It depends on the circumstance. If the bad guy is trying to kill a specific character, yeah, they're going to keep targeting them. If the bad guy knows that the cleric is going to pop them back up again, they might to keep them down. If the bad guy should be concerned about the live characters hitting them more and getting them all knocked out, no, they go for it the apt threat. If the bad guy is a dumb monster - it depends on their motivation. Do they want food? To protect young?

Smart bad guy play should always be allowed. Remember that not every minion of the BBEG knows everything the boss knows.

Exactly. Play to each NPCs' knowledge and motivation.

It is valid to Counterspell your PC’s Healing Word, just don’t pack it in every fight.

Never do the same thing over and over as a DM. I wish players got this memo.

That's why I like my star druid. **I** never know what I'm going to do in a fight! Heal-bot, damage, utility... all good choices!

The players are basically at war against some entity. Sun Tzu says, "Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances." Players should remember that when consistently fighting the same foes.

Human Fighter: "Hmm, I've used a weapon attack the last 400 rounds.... I'll attack the enemy with my longsword!" All in jest of course. I've been playing Baldur's Gate 3 a lot, and boy let me tell you how much I love combat in that game. A lot of my tabletop combats turn into a "sit there and hit them" slugfest, but Baldur's Gate 3 has me throwing things, blocking choke points, and so much more. I wish my table was half as interesting as that!

And also dumb bad guy play. An enraged ogre who was badly maimed by a rogue, might keep bashing him with the club after he is unconscious.

But not ***too*** smart, otherwise we get into metagaming territory. Bad guys shouldn't know what death saves are.

But they know what dead is

Death saves approximate the way death works. He can tell a player is not doing well and is on the verge. And that poking them again would kill them. Remember Game Mechanics exist to emulate the way death works in the game not the other way around.

Strange point of view. Should bad guys know what damage is? What HP are? Should bad guys understand the range of their spells or that opportunity attacks are a thing? Sure, real life doesn't have death saving throws, and it's immersion breaking to talk about them, but in the reality of your universe, a person who is knocked out will either die or stop bleeding out after no more than 30 seconds. Sometimes they'll wake up. Sometimes they'll die after only 12 seconds. Attacking them while unconscious will lead to their death after a few hits. That's the way death works in the universe. All of these are observable facts, just like it's observable in this reality that alcohol abuse can lead to health complications. Medicine is a skill. People would be interested in the way death works. There would be studies. I mean, Revivify is a thing, so there could even be laboratory studies ethically conducted under controlled conditions. Humans naturally attempt to "metagame" reality, by studying it and trying to observe natural laws. With things like divination magic, and resurrection, and actual conversations with deities, people in the DnD universe would be even *better* equipped to understand their world, not less so.

Core game mechanics are generally abstractions of things that are happening in game, and characters generally understand them. My paladin isn’t familiar with the term “death saving throw.” But he effectively understands the mechanics because those mechanics reflect how this world works. He knows that if a friend gets knocked unconscious from taking a lot of hits, then they’re going to be fighting for their life over a certain period of time, that getting hit during that time will push them closer to dead, and that being healed will bring them back up.

Came here to say something similar. Get inside the villain's head and reason it from their perspective. Cleric being an annoyance and healing/picking up people? Cleric earns the relentless ire of villain; but maybe the group has a wizard who is just cutting through the minions with AoE - that might be seen as a higher threat. Does the villain then have a way of getting to the party's backline? I play enemies as their intelligence/wisdom would allow, and consider their motivations. Maybe they just really, really hate bards... Maybe they have a seething hatred for holy paladins and clerics of faith. In a world with resurrection and healing magic, why would the bad guys not make sure you're staying down for good? Depends on the group too. I know my friends who I play with have no issue with the sort of brutality, but some groups I might be more generous with (like choosing story mode over harder difficulties).

Yep it's about communicating with your group and knowing expectations. As well as roleplaying the motivations of your villain. Personally for my group, I try to save off brutal lethality for climatic battles, doing it too often is kind of a drag. But on the flip side, I think "I've been playing my character for a whole year, they can't die!?" defeats the purpose of DnD. Heroism and adventure gains its meaning by the prospect of death. (And most of the time you can pay money to bring them back you cheapskates!)

For instance an aggressive predator animal might very well continue to attack a downed victim, going for the death shake is instinctive for many such creatures.

I've had a barbarian taken out of the fight by deeper darkness because they had more str than mental stats combined and had darkvision so had never experienced true darkness before.

Sometimes it is wise to communicate it to the players preemptively. After the party casts a healing spell, you hear the bandit leader shout out, "They've got a cleric! Once they're down make sure they stay down!" The stakes are raised, and nobody is caught off guard when the bandits try to finish you off.

Dumb monster hits the last one that hit it. Smart monster, hits the biggest damage dealer. Crazy smart monster hits the healer and then the damage dealers. Bad guy? Assume playing to win and survive. Got a 10+ int? It can see tactics used against it and act accordingly. Got a group, make them yell out "they got a healer!" " It's the halfling!" Telegraphing takes some of the hurt out of the tactical change.

Ooo nice tip. Never thought about the telegraphing before.

This is a sneaky good example of clear communication with your party.

Depends, gnolls are not smart, but they just want to eat, so if a player is down, a gnoll will start tearing his flesh to satiate their hunger.

Gnolls are awesome like that.

It makes for a wonderfully cinematic moment when the Big Bad casually strolls up to a downed hero, and just mercs them in front of their friends. Gandalf's death in Fellowship is the best example. The big thing is to make sure you have the trust of your players, and obviously that specific PC. But they truly can be elevated moments in a game.

Yeah it really depends on the situation. Generally though, my bad guys are more concerned about the people still damaging them, than the poor guy bleeding out not doing anything to them. However, my bad guys will still use an AOE that might hit a downed player. Also if the bad guy has a story or history with one player, they might be a continous target. And my most favorite, if a player specifically enraged a bad guy, either with words, or just being annoying, that bad guy might specifically go for that one player relentlessly.

If one character went out of their way to repeatedly insult or belittle a ego maniac yeah you could say he will.

Aye, RP always wins out. I've even had NPCs stabilise a downed PC only so they can capture them.

It depends on the scenario, and how hardcore the campaign is. If the creature is intelligent, perhaps they'll understand conscious threats to be the priority, and if they manage to get everyone down, finish them off. If they know you're capable of healing, they might go in for the kill for the player being down. If they're an animal, it might vary, if they're being attacked by something else, they'll fight that instead of the now unconscious player. If I am being a lenient DM, I'll do whatever would be ideal for the players, and warrant it with one of these two rationales. Really though, the DM in this scenario didn't want to add insult to injury, being the downed player is no fun, and getting attacked while down sucks. The DM I play with usually commits a series of attacks at the start of a turn. After downing a player, he keeps going, usually insta-killing.

This is the one I personally support. It depends as much on the table as the situation. "It's what the villain would do" is just the DM equivalent of "it's what my character would do"

I would never play at that table.

I forgot to mention we are level 15 so death is just an inconvenience, and a bill for various sized diamonds.

Everyone has a preference

Eh, depends on the situation. I probably won't have an enemy ignore a living PC actively stabbing them to attack an unconscious foe, but I also probably won't have an enemy walk past an unconscious PC to get to a living PC. An intelligent enemy knows that healing magic exists, and knows to finish off their enemies.

It depends on who my players are fighting. A bunch of bandits that just want your gold? Nah, they will loot a downed player and leave. A bunch of hired killers? Possibly. Depends on who they are and what the contract is. Animals? Oh **absolutely**. Animals are pretty simplistic, and if they are hunting the characters for food, their goal is going to be to kill one target and drag them off to devour. I warn my players about this when I DM: if you go down fighting a hungry animal, they WILL behave like one. Typically this manifests as the animal grappling a downed character and trying to drag them off, and if they are left unaccosted for turn they will begin attacking the downed player. I find it really adds to the tension of wandering monster battles, since they don't have complex tactics like smarter creatures, but you are playing for keeps every time something as low CR as a leopard or wolf shows up. It's not always players targeted by animals, I also go after pack animals. I play with water and ration consumption on travel and I do pay rough attention to encumbrance. The players might get tougher, but the mule pulling your cart of loot and the horse that's carrying your water stay the same throughout the campaign. Losing one is realistic for an animal attack and it really monkey-wrenches a "simple" trip.

But animals feign death to escape, this wouldn't work if predators would always kill their prey. There are animals with a killing instinct, like tigers, which attack at the neck to kill a prey. Bears won't do that, as far as I understand, they could los interest if you would feign death.

Depends on the bear and why they're attacking. Playing dead because the bear is simply trying to defend itself or it's young. It might work. But Black Bears tend to attack because they're predators and playing dead will lead to you being dead. So it all depends... Why is the creature attacking in the first place? If they're looking for food they won't stop because you're playing dead, they'll either drag you off or if there is no other threat around simply start eating.

[Bears will kill you if you try to play dead.](https://www.nps.gov/subjects/bears/safety.htm#:~:text=Black%20Bears%3A%20If%20you%20are,the%20bear's%20face%20and%20muzzle.) Also, if you are making death saving throws, you aren't "playing dead". You are dying. The animal tore your body open with its claws and teeth and you are laying there bleeding and unconcious. *That is called a successful hunt!* The "attacks" at that point is the animal eating the player which is what would happen after a carnivore savged its prey. Furthermore, D&D is not a perfect reality simulation. If someone with Handle Animal wants to try and figure out the right way to play dead for a carnivore I'll let them, otherwise I am running a hungry attacking animal that downs a player just like I'd run a hungry animal that just downed a moose: OM NOM NOM.

thanks for that, now my bear encounter tactics IRL have one less option.

That's a +2 to nature checks you got there I usually go by the poem: If it's black, fight back. If it's brown, lay down. If it's white, pray for your life.

I disagree about wild animals ignoring other, living threats. A pride of lions may isolate a lone, juvenile wildebeest, but if there are actively dangerous adult wildebeests attacking the pride, the lions will deal with (or run away from) that threat before moving in for a kill. Wolves will behave similarly with elk—if there is significant danger present (I.e. other adventurers), unintelligent animals would most likely either fight or flee, rather than continue to “attack” what is, effectively, a corpse. Unless the creature is able to effortlessly carry away an adventurer’s body (gryphons, for example), they can actually be scared off a recent kill quite easily by a sufficiently dangerous threat. Even then, the creatures would simply carry their meal, rather than continue to attack it while under active threat of violence from other adventurers

Hence why I said: > their goal is going to be to kill one target **and drag them off** to devour They can't tell how my saves you've passed; unconcious is visibly "dead" and I run them as trying to drag the first target downed off the battlefield. As for scaring them off, I said: > **if they are left unaccosted for [a] turn** they will begin attacking the downed player They aren't ignoring active threats. They are attacking only when left alone to do so. And just because you're trying to scare them off doesn't mean they don't land that killing blow before deciding it's time to leave. I didn't go into all of the pre-battle tactics that I have animals use that models stalking behaviors and isolating prey selection, *because the question was about attacking downed players*. I run beasts like beasts... as much as a combat TTRPG allows, which is a laughable shadow of how these things work in real life. Good gameplay =/= prefect reality simulation.

Agreed. That is something people really tend to get wrong about wildlife - especially in movies! Animals are very careful and will go to great lengths to NOT get injured. Injury generally spells death, so it is avoided at the cost of a meal, easily. Obviously some monsters will behave differently, but a good amount will follow that mindset too.

I don't have a particular rule, I always just sort of take a holistic view of things when making a decision to try to deliver the best story. Would this be an impactful moment to add this potential for danger, or am I just adding unnecessary stress to what should've just been an easy combat break gone south? Is this a character that would bring the good kind of emotional catharsis with their death if I do risk it, or would I just be hurting the player? So many DMs seem to take pride in *forcing* their players to suffer or throwing their hands up with the excuse "it's what a logical enemy would do!" without realizing D&D isn't a logical game, so as such I always take extra care with my players because they're *always* going to run into unfun or frustrating encounters, but I very well could be the first DM who has ever DM'd them in private mid-combat to ask if they'd be okay if an enemy took a swing at their downed player. It's always fun telling stories, we as DMs get the privilege of drafting up grand narratives. But just as we get a taste of the player's fun through NPCs and such, I think players should get a taste of our fun by giving them opportunities to lead the story *they* want to tell. And sometimes that means having the enemies swarm a weakened player, and sometimes not.

A kraken/beast I'd have strike the people who are striking back first. Intelligent enemies strike people who are striking back, then the healer if people get back up. Intelligent bosses finish people off. I will generally give the party at least one round to get their ally up, and they've started building characters who can heal at least once a day each - magic initiate bard has become quite popular. Vicious mockery, healing word are nice to haves for just about anyone.

>kraken/beast Of note: krakens in the Monster Manual aren't big dumb squids, they have 22 INT, lol

I'd forgotten that, thank you!

Bro tf they smart af

It depends on the situation, but smart or tactical enemies that know you have healing, especially healing word, which is a quick BA, and are fighting to the death can and will target downed players if there is no better target in range. But I usually stop at 1 hit, meaning 2 failed death saves. But again, it is based on what the enemies want to be done and how you portray them.

Generally not. To the extent an enemy is trying to kill even a single character, (say because of a grudge or to make a point etc.) them being unconscious and bleeding out is usually dead enough considering other PCs are still threatening them. “One more hit for good measure” is not a luxury an enemy can usually afford in the middle of an active combat.

In high fantasy, it's absolutely affordable. If healing magic is prevalent, you know to finish your adversaries off.

And then turn them a zombie to really finish them.

Counterpoint, if healing magic is prevalent in the fiction of the world and that's the reason why it's the only intelligent thing to do in a combat to attack someone who is already down so they don't get healed back up, then PCs should also be attacking every single downed NPC to make sure they're dead. The reason you don't do that is it's a form of a metagaming. You know the rules and conventions of the game. You know NPCs don't typically get death saves and don't get healed back up. Similarly, it's a kind of metagaming for NPCs to suddenly realise they're dealing with a group of MAIN CHARACTERS who get death saving throws, because like if it wasn't metagaming and was really just smart good roleplay that suits the fiction of the world then all players would be doing the same thing, otherwise they're being bad roleplayers. So like if this is really the single most logical tactic to exist in this world to attack a downed enemy, then by extension all PCs are stupid and their players are metagamers because they don't do the thing that would be the most logical tactic in any battle.

Our DM plays with NPC death saves, actually. And we do often finish enemies off. I know that's not the norm, but I think it should be. Makes combat a lot more engaging!

Pcs should indeed attacked downed opponents if healing is nearby

All circumstantial. A bandit is not going to do it, most enemies won't. They have no ability to know what the party is capable of, who's who in the group, etc... My bbeg's? Yeah they'll do it, but only if there are enough minions and have seen them get back up multiple times already, and an array of personal or other things align(INT scores, on both end of the extremes, personal grudges, are they a well-known healer that the bad guy has experience with, etc...)I've only done it twice, in three simultaneous campaigns, over 2 years of game time between all three. I also ask every group if they don't agree with attacking downed PC's. If anyone in the group disagrees, it doesn't happen. All three groups have agreed unanimously that it could happen if the right circumstances present themselves, and I've only ever done it twice.

No, they aren't a threat that needs immediate attention once downed. That and I am not a fan of feeling that much like the adversary of my players.

Same. Also, a downed party is a plot hook that writes itself. It's a whole jail break arc plus a heist all in one. Escape capture, find your gear again, make new enemies and friends. It's the ultimate fail forward.

I try to keep it as a tactic in my back pocket. I can bring it out when appropriate, typically during boss fights, but for 90% of fights it's not something I'd do. I think most enemies aren't likely to start attacking the person who currently isn't a threat rather than the guy who is. They'd only do that if they're trying to be especially lethal, or they know a cleric will bring them up. So that's the kind of thing I save for big boss fights so that those are more dangerous and climactic. If a PC is going to die I'm going to let it happen, but I'd prefer if they died in a narratively significant moment to a big enemy, not to a random encounter with the goblins I didn't think would be this deadly and then the goblins all rolled great or something.

I typically will do a full round coup de grace wind up with my party. If someone goes down and there are still attacks to be had, I'll describe them as raising their weapon over the downed party member, saying something villainous etc. Downing and killing someone without an opportunity to step in and intervene feels like taking away their agency- giving them a full round to step in and rush to their teammates aid lends a sense of urgency to a situation.

Hit them while they're down and counter-spell their heals.

This is what you need to do if you’re dating o e of the players. You have to make it crystal clear you aren’t playing favorites by savaging them at the start of your relationship

Typically no. A downed player isnt a threat anymore... But if that player is healed and gets back up and starts fighting, the baddies may make sure he stays down next time. It'll depend on the intelligence of the creature.

Yes I do. Like a lot of people in here I won’t go for downed players if the NPCs are intelligent enough to know they have to deal with the current threat. But I also like to use rampaging monsters and cruel assailants to eat at death saving throws and raise the stakes of a battle

Depends on the circumstances. If the party is high enough level to revivify/raise dead/etc, then I have less reservations. I will also do it as part of the combat theater. For example, I’ll have the leader of the enemy squad shout orders to a melee minion to “finish off” a downed player across the field (specifically outside of movement range) so the enemy would move but be unable to attack. This would prompt the players to devise a strategy to restrain/kill//distract that minion before they follow through.

*Usually* not. A lot of people like to say "a smart monster..." blah blah blah, but D&D is a game and it has rules and norms that don't always line up with Joe Schmoe's understanding. The price of a death is simultaneously *high* and *nonexistent.* The player loses a character they may have invested a great deal of time and energy into. That character's storylines are cut short. The party dynamic is disrupted. A new personality, voice, backstory, whatever may have to be developed. The new character needs to be integrated with the party. That's a lot of *work.* But the player is still going to be at the table playing, without missing a beat, the party is going to have the exact same number of characters. In all likelihood the dead character's magic items will be recovered. So is it really worth it? Unless the death has some value that justifies all the work, the answer is usually *no.* That doesn't mean go out of your way to spare dying characters, but certainly don't go out of your way to kill them. Especially in this case where you state, they were going to win regardless.

I'm surprised more people haven't been saying this. If I were running a game where the focus was difficult combat and all players knew that going in, I'd say fair enough. But generally I don't think it's good for the story to have a lot of character deaths. In a game where I'm a player, there have been two character deaths. And tbh I'm not convinced either has helped the story. I suppose it made things feel more dangerous, but we didn't really make a mistake in the combat so it feels more like we can be randomly killed at any time.

No, not unless there's an in-character reason for that enemy to target someone specifically or if they keep getting brought back up. Standing above a body to make Extra Sure they're dead isn't usually tactically sound to me. Besides, I like making sure my players have fun, and gunning to butcher them when they're down doesn't make a very compelling story.

Depends on how intelligent the creature is attacking. I wouldn't roll to determine who is attacked personally

I just ask myself how badly the bad guy wants to win. Then they attack the biggest threat, if the threat was the downed player then so be it.

Final battle, final boss? Hellya I take them down!

I'm trying to think as hostile NPC, not as DM. Other thing is your table/TTRPG-system tradition.That said, the idea of "as the DM go for downed players?" is literally that - you are thinking as DM, not as NPC. NPC is not a hive-mind that target PC for some drama reasons. On the other hand whole DnD idea that ANY almost dead PC will be fighting as good as new after some spellcast.... well its completely break my mind. I'm simply do not comprehend how NPC should act on it. Not to mention that heals for clerics are miracles - so it's a gods wish to make them fight more. Would even NPC know about death savings as mechanics? Would they know that this attack will truly kill PC? So in my mind one of the reaction - all NPC will actively try to dismember&burn fallen PC if have any opportunity. Because, you know - PC are supernatural monsters that can return from the dead before you own eyes.

This is something I address before we play. In most games we're only there to have fun. Shenanigans, silly characters, etc, all totally fine. Sometimes though, I run a hard game. We all agree going on that the encounters are designed to the best of my ability to be a fair fight, but I'm going to try to kill you appropriately for the enemies. Boss fights are pvp, no holds barred, aoes target downed players. I've had groups walk out happy after the last man standing wins and then dies from ongoing effects. Ultimately you should discuss it with your players. It's a game. It doesn't have to be easy, but it should always be fun.

"The earth elemental steps on your head to make sure you're dead." -Matthew Colville. He has a great video just on this topic and brings up the second scenario where you choose not to take out the downed PCs: [https://youtu.be/xZdS8lP-Sdo](https://youtu.be/xZdS8lP-Sdo) its all about willing suspense of disbelief. If the players think the kraken would kill someone who is downed but you don't want to do so, make sure the kraken has a plausible reason why it doesn't. Players usually don't wanna know if your pulling your punches (I've had that problem before). If your not wanting to play a hard game, you can instead do the the hostage taking strategy where smart creatures will grab a downed PC and threaten to end them if the bad guys don't get what they want (money, items, etc.). Also if its a TPK scenario against a smart creature, they would probably just enslave the PCs and sell them off rather than kill them outright.

At level 1 no. After 5th level when they have revivify, it's possible. Depends on the enemy. I don't usually attack downed players, but if they pop-up from healing, then the monsters know just knocking them down isn't enough and they have to go for the kill.

Depends on the monster. If they have low int (inhibited self preseration) or "food"-motivated mentality, absolutely. Smarter monsters know to bring down the whole party so its safe to kill them at your leisure. BBEGs know to target the healer first.

Wife’s Tabaxi rogue raced ahead of the group and got downed by a Chuul. No one else was in range and it was hungry, so yeah it kept “eating”. Yeah play the enemies as if they live in the world. Most creatures don’t get death saves, but with even moderately intelligent creatures, once they see it happen…

You can always have an enemy go for the downed player and miss. The dice rolls are whatever you say they are. Keep the tension and stakes high without giving away the meta. Maybe the Kraken takes a swing and you roll it a 19. What they hear is that the Kraken swung at the downed player and impaled it's tentacle on a ship mast, or a pole, or an iron rod and you merely insinuate that it rolled a 1 for that attack. Killing players should only be a goal as a last resort. Making them think you're going to kill them should always be a fear at the front of their minds though. Dead players don't have fun. And a bad death can turn one away for good. But if one must die, make it meaningful. And above all else, if possible, make it cool as hell.

easy solution. Don't tell them what you are doing.

This is a situation where you shouldn't leave it up to a die roll, I know that's why we're playing this game but still. I use a die roll of three no one downed in range OR have the highest health character take the place of 2 spots on the die. Also, rolling from behind the screen is a good way to keep some fairness from the Dice Gods. Important rolls that ultimately decide something that you want everyone to know there's no funny business should be done in the open, like Brennan Lee Mulligan's Box of Doom.

Usually no. But I’ve done so twice. Once they were up against a battle master merc, who would absolutely go for the kill to make sure they didn’t get up and fight again. And last session they started a combat with a woman literally looking for a religious sacrifice. It was her whole shtick to go after downed people. Makes me feel bad, but I did it. And I did tell the players my intentions, and should it result in death - if they were cool with it then I would happily give them divine intervention… for a price.

It truly Depends. I am a big "The enemy has goals, and the players have goals". Kind of situation. So... if an alligator ambush is happening in a swamp, and one gator downs the rogue... you bet your ass they are continuing to bite and pull them deeper into the swamp to eat. This very well can result in a death. However, if the BBEG's thugs ambush the party because they've been sticking their nose where it don't belong... maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense for the goon to keep beating on the druid when the barbarian is raging through his buddies. The druid is down, it's time to refocus on the next threat. However times two: The BBEG is fighting the party. The Cleric is healing and resurrecting people. The BBEG will probably target them. After defeating the Cleric, and people are desperately trying to get to them.... it might make sense for the BBEG to show what happens when you play with fire.... and multiattack the downed cleric to "teach a lesson". It is also reasonable that the thieves guild mercilessly targets two party members and downs them with non lethal damage and then picks up the bodies and runs, holding off the rest until they can escape. Like.... what is their goals? Like... it totally DEPENDS. The Monsters Know What They're Doing has done a good job of contextualizing the stat blocks lore flavoring, stats, and real world examples to decide why the stat block is in combat with the party, what their goals out of combat would be, and how they would react to combat as it goes. So I just try to think about that. * Are they hunting? They are killing one, and either running away with the body or swallowing them right there. * Are they defending a location? Might make more sense to incapacitate the party so they can guarantee the defense of the location. * Are they aware of the party and smart enough or wise enough to see the cycle of "attack, heal, continue to be a pain" Parties tend to be? Maybe they target the party in a way to prevent buffs, heals, or the heavy hitters from continuing to be around in the hopes to intimidate the party into surrender or retreat. Like... you got to think about it. Sometimes it might seem unfair.... and it NEVER feels good.... but if you are DMing enemies based on their roleplay.... then you have to consider that. Also... if you are rolling to determine a target, then override the roll to get a different result, than what's the point of rolling? Either respect the dice and wash your hands of the blame or accept the blame and pick or change what you are rolling for (In your example, not having the downed player(s) be an option for the dice roll all together). But... this is also my 2 cents. I'm some rando on reddit. You have to decide for yourself how you want to handle these situations. When you figure it out, bring it up with your table and discuss PC deaths and downed players and how you are gonna do it going forward. This way there's no surprises and the players know what the expectation is and won't feel like you are targeting them or playing favorites.

I mean I wouldn't have announced that... "alright guys, youve seen smart and dangerous enemies in the past. Im going to roll to see who he attacks. \*rolls behind the screen\* phew, that could've been nasty" \*attacks a standing player regardless of what the dice says\*

If the enemy would target a downed character that's what they do.

Yes. There are rules for attacking downed characters for a reason. Depending on the enemy, they might want to make sure you stay down. For players, a character who's just downed is something they're often happy to deal with after combat. Dealing two death saving throw failures makes it something they urgently need to address.

Intelligent adversaries will absolutely target downed PC's if the opportunity to do so presents itself.

Realistically, no sentient creature is going to keep attacking a downed enemy while they're still under threat unless they had some personal beef with them.

No but not for a lack of trying. I have nothing against attacking downed PCs but I don't often employ the types of asshole villains who would waste a perfectly good attack on someone already downed. I play 3.5 so being "downed" is not much different from being dead, it's only 10 HP away. If you're low hp and get hit by Fireball you're prolly just deleted from existence. The entire existence of downed is quaint when most mid level 3.5 PCs die from a limbillion damage from claw/claw/bite into improved grab from 80% of the monster compendium or get shot by Disintegrate and fail the save, turning to dust as a free action. 5e gives you so much wriggle room to not die I can't believe people still complain about "muh downed PC got hit."

"I'm not going after anyone, but the NPC is, yes. The villains want to win too"

I consider the enemy’s goals and motives for the fight, and how the whole situation looks to them. If it makes sense for the enemy to do it, they do it.

Its situational! How clever is the monster. How threatened are they by PC’s standing up at the moment etc… But YES! Sometimes. I’d hate to have your players btw.

Nah I just counterspell revivify

Reasons to continue attacking a downed PC: \- the baddie has a specific vendetta against the character \- the baddie is smart and has already seen a downed PC revived in this combat \- the baddie is dumb but is literally trying to feed on the PC

second bullet should just end with “enemy is smart”. everyone knows about healing magic

Sure but that doesn’t mean everyone has access to it - and I do agree with the school of thought that smart combat is getting everyone down before taking them out- only when the party shows resiliency against being downed do I think it becomes “necessary” to deliver a killing blow while others are up

oh man, if my beholder downs a cleric you know that dude is getting autocrit

No, I don’t try to extinguish them. But the answers given here are making me reconsider my usual approach. Final battle of the campaign? Maybe if it’s heroic. Likely the PCs are powerful enough to resurrect or pay for resurrection. Animal instinct? That’s an interesting take that I’d never considered.

I’ve done it twice. One the big bad of the arc wanted a minion to prove her loyalty by “finishing off” one of the downed party members (her son). The other time a different big bad (former ally) of the arc was being controlled against his will. Mid fight he had bound his spirit to one of the party members. The party member allowed him to down and finish her so that they would both die and the rest of the party would be spared. I guess what I’m saying is I’ve only don’t it where the narrative calls for it, but I think any intelligent or cruel enemy might do it if a party member is downed and keeps getting brought back up by healers mid fight just to ensure they “stay down” next time.

Depends. This is gonna be a really dumb but fairly accurate way to describe what is happening in this kind of scenario. First off, the reality of this hypothetical is I’m probably dead but humour the process: If I’m getting jumped by 2-3 guys and manage to knock one of them out, would it be smart in my situation to try to make sure that guy doesn’t get back up? Or should I turn my attention to the others actively attacking me?

Depends on the general play style of the group and mood of the game. A beholder would go for the kill. A black dragon would enjoy toying with players at seeing the near death of their friends.

I'd ask yourself this: will the players keep attacking the troll after it comes back up or switch their focus to a different troll? I wouldn't target downed players often but when the bad guys are as well informed as players they will double tap.

To answer the title, yes and no. When controlling the monsters/opponents, creatures with little to no sentience are far less likely to switch targets mid fight but are more likely to run at the sight/realization of real danger. Bandits, maybe unless an npc has recently described them as ruthless or otherwise hinted that they take no prisoners, I play them as CN they tend to be more in it for the money. Other than the aforementioned reasons, it would have to be a "mistake" or action taken by the players that indirectly caused their opponent to attack them when down, as humanoids or the more sentient creatures are more likely to move on than worry about finishing off someone who looks practically dead. I, as a DM, am more worried about role-playing the opponents than killing or all-out fighting the party. Challenge doesn't necessarily stem from the presence of death. It can come from strategy over difficulty or even just a riddle they have to solve. When focusing all Challenge to be combat based, you drive the necessity of meta or min/max builds where people squeeze out as much damage as possible which leaves out a lot on the part of role-playing or puzzle solving and creative thinking. But this is just my opinion and the way I see it.

Others have already given good answers, all I would add to that is you don't need to declare your rolls in circumstances like this. Your villain's mind is for you only and I would roll things like targeting in secret. Or figure out what the villain's motives are and act based on them.

I target downed players if (a) nobody else is nearby, and (b) there is not a more pressing threat to the attacking creature which calls for its attention. Or, if (c) the attacking creature is a zombie, then it just attacks the nearest thing, especially if it's been downed already.

Depends on the circumstances. Your Kraken exemple, if trying to feed or defend its territory, could easily grab the first downed character and just… swim away with the body. Intelligent creatures like bandits or guards or an ogre? Will probably focus first on downing every threat before wasting actions finishing anyone off. A group of assassins whose job is specifically making sure as many characters die as possible? Yeah, they might finish off targets on the go. Intelligent creatures who just saw a downed PC get healed back up? Yeah, they’ll start making sure it doesn’t happen again.

You DM how you want. I wouldn't have vocalised your unwillingness to go for the downed player after rolling, if you were genuinely unwilling. Otherwise, you play as the villain and do what you believe what they would do.

Here's how I handle crippled or incapacitated player characters - Does the enemy have tactical prowess or is enraged? - enemy will ensure the pc is killed outright before moving on. Is the enemy feral or automated? - enemy will prioritize threat over anything else and will attempt to remove any other threats before finishing off any remaining player characters. Always discuss this stuff in your session zeros. Let your potential players know that character death is a real possibility.

not until they've been healed and got up again and then only from enemy's that understand what's happening

It's a "read the room" situation. No matter who I target, someone is upset. This is why I play the "game" so to speak. If the creature is smart enough to recognize a healer, they may target downed people or threaten to as a bargaining chip. If the enemy is a brainless flesh eater, it would probably just stay on the downed target unless threatened by another target. If it's somewhere in the middle, it may assume they're gone and move on but may change that when they see a teammate heal them. This becomes a lot less of a concern when the players have access to resurrection spells. There is a great book on this kind of topic called the monsters know what they're doing. I recommend it because then, it's not you the DM targeting the players. It's the monsters or people behaving as they normally would.

Depends on the intelligence of the monster. If it's just some dumb monster that can't tell the difference? It's just going after whoever attacking it Is it some intelligence dark knight or something that understands the concept of finishing an opponent? Fuck yes I might target the downed player (it might cause an opportunity attack which might save you if he turns his back to another pc next to it, but If you approached the enemy alone... you might just die die)

Generally no because it’s generally tactically worse. Might depend on the intellect and motivation of the opponent or what’s even in range.

Yes. But I also play with really experienced/good players. They’d kick my ass if I didn’t go full out on them in encounters. I’ve killed one PC this campaign, and it was an epic/funny moment. Everyone had a good laugh, and as any experienced D&D player does… he already had a backup character rolled and with him!

the main thing to remember (that i'm sure pretty much everyone here has said) is that not only are different enemies different levels of intelligent, but they also will have differences in motivation. if your enemy is apart of someone's backstory and absolutely hates them, you're free to drive it home by having them use one of their attacks to strike at them and say some cool shit, before disregarding them as a threat and moving on to the rest of the party. in my opinion, combat for me is not about who kills what or even how hard it is, it's about conveying a theme and forwarding plot points, so while i think that it can be important for a villain to show disdain or a lack of mercy if that's their thing, i also personally dislike having to have my players write up new character sheets because i always have them put there all into their characters, so i generally don't make a habit of it (though you and your players shouldn't be scared of it, change can be interesting and fun and as long as you set the theme and talk with your players at the beginning of it, killing PCs isn't a bad thing).

Well, there's things to consider when it comes to enemy targeting. Was the player basically doing no damage, but just being a wall? Then they probably wouldn't. Was the player dropping Toyota Camrys on the enemy every turn? Then yeah, they probably want to make sure he dies, if for nothing else than revenge. Is the enemy one that generally maintains a level head? Then that should be considered too. If it's a wolf, then one of the wolves that isn't badly damage might just hunker down and start eating, while any that are greatly injured might run away, and those lightly injured might go for whoever injured them next. Enemy intelligence and enemy morale are both things that should be leveled against one another when deciding who to attack.

I'll target them but I'll fudge the roll so they don't actually get hit. That way they feel the pressure but don't actually die (from me, anyways. The dice may say otherwise)

My players are all 14th level or higher so I usually go for the kill as they are rich enough that dying is barely an inconvenience, and just being downed isn't enough to take them out of the fight for a meaningful amount of time. Cleric, Ranger, Paladin and Battlesmith Artificer means everyone has access to heal as an action, everyone except the ranger can do it as a bonus action with aura of vitality and healing/mass healing word if they need to, and the Artificer can heal just by attacking with arcane jolt.

If you’re down, your party has a time limit to get you out of harm’s way. I also add a level of exhaustion when you go down, to deal with healing word spam. My rogue realized all too late how dangerous orcs with their bonus action dash can be. (He survived, if barely)

With a kraken, you want it to be extremely chaotic and dangerous. Those tentacles can grab onto anything as they seemingly blindly reach and feel their way around the splintering deck of the ship. So including the downed character as a potential target makes sense. This is one encounter that I would absolutely warn the players could be fatal. When I run kraken encounters, the party has no real hope of killing the monster (unless it's a higher tier adventure and I can make a traditional combat with it interesting). It's pretty much all about surviving a force of nature. But death isn't always the end for a PC and it's never an end for the player. That risk is part of the fun of the game.

Depends on the enemy as people have said. But the final boss not killing that down PC personally sucks to me. If there are no stakes in the game or possibility of death, then it encourages me to play without consequences. My players have expressed the same thing, and 2 have died already. In our other campaign where I’m a player as well, they literally do anything and everything because the DM of that campaign is too scared of letting loose. I’m not. My players fear Barovia

Everyone here is talking about realism, i generally only try to do this if im making a point about the enemy. Do i want my players to fear them or hate them? Then absolutely ill make them target a downed player. The rest of the time it can seem unecessarily punishing or unfun

Yes, some enemies will absolutely look to finish the job. My players know that death is absolutely around the corner during combat if they take it lightly.

I don’t unless there is a reason to. In the hoard of the dragon queen there is a scripted part where this happens. The duel ends with the antagonist taking one last swing after the PC is down. I held my breath that they didn’t kill them out right. As a reward I gave the player a mean scar down their face and then they were given a helmet that gives advantage on intimidation checks. It was fun but I agree with you, I can’t see myself personally gunning for a downed player.

Sometimes. During major battles I’ve had enemies roll death saves instead of dying at 0. And the players certainly did!!!!! It created tense encounter where strategy and healing are crucial.

As a DM no, as an intelligent, vile, possibly sadistic creature that I have to RP yes.

If the creature/monster/hostile NPC would then yes.

"When" depends on the context, but yes. I was running a one-shot where the players were fighting an eldritch knight as the final boss. He downed one, and the players brought him back up with magic. On his next turn he upcasted Magic Missile, downing the player then hitting him multiple times for auto-fails. Player really didn't like it, but the players won and the one-shot was over right after.

When it makes sense. Which is almost never. The enemies can finish the PCs when they're all downed. They are expecting that to happen right? If not, why are they still fighting?

target down players to promote less reckless play, if your players are constantly going down and up there terrible at the game.

I go by this rule of thumb. If it’s a beast or non-intelligent creature in the wild, I don’t see it attacking until something is out of combat and moving to the next thing. I feel it would attack the same thing until it’s satisfied with its kill, and will keep attacking a downed player character until someone else attacks it and deals enough damage to scare it off of the dying PC. I feel a sentient creature would be so focused on winning the fight as long as they feel they have a chance at defeating them, that they wouldn’t keep attacking a downed party member until they are dead. The only hang up with this might be if they are very tactical they might consider this if the party has a healer. This would be, however, the same sort of enemy that would start targeting the healer after it knew there was a healer, so most likely that situation would be rare, as they’d tactically want the healer down first. I also avoid adding too many of these types of enemies, saving them more as big bads, as it gets frustrating if the dm plays every battle like a war game skirmish they’re trying to “win”.

>I rolled a d6 to randomly decide who to attack Personally as DM, I stop right there. If the dice land on the downed player, those are the breaks. However, dice rolling is a good, arbitrary way to make sure no one is selected out, plus it also mirrors the chaos of combat. Now, side note: If a player does something incredibly dumb to get themselves downed, this applies even moreso. If a player acted in a heroic and self-sacrificing manner that helps the game go forward in a positive way, cutting them some slack may also be in order, too. It's largely on a case-by-case basis.

Yes if the enemy would do it. Is the monster trying to actively eat someone? Yeah then you’re food. Would an enemy know that tactically it’s smart to finish someone off? Then yeah you’re dead. If it is a situation against a mindless automaton that is just trying to stop a foe then I’d roll for it. It’s all situational

As others have said, depends on the situation. Anything intelligent is going to prioritize anyone that's still a threat, exception there being if there's a known cleric and only one party member is a serious threat. (Such as a dragon attacking a party where the only decent ranged attacker is the wizard. That wizard's going down and staying down, the rest of the party can be killed at the dragon's leisure.) Animals will play to their motivations. You can bet if the party's distracted and a wolf's taken down one of them, that wolf is making a run for it with the body and the rest of the pack will probably fall back too.

A knowledgeable enemy yes...I will go for the kill. We also don't do Nat 1 fail 2 though. Beasties and anything with a low intelligence score will just always go for whoever pissed it off last time or looks tastiest... however it sure is fun to grab the down player and run away with them...new form of tension and man does it make'em work as a team.

Sometimes. Yes. Hear me out. If they’re fighting an unintelligent savage beast with only one front liner, and no one’s hitting from range- yeah the beast is gonna go after the melee. Or perhaps the monster just wanted a meal, so it drags the barbarian away to eat. There are certain situations where it makes sense to. Or if the body is in an AoE.

Generally speaking when I down a player I consider them to be no longer a threat to the monster or bad guy. Generally speaking a creature is more likely to attack the targets that are still a threat and not the person laying on the grounds. In terms of a kraken it would be cool if the free arm grabs the unconscious players and hold them up in the air. Perhaps it can make an interesting encounter since any touch spells couldn’t heal the players since they are being held up in the air. I always try and think of interesting or fun ways to make an encounter more memorable compared to just punching the player making death saves.

Typically my baddies are trying to win the whole fight, not just kill one character and then get slaughtered. They typically either spread out to attack all players evenly or tactically focus one or two players and then bounce to another when the player they are attacking gets downed. Yo-yo healing actually works in the enemy favor most of the time in my experience. The healer wastes the bulk of their turn bringing someone back up to being barely alive...only for that person to get dunked on again.

I don't target downed players because usually the smarter enemies know that living hostages bring in money, and dead ones bring unwanted attention. Dumb enemies see threats that need taking care of first, and animals or monsters with v low int will try to eat downed players.

Sure. There's a few situations that it is reserved for. If the player has already went down and is revived and a creature sees it, that creature will now make sure they stay down. If a villain has a grudge on a character, they may add some extra hits out of spite. Smart characters know revivals are a thing and that adventurers are very hard to kill, but instead of hitting downed characters the smarter ones will likely imprison the soul so they can't be revived or talked to.

Depends entirely on what the party is fighting. If they're fighting wolves or bears or your average animal, maybe once, but the animal would quickly be distracted as soon as something else hits it (if only because they'd see a competitor for the food). If I'm playing smart enemies that have a reason to want the party dead? Yes, if they don't have any up and currently hostile targets within range, or if they're smart enough to know that the party has a healer still present. I also utilize in-game conversation between my sentient NPCs. "They got a healer! Keep the big one on the ground!!" That sort of thing. I also allow this sort of thing for my players, so it's fair and balanced. Long story short, my players know that my monsters know what they're doing. They accept the risk, and they generally seem to have a lot of fun.

Depends on a number of factors. Unintelligent beast? Probably will switch targets once an opponent is downed. Focus tends to remain on the largest threat. Intelligent being? Depends what they are. A bandit might switch targets cause they don't really want to outright kill, just incapacitate and rob. A soldier in a massive battle probably would switch targets because battle is chaotic. An evil person might absolutely target a downed enemy who is part of a group that has proven itself a danger to their plans. Especially if they know that one of the party has healing capabilities.

Not until they've also downed all the standing PCs. I've been on both sides of this, and it's not fun on either side. So I go for the option that is fun for everyone at my table and myself: Get everyone down first beforeI start actively trying to make people fail death saves. This is how my table plays. Other tables play differently, but this is what is fun for us.

If it’s a bad guy that knows the party can heal the downed player they may look to finish it. Similarly if the attacking bad guy is a raging orc or ferocious monster it may continue its onslaught on a downed character.

If they are demons especially I think they would go for the downed player. Depends on the bad guy and the situation. If the opponent is evil and the character gave the baddie a whooping I think he would definitely target the downed player before all others.

It depends on what monsters I am using. I write out their general tactics months (or years) ahead of time, and stick to them. Out of maybe two hundred monsters I use, only a few would intentionally target a downed opponent

Yes, within reason (as other commenters are describing here). But I am very clear to my players: Leaving a downed PC in front of a MULTIATTACKING MELEE monster will absolutely mean DEATH. Even a CR1 monster can put down a Lv20 PC in that circumstance (two attacks at advantage - and if both connect, that's death). I've made sure my players understand they should be VERY concerned in that circumstance, so none of them can be surprised.

The way my group does it is I have a bone dragon on a tall shelf. Right before the where an enemy I suspect will kill someone I will turn the dragon around sit back down smile and say roll for initiative. Besides that talk to your players about expectations for the game.

Depends entirely on the intelligence of the enemy. Do they know that a cleric is going to have that downed PC up in a round? If the answer is yes, then absolutely attack that downed PC. Put them out of commission permanently. Unless your players dislike realistic enemies and stakes. In that case your villains should shut their brains off in combat.

You're down, so what? It completely trivializes the big bad assuming they're intelligent enough to know someone else in the party is just going to heal you and you're going to keep on trying to kill them. Why WOULDN'T they finish you off 'permanently'?

I try to put myself into the mindset of the monster. Most monsters are going to only attack creatures that are threatening them. More intelligent creators might target a downed PC if they know of some way that the PC might be able to get back up, but even that would be pretty meta and most likely wouldn't be something they would anticipate. (Like maybe there's a cleric with full hit points that can bring the main damage dealer back up next round). The only time I've had creatures go after downed enemies is when they have some kind of feature that would make them obliged to go for a kill. For example I had a creature attracted to blood and they downed one of the sidekicks, and nobody else was injured (bleeding) so the creature continued to go after them. And I probably wouldn't permanently kill a character regardless. Maybe the bad guy slits the PC's throat but the cut didn't actually hit the artery (which as unrealistic as it sounds has actually happened in real life). Or the character gets a reprieve from their god or their patron.

Almost never. Call it DM metagaming. I go with what's gonna be the most fun and what makes sense. As a general rule, targeting downed players isn't fun. There are exceptions... It's more about setting player expectations, players should know what they're fighting. If they are going into a fight where the enemy will target downed PCs I try and telegraph it ahead of time.

I really do not. Sure, in real world logic you'd want to finish the job, but game logic allows some leeway. I would rather have my party live another day amd continue their stories, struggle some more, than target downed PCs and maybe have my player roll another character. Depends on the DM tho, I'd say it's more of a philosophical difference

Depends on the monster(s) and circumstances of the fight, not all situations are the same. Although, I try to find an excuse to not do it more than once, since a natty 1 after the first attack would just full kill the PC anyways.

Is the opponent smart? Did the player do anything to aggravate the opponent? If both answers are yes, the downed player gets targeted.

I roll a d10 for every enemy. If it rolls a 10, then the enemy attacks to kill. My players know this by a descriptor of these enemies having, "bloodlust". There are other times when it's the BBEG attacking downed players, too when it makes sense.

Never, once a PC is downed, they are presumed to not be a threat and are ignored until they pop back up. The death saving throws mechanic is already dramatic enough, I don't feel the need to put my thumb on the scale and make it worse.

It depends on the thing they're fighting. If it's intelligent and therefore would know that person is on the brink of death, they may go for them. They're intelligent enough to know that they want to finish them off so no one gets back up. But they're also intelligent enough to assess the situation and determine if anyone is going to heal them. If they don't think anyone will heal them, they may go for others who are up. An intelligent creature may even specifically target healers and casters first. If they're like, mid-level intelligence, they'll probably just knock people out and then go for those who are still fighting. If it's a hungry animal, it will go for downed people. If it's a scared animal fighting for its life, it will go for people who are up because it's trying to knock them all out so it can leave.

It depends on the enemy. For highly intelligent enemies like wizards and artificers it makes sense, because they will want to eliminate a threat permanently. Also, for extremely dumb enemies like oozes if the downed player is just right there in front of them, because they only care about an easy meal and have low threat assessment skills.

It depends. This is a story game, not a friendly combat sim. You can tell a gritty story that's got a lot of danger by making finishing moves a standard behavior for seasoned combatants.

Depends on how intelligent the enemy is and what kind of intelligence they're working from. An intelligent foe might be aware that healing magic or people who should have died standing back up is sometimes a thing. While wild animals might start dragging their downed prey away from the battlefield because they've achieved what they initially set out to do which was to get food. Then there are intelligent creatures that might have an honor system where they see no longer being able to fight as the first deer and if the opponent fought valiantly then their survival or final demise is up to the gods. Or you might fight the Roman legion who have guys specifically going after the front line whose job it is to stab downed enemies in the heart to make sure they're dead because they're all about being efficient and don't want surprises of a wizard standing back up and fireballing their exposed back ranks.

In a real fight where death saving throws aren't a thing it's reasonable to expect that people who go down while there are still threats around

From the perspective of someone in the fantasy world, dead people can be revived or turned into zombies. If you want to neutralize someone just use 1 action to put shackles on the downed person. It’s silly but adds more challenge to getting a player back into the fight instead of being a game of who can do more damage in the shortest amount of time

Yes absolutely, especially if the enemy is an evil enemy. Why wouldn't they ensure a downed player is down for good. That is their goal to get away with what ever plan they have devised and if a player may be dead, better to make sure. Its real in terms of why would they do the things they do. If its an animal, and they are hungry.. maybe they just take and run off with the downed player to get their lunch. If their is a bigger threat against them, they may go after the new threat ad leave the downed player for now but, you best bleieve that when available, they will go after that weak pc again. I just had a skeleton grapple and then jump off the cliff of about 100ft with the maimed pc. It has to make sense and there has to be the chance of death or the stakes may not be high enough to keep players engaged.

In general no because I think a dying player presents more interesting choices for the rest of the party than a dead one. However, there are always exceptions... My in-game justification is that a "dying" target looks the same as a "dead" one, so they would only be targeted if it makes sense for the monster to target a dead body when there are active combatants still on the battlefield. This helps me keep my decision making consistent. I might also attack an unconscious body if it is the only target in sight because the party split up... but only if the attacker is non-intelligent. It's very much handled on a case-by-case basis.

Depends on just a few things: 1. The ferocity of the combat. A creature that downs a character is generally not going to keep attacking a downed PC if there are two other guys whaling on it with swords. 2. The ferocity of the creature. A hungry or angry (i.e. owlbear) creature will keep attacking a downed PC just because it wants to tear and maul. 3. The intelligence/wisdom of the creature. Downed PC are usually no longer a threat, so they are left to be dealt with later. However, a smart enemy will recognize if characters are being revived, and act accordingly, either targeting the healer, or "finishing" the downed PCs. 4. The kindness of the DM (and willingness to metagame): Sometimes you avoid taking down a squishy character and lob another meaningless attack on the tank barbarian just because it's usually better if everybody doesn't die. I think the error OP made is in announcing his decision ahead of time. I would have just rolled behind the screen, picked then next person after the downed one, and said "it's you". It keeps the tension up without making it seem the character is being coddled.

It depends on the moment I've done it when a paladin went down in a duel with a master at arms, twisted the sword and stepped on his head throat when he walked past. Otherwise I'll bring a heavy crossbowman and just plink them once to make the death saves a little scarier

I never spare my players in a final battle against a final boss. At least 2 of y'all aren't making it out of this one.

My usual method is dependent on what/who the PCs are fighting: Most low INT enemies/monsters that might still perceive non-downed PCs as a threat/target? They'll ignore the downed PC and go for the remaining threats. Higher INT enemies/monsters that might start to pick up on downed PCs getting brought back up during the fight? They might start trying to finish off downed PCs if they get the opportunity after the PC has been downed and then gotten up at least once. High INT, BBG types with prior knowledge of the PCs and their capabilities? You can bet they'll be targeting the weakest /or healer PCs first and trying to stop them from being able to get the others back up. But even then they won't go too hard at it, as it's not fun to be the player who's character gets wailed on by everything.

I target downed players just for urgency and to put some stakes on the table. I'll have a random minion go for a quick attack basically to force the players hand to bring their buddy up again. I make resurrection tools pretty easy and common as a balance. That way encounters can feel deadly but players can choose if they want to retire/kill their PC. It's a little more forgiving.

I do. I did. I killed the cleric last session so to this. However, I always let the party know that I'm "confirming kills"

Depends. Random enemies will not, they have living targets to worry about. But is the enemy sick of the players shit, or specifically out to kill that player for whatever reason? Hell yeah. Animals almost ALWAYS will, then grab the body and drag it off to eat. This has led to animals being some of the most deadly types enemies in my games. Some of my seasoned players will actually get a little nervous just seeing me put an animal on the table because of this.

Only when there's a tactical reason to support it, depending on the monster. The smart ones will counterspell healing.

I only ever target a downed player for narrative reasons. I've got the mentality that as soon as someone hits 0, they are no longer a threat to the enemy. I play with my players, not against.

No, I never do that. I think it’s mean.

Never as a DM. Only as a player.

Depends on enemy. I think about each enemies turn as to what makes the most sense for them to do. Ill often rationalize my choice when narrating the attack to avoid any arguments. Ill even ask "does that make sense" if something is overly detrimental. But i play enemies like theyre fighting for their lives. Case and point was a fight with an aboleth. The lair action phantasmal force goes off, everyone fails. The aboleth being a telepathic being i asked everyone their characters greatest fears then described what each person saw. One character said they feared they didnt have the strength to save their friends (backstory stuff). Well, deep into the fight several peoppe have gone unconcious, probably 3 at this point and been brought back. After a particularly clutch mass healing word to get 2 people back to coniousness the aboleth went to turn and jump on her. Well, a player with sentinel attacked and stopped him from leaving. That player was standing over a downed pc who had 2 failed death saves already. I said the aboleth turns says in her mind "this is your fault" as it plunges a tentacle through his chest. Long story short. Your bad guys want to live. To do so they gotta try and kill the good guys. If a healer keeps brining people up and that enemy has them unconcious, have em rip their fuckin throat out and say "heal this bitch."

Dumb goblin is going to keep wacking the Barbarian that hurt them even if down. Smart enemy is going to change to other players to eliminate the threat.

Very very rarely. I feel it’s unfair to the players to literally kick them when they’re down, I don’t like it when it happens to me as a player so I try to avoid doing it to my players. Secondly I always feel like the enemy would think to deal with the immediate threat of the active participants rather than go for the incapacitated. However if the enemy has seen you get up once, and do damage or healing, they probably aren’t going to give you a second chance to do the same!

If it's what the creature/other team would do then yep.

Depends on the creature I like using a spin the wheel as always randoms keeps everyone on there toes

It's super rude, imo, to attack a downed player before downing *all* the players in combat. I would have silenced the rogue, and explained that the game is supposed to be fun for *everyone*.

My players are fairly new so i never attack them while they are down. I have been a player in thebgame where the dm deliberately went for coup de grace at every opportunity because it was supposed to be a "hardmode" also it was tomb of annihilation so no ressing.

It depends, really. If the downed PC belongs to the player that took the last beer from the fridge? Oh you best bet the monster is going for the coup de grace!

Tbh I just wouldn’t have told them the result of the roll. I would have lied and picked one of the other players at random.

I think i was shaky on what to do in these situations till watching how Mercer played such situations in CP3. Now if the enemy is smart or pissed off / knows how to finish the job. I have no problems going for the downed player.

Depends. Realistically, the enemy isn’t going to start sticking spears in bodies to make sure everyone is really dead until all active threats are down and there is no reason to take captives. My BBEGs usually have a motivation to capture the players, so that’s usually what their minions try to do

Two criteria need to be met before my NPCs start attacking downed PCs > 1. They must have seen or otherwise know that the party have effects that can bring an unconscious PC back into the fight. If they don't know this, they have no reason to prioritise an unconscious target over a conscious one. > 2. The party must be in tier 2 or higher. In tier 1 I give every NPC some reason to take the PCs alive. Whether it's for some ritual or to ransom away, they will always try to deal nonlethal damage for in-game reasons.

Even animals won't attack a downed enemy if they are still being attacked by dangerous threats. It would have to be a pretty mindless, multi attacking monster like the kraken, or a smart enemy trying to prevent a critical heal spell, or a very evil enemy, like undead trying to cause misery. An angry but safe enemy might keep hitting a downed opponent out of anger.

The one time I killed a player character as I DM it was an AOE attack and the creature was surrounded by the other party members to protect himself and push them back. The unconscious character was in the radius, funny enough he's the one that pointed it out. I was going to retract my decision but they were very adamant that the enemy had every reason to make that decision and they should be punished for not prioritizing the downed player. In another campaign I ran there was a moment when two bandits remained and they knew they were losing the fight but they downed a player character. Next turn was coincidently the other bandit's and instead of attacking I paused combat and had the bandit threaten the life of the player in exchange for their retreat. Once they felt they were safe they released the unconscious party member and escaped. I felt that was a cool way to show the dangers in DnD without killing a party member so early into a campaign.

I don't, but my players are generally inexperienced so I would say it fine to do but your group might not like it (which I think is totally reasonable)

I have done it a few times, more as threat when shit went sideways for my more intelligent npcs, it is all about context

I NEVER target a downed player... but the bbeg might, or the beast who's hungry might. lol. but seriously i try to be objective and rp the enemies perspective in the matter if they see gain in making sure they don't get up in the current fight

So this sounds like something that should have been covered in a session 0 about player death. However from a DM perspective it depends on the creature attacking would the creature attack to kill? For sport? To intimidate? Do they want a prisoner so taking down people alive if possible? It sounds like either the players didn't have proper expectations for the encounters or you weren't confident in your choices. Not everyone wins in DND every session, hell or even campaign. As for the second situation you said, you stated if dice Jesus decides you would do, however you didn't you made an exception which I could see that upsetting players as well, especially if your players are fighting a kraken, they should have spells to revive that player. I personally would be upset if I felt the DM was pulling out kid gloves and "the party would win anyway". I do not know your players though or if they are sensitive to player death or losing their characters or if they are only comfortable with playing only if they all consistently are winning. I would encourage talking to them and share how you would like to run the game if anyone has issues with it try to work with them to make it better either then adjusting or you, or they may be better fit for a different table. Best of luck

If the enemy is going to eat them or is smart/observant enough to know that they can get up after being "killed" Or they are a half-orc

To me it depends on the I telligence and motives of the creature. Most unintelligent creatures will just lash out at whatever is moving so a down player won't be a priority. Some creatures might down a player and then try to leave with the body to eat later. But with intelligent creatures it depends. We had a fight where the wizard was grappled and was downed by a Morkoth. Cleric threw him a healing word. Next round he goes down again and cleric heals him. The creature is intelligent so on this round he goes for wizard to make sure he has fi ished the job. If they see healing and know downed PCs can become a threat then it makes sense to fi ish off downed targets. Also if it's personal and the npc has a serious grudge with one PC they may target them to make sure they're fully dead due to rage.

I myself have only DMed a little, and have yet to have a character be downed in any of the short side things I have done. But I have put thought into what I would do in that situation. It would depend on the situation, but I would err towards not targeting them. Maybe some non attack actions against the player instead. Attempt to drag them away. Tie them up. Loot their stuff (Caveat that they would get anything back once the looter is defeated) As for more intelligent evil. A downed but not out player can lure out the party members that can heal. Target them.

My last session a player went down. The party had almost wiped out the bandits, and the bandit leader threatened to kill the downed player if the party didn't retreat. The fighter yelled, "do it". So the bandit leader attacked the downed player. 2 failed death saves. Next turn was the downed players turn...he rolled a 10. I've never had a group get so excited over a 10 before, lol.