D&D 5E Attacking defenseless NPCs

The Crimson Binome · Jun 26, 2019

Bawylie said:
Here is the rule I use: “When you create circumstances to defeat an enemy such that there is no reasonably effective defense, that enemy is defeated.”

For examples, I use the knife-to-the-throat case, the avalanche-over-a-cliff case, and the unwary-NPC-who-is-totally-unaware-of-your-presence case.

How do you decide whether innate toughness provides a reasonably effective defense? I wouldn't expect a knife-to-the-throat to be an effective doom scenario for a troll or dragon, and my level 14 paladin has far more in common with a frost giant than he has with a human peasant, by any quantifiable measure.

Bawylie · Jun 26, 2019

Celebrim said:
It's worse than that. Because either we only know if it is a certain death scenario if we can project out the scenario using the normal rules, or the GM either decides in arbitrary abrogation of the rules that this is a certain death scenario.

So either this rule does nothing except saying if there is no chance of survival after rolling the dice, you don't need to roll the dice, or else this rule basically means the GM can decide for any reason whatsoever that something is just dead bypassing hit points.

"First level Town Gaurds come up on you unaware. They have their crossbows pointed at you so you've been defeated. You must surrender your weapons or die."

Does that sound familiar?

You’ve ignored the caveat that there is no reasonably effective defense. Pointed crossbows don’t inhibit or prevent an effective defense.

Your failure to imagine a good use for the rule doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Your insistence that all uses of the rule are DM-screwjobs doesn’t mean they are.

Bawylie · Jun 26, 2019

Saelorn said:
How do you decide whether innate toughness provides a reasonably effective defense? I wouldn't expect a knife-to-the-throat to be an effective doom scenario for a troll or dragon, and my level 14 paladin has far more in common with a frost giant than he has with a human peasant, by any quantifiable measure.

I addressed it upthread a bit. As a guideline, I sometimes compare the damage of the attack to the target’s constitution score. When the damage equals or exceeds the target’s constitution score, the target has to make a death saving throw. That typically covers exceptionally tough creatures well-enough for my use.

However, it is equally reasonable to say “you’re never gonna dagger a dragon’s throat effectively. There’s too much throat and too little dagger.” But that ought to be clear up front.

Tony Vargas · Jun 26, 2019

Celebrim said:
It's worse than that. Because either we only know if it is a certain death scenario if we can project out the scenario using the normal rules, or the GM either decides in arbitrary abrogation of the rules that this is a certain death scenario.

The idea, as I see it reading 5e's, admittedly natural and thus ambiguous, language is that the determination of uncertainty happens before referring to the mechanics that might be used to resolve said uncertainty.

... or else this rule basically means the GM can decide for any reason whatsoever that something is just dead bypassing hit points.

Yes, that. It's prettymuch the Empowered DM's privilege.

Celebrim said:
I mean, why don't we just resolve all combats with an opposed athletics check?

Presumably because we (as DMs) don't want to. But, there's no reason a DM couldn't do that. Personally I don't care for opposed checks: set a DC for the PC's group athletic check and resolve the (presumably not very important nor potentially fun, but still uncertain?) combat that much faster.

Bawylie · Jun 26, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
The idea, as I see it reading 5e's, admittedly natural and thus ambiguous, language is that the determination of uncertainty happens before referring to the mechanics that might be used to resolve said uncertainty.

Yes, that. It's prettymuch the Empowered DM's privilege.

Presumably because we (as DMs) don't want to. But, there's no reason a DM couldn't do that. Personally I don't care for opposed checks: set a DC for the PC's group athletic check and resolve the (presumably not very important nor potentially fun, but still uncertain?) combat that much faster.

Yeah, I agree that you could and that it wouldn’t be too much fun. You might do it if you’re short of time and want to expedite some of the game play to hit a solid end.

But I don’t think you’re forbidden from bypassing HP simply because HP exists.

I mean, there’s no real rule in place to cut the sting off a giant scorpion, either, but that doesn’t mean it should be impossible.

MarkB · Jun 26, 2019

Bawylie said:
But I don’t think you’re forbidden from bypassing HP simply because HP exists.

I mean, there’s no real rule in place to cut the sting off a giant scorpion, either, but that doesn’t mean it should be impossible.

But how do you write it so that the same technique can't be used to cut, say, the sword hand (or head) off a humanoid opponent, and do so in such a way that it is neither so impossibly difficult as to be not worth doing instead of just killing the scorpion, nor so easily achieved that it becomes a go-to move in every combat?

tglassy · Jun 26, 2019

I'm not going to read it all, but i read the first few pages.

The only time I give an insta kill is if the target is asleep. Otherwise, HP doesn't necessarily mean how tough they are. It means you didn't hit them somewhere that would kill them.

I saw someone mention granting a Rogue's Sneak Attack. I'm sorry, but that's rediculous. The Ranger isn't a Rogue. The player who chose a Rogue specifically did so because the Rogue gets a Sneak Attack. If you are going to willy nilly give any class the Sneak Attack simply because they are making a Sneak Attack, then the Rogue is now a worthless class and the player who chose to play one feels like an idiot. I had a DM do this once, with a Monk's run up the walls ability. He gave it to anyone who asked. If I'd picked Monk because Monks can do that, I would have felt very foolish.

I saw someone else saying that their rogue held a knife to someone's throat, then cut their throat...for 1d4 damage. Yeah. That means the Rogue didn't succeed on the cut. The bad guy managed to grab his hand, or jerk his head away, or whatever, but the throat cutting wasn't successful. Any villain with more than 1d4+5 hp would be strong enough to struggle against the attack.

Now, if that person was restrained, then the rogue also gets Sneak Attack due to Advantage. If the Rogue is an Assassin, they also Critical. That's a lot more than 1d4, potentially, and could one shot a higher level PC. In fact, that makes sense, as the Rogue gets stronger, so does his Sneak Attack, and so does his ability to one shot higher level creatures.

Bawylie · Jun 26, 2019

MarkB said:
But how do you write it so that the same technique can't be used to cut, say, the sword hand (or head) off a humanoid opponent, and do so in such a way that it is neither so impossibly difficult as to be not worth doing instead of just killing the scorpion, nor so easily achieved that it becomes a go-to move in every combat?

The same way I adjudicate most other actions. You’ve got a fighter or whoever that wants to chop off an opponent’s limb with their weapon. That’s a clear enough goal and approach for me to know what check to ask for and what DC to set.

I’ll ask for a weapon attack versus the target’s AC because that most closely approximates what’s happening in the narrative. Now this isn’t just a hit, but a hit to a special place with a potential added effect. So I’ll ask for the attack roll with disadvantage to hit the limb - it’s a hard target to get just right. Then I’ll compare the damage to the target’s constitution score and if the damage is greater than or equal to the constitution score, then the limb is severed.

Severing a limb is a big deal and a massive advantage in combat. So I’m okay with making it hard to do.

But let’s say they don’t do enough damage. They do 8 damage while the target has 14 constitution. Well, another good whack might finish the job.

Celebrim · Jun 26, 2019

Bawylie said:
You’ve ignored the caveat that there is no reasonably effective defense. Pointed crossbows don’t inhibit or prevent an effective defense.

Last post, and then I'll be done with this.

How would the player know that? I mean, to begin with, how did you the DM know that a pointed crossbow didn't inhibit or prevent an effective defense?

Suppose that the pointed crossbow was pushed up against the PC's back? Would that now "inhibit or prevent" an effective defense? Would this be equivalent to the "knife to the throat" situation now?

What if the crossbow was six inches away? What about a foot away? How far back does it have to be before the player can make a judge whether resisting is suicidal?

How many kobolds are required to grab a PC so that they negate the PC's ability to effectively defend and allow one of their number to gut the PC without an effective defense? You did say, "swarms of ankle-biters like goblins and kobolds who might try to overwhelm and drag you down." How many is a swarm, that I might know ahead of time as a player when I'm automatically doomed and have no defense? For example, if any one of them win a contested athletic check with me in combat, does that mean I now have a knife to my throat and so cannot effectively defend myself?

Why would anyone make normal attacks when they could bypass hitpoints in this manner?

How big does the dragons neck need to be before my plan to put a dagger to its throat is invalidated, and I would have been better off never attempting it?

If a simple Dexterity check is enough to achieve knife at the throat position as you assert, why does anyone need an attack bonus, AC, or damage bonus in your game? Won't basically any creature with a good Stealth check be able to kill anything about its own size, fully negating any defenses that the target has in AC or hit points? How does any player in your game survive such an onslaught save by your grace? Or how does a player know when a monster is protected by your grace so that they must resort to the risky strategy of the rules?

Your failure to imagine a good use for the rule doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Your insistence that all uses of the rule are DM-screwjobs doesn’t mean they are.

At this point, all I need to do is point to post #78 and say, "Those are your ideas regarding what good uses of the rule are."

Bawylie said:
Severing a limb is a big deal and a massive advantage in combat. So I’m okay with making it hard to do.

Hard to do? So if I take disadvantage on an attack roll, and succeed, I can cut off my opponent's leg by doing more than their CON in damage? Have you play tested this?