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

[Asisreo]

Does anyone else find it strange that so many NPC's have to die? Like, I get cultists and characters on death row anyways. But why is it so common to have, say, common bandits risk their whole lives to take money from random travelers when things have obviously gone south?

On that note: I feel smart enemies that knock a PC unconscious should be smart. Some people say they'll be ignored, the others say they'll be killed. I think an intelligent NPC will grab the PC and negotiate their lives by taking them hostage. A dying PC is a problem, a dead one a setback, but a dying hostage PC is a crisis. If the party is low level, they won't be able to revive them. If the party is high level, there's a good chance the enemy has something that can lock them out of revival (like zombification).

Also, nobody typically wants to fight unless they have to or they're certain they can win. A losing NPC will want to end combat asap by bargaining and a winning NPC wants to end combat asap by threatening. Only over-the-top characters should still be in a prolonged fight.

 

[noko]

The higher level the NPC the more likely they are to leave out the back door in my book. Also, in groups of humans, more than half of them are unlikely to be invested in a fight unless forced.

 

[jgsugden]

Tell a good story. Figure out what personality and traits for bandits will make for a better story - then have them be a part of that story and true to character.

Great stories are filled with dumb enemies, smart enemies, and a plethora of other variations on enemies. There is room for all of them - just pick the style of the enemy to suit the situation and tell that great story.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It just depends on how the DM/table runs things. I DM monsters/NPCs as if they have a vested interest in their own survival and lives. Enemies often will surrender and also take fallen PCs captive, demanding their surrender or the captive is killed, etc. In our main game, I think the DM has captured our party three times now because one or more people went down and we had to surrender or have them killed.

The worse thing IMO is the mindset that is more prevalent in 5E that the game is meant for the PCs to win. The system is set up for easy revival of dead PCs, and PC death against anything but "deadly" encounters is virtually unheard of unless bad planning (i.e. stupidity by the players) or bad luck happens.

So, sure, it happens in the games I run and most of the ones I play in as well.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Taking a hostage who is dying isn't necessarily all that smart. Their allies may decide that killing the bandit is the most expeditious means to save the ally (since the hostage could easily expire during negotiations). Alternately, a simple healing word spell can pull the hostage out of the danger zone (even if the bandit has a readied action, those go off after the triggering action, meaning that the worst thing that happens is the ally is back at zero).

The party could also promise to let the bandit go, but then kill him anyway. If the bandit tries to take the hostage with them, there's almost even odds that the hostage will die anyway, making it a poor choices for the PCs.

Lastly, if they're the more mercenary sort of adventurers, they may welcome the opportunity to split the treasure with one less person. Unless that bandit is familiar with the PCs (in which case he was arguably a fool to fight them) he doesn't know their demeanor.

It's certainly an option worth considering, but I don't think it is nearly as "smart" as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Imaculata]

To me its all a matter of player level and character motivation. At early levels an opponent will be more inclined to take a pc hostage than outright kill him/her. But at higher levels I throw out any such safety nets.

However, some opponents may have a sense of honor that prohibits them from killing a helpless pc entirely. At one point in my current campaign, I had an opponent throw down his sword and refuse to do something dishonorable, despite his superior ordering him to do so. It was an interesting character moment.

I even had a pirate captain who executed one of his own men for taking a shot at a pc with whom he demanded a personal duel.

 

[Shiroiken]

I have NPCs surrender all the time, because they don't want to die. Some of the most interesting moments have been the negotiations, because often the bad guys have something the PCs want. As for killing downed PCs (or NPCs for that matter), unless no other useful action is available, it's usually more efficient to deal with active threats. However, including them in AOE is a reasonable course of action.

 

[Imaculata]

As for killing downed PCs (or NPCs for that matter), unless no other useful action is available, it's usually more efficient to deal with active threats. However, including them in AOE is a reasonable course of action.

If a baddy does not deal with a downed pc, that pc will get back up again. So from a strategic and mechanical point of view, it is more advantageous to kill a downed pc. When I DM, I tend to focus especially on downed pc's, to scare the living daylights out my players. It is up to them to drag their downed buddy to safety, because otherwise they are monster food. Outright killing a pc also delivers a huge blow to their morale, and makes the rest of the group more likely to retreat.

Now some of you may think 'Killing a pc is not fun for the players'. And that is true. But shielding your players from death, harms the suspense which also undermines their fun. What I do, is make it perfectly clear to my players that I will kill their characters if given the opportunity. This makes them extra cautious, and thus heightens the suspense. It is important that your players are aware what the stakes are. As long as they are aware that combat in your campaign is deadly, they will approach any battle with that knowledge in mind.

I've even had a session where the players spent most of the day discussing their plans for a big battle and prepping accordingly. They were extremely invested, because they knew what was at stake. And it was still was a very fun session, even if it was but a prelude to the actual battle.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If a baddy does not deal with a downed pc, that pc will get back up again. So from a strategic and mechanical point of view, it is more advantageous to kill a downed pc. When I DM, I tend to focus especially on downed pc's, to scare the living daylights out my players. It is up to them to drag their downed buddy to safety, because otherwise they are monster food. Outright killing a pc also delivers a huge blow to their morale, and makes the rest of the group more likely to retreat.

Now some of you may think 'Killing a pc is not fun for the players'. And that is true. But shielding your players from death, harms the suspense which also undermines their fun. What I do, is make it perfectly clear to my players that I will kill their characters if given the opportunity. This makes them extra cautious, and thus heightens the suspense. It is important that your players are aware what the stakes are. As long as they are aware that combat in your campaign is deadly, they will approach any battle with that knowledge in mind.

I've even had a session where the players spent most of the day discussing their plans for a big battle and prepping accordingly. They were extremely invested, because they knew what was at stake. And it was still was a very fun session, even if it was but a prelude to the actual battle.

While it is effective from the standpoint of scaring the players, I disagree that it's generally effective with respect to winning (and/or surviving).

You're wasting attacks to make certain that a character who can't attack you won't be able to attack you IF they are able to get back up. The thing is, if there are other characters who are actively attacking you (or your allies), then you are throwing away attacks that could move those characters towards not being able to attack you, over a maybe. Even if you are aware that they have a healer, it is often more effective to focus fire on the healer, to take them out of the equation. After all, with spells like revivify, even killing an unconscious character doesn't guarantee their removal from the combat. However, if the healer is out of the equation, it pretty much does (short of something like Wish).

Unless the NPCs are part of a larger organization, and are willing to sacrifice themselves to deal with that group's enemies, I don't see killing unconscious characters as the best means of survival. In the real world, soldiers don't typically go around executing unconscious people while enemy soldiers are shooting at them. It's illogical.

That said, this doesn't account for player psychology, only NPCs doing their best to survive and win. Obviously, play as you prefer.

 

[Krachek]

Npc react according to players expectation.
if players want to deal with realistic behavior, fine
if players want to hack and slash without mercy, fine