At the end of the day, the creatures PCs encounter are often a.) preternaturally vicious (e.g. ghouls, low intelligence demons, etc.), b.) smart enough to know that a PC at zero hit points is one spell away from swinging his sword again and is, therefore, still a true threat, or c.) unintelligent and not caring (e.g. most monstrous plants).
At the end of the day, the creatures PCs encounter are often a.) preternaturally vicious (e.g. ghouls, low intelligence demons, etc.), b.) smart enough to know that a PC at zero hit points is one spell away from swinging his sword again and is, therefore, still a true threat, or c.) unintelligent and not caring (e.g. most monstrous plants).
I completely agree with you on both A and C. It's B where I'm having the problem. How does a smart enemy know whether the PC is simply at zero hp or actually dead? I contend that, outside of metagaming or mutilation to the body, the enemy doesn't know. The enemy could check (medicine check) or the enemy could do enough damage to the "corpse" to be sure that no simple healing would wake the PC. That amount of damage shouldn't always be visible after exactly 3 failed death saves if the DM isn't metagaming the enemies.
I'm not saying that enemies shouldn't attack downed PCs just that knowing when to stop attacking a downed PC shouldn't be trivial.
. How does a smart enemy know whether the PC is simply at zero hp or actually dead?
Do you have PCs roll medicine checks before casting heal spells in the middle of combat? How do they know the PC isn't dead?
I'm not saying that enemies shouldn't attack downed PCs just that knowing when to stop attacking a downed PC shouldn't be trivial
And I'm telling you that, unless you want to completely wreck the suspension of disbelief, a skilled swordsman with superhuman strength striking a prone and immobile character in the neck with a magical broadsword is going to do enough physical damage that the prone person is never gonna get back up, barring raise dead. When blood is no longer squirting out of your severed carotid, you're dead. You don't need a medical proficiency to know that. Medical proficiencies are more for things like how to stop the blood spray before it stops on its own.
. How does a smart enemy know whether the PC is simply at zero hp or actually dead?
Do you have PCs roll medicine checks before casting heal spells in the middle of combat? How do they know the PC isn't dead?
I'm not saying that enemies shouldn't attack downed PCs just that knowing when to stop attacking a downed PC shouldn't be trivial
And I'm telling you that, unless you want to completely wreck the suspension of disbelief, a skilled swordsman with superhuman strength striking a prone and immobile character in the neck with a magical broadsword is going to do enough physical damage that the prone person is never gonna get back up, barring raise dead. When blood is no longer squirting out of your severed carotid, you're dead. You don't need a medical proficiency to know that. Medical proficiencies are more for things like how to stop the blood spray before it stops on its own.
You have a point about the PCs and maybe a solution there is to have the downed PC keep the results of their death saves private.
As far as the suspension of disbelief goes, a "skilled swordsman with superhuman strength striking a prone and immobile character in the neck with a magical broadsword" will only make the PC fail 2 death saves (unless it actually exceeds the PCs hp max which is unlikely for a single attack) so the DM probably shouldn't describe it as a "severed carotid".
Depends on what kind of battle or opponent I am facing. Usually I try to heal if I am at quarter HP, but also will use my move action to either hide or flee, depending on the situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I use summon instrument to summon my kettle drum, hold it overhead like Donkey Kong, and chuck it at the nearest kobold.
Except that's not how combat works... you resolve each attack before assigning a target for the next attack, unless they happen simultaneously, such as with magic missile.
My current PbP DM posts every other day. I'm not going to wait almost a week to see if I kill something. Doesn't really matter if there is only one target, if it goes down, smack it for good measure. Undead are feisty.
If I had three attacks and the target was tough, the fight would be like this:
I attack
wait 2 days - you hit
I attack again
wait 2 days - you hit again
I use bonus action for unarmed strike
wait 2 days - he goes down
I loot the body
wait 2 days
frack that.
Couldn't your PbP DM allow convenient conditions to attacking?
IE "I do a three attacks on target A -> B -> C, and if the first or second attack defeat target A I move to target B and if target B is defeated and I still have a 3rd attack I move on to target C" I mean, it isn't a complex algorithm.
You never really know what you're going to get when signing on with a new PBP DM (although I'd be hesitant to play with one that routinely doesn't post for 2 days stretches, Wysperra, that sounds pretty rough), but back in the day before roll20 and its ilk, I played with a group where we shared a google document spreadsheet that auto-calculated to give players the same sort of inputs they'd usually get live from a DM at the table. Fields with monster stats used for the calculations were blacked out and protected so that players couldn't see AC numbers, HP totals, etc... but you'd stick your attack bonus in a cell and it would spit right out at you whether it was a hit or a miss, enter how much damage you'd added and what sort it was and it would auto-shade the character as bloodied or dead, etc. Probably ten years later, and I still think back fondly to how much care and preparation that DM put into running that game, it was beautiful.
Except that's not how combat works... you resolve each attack before assigning a target for the next attack, unless they happen simultaneously, such as with magic missile.
My current PbP DM posts every other day. I'm not going to wait almost a week to see if I kill something. Doesn't really matter if there is only one target, if it goes down, smack it for good measure. Undead are feisty.
If I had three attacks and the target was tough, the fight would be like this:
I attack
wait 2 days - you hit
I attack again
wait 2 days - you hit again
I use bonus action for unarmed strike
wait 2 days - he goes down
I loot the body
wait 2 days
frack that.
Couldn't your PbP DM allow convenient conditions to attacking?
IE "I do a three attacks on target A -> B -> C, and if the first or second attack defeat target A I move to target B and if target B is defeated and I still have a 3rd attack I move on to target C" I mean, it isn't a complex algorithm.
I usually just post all attacks and rolls at one time and add contingencies if there are any. I was posting this example because SkyCaptain said combat doesn't work like that and each attack had to be resolved separately.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
That's why I believe that you should heal when the PC is one successful attack away from zero. With a few notable exceptions, it is pure metagaming for the monster to not take the time to make sure that a PC with zero hit points isn't getting back up. Many creatures will do it because they enjoy disemboweling you. Many creatures will do it because they are smart enough to know that you are one spell from getting back on your feet. Many creatures will do it because it is just part of their nature.
I strongly disagree. First priority of most people is to end the fight as soon as possible. You can do your killing after, if that's even necessary. It's only if a person has a particularly strong motivation to kill a downed player that I'd see them deciding to spend the time securing the deal in the middle of a fight.
Combat spells tend to be more effective than healing spells. You use the bare minimum of healing necessary to keep all your people on their feet in combat; everything else is used to put the enemy down. We have a divine sorcerer instead of a cleric, and I'm really liking the action economy of her twinned healing word spells.
That's why I believe that you should heal when the PC is one successful attack away from zero. With a few notable exceptions, it is pure metagaming for the monster to not take the time to make sure that a PC with zero hit points isn't getting back up. Many creatures will do it because they enjoy disemboweling you. Many creatures will do it because they are smart enough to know that you are one spell from getting back on your feet. Many creatures will do it because it is just part of their nature.
I strongly disagree. First priority of most people is to end the fight as soon as possible. You can do your killing after, if that's even necessary. It's only if a person has a particularly strong motivation to kill a downed player that I'd see them deciding to spend the time securing the deal in the middle of a fight.
Watching animals fight and hunt, you can see them giving killing blows then checking to see if the target is dead. In the cases where the prey is still alive, they give it another bite and shake. This would indicate that under some circumstances, a monster will make sure something is dead dead not just bleeding out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
D&D is a game, not a simulation. Crawling down the hole of "well a real owlbear would definitely bite unconscious targets" is hilariously out of touch, and does not make for fun play.
Just stick with the general rule: enemies only attack conscious players, unless there's a really good reason to do otherwise that 1) advances the story and 2) is unlikely to feel like a "gotcha" betrayal of your players.
Watching animals fight and hunt, you can see them giving killing blows then checking to see if the target is dead. In the cases where the prey is still alive, they give it another bite and shake. This would indicate that under some circumstances, a monster will make sure something is dead dead not just bleeding out.
That is true - when there are no other opponents attacking the animal.
When's the last time you saw an animal attack a group of four or five people? Things of animal intelligence should entirely avoid the party, and things of higher than animal intelligence should be smart enough to never attack a group even remotely near their challenge rating. "Enemies should behave realistically" means no combats, unless they have overwhelming odds and are likely able to wipe out the party. That's not D&D.
When's the last time you saw an animal attack a group of four or five people? Things of animal intelligence should entirely avoid the party, and things of higher than animal intelligence should be smart enough to never attack a group even remotely near their challenge rating. "Enemies should behave realistically" means no combats, unless they have overwhelming odds and are likely able to wipe out the party. That's not D&D.
There was an episode of Critical Role (yeah yeah I know shut up) in which one of the characters killed a monster's baby. It would be perfectly in line for that monster to not only attack but make sure that character was dead, ignoring other targets if given the chance. There are circumstances and circumstances.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
And in that circumstance, where a monster is attacking that player even after unconscious because 1) it advances the story and 2) is a plausible reaction to choices the character made understanding there were possible consequences, that behavior is 100% a reasonable exception to "the rule" that monsters don't normally do that. But if manticores always went around stabbing unconscious players with their tails, that would not be fun, feel metagamey, and limit the DMs ability to make specific fights feel "special" by breaking that rule.
Reading back through Wren and your posts, I'm not really sure how you can take that position... but whatever, we're beating an unconscious horse right now and forcing it to fail death saves.
At the end of the day, the creatures PCs encounter are often a.) preternaturally vicious (e.g. ghouls, low intelligence demons, etc.), b.) smart enough to know that a PC at zero hit points is one spell away from swinging his sword again and is, therefore, still a true threat, or c.) unintelligent and not caring (e.g. most monstrous plants).
I completely agree with you on both A and C. It's B where I'm having the problem. How does a smart enemy know whether the PC is simply at zero hp or actually dead? I contend that, outside of metagaming or mutilation to the body, the enemy doesn't know. The enemy could check (medicine check) or the enemy could do enough damage to the "corpse" to be sure that no simple healing would wake the PC. That amount of damage shouldn't always be visible after exactly 3 failed death saves if the DM isn't metagaming the enemies.
I'm not saying that enemies shouldn't attack downed PCs just that knowing when to stop attacking a downed PC shouldn't be trivial.
Do you have PCs roll medicine checks before casting heal spells in the middle of combat? How do they know the PC isn't dead?
And I'm telling you that, unless you want to completely wreck the suspension of disbelief, a skilled swordsman with superhuman strength striking a prone and immobile character in the neck with a magical broadsword is going to do enough physical damage that the prone person is never gonna get back up, barring raise dead. When blood is no longer squirting out of your severed carotid, you're dead. You don't need a medical proficiency to know that. Medical proficiencies are more for things like how to stop the blood spray before it stops on its own.
You have a point about the PCs and maybe a solution there is to have the downed PC keep the results of their death saves private.
As far as the suspension of disbelief goes, a "skilled swordsman with superhuman strength striking a prone and immobile character in the neck with a magical broadsword" will only make the PC fail 2 death saves (unless it actually exceeds the PCs hp max which is unlikely for a single attack) so the DM probably shouldn't describe it as a "severed carotid".
Depends on what kind of battle or opponent I am facing. Usually I try to heal if I am at quarter HP, but also will use my move action to either hide or flee, depending on the situation.
I use summon instrument to summon my kettle drum, hold it overhead like Donkey Kong, and chuck it at the nearest kobold.
Couldn't your PbP DM allow convenient conditions to attacking?
IE "I do a three attacks on target A -> B -> C, and if the first or second attack defeat target A I move to target B and if target B is defeated and I still have a 3rd attack I move on to target C" I mean, it isn't a complex algorithm.
You never really know what you're going to get when signing on with a new PBP DM (although I'd be hesitant to play with one that routinely doesn't post for 2 days stretches, Wysperra, that sounds pretty rough), but back in the day before roll20 and its ilk, I played with a group where we shared a google document spreadsheet that auto-calculated to give players the same sort of inputs they'd usually get live from a DM at the table. Fields with monster stats used for the calculations were blacked out and protected so that players couldn't see AC numbers, HP totals, etc... but you'd stick your attack bonus in a cell and it would spit right out at you whether it was a hit or a miss, enter how much damage you'd added and what sort it was and it would auto-shade the character as bloodied or dead, etc. Probably ten years later, and I still think back fondly to how much care and preparation that DM put into running that game, it was beautiful.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I usually just post all attacks and rolls at one time and add contingencies if there are any. I was posting this example because SkyCaptain said combat doesn't work like that and each attack had to be resolved separately.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
That's because that is how D&D 5e combat is designed. You resolve each attack before moving on to the next attack.
I strongly disagree. First priority of most people is to end the fight as soon as possible. You can do your killing after, if that's even necessary. It's only if a person has a particularly strong motivation to kill a downed player that I'd see them deciding to spend the time securing the deal in the middle of a fight.
Combat spells tend to be more effective than healing spells. You use the bare minimum of healing necessary to keep all your people on their feet in combat; everything else is used to put the enemy down. We have a divine sorcerer instead of a cleric, and I'm really liking the action economy of her twinned healing word spells.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
Watching animals fight and hunt, you can see them giving killing blows then checking to see if the target is dead. In the cases where the prey is still alive, they give it another bite and shake. This would indicate that under some circumstances, a monster will make sure something is dead dead not just bleeding out.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
D&D is a game, not a simulation. Crawling down the hole of "well a real owlbear would definitely bite unconscious targets" is hilariously out of touch, and does not make for fun play.
Just stick with the general rule: enemies only attack conscious players, unless there's a really good reason to do otherwise that 1) advances the story and 2) is unlikely to feel like a "gotcha" betrayal of your players.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Enemies should behave realistically. Whiny players that moan and cry about it should go play some other game.
That is true - when there are no other opponents attacking the animal.
When's the last time you saw an animal attack a group of four or five people? Things of animal intelligence should entirely avoid the party, and things of higher than animal intelligence should be smart enough to never attack a group even remotely near their challenge rating. "Enemies should behave realistically" means no combats, unless they have overwhelming odds and are likely able to wipe out the party. That's not D&D.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There was an episode of Critical Role (yeah yeah I know shut up) in which one of the characters killed a monster's baby. It would be perfectly in line for that monster to not only attack but make sure that character was dead, ignoring other targets if given the chance. There are circumstances and circumstances.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
And in that circumstance, where a monster is attacking that player even after unconscious because 1) it advances the story and 2) is a plausible reaction to choices the character made understanding there were possible consequences, that behavior is 100% a reasonable exception to "the rule" that monsters don't normally do that. But if manticores always went around stabbing unconscious players with their tails, that would not be fun, feel metagamey, and limit the DMs ability to make specific fights feel "special" by breaking that rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's what we've been saying this whole time.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Reading back through Wren and your posts, I'm not really sure how you can take that position... but whatever, we're beating an unconscious horse right now and forcing it to fail death saves.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.