's backdraft knocks out a player rather than the flames taking their life.
To play devil's advocate here a second, one could also say that a sudden change in a baddie's attack strategy from lethal to nonlethal damage is functionally no different from fudging the roll to achieve the same effect of not killing a PC. Rather than situationally ignoring dice, the DM might be situationally ignoring narrative fidelity. To some, that would feel less authentic than occasionally just pretending a different number was rolled. I guess it just comes down to whether you like chance or a person to be the ultimate arbiter of the story.
In the end, though, I agree with most people on this thread that the "right" thing is whatever the individual DM and table thinks is fun.
I see what you are saying and can agree other than the sudden change in the baddie's strategy still requires the dice rolls to accomplish it...whereas predetermining the rolls I believe goes again the games design.
I think we're talking about two different things. In my head there is a tremendous distinction between knowing ahead of a roll what you will allow the outcome to be, and deciding to overlook the dice upon seeing that the outcome would not be in the best interests of the table (as opposed to the PCs). Yes, fudging is often used or abused to force the game mechanics to fit a DM's predetermined wishes, but it's painting with a broad brush to intimate that fudging exclusively serves that purpose.
When I have fudged - and I can probably count on one hand the times in all my years of DMing that I have - it was usually done to 1) correct an encounter-building miscalculation borne from my inexperience, or 2) shorten a slog of a fight that the players were going to win anyway. Once, and only once, I ignored a baddie's successful saving throw to allow a player's extremely clever and risky attempt to work, because he was long overdue for something lucky and it made an incredible moment for him and the table to enjoy.
For the most part, I let the dice have their say. But if the mood is low because my players can't catch a break (or if I have erred while planning the encounter), I personally have no qualms about telling the dice gods to take a hike. But then again, my playstyle runs more toward the "dice are there to serve the game" variety rather than the "dice are there to define the game" variety. Both are valid and fun ways to play.
Don’t fudge combat rolls. Your best players will hate it and know you are doing it. There is plenty of fudging already built into the game-when and what dc(or if there is a dc) for certain social and physical challenges. Play your combats straight up. Players remember the tough battles they won with luck and skill.
I think we're talking about two different things. In my head there is a tremendous distinction between knowing ahead of a roll what you will allow the outcome to be, and deciding to overlook the dice upon seeing that the outcome would not be in the best interests of the table (as opposed to the PCs). Yes, fudging is often used or abused to force the game mechanics to fit a DM's predetermined wishes, but it's painting with a broad brush to intimate that fudging exclusively serves that purpose.
When I have fudged - and I can probably count on one hand the times in all my years of DMing that I have - it was usually done to 1) correct an encounter-building miscalculation borne from my inexperience, or 2) shorten a slog of a fight that the players were going to win anyway. Once, and only once, I ignored a baddie's successful saving throw to allow a player's extremely clever and risky attempt to work, because he was long overdue for something lucky and it made an incredible moment for him and the table to enjoy.
For the most part, I let the dice have their say. But if the mood is low because my players can't catch a break (or if I have erred while planning the encounter), I personally have no qualms about telling the dice gods to take a hike. But then again, my playstyle runs more toward the "dice are there to serve the game" variety rather than the "dice are there to define the game" variety. Both are valid and fun ways to play.
Don’t fudge combat rolls. Your best players will hate it and know you are doing it. There is plenty of fudging already built into the game-when and what dc(or if there is a dc) for certain social and physical challenges. Play your combats straight up. Players remember the tough battles they won with luck and skill.
You have the right to your opinion and to play the game as you desire at your table. However, you don't get to tell another DM how to run their game.