D&D 5E How the game changes when a DM starts to target downed PC's?

[FrogReaver]

A fairly typical way of playing 5e is to never/rarely have enemies target downed and dying PC's. There's a good reason for this style becoming common - something feels unnatural about having enemies engage in what everyone knows is currently a non-threat when other PC's are there trying to kick their butts. However, I'm starting to believe this is an unintended playstyle and is the culprit for many of the issues with 5e. Whack-a-mole, overall deadliness, short rest/long rest imbalance, etc.

I also believe there's a strong way to fictionally justify attacking downed PC's so that you don't have to feel like the 'bad guy' for doing so. Just tell the players the enemies can perceive if you are dead or not, but simply don't know how long you are going to stay down if you are still living and so finishing you off before you have a chance to potentially get back up is typically their best course of action. Now they know they are going to be targeted and can plan accordingly.

So what downstream impacts does shifting to this 'attack downed PCs' playstyle accomplish?

1. The game becomes a bit more deadly. PC's lives actually get to be threatened without TPK level threats.

2. Even after encounters where a few players are lightly injured (lost 10% to 25% of their max hp) they will want to recover hp - because death is a real possibility if they get downed and having max hp really helps mitigate the chance that happens. One of the most likely methods to recover a bit of hp after being injured is a Short Rest and so Short Rests will start to increase as the party as a whole finds them more useful. Because of this, short rest and long rest classes start to feel more balanced.

3. Because no one wants to be downed due to risk of death being high when downed then whack-a-mole is completely eliminated - and midcombat healing before allies drop becomes a thing. Also, when a PC does get downed and you are able to heal them up and keep them from death it feels extraordinary and becomes a memorable moment instead of a normal and expected occurrence.

Thoughts?

 

[Horwath]

There could be a special reason that you might hit on downed PC(depending on initiative order), but in addition to trying to eliminate still active target, you also force downed PC companions to spend non optimal actions.

I.E. it is better to force the paladin to use cure wounds(any level) than killing paladins comrade and than suck on 2 attacks from a greatsword with 2 smites added on.

Now, AoE attack are great for downed opposition, you deal "death save fail" in addition to dealing HP damage to still active opponents.

 

[pogre]

I think you can get some of the benefits of play you mentioned by keeping death saving throws secret.

I do use hitting 'em when they are down particularly with villains I want the PCs to really HATE.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I have never not targeted downed PCs - it depends on the monster. Things like ghouls will always try to eat downed foes, and smart enemies will try to take them out if they think healing words might be flying about. In between, enemies will attack what they think (possibly incorrectly) is the biggest immediate threat, which may cause them to leave downed enemies alone.

The effect? None.

If the enemy is attacking a downed character they aren't attacking a standing one, and dead PCs can usually be Revivified after the battle.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

However, I'm starting to believe this is an unintended playstyle and is the culprit for many of the issues with 5e. Whack-a-mole, overall deadliness, short rest/long rest imbalance, etc.

I mean, it's definitely not "unintended" because if you see any actual play with WotC people involved that is what is happening. Also 5E's healing design fits whack-a-mole but not murder-a-PC.

I also believe there's a strong way to fictionally justify attacking downed PC's so that you don't have to feel like the 'bad guy' for doing so. Just tell the players the enemies can perceive if you are dead or not, but simply don't know how long you are going to stay down if you are still living and so finishing you off before you have a chance to potentially get back up is typically their best course of action. Now they know they are going to be targeted and can plan accordingly.

I mean, but that's obviously not correct, because there's no easy way in combat for most beings to perceive if someone is unconscious or dead. You can't just take their pulse or something.

There are beings (esp. undead) who could probably instantly perceive this, and that totally works for them, but for normal mortal beings like humans or bugbears, let alone animals? Absolutely not.

So that's an rather weak way to justify it fictionally. As enemies don't have a legitimate way to tell if you're dead or not, they should be doing a lot of "overkill". I.e. chopping up people who already failed all their death saves. If you do that it once again becomes somewhat justifiable, but if you always have enemies stop precisely when a PC fails three death saves that's a nonsense, fictionally, an absolute nonsense. It's pure metagaming with any being who cannot magically perceive whether life or death is present (but is not with those few who can).

The effects you suggest are correct, but you're wrong to ignore the fictional issues, I'd suggest. In addition to the effects you've listed there's the melee-punishment and live healers required issues:

1) Melee characters take the vast brunt of damage in 5E. There's no way around this. This means melee characters are disproportionately likely to get downed. Which if you attack downed PCs, means they are disproportionately likely to get killed. So you may well simply end up forcing people who choose to play melee PCs to re-roll repeatedly until they end up picking a non-melee.

2) You force "live" healing characters to be required. 5E is specifically designed so that they aren't. You don't need a Life Cleric or a Twilight Cleric in 5E as normally played. You can use short rests and HD, and/or weaker healers, or healers who do best out-of-combat (like Bards and Druids). That's fine if that's what you want, but it's a very significant change. Any party which doesn't have a serious in-combat healer is going to see a hell of a lot more deaths.

3) Stopping dying becomes much more of a priority which means parties are likely to be more conservative re: not being on full HP at all times, which means more rests, short and long, and more stopping early in the adventuring day, particularly because the "live" healer has run out of juice.

On top of that you massively increase the value of things which stop you getting to 0 HP. So THP, high ACs, high HP pools, self-healing, damage resistances, crowd control and so on.

EDIT - Oh and multi-attacking monsters become waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger threats than a single-attacking monster dealing the same sort of DPR, because a multi-attacker with 3 attacks doing say 1d4+2/1d4+2/1d3+2 can wipe out three Death Saves, potentially, but a single attack who hits for, say, 4d12+12 can only wipe out one.

EDIT EDIT - Personally I think the thing to do is to say that creatures with appropriate supernatural perceptions, beasts/ghouls, and skilled warriors may continue to attack downed PCs, and to use a Instinct check like in Worlds Without Number (which you can get the free edition of from DriveThru) for the latter two groups. I.e. with beasts/ghouls, probably they feast on the downed UNLESS they make a successful instinct check not to. And will keep doing so after PCs are long dead, because they're there to eat, not fight (unless they get attacked whilst eating of course). And likewise experienced/well-trained warriors should make an Instinct check, if they pass, sure they can hit the downed PC, but if they fail, they move on, or they keep hitting an already-dead PC, or the like. Whereas spirit-seeing undead would never have to overkill (probably some angels/devils etc. too).

 

[Cadence]

I mean, it's definitely not "unintended" because if you see any actual play with WotC people involved that is what is happening. Also 5E's healing design fits whack-a-mole but not murder-a-PC.

I mean, but that's obviously not correct, because there's no easy way in combat for most beings to perceive if someone is unconscious or dead. You can't just take their pulse or something.

There are beings (esp. undead) who could probably instantly perceive this, and that totally works for them, but for normal mortal beings like humans or bugbears, let alone animals? Absolutely not.

So that's an rather weak way to justify it fictionally. As enemies don't have a legitimate way to tell if you're dead or not, they should be doing a lot of "overkill". I.e. chopping up people who already failed all their death saves. If you do that it once again becomes somewhat justifiable, but if you always have enemies stop precisely when a PC fails three death saves that's a nonsense, fictionally, an absolute nonsense. It's pure metagaming with any being who cannot magically perceive whether life or death is present (but is not with those few who can).

Now I'm wondering if monsters would start to react to adventurers the way they and adventurers would to things that regenerate...

The Orc chief yells "$hit! It's adventurers! Get the torches ready to burn them when they fall. Don't want those #%!@ers getting back upl! They're worse than trolls!"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Now I'm wondering if monsters would start to react to adventurers the way they and adventurers would to things that regenerate...

The Orc chief yells "$hit! It's adventurers! Get the torches ready to burn them when they fall. Don't want those #%!@ers getting back upl! They're worse than trolls!"

Yeah and that sort of thing can be quite fun but you have to roleplay it and I think WWN-style Instinct rolls for people to stick to it can really help. You need to make it so they're maybe going beyond what they need to - PCs often do with trolls or the like, note, and that's a lot more obvious than whether someone is unconscious or dead. Whereas if you just have them cleanly metagame and never waste an attack because they sense exactly when all three Death Saves are failed, that just feels like cheap metagaming, except with the monsters that could genuinely sense that.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, it's definitely not "unintended" because if you see any actual play with WotC people involved that is what is happening. Also 5E's healing design fits whack-a-mole but not murder-a-PC.

That's a fair observation. Though, while they may play that way, it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't unintended from a design perspective.

I mean, but that's obviously not correct, because there's no easy way in combat for most beings to perceive if someone is unconscious or dead. You can't just take their pulse or something.

Dead people don't breathe. Unconscious ones do. Doesn't seem that hard. Especially given 5e's hyper combat awareness that's already provided.

In addition to the effects you've listed there's the melee-punishment and live healers required issues:

1) Melee characters take the vast brunt of damage in 5E. There's no way around this.

This is often true, though not necessarily so. It depends on how the DM has enemies behave and if the 'backline' characters ever make themselves available as a target to take pressure off their allies.

This means melee characters are disproportionately likely to get downed. Which if you attack downed PCs, means they are disproportionately likely to get killed. So you may well simply end up forcing people who choose to play melee PCs to re-roll repeatedly until they end up picking a non-melee.

I'm not so sure. Just as an example: A level 3 fighter with plate and defensive style can take about 3 times the punishment that a level 3 bard can take and that's before adding in other abilities that can mitigate damage (2nd wind, battlemaster parry manuever, samurai temp hp, etc). The only unresolved variable is how many enemies go for the fighter vs go for the bard.

2) You force "live" healing characters to be required. 5E is specifically designed so that they aren't. You don't need a Life Cleric or a Twilight Cleric in 5E as normally played. You can use short rests and HD, and/or weaker healers, or healers who do best out-of-combat (like Bards and Druids). That's fine if that's what you want, but it's a very significant change. Any party which doesn't have a serious in-combat healer is going to see a hell of a lot more deaths.

I've played death at 0 hp games and even in those we didn't feel forced to have a healing character. Typically if your melee you have damage mitigation abilities. Those go a long way. You can always take the dodge/dash/disengage action if you get low on hp or use a class feature to help. Even monks tend to be fairly tanky when you use the bonus action dodge ability regularly. You also tended to build a bit more defensively overall which resolved alot of the 'glass cannon' issues.

3) Stopping dying becomes much more of a priority which means parties are likely to be more conservative re: not being on full HP at all times, which means more rests, short and long, and more stopping early in the adventuring day, particularly because the "live" healer has run out of juice.

More short rests is a good thing. Most hp will be recovered out of combat still via hit dice or efficient out of combat healing spells.

On top of that you massively increase the value of things which stop you getting to 0 HP. So THP, high ACs, high HP pools, self-healing, damage resistances, crowd control and so on.

Even damage falls in that as killing enemies quicker makes you less likely to die. But I'm not sure how quoting a list of pretty much every combat related ability becoming more valuable makes sense - what are they becoming more valuable in relation to?

EDIT - Oh and multi-attacking monsters become waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger threats than a single-attacking monster dealing the same sort of DPR, because a multi-attacker with 3 attacks doing say 1d4+2/1d4+2/1d3+2 can wipe out three Death Saves, potentially, but a single attack who hits for, say, 4d12+12 can only wipe out one.

Thankfully - multiattacking monsters tend to be seen more as you get more hp. Meaning you are less likely to drop to 0 in the first place.

 

[Cadence]

Dead people don't breathe. Unconscious ones do. Doesn't seem that hard. Especially given 5e's hyper combat awareness that's already provided.

Is stopping to take a pulse or look for subtle chest movements hard when the opponent is heavily clothed or armored? Does it provoke an attack of opportunity?

Thankfully - multiattacking monsters tend to be seen more as you get more hp. Meaning you are less likely to drop to 0 in the first place.

But are probably much, much more attached to the character. I haven't played higher levels in a long time. How do the raise dead type spells work if you're hacked up or burned?

 

[Cadence]

@Oofta and @FrogReaver You laugh, but I was being serious (too)!