While I appreciate removing the slowed condition from the dying rules, I cannot help but think that the wounded condition will make it even easier for a gang of determined enemies to beat down on a massively-AC-debuffed, dying PC in order to finish them off once and for all. That is a tactic I have been using in my playtest games to force TPKs, and the new wounded condition will make it even easier.
According to the playtest rulebook, "only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them," but then, how are PCs supposed to survive those vicious creatures exploiting the wounded condition?
While I appreciate removing the slowed condition from the dying rules, I cannot help but think that the wounded condition will make it even easier for a gang of determined enemies to beat down on a massively-AC-debuffed, dying PC in order to finish them off once and for all. That is a tactic I have been using in my playtest games to force TPKs, and the new wounded condition will make it even easier.
According to the playtest rulebook, "only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them," but then, how are PCs supposed to survive those vicious creatures exploiting the wounded condition?
Wait... so... you've been going out of your way to have monsters TPK your players... then complaining about the amount of TPKs in the system? The rules pretty clearly tell you not to do this.
I see you didn't post the entire quote from the rulebook, either.
Quote:
Adversaries typically stop attacking someone who’s knocked out. Even if a creature knows a fallen character might come back into the fight, only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them.
"Typically" means most monsters should ignore a dying character. That is the definition of "typical." If you have most monsters behave "viciously," you are not playing RAW.
Your choice of wording for "force TPKs" makes me wonder if you're even participating in the playtest in good faith at all.
I will never run monsters as "kill the downed PC for good, then move on to the ones who are still able and trying to hurt me" because it's both incredibly unrealistic to the point where I feel it breaks verisimilitude and actively makes the game less fun. It's literally the opposite of what I feel are the keys to good GMing- "Make it fun, and have it make sense."
I believe GMs should be explicitly instructed to not do this under any circumstances, given that the GM is free to ignore any rules or instructions via rule 0 anyway.
It also seems somewhat meta gaming for creatures (that don't work the same themselves) to know that this particular person is really easy to finish off while he is laying dying but might become a threat again if left to his own.
Heck even if you are fighting for your life against enemies as soon as you have rendered them unconscious it would make more sense for the monster to start neutralizing his allies. Of course in our world magic isn't a thing that suddenly lets the unconscious person get back in "tip-top" fighting shape, but most unintelligent foes would never plan for that even in a world where magic is "normal".
But yea, it solves the mystery of a lot of TPK's (or a lot of player death) if monsters are played with every attack focusing the downed player, while the rest of the team is still fighting.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
Perhaps certain monsters could have a "vicious" trait/tag to dictate whether or not they try to take down unconscious PCs?
No, since certain monsters might be vicious under some conditions and not vicious under other conditions. A dragon who's just there sitting on her hoard will act differently from a dragon whose hoard got stolen, her eggs got smashed by PCs and her precious meticulously built and furnished lair just got blown up by stone shape.
Like the biggest issue I have with "eliminating unconscious PCs" is - barring the monster having any special kind of senses, is it really going to stop in the middle of a life or death combat to determine whether the one who isn't moving anymore is dead or just incapacitated when it really does not make a difference in the near-term? I would say "telling the difference takes actions" and why would a baddie waste actions on this?
Like I'm not about to give every antagonist always-on "deathwatch" for free. Whether a PC is dead or simply dying is information I, as the GM, have but it's not information that NPCs should have.
Like the biggest issue I have with "eliminating unconscious PCs" is - barring the monster having any special kind of senses, is it really going to stop in the middle of a life or death combat to determine whether the one who isn't moving anymore is dead or just incapacitated when it really does not make a difference in the near-term? I would say "telling the difference takes actions" and why would a baddie waste actions on this?
Like I'm not about to give every antagonist always-on "deathwatch" for free. Whether a PC is dead or simply dying is information I, as the GM, have but it's not information that NPCs should have.
Agreed. The difference between intentionally killing a downed PC and focusing on incapacitating active PCs has metagame considerations as well. It's awful for a player to sit out the remainder of the game even if their fellow players go on to defeat the encounter. TPKs, while still not ideal, apply to the whole table.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
I think running monsters specifically targeting downed PCs rather than attempt to win the fight is a good tactic if the monsters goal is to weaken the PCs at the expense of their own lives, treating themselves more as RTS units, weakening an advancing force rather than individuals with goals of their own.
I have no doubt tactics like that are effective given NPCs offensive bias, but its very much winning through the metagame in which NPCs are disposable tools to weaken then defeat the PCs. Players will develop a hostile OOC reaction to those tactics unless rules enter the metagame that punish tactics like that from NPCs.
Spending a Hero Point as part of heroic recovery actually removes the dying condition. That is easy to miss, and I certainly missed it. Maybe this is not as bad as I first thought.
I believe it makes sense for mindless creatures like skeletons to keep attacking a downed target until it is dead. Otherwise, virtually every foe of any intelligence at all, even an animal, is smart enough to recognize that foes who are still standing are a bigger threat, and will move on to try to neutralize those remaining threats. In most circumstances, a dying PC should not be subject to further attacks except from stuff like area spells.
The exception of course is when an enemy specifically has a vendetta against them, but that's pretty rare.
I am with Fuzzypaws (and others). Not only does it make sense, by and large, but to *me*, PF/D&D/RPGs are about having fun. It's not a simulation game to me, nor one about "winning" (certainly not as a GM).
How much fun is it for players to see me go out of my way to defeat them as individuals or as a collective? In my groups, not much. They understand when I don't focus-fire.. and let the "tank/defender" type actually be the hero they want to be even if I could easily go out of my way to annihilate an easier to kill character... because they enjoy playing heroes and extraordinary beings.
What I am sure of is that I could stay within the RAW and TPK any group in PF1, PF2, 5E, etc., if I set my mind to it.
All that said, I will never criticize another GM for how they narrate their table. If they want to make every creature vicious and play to kill, that's their right. And I certainly can't comment as to how their players enjoy that GMing style myself.
I believe it makes sense for mindless creatures like skeletons to keep attacking a downed target until it is dead.
I can see that, but "mindless" creatures who are in a sense programmed should have it in their programming to move on to the next one once the last one stops moving.
It should also be possible for conscious PCs to distract zombies and their ilk pretty easily.
It also seems somewhat meta gaming for creatures (that don't work the same themselves) to know that this particular person is really easy to finish off while he is laying dying but might become a threat again if left to his own.
Heck even if you are fighting for your life against enemies as soon as you have rendered them unconscious it would make more sense for the monster to start neutralizing his allies. Of course in our world magic isn't a thing that suddenly lets the unconscious person get back in "tip-top" fighting shape, but most unintelligent foes would never plan for that even in a world where magic is "normal".
But yea, it solves the mystery of a lot of TPK's (or a lot of player death) if monsters are played with every attack focusing the downed player, while the rest of the team is still fighting.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Otherwise, virtually every foe of any intelligence at all, even an animal, is smart enough to recognize that foes who are still standing are a bigger threat, and will move on to try to neutralize those remaining threats. In most circumstances, a dying PC should not be subject to further attacks except from stuff like area spells.
The exception of course is when an enemy specifically has a vendetta against them, but that's pretty rare.
There seems to be common thought that moving on to other threats and not finishing a creature when it goes down is somehow a smart move. Some are even suggesting that this "not smart" activity of finishing downed characters is responsible for TPKs. Are you guys even listening to yourselves? If killing characters means that the monsters win then it is smart for the monsters to do that. In a world where healing is common place it is smart to finish kills.
Even in real life animals finish kills unless they are so confident that they just want to play and they are hoping their prey comes back to consciousness.
If they are facing overwhelming threat after knocking someone down the smart thing is probably to grab (the unconscious character) and run.
IRL animals are very good at predicting the outcome of a fight and don't take fights when they have a disadvantage. They are much better at this than most D&D players.
Wait... so... you've been going out of your way to have monsters TPK your players... then complaining about the amount of TPKs in the system? The rules pretty clearly tell you not to do this.
I see you didn't post the entire quote from the rulebook, either.
Quote:
Adversaries typically stop attacking someone who’s knocked out. Even if a creature knows a fallen character might come back into the fight, only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them.
"Typically" means most monsters should ignore a dying character. That is the definition of "typical." If you have most monsters behave "viciously," you are not playing RAW.
Your choice of wording for "force TPKs" makes me wonder if you're even participating in the playtest in good faith at all.
Nice catch. It seems like some folks didn't read that and had inflated TPK reports as a result.
I guess for some folks the shrooms those Goblins were on in part 1 didn't make them careless (as the adventure suggested), I guess it made them extremely vicious tactical geniuses.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Snickersnax wrote:
Even in real life animals finish kills unless they are so confident that they just want to play and they are hoping their prey comes back to consciousness.
No, they really don't. In "real life" an animal facing extant threats that has managed to drop one of its foes will, if hunting for food, grab the downed victim and run like hell, not stopping to check if it's actually dead until they feel safe. If attempting to drive off attackers, they immediately turn to the next threat and attack it as well. The only time an animal will actually finish a kill is when they are not currently being attacked or under threat of same.
Leaving what's fun for the PCs aside for a moment, why are NPCs are surviving when they use the "finish off" tactic and are dying when they don't use this tactic? Where are the mechanics that actually show that continuing to attack a downed opponent is a bad idea instead of a suggestion that doing so breaks the encounter?
In addition, Colette's reported extreme whack-a-mole, which would suggest that the PCs' opponents would notice that leaving the PCs unconscious is not enough.
Going after downed PCs is a thing my groups have frowned upon since 3.5E. I mean, you can do it. Sure. I guess.
But aside some a few instances (downed PCs gets caught in AoE or monster was using an ability that hits twice, first shot took down pc then other shot lands, etc), going after downed PCs is just plain dirty pool.
Are there exceptions, ya. Is it the rule? Not really.
Any game, no matter the edition, gets real deadly, real fast when the DM plays that way.
I'm just trying to picture monsters beating up on a downed foe to kill them permanently while ignoring the multiple other adventurers trying to place sharp objects in them and I just don't see the wisdom in that except in corner cases. Even with healing magic around. I mean, I've virtually never even had PCs do this. If a foe doesn't die at 0 (I use dying rules for enemies if they have a way they could be brought back in the fight by their allies) they still just move on and try to bring down the other foes. Because if you KO all your foes, whether or not you've killed any of them yet you win and can proceed at your leisure. A downed foe isn't doing damage while they're down and even if they get healed they're at some disadvantage returning to the fight.
Also, I mean, trying to stop the healer is usually the best move if you're smart enough to know that your foes can be healed and be concerned about it rather than trying to methodically kill foes one at a time.
Like the biggest issue I have with "eliminating unconscious PCs" is - barring the monster having any special kind of senses, is it really going to stop in the middle of a life or death combat to determine whether the one who isn't moving anymore is dead or just incapacitated when it really does not make a difference in the near-term? I would say "telling the difference takes actions" and why would a baddie waste actions on this?
Like I'm not about to give every antagonist always-on "deathwatch" for free. Whether a PC is dead or simply dying is information I, as the GM, have but it's not information that NPCs should have.
I agree. It's particularly egregious when a monster ignores an active threat to kill a downed PC. In the game, it's not something that usually provokes an attack of opportunity, but in real life, to ignore a foe that's up so you can kill one that's down would probably end in your death.
They don't just have to be "vicious", they have to be suicidal. (Personally, I might actually have a monster attack a downed PC in the very rare case that these two things are true. Usually only mindless undead or creatures like that - and even THEN, most of 'em should have basic survival instincts.)
I had a DM that played monsters where they would rather give their life to kill a downed enemy then deal with a living threat. We don't play with him anymore. '
It just doesn't make sense from a tactical stand point. You deal with the threats first not the person laying on the ground. There are only a few situations I can imagine that would work like that. one such scenario I can think of is an intelligent and evil character that can get an easy kill and plan to flee and come back later to finish the job.
A party that is obviously overwhelmed and the monster can't reach anyone that's still functioning so might as well I guess.
A monster that specifically wants to carry the body away to eat it which it should probably just grab the body and run and finish it later.
If I missed someone else giving specific answers, my bad. But here's my thoughts on which of the monsters you asked about "should" be going for downed PCs instead of going for the still active ones.
Spoiler:
The zombies, because they are too stupid to not just keep chewing on someone instead of picking a new target.
The shadows, but only if the downed PC is one that has had their shadow stolen because the point is that they want to become a real shadow.
Ilvoresh, if it needs to re-fill a popped brain blister.
Other than those specific situations, the monsters have more motivation to take another course of action (such as focusing on getting away alive above other goals one might have in battle, or on incapacitating all of the party before finally taking the time to make sure they are dead rather than just unconscious) than they do to be aiming at the course of action that makes them look like poor strategists (wasting time on non-threats while threats are present) and causes more player inactivity/non-participation time.
Attacking downed enemies is downright stupid and counterproductive.
Especially for intelligent foes.
1. You lose an action that could down another character or reduce it's treat vs. you.
2. When you kill downed PC you are removing relative harmless action option from PCs that is going to be to heal downed comrade.
If they have no one to tend to, they WILL use action to hurt you.
3. If you show no mercy to knocked down foes, in the event that you lose the battle vs. PCs you reduce the chance to be merely captured and spared as PCs will then most probably execute you out of revenge for your coup de grace of their comrade.
I can see zombies just wanting to right away eat whoever they finally down. Goos too. I have to agree that "mindless" monsters have no interest in self-preservation would just focus on the one person for good.
As a GM I'd try to avoid aiming at dying PCs unless I was in a depressive episode, and when I am I don't generally have the energy to run a game anyway.
One time I did do that the player still complained about it years later. Years. You people don't have the same experiences?
As a GM I'd try to avoid aiming at dying PCs unless I was in a depressive episode, and when I am I don't generally have the energy to run a game anyway.
One time I did do that the player still complained about it years later. Years. You people don't have the same experiences?
I have never went out of my way to kill a PC really. I have killed them usually when they do something real dumb and usually they say I took it harder then they did.
One time I did do that the player still complained about it years later. Years. You people don't have the same experiences?
Maybe their tears sustain me? ;)
Seriously, though, I do not delight in killing players, but when it happens, I usually find the story satisfying and do not mind any complaining. Taking out a downed player is generally not a cool death, and I try to avoid that.
I only waste actions killing a downed player in very specific circumstances. Usually when the enemy is specifically cruel without reason. Demons, CE Dragons, crazy cultists for example. Even then, I try to only do it when I think the baddie believes it will cause more pain to the living to watch their comrade get mutilated. Sometimes an animal companion without the down trick might be an issue, depending on the battlefield layout.
My "worst" kill was truly a "rocks fall, you die" thing. There was no reason for me to do it and I could have allowed a rescue, but at the time it seemed a poignant reminder of mortality after the players opted to split the group. I didn't start out trying to kill the character, just throw danger at him, however there were several bad die roles, but I didn't need to commit to the death just because of that. I don't regret it, but I was young then and I would not handle it the same way now.
If all it takes for the dying rules to crumble apart is for a GM to decide, "Hmmm, maybe these enemies are vicious, and they are quite tired of PCs coming back from seeming defeat," then that is a very flimsy balancing point for the dying rules.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Spending a Hero Point as part of heroic recovery actually removes the dying condition. That is easy to miss, and I certainly missed it. Maybe this is not as bad as I first thought.
Let me correct myself here: wounded condition. Not dying condition. Of course, heroic recovery removes both. I think that is a very important saving grace in update 1.3.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Envall wrote:
I can see zombies just wanting to right away eat whoever they finally down. Goos too. I have to agree that "mindless" monsters have no interest in self-preservation would just focus on the one person for good.
But does a mindless creature even have the capacity to understand if a downed creature is unconscious or dead?
If all it takes for the dying rules to crumble apart is for a GM to decide, "Hmmm, maybe these enemies are vicious, and they are quite tired of PCs coming back from seeming defeat," then that is a very flimsy balancing point for the dying rules.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Spending a Hero Point as part of heroic recovery actually removes the dying condition. That is easy to miss, and I certainly missed it. Maybe this is not as bad as I first thought.
Wounded condition. Not dying condition. Of course, heroic recovery removes both. I think that is a very important saving grace in update 1.3.
There's no crumbling, that's pretty much working as intended. IF your intent is to be deadly, which not all fights are nor should be.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
If all it takes for the dying rules to crumble apart is for a GM to decide, "Hmmm, maybe these enemies are vicious," then that is a very flimsy balancing point for the dying rules.
I would expect that the "vicious" aspect of certain individual creatures would be listed in their statblock tactics section, such as "Gronz the Mutilator is a vicious combatant, and if he knocks out a PC, he makes sure they don't come back by executing them before he moves on to the next opponent.", or if it applies to a whole species, it would probably be listed in their monster entry in the Bestiary. In the absence of any such language, I would assume any creature follows the general text of "Adversaries typically stop attacking someone who’s knocked out."
I would expect that the "vicious" aspect of certain individual creatures would be listed in their statblock tactics section, such as "Gronz the Mutilator is a vicious combatant, and if he knocks out a PC, he makes sure they don't come back by executing them before he moves on to the next opponent.", or if it applies to a whole species, it would probably be listed in their monster entry in the Bestiary. In the absence of any such language, I would assume any creature follows the general text of "Adversaries typically stop attacking someone who’s knocked out."
The tactics sections in the premade scenarios are very sparse, and they are completely missing from the bestiary entries. They certainly do not mention much in the way of "vicious-ness" levels of enemies.
Maybe it is just me, but after the first instance of a PC abruptly popping back into a fight thanks to a Hero Point or some healing, monsters will wise up to that.
The moment initiative is rolled, my thought processes shift to the following: "I am now playing a win-at-all-costs wargame. My goal is to make the PCs lose and TPK. I do not want them to lose and TPK, but I have to do my best and try, because otherwise, I will not be pushing the players and their PCs to the absolute limit, and they will never discover how they can handle pressure. I will play enemies under the best tactics possible. I will not fudge any dice, statistics, or rules. I will use whatever is at my disposal as permitted by the rules, though whenever there is an ambiguity in the rules (e.g. something that says that enemies only "typically" do something), I will rule in favor of the enemies for difficulty's sake."
This is how I have been running combat in RPGs for a while. It is an unpopular stance, but it is the stance I take, and I double down on it for playtesting.
Back in December to February, I was running a playtest game for Pathfinder 1e, for a third-party product, Dreamscarred Press's voyager class. I had only two players, and both were playing different builds of voyagers. I ran about ~20 combats over the course of that game, in between various skill-oriented challenges. I played with the exact same philosophy above, and they won ~19 out of ~20 of their combats. Even then, the one combat they lost was a result of blatantly bad tactics caused by both players having had a very bad day, and when I called for a rematch just for playtesting's sake, they blazed through it without an issue. I was constantly surprised by just how much the two players and their PCs could improvise, adapt, and use their class abilities to overcome bizarre new challenges each time. By the last stretch of the game, two 10th-level PCs were winning against CR 20+ enemies, including a CR 22 advanced mythic agile rakshasa maharaja with an obnoxious amount of spells each round, and that was just their antepenultimate battle.
Unfortunately, I have been applying the same standards to Pathfinder 2e parties, who simply do not have the same potential to improvise, adapt, and overcome due to a variety of mechanical factors and the Russian-roulette-like nature of the game's math. I do not see why I should be easing up on my tactics in Pathfinder 2e just to softball enemies and give PCs a chance.
I can see zombies just wanting to right away eat whoever they finally down. Goos too. I have to agree that "mindless" monsters have no interest in self-preservation would just focus on the one person for good.
But does a mindless creature even have the capacity to understand if a downed creature is unconscious or dead?
Probably not.
Unconscious or dead is not really relevant to "I want to wrap this body inside my gelatinous cube body and melt it down" thought pattern. Zombies are not really "trying" to kill you, you dying is just a side-effect of your innards being removed and eaten.
This is all solved by not thinking of the game like it's a game, which I've brought up before. In reality if an enemy falls you'd move onto the next one, there's no reason to worry about someone who is on the floor vs someone who could stab you. Now if you see that person get up and the same creature faces the same PC again he MIGHT be like him "Hmm didn't I take that guy down already?" only then could I MAYBE see any enemy attacking a downed opponent.
Now this would still only be true if there was no one else attacking said creature or near him what so ever. As again the creature isn't going to go "It doesn't matter if I'm hit because I've got HP to spare. Lemme attack this guy to really make sure he's dead".
Taking the game as if your an AI who has to follow the letter of the rules and do your best to try and eliminate the party while keeping in set parameters is absolutely the wrong way to run a table top RPG by my definition. Its a story telling game and dm and players are suppose to work together. That said actual game design should still be solid even with that caveat. However if the DM wants to kill some players he's going to kill some players no matter what he's running.
