D&D 5E Unconscious PC's and smart monsters

[Ruin Explorer]

Healing word has only a verbal component and only requires a bonus action. Negotiations require speech (typically). It's not unreasonable that the spell could be cast before the bandit (who likely has no grounding in magical theory) even comprehends that the cleric isn't just using an unfamiliar word.

It's metagame-y as heck, but the PCs actually WANT the NPC to blow his reaction BEFORE Healing Word is finished, so it would be best for the Cleric to be super-obvious and wave his Holy Symbol around and so on. It's better for the PC to be on two failed death saves for a fraction of a second, then on a few HP, than on zero failed but also 0 HP.

Only exception is if the PC is down 1 death save failed already.

 

[Maxperson]

The two of you are not exactly wrong but not exactly right. What exactly can and can't be a trigger is up to the DM.

Sure, but RAW is that it's simply a perceivable circumstance, not an action. If I want to, I can by RAW say that I will stab the guy if the enemy so much as looks at me funny. Looking at me funny being the perceivable circumstance.

If you've changed the rule such that you have to respond to an action, that's fine, but it has no bearing on what is being discussed here beyond a simple, "Hey, this is what I do."

Healing word has only a verbal component and only requires a bonus action. Negotiations require speech (typically). It's not unreasonable that the spell could be cast before the bandit (who likely has no grounding in magical theory) even comprehends that the cleric isn't just using an unfamiliar word.

If the DM wants to make that ruling and override RAW, sure.

By your reasoning a legal trigger would be "when anything starts happening", but IMO that invalidates the intent of being required to declare a trigger.

That lacks specificity, so it would be an invalid trigger. It has to be a specifically perceivable circumstance.

Let's look at another example. You've got a standoff with three guys with crossbows aimed at each other. One of them readies an action to shoot anyone who starts pulling their trigger. Seems kind of silly for them to be able to pull off their readied action before the other guy's shot goes off, because they are reacting. Unless their reflexes are superhuman, the other guy will finish pulling the trigger first. IMO, at any rate.

That's when rulings over rules comes into play and the DM says that in this particular circumstance, that trigger won't work.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That lacks specificity, so it would be an invalid trigger. It has to be a specifically perceivable circumstance.

There's nothing in the PHB that requires specificity. Something happening is a perceivable circumstance (as opposed to nothing happening). It's not so different from "if anyone in the party moves".

I think it is perfectly in keeping with RAW that you can't include "starts" in your trigger. Casts a spell is legal under that ruling but starts to cast a spell is not. You can perceive someone casting a spell. You can't perceive them start to cast a spell because you're really just perceiving them casting a spell. IMO of course.

 

[Maxperson]

There's nothing in the PHB that requires specificity. Something happening is a perceivable circumstance (as opposed to nothing happening). It's not so different from "if anyone in the party moves".

It's right here...

"Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act."

It has to be particular, which means specific.

 

[Helldritch]

It's right here...

"Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act."

It has to be particular, which means specific.

From the Dictionary:
Circumstance
1. a fact or condition connected with or relevant to an event or action.

In game terms this means that circumstance refers either to an event or to an action. We all know that characters can take four kinds of actions only: "Move, Bonus, Action and Reaction". So the trigger will have to be one of these. The "start" of spell is really the casting of a spell from a bonus action, an action or even a reaction. However you want to call it, the readied action will take place after the spell which is the trigger.

But what about the "event"?
Well the event isn't made by a characters, monsters or NPCs. An event is something that happens outside the control of PC and NPCs alike. It can be as silly as: "I wait for the door to start closing to put my foot in so that it won't close." to "I wait for the geyser to stop pouring out water before jumping." Or even "I wait for a cloud to hide the moon before sneaking out of my hiding place".

So if you respond to something from a character, monster or npc, you then react to one of the four types of actions that the rules allow. Thus you will act after the triggering action. In our case, the bandit will then strike the PC after the PC has been healed.

If you respond to an event, something not done/caused by a PC, NPC or monster then your reaction will be after the event.

So in any case, by RAW and RAI, you will take your reaction after the triggering circumstance, from whatever or whomever it comes from.

 

[Maxperson]

From the Dictionary:
Circumstance
1. a fact or condition connected with or relevant to an event or action.

Correct. EVENT or action. Not action. It can be an event like, "If he looks at me funny."

In game terms this means that circumstance refers either to an event or to an action. We all know that characters can take four kinds of actions only: "Move, Bonus, Action and Reaction". So the trigger will have to be one of these. The "start" of spell is really the casting of a spell from a bonus action, an action or even a reaction. However you want to call it, the readied action will take place after the spell which is the trigger.

The ready action section goes out of its way NOT to say that it has to be an action that you are responding to.

But what about the "event"?
Well the event isn't made by a characters, monsters or NPCs. An event is something that happens outside the control of PC and NPCs alike. It can be as silly as: "I wait for the door to start closing to put my foot in so that it won't close." to "I wait for the geyser to stop pouring out water before jumping." Or even "I wait for a cloud to hide the moon before sneaking out of my hiding place".

Or, "He looks at me funny." or "He says boo." or "He takes his 18th breath." or "He looks behind him." or... An event can and often does still have to do with creatures.

So if you respond to something from a character, monster or npc, you then react to one of the four types of actions that the rules allow. Thus you will act after the triggering action. In our case, the bandit will then strike the PC after the PC has been healed.

This is wrong. It does not take an action by a creature as I have shown.

If you respond to an event, something not done/cause by a PC, NPC or monster then your reaction will be after the event. There are thousands of events that deal with creatures that are viable under RAW.

 

[Helldritch]

If you see it that way, I concede the point. The "Look at me funny" isn't action per see and I agree with you.

Then I would impose an insight check to make sure you perceived the "weirdness" of the look. And just about the same thing with the others. Did he took his 17th or 18th breath? Did I counted correctly? Did I missed one? Roll a perception check 'cause you're in doubt.

Or even: "Dang! Can't take my reaction, he did not say Boo. He said Pikaboo... Holy, crap I wasted my reaction for nothing..."
Jokes aside you see where I am getting at. There a lot of things that can fall under "event", again I agree with you on that.

But for anything remotely related to an action a creature can take such as the casting of a spell. I would rule per RAW that is: "the reaction will take place after the action (or spell in our case)."

 

[Maxperson]

If you see it that way, I concede the point. The "Look at me funny" isn't action per see and I agree with you.

Then I would impose an insight check to make sure you perceived the "weirdness" of the look. And just about the same thing with the others. Did he took his 17th or 18th breath? Did I counted correctly? Did I missed one? Roll a perception check 'cause you're in doubt.

That's reasonable. It does have to be a perceivable circumstance and one that can be missed.....can be missed.

But for anything remotely related to an action a creature can take such as the casting of a spell. I would rule per RAW that is: "the reaction will take place after the action (or spell in our case)."

I agree. If you say you are going to attack the orc if he attacks, then the attack happens first. The trigger completes before the readied action commences.

 

[Helldritch]

As for the OP.
It really depends on how the PCs are acting with their enemies.
Are they whirlwinds of death incarnate that slay everything without remorse or do they show mercy to those who surrender? Systematic slayers will soon have the reputation of not being responsive to parlays and the intelligent NPCs will react accordingly. The higher the characters' level, the more they are known throughout their area of adventuring. The more their habits are known to important and not so important potential enemies.

If the players use the whack a mole type of actions, it won't work for long with intelligent enemies. It might work out a few times in the early levels but around level 9 this tactic is known to their enemies and they will take action to make sure the fallen PC won't get up.

It will go as far as any easy fight type will flee at the mere sight of the PCs if the PCs are known to their enemies. Of course changing adventuring location will change this a bit at first. Are these the: "Hands of Lothars" adventuring group members or not? At some point the "Hands of Lothars" group's identity will be confirmed and the PCs' enemies will react accordingly.

On the other hand, if players are known to show mercy, they are likely to get captured and released for a ransom. The same if they capture an enemy or enemies. A ransom will be paid by the bosses of the captured ones if they are of some value. At the very least, the families of the captured ones will pay a bit for the return of their relatives. This was often an acceptable alternative to death in medieval times. I usually go for 5 gold pieces per HD/Level in addition to the possessions the captured one had on himself. This might not look that much but gold is pretty rare in my campaign. Half casters are worth 10 gold per HD/Level and full casters are worth about 15 gold per HD/Level.

For what it's worth, it works quite well in my campaign. It once led to an NPC being captured three times by the PCs. The fourth time they said: "Not you again?????? Begone, you'll ruin your family." To which the NPC said with a sad look on his face: "They're ruined already. What do you think I'm here for? I'm trying to repay my ransoms..." They let him go. About two adventures later, that same NPC was their cell keeper. They convinced him to release him in exchange for a nice payment to his family. They had let him live four times after all.

 

[Shiroiken]

If a baddy does not deal with a downed pc, that pc will get back up again. So from a strategic and mechanical point of view, it is more advantageous to kill a downed pc.

No, the more strategic point would be to kill the healer. A downed PC can usually be knocked back down in a single hit, but taking out the healer removes that ability completely. If you want to check this logic, try including a opponent healer in a combat, and don't automatically have enemies die at 0 HP (treat them like PCs). I'll bet your PCs will focus on killing that healer immediately after they bring someone back up.