D&D 5E Attacking defenseless NPCs

Saelorn said:

I wasn't just talking about snipers. I was also talking about critical hits, called shots, "vitality points", and many other house rules that give ways to bypass Hit Points. Such rules are universally bad, within the context of an HP-based system like D&D.

Click to expand...

tglassy said:

I said it before. There doesn’t need to be any special checkmate rule. If you can’t One Shot a creature, it’s because you aren’t experienced enough to do it.

HP and damage are indicative of how experienced and powerful a creature is. A lvl 20 Ranger could easily One Shot an orc. A lvl 1 Ranger couldn’t. They don’t have the experience. Sure, they have training, but the lvl 20 Ranger is more skilled, and can fire two times in the time it takes the lvl 1 Ranger to Fire once. In fact, every class becomes better at one shooting higher and higher lvl enemies as they gain in lvl, either by Sneak Attack hitting more vital areas, extra attacks being able to attack faster in the same six second round, or magical enhancement.

Even with the dagger to the throat. A lvl 1 anything is going to have a hard time slitting the throat of an enemy. 1d4+3 just isn’t much damage, but that’s not the daggers fault, it’s the character’s. They are unfamiliar. They miss judged how deep to cut, or the enemy brought its hand up to stop it. A bandit might not be good enough to keep his throat from being slit, but the Veteran will know techniques on how to do so.

Rogues are the best at this, and look at their abilities. Sneak attack isn’t magic extra damage. It is indicative of the Rogue’s ability to know how to do more damage. They hurt their target more, because they know how too. So a Rogue can One Shot kill, or slit the throat, of higher and higher lvl enemies.

Especially Assassins, as this is literally their whole purpose for being. A lvl 20 Assassin with a dagger can potentially do 4d4+40d6+5 worth of damage. That’s a range from 49-261 Damage in a single hit. They can literally one shot every NPC stat block in the Monster Manual, and probably 90% of the rest of the Monster Manual. This is their whole point of being a class choice. Yes, it won’t come up often, but it does when they decide to assassinate someone.

By creating a “Checkmate” rule, you literally destroy the Assassin’s entire reason for being. If i were playing an assassin in a group where the DM had a checkmate Rule, I’d be pissed, because he is literally giving away the Assassin’s lvl 17 ability to anyone who can set up an arbitrary “checkmate”.

I really need to make an assassin at some point.

Click to expand...

Bawylie said:

They could. And the same might happen to them too. In practice it isn’t as go-to as it seems. At least not in my games so far.

They’ve decapitated some zombies and did cut the sting off a Wyvern, though.

Click to expand...

iserith said:

But an argument that PC and NPC actions should always be resolved the same way? Nope. Not buying it. Not in D&D 4e or 5e anyway.

Click to expand...

1. There are rules domains that I think it is safe to say are widely understood to not be generally applicable to NPCs, for example, XP, with the possible exception of NPCs that join a PC party. When talking about rules 'parity' between PCs and NPCs, I certainly am not talking about these rules, and I am fairly sure most other aren't either.
2. There are rules domains for which there is explicit PH/DMG discussion about the choice between using the same rules for NPCs as for PCs, such as classes, dropping to 0 HP, and mob attacks. I'm not talking about these either.
3. Neglecting (1) and (2), the PH vacillates in its phrasing of rules between using the obviously generic "a/the creature", and the arguably more PC-targeted "you". While particular sections or subsections are often uniform in the choice made between the two, I can't discern any pattern that would indicate that the rules are intended to be of two kinds (generic vs. PC-only).
4. Again neglecting (1) and (2), the DMG, AFAICT, phrases its guidance and variant rules using the generic "a/the creature".

Harzel said:

Ok, you've said this twice (in this thread), but I'm not seeing anything that indicates your reasons for or the breadth/completeness of your rejection of that principle. I don't know how much stock you put in trying to suss out the intent of the designers, but I observe the following:

1. There are rules domains that I think it is safe to say are widely understood to not be generally applicable to NPCs, for example, XP, with the possible exception of NPCs that join a PC party. When talking about rules 'parity' between PCs and NPCs, I certainly am not talking about these rules, and I am fairly sure most other aren't either.
2. There are rules domains for which there is explicit PH/DMG discussion about the choice between using the same rules for NPCs as for PCs, such as classes, dropping to 0 HP, and mob attacks. I'm not talking about these either.
3. Neglecting (1) and (2), the PH vacillates in its phrasing of rules between using the obviously generic "a/the creature", and the arguably more PC-targeted "you". While particular sections or subsections are often uniform in the choice made between the two, I can't discern any pattern that would indicate that the rules are intended to be of two kinds (generic vs. PC-only).
4. Again neglecting (1) and (2), the DMG, AFAICT, phrases its guidance and variant rules using the generic "a/the creature".

In addition, I would certainly not suggest that NPC actions that take place off-screen and are not of some immediate interest to PCs should be resolved in the same way as PC actions. So, no, I'm not going to roll a Wisdom(Survival) check to see if mountain lion #8473B in hex #48957 was able to track down prey this morning, as much fun as that would be.

So, my conclusion has been that for stuff happening on-screen or "near on-screen" and not covered by (1) or (2), resolving PC and NPC actions in the same way is at least highly reasonable, and, though not obligatory (because there's that sense that nothing in 5e is truly obligatory) is also a reasonable common expectation absent an explicit DM-player agreement that diverges from that practice.

My question, then, is within the domain of rules that I have somewhat imprecisely outlined, which of the following are you asserting?
a) Despite the phrasing of the rules, there is no cogent argument for, as a general principle, resolving PC and NPC actions in the same way.
b) While the phrasing of the rules might be read to imply that PC and NPC actions are to be resolved in the same way, there are reasons that no competent DM would adhere to doing so as a uniform principle.
c) While the phrasing of the rules might be read to imply that PC and NPC actions are to be resolved in the same way, there are reasons which on balance mean that to you adherence to that principle seems a poor choice.
d) Other.

(Oh, yeah, (c) => (b), so if you're going to be picky, you can append "AND NOT (b)" to (c).)

And of course in appropriate cases, hearing about the reasons would be of interest.

Click to expand...

Saelorn said:

I have nothing against him, that I recall. I'm not saying that he's a jerk for doing it the way that he does. I am saying that he would be jerk if he did that without warning, while I was playing in his game. (Which I trust to not be the case, for several reasons.)
As mentioned above, there is some ambiguity as to how that step works within the loop. As I see it, the only consistent interpretation is to figure out which resolution mechanics would* apply, and then evaluate uncertainty based on whether or not there are multiple outcomes possible from that mechanic. (e.g. First you figure out the DC of the check and the relevant bonus to the roll, and you only call for a roll if both success and failure are possible - if the DC is at least 2 points greater than the bonus, but not more than 20 points greater). In the scenario at hand, you would definitely have to roll for both attack and damage against the orc, because it's not absolutely guaranteed that you will both hit and deal enough damage to kill the orc outright; the outcome is uncertain, according to the resolution mechanics which govern that sort of thing, and therefore you need to roll everything out in order to see what happens.

If the DM wants to apply some other standards for ascertaining certainty, aside from the mechanics which exist to tell us how those situations are resolved, well... like I said, there is a little bit of ambiguity in the text. I'll never be happy with an inconsistent application, but as long as all of the players are on board, I have no say in the matter.

*Also of note: There can be only one possible mechanic which should apply in any given situation. I won't say that the system in the book is perfect, because it's not, but if there are two mechanic which could each apply and which would yield different results, then the net effect is the same as wearing two watches.

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

Simply put, it's the core play loop. There's no "NPCs declare actions" there. This is because that would end up being solo play for the DM. NPC actions are part of "describe the scene" or "narrate outcomes."

Combat is, as I said previously, the odd case in D&D, because NPCs appear to take actions independently and leverage the same mechanics. However, if you view combat as an extended uncertainty resolution for player actions, then it's still serving the play loop. And that loop is used to resolve uncertainty in player actions, not NPC actions.

So, do you use the same mechanics for PCs and NPCs? You can, it's up to the DM what mechanics are used to resolve uncertainty in player actions. Must you? Absolutely not. Ergo, if the argument is that the sauce for the goose is good for the gander, it fails because that's up to individual taste -- it's not a universal maxim.

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

3. DM determines if actions are successful, unsuccessful, or uncertain. If uncertain, DM employs resolution mechanics -- like an ability check, or the combat rules.

Click to expand...