D&D General 0 HP Magic Missile = Death?

[TheSword]

- You can have three full attacks with a monk at level 2 for 1 KI point.
But we are also talking Monsters here, not PCs, so a DM can build their monsters however they like.
But there seems several CR 5 creatures, that do 3 attacks with their multiattack feature.

• sure, but having advantage (most Multiattacks are melee attacks) helps a lot and a PC that is down is usually not the super high AC one.
• yes, that is the discussion we are having. And I say that is RAW.

Would I as a DM do that to a player character? Probably not, unless they really angered someone with access to magical assassins.

And how would that look like?

So, let's take the CR 6 mage. He casts greater Invisibility on himself, sneaks onto the PCs, drops a cone a of cold on them in a surprise round, a fireball in round 2 and than finishes off downed PCs with upcast magic missiles in round 3. Could TPK a Level 10 Party with that tactic .

Of course. The DM can always say, ‘rocks fall, you die’ if they want to.

 

[Reynard]

So, let's take the CR 6 mage. He casts greater Invisibility on himself, sneaks onto the PCs, drops a cone a of cold on them in a surprise round, a fireball in round 2 and than finishes off downed PCs with upcast magic missiles in round 3. Could TPK a Level 10 Party with that tactic .

In my experience, players HATE it when the GM has NPCs fight like PCs.

 

[tomBitonti]

So … a problem with the base rule is that it is inconsistent with the meaning of attacks in general. A successful weapon attack is not necessarily a single successful strike. (A single successful attack may not even be physical damage.) If individual strikes from weapons are not counted, why distinguish individual sources of spell damage?

TomB

 

[Reynard]

So … a problem with the base rule is that it is inconsistent with the meaning of attacks in general. A successful weapon attack is not necessarily a single successful strike. (A single successful attack may not even be physical damage.) If individual strikes from weapons are not counted, why distinguish individual sources of spell damage?

TomB

That is explicitly only true before a blow might drop a PC. Once they are in that zone it is actual damage per RAW.

 

[MarkB]

So … a problem with the base rule is that it is inconsistent with the meaning of attacks in general. A successful weapon attack is not necessarily a single successful strike. (A single successful attack may not even be physical damage.) If individual strikes from weapons are not counted, why distinguish individual sources of spell damage?

TomB

That way madness lies. We need to look at it in terms of number of hits as defined in-game, not number of impacts in the fiction, otherwise you end up asking things like whether a hit from a trident should cause three failed death saves.

 

[Cadence]

That way madness lies. We need to look at it in terms of number of hits as defined in-game, not number of impacts in the fiction, otherwise you end up asking things like whether a hit from a trident should cause three failed death saves.

"Why is this species using rakes as a weapon!? Haven't they ever heard of... <gurk>".

 

[tomBitonti]

That is explicitly only true before a blow might drop a PC. Once they are in that zone it is actual damage per RAW.

Which addresses the second point, but not the first: Even as actual damage, is there one strike, or potentially several?
TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

That way madness lies. We need to look at it in terms of number of hits as defined in-game, not number of impacts in the fiction, otherwise you end up asking things like whether a hit from a trident should cause three failed death saves.

Well, at this layer of rules, a hit is a probabilistic grouping of damage, from potentially one or multiple sources. Then, the effect should be equally probabilistic. A more consistent rule would be that each “hit“ causes a new death save, adding the damage to the DC.

To me, the problem is that the very basic rules present hits very specifically not as single physical strikes. Why all of a sudden do single strikes matter?

TomB

 

[MarkB]

Well, at this layer of rules, a hit is a probabilistic grouping of damage, from potentially one or multiple sources. Then, the effect should be equally probabilistic. A more consistent rule would be that each “hit“ causes a new death save, adding the damage to the DC.

To me, the problem is that the very basic rules preset hits very specifically not as single physical strikes. Why all of a sudden do single strikes matter?

TomB

It's not "all of a sudden". They matter for concentration checks, they matter for death-by-massive-damage rules, they matter for things like fixed damage reduction such as from Heavy Armour Master. All over the place, it matters whether you're taking damage in a single large strike or several smaller ones.

The part that doesn't matter is how they're portrayed in the fiction. What matters is how they're counted in the game-mechanics.

 

[tomBitonti]

It's not "all of a sudden". They matter for concentration checks, they matter for death-by-massive-damage rules, they matter for things like fixed damage reduction such as from Heavy Armour Master. All over the place, it matters whether you're taking damage in a single large strike or several smaller ones.

The part that doesn't matter is how they're portrayed in the fiction. What matters is how they're counted in the game-mechanics.

I’m still dissatisfied by the lack of scaling to the amount of damage. Concentration DCs scale with damage. I’d be happier if the damage caused a new death save, not an automatic failure. Perhaps adding the damage to the DC.
TomB