D&D 5E Do you think 5e is deadly enough and do you finish off downed characters?

[FrogReaver]

I think attacking downed player characters is a good thing to do if the rest of the party are making themselves unreachable leaving one Pc to tank. The dire troll the party were attacking on Wednesday attacked a downed Pc because one of the other PCs hid in a narrow space and the other flew into the air with magic. No person left behind.

IMO. This tends to have the opposite effect desired. Instead of incentivizing other players to join the melee it just incentivizes the player with the dead PC to make something far more Mobile and ranged so that he can simply kite away when enemies focus on his allies like they do him.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think 5e combat is incredibly boring with how non-lethal it is outside of low levels, and I'm looking forward to the monster redesigns come 2024. If I had my druthers, monsters would die faster and hit harder.

If monsters aren’t dying fast in 5e I’d say your doing something wrong. Though they could pack quite a bit more of a whollop.

 

[TheSword]

IMO. This tends to have the opposite effect desired. Instead of incentivizing other players to join the melee it just incentivizes the player with the dead PC to make something far more Mobile and ranged so that he can simply kite away when enemies focus on his allies like they do him.

Maybe. I find in small parties players will struggle if they expect to play that way. Maybe in a full attack game like 3e/Paizo that works because moving and fighting has a negative effect normally. However for most 5e creatures they’ll move up again and use all their attacks on one PC. Whereas I try and be a bit more even handed where there are multiple PCs in combat. Taking your share of hits in combat with small parties keeps your fellows alive.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think context is important here. Is quick healing actually plentiful? If you go with the notion that PCs are rare special creatures, then no most groups wouldn’t have access to such tools. Even if you recognize a “holy man” in the group, are they actually a spell caster?

now let’s say the cleric casts a healing spell, so we know that is an option. Changing tactics like that requires a certain amount of rigor…lowering your eyes against an enemy trying to kill you to stop an enemy that is not requires a certain amount of thinking that goes beyond what most people train for.

so in a nutshell, it’s narratively reasonable that enemies would not attempt to coup de grace in combat even with healing present. It’s also reasonable if you did decide they would do it in that kind of world. Aka both options are narratively reasonable

Healing is sure to be sparse with bonus action healing word limited to bard cleric druid alchemist, bonus action healing light limited to celestial warlock 1/warlock level it makes for easy ranged healing. Add bard cleric druid paladin ranger artificer & domain spell for life cleric circle of wildfire druid &divine soul sorcerer & celestial warlock. Add both/either to any caster who takes a level in an appropriate class or takes the magic initiate feat & chooses that spell.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe. I find in small parties players will struggle if they expect to play that way. Maybe in a full attack game like 3e/Paizo that works because moving and fighting has a negative effect normally. However for most 5e creatures they’ll move up again and use all their attacks on one PC. Whereas I try and be a bit more even handed where there are multiple PCs in combat. Taking your share of hits in combat with small parties keeps your fellows alive.

I agree that the players should be doing that. But the issue is that your taking your stick to beat the player that was doing what he should have and not the players that weren’t. It sends the wrong message.

 

[iserith]

Since I as DM get to control the difficulty of combat challenges, they are plenty difficult and deadly whenever I want them to be.

I do go after downed PCs in some encounters and telegraph that I'll do it beforehand. The last character that died in my campaign went out that way. Having fallen to a nasty NPC archer named Jean Rambeaux (who promised no mercy on those invading his home) and sustained a failed death save near an unexploded mine, the party's ranger was in quite a tight spot. The eldritch knight rushed over to help, unintentionally setting up Rambeaux to use an explosive arrow to damage both PCs. This also set off the mine - so that was two more failed death saving throws for the ranger. RIP.

His widow, a moonshiner's daughter, is now remarried to the party's cleric. Last session it was revealed she was pregnant, so the cleric gets to be a step-dad! (Little do they know that this isn't the ranger's baby, but rather the PC gnome wizard's! Drama to ensue in a few months!)

 

[TheSword]

I agree that the players should be doing that. But the issue is that your taking your stick to beat the player that was doing what he should have and not the players that weren’t. It sends the wrong message.

Oh I see, punishing the wrong person. That’s fair…
Though I play with a group of friends who approach things as a group challenge, so they all got the message. I think they realized as well that if the Paladin falls like that they then are potentially at greater risk. Low and behold they bard rushed into combat to distract the beast.

 

[Imaro]

I think context is important here. Is quick healing actually plentiful? If you go with the notion that PCs are rare special creatures, then no most groups wouldn’t have access to such tools. Even if you recognize a “holy man” in the group, are they actually a spell caster?

now let’s say the cleric casts a healing spell, so we know that is an option. Changing tactics like that requires a certain amount of rigor…lowering your eyes against an enemy trying to kill you to stop an enemy that is not requires a certain amount of thinking that goes beyond what most people train for.

so in a nutshell, it’s narratively reasonable that enemies would not attempt to coup de grace in combat even with healing present. It’s also reasonable if you did decide they would do it in that kind of world. Aka both options are narratively reasonable

Quick healing doesn't need to be plentiful... just a known. Here's a question if 5% of the world's population could only die if stabbed through the heart, as a soldier are you going to make sure if given the chance to stab someone you killed through the heart... or always assume you're not fighting that 5%? What's the safer bet, especially if no one else is attacking you?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Combat is deadly enough. I only finish off downed characters if they play the whack a mole healing game or if they happen to lay in an area of effect from a spell, or against zombies.

 

[TheSword]

Quick healing doesn't need to be plentiful... just a known. Here's a question if 5% of the world's population could only die if stabbed through the heart, as a soldier are you going to make sure if given the chance to stab someone you killed through the heart... or always assume you're not fighting that 5%? What's the safer bet, especially if no one else is attacking you?

That way lies madness.

I exclude unconscious PCs from tactical thinking except for very special circumstances. It’s too easy to kill PCs. 3 spellcasters/creatures with AOE 1/2 damage abilities kill a PC period. Less if they fail a death save as well. It’s really easy to kill PCs if you play that way.