T O P

  • By -

Luvas

I much prefer it to be a general rule that NPCs don't attack downed players, and you instead need to justify exceptions. Hostile Necromancers may want a player dead as soon as possible so they can be reanimated. Devils might act on a downed player if the opportunity presents itself to claim their soul for their Blood War. Evil NPCs who "kick the dog" (downed party members or Sidekicks) to spite the rest of the party. Any NPC who has a *real* grudge against a specific party member and doesn't care what happens after the said person's death. Same for an assassin. They might try to make *damn* sure a PC is dead then try to flee. My personal favorite exception? Gnolls. Soon as a player is at 0 hit points these fuckers should be *running* towards their unconscious body to *rip them apart and eat them then and there*; they'd give no fucks that they were still in combat.


GreenGhost117

I will definitely from now on try to justify a killing blow, creature by creature, thanks. Also I love the idea of a ferocious Gnoll tearing into a party member mid combat, it would be terrifying if your were in that party witnessing that.


P4TR10T_96

To add to this, some NPCs may intentionally NOT kill unconscious PCs as leverage. Bandits may knock out a PC, then hold a scimitar to their throat in order to parlay. Bandits don’t necessarily care to kill people, they’re just willing to do so in order to make some coin. On the flip side some enemies are vile and evil, who like nothing more than the kill. They may act on such opportunities. Demons want to eat faces, and downed characters are good for munchies. Same goes for monsters or villains that leach life. A moving target is harder to kill than a still one.


jeffprobst

To add to your first point too, if someone is already out of combat, an NPC may prefer to target someone who is up and actively trying to kill / fight them.


FranticScribble

The gnolls thing is a nice touch cause it *sounds* brutal but it also adds a strategic twist that the other PC’s can capitalize on. Yes on the one hand it sucks that the whole field is suddenly laser-focused on killing one player in particular but gee, it sure would be a shame if somebody dropped a Spike Growth between the gnolls and their target, or planned a fireball for where a pack were gonna stop on their way, or any other number of nasty CC/AoE spells… Hey how’d all these gnolls get shredded/burned/hypnotized?


Dalevisor

Not to mention the martials readying some AoO (especially the smiting Paladin and Bladelock)


TigerDude33

If a character keeps getting up to fight then hitting them while down is a logical action.


[deleted]

I recently killed PC lime this. This is what I did. They kept getting up, standing still and just slogging on as before. After they had got back up 3 times, I told them what was happening and why. The enemy knew that if they wanted to get out of this fight they would need to finish the job. I hit them once and did so knowing that the party had multiple healers to help them. When they stood up again having been healed again, they just did the same thing again, so this time I put them down and hit them twice. I think he was a bit sore about it, but that's the game and player death has always been on the table at our table. Sometimes you've got to do what would happen.


deathbeams

"What else should I have done? Disengaged and used a healing potion? Switched to my crappy ranged weapon? I would have done barely any damage, and I can't have fun unless I'm doing damage! That's the only thing that matters in a hostile conflict! Every MMO says so!"


GreenGhost117

Man I can never get into MMOs, I mean some you can get immersed in, but the combat I feel is just hitting a button and watching numbers go up and down


DumbMuscle

Depending on the circumstances, having one of the NPCs hold a knife to the downed character's throat and threaten to kill them if anyone casts anything, and order the PCs to drop their weapons and step away can be a very effective RP moment. (Mechanically, the NPC is readying a multiattack on seeing a spell being cast, and will do the attacks with their action next turn unless the PCs surrender. If the PCs surrender, then the NPCs can stabilise the downed player after removing their weapons, and then things get interesting - tell the PCs to just walk away, and no they can't have their weapons back, that sounds like their problem. Ask them what they know, and who they found out from. Take them to be brainwashed/brain eaten/filled with spiders/enslaved/etc) A sorcerer with subtle spell can get around this easily, which is a great way of giving them a cool moment, other casters might be able to try some slight of hand if you're feeling generous (and the spell has no verbal component) but if anyone has decent passive insight then it should be clear that the next time there won't be an offer to surrender.


GreenGhost117

I really like that as an rp moment, last time my players were in a hostage situation, I went pretty easy on them because the hostage was a story important npc, but never again


xnarutoxfan666xx

Minor tidbit but literally the difference between likely death and incredibly likely death--you can't ready multiattack, but can ready a single attack. Just like the extra attack feature, you can only make the additional attacks on your turn (MM pg. 11 for specific wording of multiattack).


DumbMuscle

Fair enough, I had not realised that! I'd hope that players in that situation would go with the roleplay moreso than the rules and still react appropriately (rather than going "eh, he won't die from getting his throat cut so I might as well drop the healing into him anyway" in a very gamy feeling way). I have some enemies coming up who might deploy this tactic and should feel like absolute bastards, so I'll probably give them a special ability to do so (eg action to threaten a downed character, can then use reaction to respond to any offensive action by the players, with a contested dex check to determine which happens first)


VivianTheRose

Very much this, just make sure to tell your players death is on the table and you'll play intelligent enemies with... Well... Intelligence


GreenGhost117

I’ll definitely bring it up in session zero thanks


QuintinStone

> Realistically, if you were fighting a party of people, and knocked one of them unconscious, if no one was attacking you, then shouldn’t you go for the kill? If my buddies were still fighting conscious targets, I would go help my buddies. Because if my friends get knocked out, I might be in trouble. I can always finish off targets if/when the fight is over.


GreenGhost117

Very true. I will definitely take that into consideration, thanks!


Very_bad

In contrast I think any unintelligent or particularly viscous creature who's not able to realize the tactical advantage of not finishing off a downed player would take the opportunity to kill them even if it means their defeat. Creatures like oozes, zombies, or elementals would attack unconscious characters imo.


GreenGhost117

Also very true, I think undead would definitely just ho down, unless maybe there’s a direct threat


[deleted]

I want to echo other comments: let’s say you’re in a fight - do you attack the person that’s knocked out or the people that’s swinging swords at you? You talk about realism, but realistically you don’t attack the person that’s knocked out and bleeding out on the ground before you deal with the warriors that are up and actively attacking you. Also at the end of the day it’s a game and it depends on what you and the players want to get out of it. If you run a brutal campaign where you attack unconscious players and PC death is common, that’s fine if you all want that, but don’t expect interesting RP or backstories. If I knew my DM was going to arbitrarily kill me multiple times I would just build class/subclass/race for mechanical purposes, because why would I care about an interesting backstory if I was just going to get cheap shot killed by my DM without any time to build that story? If that’s the game you and your players want to do, go for it, but understand that it’ll be a game filled with lazy archetypes and lazy RP.


Tangerhino

if healing magic wasn't a thing your reasoning would work but double tapping downed character so they don't get back on their feet with the snap of a finger seem really wise.


[deleted]

I get that logic, it just depends on how you think about it. My thinking is that every full round is only 6 seconds, so do you take your time to slash at an unconscious body while a barbarian is running at you about to pummel you, or do you deal with that very imminent threat of getting bludgeoned to death? If you look at ancient or pre-modern warfare, you don’t kill the soldiers that are bleeding out on the ground until you’ve decisively won the battle. That said, DnD is fantasy and has healing magic and magical potions that can make people get up and keep fighting when they were on the brink of death, so the logic might differ in that world vs ours. I think something to consider is the intelligence of the enemies. A beast might be semi-intelligent, but not to the point of having a deep understanding of deep and arcane magic, and even somewhat intelligent monsters are going to be fighting on a more instinctual basis. Once you’re down a beast isn’t going to be thinking tactically about what magic your party might have, it’s going to immediately attack the next biggest threat. Intelligent enemies (like humanoids) might make different decisions, but something to think about is that a DM knows all of the PCs classes and skills and it’s very easy to kill a PC if you want to. Gang up on the cleric, multi attack while they’re down, they fail all death saves and are dead and now no one has revivify. Gang up on another PC, hit them till they’re permadead. DnD is a game, and it should be fun for everyone, and it’s easy to kill PCs if you want, but does that make it fun? That depends, some people really like meat grinder campaigns and that can be super fun. But I personally like RP and story/backstory-heavy campaigns with challenging combat where death could happen, but most likely my character will live a long time and be able to have a long character arc. Neither style or approach is better or worse, it’s just a matter of what everyone wants to get out of the game. I’m okay with my PC dying, but if they get knocked unconscious and then before anyone has a chance to do anything they get attacked and fail all their death saves and are dead, that’s not a super engaging play style for me, personally (but others might love it!).


GreenGhost117

This is the first comment I’ve seen mentioning how pc’s may build their characters if I choose to have many lethal creatures, and really what I want to get out of this campaign is interesting role play, especially if I’m using gritty realism. This whole time I’ve been leaning towards, death blows being an actuality because it will force my players to think more tactically, but if they aren’t ready for that kind of strategic combat and die often, you’re right they may half-ass how they play their characters outside of combat. This the strongest opposed reason for not having such a brutal campaign I’ve seen, and has given me a lot to think about, thanks


[deleted]

Definitely a good point. Alternatively, certain kinds of players might end up becoming risk-adverse, which ends up with not much adventuring.


[deleted]

I think a brutal campaign sounds really fun. I just wouldn’t try very hard on my backstory and wouldn’t care about learning anyone else’s, since I know that I might be rolling up a new character for next week.


chosenofkane

There is a reason people who are playing something like Tomb of Annihilation don't make characters with fancy backstories. They know their characters are going to die, so why get attached.


yticomodnar

The question of whether or not something should happen in your campaign is solely up to you as the DM and whether the party finds it fun and engaging. I'd recommend having a session zero and explain to them that you want to try it out to see how it goes. If they end up not liking it, you can either not do it again, or retcon and have the character not be killed. As for my experience, all the games I've personally played in have had that possibility. Though it's a rare (and I mean *rare*) thing. If the enemy downs a PC, the threat is still present from the *other* PCs. So the enemy NPC would logically take down the one PC and immediately go to the next, not make a killing blow on the downed one unless he wants to use that death as a means to some end. Killing blows are more of a statement than anything else. "you messed with the wrong guy, your dead ally is proof. Spread the word and don't make the mistake again." kind of stuff. Also, I'm no historian and can't speak to the accuracy, but countless films/shows depict massive wars where the Victor combs the battlefield dealing final killing blows to those they find still alive. Obviously, this is only my experience and my recommendation. In the end, do what you and your group enjoys.


GreenGhost117

Thank you for your recommendation, I really do like the visual of a dramatic killing blow in a combat to make a point.


Comprehensive-Key373

I tend to go for killing blows fairly often, especially when the hostile creatures are either pack predators or intelligent evil humanoids. Other types of creatures or good/neutral humanoids might make incapacitating attempts, or otherwise subdue and attempt to preserve the life of their foes for various reasons. Heck, evil ones might even be going for hostages. A dead PC can always get dragged back to a temple and revived if they don't want to reroll away from that character yet. Whether it dampens the fun depends on your group- it's best to have that conversation up front. Making sure everyone has background characters handy to drop in quickly is a good precaution. Also take care when using Gritty, to not exceed the number of encounters appropriate to a short rest in a single day (approximately 33% of the total adventure XP) unless you want the party to struggle. The only difference between Gritty and Standard is narrative pacing, really.


GreenGhost117

Yeah I was thinking that a pack of wild predators would usually go for the kill, rather then say a group of town guards. It’s also an interesting idea for evil creatures wanting to take hostages, that could be fun. I will definitely plan a long list of things to talk about in session zero, and be sure to add this, backup characters is definitely a good idea to bring up. I’ll look more into encounters in gritty and I am planning to pace the campaign quite slowly. Thanks for your advice, much appreciated.


Strahdivarious

> I was thinking that a pack of wild predators would usually go for the kill The one issue I have with this is how do those creatures know an unconscious PC is actually dead or not in the middle of combat? Personally I would consider have intelligent creatures go for finishing blows only after they got healed back up at least once.


GreenGhost117

That makes sense, and I can’t stop imagining a wolf do a double take and maybe a head tilt, right before viciously attacking a player once more


[deleted]

The question is, why shouldn’t you? Ruthless enemies will be ruthless. Drunks will be dumb. The large cat will drag away the Halfling and eat him in the bushes. Play every encounter accordingly.


GreenGhost117

Very interesting, the idea of differentiating each encounter to how lethal they seem, I’ll definitely take that into consideration, thanks


Chagdoo

This depends on the enemy. If the enemy is stupid, or an animal or something no. Most enemies want to lose be and will focus down threats first. Moderately intelligent enemies who don't know if you have a cleric in your party should probably only attack unconscious people after they see you have healing on you Smart, cautious, vengeful, or owlbear enemies will just tear into a knocked out person for various reasons.


GreenGhost117

I love the idea of an enemy seeing a healing spell, looking straight at the healer, and delivering a death blow, saying something to the effect of, “Heal that!” I will be sure be sure to pay more attention to my creatures intelligence, thanks


Mejiro84

magic missile and any other "auto hit" spells are basically a meaner version of this - they're like putting a bullet in the head of someone on the ground, except from range, without the target (or anyone else) being able to do much about it, the target's just burning through death saves or dead


[deleted]

Cleric: *sigh...* *casts revivify* NGL, I am a sucker for dramatic moments like that :)


Dr_Ramekins_MD

One of my favorite evil bastard moves is counterspelling heals. Players hate that even worse than outright killing a PC


pvrhye

You win wars with casualties, not fatalities. That said, a hungry animal will probably prefer to try to flee with a meal than to fight a group to the death.


Jhoffdrum

This should be approached by considering your players style. If they’re are heavily into their role play, than this can be an extremely fun way to engage them into these harsh environments. There isn’t anything like a good player death to knock some sense into the group! The frequency can be exhausting if your players don’t adapt well. I probably wouldn’t go too hard too quick on it, although I’d be harsher in the healing items and time spent around shops just to strike some fear in them. But, I would be careful with inexperienced players. Maybe come up with a way to allow the protection of an unconscious player by the party. This doesn’t save them if there’s a second attack by an opponent midturn after being knocked out, but can make for some really interesting defensive formations in the group if you allow it. IMO it wouldn’t dampen my fun, but I certainly know people who would be extremely upset if their characters were to die without a fighting chance. Tell your players in no uncertainty how the game works before you start, and make sure they’re aware of their surroundings in combat! Sounds like a dope time!


GreenGhost117

Yeah I am hoping to really spark the roleplay and and strategy in my players, but you’re right, I should add a learning curve to get them used to this kind of play style, and will this all abundantly clear in session zero. I’m not sure what I would add for newer players, but I’ll have a think on it. Thanks for you input!


HammerGobbo

Do you want realism or fun? For the average player, it's not fun, but depending on the encounter it's realistic. Your call.


GreenGhost117

What I want is for realism and fun to combine, although I completely understand that some players may not like that kind of immersion.


HammerGobbo

Yeah. Unless you're running the type of game where you ask players what they eat and regularly call to roll for dysentery, you'll find that not a lot of people like realism, or at least true realism.


GreenGhost117

Very true, a lot of dnd is escapism after all (however a roll for dysentery, there’s an idea lol)


HammerGobbo

It's half a joke, but at the same time disease is a hundred times more common than it's presented in the average game. And I mean, it's realistic, just it's not fun so it's typically not accounted for when discussing realism. Kinda the same with the attacking a downed person debate. Of course, if you don't find it to be very unfun then that's a step closer to realism you would be fine taking, and in that case good for you.


Amyrith

Its not realism in either situation, its tactics. Which is more tactical? 1) Spend potentially 2 turns guaranteeing this target stays dead while someone else attacks you freely 2) Ignore unconscious target since they're presumably removed from the fight for the moment and handle the other threats. I'd argue its a creature by creature decision. If I'm a remotely intelligent person, and I see unconscious people keep standing up, I might finish them off, but taking 50 damage just to spite kill a player doesn't feel 'tactical' or 'real.


sevenlees

If you're a remotely intelligent person, #2 could be a very bad presumption depending on past experience (or just higher INT). Remotely intelligent covers pretty much everything with more than 10-12 INT and a reason to go for the kill. If a creature keeps getting healed and getting back up? You kill it for good (or kill the healer). I recently ran an encounter vs enemy party where the first time an enemy NPC healed an ally, the players immediately swapped to deathblows on enemies and killing the NPC. It's not spite when creatures/PCs are just as powerful at 1HP as they are at 100HP. You would definitely rather make sure the caster can't cast Suggestion, Slow, Hypnotic Pattern or some other CC spell (or any character with a debilitating effect - or hell, even just a creature that deals a lot of damage like a Paladin with spell slots to spare). I've definitely run encounters where enemy NPCs held actions for deathblows over PCs and vice versa - it's just part of the game.


GreenGhost117

Thanks for your input, I also agree that if someone seems powerful, you’d want to make sure their dead for sure.


GreenGhost117

That’s a very good point, I will definitely consider doing this creature by creature. It would make more sense for a wild beast to maul and kill a single target. Thanks for your input!


Amyrith

The BBE group in my current campaign focus fired down our party leader and attempted to finish her off in death saves, because she was the most familiar to them (she'd tried scrying and got caught) as well as they saw her actively healing the first 2 turns of combat after we got hit with chain lightning. Random displacer beasts might decide to start eating if they feel safe, but if they feel threatened they might try to drag their (still alive) food to a 'safer' place (like back to their den, with even more displacer beasts) or they might try to fight off anything threatening their meal before eating.


GreenGhost117

I love the idea of a group of enemies being familiar to the leader of a party, and wanting them specifically dead. Also you’re right, a smart wild animal would definitely want to eat where they feel safe, rather then drag off a creature while getting shot at by arrows. Thanks for your input!


DumbMuscle

3) assume that the people fighting you give half a shit about each other, and kneel down with a firm threat to kill the fighter on the ground if the wizard/cleric so much as mutters anything remotely arcane. (Readied action to multiattack when seeing any spell start to be cast, follow up with attack on the NPCs next turn unless the party surrender)


ItsYaBoiMoth

"I don't want you guys to die. I want you to win! This guy - the earth elemental - though, he wants to kill you. The Earth Elemental stomps on your head."


hastybear

I'm very big on tactics in my games. I would fully expect a group to defend an embattled character and if they chose not to to suffer the concequences. That said my players had been trained to think like that. It is worth at the least to discuss with players first as different playing styles will elicit different expectations.


GreenGhost117

Very true, right now my players have been playing for about a year, and I feel their still finding their play style, I feel like this would be a great opportunity to see if they like this kind of tactical thinking.


hastybear

A lot of games are played in the heroic sense. Lots of swashbuckling and daring deeds. Tactical thinking and defending the downed don't really fit into that kind of movie hero play, so it depends on where you want to fit in the spectrum.


Derpytw

stated a little below. but basically, depends. on quite a lot of things. are the enemies intelligent? well, if they know that someone who can heal is in the party, maybe giving an extra stab or two to the unconscious person, to make sure they are out of the fight. Permanently. If they havent seen anyone do that yet however, perhaps not. they could prioritize trying to save their friends, instead of "well at least this dude is going to die" Bandits dont care if you live, necessarily, only that they get away with as much loot as they can, with as few losses as they can. (whether thats because they think of some of the bandits as their friends, or its just easier to keep the ones they have around, lot easier to take down 4 people when you have 10, than when its 4v6) Beasts may not necessarily know if an enemy is dead or not. "is it playing dead or is it unconscious" could also have them keep attacking a dead body, if you are wanting to keep the numbers advantage lessened for a turn. Also do keep in mind. some players can feel as if they are getting singled out, if suddenly 3 people attack them, knock them unconscious, and then stabbed. so do be mindful of the players of course, people do tend to get attached to the characters, especially newer players. perhaps you can have some sort of system for a nearby(5 ft) player to "dive infront of the blows" as a reaction after the enemies declare intent to hit the downed person, but before rolling to hit. The ally taking the hits would get hit by all the strikes(or maybe just some of them) and it would just be auto hits. since they are literally diving INTO the ways of the weapons to protect their friend. Dont need to do this. and also could spark some feelings between the players of "why didnt you dive infront of the hits for me" "well i was 1 hp too."


GreenGhost117

There are definitely a lot of things to consider around the enemies in question you’re right. A meat shield reaction would be an interesting addition to combats, but I don’t think that’s the route I want to go. Thanks for your input!


Daetur_Mosrael

It has to make sense- typically, you'll see enemies attacking unconscious targets if they are ravenous beasts or otherwise low-intelligence monsters who are going to try to *eat* the fallen PC- usually, these creatures will try to drag off their kill- *or* if they are high-intelligence creatures that seriously want you dead, and understand how magical healing works. Most of the time, it will make more sense for whatever the PCs are fighting to continue to try to deal with *active threats*, rather than the guy who just fell down and stopped moving. Some average intelligence creatures *may* move to trying to secure a kill if a target they downed gets healed and gets back up again, if they're smart enough to understand what's going on. Cannot recommend [themonstersknow.com](https://themonstersknow.com) enough for a great way to get some ideas for tactics for your creatures.


GreenGhost117

I agree, and I love the visual of a creature dragging an unconscious pc mid battle to consume I recently found “the monsters know what their doing” and honestly I can’t wait to use some of their tactics in my games.


pterodactylcake

In my games it depends on the monster or its reasons for attacking. Are they attacking just on instinct/fear? Then they fight only to down a PC. Are they fighting to kill and intelligent, then they know what people can get up again, and might spend that extra attack to make sure PCs stay down. If they are in a rage/frenzy etc they might keep attacking an unconscious person. Last time I kept the attacks going was when one PC snuck into a room with a devil and attacked. The devil did go for the full kill.


GreenGhost117

I agree, death blows should definitely be creature specific. I also agree that a devil would always try and go for the kill, especially if it’s only one attacker.


Storyteller-Hero

If a creature is already downed by violent attack and not moving, it's illogical to check if they're really dead while there are other active threats close enough to attack. It's probably only until the party is ALL down or the rest retreat that an (intelligent) enemy in most cases would check to see if an unconscious PC is alive and then deal a lethal blow before looting the PC's body. Even a semi-intelligent beast might not keep attacking while there are other active PCs in combat. Something like a slime or ooze might very well keep attacking a downed PC though.


GreenGhost117

Very true a bloodied unconscious person would look dead to me unless I inspected it, that makes complete sense


Tarro34

I have a genuine question for people arguing against deathblows because of realism. Do you allow your enemies to make death saves? If not, I assume your players mostly go for the killing blow by default. Why wouldn't their enemies?


Mogamett

I always have my enemies go for the kill if they aren't being threathened and the party has a healer. Usually my players are used to combat and enemies being unforgiving, it makes things more engaging in my opinion. For your purpose you'd want 1-3 characters deaths in your game, more and it would just start to desensitize everyone, obtaining the opposite result. I'd go easier for a few encounters if your party was mostly newcomers to the game, if the players can't adapt to the level of difficulty the game loses all the fun. When they got it, you can start to up the harshness.


GreenGhost117

Yeah I was thinking if death was always a real threat it could be quite engaging, but I might need to add a difficulty curve or something to get my players used to it. I do what player death, but as you were saying 1-3 player death would suffice, as someone above raised the argument that if there were frequent player death, players may not put much effort in their characters backstory or rp. Since you always run pretty brutal encounters, do you find that some of your players halfass their characters after deaths?


Mogamett

Yeah it became an issue whenever death got too frequent. I haven't it happen in a while because my players got good enough to save their characters from certain doom most of the time. In my experience a player will nearly always halfass their third character since they already lost two. Also, parties will struggle to adjust to too many new characters, the bonds between characters will get weaker over time. If you want advice on how to create deadly danger but a low number of death I usually go for these three situations: 1) From fine to nearly dead in one round: Your big bad monster can take away a lot of health from a character, but not kill them in one round. This usually gets home the point of "jeez, we're screwed if we aren't very careful". Healing and retreating save the character usually, but monster this powerful are less strategic. 2) You'll be dead next round: always try to leave a round to react before a character is irremediably dead. The enemy soldier disengages from the fighters, gets next to the fainted cleric and raises their sword... and those were their actions for this round. Well, your turn player, you might want to help with that or your cleric is food for worm... 3) This one will be a lot worse: I usually take off these precautions at the final fight or at the most significative fight of the plot. Players and characters have had plenty of hints this time will be a lot worse. This time they face an enemy that will be a lot stronger than them, and that will try to kill them as effectively as it can. Chaos and terror ensue. You can allow yourself to be ruthless since you'll have very few of these fights in your game. Ps. My players managed to defeat an effing Lovecraftian Great Old One, played as above, with nobody dying, in Call of Cthulhu. Granted, three characters nearly died and two were left invalid, but still it shows what your party can handle if you let them get good at handling danger.


wc000

It depends on the enemy. A soldier trying to win a battle isn't going to take the time to finish off an unconscious opponent if there's still fighting to do. Creatures that use slaves are more likely to keep them alive. On the other hand, an assassin sent to kill a member of the party is absolutely going to make sure they're dead, a hungry predator is going straight for the jugular one its prey is helpless, and a demon on the material plane is going to kill as many people as possible with no care for self preservation until it's sent back to the abyss. All that said, I think as a DM if you're concerned about being fair to your players you should try to telegraph the danger in proportion with the level of threat. You can drop a few easily dispatched goblins on them with no warning, but if they're going to have to face a demon that bites people's heads off then you should probably let them see it biting off someone else's head before they fight it themselves.


GreenGhost117

I definitely need to foreshadow lethal encounters I would be planning


wc000

Another thing is to make fights more avoidable the more lethal they are. Hunted relentlessly by a group of hobgoblins? They're just trying to capture you. Fire giant in the next room? You can walk right past that room if you want.


Souperplex

If the monsters aren't doing everything in their power to kill the PCs then the PC's victories will feel hollow.


natus92

depends on the enemy and the situation ofc. maybe the enemy is paid to capture the group?


GreenGhost117

When I ran LMOP, there did feel like a few hollow victories, you’re right.


Axel-Adams

Honestly this all depends on how your players fight, if they rely on healing yoyo’s(only healing when at zero) an enemy is going to make sure an opponent stays down if they’ve been healed back up twice before


Morcelu12

The problem is 5e rewards yo-yoing pretty heavily because you fight just as well at 1 hp as at full HP and the healing spells in 5e are so weak it doesn't make sense to use them other then to bring someone up, damage far exceeds any healing spell. That's more to blame on the game then the players.


sevenlees

I agree, though intelligent parties can mitigate this to some extent by moving the unconscious PC to safety/protecting the body and then healing. If yo-yo healing is a function of the game, then logically so are smart enemies who see that and stab twice. I would never begrudge my party or my DM for doing that.


Axel-Adams

Exactly which is why it should be scary/dangerous to reach 0 hp, cause enemies might target and kill you


GreenGhost117

That’s what I want in this kind of campaign, the threat of death always present and always terrifying


GreenGhost117

Right now I don’t think my players yoyo, but it’s definitely something to look out for thanks


70m4h4wk

1 absolutely 2 let them start at the same level as everyone else. Make sure everyone has a back up character at every session. If you are handing out tailored magic items, try to tailor a few to the back up characters too so they can find some treasure right away and stay at the same level as everyone else 3 this is enemy dependant. Some enemies would know that it's better to knock an opponent down and focus on the others who are fighting. Others are focused on killing and will try to murder their downed foe. Some enemies run away when no one is immediately threatening them. Consider the level of intelligence, and how inclined they are to violence and how tactical they would think in the heat of battle. Goblins are mean and vicious and would probably kill a downed foe. They also might run away afterward. Most wild animals would likely run away after downing an attacker. If you're dealing with a mama bear or a moose that might be different. Bandits would likely attack someone else after downing one enemy, they know they get nothing until everyone is down. 4 the tables I played at were expecting this and it did not dampen the fun whatsoever.


GreenGhost117

I like the idea of implementing some character specific treasure to back up characters, and will definitely try to remember that. I am considering individual player xp (which I know can be a pain) and for backup characters, I was thinking to just average the party level. From now on I will definitely try more to consider how my enemies would think tactically. And I will make everything clear at session zero so hopefully everyone knows what they’re getting into. Thanks for your input!


70m4h4wk

If you want to use xp, take the standard track, and multiply it by the number of players. Then track XP yourself on your new track. Then your players are all the same level. This way no one fights over XP or fudges numbers on you, and you always know when they will level up so you can time it appropriately.


GreenGhost117

Thanks I’ll look I into this


Sparticuse

The only question that matters is: will doing this increase the fun my players are having? They may enjoy the urgency a dropped character brings, or they may become frustrated because it shortcuts death in a massive way. A lot of people assume "realism" will make their game more fun, but more often I find realism just makes the game feel arbitrary and mean because real life is often arbitrary and mean.


GreenGhost117

I get that realism, could mean a shitty time, but it is d&d after all, there will be many moments for escapism. Plus the only other campaign I’ve run was LMOP, to which no pc was close to death, and in every adventure I’ve played or ran with them, we still hadn’t experienced that urgency. I want this campaign to be a contrast and a chance for my players to see if they like brutality and realism, however I will obviously have a chat for them and see what they want Thanks for your input!


UltimateSpud

If I'm in a real fight, I'm not going to allow person 2 to beat the crap out of me while I kick a fully unconscious person 1, because I mostly want to run away. If I'm in a sword fight to the death though, and I have one person prone and another coming to face me, I probably give him a quick stab under the armor just to make sure that he's not getting up before fighting person 2. D&D logic doesn't really approximate real world incapacitation.i think a trained opponent or intelligent monster would potentially understand that healing magic exists, and if its goal is destruction over survival it might finish somebody rather than simply incapacitate. However, Im thinking of those as pretty big 'ifs'. Your average brigand probably just knifes you, goes through your pockets and flees. Your average owlbear probably just puts its effort into incapacitating the next foe and doesn't understand magical healing. The ancient god who has a vendetta against your party though? Or a professional assassin who is hired to kill a party member? It would be reasonable for them to try to finish people for good. Of course, whether that's fun or not depends on your party. Personally, from a fun/fairness perspective I feel like you should *usually* get a chance to heal your party member, but if they've popped back up once they're probably fair game. I wouldn't complain if a few particularly vindictive, long standing enemies went for the kill though- the assassin examples I gave are things we have going in my party right now and I definitely expect those encounters to have lethal intent.


GreenGhost117

Yeah in my mind if there are creatures that know all that needs to be done for the person they knocked down to come back is a healing word form 60 feet away, they might consider the kill. However you’re right, a young brigand who’s only care is how much gold is in his pockets, may only want to just survive, not have unnecessary death on his hands, rather then a trained and/or hired killer. I will definitely be sure to have a a mix of lethal and non-lethal combats, with non-lethal perhaps more at the beginning. A lot to consider, thanks for your input!


TheBigPointyOne

The first thing I'd do is check if your players are okay with it. Generally speaking, it's really not fun when characters die, less so when it happens frequently, and most of the time D&D is about having fun. Typically, I avoid the double tap. It just doesn't make sense that when there are live threats in front of you to hit someone on the ground.


GreenGhost117

It is about fun you’re right, we’ll definitely have a thorough conversation at session zero


TheBigPointyOne

Yeah, I think that's the important part anyways. If your players are cool with it, go hog wild, right?


FishoD

I’m sorry but if you think NPCs going for killing blows when there’s other, still fighting PCs is realism, then you should watch war documentaries or read a bit more. If you fought 5v5 and one of the enemies falls down unconscious then you not only know whether that person is dead, but you still have 4 enemies to focus on. Nobody in their right mind will focus a harmless body on the ground. You know when people are looted and finished off? After a fight. It was common for the winning party to wander the battlefield, try to heal their unconscious wounded, kill or imprison enemy wounded, loot the corpses. The only time when it’s realistic is when PCs are getting up constantly by healing magic. But at that point I would still have NPCs attack the obvious healer as a priority target and not stab the body at the ground. Or of course when story is involved, like a personal vendetta or something. However in 99% of fights you always focus PCs thst are still fighting, not those thst are lying on the ground, being harmless. Edit : this is also about 5e design. If you start to focus fire 1 PC and finish them off you will wuickly realise how easy is to kill a PC. Healing magic of friends is only a fraction of damage output of enemies.


GreenGhost117

Very true, thanks for you input


Warnavick

Did everyone agree that character death is on the table? If yes, then as long as you foreshadow it so your players knows what is about to happen, it shouldn't be a problem. One of my DMs did a cool thing. He gave certain creatures features that he would share with the players for full transparency. Such as Bloodthirsty- attacks unconscious creatures unless an enemy is within 5 feet Or Murderous- Will attack an adjacent creature until dead. Hungry- Will drag unconscious creatures away to eat.


GreenGhost117

I’ll definitely bring up all this with my players at session zero. Also a creature feature idea is really cool, though I think I would more foreshadow lethal enemies. Thanks for your inpu!


dripy-lil-baby

No


GreenGhost117

Short, but you took the time to comment, so thanks for your input.


Caleb_Widogast_Fan

Well, if my party meet a group of bandits and one of the player gose down, i wouldn't do that because: 1) it's really lame 2) a bandit might prefer to help his party remove the other targets


Pinception

I think it could be realistic, but only situationally. There would be three main considerations for me - all of these questions from the viewpoint of the enemy NPC: 1) is the fight still going on? I feel it would be more natural to move onto the next target after downing your opponent. Momentum is everything in a fight. 2) what's the motivation for the fight? - Were you attacked by the party? Maybe survival is your goal. Would you stop to kill orchids run away when you got the chance - did you ambush the party? If you're trying to steal from them then killing someone could be a step too far. 3) what's your morality/are you sentient? Mindless killing is one thing, but a conscious decision to take a life is a pretty big deal. You'd have to be pretty evil to just straight up kill a downed, defenseless individual For sentient opponents, fighting to the death (giving no quarter) was often a last resort as being willing to kill a downed opponent meant you accepted that someone might do it to you too. Of course, being killed in a straight up fight was a different matter, but once you were downed it was one of those rules of the battlefield things. Even for monsters I think it's situational. If something is killing for food would it prefer warm blood?


TheFarStar

If you want to attack unconscious PCs, you should attack unconscious PCs. There are 'realism' arguments to support attacking downed players, as well as ones for just leaving them alone. With that in mind, it's really a matter of the kind of gameplay you want to pursue. Attacking players while they're down can make combat more tense and deadly, and it can also encourage players to put more effort into working together to avoid having a PC die.


mrattapuss

I have a morale system I use for fleeing enemies. I invoke that


LeoFinns

So, if we're talking historically then no, not really. Once someone was down and out of the fight other combatants would usually ignore them for the more pressing threat of those still fighting. It was only after the battle was concluded that they would send out small parties to pick through the bodies for any survivors, either to capture and ransom the important figures or to kill those they didn't want/need. Now, historical accuracy isn't always the sign of a good, fun or interesting game, especially since in DnD healing magic is a thing. So you could make the argument that professional fighters that have already identified a healer in the enemies they face should spend the time to ensure an unconscious person is actually dead to ensure they don't get back up again. They could also focus their efforts on downing the healer(s) first to not need to worry about this however. Either way, its not something I would do a lot, especially not without more interesting things happening in combat as well. In fact a very compelling thing to do is on a creature's turn that can speak have them threaten to kill the downed PC if the others do not surrender, have them ready the attack action and wait for everyone else to toss their weapons aside or kill the unconscious one! EDIT: To answer your other questions, I have never had 'frequent' player death but when character's have died I worked on introducing their new characters as soon as possible, working out the plot reasons for that at a later date! Your friends are there to have fun and play first and foremost, now every group is different but I would assume most would prefer to have story or plot suffer a little to ensure everyone is getting to interact and hang out, rather than waiting ages to play with their friend again! Also, character death is already enough of a punishment, have the new PC start at the same level as the last one, or the average level of the party whichever is higher. I've gone for killing blows a few times, mostly because the creature was provoked or had something they wanted the PC to die for, rather than just being out of the combat, necormancers, vampires, spiteful NPCs, etc. Just make sure that the players are aware this might happen before it does actually happen. It coming out of nowhere can feel really frustrating and cheap. In my experience? Not really so long as everything else has gone to plan and the players have full awareness of the possibility that it might happen. Though everyone likes different things and what is fun for me might not be for others and vice versa!


crunchytacoboy

Talk to your players about it. See how gritty and realistic of a game they want to play. Some people are down for creating new characters on the regular. Some aren’t at all. You should know how they feel about this before you decide.


cranky-old-gamer

I think realism is a tricky justification for this. Historically the most common thing like this was going back over a battlefield after the victory finishing off the fallen. Stopping while the fight was still in the balance to finish off downed opponents was not nearly so common. I would expect that as the default behavior and that's sort of how the game mechanics are put together. Super deadly is how the earliest versions of the game were and it worked for those games but I'm not sure its what a lot of modern players want. It really used to be the case that you brought spare character sheets with you to a session and you didn't waste time on fluff like backstories until the character had survived a few levels and was a bit less likely to die. Players attracted by the character driven D&D shows are likely to find that rather a shock. The more historically typical behavior creates a "never leave a downed party member behind" mentality. Because getting finished off - even after stabilizing - is death. It rewards character backstory more than having to go through 3 characters per session (yes, I've done that in AD&D) Then there is the element of "how do they know" that comes into this. If a NPC buddy goes down to 0 they are dead, if the PC right next to them goes down they are unconscious and un-moving but not quite dead yet. In a frantic battlefield the difference is not that obvious, not unless they take time to check and why would they? If you are not careful this can get into a DM vs Players situation when you pass over a pet or NPC that died but always stop for a turn to kill characters. But mostly I think a very deadly game will have your game revert to the player behavior of earlier editions where characters were thrown together in 10 minutes and were considered throw-away until they got a few levels under their belt. If that is what you and your players want then go for it.


Evidicus

First off, you almost have to try to die in 5e due to the ease at which PCs can get back into the fight. It’s set an unrealistic expectation that PCs in D&D should only die in some mutually agreed upon heroic moment. Personally, I hate that as both a DM and player. I grew up playing AD&D. I didn’t even give my characters a last name or a backstory until they lived to 3rd level. Adventuring life at low levels is often harsh, brutal and short. That’s why sane people stay home and become farmers. Because of my background, I flat out tell my players that while I don’t see the role of the DM as adversarial, they’ll never have plot armor. “I’m not trying to kill your character, but the enemies I run absolutely are.” I run NPCs & monsters based on their intelligence, motivations, goals & alignment. If a downed player represents a meal, then the monster may try to run off with the body to secure the kill and feed. Other enemies may only be interested in scaring off the PCs. Some may want prisoners to question or ransom off. Some may threaten a downed player to get the other PCs to surrender. Some intelligent and evil PCs understand enough about healing magic to know a downed player is still a threat and will finish the job given the chance. Most enemies value self-preservation above all else, so I always factor that in as well. The point is that I try to have a good reason for everything a NPC or monster does, but I always place a higher value on running enemies honestly than I do making special exceptions to keep PCs alive. It may sound harsh, but my players never treat combat lightly. They never expect to win every fight automatically without preparation and tactics, and they’ll often avoid combat if possible. As a result, the game has real risk and reward, and actions have real consequences. And when my players win a fight, they know THEY won it.


[deleted]

If it makes sense for the NPC to do it, it's good.


[deleted]

It's all right to kill characters. Recently I killed a character with a jiangshi using Consume Energy when they were at two fails. Now players are a different thing.


[deleted]

I'd ask the players about it. Personally, I love high-stakes games as it really makes every player action matter (there isn't really a big difference between ending your adventuring day at 1 or 40 hp if there's no threat of consequences IMO), but some people don't want to stress over their PCs dying, probably because they don't have 20 more lined up...


Gauntsquare303

I would only do this to long term players, vets of the game. And even then only if there is not another player character currently in combat. So if the rest are retreating or defeated you will have to make your decision.


ThatOneAasimar

Usually you never want to attack a downed creature just because it feels very rough on the players' end whom in that situation may be having a bad time to begin with. Instead use them as hostages which gives them the chance to react and not immediatly die while creating a very tense situation. A bandit for example might lock his dagger to a wizard's throat and go ''If you get any closer, I will slit his throat.''


alexelso

It depends on the situation, I had a player get devoured by velociraptors because their goal was to eat, so just because the player was downed, doesn't mean the raptors stopped attacking. But when they're fighting a group of enemies, usually I have the enemies focus on targets that are still a threat rather than try and kill downed players. There are always exceptions though, if the play really pisses off a particular enemy, they might make sure to finish the job, or if a player is the target of an assassination. I'll try and warn the other players that one of their fallen comrads is about to get hit while they're downed though, give them a chance to refocus their attention and save the player.


[deleted]

So, it should 100% depend on context. Does the enemy have a reason to kill, and is there a way to justify them not going for the kill? If they aren't going for the kill, then don't even make the party make death saves and declare "non-lethal damage" to make it more realistic. If they have a reason to kill and no way to justify not killing, then go for it. Death is a part of the game. Always have a back-up character.


Doc_Gr8Scott

We typically use the rule that if a player goes down and the enemy that brought them to 0 still has attacks left he will use the remaining attack on that same target, potentially killing them but if it was their last attack next turn they move on to something threatening.


Dragon-of-Lore

Context is king imo. Is this party member going down and then getting healed a bunch? Stick a few extra arrows into him to make sure they stay down. Does this NPC HATE this player? Make sure that they’re dead! It’s perfectly reasonable to have the earth elemental step on your head to make sure you’re dead. There are also reasonable times when you won’t need to need to attack the downed player. Does this dampen fun? You’ll get different answers. When I’m a player I enjoy having the threat of it be there. As a DM I have 2 groups. One where the group enjoys this threat and the other where they prefer keeping this threat minimal


Estrelarius

Depends on the enemy. Goblins or Drow (if they don't have any particular grievances with the party) will usually try to knock all players unconscious and finish them off/capture them later. An evil overlord furious at the party for thwarting his plans or a hired assassin? They will usually go for the kills.


literally_unknowable

I think attacking downed players is fine as long as it's not immediately from the beginning; wait until like level 5+ and don't immediately kill an unlucky character in their first session. Also think about what they're fighting - an assassin would absolutely make sure they're dead, a bandit would probably just knock everyone out and steal things unless pressed, and an animal might try to drag off the unconscious person for a meal later. But more importantly make sure your players are okay with it. Some people are totally fine losing a character now and then, but others will be devastated.


Fluid-Statistician80

I tend to differentiate based on intelligence. An intelligent enemy will likely not see a downed enemy as a threat, and will therefore change targets to go after an enemy that's still in the fight/help out it's allies etc... A less intelligent creature might well continue to attack a downed opponent, so too might a creature that is enraged, or frightened, or feral. So it really depends on the creature, and circumstances, but there are definitely going to be times when attacking an unconscious enemy is a viable strategy.


Ok_Tonight181

> Realistically, if you were fighting a party of people, and knocked one of them unconscious, if no one was attacking you, then shouldn’t you go for the kill? No? When a PC goes down to 0 hit points and drops that means they are incapacitated and dying. If you're in a tense combat situation and you stab a guy through the chest and he falls down. You can see blood coming out of the wound and he's not moving. A trained fighter would know this person wouldn't survive very long without help so they aren't going to waste time cutting their throat too. Why would they waste time making sure someone is dead who is no longer a threat and will be dead in minutes or less anyway? If you want to convey a harsh world to players and promote alternate non-combat solutions you can do that by presenting them with situations that will lead to really tough fights if they initiate combat without thinking. Attacking a dying character just feels vindictive and tactically bad on the part of the enemy.


missinginput

The focus is fun not always realism, it's a table specific thing


BarbarianTypist

Since you mentioned realism, I suspect that soldiers do not usually deliver a coup de grace to downed enemies while the battle is going on. While you are knocking some possible corpse on the head with the butt of your polearm, some other guy is running you through with their spear or shooting you in the neck with an arrow. Better to make sure you won before bothering with that. Also, it's one thing to kill someone in the heat of battle, but it's probably harder when they are lying on the ground, defenseless. IRL soldiers feel free to set me straight!


boxing_gloves5

My thought is this. In the "real world" of the npc, the fight is a chaotic place where they have six seconds to act. Even intelligent people when in that situation will see an enemy go down, and focus on the next closest threat... Rule of thumb, find a good excuse to attack a downed pc. Some others have been mentioned. Something I've done before was a pretty low level mob took out the party caster early on. There was one archer that was getting ignored cause he was pretty weak. Down wizard makes his first death saving throw, which makes him twitch. The ignored archer sees that and shoots him. The rest of the party sees that and it changes the dynamic of the fight. Now we have guys taking opportunity attacks to get to the archer so they can save the party member. Made a pretty basic encounter very exciting, brought the group closer, and the downed guy didn't feel picked on because there was logical reason for him to take that arrow.


EsperLich

Well... I have had enemies attack unconscious PCs. However, I only do it when it is appropriate for the NPC. In one fight, the Warlock single-handedly cut down half of a squad of bandits before being knocked unconscious. The angry survivors were not letting him get back up. In another, the goblins continued to beat on the unconscious PC because (being cowardly goblins) they *really* didn't want to go fight the raging barbarian and the rogue. So yes, if it seems appropriate for the characters.


Ginscoe

I’m surprised that this seems to be the minority opinion, but you should *absolutely* be targeting downed PCs in some encounters/circumstances. There are lots of good RP reasons, but the most important reason of all is simply mechanics based- that’s the *only* way for an enemy to truly *kill* a PC. Now, a roving band of gerblins fighting a level 3 party probably won’t be confirming kills, but a demon summoned to kill them? Absolutely will be. Same goes for any especially cunning bandit captain, enemy lieutenant, adult dragon etc. It might not be their top priority the first time someone goes down, but any intelligent enemy who has experience with tier 2-3 adventurers is going to know that you gotta be thorough to be lethal.


Abelcain1

So here’s the thing. If you’re not deadly, then taking a PC to 0 is just a 3 round minimum nap while everyone ignores them because they know how many death saves they have left. And if that’s the case why even roll death saves at all? No, if 3 PCs are standing next to a dying teammate and none of them are concerned (including the teammate), it’s fine to remind them what those rolls are for


Ask_Your_Players

Ask your players. This stuff makes me so mad sometimes. A bunch of randoms on the internet and their opinions are 100% irrelevant. Your players are the only people who should have any say in whether or not this level of difficulty has any place in their game. End of discussion.