D&D General 0 HP Magic Missile = Death?

[Maxperson]

Yup. Three different Missiles. I rarely play Spellcasting BGs, but if I did, and that villain really hated a particular PC, he might MM them when they're down - but it's unlikely. Not only do I not enjoy killing PCs, but those MM would probably better be served trying to knock a different PC down before that PC kills my villain (even if that doesn't work out for him).

For me it depends on the enemy. An animal is unlikely to fixate on someone down when there are other threats around. Same with dumb enemies. A demon, though, might(and once in my game did) kill someone who is down just out of evil spite. I don't target down players for death often. Very rarely in fact, but it does happen. There are usually more pressing issues than stopping to make sure someone is dead.

 

[Reynard]

Yup. Three different Missiles. I rarely play Spellcasting BGs, but if I did, and that villain really hated a particular PC, he might MM them when they're down - but it's unlikely. Not only do I not enjoy killing PCs, but those MM would probably better be served trying to knock a different PC down before that PC kills my villain (even if that doesn't work out for him).

Yeah, the real controlling factor of whether an intelligent enemy takes out a PC should be "is this the best use of my limited actions this round?" Maybe yes if the party healer is still fresh (or if the target is the party healer) but usually it makes much more sense to do something against actively wanting to kill you standing PCs.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

All at once is rolling 8d6 all at once for fireball. Simultaneous is rolling 1d4+1 + 1d4+1 + 1d4+1 for three magic missiles that are not happening all at once. They happen simultaneously, but with a very small amount of time in-between hits. Even here in the real world things happen "simultaneously" all the time that aren't all in the same instant with 0 time in-between.

I'm with you here. Simultaneous can mean "roughly" the same time, but it doesn't mean "definitely exactly together" at the same time.

The same thing can be said in D&D for Initiative and what's happening during combat. Technically, everyone is acting simultaneously (in the same six seconds) but they are ALSO acting consecutively. It's not like everyone else is standing around while you're taking your turn, but events still play out somewhat in order of initiative. It's a bit of a mind****, but you get what I mean, I expect.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

For me it depends on the enemy. An animal is unlikely to fixate on someone down when there are other threats around. Same with dumb enemies. A demon, though, might(and once in my game did) kill someone who is down just out of evil spite. I don't target down players for death often. Very rarely in fact, but it does happen. There are usually more pressing issues than stopping to make sure someone is dead.

Definitely. Ghouls and Zombies are a good example too. I don't believe that either of them care about their own survival at all, and are likely to chew on a downed PC without any thought for the others. (Though a Ghoul is probably more likely to give enough thought to it that it is more likely than a Zombie to drag the body away first).

One thing that I think "overly tactical" DMs aren't considering is that combat is very messy and distracting. It's perfectly reasonable for any given monster to make bad, desperate decisions over good tactical ones. Heck, I think they usually made pretty bad decisions to get themselves up against a group of PCs in the first place - so it's in character.

 

[Reynard]

One thing that I think "overly tactical" DMs aren't considering is that combat is very messy and distracting. It's perfectly reasonable for any given monster to make bad, desperate decisions over good tactical ones. Heck, I think they usually made pretty bad decisions to get themselves up against a group of PCs in the first place - so it's in character.

Sometimes it is fun to roll morale checks or other random decisions in order to simulate this sort of chaos. If there is no compelling reason for a monster to attack any particular PC, i will often roll randomly round to round, with the potential results weighted by whatever i think is important at the time. If the creature is injured, I add "disengage!" to the list of possibilities.

 

[MarkB]

All at once is rolling 8d6 all at once for fireball. Simultaneous is rolling 1d4+1 + 1d4+1 + 1d4+1 for three magic missiles that are not happening all at once. They happen simultaneously, but with a very small amount of time in-between hits. Even here in the real world things happen "simultaneously" all the time that aren't all in the same instant with 0 time in-between.

"All at once" means "simultaneously". The phrase you want for your fireball example is "all together". And "simultaneously" does mean at exactly the same time. Those real-world examples would be things that are "effectively simultaneous", not actually simultaneous. Let's not confuse things by muddying definitions.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

"All at once" means "simultaneously". The phrase you want for your fireball example is "all together". And "simultaneously" does mean at exactly the same time. Those real-world examples would be things that are "effectively simultaneous", not actually simultaneous. Let's not confuse things by muddying definitions.

You make a good point. Many (most) words are used when they are "close enough" to true, but still "mean" their true state. You can call something "simultaneous" that is "very nearly at once" - heck, you could call it "at once" when it's not quite - but simultaneous DOES mean "at the same time".

This is the problem with this argument. The "natural language" of the spell COULD support either case. Arguing about the wording is pointless.

 

[Maxperson]

"All at once" means "simultaneously". The phrase you want for your fireball example is "all together". And "simultaneously" does mean at exactly the same time. Those real-world examples would be things that are "effectively simultaneous", not actually simultaneous. Let's not confuse things by muddying definitions.

The real world changes definitions by the common usage changing. The common usage of simultaneous has meant, "really close together" here for a long time now. The dictionary will catch up eventually.

Edit: And 5e uses the "natural language"/"common usage" test for what it means as well.

 

[cbwjm]

Yep, magic missile would kill someone at 0 in my games. 3 sources of damage, 3 failed death saves.

 

[MarkB]

You make a good point. Many (most) words are used when they are "close enough" to true, but still "mean" their true state. You can call something "simultaneous" that is "very nearly at once" - heck, you could call it "at once" when it's not quite - but simultaneous DOES mean "at the same time".

This is the problem with this argument. The "natural language" of the spell COULD support either case. Arguing about the wording is pointless.

Yeah, that and the real-world analogies seem pointless to me. I treat it as separate instances of damage because that's what the spell says it is. Simultaneous or not doesn't come into it.