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

[abirdcall]

Now, if you want to get deeper into it, part of the issue here is that in real life the "double tap" is a quick, secondary action that takes a lot less time than turning around, identifying a new opponent, and smacking them up a bit. But in game terms, the actions are equal (or close to it).

Only if both all the enemy creatures are the same and they have few attacks.

Giants are far more dangerous when they have some goblin allies. The goblins' attacks don't seem particularly threatening until they're giving you 2 death failures.

Similarly, a monster with many small attacks will have an easier time killing off a downed character than one with 1 or 2 big attacks.

 

[abirdcall]

I feel like both healing from 0 hp and killing 0 hp PCs would be more accepted if instead of going unconscious a PC had a similar condition just removing the 'unaware of their surroundings' and 'can't talk' bits.

This way they can still talk and observe the battle but can't actually participate until healed (or rolling a 20).

It is much more cinematic this way and how I run it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So this just came up in another thread but I've seen the sentiment that 5e combat is too easy bandied about by quite a few on this site and I'm just curious how many think combat is or isn't too deadly and whether they finish off downed characters by attacking them when unconscious. I'm interested in the various reasoning for why one does or doesn't attack unconscious characters but I am especially interested in the thoughts of those that feel 5e combat is too easy but don't finish off downed characters and why that is.

IMO, a coup de grace is a foolish thing to do in most fights, so I rarely use it. I also don’t like when the PCs die randomly.

 

[Imaro]

IMO, a coup de grace is a foolish thing to do in most fights, so I rarely use it. I also don’t like when the PCs die randomly.

Are you looking to make fights deadlier?

Also i would argue the DM purposefully choosing to kill a character via a coup de grace (I actually think this is from 3e not 5e but same difference) is the opposite of random death.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Are you looking to make fights deadlier?

Also i would argue the DM purposefully choosing to kill a character via a coup de grace (I actually think this is from 3e not 5e but same difference) is the opposite of random death.

It's very much random. Non-random would be a death with narrative lead-up and/or payoff. If it's just done because there is an opportunity and you want a deadly game, it's random.

When I do seek deadly combat, I simply use deadlier enemies.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Just answering the poll, I voted "Yes 5e combat is deadly enough and no I do not finish off downed characters," but I'll add this caveat: 'deadly enough' is not very deadly at all. I don't actually want characters to die and I allow resurrection (although I prefer reincarnate to raise dead) - but it's a thing that can potentially happen and usually does at some point, which is enough for me.

 

[Imaro]

It's very much random. Non-random would be a death with narrative lead-up and/or payoff. If it's just done because there is an opportunity and you want a deadly game, it's random.

No... a choice with a known outcome is being made... thats not random

When I do seek deadly combat, I simply use deadlier enemies.

That can be a solution as well... though is there a fundamental difference in the result... a dead character is a dead character right?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Making a

Choice




No... a choice with a known outcome is being made... thats not random

That can be a solution as well... though is there a fundamental difference in the result... a dead character is a dead character right?

This is an incredibly strange post. Was there a forum glitch?

Anyway, by that definition there is no such thing as random PC death. I'm not going to engage with a useless definition of a word.

Random PC death is when the PC dies without any narrative leadup or payoff, as a result of dice rolls rather than because the PC bought into the development. The coup de grace can occur because the PC radomly got dropped. There are rare cases where that can be turned into a moment of significance, such as with Mollymauk's death in campaign 2 of Critical Role. When there isn't a satisfying or fun opportunity of that kind, I don't use it.

If you have some comment or question about that that isn't nitpicking wording, I'm happy to have that discussion. I won't engage any further than I have with any sort of nitpicking.

 

[ECMO3]

I don't think combat is too easy. I think DMs in general don't fight most monsters as well as they can. I know this is true for me when I DM and I know it is true with other DMs I have played when I think things like "I hope that Vampire doesn't try to charm me because my wisdom save sucks" then he goes the whole battle without charming me while I sneak attack him every turn.

I think the reason why is most players are very good at playing their characters in combat and DMs both have less experience playing monsters and less familiarity with their player abilities. Players understand their own abilities and aside from putting thought into picking them, players also learn from experience as their characters develop. This is especially true if you have extensive experience with a particular class. For example when I am playing a Rogue or a Bladesinger I rarely make mistakes because I have played so many of those characters I have seen what works and what doesn't. I have bad turns, but it is not usually because I forgot something better I could have done. It is usually do to the dice or the situation did not give me a lot of great options (my Rogue is poisoned and out in the open with nowhere to hide). As a player, put me in charge of another player's Barbarian in combat because he could not make the session today and I am making all kinds of stupid mistakes. That is the kind of thing a DM is trying to do all the time.

As a DM it is a lot to keep track of and with complicated monsters unless you have fought with them a lot you find you forget about abilities or you go in with a plan, but it turns out is not a great plan because you forgot Jim is immune to whatever.

 

[Voadam]

I don’t think that’s a very effective litmus test, since monsters typically die as soon as they reach 0 hit points.

Allow me to expand. It has not been my experience for PCs to spend actions on downed foes in ongoing combats even in AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, or Pathfinder 1e when creatures did not die at 0.