Should bad guys stabalize?

[Duncan Haldane]

Just wondering the opinions of players and especially DMs on this topic.

When I DM and an NPC goes negative I try to keep some rough count in my head of whether they are still alive when the combat ends. I like my PCs to have to make active choices to heal them, coup de grace or just let them bleed out.

Sometimes, for important NPCs I will even roll Stabalization checks.

I know other DMs often just let them die. I know of one particular DM who rules that if they don't have a name they die on -1. This is especially applicable in RPGA games, as important NPCs are named, unimportant ones usually aren't.

So, what do you do in your games?

 

[Crothian]

I allow everyone to have a chance to stabalize. Doesn't matter if its an evil NPC, some nameless commoner, or the Big Bad.

 

[Piratecat]

I only stabilize folks who aren't cannon fodder.

 

[thundershot]

What Piratecat said.



Chris

 

[milotha]

Let the bad guys stabilize too. That allows the players to determine their fate. If they want to revive them for whatever reason (information, ethical reasons, or having a captive) they can.

 

[Painfully]

In most cases, the non-bosses just aren't worth the trouble of stabalizing IMO. Keeping them alive just that extra bit longer will not promote the "fun factor" in the session. What it will do is allow the fight to drag on a few more rounds while the party goes around slitting throats, or chasing down the stragglers. If I want either of those things to happen, I will simply make it happen without having to roll for it.

Bosses, of course, are another thing entirely. It will be clear from the beginning of any fight whether the intention of the party is to kill the boss, or subdue him, and any failure by the party to sustain those intentions should meet with appropriate consequences.

I don't use any hard and fast rules about it, but that is generally how it works for me, and for most DMs I know. 99% of the time, I find I don't even need to concern myself about it.

 

[the Jester]

Everyone has a chance to stabilize, but I usually don't bother to roll unless it's especially interesting. Occasionally I'll decide that a bad guy left for dead stabilizes, especially if the pcs don't actually search- if they're immediately forced out of the area, etc.

In general, if you don't let the bad guys stabilize, how the heck will your pcs ever grow an arch-nemesis??

 

[S'mon]

When a baddy goes down I'll typically roll all the d10s for him immediately to see if he stabilises before death, if he gets any 1s he stabilises. Keeping track of bleeding orcs is a pain. If I've not bothered to do this and I think a downed NPC wasn't killed immediately I might give them a 3-in-6 chance of stabilisation, maybe less.
Normally BTW I gloss over the throat-cutting of fallen foes at the end of melee, like going to the toilet it's necessary but kinda gross & can be skated over for game purposes.

 

[Grazzt]

I only stabilize folks who aren't cannon fodder.

Yeppers- that's the way I play it.

 

[Henry]

Same here - I only stabilize victims if I feel like it. That's yet another stat to keep up with, and it also adds a grey area in a place I don't want to add one. Personally, I don't want the good characters in my group to have to worry all the darned time about felled victims, whether they should try to heal those they've downed in hostile territory, who were already trying to kill them, or worse, and generally making D&D go from "heroic" to a 90-minute after-school special.

Occasionally, I may have a victim return from the dead, assuming the PC's haven't been thorough in slitting throats after battle or whatnot, but it's a rare occurance, because you just don't see dozens of redshirts living through battles in many fantasy movies and novels.