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

[Helldritch]

No, the more strategic point would be to kill the healer. A downed PC can usually be knocked back down in a single hit, but taking out the healer removes that ability completely. If you want to check this logic, try including a opponent healer in a combat, and don't automatically have enemies die at 0 HP (treat them like PCs). I'll bet your PCs will focus on killing that healer immediately after they bring someone back up.

Depending on the initiative count and situation both options will be valid. My players will do what is the most efficient at the moment. The healer might be in cover or have a much to high AC to hit reliably so the "coup de grace" would then be the better option and my players would and did it without a second thought. If killing the healer(s) is most efficient and it will not leave the low AC PCs open to retaliation, then they'll do it.

 

[Imaculata]

No, the more strategic point would be to kill the healer. A downed PC can usually be knocked back down in a single hit, but taking out the healer removes that ability completely. If you want to check this logic, try including a opponent healer in a combat, and don't automatically have enemies die at 0 HP (treat them like PCs). I'll bet your PCs will focus on killing that healer immediately after they bring someone back up.

While one bandit attacks the downed player, the rest goes for the healer.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, what kind of person is the NPC? Aren't they probably a hired thug without any great attachment to the other NPCs? Why would they assume that the PCs are dissimilar?

Turn this around. If the PCs downed and then an NPC, would Lord Badguy McCultleader bargain for the NPC's life? Or even the leader of the the troop of guards? Or the bandit squad leader?

Note: a great many of the "adventurers" out there probably are mercenary thugs for hire. Your PCs are in a game, and need to put some value on the lives of the other PCs to support the overall fun in the game. But the fictional world they live in is high on violence, low on value-of-life, in general.

Yikes. That’s a pretty grim view of the world. I doubt most D&D players agree with it.

But the idea that an NPC wouldn’t think there is a very good chance that the group will care if one of its members is dead is just unfounded, IMO. Yes, the bandit leader will likely bargain for their friend’s life. Groups of bandits tend to be people who’ve known each other a long time, and trust each other a decent amount. They have to in order to do what they do.

And the ones who don’t care if their compatriots die? Classically that guy assumes the enemy are normal folk with attachments to be exploited. It’s common enough I’d say it’s a trope.

And a desperate person isn’t going to be thinking “will this definitely work” but rather “does this give me a shot?”

 

[Umbran]

Yikes. That’s a pretty grim view of the world. I doubt most D&D players agree with it.

"The world" in question is the fictional one. It is a world in which death-dealing swords and armor are available in every town, where entire professions are focused on deadly physical combat and magics designed to damage the bodies of your fellow sentient creatures.

It is a world in which the dominant sentient species (canonically humans) is not particularly of strong moral or ethical bent (canonically neutral alignment), and the scenario of bandits on the road is common enough to be a standard for consideration.

And a desperate person isn’t going to be thinking “will this definitely work” but rather “does this give me a shot?”

The original setup for this did not position it being a desperation maneuver. That the bandit was on the losing side was not stipulated in the OP.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

quick point of order on trigger pulling.

Your reaction time for soemthing you’ve trained into your implicit memory is faster than your ability to decide to do something and then do it, to the point that if movie style western duels were actually a common thing, the first to draw would usually be shot first.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

"The world" in question is the fictional one. It is a world in which death-dealing swords and armor are available in every town, where entire professions are focused on deadly physical combat and magics designed to damage the bodies of your fellow sentient creatures.

It is a world in which the dominant sentient species (canonically humans) is not particularly of strong moral or ethical bent (canonically neutral alignment), and the scenario of bandits on the road is common enough to be a standard for consideration.



The original setup for this did not position it being a desperation maneuver. That the bandit was on the losing side was not stipulated in the OP.

Those are your assumptions about the world. I’ve never seen anyone play D&D that way.

as for the OP, it also didn’t posit hostage taking as appropriate to every situation, and the OP has talked about losing situations throughout the thread.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

Meta-gaming is when a character makes a decision based on what the player thinks, but which the character has no way of knowing.

For example, a player might think that stabbing someone with a knife is potentially fatal, based on books or movies that they've read (or based on real life experiences, or what they've seen in the news).

A character has no reason to think that, though. Based on their own observations, and the observations of anyone they've ever met, a mere knife wound is incapable of killing anyone who isn't a non-combatant with underlying health issues. (Unless you're dealing with a professional assassin, of course, in which case the danger is attributed entirely to the wielder rather than the weapon.)

 

[Charlaquin]

So, there seem to be two separate questions here: “should enemies always fight to the death?” and “what should enemies do when a PC is unconscious?” I think the answer to both depends on the situation, and the enemy.

A wild animal (or a monster with animal-like behavior) will usually not fight to the death unless it has no other choice. In my games, a single damaging hit is enough to scare most Beasts into retreating, unless they’re rabid or defending their young. Also, most such creatures usually wont continue attacking an unconscious PC. Maybe if its goal is to get food it might try to drag an unconscious PC off, but most of the time if you’re fighting an animal it’s because it’s defending its territory, in which case killing unconscious PCs doesn’t really move them closer to their goal.

Humanoids and monsters with humanoid behavior usually don’t fight to the death either. Usually if they think they are loosing, they will attempt to retreat if possible or surrender otherwise. If their surrender is not accepted, then they will fight to defend themselves, but the goal is “escape with my life,” not “kill my enemies,” so that’s going to affect their tactics. Humanoids might kill unconscious PCs, try to take them hostage, or ignore them, depending on their goals. Assassins sent to kill the PCs risk a lot for little gain by trying to hold unconscious PCs hostage, but they gain a lot for little risk by killing unconscious PCs. On the other hand, bandits trying to rob the PCs most likely want their money, not their lives, so holding an unconscious PC hostage is a more effective strategy than killing them. An opponent who is fighting merely to survive against PCs who want to kill them might attempt to take a hostage if they have reason to think the conscious PCs will respond well to that and might kill an unconscious PC if they have reason to think an unconscious PC is still a threat. But most often the priority in that situation is just to escape; an unconscious PC doesn’t pose an obstacle to that goal, and a dead PC motivates their surviving companions to seek revenge.

Mindless creatures usually follow directives given by some kind of master or other motivating force, and follow those directives literally, with no room for interpretation. These are the opponents most likely to fight to the death because they have no sense of self-preservation. They relentlessly carry out their instructions until the task is completed, or until they become physically unable to carry them out. Whether or not they kill unconscious PCs depends on their instructions. “Kill anyone who enters the sanctum” will definitely lead to them killing unconscious intruders. “Bring those meddling fools to me alive” will definitely not.

For opponents with more alien behavior patterns it can be a little trickier, but in general you can work out their most likely course of action by considering their goals and what they are willing to risk in pursuit of them. Combat is a means of resolving conflict, and conflict is a result of two mutually exclusive goals coming into contact, so in a combat, it’s always important to assess what the PCs goals are, what the monsters’ or NPCs’ goals are, and how far each party is willing to go in pursuit of them. This should give you a pretty good idea of whether or not the creatures will fight to the death and what (If anything) they will do about unconscious PCs.