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

[FrogReaver]

Dead

And that's a perfectly fine point to make. But it seems entirely unrelated to what I was talking about.

seems very related to me.

 

[Imaro]

- 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.

In a world with D&D healing... why doesn't this make sense? Does it make sense to leave an enemy to your back that could potentially pop back up and strike you down when it would take less than 6 seconds to guarantee he doesn't?

 

[Imaro]

The ability to think abstractly or engage in thought experiments is a hallmark of intelligence.

Yes so is not making general statements based on very specific circumstances that were already addressed.

It doesn't have to be a fire fight. I mean ANY combat: 5v5 gladiatorial arena. Urban street combat in WW2. Two lone Jedi vs. an army of robots. All of these, for my purposes, are the same because they all have the same element of: We are in danger and if we have to choose between who MIGHT be a live vs who IS alive, it's a no brainer.

In a 5v5 if the other 4 gladiators are fighting my comrades and not attacking me... why would I not finish off an enemy that can potentially pop back up if healed?

In 2 Jedi vs an army of robots... Let's be real they aren't in any danger of being hit, they are for all intents and purposes safe due to the force. Thus you see them in all the movies deflecting laser beams and continuously doing cool finishing moves on robots (which when you think about it probably serve no purpose but to show off)

"I bashed this orc and he fell over and there is another orc actively charging me... I better make sure that this one who is unconscious and bleeding to death is actually dead before I address the hulking marauder about to tackle me in a split second". Real big brain naughty word.

Why aren't one of your comrades dealing with that orc while you finish the other? You are ignoring the constraints I placed and only addressing situations where someone is immediately being attacked after downing an enemy and then using that situation (which I addressed originally) to declare situation invalid... Do you only run D&D with a lone character who faces numerous enemies/attacks?

 

[Deset Gled]

In a world with D&D healing... why doesn't this make sense? Does it make sense to leave an enemy to your back that could potentially pop back up and strike you down when it would take less than 6 seconds to guarantee he doesn't?

Because that 6 seconds is also the amount of time you need to strike down that other guy who is actively attacking you with swords or fireballs. You absolutely should do the double tap, but you do it after you remove the immediate threat, not before.

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).

Also, your "world with D&D healing" only applies to the PCs. NPCs and monsters die when they hit the ground. Does the NPC know who's an NPC and who's a PC, so that he knows who needs a double tap and who's down for good?

 

[darjr]

Yes, sort of. And no.

 

[Imaro]

Because that 6 seconds is also the amount of time you need to strike down that other guy who is actively attacking you with swords or fireballs. You absolutely should do the double tap, but you do it after you remove the immediate threat, not before.

Why is your comrade not attacking him? Why is he free to hurl fireballs and arrows at you? Can you reach him and attack... if not you should permanently remove a threat vs. possibly stopping another.

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)

This is so situation dependent that I'm not going to get in to it here... but there are plenty situations where it makes more sense to permanently eliminate a threat as opposed to moving on to another.

Also, your "world with D&D healing" only applies to the PCs. NPCs and monsters die when they hit the ground. Does the NPC know who's an NPC and who's a PC, so that he knows who needs a double tap and who's down for good?

This is not true... it's actually up to the DM whether this is true or not. For expediency sake most DM's run it that way but there is no rule that states it has to be that way. On another note... again better to be safe than sorry as I stated earlier. You dont know who has that type of healing and who doesn't so yes it makes sense to take precautions against it in a life or death struggle.

 

[Charlaquin]

5e combat is plenty deadly at early levels. It gets less deadly as the PCs gain levels, but that’s probably appropriate. Whether or not I have monsters finish off unconscious PCs depends on the monster and their goals. So, yes, I do finish off downed characters… sometimes. But sometimes I don’t.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Particular monsters (gnolls, for example) have abilities that seem tailored for finishing downed individuals, and for them it makes sense. For most foes, though they have living opponents to face.

 

[Deset Gled]

Why is your comrade not attacking him? Why is he free to hurl fireballs and arrows at you? Can you reach him and attack... if not you should permanently remove a threat vs. possibly stopping another.

Why are we fighting at all? What does it mean to be free? Can't we reach and and touch someone's heart instead?

This is so situation dependent that I'm not going to get in to it here... but there are plenty situations where it makes more sense to permanently eliminate a threat as opposed to moving on to another.

How do you know the threat isn't permanently eliminated when they dropped the first time? Did they make a perception check? An intelligence check? Do they have a high enough wisdom to know this is the right situation where this tactic is valid?

Look, if we're going to go full sophist here, might as well go full sophist.

 

[Voadam]

Do your PCs spend actions attacking a downed opponent when there are others still in the fight? It is not something I have seen.

As a PC I have kicked an opponent I was particularly angry at when he was dead, but only after the fight.