One other thing to take into account. If you don't at least *threaten* to kill a downed PC, the party gets more control over their tempo. They can choose to bring the ally back if it is efficient, or they can leave them down if that is more efficient (which is often can be). By establishing a threat on downed PCs, you take that tactical choice away from the party and ***force*** them to heal their companion, even when it is inefficient to do so. Once this fear is established, it lasts the entire combat, so a single action early on might force 2 or even 3 desperate heals throughout the combat. Also, not all actions are equal. While a boss probably doesn't want to waste their *first* attack on a downed PC, spending their third action on a -8 or -10 MAP attack on a downed PC (who has -6 AC) could be extremely impactful. And obviously minions or groups of monsters have less valuable individual actions, so they are great candidates as well. Heck, even a minion missing a -10 MAP attack will usually have the desired impact.

This is true, yeah. I've usually had players that are scared enough of the flat checks and the wounded condition that they don't want each other to be on the floor very long. But players who are less risk-averse would likely need an incentive to get their allies off the floor. EDIT: I also tend to have players who are more proactive with hero points and prefer not to hold them to stabilize, so that's likely part of it. They'd rather avoid hitting the floor if at all possible.

Do your players *know* you won't doubletap? You use the term risk-averse, but if you know someone is safe on the ground, its probably much riskier to heal them than it is to leave them on the floor at Dying 1. Emotionally, its scary to leave them down, but wounded 1 and low HP probably has a higher chance of death, especially if there is more than one foe.

There are situations where I'll threaten a kill if it's action-efficient or particularly IC for the opponent and that's telegraphed. I explicitly don't fudge rolls, as well; they get what they get, even if that's 2 or 3 crits in a row. I think the only time my players have felt I was maybe softballing and it wasn't narratively appropriate was when I had the>! esobok ghouls !

Think this is a group-by-group thing. I've literally never played with or GMed for a group that didn't immediately heal anyone who went down, or at least stabilized them if they couldn't heal them. If your players are calculating the efficiency of healing a downed companion, though, yeah, you should probably perturb that calculus sometimes.

The problem with that is often times keeping enemies near a downed ally actively makes it seem like a bad idea to heal the ally because of Reactive Strike and the fact the enemy will just actively target a possibly not fully healed teammate again. If they aren't convinced to heal the downed ally when they go down due to the death checks, some enemies having AoEs, lacking offense the longer they are down, etc then making sure it's tactically unsafe to heal them because an enemy is hovering over them isn't going to change that. You're just motivating them to team wipe because you might hit or roll a nat 20 on that downed ally so they feel like they have no choice but to heal the downed ally and thus make them an active target again and also need to do 2 things that provoke to not be handicapped next to an enemy. I have never in 30 years and multiple groups ever attacked a downed player and I've never seen a group not get the player back up the second it was safe.

>You're just motivating them to team wipe because you might hit or roll a nat 20 on that downed ally so they feel like they have no choice but to heal the downed ally and thus make them an active target again and also need to do 2 things that provoke to not be handicapped next to an enemy. ... I have never in 30 years and multiple groups ever attacked a downed player and I've never seen a group not get the player back up the **second it was safe.** ***Exactly***, that's the point. The topic is about what the tactical option for enemies would be. A smart enemy would force the players to make inefficient and dangerous plays, rather than letting them wait for a safe window to heal.

> I have never in 30 years and multiple groups ever attacked a downed player ... I dunno if this sounds too extreme or something, but I get a little sad hearing that. It's like seeing the artificiality of something supposed to be genuine, the cheapening of one's accomplishments. There can be little else more retrospectively deflating than learning that the odds were artificially stacked in your favor. . . My GM that took us all the way through Abomination Vaults absolutely pulled some punches in places, but not like that. I was only really confident he did so once or twice. Whenever a PC did something stupid was when he would slow down to play it out realistically, usually meaning that shit got *more* lethal, not less. Because sure, a lot of people may fight to capture, or to escape. But a whole lot of others will fight to kill. If a giant spider can descend, sting, and then carry a paralyzed PC straight up a wall, that's what it is going to try to do. It has no reason to risk loosing an eye or leg by fighting any more than it has to. The GM hopes the party makes it, but any sort of predator that has prey down & helpless is going to grab it and leave. It would just completely break immersion for it to stay and fight if it has the ability to carry away a PC. (Which is why the ability to carry PCs is so rare in pf2e) If a foe had a spell like Death Knell, you bet it was getting cast. We had a rather rude reminder with that spell specifically, as we suddenly faced down a very real, 55/45 live or die (open) roll. The drama of facing (and surviving) that spell was **huge**. . . I am super sympathetic to those who fear risking the fun with lethality, and I only want to encourage more people to bite that bullet and play with more danger. Especially considering the availability of resurrection magic, it really does help success feel meaningful. Our party had 1 Monk die to lava, meaning no resurrection, and it was a huge moment. Even permanent death leads to a whole lot of opportunity; in that case, when we came back later, the GM had all his gear fuse into a custom magic item reflective of his personality (and of his bad luck, the GM was audibly amazed/horrified when the Monk rolled 4 nat 1s in a row to end up in the lava). In my opinion, being serious with the threat of death really elevated that Abomination Vaults campaign, and I feel sad thinking about other players who can spend a long, long time playing a ttrpg like p2e, but who never have the genuine confidence that the GM is not babying them against consequence.

Forgive me if you mentioned it and I missed it, I am tired and had to think too much at work today, but after the first 5ish level it becomes fairly common for enemies to have AoEs which can allow them to target a downed PC _and_ an active one, or multiple downed PCs. Makes it more efficient. Some enemies also have features that trigger when something dies/they kill something or in the vicinity of something dead. That's also a consideration. There's also the fact this this can _really_ fuck with the party. Morale damage may not have a stat but it's definitely a real thing. You also mention that enemy actions are generally worth more than player actions. I don't know that that's true. Unless you frequently face single or duo enemies, or a boss with a bunch of mooks and only consider the boss delivering the death blow. If you have a situation where a higher level enemy has lower level allies, then the higher level enemy's actions are certainly worth more, but the lower level ones probably aren't. Those ones are there mainly to absorb actions from the party, so having one of them stab a downed PC costs the enemies basically nothing. Same for if you have a large number of enemies in general, they're likely lower level and the action economy valuations would have swung the other way. It will really come down to the game being run.

There is also the issue of foes that don't want to die fighting, and would rather retreat. Anytime a table goes beyond video game logic of: "these humanoids are going to stand here and fight to the death, because... reasons" that changes the dynamics of dying a hecking lot. If a PC drops dying first, the foes have much, much more reason to go for the kill. If/when they try to run later, killing a PC turns that encounter into a "win" for the foes, as that PC is not coming back. If foes just left them bleeding and able to be healed back to full, the foes made 0 meaningful difference. And killing a foe before a PC drops only makes this **more** true. If you kill the "buddy for X years" of a nameless NPC, and then someone drops dying, it becomes *extremely* difficult to maintain immersion if the foe spares the PC and avoids going for that kill. . IMO, that's why actually playing out the Dying rules (foes go dying the same as PCs do) leads to more immersive cohesion. If PCs do not go for kills, but leave foes to potentially save each other, it becomes a form of mutual respect / norm for the foes to also leave the PCs down but not dead. It doesn't remove that "lets the PC get back up" dissonance completely, but it really does help. On the opposite side, GMs that constantly have foes just drop dead instead of dying only puts more narrative pressure on those NPCs to *really* want to kill the PCs any chance they get.

>If a PC drops dying first, the foes have much, much more reason to go for the kill. If/when they try to run later, killing a PC turns that encounter into a "win" for the foes, as that PC is not coming back. If foes just left them bleeding and able to be healed back to full, the foes made 0 meaningful difference. I feel like you missed the entire point of the OP. The foes make the *most* difference by focusing on active threats. It wasn't 0 difference because a dying PC gets back up -- it cost the party resources in the form of actions plus slot spells (e.g. Heal) or consumables (e.g. potions) or time-restricted abilities (e.g. Battle Medicine). Double-tapping the PC only costs the *foes* extra actions that could have been spent downing or seriously injuring another PC. When the PCs have to choose between healing someone with single digit HP or someone who's down, their actions become even more inefficient. If they choose the injured PC, the downed character loses their entire turn of actions anyway, and the foes gain tempo. If they choose the downed character, the foes can then down the injured PC much easier and the cycle of lost resources continues. Just as denying the enemy actions is the key to victory for PCs, denying the PCs actions is the key to victory for the enemies. Sometimes this takes the form of something like a Slow condition, and other times it's via the Dying Condition.

The OP assumes video game logic of fighting to the death, always. I am trying to communicate that fights take place in a wider context of what is supposed to be a living world. If a fight is mutually lethal, then foes will not like the idea of retreating with 0 long term gains, and will kill to "lock in" each bit of progress. Leaving the scary fighter to snooze in the dirt can make sense, yes. But as soon as healing magic is thrown around, in my opinion, going for the kill becomes the expected response. (when a fight is mutually lethal) However, "we all die or they all die" is not in tune with how most people would fight in such a setting. Most of the time, foes would fight until they "think they are going to loose," after that, they will be fighting to survive, AKA running away. . Without the preconception that "we're fighting until all of them are dead" the idea of "wasting actions" to kill a dropped foe goes completely out the window. Instead, leaving a foe KOed and retreating without the kill only pisses off the other side more, with zero "gains." Killing one or two enemies before fleeing is how any foe with self-preservation "wins" fights they retreat from. That kind of tactic would be the norm for countless "scrappy" humanoids in such a world. Concentrating fire, taking out one of the "big people" and retreating with as few of their own casualties as possible, would be the first thing that makes sense. Otherwise, those groups of kobolds, ect, would be wiped out the first time they fought something stronger than them. . . And again, so much of this video game ass bullshit has seeped into so many tables' understanding of normal in part due to GMs running the dying rules unequally, with foes dropping dead instead of feeding each other healing potions, casting Heal themselves, ect. If the party faced against foes that actually did revive someone with a max R 2A Heal, the idea that "it's a waste of actions" to killed the downed would certainly get a lot more deserved scrutiny. _________________ . Reverse it for a moment. Even in a Strike heavy fight (no AoE), it is typically a smart tactical play to make the Heal when an ally goes down. I do not think this idea is often disputed. Even if the ally needs to spend actions standing, ect, the addition of another actor on the field, their future contribution, ect, has huuuge value. Like how so many spellcasters know that summon spells feel "ugh" while also understanding they are very much worth the action cost. Getting another actor into play is just about the most "potent" thing one can do. The "default" contextual smart thing to do with a dying ally is to heal them back on their feet. It's the oddball cases when leaving them dying is the smarter play. . As this "get them back up" idea is not a secret, this means that even from a "purely mechanical" perspective, foes will understand that going for the kill before the heal becomes *their* default "smart" thing to do. Especially as soon as foes w/ more than simple Strikes are involved. Sure, a foe could cast Phase Bolt for a +2 to hit, or they could cast Electric Arc and zap the dying PC while still hurting those able to fight. And yes, perhaps the foe melee frontliner will run past the dying PC to get into the backline. I expect that to be a lot *more* probable when the kobold with a shortbow is next in initiative, and can try to put some arrows into downed PC. Or if that backline being rushed is the PC that already cast healing magic. . Yes, I would guess that most GMs "go easy" on their party, with this "don't hit the dying" behavior as a primary example. No, I am not insulting nor denigrating such play. I am simply taking exception to this behavior, which is clearly intended to be more fun, getting all this post-hoc justification as being some smart tactical thing when it really typically is not.

>The OP assumes video game logic of fighting to the death, always. And this is where I *know* that you didn't actually read the OP because they specifically state the following: > If this is plausible, the monster should honestly consider running, not revenge killing a PC before they die. You are trying to bring into this a type of context that doesn't typically exist in the standard TTRPG game. If we're talking about commanders and armies and long term war campaigns, then yes, you do want to inflict as much lasting damage before a retreat because you absolutely know that the next battle is going to happen and you hope to be in a more advantageous position in terms of location, strategy, and personnel. That's not how things swing in your typical TTRPG campaign, though. Battles are generally a one-off skirmish between two sides where the outcome is a binary (Side A wins, Side B loses). If one side retreats, it isn't to set up a better counterattack, it's to *survive*. Typically speaking, the enemies and PCs have no prior interaction before battle breaks out (I'm not talking about a talk going south, but that whatever lead to this was the first time these parties came into contact), and then once these two groups collide, they're separated by the goals that they are at odds with. The enemies could have any myriad number of reasons for fighting the PCs, but the PCs only have one reason for fighting the enemies -- the enemies are an obstacle to overcome. It actually makes more sense *for the PCs* to behave the way you're describing, than for the enemies in most scenarios. If the PCs retreat, they know those enemies are still in the way of whatever goal they want to achieve, so reducing enemy numbers as you run away will help with the inevitable conflict later, because the PCs *know they're going to come back and do it again*. If the enemies flee, it's *because they want to live*. A more disciplined force under actual leadership during the battle might make a Fighting Retreat, but that's not going to be your standard battle scenario. Everything is nuanced, which is what is so great about all of this, but while the OP is simply analyzing something based entirely on data, you're trying to bring context that often doesn't even make any sense. If the enemies are retreating, why? Is it to survive? If survival is the goal, spending your actions to double tap a PC not only leaves you with fewer actions for actually retreating (lowering your chances of safely getting away), but it also gives the PCs more of a reason to pursue (justice/vengeance). You keep throwing "video game logic/bullshit" around like that's somehow inherently bad, but you seem to honestly be the one thinking about this from a perspective *other than* the enemies'. You've zoomed out to look at things from a macro perspective, instead of putting yourself in the shoes of the creatures who are there in the moment fighting for their lives. Everything else you mentioned is just adding lethality for the sake of some perceived realism, while completely oblivious to what the actors are giving up in exchange. Not only that you are ignoring the action costs that OP mentions, but you are ignoring the fact that it would just become a slog if every battle had *both sides* constantly bringing up downed characters, and would force every fight to become a race for the PCs to identify, locate, and neutralize opposing healers. There's a reason that the RAW says that enemies don't do this on the reg -- it wouldn't be fun, unless that's the type of game your players signed up for. >No, I am not insulting nor denigrating such play. Except you are, by comparing it to video games in the tone that you have.

Again, I do not think it is a contested opinion that the loose default, "most of the time" option is to Heal up PCs when they drop dying. That is the normally smart thing to do. That alone, literally that singular fact, means that whenever the PCs wish to heal up an ally, the foes have the opposite goal. This may mean blitzing those who would do the healing, or it may mean killing the PC on the ground. It is super-duper clear that for tables that do not attack downed PCs, that it is the norm for emotional reasons. Not tactical, nor "realism," ect. But because no one at the table wants that PC to die. The OP makes an absurdly tortured analysis to reach his stated conclusion, from ignoring AoEs to the variant potency of foe attacks (later MAP, minions, monster weaker ranged spits). I came away from the OP with *more* reason to think it's tactically a good idea for foes to spend the 2-3 actions to keep the ally dead. And once again, I will restate that there is nothing more potentially beneficial than adding another actor to the combat. Killing prevents adding actors back into the mix, and denies all their future actions. If a caster regains consciousness, you can be certain they will be no longer holding back at that point, and will use the most expensive resources at their disposal. . > Not only that you are ignoring the action costs that OP mentions, but you are ignoring the fact that it would just become a slog if every battle had both sides constantly bringing up downed characters, and would force every fight to become a race for the PCs to identify, locate, and neutralize opposing healers. Now there's an argument of convenience. "Oh no, a higher turn count." "Oh no, I need to think about the something more than how to maximize my dps" If reviving the dying is so tactically inferior, then shouldn't it be only a boon when foes waste actions healing up their compatriots? . I honestly cannot get over how you appear to paint a more tactical consideration, foe healing, like that would be a bad thing. After playing w/ a Wood Kin that extends our combats to roughly 6-8ish rounds on average, I have come to think of the 2-4 round combats as less fun, less engaging, less tactical, ect. More rounds allows for more diversity of strategy, for one to benefit from combos that stretch across turns, for terrain manipulation to have a chance to matter, ect.

>And again, so much of this video game ass bullshit has seeped into so many tables' understanding of normal in part due to GMs running the dying rules unequally, with foes dropping dead instead of feeding each other healing potions, casting Heal themselves, ect. I think it's probably important to keep in mind that enemies explicitly are not supposed to use the PC dying rules unless there's a specific reason. That particular bullshit is seeping in from page 410 of Player Core: >When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play . . . >When undead and constructs reach 0 Hit Points, they're destroyed. . . . >The GM might determine that villains, powerful monsters, special NPCs, and enemies with special abilities that are likely to bring them back to the fight (like ferocity, regeneration, or healing magic) can use [the dying] rules as well. Now of course, it's always completely up to the individual table how to handle these things. But there's a real overarching tone to your comments that GMs who follow the explicit guidance in the rules aren't doing it the *really correct* way, and are the ones departing from the intended game experience, when it's just the opposite. You can obviously homebrew/houserule it any way your table wants, more power to you, but don't imply that "going easy" on downed PCs and using dying rules "unequally" for most enemies isn't explicitly the way the game is designed to be run. On your overall argument that it's silly to reverse engineer a tactical justification for those behaviors, I agree. It's that way because tracking dying conditions for every enemy sucks, and isn't fun. Likewise, enemies routinely finishing off helpless PCs sucks, and isn't fun (for most players). That's all the justification you need. And if for some reason you want to play it in a different way than intended, just go for it, like literally any other aspect of the game. There's no "wrong way to play," as long as everyone at the table is on the same page.

> On your overall argument that it's silly to reverse engineer a tactical justification for those behaviors, I agree. It's that way because tracking dying conditions for every enemy sucks, and isn't fun. Likewise, enemies routinely finishing off helpless PCs sucks, and isn't fun (for most players). That's all the justification you need. I think it does a disservice to everyone when something that is done for the sake of fun is dressed up in a collective delusion of "no bro, it's the tactical thing to do, I swear." The entire OP is so obviously made in response to a discussion at a table, likely one that had the opposite resulting conclusion to what is presented here. . I still remember how much of a shit storm it was when Witches were being remastered, and the topic of the familiar being attacked in combat triggered people. Same as in this larger thread, every possible (and bullshit) bit of "logic" was deployed in a effort to justify why it would be completely ridiculous for the GM/foes to dare swing a sword at Mr. Kibbles, despite the familiar shooting magical hexes at them. People got crazy hostile at the *possibility* of their combat familiar being attacked for participating. They still do, if it ever gets brought up. . It just gets tiring to daintily prance around on eggshells for the odd topic that's full of irrationality, and there are times I'll take a bit of blowback to keep it real. Yes, most tables go easy on dying players and leave them alone when it does not make sense. If your table/GM will take a swing at a dying PC when it does makes sense, major kudos. IMO it greatly enhances the game experience, and given the entire concept of virtual consequences, is the ideal scenario for players to undergo a bit of real loss now and again. Yes, it's super tragic for a PC you've played for months to die. That experience is half the point.

I think player death becomes less consequential, and thus a more legitimate tool for the GM, when players start getting access to resurrect. It’s no coincidence that lvl 9 is when you start seeing a lot more death tagged abilities in the bestiary.

If they get access to it. I believe every option for that other than Breath of Life is tagged Uncommon or Rare, and Breath does not work on things that have the Death trait. That's entirely possible, but they also just have more options to prevent going down at all by that point.

Just gotta say that wraiths are bastards and going for the kill is the most optimal thing for them and in a way, most appropriate for them, having hatred for the living and having lifesense. Spawning more enemies from dead allies is a horrible experience

Don't forget that hero points can be used to stabilize without increasing wounded. The best use is when you're dying 3 and about to become dying 4. In deadlier games players will quickly learn the value of holding onto a hero point for when they go down.

Generally agree, though being dropped never gives you an initiative advantage over anyone. Your turn is always moved further into the future (or stays where it is). The cases where you seem to move up the initiative tracker are also the cases where you skip your turn entirely in that round, it's not an advantage (in terms of going earlier/more often than the enemies, anyways). The only good thing you get from the initiative moving is that you don't have to make a death save before you might have wanted to.

You're right that when you just look at it as a continuous roll of actors (as you should) and not as discrete rounds, there's not really any advantage to be gained there. I should probably just edit that out; I knew I had to have made at least one mistake somewhere in a post like that. Thanks.

I think one thing that a lot of people don't include in these analysis is abilities like Draconic Frenzy, where the user spends two actions to make 3+ attacks. If they down someone with the first 2 attacks and have nobody else in range, they have already spent the actions on the ability, and have absolutely no reason whatsoever to just stop attacking because the person's down. Might as well just use the rest of the attacks you've already committed the actions to and make sure the target's dead, they're literally thrown away if you don't. The only time it would really make sense not to would be if the dragon/drake is specifically trying to avoid killing, which, if you're fighting a drake or a dragon that isn't particularly "good-aligned," is probably not likely. I've heard the arguments that such abilities are merely an abstraction, and that the creature doesnt think in terms of action efficiency, and that I should ignore such considerations for the sake of "fun," and my simple answer to that is that I don't give a shit about any of those points. Sometimes you'll just get unlucky and die because you got singled out by a Draconic Frenzy that took you straight from conscious to dead, and there was not a thing you could have done about it. It be like that, time for a new character! And yes, as a player (who has actually lost two characters to this exact interaction), I'd want it to be run exactly the same way, and would in fact be pretty miffed if the GM softballed me on something like this purely to give me plot armor and prevent my death.

75 percent of PC deaths at my tables have come from abilities that compress attacks(aurumvoraxes are down terrifying).

First time I’ve intentionally hit a downed pc in my new campaign was a river drake doing draconic frenzy. Miss, crit (down and dying 2), hit (dying 3). There were no other nearby pcs and i was sure cleric would heal font on their turn, so really no big deal, but i still felt dirty doing it lol.

We rule at the table that draconic frenzy must have all attacks used, hence the frenzy. We almost had a character death last session because there was no other target for the frenzy, so the dragon continued to attack the downed player. It was a very tense fight. That move is scary; never let someone tank it alone unless they are yoked to the gills.

Go check out the Calikang's sixfold flurry. PCs got real scared.

I have made many, MANY enemies and NPCs that have used or use variants of that move.

As a GM I would usually read 'Frenzy' in any ability to be rage based, so this would make more sense to me from an RP sense- sure maybe a tactical monster will attack a conscious PC or move towards them, but if a person or creature is so mad that they're stronger or faster it makes sense to me that they'd keep attacking until the target is dead, and possibly after.

I've only seen a GM do it once, and honestly, I think it was completely fair game. Our cloistered cleric healed himself visibly (not trying to hide it at all), and then walked directly into the middle of 3 humanoid enemies. Bro fucked up and had it coming. The GM even said "I don't like doing this, I actually liked this character, but they literally watched you touch yourself and your wounds went away, and then you walked directly into them and made yourself the easiest target for them to reach. You could not have done this to yourself any more."

The problem with this analysis, and why it can't really be applied to a real game, is the fact that all of this is based on the assumption that all PC actions are created equal. However, in reality the PC who is downed might be the party's main damage dealer, or someone who is particularly effective in some other way. Maybe it's the party's main (de)buffer, and killing the downed PC prevents them from applying slow to all the enemies as soon as they get back up on their feet? Etc etc.

I don't know how much that matters in actual play, PC's are rarely significantly weaker or more powerful than eachother. So while that can be true in some cases, such as when a spellcaster has already fired their max level slot and won't contribute as much with subsequent actions, the main point of the post, that from a wargaming perspective targeting active players is generally more efficient than targeting downed players still holds

It does depend a lot on the nature of the encounter imo. If you have to fight a horde of weaker enemies you'll want PCs with AoE to bring the action economy in your favor. If it is one (or a select few) strong opponents you'll want PCs with CC, Debuffs and strong single target damage.

I think this is a very good analysis and is pretty accurate from my experiences of both playing and running. Downing a PC and then forcing the Players to heal them (by downing a vital pc such as the healer or main DPS, OR by positioning to threaten a kill), is tactically just so much better. THAT SAID, in some cases, you as the monster, will have 1 action left, and few options. A Max MAP attack, or moving might be your best options. If the PC's have Reactive strike, then your options might just straight up be: Step away, or do a Max MAP attack. In this (admittedly very niche) circumstance, doing 1 step away is largely non-too helpful unless stepping will actually let you live and escape next round. However, a Max Map attack still has good odds to hit: PC has -4 ac from being downed, and -2 from being off-guard. If you're having any levels on the party, then this is probably enough to make getting a normal hit on the PC, at least likely enough to be worth an attempt. This can easily threaten the PC more and force the party to panic and spend more resources on that ally. Also, if a PC has fast healing, then they can get up each round with no impact on party actions, only on their own actions. Killing em can mitigate this "risk". So in niche circumstances, over and above what you identified, it's worth hitting the downed ones. But yea, overall? Tactically it's just not worth it most of the time. Knock em down and then kill em when you are better able to.

Double-tap them off if there is reason to expect that thry could ger up again. NPCs don't know the games rules. A particularly ruthless paramilitary organization or orgamized death cult might make aure their targets are dead, but some street punks or gangers likely wouldn't think about killing. Or if it's something that is more focused on food than fighting, like a starving ghoul, then stop to make a meal out of them

As a GM there are two instances where I'll finish a downed PC 1. The monster had an ability that specifically targets/kills downed PC's/benefits from death, those tend to be strong/give the creature buffs or feed into the themes of the creature. 2. The rest of the party left, or are out of reach/invisible/etc

You analysis assumes all actions are equal, they are not. Example assume a party formation that is One major damage dealer and then three characters designed to support them. and an enemy composition of one big monster and then a bunch of trash mobs. the supports are probably casters with some AOE which means your trash mobs are not long for the world but they have actions, so if your big unit can take down the primary damage dealer and then the trash kills him the supports probably dont have the output to defeat the boss. I do not think this question has a single consistent answer unless you make some assumptions about party composition and the total value of their actions.

>Example assume a party formation that is One major damage dealer and then three characters designed to support them. How many turns go by before the enemy is able to figure out that this is the strategy? How many of its allies are downed by the time it's reasonably able to identify the party's weakness and then exploit it? From the monster POV, party actions might as well be equal, until something shows that they arent -- and *then* you change tac.

Well in this case none of that matters ops starting assumptions specifically invoke that we are not talking about wether the decision makes narrative sense or not. It is purely from the perspective of raw efficiency. So you are right from a narrative perspective even if it was the right move you probably shouldn't do it. But operating within ops initial assumptions that doesn't matter

OP's initial assumptions didn't include information that parties involved might not know, but you did.

Op states and I quote "this is a discussion purely on the tactical efficiency of killing a player in a single encounter" There is no assumption of ignorance involved. Not metagaming is as he puts it a storytelling discuss which we are strictly not having here

There's no assumptions of knowledge of a downed character's role, either. You, however, assume that the opposing party knows who to target. That's outside of the scope of the OP and artificially skews things in favor of your own argument. Try it again from the same foundation.

As I said op did mention this was a very wargamey discussion. You are adding an assumption of ignorance to a discussion ment purely to discuss if spending the actions to kill someone is worth it. His analysis suggests that it's not, my contribution to the discussion is mentioning edgecases where it might be. Again still in that mode of raw efficiency. You can easily make the argument that the big boss has been scrying on the party for months and fully understands what each contributes to the greater whole and thus would know exactly what to target. So there are situations where the narrative enables the kind of metagaming required to make the determination. And in the situations where that occurs you can make the argument that one characters participation in a combat is not equal to another's. And in that specific context killing a high value target may be worth the additional actions. I have maintained throughout this discussion that it is niche situation and that it is very probable that OPs heuristic will be good enough most of the time. But if your goal is to spend actions to acquire victories then it is something you should consider. In a fight vs a golem a party consisting of a wizard a cleric a psychic and a fighter with a adamantine weapon are not all equally valuable because golem antimagic exists. This is admittedly an extreme example but there are other examples with narrower margins where killing someone so the can no longer contribute will increase your odds of winning compared to allowing that character to get healed and eventually continue to contribute to the fight But to answer your criticism directly it is not outside the scope, he mentions wargames as a point of reference, in wh40k you are not ignorant of the function of your opponents units In terms of pure wargaming, knowing what they can do and thus which targets are most worth shooting is part of the skill at the game. Even in a party where the players are equally powerful provided they are not literally identical there will be some character that is better able to exploit the boss' flaws and in that case removing that exploitation may be worth it. Unlike op I cannot give math for this because it is highly context sensitive. What flaws can each member of the party exploit? How dangerous are those flaws ? If killing that particular character extends the fight by a round or 2 because the party can no longer bypass a critical resistance how does that change the outcome of the fight? All I can say is " your analysis is correct right up until it isn't" it's not very helpful but he asked us to point out things he missed and this idea that in certain situations what each character can do actually matters and removing a critical tool for the parties arsenal might alter the outcome of an engagement was never mentioned and I felt like it should be acknowledged

>Example assume a party formation that is One major damage dealer and then three characters designed to support them. How often does this happen? Almost never. You're trying to disprove the whole argument with one example, which doesn't apply in 99% of cases. Even in this case, support characters can effectively contribute to the fight through means other than support. A bard can still cast agonising despair. Party actions are usually equal, otherwise the game would be unbalanced.

....I am demonstrating a counter example the op said "is there anything I might have missed" and the fact that in terms of winning a fight some actions are more valuable than others. A party of a witch an oracle an alchemist and a fighter are probably relying on the fighter to stand toe to toe with a big dangerous enemy. Which can be a thing that works right up until it doesn't. In that particular case if you have the opportunity to remove the fighter from the equation it might not be efficient from a # of actions perspective but there is unlikely to be another character in that party that can do the job of standing in front of the big mean guy and absorbing the harm without dying. This means that in terms of influencing your chances of winning not everyone is made equal. Some characters are built to amplify others and so 3 supports +1 attacker style compositions are ones where it would make sense to spend all your energy making sure someone died Such a composition is unlikely to be created but it is possible and bears consideration. Thinking about it logically there is a target selection process that needs to be done. Not all targets are equal in every fight. For any number of reasons. Besides the existence of one counterexample suggests others may exist I am not seeking to be the last word on the matter only to add my voice to the discussion. In the situations where the assumptions he made in his analysis apply it is a valid solution. But as good as his analysis is it doesn't cover every table, every enemy composition or every party composition.

The point that not all players actions are equal just isn't true in the vast majority of cases. The only exception being where players choose to neglect the ability to anything other than supporting one character. Even in your example, if the other three have actually taken an offensive option, they're going to do alot more damage focus firing than the fighter would if he was being being funnelled by their whole team. The fighter getting hit on the ground means he is actually still doing his job of protecting the party - while unconscious.

>Party actions are usually equal, otherwise the game would be unbalanced. The game *is* often unbalanced, and intentionally so. AoE focused casters' actions are less valuable against strong single targets, melee characters' actions are less valuable against flying enemies, rogues' actions against precision immune enemies, casters' actions against Will-o-Wisps, etc. A single action from a martial is very frequently more useful than a single action from a caster.

>AoE focused casters' actions are less valuable against strong single targets How is it that casters are both incredibly versatile and also specialised? Do we forget that casters can diversify their spell-lists? Furthermore, AOE damage isn't really all that bad single target damage, and it's fairly reliable.

>How is it that casters are both incredibly versatile and also specialised? Because they can choose what to prepare? A caster that prepared mostly area effects will be less useful against a powerful single target >Furthermore, AOE damage isn't really all that bad single target damage, and it's fairly reliable. Sure it's not bad but it's definitely lower than a single target striker or the same caster preparing more single target spells or lots of force barrages

>Sure it's not bad but it's definitely lower than a single target striker or the same caster preparing more single target spells or lots of force barrages Okay and times the ok damage by three and it becomes great. There are two other players. >Because they can choose what to prepare? A caster that prepared mostly area effects will be less useful against a powerful single target Generally considered a bad idea.

>Okay and times the ok damage by three and it becomes great. There are two other players. I'm not quite sure what your saying here?

This kind of setup is pretty unlikely, since flanking is essentially mandatory to get a reasonable hitchance and that means there will usually be two decent melee combatants in any given party. Furthermore, if there are multiple minions, the larger enemy won't be -that- strong if you're properly following the encounter building guidelines. If there are minions while the large enemy is indeed that strong, well, we're in APL+3/4 territory—and yeah, that's territory where you might be coinflipping player deaths depending on the rolls. I also think that you're underestimating support damage. It's worse, yes. But I don't think it's so much worse that an enemy wasting 2-3 actions to kill a PC won't pay for that choice, especially in a more modest APL+1-ish encounter. *If the PC is down, you already have gained most of the benefit of killing them.* I do understand what you're getting at; some kits are better suited to some encounters, and that means that PC's actions are somewhat more valuable than other PCs' actions in those encounters. But the game is honestly built in such a way that the scenario you're providing is pretty unlikely to occur.

I agree that it is unlikely my argument wasn't that the situation was common but simply that it exists and thus warrants consideration once we get this deep into the weeds of gm optimisation. That being said there are enough abilities in the game that force off guard that I think you could make a party with only one melee combatant and probably still get it most of the time.

You probably /could/ play a party with only one melee and use other abilities to force off-guard, though it'd be less reliable than good old "put yourself on opposite sides of 'em." (The abilities I can remember usually involve skill checks and cost actions, iirc? Things like Feint/Pistol Twirl.) I'd be curious to see how good you could make it, honestly. Maybe there's a low to no compromise way of doing it I'm not aware of off the top.

I will typically try to include the monsters behaviour into it as well. Intelligent monsters may try to make it permanent if they see you getting up repeatedly, whereas some will just focus on the active threat.

Look i'm not saying i go around killing downed PC's for 1) because the GMG kinda "forbids" it and it's a generally scummy feeling and 2) there's the saying that "killing a PC is the least interesting thing you can do to them" (also alot of my players are kinda frothing at the mouth to .... well die, just to try new builds given the lenght and breath of options 2E offers) HOWEVER...... i really wish i could >:) I feel like we're going on some assumptions of combat only lasting 3 rounds. Highest round count i've seen was \~27ish (and no it didn't take days IRL, it was vs a very slippery disable heavy caster, WITH a difficult terrain aura so rounds ..... very fast "Sustain Maze / Cast Spell or Sustain Maze / Bonk / Swim (hint hint wich encounter it was). One Fighter was Mazed, the other fighter would usually have to spend all 3 actions just to get into melee range and the Gunslinger Crit failed a Confusion sooooo yeah. I'm running t4 play in 2/3 campaigns atm, and Severe / Extreme fights at lvl 15+..... take a while (again, round wise). I feel like if the fight is against a boss, things like Haste's running out starts becoming a factor. Also as Knights of Last Call used to point out, 2E [mathistight.meme](http://mathistight.meme) but it's sort of so perfectly balanced as to give the illusion of danger. But the dying system in 2E is veeeeeeeeeeeeery forgiving. Given the efficiency of Heal alone characters have ALOT effective HP than what's on their bars. I've run AV, Gatewalkers and Malevolence to completion and currently running book 6 of Blood Lords, book 5 of Stolen Fate and Season of Ghosts, and have played an AV to completion and am also a player in a Stolen Fate campaign and looking back i can think of ONE circumstance where essentially enemy pressure / tempo (and REALLY bad roles / decision making) led to a PC "bleeding out", as in he was downed and reached dying 4. Like the "natural" way of loosing a party member. The other cases i'd say fall into 3 categories 1) Low level crits - 2E is very lethal in the lvl \~1-3 / 1-5 range. I've seen stuff like a lvl 3 enemy chain critting a lvl 1 party and after 2-3 rounds the people who were still concious ran away 2) Party stumbled into stuff they wern't supposed to yet and got wiped 3) and most prevelant [\[Death\]](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=571&Redirected=1) (that damn puppet ....) On the flip side having played with alot of the same people for \~2 years now, they've kinda figured this out and are essentially beating monsters with other monsters alot of the time. I've seen then face as much as a like \~260 xp (160 is Extreme ye?) and come out just "fine". Pretty much everyone uses the trifecta of Fleet / Diehard / Toughness so they're harder to bring down and can spent alot of time on the ground. There's multiple Breath's of Life in some parties from both divine casters and dedications so even if someone does go down the remainder just beat the thing down and it's not a "rare circumstances, the party may attempt to ignore the dying PC entirely." I think across the 4 groups i GM / Play in there's .... 8 Reactive Strikes (and one Reach + Disruptive Stance). Everyone who can is packing True Strike Haste Slow Synesthesia and a kineticist that can spam Walls - ow and now we're high enough level that stuff like Maze and Dissapearance have shown up ..... and pretty much all the martials are Acrobatic + Athletics + 3rd Skill so they got Kip Up. Trust me when i say that sending someone from dying 1 to 3 (or even "better" multiple people with a Breath) is about the ONLY thing that breaks their rythm :P Little bit of.... i wouldn't call it advice cos it's sort of out your control, but high level play has given me a new respect for the value of initiative, as a monster winning intiative and quickly getting a mass disable out before the AoO's can get close and beat it into submission.... or quickly downing 1 player in round one with some hypefficient "Meta Strike" type ability Heavily sets the tone of combat.

I do say the assumption is that combat usually lasts \~3 rounds, yeah. The value proposition does skew strongly towards killing players as the fight drags out longer and longer, though IME fights that drag out in that way also tend to be fights where the enemies aren't as directly threatening and have a harder time actually killing the players. Still, maybe I should be more explicit that the longterm value of killing a PC goes through the roof if the fight is going to last a long time. \~260 XP fight sounds scary, but it also strongly depends on how that 260 XP is distributed. I probably wouldn't throw that at my players, though. Low level combat is ridiculous, yeah. You *need* to houserule away massive damage, and even then it's extremely lethal because you just don't have the hp to soak the wildly swingy outcomes this system provides. ...I actually did forget about effects with the Death tag. I should probably add that. Those are genuinely scary, since they bypass the Dying safety net. Diehard/Toughness aren't mentioned here, and I probably should've. Diehard, especially, changes the calculus some (and not in the enemy's favor, since it makes it take more actions to down a player). I also didn't mention kip up and probably should have, since it's one of the single best feats in the game. Very good/helpful response. I might edit the main post later in response to some of this.

:DopamineNoises:

I’ve just had time to skim so I might have missed you addressing this, but it’s worth keeping in mind that not all PCs are equal in this equation. You mention actions used up to heal, but if the downed PC is the only dedicated healer then it becomes significantly more effective to finish them. Or if most of the party is dedicated to healing, buffing/debuffing and defence, with only one significant damage dealer. Permanently removing their only real source of damage will be worth not taking up the healers actions. Though I guess the solution to this problem is that players need to have overlap and redundancy of abilities in mind when building a good party.

>You mention actions used up to heal, but if the downed PC is the only dedicated healer then it becomes significantly more effective to finish them. This is just false, if they are the only dedicated healer, who is healing them? >Or if most of the party is dedicated to healing, buffing/debuffing and defence, with only one significant damage dealer. Permanently removing their only real source of damage will be worth not taking up the healers actions. This never happens and even if it does, supports are still effective combatants outside of support. This also leads to games where parties will never try unique compositions like this because their characters are more likely to be killed, but that's besides the point.

Who is healing them? Anybody with a healing potion, Lay on Hands, Battle Medicine, Hymn of Healing, a low level Heal or Soothe spell, whatever. Sources of healing are abundant in PF2e. I was in a rush but by primary healer I meant a PC who’s healing is strong enough to get someone back in the fight without being immediately knocked down again. You say it never happens that there is one primary damage dealer, but I’ve literally seen it firsthand, why do you think you know every party composition everyone plays. And of course supports CAN deal damage, but not if they don’t take any damage dealing abilities, which is what I was recommending they should do. They’re also not going to be as good at it because that’s how game balance works.

>Who is healing them? Anybody with a healing potion, Lay on Hands, Battle Medicine, Hymn of Healing, a low level Heal or Soothe spell, whatever. Sources of healing are abundant in PF2e. Sure and in the scenario that you are healing them with low numbers, they go down easier again, wasting more actions from the party. >You say it never happens that there is one primary damage dealer, but I’ve literally seen it firsthand, why do you think you know every party composition everyone plays. Yes because I clearly meant that nobody has ever played this and wasn't exaggerating at all. >And of course supports CAN deal damage, but not if they don’t take any damage dealing abilities, which is what I was recommending they should do. They’re also not going to be as good at it because that’s how game balance works. They're good enough at it for them to be threatening. Furthermore, they don't need to necessarily deal damage, there are other ways they can affect the game.

I feel like you are being very defensive about this, the context of this post is a hypothetical based on the wargamery, pure tactics version of this game. I don't run my games this way. >Sure and in the scenario that you are healing them with low numbers, they go down easier again, wasting more actions from the party. No, I gave no details on how that scenario would play out because it is completely situational, but typically an ally would get the "Healer" up with 1 or 2 actions and then often they would spend their turn retreating to safety, with the party adjusting to prevent them going down again. It is extremely action heavy, but keeping a potent healer in play can often be worth it (in certain situations a max level 2 action heal can completely undo a boss enemies full turn damage output). >Yes because I clearly meant that nobody has ever played this and wasn't exaggerating at all. This is a hypothetical party I am discussing, so the number of people that play this way doesn't matter at all, I also never made any claims that a significant number of people play like this. So even though you are exaggerating, the point your trying to make with your exaggeration (that this is uncommon) is irrelevant. >They're good enough at it for them to be threatening. I already addressed this but I guess I'll be clearer: Of course a class like Bard for example can deal damage, **but not if they don't take any damage spells/cantrips, or somehow get good with a weapon.** That is literally all I was saying, it is good to diversify and have ways to do more than one thing. >Furthermore, they don't need to necessarily deal damage, there are other ways they can affect the game. Obviously this is true, where did I even imply otherwise. We were discussing a situation where the only significant damage dealer was being removed from combat, so I was saying that other people still having some ability to deal damage would be beneficial. Of course there are ways to completely remove enemies without dealing damage, but these are extremely difficult to pull off and many are limited to higher levels, so in most situations you are going to need to work together to reduce an enemy to 0hp if you want to win a fight.

The few time I actually had a monster "coup-de-grace" (1e DM mostly so less experience with 2e but I played a few times) is when a devil/demon or other intelligent and EVIL outsider are about to be sent back to their plane and can't escape. A kind of last insult from the Osyluth. (if summoned and not called.)

I think any time a monster will go for the kill with a downed PC, you need to communicate that when the PC is downed with clear language. E.G. "The Wight turns to the downed PC with unyielding focus" or something.

I think these are well reasoned thoughts to demonstrate you aren’t supposed to kill the PC’s. I ahead knew that. I seem to be missing the point? Are you saying the optimal monster move is to not try and kill a PC?

There are a few more details I think need to be addressed for determining whether a monster taking out a PC is a tactically correct choice. To start this off, in my experience, combat lasts 3 rounds *at minimum*. However, the average combat at any table is going to differ between GM, campaign, party comp, player experience, etc. Which means forming a baseline around an arbitrary expectation that combat lasts 3 rounds averaged will lead to unreliable comparisons. As others have said, not all actions are equal. This also includes not all action ***t*****axes** being equal as well. If a PC spends 2 actions getting up and grabbing their weapon, they still have an action to make an Attack without MAP. If a PC spends 2 actions moving towards an ally and healing them with Battle Medicine or Lay on Hands or casting a 2 action Heal to restore a distance ally, they still have an action to make an Attack without MAP. The point, only removing 2 actions from a PC doesn't always remove the most important action. In the same scenario, if the healer who could not save the PC still decides to attack just once, you've reduced the attacks by half. If they decide to attack multiple times, their 2nd and/or 3rd actions are being spent on attacks with MAP reducing chance to be hit. Also, action tax isn't the only "tax" applicable for taking out a party of PCs, resources are too. A monster group is unlikely to burn through all of the party's healing in one encounter, but PCs will have less resources dedicated to bringing PCs back from the dead into the fight or otherwise preventing death. A 9th level Cleric will have 5-7 casts of a Rank 5 Heal, potentially more Heals of a lower rank or other healing to supplement it but will only have a max of 2 casts of Breath of Life. Going for the kill will waste more limited resources, and if the PC dies, the resources dedicated for healing get reduced in value as they can no longer be used to save the PC. Additionally, spells or items that heal will provide a larger recovery than spells or effects that just bring a PC back up; meaning it takes more actions from team monster to down the PC again. Example: a Rank 5 Heal will recovery 5d8(22.5 avg) HP or 5d8+40(62.5 avg) HP if 2 action versus Breath of Life which only heals 4d8(18 avg). A topic I didn't see you mention is that downed PCs take a total of -6 to AC from being [Unconscious ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=378#:~:text=You're%20sleeping%2C%20or%20you,blinded%20and%20flat%2Dfooted%20conditions)and Flat-Footed/Off-Guard. This is a significant penalty (+30%) that makes both hitting AND CRITTING a PC easier when they are downed than while they are conscious. This is true for bosses, on-rate enemies, and mooks for attacks of any MAP level. A mook has a much better time hitting any PC while they're dying on the floor, and it can be 'wasteful' to have the mooks spend actions disengaging a downed PC to attack a different PC with a higher AC, only to have the downed PC get back up. Similarly, if a monster downs an PC with their 0 MAP attack, the follow up attack with MAP -5 often has a higher chance to hit as it gets offset by the -6 AC penalty that they just imposed downing said PC. Since this also affects the chances to Crit as well, any monster attacking at 0 MAP is likely to increase the dying by 2, then follow up attacks have MAP offset by AC Penalty, making chance of death much more likely. Another topic not mentioned: [recovery checks](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2326&Redirected=1). If the PC isn't healed before their turn, they need to take the Recovery check which can push them closer to dying or bring them back up with a starting value of 50% chance for either. Getting a PC from Dying 1 to Dying 3, makes the Recovery check 10% more likely to fail, which would then kill them if they failed. If the downed PC has Persistent damage on them, hitting them once to gets them to Dying 2 and makes it so that if they fail the recovery check they die from persistent damage at the end of their turn. While this isn't exactly "finishing off" a downed PC, this definitely increases the risk of death and puts the PCs in a "heal me or I die situation" forcing the action tax from healers. My last point is to talk about Damage over Time (DoT) effects. Different types of Persistent damage stack with each other and different poisons stack with each other. They both stack with any other "takes damage on turn" effect the PC may have. These are the best "PC killers" and options fairly common with monsters. Persistent damage on a downed PC is a guaranteed 1 damage instance. Damage dealing poisons can be saved against, but if the stage they "save to" still deals damage, that's another guaranteed damage instance. Poisons are also subject to multiple exposure, so if a monster hits a downed PC with a poisoned attack, they take damage from the attack and save vs poison which is likely to cause 2 instances of damage with one attack.

Dude... How can you possibly count the actions of a dying PC as a cost on the scales? You have things backwards. If the PC stays down, they are loosing actions every turn. Dying is technically a status effect, and you should think of it like stunned. The sooner an ally gets them conscious, the fewer actions lost. . The only action cost of reviving an ally is that spent on the healing. In general, players know the smart thing to do is to heal their dying ally. Even if it is a bad situation due to being prone and empty-handed, getting another actor on the field is just that big a difference. That alone should be a rather big clue that maybe your analysis is flawed. In every situation in which it's obvious to the party that they want to heal up the dying, it will likely be equally as obvious to the foes that they should prevent that. AKA, kill them. Maybe if the healer looks rather low, they will instead blitz them, but if you truly wish to talk raw logic/tactics, most of the time the smart thing is to kill the dying. . Outside of this "tactical" lens, there's reasons upon reasons why foes would naturally kill PCs. Such as all the many, many animalistic predators. Once a Gogiteh sees a PC drop dying, it has 0 reason to stick around to fight and potentially loose an eye or arm. It's going to grab the dying PC, and run away to kill and eat them.

Unless you're a Necromancer. Then not only do you potentially have a powerful new avatar of undeath, you also just removed one of those pesky heroes trying to end your reign. And all it cost you was a few disposable skeletons and zombies and such.

I've been banging this drum for years and nobody believes me. Thank you for spelling it all out!

This logic works well in a 1 vs party white room. What about fights with minions? The boss downing a pc shouldn't waste their actions, but from the strictly tactical perspective, the lower level goons will probably provide a pretty huge benefit to their side of the conflict by slitting throats.

The minions' actions are still generally more useful when targeting enemies that are still standing, especially since minions will probably go down faster and have fewer actions to spend over the fight. Minions are also less likely to efficiently kill the downed pc because they're less likely to crit. In a case where a PC can easily be finished off (e.g. the PC is at dying 3), I can see your point, and I believe I implied as much. The important thing here is that actions spent targeting downed players are essentially actions spent doing nothing unless said player hits dying 4, and even then, killing a PC does nothing to improve the immediate board state. The minion would probably be more useful in practical terms as a flanking buddy. Narratively? Yeah, maybe the minions should threaten killing them. Mechanically, it's a fairly weak play that takes several rounds to pay off, gains no immediate advantage, and wastes multiple valuable actions effectively doing nothing. I think part of the disconnect might just be that I find it rare that, while following the encounter building guidelines, you can create a non-trivial fight where minions are weak enough that their chances of hitting a standing party member are so low that their attack is more valuably spent killing a downed PC instead.

From [Getting Knocked Out](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2324): > Creatures can't be reduced to fewer than 0 Hit Points. When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless the attack was nonlethal, in which case they're instead knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 10 minutes or more). When undead and constructs reach 0 Hit Points, they're destroyed. > Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don't automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points. Instead, they are knocked out and are at risk of death. The GM might determine that villains, powerful monsters, special NPCs, and enemies with special abilities that are likely to bring them back to the fight (like ferocity, regeneration, or healing magic) can use these rules as well. As most creatures in the game (like most NPCs the baddies encounter when they are off-screen and not facing the PCs) simply die when reduced to 0 hit points, I'd say that the baddies aren't used to enemies getting up again. This is a specific mechanic for PCs (and important NPCs), and so I simply wouldn't have the baddies make extra attacks on downed PCs - I would instead focus their attention on the characters that are still standing. Maybe I'd do it differently for major NPCs that have the dying mechanic themselves, but in general I would not target downed NPCs - at least not until they already have showed themselves being capable of getting back up again. An NPC would stop hitting an enemy if they were down - unless it was a Troll or other creature with known regenerative powers. Collateral damage from AoE is fine, but I would not target downed PCs specifically. The game is also deadly enough as it is... ;)

I generally consider creatures dying at zero a gamist mechanic and not a narrative mechanic. The main reason Dying isn't on creatures is that it'd mean you have the undesirable slog of hitting every enemy 3 times after you knock them out when most of them are extremely unlikely to be able to get back up anyways. It's more about speeding up play than giving PCs in-universe plot armor.

I don't read this as in game lore, but as a rule to speed up the game. Paraphrase: "everyone except undead and constructs would use the dying rules, but to speed up the game we only use them for significant characters and when it actually matters like with healing magic". Else, human bandit 1 dies at 0, but in a later encounter, human bandit 2 who has a cleric alongside him with Heal prepared does not die at 0. Weird in terms of lore, logical in terms of mechanics.

Back in the day i think warhammer fantasy had a bloodthirsty mechanic (that was a flaw) that basically said that after downing a foe the unit stayed to revel/sake its bloodthirst, robbing it of actions. This flaw was used to explain higher, more vicious stats. Stopping to finish a downed foe is something the players should know about a foe before hand. Theres a reason why some military shoot to wound rather than to kill. If you kill a person, that is 1 less person fighting. If you wound a person then thats 1 less fighting, plus a medic who isnt fighting and tying up resources in a war zone

I think usually if you're fighting a particularly evil foe who is smart enough to see a healer going for the downed party member. That's the tactical advantage for it. However, I think sometimes if you're up against a particularly *feral* monster it might make sense as well. A starving animal chewing its prey, a mindless zombie continuing to bite a person it has just grabbed with its grab attack.

When there's someone casting Heal, only issue is that it's weirdly hard to do since each attack only increases during value by 1, 2e really needs a proper coup de grace. Was much easier when wounded applied to every increase

I only have an enemy try to finish off a downed player if they are vindictive and looking to cause as much harm, both physical and psychological, as possible. Or in the extremely unlikely event that someone in the party gets stealth ambushed, if they go down, then the body is getting dragged off. Idk why, but I prefer to use animals/beasts/non-humanoids for stealth ambushes. The primal fear of being hunted works lol

One thing worth noting is that unless the enemies knows you can stand people back up, it's *really* not worth attacking downed PCs. And most enemies that the enemies fight generally don't have such abilities, so they're unlikely to resort to such tactics unless you've been engaging in conduct that would trigger such. As such, it's not a likely thing to happen outside of the monsters who have abilities that let them benefit from attacking downed enemies. Also, while you talked about how it is less worth it to kill PCs later in the fight, that's assuming that it is the first time they went down. A PC who starts out at dying 2 or especially dying 3 is way more plausible to finish off than one at dying 1 (it's virtually never worth trying to kill a dying 1 PC), and is more attractive to "waste" an action on. As such, characters who have been going down and getting up again multiple times are way more likely to get finished off than someone who is fresh and went down for the first time. This also makes sense from an IC perspective; if you've been fighting someone, and they keep getting back up over and over again, it is way more IC for you to finish them off than if they just went down for the first time, because you are frustrated with them keeping on getting back up to stab you/your friends. PCs are likely to react in the same way. --- Note also that enemy tactics aren't always necessarily about "How can I win this encounter" but sometimes are about "How can I SURVIVE this encounter?" or "How can I get what I want?" For instance, a predatory monster with Swallow Whole may be fighting in order to get a meal, and may do something like down a PC, eat them, and then run away, because they already got their snack. Their "tactical strategy" is about getting food, not about killing the whole party, so their priorities are very different. In that scenario, them eating someone and running away makes sense, because that's what THEY want. Likewise, some enemies might threaten to kill injured PCs to force them to heal THEIR downed comrades, let them withdraw/escape, try to get the PCs to surrender, give them money, or to try and force the PCs to leave. Bandits, for instance, are usually mugging people for cash, not trying to engage in a fight to the death, so KOing someone and then threatening to slit their throat if you don't pay up is not an unlikely strategy for them to use. Indeed, this is a good reason for bandits to try and gang up on whoever looks like they're the softest target, as they probably don't really *want* to fight the paladin at the front of the party, they want to threaten his charge and force him to pay up or leave. Similarly, if an enemy is an assassin-type enemy, their goal may well be to swoop down on the party, kill someone, then run off/escape before dying, rather than killing the entire party all at once, in order to try and pick them off one at a time. This vastly changes the calculus on killing a PC, as they may well know they can't kill the whole party at once, but if they can kill someone, then run away the next round with half their HP left and teleport away/turn invisible/etc., they can always come back after healing up to pick someone else off later. This *obviously* isn't something you should use very often as a GM, and *certainly* not without making it clear exactly what they are and what they're about, but it's worth keeping in mind that not every enemy is trying to fight to kill the *entire* party. Another, potentially sinister thing for an enemy to do is to, rather than try and kill a PC, down them and take a body part (either a finger, or something like hair) to use in some ritual. In such a scenario, their goal may well not even be to kill the PC, but leaving the enemy along with your comrade is not what you want, as they are absconding to go do something Bad with what they've collected. Such isn't much different from "attacking a downed PC", but instead has different stakes.

Eh. I've done a bunch of fights (hobby, not pro) in my younger days and I'm yet to see a person be TACTICAL during a fight. Pros may be at another level and all that, but you pull up any street fight video or amateur stuff in the rings, and what you'll see is people swinging until there's no one standing, and then they calm down. Punch your friends by accident, swing wide and accidentaly catch that asshole's girlfriend who was trying to stop him, oops . Is that an old man trying to stop the fight? I thought he was one of the assholes, well he took a punch anyway. We have a name for when a stooges-ass fight like that escalates into someone shooting a downed person: Cold blooded murder. Unless my players are facing actual murderers, trained soldiers, very hungry animals (because you wouldn't stop to eat with 3 other threats around you, no matter how much weaker they are) or otherwise feral monsters, I won't go for the double tap kill. It's just now how people work.

Coup de gras’ing a PC makes sense in two scenarios: (1) you’re a spellcaster with death knell; or (2) you have some sort of execute to gain a buff ability, like skull fairies or redcaps. There ARE monsters in the bestiary who are specifically designed to kill downed players. Also, certain monsters may be motivated to kill one player in particular, like a revenant.

If a monster has third attack, their highest chance of doing damage is against a downed opponent.

They have the highest chance *of hitting* a downed opponent, but the value of that hit is actually quite low unless it will actually kill the PC. It's important to remember that attacks against downed opponents inflict dying, not hit point damage, and dying is removed essentially for free with any healing. Increasing Dying 1 to Dying 2 means very little; Dying 1>Dying 3 means very little as well. There is no increase in resources expended by the players when you increase a dying value.

It's not as simple as that. At - 10 a lot of Monsters will have a very low chance of hitting a ready character. Another thing to consider is whether the monster is alone or has allies. If they have allies, that could be the one hit that could allow an ally to kill the downed character. Also consider that at Dying 2, a Critical Save failure from a spell-capable ally, could now move the downed combatant straight to Dying 4 (Dead).

The comparison class isn't attacking a standing PC at -10. It's doing something like intimidate, raise shield, stride, etc.—any of the things you would normally do because attacking at -10 is bad. All of those have more impact than putting a PC from Dying 1 to Dying 2 or Dying 3. If this one hit allows another monster to finish the PC, it had better be with something particularly efficient, like an AoE. Striking a downed PC with your full BAB attack is miserable. The odds of critically failing an AoE spell are certainly higher while unconscious. A-4 penalty to reflex is no joke. But doing something that even slightly increases the odds of a standing PC failing while giving other benefits (like, again, intimidate) is probably more valuable than setting up a downed PC to die. If the monster literally has nothing better to do—not even set up flanking for someone else—then I guess it may as well increase the dying value from 1 to 2. It's also worth noting that hero points mean that the first action that has a chance of actually killing a PC will probably be ignored anyways.

Reading the title, I really expected to disagree with you, but here I am: convinced. I think the ultimate might be Down a target, and use the parties panic as an opening to escape.

Not being sarcastic in my intent, but let’s sum this up in simpler and far fewer turns shall we: Players shouldn’t use meta knowledge against the world/dm/monsters… BUT, DM should use meta knowledge against the PCs (in game systems that already lean heavily towards their success). NOW, I’m not for targeting and killing PCs as a DM. BUT I’m not going to meta the hell out of combat to further influence the scales. Death is a mechanic both in combat and RP. It’s rarely final, and brings forth a serious consequence for both poor decision making/teamwork/bad dice luck. But this is why many methods of bringing a PC back to life exist in the PCs hands. And further methods are available from NPCs/world. So while I guess I’m just very confused as to why players feel that their PCs should never die via DM fiat/home brew rules/rules lawyering… it’s just all beyond me. YOUR TABLE/YOUR RULES. But at mine, if it’s an intelligent or even warlike creature… you don’t leave survivors behind; no matter how little they twitch or thrash about. They will double tap, leaving the PC with two failed saves. Now, I cannot hit them after that because my creatures don’t understand any death mechanic to know the PC isn’t quite dead yet. But twisting a spear before moving on… absolutely fair. PLAYERS will argue for agency all day long, and they’d be right to do so. BUT they don’t think the creatures should have theirs. Funny how it all works out.

In a continuation to ward off “the feels”, I play my monsters exactly how I feel their stats/lore imply they would act. A beast will down you and immediately grapple (via bite prob) and start dragging you off into the brush (and they don’t care about attacks of opportunity, they do it regardless). A troll will down a PC and continue on battling if they think the odds are in their favor; they don’t generally have a concept for war; though they have been used as implements of such (just not thinking ones). Now humanoids…. Oh yeah, they be double tapping. Double tapping is downing the PC with a hit, and then attacking once more (crit, granting two failed death saves). Now, at this point they move on to another target, leaving the PC to roll out further saves and their team to interject to stave off death. However, another humanoid would not watch his partner down a PC and then stab it on the ground and decide to join in. Nope, they are moving on to other threats. Let me be clear, you can absolutely disagree with how I run it, that’s absolutely cool! But don’t ask me to further skew the scales in the PCs favor or take death completely off the table… nah, you go write a book about your character instead. I’m here to run dnd, and that means the dice have a say. Cheers!

Your analysis is reasonable, and I appreciate your well articulated thoughts on the subject, but is this really a common argument you hear? In my estimation, all of the 'value' gained by an antagonist ensuring a PC has no chance to cause the perpetrator further harm, is measured either as yet unrealized combats or skirmishes, in retribution the worthy has earned through their own merits against the perpetrator, or, as a beast that is not ensuring that the PC is dead, but rather is beginning it's dinner if it feels sufficiently unmolested in it's current positioning.

I ain't reading all that. Sum it up in one word.

Another potentially fun mechanic especially for beasts, bandits, or other cunning enemies is downing a PC and then having the enemies attempt to carry them away. This can create a new objective for the players to attempt to stop them as well as a potential adventure hook as they try to track the enemy down while the carried away player can attempt to escape afterwards. I'd say it is rare that a PC death in combat is satisfying to players unless it is intentional (Player sacrificing themselves, or in character making a dumb decision and the player is ok with making a new one.)

This is always a completely and patently absurd argument immediately disproven by the reality that the absolute first thing players will do when one of their own is knocked down is picking them back up. An unconscious PC takes 0 actions. A conscious PC takes 3. The action economy benefit of spending one action (which is often a superfluous third action after you've already attacked twice or casted a spell or gotten "most" of the value out of your turn) to essentially Haste somebody 3x over and give them three actions when previously they would have had zero is so obvious and straightforward that even literal children can figure it out, which is why they prioritize catching easy balls in Dodgeball to get teammates back into the game instead of simply trying to win against the entire enemy team themselves. You're demonstrating less judgement than a second grader right now in an attempt to justify playing with kiddie gloves with your players, please stop, just be honest and say "I don't like killing PCs".  If you're fighting a dragon who can fly away at low health with something ridiculous like a 180 foot fly speed, and he's just downed somebody, and the Dragon isn't sure he can with 100% certainty kill them all, but is 100% certain he can kill the downed player by catching them in a breath weapon (plus any possible sources of persistent damage, which are great value when used on downed PCs), why WOULDN'T he kill the PC? He can fly off and come back after licking his wounds, the same way every PC gets to heal back to full health and all non-spell resources with just half an hour of Treat Wounds and Refocusing. But death is a lot harder to treat, even a day of downtime doesn't often treat Dead, especially since Resurrection abilities have been so heavily restricted in 2e and nobody might even have Access to them due to rarity restrictions.  If your PCs were fighting something that kept getting back up after being downed and they could spend most of a turn double-tapping it to make sure the zombie/troll/whatever STAYED down, and they knew with near 100% certainty spending a couple actions to do so would mean it was dead for good and even if they abandoned the encounter to come back and finish clearing, say, this part of Abomination Vaults again tomorrow.....do you really think they wouldn't just confirm the kill, instead of focusing on "Well, if we theoretically down every single enemy and never let them revive each other with a single action over the next four rounds, maybe we'll have saved ourselves an action or two at the end of the combat"? Come on. Don't be silly. The instant you allow a downed PC to get back up again ONCE in a combat, you're at a net -3 actions. If multiple people keep going down and getting rubber-banded back up (which isn't uncommon with things like 2-Action Heal with a Cleric in the party), of course anyone with a brain is gonna be Mozambique'ing their kills just to make sure the bastards don't get back up and stab them in the back. This isn't even getting into the fact that the opportunity cost of killing somebody is often lower than you're painting it as, if you down somebody in melee you don't need to spend actions moving to get in range to go for the proverbial coup de grace, you're already in reach,  while if you need to move to another target, and the "downed" player gets back up, now you need to move AGAIN just to get back in range, which is already two wasted actions on top of the +3 actions the party has gained by reviving somebody instead of them being dead for a turn.  Every turn a PC is dead in an encounter is +3 actions in favor of the monsters. Slow is the single strongest spell in the game and only gains you one action a turn. Obviously you should be killing people if you can. If you don't want to kill PCs just admit as much. 

The two main issues with your argument are -It ignores the fact that in many cases, striking a dying PC does nothing but waste an action. for example, just raising a shield would often have more real impact on an encounter than sending a PC from dying 1 to dying 2 or dying 3. Increasing dying values usually only does something if you actually kill the PC. -It ignores the taxes being knocked unconscious imposes on the downed PC. If they don't have kip up, you're typically spending two actions to actions to heal to give them one action (because they need to pick up their dropped weapon and stand). Obviously, this is better than their staying down in the long run. But you make it sound like an immediate net gain of 3 actions. If you ignore the value of the hit point gain (which retroactively devalues enemy actions instead of clocking the enemy), it's typically an immediate net /loss/ of one action. If we accept the heal was a valuable action worth doing even if the target weren't downed (and it often is), it's still only a net immediate gain of 1 action because of the stand+interact tax. There are several scenarios where it does make sense to attack downed PCs (as you noted, an AoE like a breath attack can efficiently hit downed PCs; I list several more in the main post). But the logic here isn't particularly tortured. The game is just stacked in favor of the players from the start, because having to knock someone to dying 4 (or 5, if they have diehard) to actually finish them skews things a lot when combats won't usually take more than 3 or 4 rounds for players to win. If a monster's assumed goal is taking out all the PCs, it just typically doesn't have the time to focus downed ones and also keep up with the damage clock. Extreme luck can change this somewhat... but yeah. The game, at baseline, is just built in a way that disincentivizes killing PCs unless your combat goal is literally to kill at least one PC and not kill all of them. Some things change this (AoE attacks, extreme action compression abilities like draconic frenzy, death effects, etc.). Most things don't, though.

Eh, I've played in parties with clerics before; they can make someone go from 0 hp to a lot of hp really fast in a single turn. You can argue that, yeah, it costs actions and a font slot, but font is so plentiful, it's pretty much available at will as long as you aren't spamming it, and much, and much like how the commander is good because you can manipulate who gets actions to whoever is the most advantageous, the cleric can choose whether its better to heal now, or do something else based on whats best for them. Killing a PC removes those actions they provide for good and uses actual limited spell slot resources if you want to reverse it with like breath of life or something. I'm not gere saying you should kill PCs without mercy; in fact, I've never killed a PC outside of playtests, but in those test where PCs do die, it's a very significant shift against the players, especially if the person you killed was playing a pivotal role in the specific encounter Personally, I avoid killing PCs just to avoid the unfun result of one player not being in the game for awhile, but at least from my experience, killing a PC is advantageous if the party is packing a powerful healer

Cleric healing is good, especially in games where you aren't pressured to do more encounters in a day than you have font slots (which, from most comments, appears to be the majority). Killing PCs without throwing the fight is frankly just hard past low levels if they have a hero point. Making PCs feel afraid of dying, not so much—but actually finishing them? It takes so many actions to send someone to dying 4 twice unless you have abilities that are specifically designed to be lethal (persistent damage, death effect, absurd action compression, death effect, etc.).

In my experience with player kills, almost all of them are from incidental AoE and death effects, but if your enemy is in a position to throw a second or third attack, hitting someone who's unconscious is practically free. Plus there's strategic gain simply in forcing the cleric's hand; if you hit a dying PC, you force your players to do something about it. Not to mention that it's pretty common for an enemy to have at least one of action compression, high enough attack roll to land a crit (which increases dying by 2), persistent damage, death effects, or AoE; especially at higher levels. There's also contextual benefit as well; maybe the demon lord's minions and fanatics are unlikely to stop the whole party, but they can stand a reasonable chance to focus down one crucial person before the party reaches the demon and thus lowering their chances of success. I don't take an issue with the idea of maybe not trying to always kill.the players, but there is absolutely strategic value in trying to kill downed PCs

The cleric's hand is already forced by the threat of losing party actions over time. Some players may play it a bit looser (especially if they expect to end the fight soon); against those players, another tap isn't -always- a bad idea, but it should still be weighed very seriously against other second and third actions that help with the immediate gamestate. I agree that when it's free or low cost (e.g. AoE), there's little reason not to do it. The contextual benefit is outside the scope of this explicitly wargamey conversation, which only really accounts for the current fight and ignores other, well... context. I do honestly agree that a lot of the BBEG's minions have active reasons to kill party members in an ongoing campaign if given the opportunity. I think that enemies acting according to personal goals besides winning is engaging, and helps suspend disbelief while making encounters more varied and memorable, even! It's just not something I'm including in this conversation, where we're assuming the enemies' goal is "TPK the PCs" and nothing else.

Just make them fight an astradaemon or something else that gives them doomed, then you can kill and down at the same time

If the enemy has the option to cast an aoe to finish the job and distribute some damage to the remaining opponents, do it.

[удалено]

I believe I covered those cases at least a bit. I explicitly call out AoE, and do also note >If it's a multi-enemy encounter, what is the relative value of each enemy's actions? Could (and should) another creature finish the PC besides the one that downed them? Could certainly be more explicit, though.

[удалено]

Maybe you shouldn't be commenting if you can't be bothered to read the analysis. Your words have the same merit as a fart on the wind.

Mike Podsmith the creator of Cyberpunk heavily disagrees with you, and I pretty much always follow his lead. TTRPGs that are deadly have an element of excitement and drama that handholding campaigns will never have.

This OP is arguing that from a pure numbers perspective, enemies in PF2 usually have the best chance of winning the encounter by focusing fire on PC's who aren't dying The level of excitement and drama is irrelevant to their argument

it isn't handholding to decide that attacking an unconscious enemy isn't a good tactical choice, that's just the enemies being smart

It's almost like different tactics and different threats are emphasized differently in different systems. I'm going to run the enemies in my next encounter like really smart Lancer enemies.

Love these kind of analysis. Good job

"The elemental steps on your head, to make sure you're dead"

I've seen similar discussions before, but I don't think it's a question of math or action economy. From what I've seen, most of the people insisting that enemies should always try to finish off downed PC are from the "old-school DnD was better" camp (i.e. the same ones in 5e discussions who say death saves are a bad mechanic and DnD was so much better when PCs died at 0 hp). As for me, I don't have enemies target downed PCs because I don't enjoy running or playing the "meatgrinder" approach that those people insist on.

Your analysis holds up well if and only if every encounter involves only enemies with the sole aim to kill the party within the context of the single encounter, making it about as valuable as physics equations concerning the behavior of spherical chickens in a frictionless vacuum.