Thread 96296381

>You hit 0 and and fall unconscious? I see.
>Rolls dice
>The enemy hits you two more times, critting automatically due to the unconscious condition, each dealing two automatic death saves. You die.
Why does no DM have the balls to do this?

>>96296381 (OP)
>critting automatically due to the unconscious condition
What game?

>>96296381 (OP)
The enemies are too busy fighting the rest of the party to do that

>>96296397
D&D 5e, If you ever touched a die you'd already know.

Something smells in this thread...

>>96296381 (OP)
Why am I playing a solo game?

Or am I the rogue that split from the party or something

>>96296405
In a game where a healer can bring an unconscious person back up to fighting strength as a bonus action for a first-level spell, a coup-de-grace on fallen foes is the most logical choice.

>>96296411
It's the same turn, the enemy you're fighting has a multiattack with at least three attacks.

>>96296418
Then I must be very foolish for approaching an enemy at low health and allowing them to finish me off.

Or the party has mismanaged their resources and this is just the consequence.

Or the encounter is meant to be unwinnable.

>>96296381 (OP)
Feels like clear ragebait, but I'll bite.

1. An enemy will have to waste an action (or potentially two in lower levels) while other party members are still a threat.
2. That is a "DM vs PCs" mindset which would be no fun to anyone.
3. The DM will have to dump all backstory related content planned for the PC if they die.

>>96296432
Memes aside you would be surprised how many players just stand in front of a big monster and attack until they either kill it or TPK. Despite RPG combat ostensibly being a strategy game, the only strategy most players are capable of is flanking for +2 to hit. I guess that could be the fault of the game or the DM for not providing much opportunity for strategy though as most combats effectively take place in a empty white void.

>>96296457
Answering it as bait is very honorable, sir anon, but it's actually not even good bait, because the scenario is incomplete and unrealistic.

If the enemy has so many attacks, we are likely at high level. At this level, it -can- make sense to finish someone off since it requires a stronger spell for revival afterwards. It still means that the person in this scenario somehow died in one hit. Not only is the poor frontliner probably completely fine in the long-run, but there's a story here about how he got into the situation that we're not being told. We are expected to just call the DM bad or something.

2/10

>>96296381 (OP)
Am I supposed to presume that this happened to you in an actual game, sir Frogposter, and that you're not doing this just to bait us? Cause if so, I'd like a more detailed recap to understand the circumstances that lead up to your Dungeon Master deciding he's tired enough of your shit to kill off your character in this manner.

>>96296381 (OP)
>automatic death saves
Seems counterproductive.

>>96296564
No this is a hypothetical and you are clearly a retarded brown ESL because it's presented as something DMs SHOULD do but don't.

>>96296406
You need 3 fails to fue, how does the character dies with just 2?

>>96296381 (OP)
Having enemy go out of their way to coup de grace a downed due and not just once but actually twice breaks my suspension of disbelief.
I still go for it in certain circumstances:
>Party fighting dumb ravenous undead, the party is forewarned so they will take into account the fact the ghouls can rip a dying character apart before they manage to heal him and adjust tactics appropriately.
>Difficult/important fights, especially after PCs are healed up at least once the enemies will tap them once as a coup de grace, to rise the stakes and difficulty.
>At high levels smart enemies will take extra precautions to kill downed characters, the PCs just have to deal with it and since they're high level they should have the means to.
I stopped using the regular death save system anyway.
>>96296487
>If the enemy has so many attacks, we are likely at high level.
Oh yeah, the epic level party fighting a Girallon with 5 attacks, or Roper with 4 attacks, or *gasp* 3 wolves who happen to act on a similar/same initiatve.

>>96296575
No, I'm expressing my skepticism precisely because it's a fucking frogposter, retard

>Oh yeah, the epic level party fighting a Girallon with 5 attacks, or Roper with 4 attacks, or *gasp* 3 wolves who happen to act on a similar/same initiatve.

This is starting to sound more and more like a skill issue thread.

>each dealing two automatic death saves
So four in total, dumb ESL.

>>96296589
You will never be a janitor. You will look at my posts every and and be powerless to do anything about them. Have fun thinking about that as you fall asleep tonight.

>>96296606
Someone sounds upset that they've been called out

>>96296406
My mistake, i forgot unconsiousness was a real condition. I guess that triggers the contingency condition to self-cast my revivify tattoo and i wake up at the end of their turn with 1hp

>>96296597
Manticores are only CR 3 and have three attacks.

>>96296457
>The DM will have to dump all backstory related content planned for the PC if they die.
Why the fuck are you prepping content specifically for a character you repeatedly put in situations where they can die? Are you stupid?

>>96296770

You aren't wrong, but I feel that the point the OP is trying to make is growing increasingly lost.

Is it literally just about multiattack being busted? It's not a hard thing to house-rule at all, and 5e is known for having quite a few glaring flaws.

...but It didn't seem like that was what OP wanted to tell us.

>>96296785
It’s about DMs pulling punches and being pussies

>>96296381 (OP)
>>You hit 0 and and fall unconscious?
Not how it works in my game.
>>Rolls dice
>>The enemy hits you two more times, critting automatically due to the unconscious condition
Not how it works in my game.
But then again, I'm a game master, not a "DM".

>>96296785
>>96296800
Think the point is that the op's hypothetical is fake and gay

>>96296581
Massive fucking faggot retardkun who can't even read the rules and has 0 games...
>Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death.

>>96296381 (OP)
Serious answer: most players don't like it, and most DMs want their players to like the game.

>>96296397
Don't pretend you don't know.

>>96296381 (OP)
Thank god none of the games I run or play work like that and have actually good mechanics for being downed.

>>96296381 (OP)
Have you tried not playing DnD?

>>96297102
You see, if OP admitted what game, that would have immediately highlighted the root to his problem that could solve itself by just not playing that particular game

>>96297135
It’s 5e Jesus Christ.
It’s always 5e

>>96296457
>The DM will have to dump all backstory related content planned for the PC if they die
As if players will ever have an actual backstory and plans beyond whatever quest marker the GM is forces to give them (or they'll stand in place clueless)

>>96296381 (OP)
I had a DM that did this, he left us at one roll of dying. I'm pretty sure he read somewhere that it made fights more exiting, fight or let someone die, while lowering TPKs and waster turns because you're not downing two players in the same turn.
In practice it meant healers had to go full heal bot, their turns were decided for them when someone went down, and to get people down he got kinda autist hitting only the person who was just downed to ensure he had the extra hits that made the healer not play his turn and waste all slots on picking people up.

I'm sure there's better and worse implementations, but in my experience focusing on double tapping PCs turned fights into repetitive slogs. Death saves are a game mechanic, not a reality of the world, they abstract a part of the combat system to make it work a certain way. Your enemies are not being clever, they are acting on mechanics, it's as clever as stealing a player's sheet when they're about to see their spell list. As in, it is clever, but it's not meshing with the rest of the mechanics.

>>96297217
>Your enemies are not being clever, they are acting on mechanics
That's... The same thing. If you don't use the mechanics of the game at all, just play free form lmao

>>96297161
Exactly. 5e is the source of all ills in the gaming world, so he wouldn't be having that problem if he just played something else.

>>96297227
no, the mechanics facilitate the actions, but the actions are not based on mechanical events. Consuming death saves is like slapping away the dice before they stop rolling. That's ineracting with the system resolution mechanic too. The enemies don't know you rolled a die to see if you hit, they don't know you roll a die three times before dying, they don't know there's a DM controlling all their actions. Those are all on the same meta level.

>>96296406
Not necessarily. Why do D&Dtroons always assume it's about them?

>>96297240
>no, the mechanics facilitate the actions, but the actions are not based on mechanical events.
Yes, they are.
>Consuming death saves is like slapping away the dice before they stop rolling. That's ineracting with the system resolution mechanic too
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with interacting with how the system works. Enemies should do what will grant them the edge, not act "realistically" if it fucking sucks and has no actual benefits.
So if the way the game and thus the world functions is that you need to target incapacitated foes to keep them permanently incapacitated, that only makes sense for them to do.

>>96296415
Not when it means you will typically die instantaneously in retaliation by essentially giving up an entire turn. Also,
>a healer can bring an unconscious person back up to fighting strength as a bonus action for a first-level spell
Meta knowledge based on gameplay mechanics that character in-world would not be privy to. The most logical choice is always to deal with the active threats instead of finishing off an element that is effectively out of the fight.

>>96296467
AoO makes it unattractive to move away from enemies and giving up action economy to disengage, unless you're a rogue, always feels bad because an action spent not attack is an action spent not winning the encounter. Yes, many DMs are bad at giving players interactivity in their environments to encourage movement, but they'd have to go above and beyond to make anything as attractive as simply just hitting something in the face for full damage. It's boring, but effective most of the time.

>>96297431
The existence of healing magic is not meta knowledge and somebody knocked out is still visibly breathing and isn't even capable of attempting deception to play dead. People who say this shit are so weird to me, even in zombie games people always confirm their kills to make sure the enemy doesn't get back up even if it's purely mindless, let alone intelligent humanoid enemies with access to healing potions and divine intervention

>>96297414
>Enemies should do what will grant them the edge, not act "realistically"
Hard disagree. You are wrong.
The only things that make sense for characters in a game world to do are things they would logically do with their available in-world understanding of the world around them and their sensibilities toward it.

>>96297468
>The existence of healing magic is not meta knowledge
But how EXACTLY it functions is. Mechanical limitations are meta knowledge and knowing exactly what a character with healing can do and when they can do it is unreasonable. You confirm kills when it is safe to do so. If there are active threats still harrying you, then it makes sense to tend to them first. An intelligent combatant should not waste time on something that isn't a current threat just because outside meta intervention has told them they need to strike a character exactly X number of times to ensure they are dead.
>somebody knocked out is still visibly breathing and isn't even capable of attempting deception to play dead
And in the heat of battle an enemy cannot necessarily determine they are breathing because, in D&D at the very least, a turn is six seconds and they have to perform all of their actions within that timeframe. You step out of the realm of plausibility if you try to cram mechanically-minded BS just for the sake of "not pulling your punches." Effectively, what you've done is waste the rest of that enemy's turn attacking what to them would already be a person well on their way to expiring.
All mechanics are abstractions and standardization for in-world events and phenomenon, but the specifics of how they work in the lore can work more or less as written in the context of the world itself. If the world is so paint-by-numbers that magic is an exact known science with no variation, then you're playing in a boring world. No one knows what the fuck a "bonus action" is in-world because it's merely an abstraction.
>but they just know!
No, they don't.

>>96297496
>The only things that make sense for characters in a game world to do are things they would logically do with their available in-world understanding of the world around them
Yet the system creates that understanding, rendering your point utterly moot.

>>96297517
No, it doesn't. The characters do not know they are playing in a "system." They're exist in a living, breathing world of fantastical and often unexplained events and phenomena.
YOU, the player, have an understanding but that is not the same as the characters in the world understanding. If you have an inability to separate your personal knowledge from that of a fictional character, than maybe ROLEplaying is something you are ill-suited toward. The only things that are moot here are your imagination and capability for abstract reasoning. I will entertain this no further.

>>96296606
>You will never be a janitor
>deleted
kek

>>96297414
>Enemies should do what will grant them the edge, not act "realistically" if it fucking sucks and has no actual benefits.
the issue isn't realism, the issue is that at that point the enemy should steal your die or character sheet. The game mechanics exist outside of the available actions for the DM, acting upon them is like hacking a multiple player game. You can do it, it's not the intended experience and it's reassonable to assume there's a good chance you're making things worse.

>hus the world functions is that you need to target incapacitated foes to keep them permanently incapacitated
no, that's the issue. RAW and RAI most people don't get that extra thing. It's granted to players as part of the game mechanics. Similarly people don't stop right before doing something so an extradimensional force rolls a die to see if they succeed. Most times DMs will not roll for things that might demand a roll from the players because it's a better experience for them if they don't stop to check if every goblin manages to jump a chasm, they might abstract it as a single roll for all of them or use the avergage chance based on the stats to let that many pass. Those are abstractions, not a physics engine. Death saves are not a universal truth, it's an abstraction of how lucky PCs might be.

You don't like it? Take it away. It'll wreck combat but it's less schizo than keeping it and wasting 2 turns per fight to not have it in game.

>>96297531
>No, it doesn't. The characters do not know they are playing in a "system."
Doesn't matter, they still are. They should know what things will obviously work and not work based on this much. A clever enemy recognizes that focusing down opponents is the way to win fights if that's what the rules he's working within reward.
Anything else is pure coping to go "No you should play suboptimally just 'cuz!"

>>96297551
the system says that only player characters get death saves
You are trying to justify exploiting the rules in a way that makes the system work different than intended, and at no point did you explain why it'd be more fun to play that way. Your argument is based on in-world logic, against the rules and against other takes on in-world logic, and you can't even justify why someone would enjoy doing this.

>>96297544
>the issue isn't realism, the issue is that at that point the enemy should steal your die or character sheet.
These are not game mechanics.
>The game mechanics exist outside of the available actions for the DM, acting upon them is like hacking a multiple player game.
No it isn't. The game mechanics are simply a simulation of how the world works. Enemies act in accordance to the simulation. If their actions are supposed to be smart but result in dumb shit happening or vice versa, the game itself is flawed.
>Those are abstractions
No, those are GM calls. The rules do not explicitly demand a given procedure in such a situation, it's up to the GM to solve it in a way that is sensible for its context.
In combat though the rules are much more consistent and clear, and monsters should infact play according to consistent rules. Otherwise you might as well go free form.

>>96297572
>the system says that only player characters get death saves
And?
>You are trying to justify exploiting the rules in a way that makes the system work different than intended
Nah. If the system was intended to make it so monsters couldn't or shouldn't target downed players to remove them as a threat, it would prevent them from being targeted altogether.
>and at no point did you explain why it'd be more fun to play that way.
It's more fun to play better games than 5e, but it's more fun in general to play with a consistent GM who won't actively fudge things to ensure you don't derail his precious plot.

>>96297580
Why did you bring up plot? I asked you to explain why it'd be more fun to have every enemy waste one or two actions double tapping even when there is no in-game justification for them to do that outisde of the DM wanting to waste his and the healer's actions in the most boring way.

>>96297596
>Why did you bring up plot? I asked you to explain why
I did explain why, and because it's relevant since the only kind of GM who would actively disregard the way the rules function without creating substitutes of his own for them is of the failed novelist strain.
>even when there is no in-game justification for them to do
There is though, as much as it would clearly pain you to acknowledge it. Enemies that are not retarded should want to remove threats permanently instead of politely waiting for them to get stood back up before wailing on them again.
>B-b-but that's not fun for me, the player who cannot handle any challenge or adversity!
And? Play a better system or else beg your DM to make the enemies retards, your personal failings do not make a convincing argument.

>>96297614
>e rules function without creating substitutes of his own for them is of the failed novelist strain.
only PCs get death saves, this is how the rules are writen and the intention is that there's a time between reaching 0hp and becoming a nuisance for the party. You are the one changing how the game function, and your only justification is that they should act that way. Is the calle coming from inside the house? Are you the failed novelist changing the rules to fit your head cannon?

>>96297574
>The game mechanics are simply a simulation of how the world works
Can you quote me the rule that says that?

>>96296381 (OP)
Because the DM wants to have fun in the game, and killing off the party unnecessarily is anti-fun, and not only takes away the other players' fun but takes away the DM's fun too. No other explanation is needed.

>>96296381 (OP)
How many DMs have you spoken to, and how many are there in the world?

>>96296467
If you're playing a martial (lol), any action that isn't a full attack is a waste of a turn.

>>96296457
What does "backstory related content" mean?

>>96297240
Everything that happens in a game is determined by the rules of the game.

>>96297496
In the world of D&D, intelligent creatures know that attacking creatures makes them die faster. That is an in-world understanding.

Also, you're wrong. Everyone in the world has a literal understanding of the rules in the book, and uses them to their advantage. The way you play is wrong and inferior, and you are not permitted to reply.

>>96297544
The game mechanics are the only actions available to the DM. Everything he can do in the game is determined by the rules of the game.

>>96297816
Why do the rules allow monsters to target downed player characters if that isn't supposed to happen in the game?

>>96299739
See page 1 of the PHB.

>>96297816
>only PCs get death saves, this is how the rules are writen
Written*
>the intention is that there's a time between reaching 0hp and becoming a nuisance for the party.
No, the intention is that there is a difference between being dead and downed. There is no intention and no rules stating a player should have a grace period after being downed where nobody tries to kill them and remove them as a threat altogether.
>Y-you're da failed novelist!
Nah that's clearly you, you're afraid to use the rules and insist on altering them. You are a plotfag.

>>96301542
Alright, I opened to page 4 (the first page after the table of contents). The word "simulation" does not appear on this page. In fact, no variation of the word (simulate, simulated, etc.) appears anywhere in the book until page 277, in the spell description for Shadow Conjuration. Want to try that again, sport?

>>96301542
Well?

>>96301542
Well?

>>96301542
Well?

This thread isn't going anywhere. I can very easily ensure it never falls off the board just by bumping it once a day. YOU WILL ANSWER ME.

>>96301542
Oh, now I see.

>>96296381 (OP)
If you pitched your game as a meatgrinder, you should stomp their skulls into the floor every time. It's what your players expect you to do, and it'll feel like you're pulling your punches if you don't do it.

If you do this and you didn't pitch your game as a meatgrinder, your game is about to get a whole lot more dogshit really fast.

>>96300955
>>96297166
No games

>>96297496
Why are you trying to have a discussion in a troll thread? Shit like
>The way you play is wrong and inferior, and you are not permitted to reply.
didn't tip you off that you're wasting time on some retard that'll just go nuh-uh at whatever you'll say?

>>96296381 (OP)
For the same reason I generally don't do it as a player: my priority is attacking enemies that are still capable of fighting. Once you're down, you may never act again, but there are still other enemies that are capable of acting.

>>96296381 (OP)
This happened to me once
>playing pirate warlock whose ship and crew mysteriously disappeared and he had no memory of how it happened
>a revenant keeps chasing him yelling "Vengeance!" and only attacks him
>one night in a mountain pass the warlock is the only one on watch
>he sees a shadowy figure
>raises his torch and yells "Who goes there!"
>the revenant emerges and gets a crit, second attacks knocks the warlock down
>next round everyone wakes up but revenant is first in initiative order and immediately multi attacks the warlock, killing him for good
>the revenant falls dead
My next character in the same game died to a disintegration beam from a beholder, never dump dex!

>>96303081
Why are you so mad that you're playing wrong? Just improve yourself.

>>96296381 (OP)
I assure you that John Wick has the balls to do this, and more.

>>96301542
well?

>>96301542
well?

>>96301542
well?

Reminds me of this song, being shot through the heart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrZHPOeOxQQ

>>96301542
well?

>>96301542
well?

>>96296381 (OP)
Should enemies prioritize winning the fight, or should they treat themselves as cannon fodder and throw the battle just to secure one kill against the player party?

>>96314694
>Should enemies prioritize winning the fight, or should they treat themselves as cannon fodder and throw the battle just to secure one kill against the player party?
Ah yes, the Fire Emblem method. When you know your only reasonable hope of surviving is forcing the player to reset after losing a unit and hopefully frustrating them so much they never come back to clear your map.

>>96301542
well?

>>96314694
Obviously, the enemies should kill anyone with access to battlefield control and save or sucks first, followed by whoever is carrying the clw wands.

>>96296467
Lotta systems have this issue where staying in melee once you are in melee is the optimal way to contribute to the fight. If you wanna mix it up, then yeah, add complex terrain, opportunities for improvised damage, traps, damaging auras, free disengagements, push/pull abilities etc.

But then you're turning your game into 4e.

>>96300955
I got a guy who basically made his PC the Ahab of the party so I've been tossing hints and clues as to where he can find his "white whale". Since vengeance is his primary motivator I'm gonna milk it for a while.

>>96301584
>>96301614
>>96301671
>>96313699
>>96314638
>>96314294
>>96314321
>>96314460
>>96316056
Jannies take this retarded bumpfag and his tourist op to the penis explosion chamber

>>96296381 (OP)
Because a DM with any balls is going to be running a game he likes, not some irredeemable garbage like 5e.

>>96297445
The other problem is especially in dnd, most monsters are faster than PCs, so if a fight is going south running away is basically impossible unless the dm is nice and lets you.

>>96301557
Simulate is on page 7, retard.

>>96317637
Try again, retard.

>>96317760
>3.5e
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yep, you lose.

>>96296415
The logical choice would be to attack the healer before they get a chance to do that.

>>96301542
well?

>>96301542
well?

>>96301542
well?

>>96301542
well?

>>96296381 (OP)
Small brain.
Big brain intelligent monster:
Holds its action. Threatening to kill the Pc If the others don’t drop their weapons.
>>96296415
This is actually a real thing in DnD and its derivatives and it should be taken seriously.
If the monsters are intelligent enaugh to realize that the healer will be able to bring them back, finishing the job is the best action.
The second best option is to geek the priest.
This however requires that an enemy can tell an unconscious enemy from a dead one which he may not.

>>96301542
well?

It depends on the battle. Random fight against dumbass goons or animals are gonna attack whomever is attacking them. You keep the hit them when they're down stuff for intelligent enemies like bosses that'll want to kill a player. That makes it stand out and raises the stakes. I also like making certain creatures grab an unconscious player and start dragging them away sometimes to freak them all out.

>>96296467
Sadly DnD 5e and PF2e are the most popular games on the market and neither one really require more strategy than just "hit the guy until it dies" so I can't exactly blame new players for this.

>Random shitass enemy is going to waste their actions medicine checking a dead enemy
>Hey that guy isn't dead!
>Next Turn rolls around
>Your bad guy shitting in a corner and jerking his pee pee to coop de tim mcgraw is now ventilated with enough arrows to create Agincourt II: Baguette Boogaloo
>Guy you were gonna Coup de Grace'd got healed by the guy 10 ft in front of him and now the bad guys' friends are also dead
I too enjoy flushing my encounter's action economies down the terlet.

>>96296381 (OP)
Happened a few days ago. Our 12th level party fought a musical necromancer who summoned about 6 banshees.
The only guy not dropped to zero at least once by the end of the first round was the Paladin. The Warlock and Bard were killed outright. Then the downed Rogue was killed by our revived Barbarian when the Music Man threw a Confusion on him.
Though after that it was smooth sailing. The Paladin revivified the Bard, Barbarian saved, and they beat the shit out of the banshees while the Bard revived the others

>>96328909
Who said anything about checking? You attack until they've failed all their death saves.

>>96328909
There is no economy. The DM can put as many enemies in any encounter as he wants, so he gets as many actions as he wants.

>>96328909
The players had to waste their actions perception checking whether their ally was in range and if that was an enemy they were shooting arrows at.

>>96296381 (OP)
How often do your players down an enemy, and then spend two more attacks whacking them?
Oh, literally never?
There's your answer.

>>96331341
So literally every time?

>>96296815
...You've never been a game where the GM didn't finish off your character even though he could?

>>96296381 (OP)
come to my session in MERP
player made op character, more dextrous than Legolas, spawned, confidently engaged 3 orcs on wargs pursuing main team, killed one, tried to climb to escape, crit failed on ass, enemies crit hitted him eventually (turned out in cc maxed dex do not much for offense), he bleed until unconscious and got captured; we were making character about twice longer than whole this combat lasted
other instance: guy went to get herbs, saw furry creature with precious fur, attacked it, furry creature and it's mate eaten his entrails out, after making him unconscious in two hits
or team storming with npc in plate armor, guy gets arrow in the eye, dies
it is hilarious until it is your character dying

>>96317760
>We will never have an anatomically correct Ubermensch as a page background in Safe Dungeons and Approved Dragons again

>>96296467
It didnt help when many RPGs added rules for free attacks if a fighter in melee tried to withdraw or retreat. It meant that a fighter (when badly injured) couldnt risk swapping with a comrade or withdrawing, so usually tried to carry on fighting in the hope for a lucky shot that downs the monster first. It also meant that mounted combat was fucking useless - cavalry had to stop after charging with lances (instead of just riding away or through them), as every grunt got a swing in when the cavalry made contact and another as they galloped by or away.

>>96335338
Man your game sounds like dogshit.

>>96297388
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T ASSUME HE MEANS THE MOST COMMON RPG WHEN OBVIOUSLY REFERENCING MECHANICS OF IT!!!!
You're like a retard listening to someone talk about Chaos Space Marines and asking "WhAT setInG ArE yoU TaLKiNg AbOUt?"

>>96296381 (OP)
I often do it, when the opponents are mortal enemies or particularly evil in nature, like orcs or goblins, or if it's a monster attacking for food. Scavenger type animals like Wolves and ghouls will often try to drag away downed bodies to eat them in safety, while some larger creatures like trolls and giants will stuff the character straight into their mouths.

The players not in the front line often do Coup de Grace on downed opponents while the front line fighters advance over them, especially after an incident where a wounded goblin pretented to die then tried to shank the wizard attempting to loot his 'corpse'.

Alternatively, I tend to use some aspects of medieval feudalism and chivalry for lawful characters and NPCs, so badly wounded nobility can often surrender to their enemy and offer terms (become the guest/prisoner of the winner on the promise of a payment of a ransom/favour in return).

>>96297572
Sounds like a fucking stupid system.

>>96297551
> A clever enemy recognizes that focusing down opponents is the way to win fights if that's what the rules he's working within reward.

The rules of the game are not metaphysical rules of the setting anon. The clever enemy can't take advantage of the rules because it has no way of knowing the rules exist or what they reward.

>>96339803
>The rules of the game are not metaphysical rules of the setting anon
Yes they are.

>The clever enemy can't take advantage of the rules because it has no way of knowing the rules exist
This is akin to saying animals don't take advantage of physics because they don't grasp the laws of physics. They don't need to fully comprehend them (neither do we btw) to play to and around them as best suits them.
Any monster with above 0 INT understands that if you don't kill something, it might get back up and try to kill you. Even real life animals understand this btw.

>>96296381 (OP)
Because that is how you turn your players into munchkins.

>>96339070

You're not even assuming "the most common RPG", you're assuming a SPECIFIC EDITION of that RPG. Most D&D players have never played or even looked at 5th edition.

>>96339941
No they aren't. NPCs are not aware of the game rules in any way whatsoever, and your human players should play as if they don't know them either. All decisions must be based on real world logic, not metagame wankery.

>>96302975

You are the nogames. Players NEVER think about their characters beyond their stats and you as DM should not think about their characters either. I have ran RPGs for 40 years, don't talk to me.

>>96340289
Yes, they are.
>NPCs are not aware of the game rules in any way whatsoever
Yes they are.
>and your human players should play as if they don't know them either
No, they shouldn't.
>All decisions must be based on real world logic, not metagame wankery.
Nope.

>>96340345
It's okay that these aren't true by the way. I won't be reading your reply.

Yeah, you lost.

>>96296381 (OP)
Hapened to my paladin bard. He was one death save away from death due to being attacked while down when the rogue saved my ass.

>>96339941
>The clever enemy can't take advantage of the rules because it has no way of knowing the rules exist
This is akin to saying animals don't take advantage of physics because they don't grasp the laws of physics. They don't need to fully comprehend them (neither do we btw) to play to and around them as best suits them.

So even if you want to assume that game rules are the rules of the universe alarm physics, game rules are only active in so far as the players can percieve them. Like if I was running a game where bandits raided a town but the players weren't present for the raid, I wouldn't determine what happens during the raid according to the rules of the game and there's no game I'm aware of that ever suggests doing that or enforces it as part of the game rules.

So if the game rules aren't active outside of the player's influence, then they've never actually been given the opportunity to live amongst them and adapt to it naturally without realizing it like an animal does.

>Any monster with above 0 INT understands that if you don't kill something, it might get back up and try to kill you. Even real life animals understand this btw.

Right but if a real life animal is being attacked by multiple threats it's not going to double tap someone until it can confirm with 100% certainty they're dead while in the middle of getting stabbed or shot ar by something else. And even if there isn't a threat people survive animal attacks all the time just be virtue of the animal choosing not to finish them off. Further I would argue such animalistic behavior isn't the result of the animal operating on the logic of "if you don't kill something, it might get back up and try to kill you" but instead simply not knowing/caring when to stop.

>>96340713
Failed greentext, automatic disqualification until you correct it and repost this.

>>96340713
>So even if you want to assume that game rules are the rules of the universe alarm physics
Alarm?
>game rules are only active in so far as the players can percieve them
Perceive* and, where's the proof for this claim?
>Right but if a real life animal is being attacked by multiple threats it's not going to double tap someone until it can confirm with 100% certainty they're dead
Yes it will. A pitbull that gets into a fight will lock on to the throat and not stop until they feel certain whatever they're holding onto is dead. And usually that's long after it's actually dead.

>And even if there isn't a threat people survive animal attacks all the time just be virtue of the animal choosing not to finish them off.
In these cases sure, because the animal never wanted a fight. But nobody has ever survived a predation attempt because the animal "just decided not to finish them off". If it wants to cause death, it simply will take an efficient means of doing so and not stop until they're sure you're dead.

>>96340345
then why don't the NPCs fix everything if they have the same conditions as players and have been at it for much longer?

>>96340783
Lack of resources, because they don't have the right classes, because they have to abide by the game rules where players often ignore it and play the meta (taking risks that would get them killed for minor gains, something only psychos and insane people do irl), or simply having other problems to deal with.
You might as well ask why people still starve irl, anon.

>>96340799
>because they have to abide by the game rules where players often ignore it and play the meta

Anon you are literally arguing that they should be acting according to the metagame

>>96340768
>where's the proof for this claim?

Did you not read the post anon?

>>96340713
>if I was running a game where bandits raided a town but the players weren't present for the raid, I wouldn't determine what happens during the raid according to the rules of the game and there's no game I'm aware of that ever suggests doing that or enforces it as part of the game rules.

So if the game rules aren't active outside of the player's influence, then they've never actually been given the opportunity to live amongst them and adapt to it naturally without realizing it like an animal does.

>>96340887
>Anon you are literally arguing that they should be acting according to the metagame
Meta =/= Metagame =/= Rules.

>>96340894
>Did you not read the post
Read it, you offered zero proof. Let's see it.

>>96340289
No, that's retarded.

>>96340967
And it's totally okay for you to think that. Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

>>96297572
>>96339118
It literally says the opposite.