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

[Imaro]

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.

But in a world with quick healing and magic... wouldn't tactics change? Anyway, not trying to argue against how you run your game just thinking if combat isn't deadly enough but there are tools to make it so... why not use them?

 

[el-remmen]

I voted it is plenty deadly and I do finish off downed PCs - but really that should read (at least for me), "I finish off downed PCs when it makes sense in the narrative/enemy goals for that to happen."

Not too long ago, a group of assassins sent to kill the party realized the fight had turned against them, so one of them picked up the stabilized but unconscious gnome bard and held a dagger to his throat and used him as a shield to try to get away and when the barbarian did not back off (shocker!) the gnome took the hit. He did survive but the odds were against him.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

But in a world with quick healing and magic... wouldn't tactics change? Anyway, not trying to argue against how you run your game just thinking if combat isn't deadly enough but there are tools to make it so... why not use them?

I did solve it - because I stopped playing 5e and now play PF2e where I don't have that problem.

 

[Imaro]

I did solve it - because I stopped playing 5e and now play PF2e where I don't have that problem.

Cool.

 

[el-remmen]

I wanted to add that game play style and attitude has a lot to do with this perception as well.

The player of the gnome character mentioned above, for example, said the following about the situation despite loving his character, "If he dies, he dies. It'll be sad, but I don't want him to not die just because I like playing him, that'd sour it."

 

[TwoSix]

I don't want it to be more deadly. "I want the game to be more deadly" usually is shorthand for "I want the characters to play slow and cautiously, and/or want them to build characters that aren't so offensively focused." Which leads to slow games with drawn-out combat, which is not my thing.

I do go after down characters whenever it's narratively relevant, especially if the characters have access to revivify. Smart enemies will target downed PCs once they see healing word being used to bring up unconscious PCs.

 

[Umbran]

So this just came up in another thread but I've seen the sentiment that 5e combat is too easy

First off, the problem here is not fully stated. For example, take the statements...

"This cake is too big... I live alone and cannot eat it all before it goes stale, " and, "This cake is too small... it will not feed 100 people at my wedding reception." These two things can both be true, but talking about the same physical cake!

So, the statement that combat is "too easy" is not useful until we know what you are using combat for.

"5e combat is too easy... to scratch my wargaming itch," and "5e combat is too easy... to give my table of players a sense of urgency and stakes in the story," are two very different statements.

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.

I think 5e combat is fine, for the purposes I commonly use it. I spend action economy to "finish off" characters only if it makes sense in the context of the fiction and the enemy in question. It usually doesn't make a whole lot of tactical sense, to be honest.

 

[embee]

I think 5e can be deadly if you run the monsters right.

If it's a wild animal (i.e. owlbear), a hit by another PC will divert its attention. Otherwise, it may get in another hit on the downed PC.

If it's a battle with sapient monsters, they probably won't go after downed PCs because there's a battle going on and downing PCs who are still up and fighting is more important that killing already-downed PCs.

If it's a BBEG, s/he very well may kill a downed PC. Especially to further the "story". In my last session, a dragon, given a choice between downing 2 more PCs with a Wing Attack (which would result in 3 downed PCs), instead go for a killing blow with a Tail Attack. I did it to show just how cruel the dragon was. The dragon was running low on HP and was going to want to cut and run in the next round. So, leaving the party down but, frankly, unscathed probably would not have had a big impact. Now, there's going to be a session where the party deals with a dead-for-real PC.

If you have a problem with PCs not going down, adjust things. Use negative HP so that a downed PC doesn't get to 1 HP from just any healing. Scale up your encounters. Play your monsters a bit more ruthlessly. Add encounters or interrupt rests so that the party isn't rolling around with full resources in every encounter.

 

[aco175]

I agree with @Filthy Lucre and @TwoSix that I tend to have combat be about dealing with who is standing in front of you and not taking more time to deal with someone you just took out of the fight- even if just for a round or two. I also do not want to game to slow down by making combat take longer and 'protecting' the PCs. It is like placing traps everywhere and wonder why every door and chest takes 15 minutes to get past.

I would have a BBEG take an extra round to kill a PC in a more dramatic fitting. Maybe the Pcs have been a thorn in the side of the BBEG and we are onto the big fight and the villain knows most of the PCs powers and such. An ordinary bear may drag the PC away before finishing him off and allow the other PCs a chance to get him before dying. Undead are more mindless and tend to fight those standing.

It also goes to the fun of the game and allowing the PCs to be heroes. The player with the PC who gets knocked down is now sitting out while the others are engaged. Similar to 4e when you were held or stunned and could do nothing but make a new save. This was still better than older editions where you were just out of the whole fight. Went to a convention once back in 2e days and one PC was held at the start of the big fight. The player was now out of the last 45 minutes of the game but the DM let him make a heroic save/hand wave after a couple rounds to get back into playing. I thought that was cool and the main reason people play.

I also wonder how much killing monsters and removing them from the grid affects the PCs from killing off monsters and visa versa. A player goes down and the mini just gets turned on its side and a black circle gets put on top of it to hint at the other players. Monsters go down and get removed, just assuming that they are outright dead or will bleed out. Only a few times have I had a bad guy cast a mass heal and have removed minis come back. The players do not seem to mind that though.

 

[D1Tremere]

I always find these questions, and many of the resulting comments, a bit confusing. Do I think combat in 5E is deadly enough? Yes, because I decide how deadly or tense I want combat to be based on the scene. If it is proving too much or not enough for player enjoyment I just add or subtract (enemies, HP, special attacks, etc.). This is the same with any rules set, it is up to the GM to use their tools as needed. The rules themselves cannot be "deadly enough," because that will depend on subjective player needs and story elements. Do I finish off downed characters? Pretty much the same as the last question. If it makes sense for the scene, would impact player enjoyment in a positive way (some players want their characters to die nobly in combat), and it makes sense for the attacker. A tactical villain may overlook a downed opponent to engage more dangerous threats, while a sadistic villain or a rampaging beast may focus on the defenseless.