So how do you handle this in your games? There is no good answer it seems.
If you want to eliminate whac-a-mole combat, add house rules to making bringing downed characters back into the fight harder.
Sure, but that isn’t really the point I’m trying to make.
I’m wondering if DMs consider attacking downed players as a taboo of sorts or if they have no qualms about it if they conclude that is what the monster would do.
But since you brought it up, I will say that if the DM does chose to fight the monsters in a truly visceral kill-or-be-killed manner, suddenly the 5E whack a mole problem and the idea that it is “too easy” or “combat isn’t lethal enough” flies out the window.
If you have 2 or 3 characters in a party of 6 able to cast Healing Word, then Whac-a-mole combat becomes the norm in tough fights.
An easy house rule fix is that if a character is knocked unconscious, then healing them will stabilise them but they won't regain consciousness until they regain at least 25% (or 50% if you want to get hardcore) of their hit points. This prevents other quite odd situations. For example, I always cringe a little when a player uses Healing Word on a character who has 5 or 6 hit points left. They get healed for 7 hit points, which makes no difference when the big old monster whacks them down in the next turn. The cleric would be much better off not healing them, letting them get knocked down, then healing them back out of death saves with the same spell slot.
There are some circumstances where you absolutely should attack, and kill, a downed player. For example:
A Bone devil uses its entire movement to reach a player. With its stinger, it knocks the player unconscious. It has 2 remaining claw attacks, and cannot move to reach another enemy. Either it uses them on the downed foe, or it loses 2 attacks for no reason.
So how do you handle this in your games? There is no good answer it seems.
If you want to eliminate whac-a-mole combat, add house rules to making bringing downed characters back into the fight harder.
Sure, but that isn’t really the point I’m trying to make.
I’m wondering if DMs consider attacking downed players as a taboo of sorts or if they have no qualms about it if they conclude that is what the monster would do.
A monster that understands how healing works in 5e would either make sure to finish off downed foes or apply conditions that make sure they can't be healed. IME this is poor game play, particularly given Healing Word.
In a game where instant death is a plausible result from an attack, I don't overthink it or treat it as some sort of taboo or line to never cross.
However, most intelligent beings and creatures/beasts orchestrated by such intelligence would attack presumably reflective of the present day RL "tactical mindset" of eliminate threats. A downed PC is not a threat. It's more efficient and safer for the adversary to contribute to redirect efforts to the elimination of all threats before either outright killing or just capturing or leaving for dead enemy casualties. Creatures/beasts employing pact tacts would also likely rejoin the pack to eliminate all threats or maximize the felling of all prey (which may or may not break from reality since I'm not really read up on RL analogy of how creatures/beast attack well armed groups of sentients). That leaves exceptional brutality in the hands and claws of either a sentient with a specific mission or motivation to kill the downed PC, or some sort of beast whose drive to slaughter may outweigh the needs of the pack tactic or its own safety if its alone. If I was to "go there" I'd make it clear to the rest of the party that the downed PCs adversary seems fixed on delivery a final killing blow or eating the PC right there as part of the scene narration (even if it's not feasible for the whole party to be aware of the situation) thereby allowing subsequent turns before the killing blow is delivered to either take their initiative so to speak to intervene/interpose against the attack (cautious players will create memorable reckless moments when a PC's literal life is on the line sometimes, it's fun inspiration awarded for loudly moaning "NOOOOOOOOO!"). Only a particularly driven foe would try to finish the death blow if they start taking damage from other PCs.
Multiattacks ... most large creatures would likely distribute the attacks over a range of threats, but if we're simply talking a skilled combatant, those are the breaks.
Then the resurrection quest begins, preceded by whether its worth it to resurrect the casualty or just have the player introduce a new character. Sometimes the politer PCs will frame that debate as an impromptu memorial service.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
In a game where instant death is a plausible result from an attack, I don't overthink it or treat it as some sort of taboo or line to never cross.
However, most intelligent beings and creatures/beasts orchestrated by such intelligence would attack presumably reflective of the present day RL "tactical mindset" of eliminate threats. A downed PC is not a threat.
A number have people have answered the question, and I do not see a consensus. All the opinions appear equally valid to me. You might consider adding a poll. If you can, a simple yes/no poll could give you greater insight.
I mean logically in a fight you aren't going to keep hitting the unconscious guy if there are a bunch of people swinging swords at you.
The only time I have enemies double tap a downed target is after they have being healed back up once or twice. Then it makes sense for even the dumbest of enemies to see this and make sure it wont happen again. And even then I usually only do this at level 3+ when they'd have access to a revivify.
Killing downed players might seem brutal but if you have ever been a player in a game that felt too easy, or that there was no real consequences for poor decisions/strategy you know how much less you care about what's going on. If players don't feel like they can die than every fight is a foregone conclusion, and nothing will have consequences lasting beyond than your next long rest.
Just imagine Game of Thrones if no one died. How long would you have kept watching that show?
A number have people have answered the question, and I do not see a consensus. All the opinions appear equally valid to me. You might consider adding a poll. If you can, a simple yes/no poll could give you greater insight.
Added one. It is tricky to phrase the question without sounding bias on way or the other. Oh well
I’ve double tapped a downed character once in my years as a DM and it was extremely plot driven. The thieves guild paid an assassin to kill a pc who (as part of his backstory) had betrayed the thieves guild and taken off. The story had him return to the city and he made no attempt to hide himself from the thieves guild.
My overall philosophy is to do it if the story requires it. FWIW, I disagree with you about animal instincts. Beasts are about self preservation more than anything, they’re not going to sit there and eat something while they’re being stabbed in the back. Hell, you can startle a bear away from its food by making a lot of noise, let alone attacking it.
The first time I narrated this ("The ghoul drags the unconscous bard away into the darkness, saliva dripping from its jaws in anticipation of a meal") the look on the player's face was priceless. AUUGGHH! ITS GONNA EAT MY CHARACTER! STOP IT!
In a game where instant death is a plausible result from an attack, I don't overthink it or treat it as some sort of taboo or line to never cross.
However, most intelligent beings and creatures/beasts orchestrated by such intelligence would attack presumably reflective of the present day RL "tactical mindset" of eliminate threats. A downed PC is not a threat.
A downed PC is absolutely a threat.
I think you mean potentially or conditionally where you wrote absolutely. A downed PC needs the agency of a active threat PC to restore agency and threat posture, yes they return to threat status. More reason to contend with the absolutely active threats.
This thread is a perfect example of why the unwritten rule of "never split the party" exists. If you have one char that is essentially solo from the party, there is zero doubt that an unintelligent predator will either drag off its prey (doing damage in the meantime), or begin consuming it right there, and an intelligent creature will most certainly do a threat assessment and issue a coup de grace.
The only caveat to the unintelligent predator scenario would be something like a bear attack, where it is merely defending cubs or territory, and being unconscious is the equivalent of playing dead". But if said bear was actually, hungry, well, roll another char.
In general, I let the enemies attack the threats that are still standing. However, I try to let enmies act believable. So, there are scenarios where stabbing or biting away on a downed opponent might be happening.
Depends on what my players and I decided on at the beginning of the campaign. Of the two games I’m running right now, in one only true villains will attack downed PCs, while in the other every monster will use one (but only one) attack to put a PC on the edge of death. The first one is longer and more story-focused, and the second is just for the summer and episodic (plus, between ourselves, the players are tougher), so each approach works for the game it’s in. Both groups also do blind death saves and almost all adventures have 3 Deadly encounters, so danger is part of the appeal of my games.
So I wanted to get some opinions on this topic as it is a sensitive one and does warrant some discussion.
The drawback if you ask me is the obvious fact that it is profoundly unfun to be attacked when you are already down. Never having a chance to roll you death saves can feel like you are being cheated or picked on. And unless you are the sadistic type, it is also quite unfun for the DM as well, honestly. They don’t want to look like the bad guy.
On the other hand, refrained from attacking downed players is unrealistic and cheapens the fight in a way, as well as makes things far too easy. A hungry monster, for instance, isn’t going to just stop attacking a player after all. It is going to keep attacking and rip that player apart to start feeding or whatever. More intelligent foes are going to recognize immediately that they need to eliminate a downed player ASAP in order to remove that threat of them getting back in the fight, ESPECIALLY after they pop back up after a healing spell.
So how do you handle this in your games? There is no good answer it seems.
It depends on the situation, the enemies fighting, the combat situation, the layout etc.
I will say the idea that it is un fun to attack a down player is actually wrong, in terms of player tension and stress, in terms of making the other players take risks to get to the down player, stepping away from an enemy to pour a healing potion down the throat of the downed character, or cast a healing spell instead of attacking. It makes your players be more dynamic and realise they don't simply have time to mop up and simply let the death saving throws happen.
If an enemy has multiple attacks then they are def using at least one of them on the down player to try and finish them off, if the enemy is a scavanger then they are grabbing that down player and dragging it off to eat it instead of continuing the fight, if the enemy is the BBEG they are clever enough ot know an enemy can get back up again.
If the enemy is outnumbered or has low intelligence and is not a creature that will drag off a single body to eat then they might swarm onto the next attacker, or if they are taking alot of damage they might move away into cover. If they are a ranged attacker then from distance the character looks down so they leave them alone, or they are a harder target to hit. I decide these things ahead of the encounter, I figure out what will be this enemies go to if they get people down and then act accordingly. But, I never let a fear of making it less fun stop me doing it, like I say it adds a whole other dimension to combat and makes people think more carefully about what they will do and how they will do it.
I’d say most enemies won’t continue to attack, because they’ll believe the character to be dead. By RAW, PCs are the only thing that gets death saves and therefore the only thing that could even possibly come back from being dropped. Since there’s really only 5-6 of them in the world, it’s not going to be something that really any enemy has encountered before. They’ll expect someone to stay down. Now, after the first time a healing word gets them up, maybe they learn a lesson, but in general, if there’s other active threats it makes no sense to maul (what they think is) a corpse.
An exception I might see is a creature with something like multiattack, which drops something with the first attack but just keeps going because it doesn’t yet realize they killed it. I had a character (I was playing) die that way once. First attack dropped me, it has two more attacks, both hit, one was a crit. Dead rogue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sure, but that isn’t really the point I’m trying to make.
I’m wondering if DMs consider attacking downed players as a taboo of sorts or if they have no qualms about it if they conclude that is what the monster would do.
But since you brought it up, I will say that if the DM does chose to fight the monsters in a truly visceral kill-or-be-killed manner, suddenly the 5E whack a mole problem and the idea that it is “too easy” or “combat isn’t lethal enough” flies out the window.
If you have 2 or 3 characters in a party of 6 able to cast Healing Word, then Whac-a-mole combat becomes the norm in tough fights.
An easy house rule fix is that if a character is knocked unconscious, then healing them will stabilise them but they won't regain consciousness until they regain at least 25% (or 50% if you want to get hardcore) of their hit points. This prevents other quite odd situations. For example, I always cringe a little when a player uses Healing Word on a character who has 5 or 6 hit points left. They get healed for 7 hit points, which makes no difference when the big old monster whacks them down in the next turn. The cleric would be much better off not healing them, letting them get knocked down, then healing them back out of death saves with the same spell slot.
There are some circumstances where you absolutely should attack, and kill, a downed player. For example:
A Bone devil uses its entire movement to reach a player. With its stinger, it knocks the player unconscious. It has 2 remaining claw attacks, and cannot move to reach another enemy. Either it uses them on the downed foe, or it loses 2 attacks for no reason.
A monster that understands how healing works in 5e would either make sure to finish off downed foes or apply conditions that make sure they can't be healed. IME this is poor game play, particularly given Healing Word.
In a game where instant death is a plausible result from an attack, I don't overthink it or treat it as some sort of taboo or line to never cross.
However, most intelligent beings and creatures/beasts orchestrated by such intelligence would attack presumably reflective of the present day RL "tactical mindset" of eliminate threats. A downed PC is not a threat. It's more efficient and safer for the adversary to contribute to redirect efforts to the elimination of all threats before either outright killing or just capturing or leaving for dead enemy casualties. Creatures/beasts employing pact tacts would also likely rejoin the pack to eliminate all threats or maximize the felling of all prey (which may or may not break from reality since I'm not really read up on RL analogy of how creatures/beast attack well armed groups of sentients). That leaves exceptional brutality in the hands and claws of either a sentient with a specific mission or motivation to kill the downed PC, or some sort of beast whose drive to slaughter may outweigh the needs of the pack tactic or its own safety if its alone. If I was to "go there" I'd make it clear to the rest of the party that the downed PCs adversary seems fixed on delivery a final killing blow or eating the PC right there as part of the scene narration (even if it's not feasible for the whole party to be aware of the situation) thereby allowing subsequent turns before the killing blow is delivered to either take their initiative so to speak to intervene/interpose against the attack (cautious players will create memorable reckless moments when a PC's literal life is on the line sometimes, it's fun inspiration awarded for loudly moaning "NOOOOOOOOO!"). Only a particularly driven foe would try to finish the death blow if they start taking damage from other PCs.
Multiattacks ... most large creatures would likely distribute the attacks over a range of threats, but if we're simply talking a skilled combatant, those are the breaks.
Then the resurrection quest begins, preceded by whether its worth it to resurrect the casualty or just have the player introduce a new character. Sometimes the politer PCs will frame that debate as an impromptu memorial service.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
A downed PC is absolutely a threat.
A number have people have answered the question, and I do not see a consensus. All the opinions appear equally valid to me. You might consider adding a poll. If you can, a simple yes/no poll could give you greater insight.
<Insert clever signature here>
I mean logically in a fight you aren't going to keep hitting the unconscious guy if there are a bunch of people swinging swords at you.
The only time I have enemies double tap a downed target is after they have being healed back up once or twice. Then it makes sense for even the dumbest of enemies to see this and make sure it wont happen again. And even then I usually only do this at level 3+ when they'd have access to a revivify.
Killing downed players might seem brutal but if you have ever been a player in a game that felt too easy, or that there was no real consequences for poor decisions/strategy you know how much less you care about what's going on. If players don't feel like they can die than every fight is a foregone conclusion, and nothing will have consequences lasting beyond than your next long rest.
Just imagine Game of Thrones if no one died. How long would you have kept watching that show?
Added one. It is tricky to phrase the question without sounding bias on way or the other. Oh well
I’ve double tapped a downed character once in my years as a DM and it was extremely plot driven. The thieves guild paid an assassin to kill a pc who (as part of his backstory) had betrayed the thieves guild and taken off. The story had him return to the city and he made no attempt to hide himself from the thieves guild.
My overall philosophy is to do it if the story requires it. FWIW, I disagree with you about animal instincts. Beasts are about self preservation more than anything, they’re not going to sit there and eat something while they’re being stabbed in the back. Hell, you can startle a bear away from its food by making a lot of noise, let alone attacking it.
I only do it for certain monsters.
Ghouls for example.
The first time I narrated this ("The ghoul drags the unconscous bard away into the darkness, saliva dripping from its jaws in anticipation of a meal") the look on the player's face was priceless. AUUGGHH! ITS GONNA EAT MY CHARACTER! STOP IT!
I think you mean potentially or conditionally where you wrote absolutely. A downed PC needs the agency of a active threat PC to restore agency and threat posture, yes they return to threat status. More reason to contend with the absolutely active threats.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This thread is a perfect example of why the unwritten rule of "never split the party" exists. If you have one char that is essentially solo from the party, there is zero doubt that an unintelligent predator will either drag off its prey (doing damage in the meantime), or begin consuming it right there, and an intelligent creature will most certainly do a threat assessment and issue a coup de grace.
The only caveat to the unintelligent predator scenario would be something like a bear attack, where it is merely defending cubs or territory, and being unconscious is the equivalent of
playing dead". But if said bear was actually, hungry, well, roll another char.
I agree, if the character is alone, it's probably dead.
BioWizard
I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If the monster isn't facing an immediate threat from the other players, it makes sense for it to take a turn to finish off a downed player.
Especially if the downed player was a big damage dealer.
Generally most of my npc's don't attack downed characters unless for the following reasons:
1. They're obsessed with killing that specific character
2. The rest of the party is too far away for the npc to attack (My party is mostly ranged fighters so this is fairly common)
In general, I let the enemies attack the threats that are still standing. However, I try to let enmies act believable. So, there are scenarios where stabbing or biting away on a downed opponent might be happening.
It is really a case by case decision.
Depends on what my players and I decided on at the beginning of the campaign. Of the two games I’m running right now, in one only true villains will attack downed PCs, while in the other every monster will use one (but only one) attack to put a PC on the edge of death. The first one is longer and more story-focused, and the second is just for the summer and episodic (plus, between ourselves, the players are tougher), so each approach works for the game it’s in. Both groups also do blind death saves and almost all adventures have 3 Deadly encounters, so danger is part of the appeal of my games.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Quote from SireSamuel >>
It depends on the situation, the enemies fighting, the combat situation, the layout etc.
I will say the idea that it is un fun to attack a down player is actually wrong, in terms of player tension and stress, in terms of making the other players take risks to get to the down player, stepping away from an enemy to pour a healing potion down the throat of the downed character, or cast a healing spell instead of attacking. It makes your players be more dynamic and realise they don't simply have time to mop up and simply let the death saving throws happen.
If an enemy has multiple attacks then they are def using at least one of them on the down player to try and finish them off, if the enemy is a scavanger then they are grabbing that down player and dragging it off to eat it instead of continuing the fight, if the enemy is the BBEG they are clever enough ot know an enemy can get back up again.
If the enemy is outnumbered or has low intelligence and is not a creature that will drag off a single body to eat then they might swarm onto the next attacker, or if they are taking alot of damage they might move away into cover. If they are a ranged attacker then from distance the character looks down so they leave them alone, or they are a harder target to hit. I decide these things ahead of the encounter, I figure out what will be this enemies go to if they get people down and then act accordingly. But, I never let a fear of making it less fun stop me doing it, like I say it adds a whole other dimension to combat and makes people think more carefully about what they will do and how they will do it.
If the int is under 16 roll a raw d20. If not > Int, attack down foe but this is not a default for all monsters.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
I’d say most enemies won’t continue to attack, because they’ll believe the character to be dead. By RAW, PCs are the only thing that gets death saves and therefore the only thing that could even possibly come back from being dropped. Since there’s really only 5-6 of them in the world, it’s not going to be something that really any enemy has encountered before. They’ll expect someone to stay down. Now, after the first time a healing word gets them up, maybe they learn a lesson, but in general, if there’s other active threats it makes no sense to maul (what they think is) a corpse.
An exception I might see is a creature with something like multiattack, which drops something with the first attack but just keeps going because it doesn’t yet realize they killed it. I had a character (I was playing) die that way once. First attack dropped me, it has two more attacks, both hit, one was a crit. Dead rogue.