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

[Filthy Lucre]

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?

So, in an encounter, ostensibly all the PCs are fighting all the NPCs - just because you're not engaged in melee with someone doesn't mean you're not fighting. Your own example works against you.

You're a soldier in a fire fight, you shoot one enemy and see him fall over. Now, sure, he might not be dead but the other people firing on you certainly aren't dead. Even given your 5% number, you have 100% certainty that you're still being shot at by people standing and capable of fighting.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Yep, that's why it's not for me, but for those who think combat in 5e is too easy... is this too much? If not why not use it?

 

[Imaro]

So, in an encounter, ostensibly all the PCs are fighting all the NPCs - just because you're not engaged in melee with someone doesn't mean you're not fighting. Your own example works against you.

You're a soldier in a fire fight, you shoot one enemy and see him fall over. Now, sure, he might not be dead but the other people firing on you certainly aren't dead. Even given your 5% number, you have 100% certainty that you're still being shot at by people standing and capable of fighting.

So in this specific example it doesn't apply... all combat is not ranged 1 vs. many (especially in D&D which is what we are discussing)... so my example doesn't work against me since I said when you have the opportunity and are not being attacked.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

So in this specific example it doesn't apply... all combat is not ranged 1 vs. many (especially in D&D which is what we are discussing)... so my example doesn't work against me since I said when you have the opportunity and are not being attacked.

Which is of course, extremely common in 99% of D&D encounters /s. Also, my scenario works for any active combat situation. If the NPCs are not being attacked that would mean:

1.) The PCs were routed, combat over, no one to kill.
2.) The PCs fled and left X number of other PCs behind.
3.) The PCs are all already down.

The "You have time to casually murder someone in the midst of combat" may be dramatic, but its not the least bit realistic or plausible in the vast majority of situations. Your situation is just "The NPCs won that combat".

 

[Micah Sweet]

When someone is "down" they are in the process of dying. To the attacker they appear to be: unconscious/unresponsive/bleeding out. In a tense combat situation you'd have to be very emotionally compromised or very evil to go out of your way, during combat, to ensure that someone is dead, rather than continue to fight currently stable opponents.

In my games, most adversaries, while evil or bad, are not ultimately depraved. They value their own life over making sure that someone is dead.

What you have here is a clear disconnect between narrative and mechanical reality. In narrative, the dying or unconscious person is no longer a threat, so there is no reason for an enemy to finish them off. In reality, you can expect that down character to get back up very quickly, and the enemy has a brief window to end the threat before the character springs back up at full offensive strength. I dont think its unreasonable for some people to see this as a problem.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Combat is as deadly as I, the DM, want it to be.

5E has less "save or die" features than AD&D. Doesn't make it less deadly because it's as deadly as I want it to be.

5E Players have access to bonus action healing and the dying mechanic (death saves) gets bitched at constantly. This doesn't make the game softer because...wait for it....combat is as deadly as I want it to be.

Coup de Grace

If you're asking whether other DMs finish off downed PCs as a matter of philosophy, that's up to each table. For my table, the thrill would be gone if every time things got rough, the DM fudged the game so the "story" could go on. That's not much of an exciting story for us if the heroes are effectively shielded from dying. But, I apply it judiciously. Beasts might think a downed foe is "dead" because it's what they're used to in animal kingdom. Intelligent foes know to always get the kill. It's why medieval knights carried weapons to knock their foes down, and a weapon to finish them off. A prone foe does not equal a defeated foe. And so on.

 

[Imaro]

Which is of course, extremely common in 99% of D&D encounters /s. If the NPCs are not being attacked that would mean:

1.) The PCs were routed, combat over, no one to kill.
2.) The PCs fled and left X number of other PCs behind.
3.) The PCs are all already down.

The "You have time to casually murder someone in the midst of combat" may be dramatic, but its not the least bit realistic or plausible in the vast majority of situations.

This makes no sense... you are not being attacked unless an opponent is specifically attacking you (either ranged or melee) , plain and simple and that fact is not dependent on the factors you listed. Also 99%... where are you getting this number?

 

[Filthy Lucre]

This makes no sense... you are not being attacked unless an opponent is specifically attacking you (either ranged or melee) , plain and simple and that fact is not dependent on the factors you listed. Also 99%... where are you getting this number?

I'm being sarcastic. Hence the "/s" and if you mean "by the rules of D&D" then, sure. If you mean "by the narrative/in world fiction" obviously no. If there's a fire fight going on just because someone in one instant isn't shooting at you doesn't mean in the next instant they won't be. The "fiction" of the game is not discrete moments frozen in time played in succession.

To me, if you are actively in danger in an active combat scenario, you're worried about the people who are currently alive, not the people who MIGHT be alive. The only leg you have to stand on is the ubiquity of cheap healing and the dying rules of D&D. For me, of course, that's a non-issue.

 

[Imaro]

I'm being sarcastic. Hence the "/s" and if you mean "by the rules of D&D" then, sure. If you mean "by the narrative/in world fiction" obviously no. If there's a fire fight going on just because someone in one instant isn't shooting at you doesn't mean in the next instant they won't be. The "fiction" of the game is not discrete moments frozen in time played in succession.

You keep relying on one very specific example.

 

[Deset Gled]

- Yes, 5e combat is very lenient. Not as deadly as I like, but not problematic enough to want to deal with houseruling it.

- "Finishing off" characters is something that rarely makes sense if the monsters aren't meta-gaming. Monsters/enemies should finish off active targets that are still hurting them before taking a second swipe at a downed character. It might make sense for an arch-nemesis character, or a hungry colossal beast that's hunting rather than fighting, but that's about it.

- One thing that I really don't enjoy in 5e (and 4e) is the way that the PCs use different death rules than the enemies. If the PCs can get up so easily after getting knocked down, the NPCs should be doing it often, too. I understand the gamist principles behind making the rules work this way, but it's not a design choice I like.