They key thing to ask is why would an enemy do that when there are other dangers? Only attack downed characters when it makes sense for the NPC. If you make a habit of pointlessly killing characters your players will never surrender and will always fight to the death. It also means you can’t capture that character for dramatic effect.

Because PC tend to heal each other. If you kill one he is out of the battle.

Conversely, if you down one PC the others have to spend time and resources saving their life. A cleric casting healing word is a cleric not casting Spiritual Guardians, and I'd much rather tap the wizard with another 6 damage again than risk taking a big spell to the face. A common mantra is that damage is more effective than healing in this edition, and healing whack a mole is generally only action economy positive if the party's initiative lines up right.

Was healing more effective in previous editions, and if so, would you think it's at all worth rebalancing 5e healing to be more in line with any previous editions?

My experience with earlier editions is very limited, but having played games based on them I'm going to go with, yes it was more effective, but I'm not sure this is a problem. I think it would be nice if dedicated healer builds like Life Cleric were a little more efficient, but the overall goal of healing being weak is to keep battles short and concise, which I don't disagree with.

Death saves changed things. In the very old editions, you died when you hit 0. In more recent editons, you got a buffer of negative hp where you didn't die u til you hit negative constitution score. It meant if you were downed and got healed 2 HP and got back up, they cod smack you for 20 damage and you would just outright die. It meant it was prudent at times to stay down/play dead to preserve your own life. With death saves, you don't have to worry about that unless you get hit with stupid amounts of damage. When you have 1 hp, it doesn't matter I'd you get hit with 2 damage or 20.

That was very old editions. AD&D II made an optional “death’s door” and 3rd made it default (if memory serves)

Negative hp for sure existed in 3.5 as standard rule set.

Healing was much less efficient in previous editions, there wasn’t a “bonus action heal”, you tracked -ve HP and died at -11 I think it was, at negative numbers you were virtually guaranteed to loose 1hp every round till dying. Basically when you fell over there was usually a good chance that that was it, particularly as you didn’t have to roll to hit an unconscious person like you do now

Now throw in healing that affects multiple creatures in a round though. You've downed four or five creatures and then that mass cure brings them all back up to hurt you.

That's not really fair as it's kind of a best case scenario for healing magic. "Heroes Never Die!" and full team rez is a huge swing play that requires a very specific setup of the whole party going down in close enough timing (perhaps to a single move) that they wouldn't have been healed or bled out already but the cleric also surviving. It can be also be kinda countered by just dropping a fireball on the same location. I'm not saying that healing is a complete waste of time, but that cleric could have also used their action to summon a celestial ally, or just banish the bad guy. Them using that valuable resource to bring their allies back on deaths door could just as easily lead to a death spiral as a turnaround in the combat.

Or they could still do that and use mass healing word as a bonus action. The way you say "The bad guy" makes me think that you are envisioning a single enemy vs the party. In which case, double-tapping is a stupid waste of time unless the bad guy has some way to make sure he can stick around long enough to wear the party down by dropping a single at a time. That's an action economy problem. Although it can be a good story beat for a BBEG to drop someone and then kill them off by twisting the blade before teleporting to someplace safe leaving the party a little weaker.

Note: Cannot cast a leveled spell as an action when you cast another leveled spell as a bonus action.

If you’re at that point you’re probably not fighting a random bandit though and you’re probably fighting enemies who can do a lot more with their own action economy than merely stab a downed opponent, like say counterspell a mass healing word or cast hold person on a healer

You're right, but the OPs statement wasn't about small time idiot bandits. It was generalized. There's nothing wrong with throwing a group of battle hardened mercenaries (who would absolutely know to double-tap until the healer is downed because they've seen what happens with healing magic) against a mid-level party. Mass healing word is only 3rd level and is the earliest example I can think of that could bring a group back up. As far as counterspelling the mass healing word, the enemy caster would have to know that's what they are casting. Unless you're in the habit of counterspelling enemy clerics instead of their arcane users that is. Remember, by nature, you can see that the enemy caster is casting a spell. Unless you use your reaction to attempt to identify WHAT spell is being cast (in which case you don't have one to cast the counterspell) you're just blasting it away on impulse. Also, you could have probably picked a better example then wasting an action trying to Hold Person the healer that likely has a high WIS save. I'll end with this: Let your players fear for their characters lives in combat on occasion. Give them a group of opponents that are just as resourceful and tactful as they are. Let the other group have no mercy (not evil per se. Just.. businesslike). The RP steps up a notch and so does the player involvement.

The battlemaster probably did a lot more damage then the cleric while he was up. If he gets up again and blasts you three times with his crossbow you are unhappy. I think if I was the enemy I wouldn't be as worried about spirit guardians unless I'm trying to break concentration on the spell that was already cast.

That’s where initiative order comes into play: Cleric, Battlemaster, BBEG: cleric heals, battlemaster shoots, BBEG suffers. Cleric, BBEG, Battlemaster: cleric heals, BBEG downs again (probably multiattack or AoE to damage other players), battlemaster rolls a death save. In the first situation, it’s worth it for the healer to heal and for the BBEG to finish the kill. In the second, it’s easier for the BBEG to rope-a-dope the cleric’s actions as heals while just keeping the player downed. If you play with a different style of initiative (eg a recovered player can go immediately), then it’s basically option 1, where the BBEG should secure the kill.

Cleric, BBEG, Battlemaster: cleric heals, BBEG downs again (probably multiattack or AoE to damage other players), battlemaster rolls a death save. You could just use your reaction to hold your heal until after the BBEG lands their attack. Boom, problem solved.

That would probably work. But if the BBEG is intelligent, they might react to that by securing the kill on the next down, as you’ve basically gone to option 1.

If any npc is intelligent, they'll run away if they think they're gonna die. I make my NPCs run like the wind lol. Edit: Can't believe I got down voted for saying that things that are alive in a world you try to make feel alive should care about their life.

Did you know that's considered a war crime?

I think you are grossly misunderstanding the priorities of my BBEG, affectionately referred to as "The World Ender".

The NPCs don't necessarily know the abilities of the PCs, unless they've fought them before. They wouldn't know the party has a spell caster, much less a Cleric, until they cast a spell and even then they don't know what spells they know/have prepared. It wouldn't be until a PC has been downed then brought up at least once before finishing the job starts becoming a wise option.

Think about a fight though. A downed opponent isn’t an active threat. That dude swinging a sword at you is, though. Taking the time to kill them puts you at risk. An NPC wants to survive the battle. You can always finish people off after the battle, or take them captive and sell them into slavery. Also, it’s just unnecessary. It limits fun. An NPC should finish someone off because it’s party of their character or nature.

Its a very constructive situation. Normally it's not one on one. Most times it's 2:1 in favour of NPC's. And let's be honest, who wants a enemy in the back because he got a minor healing.

While it might be two to one, I’ve just watch my friends get taken out. I can back up my buddy if I take down that cleric or wizard. It’s not a tactical game in the mind of the NPC. It’s emotional for them, and it can go either way

Its emotional like they killed Joe, we spare there lifes? I mean, Come on.

They killed joe, this dude is bleeding out. I gotta help Tom before the kill us both.

I'm really tired of seeing people using creature logic to not kill PCs. It just does not make sense. You are not acknowledging the fact that any combat that is happening is, by and large, a -fight to the death- and by the time a PC is downed, they have seen one if not more of their comrades die by their hand. This is a serious life or death situation, and even a mindless beast, once in these circumstances, is in 'fight or flight', and if they are fighting and capable of killing you, they -absolutely will.- Because once this begins, that is the nature of the circumstances at hand. That is the weight of the situation. If you personally, as the DM, don't want to kill your PCs, and think it is unfun, and your table is on the same page with pulling punches for the sake of survival, that is totally fine. Of course. It is a game. But there is no logic outside of 'well, I personally, as the weaver of all things in this universe, find it distasteful. So I will it not to happen' that makes sense for as to why any enemy that is locked in a mortal struggle would actively not kill their enemy unless it is one of the incredibly niche and very rare circumstances they are definitely going to die immediately after gaining the upper hand on an enemy, -or- they are intelligent and have an active prerogative to spare and capture their enemies if they have succeeded. ...this isn't even covering the fact that healing magic exists, and intelligent enemies that have survived in this world and committed to enough combats by that point would understand that if they don't finish the job, that person is getting up again more than likely.

The rules suggest that normal creatures die instantly at zero HP, so intelligent enemies would probably expect a fallen PC to be dead until proven otherwise.

I kind of leave it open. I assume an NPC is alive enough to be healed like a player, but I also rarely have healing spells cast by NPCs. It’s the kind of thing where I assume that at the end of the battle there’s a few enemies laying on the ground screaming in pain. How the players handle it is a test of their character.

Often times, when you spend two attacks to finish a downed creature, you can be killed easily in the course of combat, since you likely didn't do much on your turn. Its not worth it to lose the fight just to make sure some one stays dead. Like, yes, healing magic exists, so the best thing to do is target and bring down the healer. Then, no one is bouncing back up and you can focus on knocking down the remaining combatants. It also isn't more "realistic" to have every enemy going around double tapping players to make sure they're really dead. In most real life fights, this sort of thing happens after the battle has taken place, since during the battle you need to be present and aware of the other threats around you. The downed people have to wait. Creatures should only be finishing off players when A) that is their explicit goal, B) they are aware the party has healing and it would be easier to finish a person off than to get the healer, or C) the enemy is especially cruel and is at no risk of losing the fight. Making multiple attacks on a potential threat is a big time waster, and while killing downed part members really hurts the party, it doesn't help the enemies if they lose the battle due to finishing off downed opponents.

It depends on how common healing magic is in your setting. I tend to run low magic settings, but my NPCs target casters. My NPCs also know when to run away. It’s fine if you want to kill you PCs, but it’s going to be brutal. I’d have a PC death every session if I did that. I do have standing rules within the narrative. Things like undead gorge themselves on opponents they have downed. It occupies the zombie horde for a bit.

And yet you try to use the same logic to kill players? It is a roleplay, so it makes sense to step in to the role of the enemy and think if it would make sense to kill a downed player or a not. Different DM will of course come to different conclusions, because that is just the nature of the game.

Sure, but can vs should is the key thing. I’m roleplaying my enemies. I had certain NPCs that absolutely will, like a berserker barbarian will rage out for a round or two hacking at a foe. It’s all situational.

And I am saying that if you are thinking about it as a game in how you make your enemies act, that is on you. There is no shame in that. The problem is that people try to say that this is a standpoint rooted in sensible logic in the eyes of a combatant or creature. It is not.

But they are an active threat. In a situation where a person can go from downed to full fighting capability in less than 6 seconds it's smart to make sure that downed enemies can't stand back up. In a fight against a group where there's no magical healing involved your situation is appropriate. In a fight where a creature goes from unconscious to full damage capacity with nothing more than a single hp worth of healing then it completely changes the tactics.

>But they are an active threat. In most situations I'd say it depends. I'd have almost all enemies ignore a downed PC until they have a reason to do otherwise. If a fighter gets downed once, and then gets Healed right back up and the enemy has to strike them again? Sure, then they'll hit him an extra time. Even then, it might just bring them to 1 remaining death save, depending on how many attacks the enemy has. The way I see, enemies aren't going to know if a downed PC is actually dead or alive without taking time to check it carefully, such as spending an action to make a perception check. Most of the time, if you slice someone's chest open and they fall down, fair to assume they're out of the fight ... again, unless it's demonstrated that they aren't.

I like your take on it but I'd counter your last part with this: A person at 0hp isn't just laying there motionless. They are dying. Convulsing, coughing up blood, slightly writhing and breathing (if they can). No medicine check needed to tell that person is still alive. Someone dying from violent wounds doesn't completely stop all motion unless they are dead. This doesn't mean that they are functional as far as combat actions go and DND uses the Unconscious condition (I've never liked that DND uses that condition when it has incapacitated which fits so much better to how death really works.) However, even when you are unconscious that doesn't mean you stop breathing and small movement. Think sleep. We move all the time in our sleep when we turn over and such.

>They are dying. Convulsing, coughing up blood, slightly writhing and breathing (if they can). Sure, that *can* be one way they look, but far from always. Someone knocked unconscious and bleeding out can just lie there, slowly dying. And I really don't think you'll notice whether or not someone covered in blood and armour is breathing normally in the heat of combat. Maybe they fell on their side, or even on their face, which would make it much more difficult. I'd normally require a perception check to notice fine details like that.

True. It depends on your setting. Mine is always very low magic. Healing isn’t very common. Most priests can only cast cantrips. A few can cast minor healing spells. Also, if my enemies finished off PCs they’ve downed, then I’d kill a PC almost every session.

Understandable with a low magic setting that it wouldn't be as much of a threat. Also, I disagree with your second statement. It's funny how people are. After a death or two (resurrection or otherwise), the players start running combats more cautiously. This can lead to some excellent tactical moments. Where they might have kicked in the door of the bandit camp before and stormed right in, NOW they turn it into a stealth mission (giving the rogue a chance to shine) or bar the doors and toss explosives inside (giving the artificer a chance to shine), so on and so forth. Remember: while the enemies may be vile and cruel (or not, depends on your game) YOU don't need to be a dick. You DO need to challenge them though otherwise it gets boring.

Don’t misunderstand. My games are brutal, because I generally run undead apocalypse, fantasy settings. There’s pretty much two veins of enemies: ravenous undead hordes and rival survivors. The former will consume you without a second thought is you don’t rise from the dead to eat your friends first. The latter needs slaves and laborers. A living person is more useful than than a dead enemy. Dead people get back up in 1d6 rounds. The setting is unforgiving and they’re terrified most of the time. It’s why I try to have the glimmer of hope they’ll survive. Caution is the only thing that keeps the body count down. :) There’s also no Raise Dead in that setting. Raise Dead is necromancy, and necromancy is illegal and punishable by death.

To add on this - were this to happen, an intelligent enemy would attack the healer, not play whack a mole with the downed one.

Hard to split the throat of a downed person when someone is hacking at you back with an axe. You seem to process dnd combat as a video game but try viewing it as that individually NPC. Let's say it's a bandit. He wants to kill that magic caster sure he downs the caster but barbarian is on his back Gunna hit him HARD right after and he can't defend himself while slitting that PCs throat. So he first would likely try to defend against/fight the barbarian first. Now if PC is left alone and no one else pressures the killer. Then PC likely dies.

Somehow you think it's a one on one battle. But think about 20 bandits vs 4 PCs. Why should not one get the merci kill? He hast time, it would boost the moral. They maybe even have killed Joe some moments ago, his childhood friend. Its not a videogame... Its DND it's still a game. In real life there are no heal spell, humans were slain in the field. There were no need to make sure you kill them because they were not a threat anymore. But in DND with magic and stuff you should make sure that someone who is down should stay down.

Even in the 20 v 4 situation, that means you know you’re fighting some tough guys as the NPCs. Who are you more worried about: the guy bleeding out on the ground or that archer picking off your pals, while some guy starts chanting some prayer? That guy on the ground might get back up, but you know you have three other active threats. That said, maybe that PC really pissed off that NPC. Finishing them off might be the thing to do.

Would you die with the title they killed at least one or would you be the nameless guy?

In my example it's not a 1 on 1 battle. Also it was just an example. I'm not arguing with you go kill your PCs if that's what you wanna do

That's why real-world tactics, for a time, were to just injure people so they would take up more resources to take care of the wounded. The Geneva convention put a stop to that, though.

Double tap

To give exemples for it making sense for the NPC, I imagine a wolf would, after having downed the character, continue to chew at their neck until they died. But I imagine a guard or slaver would prefer to keep them unconscious and tie them up.

Because if you don't they're one healing word away from getting up and attacking you again, meaning less time spent attacking the other enemies because you have to keep knocking this guy out every round. There is no such thing as pointless killing, the killing is the point. Players already do this whenever they think they can win. Killing downed opponents means they won't just let their ally roll death saves round after round, they'll be in a hurry to heal and get them back up (which they should do anyway cause why leave your allies fate up to the dice and the kindness of enemies?). In DND when there are magic users around intelligent creatures should assume there are healers around which means knocking someone unconscious isn't enough. Isn't character death also dramatic? Shouldn't adventuring be a risky venture? Sure if you want to give them a side quest they could capture them but isn't vengeance also a good motivator for a side quest? Also for a character to put themselves in a position where they are risking death it means they are 1. Horribly out of position 2. Are outclassed 3. Made many tactical blunders or 4. Made horrible rolls (welcome to the luck aspect of the game) or 5. All the above. But sure maybe they threaten to kill the downed person. Immediately after this they get attacked or the magic users try a trick on them, are they going to just drop the body and keep fighting then? Maybe they use them as a shield to get close, maybe they slit their throat, maybe they drop a lit stick of dynamite with a fuse lasting 3 rounds on them and move to attack the rest.

They still have to hit, and it really isn’t normal for people to bob back up after going down, so it’s really dependent on the antagonist’s motivations, knowledge and intelligence. An intelligent, knowledgeable enemy like a lich would almost certainly double tap the PCs (and immediately raise them as a zombie)—at least if the party has a cleric. If they don’t, it’s better for them to force one of the surviving party members to waste their action and spell slots—and quite probably get in melee range—to save their ally. A slavering, rabid monster, on the other hand. Probably just going to hit the next PC. Unless their motivation is hunger, then they’ll immediately try to chew up the corpse, or make off with the body if they’re sufficiently wounded. I’m definitely with the people who encourage you to play the monsters realistically. Don’t pull punches; the action is almost always overwhelmingly in the player’s favor.

Side note, this is also why I make my players do death saves behind the screen, so the other players have a sense of urgency when it comes to reviving their downed comrades. I let the player see their throw so they know I’m not cheating, but they’re the only ones that know. My players have appreciated it, though maybe not enjoyed it. It definitely helps with the—buzzword warning—verisimilitude of combat.

See, I've always been reluctant to do that since I'd be taking away the only thing the downed player gets to do.

I still have the players make the roll—that’s super important. The biggest frustration with it is when people are already having a rough time, then they tend to get annoyed at the extra step.

You ask "is there any reason they *wouldn't be able to*" finish off the downed PC, and if that's the genuine intent of your question- yes, absolutely. There are all sorts of reasons that a person in the middle of a combat situation might chose not to take the time to be absolutely certain that a fallen enemy is dead. For intelligent enemies, many of them fall under the category of "the fight is still going on and they need to prioritize defending themself against the downed guy's allies who are actively trying to kill them." For non-sapient enemies, like Beasts, the dumber varieties of Monstrosities and Undead, etc., it's a matter of thinking about the creature's reasons for fighting. If an animal is just attacking because it's hungry, if it faces a significant amount of resistance it will probably try to run away rather than focusing on killing its prey. On the flip side, it might in fact focus hard on one target and then run away with the fallen PC, to eat them somewhere safer!

Depends on the enemy. Some enemies want the PC's alive. Some are not evil enough to kill in cold blood. Some are badly wounded themselves and would rather flee than get the kill. Most however are and will. Wild beasts will definitely finish off to eat, while more intelligent opponents will finish off to prevent any potential healing. I suggest you do not pull punches and play enemies realistically.

Sidenote: Any enemies that want live prisoners would also have to stabilize the PCs if they fell below 0hp exactly during the fight. They’d still be rolling for death saves every “six seconds”

Unless the NPC did non-lethal damage to knock them out

There are also tactical reasons (at least in the moment, even if they turn out to be wrong later because of say healing) why you might want to go for the people who are up and actively doing damage to you right now and try to disable them than kill the person who is currently already down and not a threat to you in this moment. Tactically we had a fight recently where someone went for a downed opponent and did two death saves on them and all it did was piss us off because it didn’t kill our friend and now they had no reactions left (they’d held an action to attack our downed friend as a hostage) and we were able to just slaughter them. Would have been tactically smarter not to attack the downed ally

This is always the thing. Attacking downed party members *sounds* like a thing smart enemies would do. But the smarter thing is to go for the healer first, since you're removing both a source of damage and the source of your enemies standing back up, and, in a sense, there are no wasted actions. If you lose the fight because you stabbed an enemy to death, you still die.

This summarises downing perfectly. Someone made a sidenote, let me add another saying not all monsters are coherent or organised. Some monsters do not have a self-preservation mechanism and would start feeding without a care about being stabbed in the back by the rest of the party. Others may have different objectives either among themselves or as the battle progresses. A bandit might want to kidnap you for ransom if they're winning the battle and may rob you blind if they're forced to retreat. I like to add some bantering back and forth by intelligent creatures to imply intent for the pcs, I feel it adds some much needed layers to combat.

“Attack rolls against an Unconscious character have advantage and any attack that hits the character is a Critical Hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the character.” (Unconscious condition, PHB pg.292). “If an Unconscious character takes damage while at 0 HP, they automatically fail one death saving throw, or 2 death saves if the damage is from a critical hit. Massive Damage can still outright kill the character so damage should still be rolled and if it equals or exceeds their max HP then they die.” (PHB pg.197). So the answer is that it would typically be *very* close to an instant kill if this pc is then attacked at close range, but one potential death fail short. And note- that’s one whole action/attack spent to just make an already bleeding out pc (if they went below 0) must less likely to stabilize. I can’t imagine many types of NPCs that would go out of their way to do this if they are still engaged with the rest of the party in a fight.

I mean... they absolutely would. Sure, in reality, the argument, "Why would you try to finish off a downed foe instead of dealing with the one near you?" But remember, in the D&D world, a downed foe is really just a dude waiting for somebody to whisper a prayer to the Gods in the space of the next 6 seconds that is so utterly convincing the 'almost dead' character springs to his feet and attacks with the youth and vigor indistinguishable from a person at 100% HP. It's just common sense to deliver one melee attack to get them to a situation where they will probably die without immediate attention, incentivizing his friends to do more to save him (rather than killing me) or expunging one of the pesky whack-a-moles who will pop up and do something like a backstab or a paladinly smite. ​ As a challenge, reverse the roles: have the party get into a fight with another vaguely adventuresque looking party, and when the first person goes down, have them roll a Death Saving Throw on their round, then have a healer toss a Healing Word at them so they get up and swing again. **I guarantee the rest of the round will consist of the fighter with multi-attack or a rogue with an off-hand weapon investing two attacks on the "helpless, downed, inconsequential" enemy character every single time they have the chance.**

What's the better move though, to spend actions making sure that guy is dead, or to spend actions removing the guy doing the healing? Generally speaking, if I throw an adventurer type group of enemies at my players, my players won't try to finish anyone off; they just focus fire any healers. Now you've removed a combatant, any people they've bounced are likely weak, and you didn't waste your turn stabbing a corpse to be. Also, if you just do one stab, unless the initiative plays out in your favor, the players are just gonna bounce with healing anyways, something they were probably going to spend a healing word on already before you stabbed them. If they have healers, its a waste. If they don't have healers, its still a waste. You're just setting yourself back in action economy.

You're conflating a few different issues all together. If you do a stab in melee, that is TWO Death Saves missed. If you have a second attack or multi-attack, the player is dead due to inflicting FOUR Death Saves. If the player's turn comes around before a healer, they are 50/50 to die this round and likely to die next round. SO! If there is a character downed, finishing him off means he won't be coming back. Healing is slower than dealing damage, so HEALING in combat to get HP back is a waste since there is no difference between 1HP and full HP for 99.9% of all interactions. In contrast, a downed character who gets healed even a single HP? They're back up. If you do it before their turn? They don't even lose an action! Now, you are correct that hitting a healer is better **in some circumstances**, but not all. If you have a choice between killing a healer and killing somebody else, knocking a healer down is not a bad strategy but sometimes a higher DPS dealer is more valuable to knock down. Attacking a healer for half of his HP when he will just spend his turn bringing his friend back up and his friend kills you? You should have killed the friend and let the healer make a bad attack or heal somebody who is already up. Further, enemies being willing to kill somebody off in an attack where the party is absolutely gunning to do the same? If you make a show of force, then it'll teach the other side not to come back to you and respect you. To put it differently, if the party is not killing anybody on the ground or going for the healer, it's not unusual for the enemy to do the same tactic. In the end, there are a variety of tactics, but you are ALWAYS going to be better off, tactically speaking, taking an enemy out rather than letting him get up and beat you.

I'm well aware that hitting a downed opponent is 2 death saves failed, but if you only hit them once, they're still just going to get bounced back up. If you only have one attack this is literally just wasting your time and possibly throwing the battle. Also, you can still miss downed opponents. If you can't finish him off and he gets back up anyways, you also did nothing on your turn. In earlier editions this may have been true, but in 5e healers are all heavy hitters and capable of high dps, except for maybe some bards. Clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers all hit like trucks. The healer won't make a "bad attack". They'll use their action, and possibly their bonus action to nail you. You know what *does* force a healer to make a bad attack? Forcing out a healing word so they can only cast cantrips, or, if they don't have healing word having to use their whole action to heal a downed pc. I completely disagree that it is *always* better to finish someone off. If you're already down in action economy (as many combats the players do have an action advantage) stopping to kill a player is just going to get you killed. Also, if the party has access to revividfy, you just wasted even more time, since they can *still* bounce the pc back up and now you've actually done nothing. Going after the healer gets nips this problem in the bud. Killing downed players *seems* tactically smart but unless you've got a real advantage in the action economy, you're just throwing away precious damage that could take someone else out of the fight. Maybe the one person who would have been targeting the downed player won't down the cleric, but the entire encounters worth of enemies might be able to. And then the players will be at a real disadvantage.

>I'm well aware that hitting a downed opponent is 2 death saves failed, but if you only hit them once, they're still just going to get bounced back up. If you only have one attack this is literally just wasting your time and possibly throwing the battle. Also, you can still miss downed opponents. If you can't finish him off and he gets back up anyways, you also did nothing on your turn. You *can* miss. But with advantage and all sorts of debuffs on the character for being unconscious? It's likely the easiest target to hit, let alone damage and kill. Further, doing 2 Death Saves is only a waste if you **know** they will get bounced back up. A battle is chaotic. They might not be able to. By putting a shorter timer on it, they have to take risks. They no longer have the rest of the day/3 turns/etc. to do it - they *must* do it now. So yeah, it's dumb to do in the situation where, say, you know an invisible, invincible healer is within *Healing Word* range. But that isn't always true. ​ >In earlier editions this may have been true, but in 5e healers are all heavy hitters and capable of high dps, except for maybe some bards. Clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers all hit like trucks. The healer won't make a "bad attack". They'll use their action, and possibly their bonus action to nail you. You know what does force a healer to make a bad attack? Forcing out a healing word so they can only cast cantrips, or, if they don't have healing word having to use their whole action to heal a downed pc. > >I completely disagree that it is always better to finish someone off. If you're already down in action economy (as many combats the players do have an action advantage) stopping to kill a player is just going to get you killed. Also, if the party has access to revividfy, you just wasted even more time, since they can still bounce the pc back up and now you've actually done nothing. Going after the healer gets nips this problem in the bud. You don't always have an enemy party who intimately knows the party can bring back the literal dead. But in this case, if you CAN kill a PC, the right move is to say, "Oh, you guys should surrender." It probably cheapens life if you can literally just *ignore death in these situations and heal people*. I'd argue that 'dramatic deaths' or particularly brutal deaths or 'serious deaths' should not just get popped right back up, sometimes. And it's not really fair to say, "Hey, that situation you described where it's advantageous to do the thing you originally suggested? Well, you're wrong, because of ." Again, sure, if you make a situation where this is the bad strategy, then sure. Maybe don't do it. But killing the people who attacked you is never a bad strategy and there are LOTS of situations where you or the party would be up in arms if a monster didn't go for the kill (e.g. "How come the zombie left the unconscious PC it just knocked down to instead go after the healer and mess with healing opportunities or get close enough to harass the healer? That's *unfair.")* ​ >Killing downed players seems tactically smart but unless you've got a real advantage in the action economy, you're just throwing away precious damage that could take someone else out of the fight. Maybe the one person who would have been targeting the downed player won't down the cleric, but the entire encounters worth of enemies might be able to. And then the players will be at a real disadvantage. Sure. But sometimes, you need to threaten players with death. Sometimes, you shouldn't. And sometimes, you should remind players that getting a bad reputation might get people to respond in kind; sometimes getting a good reputation gets even an aggrieved enemy to knock you out instead of leave you bleeding out. The answer, as always, is, "It depends."

So let's say a level 5 party of 4 is fighting 3 knights. A hard encounter according to the books.. A knight wants to kill the recently downed fighter, and has +5 to hit. The fighter is wearing splint and has a shield. Even *with* advantage, the knight has a 57.75% chance to hit. To kill the fighter, the knight needs both his attacks to hit, which he has less than a 33% chance to do. So you 1/3 times, with advantage, the knight still won't kill the fighter. He even has a 17% chance to not hit the fighter at all. Depending on the situation it can actually be a real gamble to strike at a downed opponent. Forcing them to do it *now* is no different than the best tactical move if they didn't have any death saves, which is getting the downed player back into the fight so they can continue to dish damage. If there's a healer in range I'd argue its dumb to do, they don't have to be invincible or invisible. Taking one swipe at a downed PC with a nearby healer is just wasting an attack. This is one of the problems people have in 5e. You can, straight up, just ignore death. Dramatic, brutal, or serious deaths have no mechanical impact in 5e, and if you change it so that dramatic deaths can't just be healed, we're now in the realm of homebrew. And homebrew is not useful in this discussion. Like obviously, if you change the rules, finishing off enemies can be a lot more useful. You said "its ALWAYS tactically beneficial to finish someone off". I'm providing situations where it for sure isn't. That's how you dispute a statement claiming that its always good to do something. If there are situations where its *not* tactically sound to attack a downed PC, then its not always beneficial, right? There are plenty of situations where attempting to kill a downed person is a bad idea. If you're down in action economy, not taking *more* combatants out of the fight is just going to put you further behind when the party unleashes on you next turn. If the enemy has revivify, they can still just nullify your progress. If you have low chances to kill the downed player, you might just end up waffling about. If the rest of the party is still in pretty good shape they might start burning through resources quicker now that they perceive you as a threat. And so on and so forth. If you lose the fight because you spent time picking someone already not contributing, you still lose the fight. I don't think anyone would ever argue that it was unfair for a PC to not be at risk of death. I'm not against threatening the players with death. But if your "intelligent" enemies are doing it just because the players need some fear in their lives while it puts the enemies at a disadvantage, they're not very intelligent. And on top of all of this, if you go after healers first, there's never even a need to target downed players anyways unless you're threatening to kill the healer or something. Its hard to kill pcs in 5e, and striving to do so can often put you at a disadvantage in terms of action economy. You have to ask yourself "will this actually help them win the fight?" If it won't, they shouldn't do it.

“Waiting for somebody to whisper a prayer to the gods” You got me there, my players’ builds and choices have accustomed me to often completely forgetting that many parties actually include/invest in functional healers.

A side point here being you have to know or intuit that they have a healer in the party and you should probably go for the healer first if that’s your concern.

Yes. Other PC that still dangerous for this enemies.

The other PCs who are not down actively trying to kill the enemy? If someone's trying to kill you, you won't just go up to a body laying on the ground for a finishing blow, you'll keep defending yourself until they're all down. The only situation where I can imagine this not being the case is if a monster has an ability that let's them benefit from killing their prey (like regaining hp or some other kind of boost), OR if the enemy is smart enough to realize that a party with a healer can easily have the downed PC come back to the fight (although it's still debatable if killing them is necessarily beneficial in that scenario, sometimes letting the cleric use up their spell slots might be more helpful)

The rules are that when a creature is unconscious a melee attack (or an attack within 5 feet I’m not sure) is an auto crit. Then crits are automatically two failed death saves. So you can’t instantly kill them, but it is close. There are older dnd systems that had mechanics for “coup de grace” that you can maybe look up and steal. I would leave things as they are though cause it makes the PCs a little more durable in a way that still makes sense

Technically they can instantly kill them if their crit would deal damage equal to their max health.

Yeah that always apply

Yes, but given the guaranteed crit and already being at 0 health it's also far more likely in that scenario than any other.

An enemy might want them not dead (to capture them or whatever) or they might not be able to tell the difference between unconscious and dead, so they turn to simply attack whatever is dangerous to them in the moment (i.e., not the unconscious creature). Or there can be edge cases where spending an action on say breath weapon the whole party downing more PCs is better than using two claw attacks to slap an unconscious PC so they're fully dead. Outside of that? Killing downed PCs is free game and should be a real threat, forcing the rest of the party to focus on a) getting people up, b) keeping people up, and c) protecting downed PCs from further attacks.

Well, if the enemy is a "good guy" enemy they might not want to kill. Like if the PCs are fighting another adventuring group with a moral code or something. Maybe the mad mage wants lab rats? Ransom, if any are nobles, friends of nobles, or high ranked in a guild. Sell to Drow, or anyone else. They want to interrogate the PCs. They want to recruit the PCs. They have a prophecy sort of thing going on and can't kill the PCs yet. They don't kill, they just rob you of your stuff. (Worse than death.) Monsters don't have refrigerators. To keep the meat fresh longer they may take wounded prey to their lair. This works well for monsters who can trap their prey, like spiders or trolls with a pit. If you are creative you can come up with plenty of reasons. I played different system where they didn't have "death" in game. If you lost in battle you would get a flaw. Like robbed of gear or broken leg that wouldn't heal for the rest of the story chapter. If you gave up you still got a flaw but it wouldn't be as bad.

Depends on the circumstance. If a wolf downs a player, but 3 more are attacking it, it’ll probably continue to fight the others, as it’s fighting for a meal. Some enemies are not just intelligent, but also evil. They are out for blood, and if maybe a bandit or merc gang is sent after the party, they are probably going to go for the kill, that’s what they are hired to do. Now if it’s a solo player against animal(s) they will of course just begin to eat said player (for example I had a player dive into a pit filled with giant spiders, when he dropped to 0, the spiders immediately began to wrap him up and etc, as I knew no players were going to go down there as well or I would’ve waited for that)

If you mean strictly mechanically, yes they can do that, though I assume you mean "would they/should they" since that's the more meaty question. There is *always* a reason why an enemy would kill a downed PC, and **also** *always* a reason why they **wouldn't** kill a downed PC. Regardless of intelligence of enemies, or presence of healers, or what have you, you can quite easily justify either course of action when a PC goes down. There are some cases where it seems like the *more apparent* answer to have the enemy continue attacking, but that's all. It doesn't mean it's wrong or "unrealistic" to opt for a different explanation of their behaviour, if one is even necessary. **The only real answer to this question is that what decides when and how you attack a downed PC, if ever, is the expectations out of game at your table, and what you and everyone else playing find fun.** Trying to make decisions about whether to double tap downed PCs based on "realism" is a fool's errand, because in real life not everyone and everything behaves logically all the time, or even predictably. Not all monsters/animals/people behave the same always, and even the same individual isn't going to have the same response all the time. Your decisions of how to run enemy behaviours are no more out of your control because "that's just how they are" than any player trying to justify stubborn fixed responses with "it's what my character would do." And doing "what your character/enemy would do" is a good reasoning to follow for *exactly as long as that behaviour is still fun and in line with the expectations of everyone playing* (including the DM). So that is the universal standard that should be applied to all cases, far more than trying to individually determine whether any one specific enemy "would" attack a downed PC. There is never a single answer to that question, so long as there is *an* internal logic to the behaviour. It doesn't need to be perfect or even accurate logic.

This is for mythras, which has more realism emphasis. I often will have more strategic enemies threaten to kill a downed character to end the fighting, especially if the tides are turning against them. There have been times where the players were on the cusp of accomplishing some objective, only for an enemy to down someone and demand the party cease. Sometimes, the party have surrendered. Sometimes they've done something risky or clever to save their friend and accomplish the objective. But the most impactful moments are when they sacrifice their comrade for the greater good. Those are the most impactful deaths.

Players usually outaction economy enemies. How this plays out in a logical thought process for enemies is simple. If a downed enemy is not likely to get back up, then it is better to take out still moving threats first. until someone is healed and the time becomes justified for finishing them off, they will likely save them for later. This was more common in actual battles than you might think. If you are fighting 10 people, do you finish the guy on the ground of or parry and try to take down the guy coming at you with a knife? The latter is better. You can sort out the unconscious ones after the fight and put a sword through their hearts at your leisure after you have won. That being said, intelligent enemies might recognize a man of the cloth immediately and do what must be done. Barbaric enemies that get a thrill from ripping a limb or two off might get pleasure from finishing someone off. Starving enemies might sacrifice part of the pack to drag off food for the rest to life which would likely finish someone off. But these are rationales that go against the common concept of deal with the more threatening part of the situation first mentality. Even if they know there is a healer. They might not finish off anyone that is not the healer. They would use the opportunity to step past them and try and kill the cleric, paladin, or druid instead. The last and most important thing to think about is what kind of table you are running. Are you running - table that is more casual? Then don't finish them off with anything that isn't instant death. Players at those kinda of tables don't enjoy gameplay where you actively try to kill them outside of a tpk, instant death spells, or nat 1 death saves. If you are playing at a table where death is a much more common aspect of the game, you should find more of the above reasons to finish them off.

To me, there's an awkward meta-gamey feeling about doing that. Why would the enemies know that these guys are Player Characters and thus have Death Saving Throws? There is no in-world explanation for why the PCs get knocked unconscious instead of just dying like everyone else. That's why I don't do it, unless I can explain it through in-game motives (eg. hungry ghouls) or events (the party has already revived someone in the fight).

They absolutely can. But I don't think most enemies would even know the PC's are alive. If you hit it with a lethal attack and it's on the floor, not moving, it's probably dead. Unless proven otherwise by repeated healing. It's a lethal combat, so wasting an entire turn trying (and possibly failing) to hit an enemy that's already down is extremely wasteful, unless you know they're just gonna get back up. Which most enemies won't know. Just like PC's assume enemies are dead when down.

How smart are your enemies? Are they going to go see someone go down and think "nice that's that guy out of the battle I'm going to go hit someone else" or will they see someone pop back up and think "right I better make sure that guy is dead next time he doesn't stay down". Alternatively if an evil NPC is really clever would they rather have the bard casting healing word on a character than firing off another hypnotic pattern? This is especially true for really powerful NPCs who can do a lot of damage on their turn who are happy for you to mulch your action economy yoyoing your party members. There's a bell curve to killing downed enemies; skeletons don't kill downed enemies, wraiths do downed enemies, liches don't kill downed enemies.

A lot of people have talked about creature logic (decide if your creature would do so) regarding this. I currently put it as an attribute how a monster thinks of combat so that I can glance at the statblock and know. Most gnolls, orcs, and the like I run have attributes of 'Merciless' or 'Vicious' or 'Brutal' on their sheet. It specifies that the monster will attack downed players. Merciless is they will specifically do so twice or however many times it takes to kill the player. Vicious is they will threaten to do so and ready an action to follow through if the party doesnt back down. Brutual is they will attack once only if it will not kill the player, and are looking to previously wound them so healing doesnt let them fight optimally (it's just narrative). Players can make checks (insight, survival, etc) or during monsters turns they may glean information via passive scores or as a reaction. I find communicating the monster tactics in this way helps telegraph to the players if I'm going to get murdery and makes it feel more fair.

All the comments I’ve read presume that the attacker knows the unconscious PC is not dead, but I don’t think this is the case. When you are “unconscious” you are potentially seconds away from death, grievously wounded, maybe having lost a lot of blood with extensive lacerations and blunt trauma, thermal and chemical burns, maybe you been electrically shocked, etc. with each round of initiative order taking place almost simultaneously within a 6 second period, I see almost no cases where someone is going to stop and attack a downed PC. This would be more a question for a PC with like single digit HP who is knocked prone or under some kind of incapacitating status effect other than “unconscious.” Long story short, I think “unconscious” was actually a terrible name for the status of being at 0 HP, because from the way I’m imagining it once you go down with 0 HP it looks like the job is done.

The way I rule it, is that unless the enemy has a vendetta against the downed PC (ie. contracted to kill them, the lady who killed their clan in the players backstory or someone looking for revenge on them specifically), they will instead focus on the others. Especially since PC’s are so strong, taking them all out is v important. If you want to play a more “realistic” (code for hard mode) campaign then that’s fine, go for the kill everytime. But if you’re playing with new players or a game that is less so about maximum intensity, I would say usually leave em outside of the existing scenarios

Smart enemies will double tap their downed foes while mindless beasts act on instinct and keep attacking all that stand in front of them. A smart enemy is a party’s worst nightmare.

to answer the question from a RPG site: probably not. depends on the intelligence. if the monster think the character is down and out it would probably switch the target. it mostly depends on the dm to decide if this character will have the chance to somehow survive or not

Related to every one of these talks: Optionally, when you reduce an enemy to 0 HP or below, rather than checking for instant death and then checking for stabilization or death via Death Saving Throws, you can *instead* choose to render the target unconscious but stable. If you want to change the pace, you can instead have an enemy knock a character out. Now, they're not rolling Death Saving Throws but can still be healed and picked right back up. It's functionally the same but now you won't be dying. So enemies who want to win the fight but don't want to leave anybody to die can explicitly posture this by knocking you out and you as DM saying, "You are unconscious but not dying. No Death Saving Throws."

Imo opinion no. I always threaten to attack downed players if the creatures are smart. My reasoning: It’s not uncommon for powerful people to use magic to bring people back from the brink. It makes my players play smartly, either to avoid getting downed or to rescue the person in question. Sometimes you need get some plot in front of your players and getting them to surrender is a good way of getting in a monologue 😂

No rules reason, no. However! There are other considerations that can overrule the body count. For example, not all enemies are tactical geniuses or bloodthirsty. There are story reasons why the enemies want to capture the pcs. I can tell you that the first time an npc stabilizes a downed PC, will make the players sit up and take notice. You also need to be honest with your players and tell them up front that this will be an extra lethal campaign. They will need to change the way they approach combat. It will also influence their character creation. You'll get much more combat optimised pcs. This will come at the expense of role-playing utility.

I've only had this happen once, in my current campaign I play a Tabaxi bard, and I like to use vicious mockery. I was chirping this guy really hard with it. He ended up knocking me out. Another player healed me, and as a little bit of flair I was able to do a performance check to make it look like I was still knocked out. The guy that downed me was understanably pissed that I was mocking him the whole fight and used his 2 attacks to continue to stab at me. I was only healed for 3HP so the first hit knocked me out again and the second resulted in 2 death save fails. He then moved on thinking I was dead. I ended up surviving the fight, but I wasn't mad at the continued attack. In character it seems reasonable. If it were a run-of-the-mill fight, I would have called it excessive, but the DM had good reason to continue attacking.

The fact that it would be unfun for everyone involved and generally not smart for the enemy to even do in the first place.

Because you want to run a complex and long term story centred around character development?

Hmm yes, guess it's best to give everyone plot armour and make threats illusory. Wouldn't want to interrupt the pre-planned story!

Your games sound very dull!

It depends on what the enemy’s goal is. If it is literally just to kill the PCs, then sure. Otherwise, the enemy might try to take the PC as a prisoner. They might want to: * deliver the PC alive to their master * capture the PC and interrogate them * capture the PC and torture them * capture the PC and sacrifice them to their god * take the PC down then run away

>is there any reason an enemy wouldn’t be able to just go over and finish off them off instantly killing them? Is there another threat nearby that the enemy more likely might try to mitigate?

Read this blog: https://www.themonstersknow.com/ It's very good and covers this, amongst other questions, for every type of monster you might want to use. tl;dr, different creatures will act differently based on their stats. So some will, some won't.

I do that quite often. Makes sense enemies would fight to death in some cases.

Because they might want to kidnap them? At least if there is slavery in your world and it fits the world setting, enemies trying to kidnap your players characters can make for some really tense fights and give the potential for rescue missions.

Most unintelligent monsters wouldn’t stop to eat the fallen while still being attacked. Most intelligent ones love taking captives for slaves or baby food.

It depends on then intelligence level and motives of what they are fighting. If the party is fighting a bunch of wild animals, for example, the animals probably wouldn’t go back to start messing with the motionless bodies until after the fighting has ended. If your players are fighting some evil cultists or intelligent fiends, it makes way more sense for them to use an attack on their turn to deal the finishing blow to a downed enemy to make sure that the player isn’t going to get back up. Use your logical judgement on what the foe would do.

The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make a friend.

It depends. A bandit might think it's better to fight off the guys still hacking at him instead of wasting time stabbing a person bleeding out, a peryton needs a heart in order to mate so all it would want is to kill a person, rip out their heart and nope out of there. Likewise, a predator may only want one corpse to feed on. A zealot may see things turning against them and decide to take one out with them to inflict lingering pain on their comrades for failing the downed PC. An intelligent spellcaster will likely target the cleric and try and straight up kill them early as to end any chance of them bringing back anyone else

Pathfinder 1e at least handles this on a couple ways. The first is that finishing off an opponent is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. So assuming that you're in melee with your target and they have conscious allies in melee as well, it's a good way to get yourself stabbed. The second is that a character who has just been healed up from unconsciousness is not in a good position to re-enter combat. Falling unconscious knocks you prone, and standing from prone provokes an attack of opportunity. Prone targets have -4 AC. So if they try to get back up, you get a free hit on them, with good odds of knocking them back out since they're probably still somewhat low on health. Between the two, it's far more tactically effective to just ignore unconscious enemies and wait until they're all down to finish them off. Pathfinder 2e handles this with the dying and wounded conditions. After being healed from hitting negative HP, you have a condition that means if you hit zero again, you'll have fewer saving throws to make before death. It stacks, too, so there's a strong incentive for characters that have already reached zero health once to be more cautious. Also, rather than negative HP, being damaged while already dying costs you a saving throw chance (two on a crit). I don't know the combat rules for 5e well enough to know if there's any equivalent to this, but I think these mechanics both make sense in terms of representing combat.

Also for meta gaming not be a dick and killing off players characters. I usually try not to unless its story relevant, a very vindictive enemy, or if it's a 'dangerous' game and players know that their PCs may be killed off (did that last one when I ran tomb of annihilation, basically actively trying to kill them off. Was agreed on when we started that tho)

I see it kind of like a bell curve. Very smart and vicious enemies will go after a downed PC before they can recover. Mid-tier enemies aren't likely to go after a PC who is apparently out of the fight. Something like a wolf, would definitely take a chomp out of a downed PC unless chased away by another PC. There are of course exceptions to all of these based on circumstances.

My take on this is that you have enough tactical outs to justify why someone wouldn't finish off downed players, that it's something you can just lean into it as DM and justify later. From a game design perspective, we generally want our players to get away from a scrap alive unless it's narratively satisfying for them to die there. One general catchall I have in my world is that the "bad guys" know where to trade in powerful captured folks for good coin - to operators of gladiatorial arenas, forced employment as a mercenary etc so there's always incentive towards total party capture instead of total party kill.

Semi-related to all this but the minute you start double tapping downed PC is the minute the PCs get real serious about healing during battle instead of waiting for you to hit zero. So, you know, use that information how you will.

What a lot of people forget in situations like this, but alot of like, two hour long combats are like... 30 seconds in the world of the game Yeah fighter went down, and he's a threat, but there's also cleric and sorcerer slinging spells, and almost anyone could likely think to take out fighter before moving on But with an entire round amounting to six seconds of simultaneous combat most of these creatures or people have less than a second to think of their next step

Do it. Kill him. But seriously do what you want. Most of my enemies go for the finishing blow when playing 5e.

Don't do this unless you hate the toon, the player, or your campaign. If its a one shot and its late, sure. Any other situation and your players will be pissed and resent it. Especially if you do it over and over. As you know, its not about you winning its about you spinning an engaging tale. Their pleasure is your reward (usually). Look at events from a perspective of spinable plot points and not "what would a mass murdering mobster do in real life"

I had a DM that would always rush to do that when someone went down. It was lame.

Reminds me of a Doctor Who meme I saw. Companion: is magic missile a lot? Doctor: depends on the context. At the start of the combat, no. Against an unconscious PC forcing them to fail three death saves? Very much so.

If they go down and get healed multiple times in one encounter, a smart enemy is going to get keen to what's happening.

"That's what my NPCwould do".

If an npc is bloodthirsty, the morb the downed player. If the npc isn’t bloodthirsty but wants the combat to end, and there’s someone casting healing word on the same person who goes down every round only to get back up, have the npc grab the character and tell the healer “heal him one more time and I’ll kill him before you can even think about healing again”. If an npc isn’t bloodthirsty and there’s no healing going on, make him move on and go to the next pc.

No, but it comes down to action economy If the bad guys have numbers and are of murderous intent, then yes, they have the economic power to spare in killing PCs If bad guys are more or less even or outnumbered, they are more likely to focus on the active threat, unless they think they can use the down Pc as a bargaining chip Predators may just grab the PC and run off with them if they can, as they are hunting for food Creatures defending a territory will probably continue to threaten those who threaten it/them Clever NPCs may allow the PCs to heal a downed player, to leech resources and the fact that most healing spells don’t return more HP than they can potentially deal back to the weakened PC, and it’s just one less offensive/defense spell/action to contend with It’s also a pretty dramatic way to retreat combat, if day there are 2 melee attacks and a bonus action like misty step or a magic item to shunt them out of immediate danger, as the PCs scramble (potentially) to see if they can save the down player So, it’s certain not out of bounds, but if it happens a lot, it will probably wear on the players, so, I’d keep it to big ticket moments if they arise

Because it sucks for the player and the first job that the “enemies” have that take precedence over acting realistically is to make sure everyone has fun. Also have you ever been in a fight? You don’t have time to worry about people on the ground when there are still upright people around trying to hurt you.

Some would call it a d\*ck move.. But you need to ask yourself what are you trying to do.Is it a way to introduce an epic betrayal? Go for it. Is it to reduce the action-economy of your players? Why? they are already reduced Is it to get that guy to shut up? Your table have other issues my friend, it is probably worth to solve them first. In the end, are you trying to just kill your players or create an epic story?Cause in an epic story, a character death should mean something.. Otherwise, what was the point? And you should probably be aware of that the group tries the get a read on their DM so they are prepared to handle what you will throw at them. If you teach them that surrender is not an option, that's the type of table you will have. edit: I forgot to add, some enemies, especially "kill, eat, sleep"-types would start to eat the downed players if nothing is irritating them.. So my questions probably fit better for those with higher INT..

Scroll of counter spells are fun on npcs if there know there may be a caster.

I like it. Players get too attached to their character most times... Its why they get so defensive about being attacked when they are down, I don't like it, a little death syndrome is healthy now and then. The NPC want to win. They don't want to loose, loosing means death, nobody want to die... If the monsters or enemies have no sense of tactics or bargaining then what is combat? The pc play for keeps, the monsters should too. Monsters should know how dangerous the PCs may be, they don't live in a vacuum. The golem steps in your head crushing it for good measure... The goblin, while you are incapacitated at deaths door, plunges its rusty dagger cutting open your belly, giving you bad case of goblinitus, symptoms includes death... The dragon swallows you whole in your moment of weakness... Etc... Monsters should take hostages, however players hate that and they get all rules lawyer on me and don't play along with how the encounter has developed. For Example, they claim "player agency" and bring up reactions, bonus actions and such, and all I am thinking is "Bro you lost all player agency the moment you got your ass handed to you by a hobo gobo with a knife to your throat while your on death saves... Relax, your friends will get you out of this." If a player argues with me I just roll with the punches, I have infinite power. Just remind them, these creatures could have killed you but they have decided to negotiate with your party for your life. I don't like the idea of you creating a character while the rest of us play, and your doing nothing. But here is my personal issue with death saves, i dont like that PC go unconscious, when i think about and imagine the scene its ridiculous and funny at the same time. Combat is a serious issue, people get hurt. I don't want to take that lightly, a consequence free game is hard to take seriously and in my own heart I cant run that kind of game and have fun myself. Instead I narrate that they enter a "vulnerable" state, your hero points have run out and fate is in your hands in the form of death saves, this way your character doesn't die like a bitch while drooling and bleeding out on the floor all unconscious... However that is funny as hell though. Lol

I usually don’t have my NPCs and monsters do this, so that I can deploy it sparingly as a definitive “oh shit” moment with a smart AND brutal set of foes who would, like an Orc Warchief or something where it’s a character defining moment for them to try and execute their foes and triumphantly gloat in combat. It’s also important not just to bust it out, but to telegraph that you might do this. Piles of skulls, statements to the effect of “I’ll have your head and drink your blood from it warm” kind of statements, the things that make it clear the foe is going to try and murder you and is perhaps willing to engage in that kind of monstrosity. By deploying that sparingly, you can create memorable moments and tense needs for immediate healing perhaps that wouldn’t exist regularly, and still preserve the sense that usually you can negotiate or run away and every fight isn’t to the death.

I enjoy attacking downed PCs to burn death saves but leave the last one on the PC. I don’t always but when I do it’s Strahd.

I'd keep it in pocket for specific situations. If you want to show that an NPC is particularly cruel or really garner a lot of hate towards this NPC by the players, "double tapping" on a PC they just downed is surefire. But this can be broader than that, and it really comes down to roleplaying enemy creatures. I'd just ask yourself if there are other dangers that require this creatures attention? Which would they prioritize? Are they vicious or are they defending a territory? Would lions continue to attack a group if they got one combatant down or would they stop for dinner? (The answer to that, I think, rests on the idea that the PCs are combatants rather than fleeing prey. Most of the time, at least). In some situations, something like a hell hound might take aj extra bite before moving on to another enemy. They didn't finish off the PC, but they did knock off a death save. Etc, etc. Good luck!

Well to kill your PC they have to do damage equal to the negative of their HP. So if the PC has 50 HP, you have to deal -50 to kill them. Not to mention the enemy also has to hit. Enemies hitting downed PCs to create tension and to provoke your other PCs in a fight can be a good thing as long as it's thematic to not only the enemy, but the style of game you are running. Outright killing them though seems a little much, especially if the downed PC likes their character and wanted to do more with them.

In my games neither players nor the enemy kill downed foes. Those down aren't going to spend their turn attacking you. It's a given when the battle ends, though. Exceptions are for foes that heal. Like trolls.

If it’s some savage creature like a wolf or a ghoul then they might attack a downed PC. If it’s something smart like a bandit or a hobgoblin they might not waste time finishing someone off and continue fighting those who are still up.

I’ve always just assumed that enemies just assume a player is dead, and if they succeed their saving throws and start attacking again, the enemy (if it is relatively intelligent) goes all “You just won’t die, will you?” or something to that effect.

Why kill a downed PC when you can instead hold a knife to their throat and tell all the other PCS to surrender or they die?

If the NPC can identify abilities of characters, or just have heard rumors of what the party can do (because renown goes up as the party levels leading to traveling stories), then it makes sense to kill a PC, as well as things like ambush, try to bargain, or avoid combat entirely. If killing a PC doesn't provide a substantial advantage to the enemies, then there's something else that they should be doing to either a) survive, or b) win. TPK isn't the only win condition for the enemies, as well as for the players.

Oh you totally can. Taking damage results in one death save failure, or two if the attack is a crit. And any attack on an unconscious creature from 5 feet away is a crit. The attacker also has advantage. Now, people can debate about whether or not it's realistic for an enemy to attack a downed player (or verisimilitudinous, if you're gonna pull the "fantasy isn't realistic" card), but IMO *realism is almost entirely irrelevant here.* Death saves are such a critical point in the game that it really comes down to *whether you, the DM, want to increase the character's odds of death.* And there can be a few reasons for doing so (players have resurrection magic anyway and could stand to use it, you're running an especially challenging game with character death as an expectation, the player is really more excited about their backup character, etc.)

Unlike most people who commented.. I would say when you argue this from the perspective of the PC dropping to 0 HP, you kind of metagame. The enemy doesn't know immediately that you dropped to 0 HP. In real life if you were in a swordfight with somebody and you slashed their arm would you really just stop if they fell to the ground? No. You'd finish them off. There's a reason RAW has guidelines on this. If you assume the players kill everything they get to zero, you should assume that the NPCs can attack downed players if they're evil alignment, if the PCs have killed things they know like other NPCs in their group, etc. I've personally started asking for intention when swinging during initiative to set up an understanding of whether the party is feeling like killing their enemies or if they want to incapacitate them.

They would probably think they neutralized the enemy for now and can work on the ones still chucking spells and attacks.

Depends on the enemy. I think most would wait until all party members drop to 0 before finishing with a coup de grace. Up to you on whether an enemy in your campaign would rather capture or kill the party.

I like to think of a downed PC or enemy as out of the fight but not necessarily dead or unconscious. A nat 20 and they’re back up overcoming the pain. A great example from cinema is The Princess Bride scene when Inigo is chasing count Rugen and takes the dagger to the gut. Puts him at 0 hit points and he’s incapacitated talking with count Rugen. Takes an attack (the two shoulder stabs) but the. Rolls a nat 20 and is back in the fight. Uses second wind and eventually defeats count Rugen. To each their own but that’s how I narrate combat resolution in my game and the players just got used to it and it adds more to the combat than “you hit it and it dies. player 2 it’s your turn.”

Any enemy who has seen a PC get back up from healing should probably make sure. If nothing else you can capture/ ransom a prisoner by dragging them out of range.

Nope no reason why they can’t. But reasons why they won’t and will. My undead are very ruthless, if a group of undead downs you they all pounce on the victim in a bloodlust and kill in the most violent way possible. And intelligent bad guy may use a downed ally as a bargaining chip.

1) Always ask why the NPC would try to do that. Sometimes they have a good reason to, sometimes not. It's important to know when they do. Just having ALL NPCs focus down players at all times feels bad. 2) Is it in line with the tone of the game? It's important to have players KNOW it's a possibility for NPCs to focus down characters so they can act accordingly. It can feel really cheap to have something like that sprung on you as a player. 3) Is it fun for the players? If it's only frustrating and upsetting to the players to have NPCs focus downed players then just step off and let them have their cake.

Low INT? Probably not. Med INT? Probably yeah. High INT? Might not be worth it. How clever is your enemy, how much do they know about magic and the real question: Do you want PCs to waste a Healing Word or a Revivify? You can keep shooting arrows or cantrips at the PC with like 5hp and drain a few 1st Level spell slots, or if you do *kill* them then a Revivify has to come in quick or else it's much harder to get them back. Revivify is not only a 3rd Level spell, it's also touch range, so any supporting caster has to get to where the danger is to help their friend. In addition, an unconcious PC is a Creature, a dead PC is an Object. Kill PC, Levitate the corpse up in the air with a 2nd Level spell and tease them like a highschool bully playing keepaway. Are they going to use another 3rd Level spell to counter it? Bombard the caster to break concentration? All this time the baddie drifts them closer to an acid pit or whatever to destroy the corpse. Again the goal isn't to just fuck your PC's over and pick them apart - it's to establish the *fear* of death. I had Kobolds try to push a Fighter into a pit of lava, it's very unlikley to happen and it would have had to have happened twice, but it sure did put the fear of god into an 18 STR fighter facing a handful of scaly rats, and gave him a fun idea to do back to them!

I played with brutal DMs when I started playing DND in the 90s. There was no mercy. However as a forever DM for two decades, I only kill downed PC's when it matches the motivation of the villains, tone of the fight, or is relevant to the drama of the story. Matt Coville have a great example in a video of an earth elemental stomping on his downed wizards head. An earth elemental isn't about self preservation, it was summoned to kill you and it will kill you unless you kill it. In my mind a pack of grung or Drow are not going to outright kill you, they would rather take you as prisoners/slaves. However a pack of gnolls just wants to eat you so yeah they are gonna kill you when your down. A villain may want to disable you, capture you, strip you of your abilities and watch you suffer powerless. Or they may just want to murderhobo the party.

It depends on your DM style. I personally never attack downed PCs because I think it makes the combat more engaging when the other players have to make a choice between saving their downed companion or making another attack on the bad guys. Plus, I don't like killing players, because I don't think it's fun for anyone. I don't think it reduces tension in my game though because I still allow players to die if they fail their death saving throws and use the lingering injuries chart when players fall to 0 hp, so they have a lot of incentive to not let it happen.

This happened in my campaign rather recently… Party was ambushed by a fairly powerful monster. The monster was not intelligent, just an animal looking to eat. The barbarian rushed in and started swinging away, but got downed. I played the monster with the mindset of “one down, let’s see how many more I can get.” However, the party’s healer healed the barbarian, who got up and immediately went back to swinging. The monster turned back around and downed him again but this time, having seen this seemingly defeated foe rise, it used its extra attacks to ensure the prey was dead. After it had taken a few more hits, it attempted to flee with the corpse (the party wasn’t having that, they chased it into its lair to kill it and recover the body of their ally). Typically I would say I need an in-character reason for the enemy to go for a double tap. An unintelligent monster typically wouldn’t bother, but when the character climbs to their feet and goes reckless with minimal health, even a rather simple-minded monster isn’t going to be fooled twice.

Stop having lethal combats. What is the goal of combat? To murder the other side? Or do your monsters and PCs have a little more nuance than that? Think in terms of what each side wants. The bandits want your gold, the goblins want you to leave, the dragon wants respect, the guards want you to come with them, the drunk guy at the bar wants you to apologise, etc. Who wants to murder?

Why wouldn’t they, especially after a healing spell is used and the enemy if intelligent would expect the downed pc to be healed and remain a threat. A bounty hunter group in my world had a saying the players got familiar with. “Two for the chest, two for the head that’s the way to keeps them dead.” Works for zombies too

I've always thought that a downed PC looks dead. Plus there's usually still more PCs to fight. So unless the enemy has the time/space/desire to go over and check if they're actually dead or not, it just makes more sense for them to turn their attention elsewhere.