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

[Frozen_Heart]

Surely it depends on the context? If it's mindless zombies, or a hungry beast which has got a downed character alone, or a bbeg who has the party fleeing and is standing over their downed party member. Then yes it makes sense to finish off a downed character.

If it's a thug who has downed the wizard, but is also in base contact with the party barbarian, then no way in hell are they going to let the angry battleaxe wielding monster get free hits on them while they attack the guy already on the ground.

 

[MarkB]

attacking downed characters is generally a pointless endeavor that accomplishes little or nothing. Depending on class & archetype 6-8 of the 13 classes are capable of healing a downed character for one or more hp of healing. Of those five of them can do it as a bonus action without giving up their action. A monster would need to make 1 attack to drop a PC, a second attack to burn two death saves, & a third attack to execute them all before any PC of those 6-8 classes/archetypes has a turn. To further ensure the choice is a no brainer for those 6-8 classes the characters most likely to be in melee & be downed as a result tend to have the highest damage output of any class.

You're aware that just because there are 6-8 such classes available, there won't necessarily be 6-8 such characters in any given party, right?

And depending upon initiative order, it's not unusual for a character to be downed by one foe, take their turn and fail a death save, and then for another foe to have a turn before anyone's had time to do any healing. At that point, a melee attacker can step up and finish the downed character with one stab.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You're aware that just because there are 6-8 such classes available, there won't necessarily be 6-8 such characters in any given party, right?

And depending upon initiative order, it's not unusual for a character to be downed by one foe, take their turn and fail a death save, and then for another foe to have a turn before anyone's had time to do any healing. At that point, a melee attacker can step up and finish the downed character with one stab.

This.
Or an AOE could catch the downed party member

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Yes, it's plenty deadly...at least up until level 7. Nobody has ever gotten a PC past level 7 in my game (and that was only 1 PC; then a 6th, a pair(?) of 5th, a few 4th, etc). So yeah, deadly enough!

As for finishing off a downed PC... if the narrative and creature calls for it. I am the DM...I don't have much "say" in it; if a PC is fighting a starving owlbear and the PC goes down...yeah, it's going to keep attacking (re: "start eating") the downed PC. If the goblins have seen a downed PC suddenly pop up a few seconds later...they're gonna start trying to make sure the PC stays down. If the PC's mortal enemy is standing over him, triumphant...he might wait a round to savour the moment, but then... coup de gras. A group of bandits take out the PC(s)...probably tie them up to sell or ransom. A giant might also stuff an unconscious PC into his bag so he can have a snack later. You get the picture.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[tetrasodium]

You're aware that just because there are 6-8 such classes available, there won't necessarily be 6-8 such characters in any given party, right?

And depending upon initiative order, it's not unusual for a character to be downed by one foe, take their turn and fail a death save, and then for another foe to have a turn before anyone's had time to do any healing. At that point, a melee attacker can step up and finish the downed character with one stab.

A party that goes out of their way to avoid having any healing is hardly the standard that d&d should be designed around. Also don't forget that a player need not be primarily or exclusively one of those 6-8 classes & archetypes because a single level in quite a few is enough. Your own example doesn't math out. Here is a breakdown of that....

1. Bob: takes his turn, Lets say this is initiative 10
2. MonsterA: hits bob to knock him down. Lets ay this is initiative 11
3. MonsterB: is "another foe".... MonsterB ignores the downed bob... Lets call this initiative 12
4. Alice on inititive 13 chooses not to heal bob with a spell
5. Chuck on initiative 14 chooses not to heal bob with a potion or even 1 charge from a 10gp healing kit (phb197 death saving throws)
6. Bob fails a death save on initiative 10 for 1 failed death save
7. MonsterA attacks bob for two more failed death saves & death

Alternately & more likely though

1. Bob: takes his turn, Lets say this is initiative 10
2. MonsterA: hits bob to knock him down. Lets ay this is initiative 11
3. MonsterB: is "another foe".... MonsterB smacks or ignores the downed bob for zero or two failed aves... Lets call this initiative 12
4. Alice on initiative 13 Notes that bob is down and surrounded by monsterA as well as MonsterB so chooses to heal bob with a spell or mention the blindingly obvious observation to chuck so he can fix it while she does something that seems more important
5. Chuck on initiative 14 chooses to heal bob with a potion or even 1 charge from a 10gp healing kit (phb197 death saving throws) rather than letting him die if alice did not heal him previously
6. Bob stands up with at least 1hp to attack one of the monsters above or is stable with 0hp & not concerned about the newly reset death saving throws
7. MonsterA attacks bob to drop him or contribute towards dealing damage equal to all of his hit points once again before Alice or Chuck can heal/stabilize him again

 

[MarkB]

A party that goes out of their way to avoid having any healing is hardly the standard that d&d should be designed around. Also don't forget that a player need not be primarily or exclusively one of those 6-8 classes & archetypes because a single level in quite a few is enough. Your own example doesn't math out. Here is a breakdown of that....

1. Bob: takes his turn, Lets say this is initiative 10
2. MonsterA: hits bob to knock him down. Lets ay this is initiative 11
3. MonsterB: is "another foe".... MonsterB ignores the downed bob... Lets call this initiative 12
4. Alice on inititive 13 chooses not to heal bob with a spell
5. Chuck on initiative 14 chooses not to heal bob with a potion or even 1 charge from a 10gp healing kit (phb197 death saving throws)
6. Bob fails a death save on initiative 10 for 1 failed death save
7. MonsterA attacks bob for two more failed death saves & death

Alternately & more likely though

1. Bob: takes his turn, Lets say this is initiative 10
2. MonsterA: hits bob to knock him down. Lets ay this is initiative 11
3. MonsterB: is "another foe".... MonsterB smacks or ignores the downed bob for zero or two failed aves... Lets call this initiative 12
4. Alice on initiative 13 Notes that bob is down and surrounded by monsterA as well as MonsterB so chooses to heal bob with a spell or mention the blindingly obvious observation to chuck so he can fix it while she does something that seems more important
5. Chuck on initiative 14 chooses to heal bob with a potion or even 1 charge from a 10gp healing kit (phb197 death saving throws) rather than letting him die if alice did not heal him previously
6. Bob stands up with at least 1hp to attack one of the monsters above or is stable with 0hp & not concerned about the newly reset death saving throws
7. MonsterA attacks bob to drop him or contribute towards dealing damage equal to all of his hit points once again before Alice or Chuck can heal/stabilize him again

So basically, after I said "depending upon initiative order", you responded with an example in which the initiative order was exactly the opposite of what I'd suggested.

How about this:

1. Monster A takes its turn and downs Bob.
2. Bob's initiative, he rolls a death save and fails.
3. Monster B stabs Bob. Bob dies.
4. Alice notices that Bob is dead, decides to mourn / loot his corpse later, holds onto her healing spell and gets on with hacking up Monster A.

 

[cmad1977]

Yes and sometimes.

 

[MichaelSomething]

attacking downed characters is generally a pointless endeavor that accomplishes little or nothing. Depending on class & archetype 6-8 of the 13 classes are capable of healing a downed character for one or more hp of healing. Of those five of them can do it as a bonus action without giving up their action. A monster would need to make 1 attack to drop a PC, a second attack to burn two death saves, & a third attack to execute them all before any PC of those 6-8 classes/archetypes has a turn. To further ensure the choice is a no brainer for those 6-8 classes the characters most likely to be in melee & be downed as a result tend to have the highest damage output of any class.

That's not an issue if the DM optimizates the monsters. Given a difficult enough encounter, you would have enough in the exp budget to have a couple of CR 1 monsters just hang around. Have them set their action to "charge a PC when they go down" (or whatever 5E has for delay/triggered actions) and they won't be getting back up. This isn't an every fight type of thing I admit; but suprise tactics are the best kind...

 

[tetrasodium]

That's not an issue if the DM optimizates the monsters. Given a difficult enough encounter, you would have enough in the exp budget to have a couple of CR 1 monsters just hang around. Have them set their action to "charge a PC when they go down" (or whatever 5E has for delay/triggered actions) and they won't be getting back up. This isn't an every fight type of thing I admit; but suprise tactics are the best kind...

If you need to "have a couple of CR 1 monsters just hang around(doing nothing?!). Have them set their action to "charge a PC when they go down" (or whatever 5E has for delay/triggered actions)" in order to literally execute a PC should they go down it highlights the design problem.

 

[Imaro]

If you need to "have a couple of CR 1 monsters just hang around(doing nothing?!). Have them set their action to "charge a PC when they go down" (or whatever 5E has for delay/triggered actions)" in order to literally execute a PC should they go down it highlights the design problem.

Wouldn't these be the same as those others hanging around just waiting to attack, shoot arrows at, fireball anyone who downs a foe so they can't actually kill the downed foe?