D&D 5E Surprisingly Lethal Side Effect of Multiattack

[AkaKageWarrior]

Neither spreading a monsters attacks, nor hitting a downed PC mak much sense.
Take your time as a DM, make attack after attack, bring down each PC one by one.
Most of the time...

Maybe some not-so-smart, or hungry, or bestial monster might go for the downed opponent.
But then add some nice narration how the fiend is tearing the PC apart!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That mechanic really works against people who think saving healing by letting pcs drop and wake up again and again is a good idea.

 

[Oofta]

I run it based on the creature attacking.

A beast will knock someone down with one hit, and then grab the character and start dragging them off to eat. If you don't allow the grapple check to replace an attack (which is technically not legal) it may either swat at other PCs to warn them off it's claim or simply make sure it's prey is really dead by attacking again.

Nothing like the looks on the faces of the players like when they realize the body of their unconscious ally is being taken away.

An intelligent NPC with a particular grudge against a specific PC will double tap and make sure their nemesis is dead.

It all depends on what's going to be fun for your group.

 

[zicar]

It works both ways. Focus fire is deadly no matter who or what the target is. It's why WOTC recommends that solo baddies be of legendary status which matches my own experiences.
s


s.

 

[Plaguescarred]

My monsters act like PCs. They don't continue to attack dying creatures after they drop, instead focusing on other enemies that still poses a threat. Only very voracious creatures will prefer to keep attacking a dying foe than a live and threatening one. Smarter ones that see downed PCs get healed back up might also focus on then once dying again so they stay down for good but otherwise i don't automatically attack dying creature.


The last times it happened it was with ghouls and also with will-o-wisps and the PCs were panicking every time


Yan
D&D Playtester

 

[cmad1977]

I'd stick to your method until a PC drops, then decide if the 2nd attack targets the same PC or someone else.
Basically roll all at once unless someone drops then make the call based on the situation and creature involved.

Plus it kinda sounds like your PCs barely got out alive. Awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally, I don't like 5E's death rules, but yes OP you are running the situation correctly.

 

[MiraMels]

Why?

D&D what good comes from playing monsters in such a manner? If a monster is mart enough to kill a player, why wouldn't they? What benefit comes to a monster from spreading out his damage?

The game is more fun when there is an actual sense of danger in each combat. And monsters should be played to their intelligence. Any creature with any modicum of intelligence should know that removing a creature from combat is much better than spreading out damage. And any creature with even a little bit of intelligence should know that killing a creature to prevent it from being healed mid combat is probably a better choice than leaving it breathing and able to fight again.

Sure, playing with such tactics makes combat more deadly, but is that really much of a problem. In general 5e combat is rather easy anyway.

Playing the monsters like monsters?

A big, powerful monster like, say, an earth elemental won't distinguish between a armored human with a sword and a human wearing just clothes. It won't notice a few extra sword swipes. If it's coming at the players with hostile intent, its coming at the players as a group. It doesn't want to wear them down one by one like a tactically-minded group of humanoids used to fighting threats that are bigger or more numerous (sometimes both at once!) than themselves. It's a big thing and it wants these little things gone. If the earth elemental wants to just drive them off, maybe hitting them all once will make them go away. It's easier for the puny humans go away if they are all wounded, but all walking. Feel free to have to have the monster switch up tactics and start focusing down a character after they have earned the monster's attention. Baddies get enough hit points compared to the party in 5th that they can afford to play less-than-perfectly in the opening stages of the fight.

On the mechanical side, I think damage is more meaningful when it gets spread out. I'm not playing to win, I'm playing to challenge. You might consider those to be the same thing, but I disagree.

 

[Ancalagon]

Once someone is down, a foe may instinctively turn its next attacks to other PCs still standing, as the one down is not a threat anymore (at least for the moment). It *could* hit the downed PC again, but it's not a must. Switching target is justifiable.

 

[Satyrn]

What happened was that the enemy would make its attacks all at one PC (all declared at once to save time)

Aye, declaring all the attacks at once will lead to this. Of course declaring them individually will too if you decide to just keep attacking a downed PC. So it's kinda just what you want to accomplish: If you don't intend to keep attacking a downed foe, don't declare all the attacks at once for that turn. But keep doing so when you want the foes to kill.

Switching it up based on the enemy could even work as a good bit of telegraphing your players can pick up on to realize that this encounter (all attacks declared at once) is more likely to be lethal than the other, and then they have the choice to change up their tactics to account for it. And if they don't, then they willknow that their informed choice was partly responsible for their own death. That, to my mind, makes it a good death, a fair death, part of the story.

By the way, I never declare all my attacks at once when DMing, and I don't find it to be slow. You should be able to find a way that works fast for you with a little experimentation.