D&D 5E Unconscious PC's and smart monsters

[Oofta]

I think there's a lot of meta-game logic going on here. NPCs don't know they have HP. They don't "know" whether or not one hit will not kill the PC. As far as readied actions, the trigger is just something that can be perceived. I rule that "starting to cast a spell" is a valid trigger.

But let's say you wait until after the healing word has gone off. The PC now has a handful of HP and he gets an immediate attack probably with advantage (either prone or grappled). There's a pretty decent chance that it will knock the PC back to 0. Repeat threat.

As far as morale, I don't have anything official but I try to take the NPC perspective into account. Again, they don't know they have HP and it depends on why they're attacking.

More importantly, many people that have been shot say that they did not realize how hurt they were until a minute or two after they were shot. There are many accounts of people taking mortal wounds but continuing to fight until they literally fell over.

So there's not one size fits all. Do what makes sense for the scenario, but people have always been willing to fight to the death for a variety of reasons.

 

[Imaculata]

I think there's a lot of meta-game logic going on here. NPCs don't know they have HP. They don't "know" whether or not one hit will not kill the PC.

Of course in the fiction there is not such a thing as HP or death saves. And yet I don't really see a problem with this approach by the npc's. In strict gaming terms, the players are trying to win, so shouldn't their opponents also try their best to win?

 

[Oofta]

Of course in the fiction there is not such a thing as HP or death saves. And yet I don't really see a problem with this approach by the npc's. In strict gaming terms, the players are trying to win, so shouldn't their opponents also try their best to win?

Sure. But how many people fight and die even today? Once the adrenaline starts to flow and people are in the middle of a fight they frequently stop thinking.

It may not be the most logical thing in the world, but people aren't always logical. Besides fights happen really, really fast. Under a minute in most cases in game-world time. While 6 second rounds are kind of goofy because we can't do simultaneous actions well. But even in the real world knife fights, for example, by all accounts are over quite quickly. Sword fights in cinema go on for far longer than they generally did in real life.

So people in-the-game-world are making split second decisions even if players may take a minute or ten per round. All depending on the NPC/monster of course.

 

[iserith]

Of course in the fiction there is not such a thing as HP or death saves. And yet I don't really see a problem with this approach by the npc's. In strict gaming terms, the players are trying to win, so shouldn't their opponents also try their best to win?

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Sometimes yes, but.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The trouble with exploiting the downed condition is that it's verging on metagaming, and as a DM, it's not really a trick you can repeat without the players both getting wise to it, and getting mad with you. And then they'll start questioning why NPCs auto-die on 0 HP and thinking whether they can do the same trick and you've basically opened a giant can of worms.

If we try to reconcile the many inconsistencies within the rules, the most logical interpretation (that doesn't rely on meta-gaming) is that NPCs don't auto-die at 0hp, and we only treat them as such because it's functionally equivalent for 90% of cases where they don't have healing magic. An unconscious foe who can't heal is functionally a non-combatant, even if they aren't actually dead.

And if that's the case, then bandits aren't necessarily fighting to the death, because they know as well as we do that an unconscious ally can often be saved (and that ending the fight as quickly as possible can increase their odds of survival).

 

[MarkB]

I think there's a lot of meta-game logic going on here. NPCs don't know they have HP. They don't "know" whether or not one hit will not kill the PC. As far as readied actions, the trigger is just something that can be perceived. I rule that "starting to cast a spell" is a valid trigger.

But let's say you wait until after the healing word has gone off. The PC now has a handful of HP and he gets an immediate attack probably with advantage (either prone or grappled). There's a pretty decent chance that it will knock the PC back to 0. Repeat threat.

As far as morale, I don't have anything official but I try to take the NPC perspective into account. Again, they don't know they have HP and it depends on why they're attacking.

More importantly, many people that have been shot say that they did not realize how hurt they were until a minute or two after they were shot. There are many accounts of people taking mortal wounds but continuing to fight until they literally fell over.

So there's not one size fits all. Do what makes sense for the scenario, but people have always been willing to fight to the death for a variety of reasons.

But players engage in this meta-game routinely. They know how many hit points their character has, and they keep each other informed so they generally know how much health their companions have. And once they drop Generic Orc A, they have a good idea of how much work they'll need to do in order to take down Generic Orcs B through F.

Why is it okay for the players to act upon this knowledge but not the DM?

 

[Oofta]

But players engage in this meta-game routinely. They know how many hit points their character has, and they keep each other informed so they generally know how much health their companions have. And once they drop Generic Orc A, they have a good idea of how much work they'll need to do in order to take down Generic Orcs B through F.

Why is it okay for the players to act upon this knowledge but not the DM?

It's perfectly okay for the DM to use metagame logic. I simply wouldn't do it because it's more "realistic". Moment to moment analysis and thoughtful reactions during combat is not a given.

Even in military engagements with trained soldiers people risk their lives and keep fighting until they're dead for a whole slew of reasons.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If we try to reconcile the many inconsistencies within the rules, the most logical interpretation (that doesn't rely on meta-gaming) is that NPCs don't auto-die at 0hp, and we only treat them as such because it's functionally equivalent for 90% of cases where they don't have healing magic. An unconscious foe who can't heal is functionally a non-combatant, even if they aren't actually dead.

And if that's the case, then bandits aren't necessarily fighting to the death, because they know as well as we do that an unconscious ally can often be saved (and that ending the fight as quickly as possible can increase their odds of survival).

Yeah but RAW they do die at 0 HP and it's not an inconsistency any more than any other. D&D is and always has been an essentially asymmetrical system, if only weakly so at times (and strongly so at others). You want an inconsistency to chew on, how about social skills influence NPCs, but they don't influence PCs?

The bandits absolutely are fighting to the death, too. You're appealing to essentially quasi-real-world logic to suggest maybe they aren't, the downed guys could be saved, but even if we allow that, but no bandit is so dumb as to believe they're going to win a fight and save their "friends" (which many bandits won't actually be - some will, particularly the desperate, very poorly equipped kind but not the more vile and heavily armed types PCs typically encounter) when that fight just keeps going worse every round (which give the 5-8 encounter/day economy in 5E is virtually every fight).

Bandits should thus typically flee. Many/most intelligent monsters should, if they can't. In some situations it makes little sense, because it's not viable but when you still outnumber the foe but are clearly losing is the moment most people flee.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yeah but RAW they do die at 0 HP and it's not an inconsistency any more than any other. D&D is and always has been an essentially asymmetrical system, if only weakly so at times (and strongly so at others).

RAW, it's up to the DM whether they bother tracking their death saves or not. If we're trying to take this seriously (which is the premise of this thread), then that starts with the DM.

D&D has sometimes been portrayed as an asymmetrical system, but whenever it does so, it always creates massive problems for how the world works. If we want the world to make sense, then we need to minimize that sort of thing as much as possible.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Even in military engagements with trained soldiers people risk their lives and keep fighting until they're dead for a whole slew of reasons.

Normal people? No they don't, not unless they believe that they can't flee (even if that's for ideological reasons - though usually it's for tactical ones). Also firefights and melees are very different things. In a firefight, there's a semi-legitimate belief that, say, 2 people might defeat 10. It happens. In a melee? That almost never happens. Further, in a melee, you just have to outrun the other guy, and get out of the reach of swords/pikes/etc. - whereas in a firefight, you have to break LOS and have a path with cover to escape, and face weapons with accurate-ish ranges of dozens to hundreds of yards (sometimes further!). So in a modern day situation, which appears to be your point of reference, people don't think they can flee, typically. Especially as in firefights people seek cover - which often also cuts off their retreat.

In historic battles, people flee or surrender constantly. It's pretty much how any non-encirclement ends. Many battles end with the vast majority of troops on both sides alive, because of this. D&D is generally pretty unrealistic about this, largely for the same reason World of Warcraft (the MMORPG) ditched fleeing as a mechanic. At launch, it was a major mechanic, with significant counterplay. But it was annoying and most players weren't smart enough to deal with it well, and kept getting groups wiped out. So Blizzard quietly dropped it in later expansions. D&D has likewise de-emphasized fleeing enemies because it's annoying to some people to deal with it, and loads of players just don't even know how to.

It's also worth noting, though I don't think it was a point of contention for you, that your average modern-day soldier is massively better trained and more disciplined that elite troops of the past, let alone the armed rabbles that were most troops and bandits.

RAW, it's up to the DM whether they bother tracking their death saves or not. If we're trying to take this seriously (which is the premise of this thread), then that starts with the DM.

Really? What's your basis for this.

D&D has sometimes been portrayed as an asymmetrical system, but whenever it does so, it always creates massive problems for how the world works. If we want the world to make sense, then we need to minimize that sort of thing as much as possible.

Disagree. It only creates problems for people trying to use D&D - a gamist game - as a simulation.