Bear psychology question

[Cleon]

In general I agree with Griego, unless an enemy has particular cause to attack a downed PC I would have them use their subsequent attacks on the next target.

However, in this case the bear isn't doing this - the fatal damage from its crush attack is part of the same attack sequence, it's a follow-up to its two claws hitting. It's a matter of "if the bear hits with both claws then it makes a crush attack". The bear isn't deciding to spend an attack action against the unfortunate PC, it's a free bonus special attack. In earlier editions of D&D bears got automatic "hug" damage if they hit with both claws attacks. I don't remember their being anything in the rules about the choosing to hug. They just did it if they hit with both claws.

Also, isn't the crush more-or-less at the same time as the claw attacks? The bear hits with both its claws and mauls its foe between its paws.

Besides, the PC doesn't have an illuminated hit-point counter written in bear on their forehead. The bear won't know his foe is finished until the attack sequence is completed and sees them drop.

 

[Banshee16]

This came up in my game the other night. This is 4E D&D.

The party had a combat encounter against some dire bears. The party's artificer/swordmage got hit by both attacks from the bear's "Maul" attack, which dropped him down below zero. By the rules, he is now unconscious.

If the PC were still above zero hit points, the bear would normally then attempt to grab the PC (which it did successfully) and then do its Ursine Crush attack.

Would the bear then continue with its Ursine Crush attack? Or, would it then seek out a new opponent from the other five PCs that are still threatening it after knocking PC unconscious?

I ask because the Ursine Crush attack then did enough damage to kill the PC. We had a debate at the table about what the bear would do, with arguments made both ways. So, I gave it a 50-50 roll on the table and it came up that the bear would continue with its attack pattern and kill the PC before continuing on to face its other foes.

Thanks

I would think it would depend on the situation.....if the bear was being actively attacked it would likely move to the next target.....but if it wasn't being pressured by other PCs it might finish the PC off.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

The answer is: when anyone/thing has dropped a PC to unconsciousness, unless there is a real reason for *the DM* to really go for absolutely surely dead, the attacker should move on to the next target.

This answer really doesn't have anything to do with bear psychology, (or NPC psychology), but with a DM's psychology.

I mean, if a human enemy gets three attacks, but drops the PC with the first, should he continue with the second and third attacks? If the the DM has a real reason to want the PC dead, dead, dead, then okay. If the DM does not have a real reason to want the PC thoroughly dead, then the DM shouldn't "kick a man when he's down," so to speak.

Anyone can come up with any reason why an enemy wouldn't keep attacking a downed PC, and DMs really shouldn't be [too] bloodthirsty. No Player is ever going to think, "I can't believe that enemy didn't keep attacking me to full death." But many a Player will think, "I really wish my PC wasn't dead."

Bullgrit

I don't quite agree. It depends on the monster and their motivation. An animal that is acting out of hunger might kill the PC, then defend its food source. One that was just angry at being disturbed might attack several before running off. It also depends on ifit has been injured. Many animals don't stick around if the prey is giving as good as it's getting.

I don't see anything wrong with simulating this. But I also don't think animals always need to attack. Same as hiw they don't always do so in real life.

Banshee

 

[Janx]

I would think it would depend on the situation.....if the bear was being actively attacked it would likely move to the next target.....but if it wasn't being pressured by other PCs it might finish the PC off.

Banshee

What is the probability that 4 PCs are in the presence of a bear, but only one is attacking it?

It might start with 1 PC being an idiot with the bear, but the moment attacks start flying, the party is probably jumping in.

Once the party has jumped in, everybody is on the bear's list.

At that point, a bear will probably prefer to swipe at anything hurting it, before it hyper-focuses on a downed opponent to see if there's candy inside.

BG's point is, as a DM, don't be a dick. You've already dropped a PC out of the fight. If the bear wins, the PC is dead for sure. If the fight drags out, the PC is going to die.

There is a fair argument that the bear hug special attack thing is really a freebie-follow-up and not really optional because of that (it's automatic).

That's fine. Back the problem up to the bear has 2 claw attacks. The first hit just dropped the PC to -1. Do you really need to use the 2nd attack against this PC? Either choice can be justified as "in character" for the bear.

The difference is in GM psychology. The GM has no need to hit the PC again. He is down and out for the fight OR is going to make another PC waste actions to save him. The fight just got harder for the PCs.

If the GM attacks the PC again to close the deal, he's pretty much ensuring that the PC is dead and that the player has no chance. That is a dickish move.

Don't be a dick.

 

[NewJeffCT]

well, I was the one looking to keep the PC alive. The "dead" player and a few others were the ones arguing that the PC should stay dead because it would not be realistic that the bear didn't continue with its free attack when it did similar a round or two earlier.

 

[billd91]

well, I was the one looking to keep the PC alive. The "dead" player and a few others were the ones arguing that the PC should stay dead because it would not be realistic that the bear didn't continue with its free attack when it did similar a round or two earlier.

Well, if the player is ok with being butched, might as well oblige him.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No! Make him live and suffer!

 

[Banshee16]

What is the probability that 4 PCs are in the presence of a bear, but only one is attacking it?

It might start with 1 PC being an idiot with the bear, but the moment attacks start flying, the party is probably jumping in.

Uh, that's exactly what I was saying.....if the bear was getting attacked by other PCs, it likely wouldn't finish off the first one. If the other PCs were *not* attacking it, then it might very well finish off the PC it dropped.

I don't remember the original post, but I don't think the poster expressed that the other PCs were still beating on the bear that had taken down their friend. Maybe the others were down, or fighting other bears at the time? If they're actively attacking the bear then, no, I doubt it would waste time finishing off an opponent it took down.

Banshee

 

[coyote6]

If the adventure took place in Golarion, it might be worth noting that since the demon goddess Lamashtu killed the good god of beasts and stole his dominion over said beasts, animals have been more suspicious and distrusting of humanoids. This neatly provides a reason why D&D/PF animals tend to be more violent and aggressive than their real world counterparts.

Of course, this bear wasn't quite a real bear anyway, so that might not matter in this case. But in general, Golarion's wild animals are going to be more combative than on Earth.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk