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

[Ruin Explorer]

There's nothing remotely meta-gaming about Hit Points, or any other game mechanic, if they actually describe how the world works. Meta-gaming would be if you pretend that the world doesn't work a certain way, when it's demonstrably provable otherwise.

That's a very intriguing definition of metagaming that totally doesn't even intersect with any definition I've ever seen used before.

Readied action states "you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction." You don't have to wait for an action to complete. The circumstance could be "starting to cast a spell".

Yaaaaaay now I'm right again!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As far as people not fighting to the death ... have you never seen the news? I find it difficult to say this without being insulting, but sadly people fight and die all the time. Frequently about incredibly stupid things.

Without being insulting myself, you are aware, the vast majority of fights of the type you appear to be describing, including ones with guns, result in no casualties, right? One or both sides withdraw. It makes the news when someone gets killed because it's rare. It doesn't make the news when some people have a fight.

Even in wars, particularly before the industrial era, people don't tend to fight to the death if they can possibly avoid it.

In any case, as I stated above most fights are over in less than a minute. Frequently in less time than it will take you to read this paragraph. It's not like people in the fight are sitting there analyzing their odds of survival. Again, feel free to run it any way you want as a DM, I just don't buy the "the bad guys should always run away." They don't, they never have.

Sure, and that utterly unrealistic and ahistorical mode of play is quite common, but's not based in fact. People panic and flee in real combat all the time, including experienced combatants. It's not "analyzing the odds" thing. People have an INSTINCT to flee.

Now whether Orcs, say, share that instinct is a more interesting question. But humans undeniably do.[/QUOTE]

 

[Asisreo]

I just want to remind that I'm not looking for infallible plans for NPC's to have in all situations. I don't want to make it unfair or annoying, I want it to be realistic so players can easily adopt real strategies into their playstyle. I want bandits to act real because it also adds tension. As many people have pointed out, human behavior is unpredictable. You don't really know how a random human will react with imminent loss. This can guide players to other information and decisions.

Someone that flees is more cowardly than someone who surrenders who is less prideful than someone who cheats who is less honorable than someone else, etc etc. With this information, the party can more easily interrogate the NPC's if desired or predict their next move. Kobolds are cowards, if you need a goblin dead, you need to surround it or outpace it. Orcs are proud, they'll try to fight to the bitter end.

This is for immersion's sake and while the game might need some suspension of disbelief, realism can still be welcomed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As many people have pointed out, human behavior is unpredictable. You don't really know how a random human will react with imminent loss.

I mean, it's not that unpredictable. Most people, faced with death, will attempt to flee. Some will freeze up and/or start begging/pleading (something almost no game, including D&D, simulates, but is extremely common). A few will fight, but even those may change to fleeing, because the responses are not as antithetical as might be supposed.

Also, it's pretty reliable with humans that when one person flees, the others will soon follow.

Re: different races - yeah that can be interesting - having hostage-taking as a peculiar impulse specific to a certain creature-type (Bugbears?) might make it more interesting.

 

[Maxperson]

Even in wars, particularly before the industrial era, people don't tend to fight to the death if they can possibly avoid it.

And usually one side broke and ran when things started going against them.

Sure, and that utterly unrealistic and ahistorical mode of play is quite common, but's not based in fact. People panic and flee in real combat all the time, including experienced combatants. It's not "analyzing the odds" thing. People have an INSTINCT to flee.

Now whether Orcs, say, share that instinct is a more interesting question. But humans undeniably do.

More accurately, the instinct it also to fight. That's why it's called Fight or Flight and not just Flight. It can go either way.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

More accurately, the instinct it also to fight. That's why it's called Fight or Flight and not just Flight. It can go either way.

That's not what fight or flight means. Fight or flight is about how your body prepares, not about which is more likely. Which is more likely depends entirely on the situation, and it's not going to be some sort of "even split" thing. People generally flee in the face of death. They generally fight when there is a distinct possibility of avoiding death by doing so (or so they perceive). This can change very rapidly.

It's not a coin-flip or something. It's not random.

 

[Asisreo]

I mean, it's not that unpredictable. Most people, faced with death, will attempt to flee. Some will freeze up and/or start begging/pleading (something almost no game, including D&D, simulates, but is extremely common). A few will fight, but even those may change to fleeing, because the responses are not as antithetical as might be supposed.

Also, it's pretty reliable with humans that when one person flees, the others will soon follow.

Re: different races - yeah that can be interesting - having hostage-taking as a peculiar impulse specific to a certain creature-type (Bugbears?) might make it more interesting.

That's still pretty unpredictable. You never truly know if they'll freeze, panic, or flee. I do agree that fleeing is a default for the majority.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not what fight or flight means. Fight or flight is about how your body prepares, not about which is more likely. Which is more likely depends entirely on the situation, and it's not going to be some sort of "even split" thing. People generally flee in the face of death. They generally fight when there is a distinct possibility of avoiding death by doing so (or so they perceive). This can change very rapidly.

It's not a coin-flip or something. It's not random.

I wasn't saying which is more likely. I'm just saying that it's not just flight. Many people have an instinct to attack danger, not run from it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

The NPC cannot automatically repeat threat. I explained this.

The NPC needs to take an Action to Ready his reaction. That cannot be done until his turn comes up in initiative.

So the danger zone is if the PCs trigger the reaction just before the NPC in the initiative order, so he gets another action. In which case he may be able "repeat threat". Other scenarios, though? No. He's just go a downed PC on 0 HP and 0 failed death saves in front of him, and a whole bunch of enraged PCs who have actions before he gets his next one.

That's still pretty unpredictable. You never truly know if they'll freeze, panic, or flee. I do agree that fleeing is a default for the majority.

What I'm trying to stress here is that it isn't really random. It's conditioned by experience and the situation. People with combat training (which most bandits do not have, but I imagine most Orcs do) are vastly less likely to freeze, and more likely to flee in an orderly manner when they do flee, I note. The same person in the same/similar situation is likely to act fairly reliably. But it is situational - someone might flee if attacked in his workplace, but fight if attacked in his home (even if he has no family), because his instincts vary.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Readied action states "you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction." You don't have to wait for an action to complete. The circumstance could be "starting to cast a spell".

No. It goes after the TRIGGER, not the action. The trigger is whatever you say it is. It can be something as simple as, "If anyone in the party begins to move." Then, once someone begins to move, you use your reaction after the trigger, but before the action completes. It's specifically a perceivable circumstance that is the trigger, not necessarily an action.

The two of you are not exactly wrong but not exactly right. What exactly can and can't be a trigger is up to the DM.

Healing word has only a verbal component and only requires a bonus action. Negotiations require speech (typically). It's not unreasonable that the spell could be cast before the bandit (who likely has no grounding in magical theory) even comprehends that the cleric isn't just using an unfamiliar word.

By your reasoning a legal trigger would be "when anything starts happening", but IMO that invalidates the intent of being required to declare a trigger.

Let's look at another example. You've got a standoff with three guys with crossbows aimed at each other. One of them readies an action to shoot anyone who starts pulling their trigger. Seems kind of silly for them to be able to pull off their readied action before the other guy's shot goes off, because they are reacting. Unless their reflexes are superhuman, the other guy will finish pulling the trigger first. IMO, at any rate.

I suppose in your games you would allow such, since you've stated as much. And I was wrong that RAW would disallow it. I don't think I would allow it though, which isn't diverging from RAW either.