|
Hey, all. I had a similar question to one posted in another thread, and thought it better to make a new thread of it.
The situation is: there is one PC within threat range of a BBEG, and the BBEG has three attacks. With the first hit, the PC is still standing, but barely. With the second hit, the PC is dropped deep into negative hps. You have a third attack left, and using it against your only available target (the downed PC) will definitely kill the PC. Do you have the BBEG take the attack?
I say yes. I anticipate that most DMs would also say yes. But some DMs and players would consider this needlessly cruel or vindictive. Thoughts?
Characters die. It happens.
|
Hey, all. I had a similar question to one posted in another thread, and thought it better to make a new thread of it.
The situation is: there is one PC within threat range of a BBEG, and the BBEG has three attacks. With the first hit, the PC is still standing, but barely. With the second hit, the PC is dropped deep into negative hps. You have a third attack left, and using it against your only available target (the downed PC) will definitely kill the PC. Do you have the BBEG take the attack?
I say yes. I anticipate that most DMs would also say yes. But some DMs and players would consider this needlessly cruel or vindictive. Thoughts?
Yes.
I have long maintained that any adventure in which your character does not stand a real chance of dying is merely a grind. This means that characters in bad situations die. It reminds players that playing smart is important. (If you are in trouble, then you need to do something about it - now.)
I've had characters die.
I've also had fights where the entire group pulled out of a room, knowing that they couldn't win the fight that was going on at the time, and that leaving, and coming back later was much better than dying.
As I said on the other thread. One of the operative words in BBEG is EVIL. That monster, or boss, or demon, or whatever does not care about playing fair. And you don't get to be the BBEG by disregarding the fact that fallen fighters sometimes get up. Or sometimes they are playing dead.
There is no such thing as a "fair fight". Anyone who thinks there is, is wrong.
As a side point. How often do adventuring parties leave unconscious monsters and go adventuring elsewhere?
Paladin: "well, we've shown the ancient red dragon who the boss is. Let's leave him to lick his wounds and ponder changing careers. To kill him now just wouldn't be fair." <dusts off hands>
Rogue: "Forget that! I want some dragonhide boots!" <slice slice>
|
Stuff
Guess I'm in the minority, but it would depend on the circumstances. Is the enemy Intelligent? Does it feed on dead PC's? Has it already witnessed another group member use Channel Energy or similar magic to heal someone back up? Does it have a decent Heal check to recognize the downed PC is still live albeit barely? These are all questions I ask myself. But the biggest one is, "Will this be fun for the players?" Yes, dying is part of the game (happened to me twice), but vindictive death is not fun for anyone. If the creature is a ghoul and wants to drag the downed PC away, I would think it would continue to beat on it until there was no sign of life, then drag it away for a midnight snack. However, consider a party enters a chamber, immediately provoking combat from a human warrior who has never before seen them, and loses initiative. The fighter has three attacks and drops a PC with the first two, would he really drop a "death blow?" Maybe if he was a crazed CE following of Rovagug. My point, it is a GM decision and regardless if the players like it or agree with the motivation, it is within his/her right to blast the PC. As long as no rules are broken, I do not feel the GM even needs to justify their reasoning. Of course, as players, we have the choice never to play with that GM again. However, we also need to realize that death is a real part of the game and will happen from time to time. If an encounter is particularly "killer" or too challenging for a group of PC's of their APL, don't blame the GM, s/he's (supposed) to just be a neutral narrator), blame the writer/developer.
I would make the attack most likely, depending on motivation of the attacker, one good reason not to charge ahead or abandon your party members. It all depends on what sort of creature / person it is.
|
|
this subject has been well explored and the majority of peoples viewpoints expressed articulately and clearly. i have this to add.
as a PC if you are in combat versus some baddies and lets say one is an npc you have either a: herd lots about or b: encountered before. it is my experience that you hit the npc until they are unconscious then you hit them some more until no life remains in their body. (or i just have some angry malicious friends)
seriously how many movies have you watched or books have you read where you are thinking," wait protagonist why didn't you check the dead guy to make sure hes actually dead!? stab/shoot/bludgeon him a few more times please!" i feel this goes for bad guys too. (makes me also think about bad guys who monologue just before the kill which is also most aggravating)
that said, i think it is entirely situational and would default to whatever the dms decision was as being mostly correct. as a player i don't feel challenged unless i know that character death is a serious threat. It makes the characters that do survive that much more impressive and heroic.
|
|
I feel that it is situational, but for a different reason than TwilightKnight.
For me, it depends on the players and the setting. If I'm running at a con with a group of players who are sitting down to PFS for the first time, I pull punches. I want the game and the society to grow, and killing a character needlessly for someone's first time out doesn't help accomplish this. A new player is already going to get the sense of danger by being dropped and dying, a coup-de-grace or bonus attack against an already downed foe doesn't add anything to the experience.
Against a group of experienced players, or in a home/store game with people who I may already be acquainted with, all's fair.
|
|
Stuff
+1...wanton destruction of characters at low levels, perhaps up to three, is not good for the society as it tends to push players away. However, at higher levels, especially in mid to high tier games, the gloves are off. By then, the players should have plenty of experience with their characters, the rules, and how to survive in the harsh world of Golarion.
|
|
It really depends on the situation, how the players have handled the scenario up until now, and the GMs general disposition.
One must realize that even a troll can see the point in keeping its lunch fresh until it develops the appetite for it; thus even monsters might be interested in keeping the PC alive, just a day or two more.
However, if the players have fostered hateful sentiment with their opponents these will likely be motivated by vengeance.
Ultimately it might be a matter of how the player vs. GM dynamics is in the gaming group. If the two parties are competitive and the thrill of being severly challenged by encounters is present the GM should not pull punches. But in a neofite group the GM might want to let players develop a taste for the game before offing the first characters.
|
|
For me, it depends on the players and the setting. If I'm running at a con with a group of players who are sitting down to PFS for the first time, I pull punches. I want the game and the society to grow, and killing a character needlessly for someone's first time out doesn't help accomplish this.
I agree, although the situation rarely comes up with new players; they're likely to be 1st level, and not a lot of creatures you face as 1st level characters have multiple attacks with each capable of dealing 6+ points of damage.
|
|
i think the point of DMing relative to a players level of experience is a really good one and incredibly important to the life of the game. i think its true that against newer players its important to fudge some rolls, and alter some deadly situations so that the game is fun for them and has that oh my gosh we just barely survived appeal to it. i think as players get more experienced they want more of a challenge and in some cases might even want to get killed in consequence to their actions.
|
|
i think the point of DMing relative to a players level of experience is a really good one and incredibly important to the life of the game. i think its true that against newer players its important to fudge some rolls, and alter some deadly situations so that the game is fun for them and has that oh my gosh we just barely survived appeal to it. i think as players get more experienced they want more of a challenge and in some cases might even want to get killed in consequence to their actions.
Except that seems to backfire in today's world of auto-respawn (thanks WOW). Players at mid-tier levels get pi$$ed when their fighter, who's basic function has been charge, power attack, kill target, is suddenly no longer as effective and the retaliation strikes result in a dead PC. Seems the GM is always blamed.
|
|
Except that seems to backfire in today's world of auto-respawn (thanks WOW). Players at mid-tier levels get pi$$ed when their fighter, who's basic function has been charge, power attack, kill target, is suddenly no longer as effective and the retaliation strikes result in a dead PC. Seems the GM is always blamed.
yes this is true and i couldn't agree more. when there is a disconnect between the players and the characters this often happens. what i mean is at least in my experience often players seem to forget at moments that the game is a role playing game and treat it like a video or board game, when their character dies they are suddenly reminded of all the great times they had or would have had with their character and that they might not get them back and become bummed.
|
|
I'd say no, I wouldn't have the 3rd attack kill the character most of the time.
If your character was killing mooks, would you strike a downed mook just to kill him or would you attack another mook? Same thing here.
If an intelligent BBG is losing, I might even break the rules a bit and have him hold back the 3rd attack and threaten to kill the character (free action) unless the PCs back off. That's storytelling. Attacking... is just player killing. imo.
In movies, does the BBG bring killing blows to downed heroes? Not very often, he usually goes after the heroes that are still up!
If no other opponent is in reach, perhaps. A malicious or non-intelligent BBG might make the 3rd attack. There're motivations why enemies would kill a PC, and when this happens it's unfortunate and the PC dies.
However, I don't find it's good storytelling by killing players. It's non-heroic and just makes people want to quit the game.
It appears I'm the minority... and I'm completely ok with that.
|
|
If your character was killing mooks, would you strike a downed mook just to kill him or would you attack another mook? Same thing here.
I certainly would if there was a healer in the baddie's group that was channeling or whatever to get his minions back up. Especially if I had already taken two attacks as part of a full round action and no movement left. No reason not to use that 3rd attack to ensure it is not getting back up.
As far as story-telling, the BBEG, might use the killing blow as a circumstance bonus and intimidate the remaining PC's. That feels very epic and definitely evil.
|
|
For me, it depends on the players and the setting. If I'm running at a con with a group of players who are sitting down to PFS for the first time, I pull punches. I want the game and the society to grow, and killing a character needlessly for someone's first time out doesn't help accomplish this.I agree, although the situation rarely comes up with new players; they're likely to be 1st level, and not a lot of creatures you face as 1st level characters have multiple attacks with each capable of dealing 6+ points of damage.
True.
But there are games with new players playing higher level pre-gens.And I heard a rumour that there is a 1st-level scenario with
|
And I heard a rumour that there is a 1st-level scenario with ** spoiler omitted **Decline of Glory (#24) and I'm DMing it in 2 weeks! Hopefully no TPKs. :)
Hmmm. I played a different one with my 3rd fighter the other week, although it looks like it was sub-tier 3-4, and the GM was a bit upset between my PC and another, where our builds acidentally synergized, turning a massive undead attack into an almost trivial encounter.
My fighter = tripping build, 20 Dex, Agile Maneuvers, Combat Reflexes, guisarme (reach), Combat Expertise, Improved Trip
Other PC = Wizard Necromancer with Turn Undead
The undead were either prone or running away, to be handled either individually or in small groups.
|
|
I'd tend towards sparing the character, especially if I could find RP reason to do so.
A recent encounter in my home game involved Gnoll slavers, that had dropped 3/4s of the party throughout the fight, but declined to spend a turn finishing them off as low level adventurers would make fine slaves. The most amusing bit was that both PC and Gnoll clerics weren't about to channel energy as they didn't want the 'enemy' to rise as well.
Teasing.
You're such a tease!
|
I'd say no, I wouldn't have the 3rd attack kill the character most of the time.
If your character was killing mooks, would you strike a downed mook just to kill him or would you attack another mook? Same thing here.
The original post says specifically "The was no-one else in range to attack" so what you suggest isn't an option.
Sure, you attack someone else *in range* before you finish off a downed foe. But if you are halfway through a full attack and there is no-one else there you shred him.
|
|
But if you are halfway through a full attack and there is no-one else there you shred him.
In my campaigns, it depends. Not everyone necessarily wants to kill.
You guys are viewing this as a black and white issue, when it's actually completely a DMs perogative. There is no right and wrong answer, there is only opinion.
|
|
You guys are viewing this as a black and white issue, when it's actually completely a DMs perogative. There is no right and wrong answer, there is only opinion.
Definitely, it's never black and white. Mostly I was just pointing out that you had missed the point the original poster was making by presenting a false option.
Hey, all. I had a similar question to one posted in another thread, and thought it better to make a new thread of it.
The situation is: there is one PC within threat range of a BBEG, and the BBEG has three attacks. With the first hit, the PC is still standing, but barely. With the second hit, the PC is dropped deep into negative hps. You have a third attack left, and using it against your only available target (the downed PC) will definitely kill the PC. Do you have the BBEG take the attack?
I say yes. I anticipate that most DMs would also say yes. But some DMs and players would consider this needlessly cruel or vindictive. Thoughts?
It depends on a lot of things. Some things are, is my villain vindictive or really upset at the PC for some reason? Has the cleric been healing everyone I drop? In my games if the clerics helps you up once then it won't happen a second time. I think that is just good logic.
I'd say no, I wouldn't have the 3rd attack kill the character most of the time.
If your character was killing mooks, would you strike a downed mook just to kill him or would you attack another mook? Same thing here.
The original post says specifically "The was no-one else in range to attack" so what you suggest isn't an option.
Sure, you attack someone else *in range* before you finish off a downed foe. But if you are halfway through a full attack and there is no-one else there you shred him.
I missed that point. The PC buys the farm in this case. It would ruin my sense of immersion, and my player's immersion too much to not do so. Yeah they hate death, but they hate being handed victories even more. I understand that such a playstyle is not for everyone though.
|
|
I missed that point. The PC buys the farm in this case. It would ruin my sense of immersion, and my player's immersion too much to not do so. Yeah they hate death, but they hate being handed victories even more. I understand that such a playstyle is not for everyone though.
One possible work around is if the GM knows the player is in trouble he could try and move a little to get in range of another PC so he can spread out attacks. It's a viable strategy and makes the game more survivable but takes a bit more planning and if you don't know you are dropping the PC (perhaps it's a crit) it's tough to plan it.
Incidentally my one and only PFS character death was due to this exact situation and I don't begrudge the GM for the kill at all.
|
|
I've one question:
If you talk about only one person inside thread range. How is thread range defined?
BBE is doing first two attacks against ajacent target. Target goes down. Only this target is in 'thread range' using the official game term.
But BBE is doing a 5 foot step. Now he may have one (or multiple) new targets in thread range and applies his third attack against a new target.
The reason I'm asking: Until recently I wasn't aware that you can do attack 1, attack 2, 5 foot step, attack 3 against a new target. Maybe everyone here knows the rules a lot better as I do. But the extra 5 foot step could offer a lot of additional options and maybe avoid a bad situation.
To me the original post as well as the answers were not clear if they all include this option of a 5 foot step inbetween (preferable) to the option to hit the same target again.
Maybe everyone knows it and takes this for granted - mayve some people like me shortly ago are not aware of this option. I surely was suprised when a player did it to my monsters and it took me a moment to find in the rules.
Thod
P187 The only movement you can take during a full attack is a
5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between
your attacks.
|
|
Yes, the 5' step would have been a good call, it's what I was referring to in my post immediately prior to yours
I don't think this has to be a matter of being cruel and vindictive, nor does the BBEG HAVE to take his last attack against the PC.
It depends on who the BBEG is and what he wants.
For one thing, you have to determine whether he is a really chaotic, over-the-top fighter, who would keep chopping away with abandon, or if he is a controlled, measured fighter, who hits as much as is needed.
Next, is he intelligent enough, or have the right skill set/abilities to determine whether his target is dead? From the description of the second hit, it seems like anybody might think the PC is already dead.
Next, does the BBEG have an agenda? If he is trying to reach some item or get to some door, felling the PC might be enough. His priority might shift to now getting to his goal, now that it is finally in reach.
Next, ask yourself if the third attack is metagaming. Seriously: does your BBEG think in game terms? Is he saying to himself, "well, I get three attacks per round, and I've only taken two of them. This guy looks dead to me, but I sure do hate to waste that third attack. Maybe I'll just roll the dice and see what happens."
No. Your BBEG does not think that way to himself; you as the GM are thinking that. And that's why this is so crucial: because you are not there to kill PCs, you are there to play the NPCs who want to kill the PCs, and to do it fairly and reasonably, without metagaming.
And last, but most importantly, ask yourself, does a death in this scene have merit? You are about to risk ruining the campaign for the player of the PC, and possibly others in the group. You are at least about to ruin his evening, and all of his fun. It had better be worth it. And it had better be in line with everything the players understand about this BBEG. Because, if it is not, there will be consequences, on some level.
So, whenever I am in that position - and I sometimes am - I ask myself all of those questions. Who is this BBEG? What does the scene look like? Does this really merit the outright murder of the PC? Is this going to further the game? Am I metagaming? Just because I can, does that mean I should? Only then do I proceed.
Normally, I try to drop as many PCs as possible with most intelligent villans.
I'm one guy, they are alot of guys, the less of them i can make the better for me.
Things like ghouls and such, or other stuff that want to eat you, however have a different focus, so would mad or enraged baddies.
Also would depend if specific bad guy had an agenda to kill off the party or was fighting on the defense and just wanted to win/get away.
Demons and Demon worshipers and generally most chaotic evil types, I'm going for the kill. LE types to include devils? I probably want prisoners to be used for bargaining or leverage later.
NE...selfish, depends on what they are doing, and why they are there.
Ninja Assassin type, going for the kill.
Going into the lair of the CE Red Dragon? Im going to kill each one of you, one by one.
Certain BBEG are going to be more dangerous that way.
We had an encounter with a powerful devil, (presumably a pitfiend a bit downgraded) back in 3.5 when I was playing. The party barbarian dropped and nobody was in direct reach, mostly because the barbarian was dumb enough to charge ahead while everyone else was occupied.
The fiend demanded us to drop our weapons or he'd incinerate the barbarian, so we threw our weapons on the ground (didnt actually say he'd let the barbarian live, though he might have suggested it).. the fiend incinerated the barbarian with a fireball catching us in the blast and charged..
It was mean, vicious, shocking, cruel and most of all we felt cheated, but in the end it was the diabolical thing to do
We had an encounter with a powerful devil, (presumably a pitfiend a bit downgraded) back in 3.5 when I was playing. The party barbarian dropped and nobody was in direct reach, mostly because the barbarian was dumb enough to charge ahead while everyone else was occupied.
The fiend demanded us to drop our weapons or he'd incinerate the barbarian, so we threw our weapons on the ground (didnt actually say he'd let the barbarian live, though he might have suggested it).. the fiend incinerated the barbarian with a fireball catching us in the blast and charged..
It was mean, vicious, shocking, cruel and most of all we felt cheated, but in the end it was the diabolical thing to do
Although evil, it want lawful. Devils are very strict (especially the more powerful ones) on their deals and bargains.
So like a genie wish, yes he did say he would agree NOT to incinerate the barbarian, but clawing him up wasn't part of the bargain.
In this case he DID incinerate the barbarian, which is really something he would NOT have done, because he said he wouldn't. Tossing him off the cliff however was not mentioned and totally open as well. Also, letting an underling incinerate him would have been plausible since he said HE would not incinerate him if you drops your weapons, nothing about the OTHER devils.
Thats the key difference between chaotic evil (or neutral evil) and lawful evil.
From a players perspective I would have either A) forged a bargain through role playing more solidly, or B) known he would be lying anyway and attack him hoping to occupy him enough that he would focus on characters with had hit points and possibly getting in a few worth while attacks.
Depending on what alignment i was playing i might have tried to do both.
Diabolic is twisting an agreement, Demonic is "agreement? we made an agreement? ahahahahaha fools"
Next, ask yourself if the third attack is metagaming. Seriously: does your BBEG think in game terms? Is he saying to himself, "well, I get three attacks per round, and I've only taken two of them. This guy looks dead to me, but I sure do hate to waste that third attack. Maybe I'll just roll the dice and see what happens."
No. Your BBEG does not think that way to himself; you as the GM are thinking that. And that's why this is so crucial: because you are not there to kill PCs, you are there to play the NPCs who want to kill the PCs, and to do it fairly and reasonably, without metagaming.
Everyone metagames to an extent if you call that metagaming because you fight in terms of actions. You know you can move X feet as a move action then take a standard action to attack, as an example. If nobody took that into consideration they would run towards the opponent and hope to have enough movement to get a swing in. The BBEG/DM knows he can get 3 attacks in as opposed to one. This information is also useful when deciding whether or not to vital strike.
I'd say no, I wouldn't have the 3rd attack kill the character most of the time.
If your character was killing mooks, would you strike a downed mook just to kill him or would you attack another mook? Same thing here.
If an intelligent BBG is losing, I might even break the rules a bit and have him hold back the 3rd attack and threaten to kill the character (free action) unless the PCs back off. That's storytelling. Attacking... is just player killing. imo.
In movies, does the BBG bring killing blows to downed heroes? Not very often, he usually goes after the heroes that are still up!
If no other opponent is in reach, perhaps. A malicious or non-intelligent BBG might make the 3rd attack. There're motivations why enemies would kill a PC, and when this happens it's unfortunate and the PC dies.
However, I don't find it's good storytelling by killing players. It's non-heroic and just makes people want to quit the game.
It appears I'm the minority... and I'm completely ok with that.
You're not alone; I'm also a bit of a softie when it comes to GMing. I basically agree with everything you said.
Normally, I try to drop as many PCs as possible with most intelligent villans.
I'm one guy, they are alot of guys, the less of them i can make the better for me.
Things like ghouls and such, or other stuff that want to eat you, however have a different focus, so would mad or enraged baddies.
Also would depend if specific bad guy had an agenda to kill off the party or was fighting on the defense and just wanted to win/get away.
Demons and Demon worshipers and generally most chaotic evil types, I'm going for the kill. LE types to include devils? I probably want prisoners to be used for bargaining or leverage later.
NE...selfish, depends on what they are doing, and why they are there.Ninja Assassin type, going for the kill.
Going into the lair of the CE Red Dragon? Im going to kill each one of you, one by one.
Certain BBEG are going to be more dangerous that way.
Ghouls are actually quiet intelligent. I only know this because the first thread of this kind that I ever saw involved ghouls, and they coup d grace'd a cleric. They are more than smart enough with their mental stats to not want to eat a meal in the middle of combat.
Statline=Str 13, Dex 15, Con —, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 14
We had an encounter with a powerful devil, (presumably a pitfiend a bit downgraded) back in 3.5 when I was playing. The party barbarian dropped and nobody was in direct reach, mostly because the barbarian was dumb enough to charge ahead while everyone else was occupied.
The fiend demanded us to drop our weapons or he'd incinerate the barbarian, so we threw our weapons on the ground (didnt actually say he'd let the barbarian live, though he might have suggested it).. the fiend incinerated the barbarian with a fireball catching us in the blast and charged..
It was mean, vicious, shocking, cruel and most of all we felt cheated, but in the end it was the diabolical thing to do
Although evil, it want lawful. Devils are very strict (especially the more powerful ones) on their deals and bargains.
So like a genie wish, yes he did say he would agree NOT to incinerate the barbarian, but clawing him up wasn't part of the bargain.
In this case he DID incinerate the barbarian, which is really something he would NOT have done, because he said he wouldn't. Tossing him off the cliff however was not mentioned and totally open as well. Also, letting an underling incinerate him would have been plausible since he said HE would not incinerate him if you drops your weapons, nothing about the OTHER devils.
Thats the key difference between chaotic evil (or neutral evil) and lawful evil.
From a players perspective I would have either A) forged a bargain through role playing more solidly, or B) known he would be lying anyway and attack him hoping to occupy him enough that he would focus on characters with had hit points and possibly getting in a few worth while attacks.
Depending on what alignment i was playing i might have tried to do both.
Diabolic is twisting an agreement, Demonic is "agreement? we made an agreement? ahahahahaha fools"
lol you are right I actually described it wrong, I cant even remember the exact words, but basically he threatened to drop the fireball on top of the barbarian, which he didnt in a way.. he dropped a fireball on the rest of the party. It was stretching the bargain, but arguably he didnt break his word.
Even in the described scenario a case can be made, which arguably is enough, the fiend did not commit himself to not do it if we dropped our weapons, but he certainly would if we didnt, lawful is not the same as being honest. Though he'd feel compelled to explain the exact terms before he did, which he did.
If you can't potentially lose the game, what does winning actually mean?
Well, some people play RPGs in order to experience an interesting story, not just to "win". Different strokes for different folks, of course.
|
|
If you can't potentially lose the game, what does winning actually mean?Well, some people play RPGs in order to experience an interesting story, not just to "win". Different strokes for different folks, of course.
That is a story, not a game.
If you want to role play a story, that is a perfectly fine way to play.
But it isn't a game. It's playing. You are playing with your friends, and enjoying playing with your friends.
Which is fine.
A game is something you can lose.
When you were a kid and made up superhero stories, it wasn't a game. You were playing.
When you pulled out Risk, it was a game.
How you use Pathfinder is up to you, but if your players can never die, it isn't a challenge. It's a story.
Stories are great. They aren't games.
If you can't potentially lose the game, what does winning actually mean?Well, some people play RPGs in order to experience an interesting story, not just to "win". Different strokes for different folks, of course.That is a story, not a game.
If you want to role play a story, that is a perfectly fine way to play.
But it isn't a game. It's playing. You are playing with your friends, and enjoying playing with your friends.
Which is fine.
A game is something you can lose.
When you were a kid and made up superhero stories, it wasn't a game. You were playing.
When you pulled out Risk, it was a game.
How you use Pathfinder is up to you, but if your players can never die, it isn't a challenge. It's a story.
Stories are great. They aren't games.
I understand you but some people get the same satisfaction as pretending they earned a victory as those that actually did it, and will brag about the dragon they killed(DM allowed them to kill).
As a GM that only uses homebrew campaigns, yes some of us actually have no life at all and enjoy thinking of ways to barely kill the pcs, i would most certainly let the BBEG land the final attack on the character. If someone was in range instead, i think it would target the one that was the biggest thread, aka not the already downed character.
That being said i would certainly try to make an encounter that dosnt just kill pcs for the fun of it, but once the real combat starts, the dice fall where ever they may.
In my group though we have a different view on dying, and how that is actually achieved during combat. I do realise this is completely homebrew, but most people iwe played with uses some sort of this system. what we play with is that a character dosnt die, no matter his current hp, until one round has passed, meaning till just before the BBEGs next turn. That leaves all the PCs with one turn to try and save their comrades, and brings us a lot of memorable moments of near death. It might also be necesarry for us to play with this, becouse my players severely lack the will to nova gameplay, meaning when we or they enter a dungeon its either do the whole dungeon or run away from it, no sleeping during it. Meaning we usually do 5-6 encounters on just one rest, and that can really mean a lot of dead PCs if we didnt play with the homebrew rule.