D&D 5E How the game changes when a DM starts to target downed PC's?

[Nebulous]

I have to frequently pull punches on a downed character to not kill a PC. I know what will happen; the cleric will healing word them, and next round they'll be at 50% hit points like nothing happened. The players know full well I'm having some mercy on their character and thank me for it, and as @pogre mentioned, that's a nice perk to save for real butthole villains you want the players to hate. A swarm of damn BEES would have TPKed my party if I didn't have some leniency, and that's a very ignoble way to end a campaign. Bees.

 

[Blue]

A fairly typical way of playing 5e is to never/rarely have enemies target downed and dying PC's. There's a good reason for this style becoming common - something feels unnatural about having enemies engage in what everyone knows is currently a non-threat when other PC's are there trying to kick their butts. However, I'm starting to believe this is an unintended playstyle and is the culprit for many of the issues with 5e. Whack-a-mole, overall deadliness, short rest/long rest imbalance, etc.

I also believe there's a strong way to fictionally justify attacking downed PC's so that you don't have to feel like the 'bad guy' for doing so. Just tell the players the enemies can perceive if you are dead or not, but simply don't know how long you are going to stay down if you are still living and so finishing you off before you have a chance to potentially get back up is typically their best course of action. Now they know they are going to be targeted and can plan accordingly.

So what downstream impacts does shifting to this 'attack downed PCs' playstyle accomplish?

1. The game becomes a bit more deadly. PC's lives actually get to be threatened without TPK level threats.

2. Even after encounters where a few players are lightly injured (lost 10% to 25% of their max hp) they will want to recover hp - because death is a real possibility if they get downed and having max hp really helps mitigate the chance that happens. One of the most likely methods to recover a bit of hp after being injured is a Short Rest and so Short Rests will start to increase as the party as a whole finds them more useful. Because of this, short rest and long rest classes start to feel more balanced.

3. Because no one wants to be downed due to risk of death being high when downed then whack-a-mole is completely eliminated - and midcombat healing before allies drop becomes a thing. Also, when a PC does get downed and you are able to heal them up and keep them from death it feels extraordinary and becomes a memorable moment instead of a normal and expected occurrence.

Thoughts?

I want to start with a noticeable increase in lethality should be evenly distributed. Be it simple fairness - a currently balanced concept with a larger downside than others is no longer balanced, or even just the thought that a character hitting zero often is a party failure.

I'd like to evaluate this with a split between front-line and ranged characters.

Front line characters who go down will likely be in a position that they can be attacked again by one or more foes. Attacks that hit within 5 feet - most of them - are critical hits, which have a greater chance of instant death and also cause two death saves. Two attacks, such as from a single creature with multiattack or two foes that go before the next PC, can kill the character.

Ranged characters who go down will less likely have adjacent attackers. Ranged foes will have no better times shooting/casting at them than at downed front line foes. Ranged attacks against prone targets have disadvantage, negating the advantage granted by being unconscious. Less hits will hit, and without an auto-crit it takes more attacks to kill them.

It seems that the increase in lethality is a lot more focused on front-line characters. A fighter (battlemaster) as an archer will be a lot less likely to die than the same one acting as a front-liner. That fails the criteria that this change be fairly balanced between different concepts.

 

[loverdrive]

A fairly typical way of playing 5e is to never/rarely have enemies target downed and dying PC's. There's a good reason for this style becoming common - something feels unnatural about having enemies engage in what everyone knows is currently a non-threat when other PC's are there trying to kick their butts. However, I'm starting to believe this is an unintended playstyle and is the culprit for many of the issues with 5e. Whack-a-mole, overall deadliness, short rest/long rest imbalance, etc.

I also believe there's a strong way to fictionally justify attacking downed PC's so that you don't have to feel like the 'bad guy' for doing so. Just tell the players the enemies can perceive if you are dead or not, but simply don't know how long you are going to stay down if you are still living and so finishing you off before you have a chance to potentially get back up is typically their best course of action. Now they know they are going to be targeted and can plan accordingly.

So what downstream impacts does shifting to this 'attack downed PCs' playstyle accomplish?

1. The game becomes a bit more deadly. PC's lives actually get to be threatened without TPK level threats.

2. Even after encounters where a few players are lightly injured (lost 10% to 25% of their max hp) they will want to recover hp - because death is a real possibility if they get downed and having max hp really helps mitigate the chance that happens. One of the most likely methods to recover a bit of hp after being injured is a Short Rest and so Short Rests will start to increase as the party as a whole finds them more useful. Because of this, short rest and long rest classes start to feel more balanced.

3. Because no one wants to be downed due to risk of death being high when downed then whack-a-mole is completely eliminated - and midcombat healing before allies drop becomes a thing. Also, when a PC does get downed and you are able to heal them up and keep them from death it feels extraordinary and becomes a memorable moment instead of a normal and expected occurrence.

Thoughts?

I've always thought that intelligent enemies finishing off unconscious PCs was a default assumption.

I'd say, game kinda breaks if it doesn't happen.

 

[OB1]

I've been toying with the idea that dropping to 0 HP makes you Slowed (as per the spell) once you regain HP for 1 hour or until you return to max HP or have Greater Restoration cast on you.

Perhaps being Slowed instead of Unconscious at 0 HP (with no other changes to the rules of being at 0 HP) would be a more elegant solution.

The idea is that your defenses have been depleted, and further blows have a chance of killing you. Because you aren't down on the ground, you are still a threat, so it makes sense to have enemies continue to attack, but it also gives you a chance to get through it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I want to start with a noticeable increase in lethality should be evenly distributed. Be it simple fairness - a currently balanced concept with a larger downside than others is no longer balanced, or even just the thought that a character hitting zero often is a party failure.

I wouldn't call the current system fair either. Melee characters still tend to be the ones taking the brunt of everything and still tend to be the most likely to die or save or sucked out of a fight.

But more to your point, there tends to be a simpler solution for fairness. Enemies can look to engage backline PC's more often than just ganging up on the melee PC's.

I'd like to evaluate this with a split between front-line and ranged characters.

Front line characters who go down will likely be in a position that they can be attacked again by one or more foes. Attacks that hit within 5 feet - most of them - are critical hits, which have a greater chance of instant death and also cause two death saves. Two attacks, such as from a single creature with multiattack or two foes that go before the next PC, can kill the character.

Ranged characters who go down will less likely have adjacent attackers. Ranged foes will have no better times shooting/casting at them than at downed front line foes. Ranged attacks against prone targets have disadvantage, negating the advantage granted by being unconscious. Less hits will hit, and without an auto-crit it takes more attacks to kill them.

It seems that the increase in lethality is a lot more focused on front-line characters. A fighter (battlemaster) as an archer will be a lot less likely to die than the same one acting as a front-liner. That fails the criteria that this change be fairly balanced between different concepts.

All of this depends on enemy tactics and how much they do the focus on melee warriors stuff.

 

[Hussar]

I generally find that while the tanks take the brunt of attacks, as soon as the tank goes down, everyone else is in deep doggy doo.