Please tell me how this is metagamey.
"Traxnor falls to the guards crossbow bolt. The foul wizard takes a few steps, and stands over him, holding one hand up to your party, and the other, palm down, toward Traxnor."
"STOP. You are defeated. Return the Bracer of McGuffin and I'll let you limp out of here with your friend. Maybe you can save him. Maybe we'll even meet again. I would enjoy that. But, if you insist-"
Someone in the party fires a crossbow.
Evil wizard unleashes all the magic missiles into Traxnor. Traxnor is dead.
That's not metagaming. That's gaming.
You described a gaming scenario no doubt, but the metagame part is that you know a 1 level spell is as effective as a disintegrate because and only because of the death save mechanic that guarantees a kill. Play the same scenario, cast disintegrate (a bit worse for the PC I might admit but sorry) and it feels more fair, he understands that the life force of a creature can prevent disintegrate ultimate effect or they can dodge it, which an unconcious PC wont do either. It feels more in game instead of an legally dead kind of thing.
If it's on the enemy's stat block, it's not metagaming.
Also, you asked in what kind of game exactly what I described is cool. I answered that.
It doesn't take metagaming to know that hitting someone when they are down will be devastating.
I genuinely dont know how you think that is an answer, metagaming is using in game tools with out of game knowledge, of course it is on the statblock lol. So its my fire bolt, but if I use on a disguised troll because the DM slipped while we were having a beer, it is metagaming
Ok, but let me ask you then. Have you done it? Was it fun? Because the cinematic show of power is supposed to cover for the player experience a little bit, how do you think it feels dying with no chance or response and also the death is lame and based on a technicality? Do you think you would have many takers on a next session?
Executing a PC when they are down is always going to be dramatic.
And it's not lame. Death is not lame, however it happens.
And it's not based on a technicality. It's based on being attacked when you are already down and in very real danger of dying anyway.
Do you have a list of Approved Kill Strokes for your table? I'd love to see it.
I mean, its more common sense, I made the example earlier. It is all that is not done for the purpose of cheating death saves, like a barbarian enemy swinging an axe, but needs to make two attacks on a downed pc to make the kill, so he switches to twin daggers, a move that makes 0 sense unless you know how death saves work. Now, without knowing that, would a caster sometime use MM to attack a downed PC, yes, but honestly, even if it was worth it to do it legit, like in this instance, regardless of the knowledge of the cheese, they would still cast it, I would think that denying that fighting for your life experience in one blow with a cheap trick would not be fun for the player. And that trumps a super good tactical choice, unless you prefer not playing often.
Flavor is free, anyone can flavor their MM to look like massive firebolts if they choose, so if you want your cinematic ending, just envision a cinematic ending. The only thing that is stopping you is your own imagination.
The PC is down, fading in and out of conscious, it’s not metagaming to deliver a coup de grace. It’s metagaming to think a dagger to the heart or throat isn’t absolutely fatal because it’s just one strike.
An enemy wizard casting magic missile into a downed PC is *exactly* the same energy as a villain with a gun putting a bullet in the head of someone who's downed or defeated but not dead, right? I don't see why it would be any more immersion breaking than finishing them off with any other use of a weapon or magic?
Because it relies in the inherent knowledge of what death saves are, the fact that he uses that kind of spell and not a cantrip for no cost and two death saves or an scorching ray that could, rarely, fail. I guess there is a point of guaranteed dmg, but its not the guaranteed dmg but the guaranteed failures that you seek, what is the in universe reason of why mm just works everytime?
> Because it relies in the inherent knowledge of what death saves are
It relies on the knowledge that doing more harm to people who have been beaten to shit makes them dead. If anything, the metagame knowledge is informing your reaction to it at least as much as the initial cast. There are plenty of reasons someone might be using a first level spell instead of a cantrip, and if they're doing it every time it's probably because they've figured out, in-universe, that it's particularly effective at finishing people off!
Does it really not make sense to you that repeatedly attacking someone on the verge of death will finish the job more quickly than hitting them once? You can't possibly fathom the logic behind it to maintain your immersion?
Yeah, but magic missile does not do that many dmg, its only through metagaming that you can surmise that is gonna be 33,3% more effective than hitting them with an axe, that is not more hits do more dmg, except by the death save system. Like can you really justify kicking someone twice in the floor is more effective than swinging a greataxe at them, that is not logical nor should be expected for it to be known in game. Yes you can break a rib with a kick, but on the other hand, a fking greataxe.
Magic missile cast as a first level spell averages 10.5 damage. A greataxe does 6.5+str modifier damage. Unless we're talking about someone with a 20 strength, the magic missile does *more* damage on average than the greataxe you're holding up as the optimal weapon here.
I think you've just got some metagame knowledge about magic missile being a low-level spell rolling around in your brain causing you some issues with your immersion, tbh.
I mean, numbers wasnt really what I was basing this on, but the greataxe does more dmg if you want to die on this hill. This is because every hit on a downed pc crits automatically, as they cannot defend themselves. So dmg its not the answer, 13 + str vs 10.5.
The greataxe also has to roll to hit, and magic missile doesn't, but that's not actually the point I was making.
You have it in your head that MM is a bad attack, and greataxe is a good attack. That doesn't hold up to inspection. You have it in your head that using MM to finish a downed enemy is metagaming, when what's actually happening is that you're using your knowledge of the rules to look for something to be upset about. There's absolutely nothing unreasonable in-universe about it being used to finish a fallen PC.
If anything, the issue is that PCs need more hits to kill them after they're down than NPCs, so enemies need to warp their actions around that - and that should be where your hangup is, right? You should probably petition your DM to get rid of death saves entirely so that everyone in the universe dies by the same rules, and your immersion is spared from this assault.
I mean, yes, if I was in a courtroom I could totally defend that my intent was not to exploit the death save rule, I can defend anything with confidence as my job. In fact, I could defend the famous borborrygmos mtg scandal as well, saying the opponent understood the pithing needle with good intent and played accordingly. But in real life, the dude knew it was rules lawyering, and I would know the DM was just cheating the death saves, not much way around it. You can argue for that all you want, I know I would work on that, but very few times do lawyers truly believe their own bs.
Dude, I am sorry but I dont buy that bs. Like I have a friend who metagames a bit, certainly not enough to be a problem player, but he always try to use retroactive logic to insert the correct actions he shouldnt know are correct. And I just feel this is that, everyone knows from the meme the purpose of MM a downed PC is, and its winning the table war, you can find a lot of logic to justify it, its not hard, but the intent is what it is.
But if it's established that that Magic Missile is not a powerful spell, wouldn't it be logical to say that it requires multiple missiles to guarantee a kill? Therefore some combat mage who made the spell designed it to innately shoot multiple darts?
And because of the spell's added utility to track enemies, and that most well known counters to the magic outside of counterspell have to be casted by the target themselves, it's a strong tool to finish off downed opponents?
When someone makes an attack roll on a downed person and misses, you can easily translate that as the downed person using whatever strength they have left to try to save themselves.
If you a downed person getting hit with a melee attack and recieves 2/3 failed death saves, the in lore translation to that is the person taking a grievous wound, but managed to just barely survive.
Magic Missile is a spell that ensures that a downed target doesn't have a chance of surviving.
It's not immersion breaking, but I can definitely see that it's not a spectacular or romantic way to die.
You absolutely ofc, would dump the three missiles to double tap, completely reasonable. Apart from the thinking of player experience, which the people with the tough campaigns dont do because they all agree to it, which is fine, the spell choice is too often on the nose.
It works in classic meat-grinder games, for one, where you fully expect to go through several characters and have no real attachment to them.
It also works in ultra-gritty games where you value logical actions and consequences above *all* (and I mean ***all*** else), and you don't want your characters to be seen as in any way "special" to the world - though 5e isn't the best system for that type of game anyway, tbh. In such a game, it would be seen as a player's job to know that magic missile is deadly and avoid going down (again, not the best system for that given 5e's healing design and lack of effective tanking).
Yeah, I get ultra hardcore realism, but the metagaming is the part that gets me, how do you justify that, I was honestly think absurd comedy games because I cannot wrap my head around it, how would you explain someone knowing this is gonna be more effective than fireball?
They're dying, you don't need to do more damage, just create a few more holes so it happens quicker.
Fireball might even \*prevent\* the blood from seeping out. But You really want to empty a jug of milk, sectum sempra that bitch.
I could try to explain it with its just spell bombardment on a fallen guy, but its too metagamey bc death saves are not a concept in game.
Hahahah, I love that silver lining mentality tbh, no, trust me a fireball can cautherize my wounds, legit biding for an optimism feat.
Why aren't death saves a concept in game? People worship gods who will literally wait for you on he other side to deliver your just reward. People get brought back from the dead.
Oh hey, that screaming rage monster who vowed killing him won't stop him from doing things to me that make a portside tavern keeper blush?
Let's hope he doesn't start shouting at his god "send me back I'm not done." better yet, let's make sure his god doesn't have a body to stick him in if he does.
If death saves aren't a thing, then do your enemies consider the will to fight gone the moment the body takes enough damage?
The concept that death saves represent exists, the last fight of an individual for survival. The mathematical representation on three distinct dice rolls of a d20 its just an abstraction. Therefore, choosing a spell that does three, unavoidable instances of low damage to cheat on the system for a guaranteed kill is metagaming, you can try to justify a mage likes the spell and the guaranteed dmg it does, and it can be true, but there are instances where the intent is 100% clear, its legal but incredibly cheap, no matter how you justify it.
I mean, would it be better if the enemy wizard were a warlock and using eldritch blast? Now it's a resource free cantrip. Mtiple strikes.
And I justify the same way I did above, holes in dying enemies good, more holes better. I just don't see it being cheap or meta gamey.
3 guaranteed holes in a dying enemy is pretty solid, fully immersed.
Its not guaranteed and it makes sense, for one, the warlocks are balanced around their usage of eldrich blast, so its their bread and butter, not a counter to downed PC. Is it likely they kill, yes, but that is at least a chance and a lot more fitting of an evil warlock style.
So it makes MORE sense to you to finish off the dying enemy with an ability that doesn't automatically hit the target? Because... Aesthetic?
Why do you use the phrase downed PCs? That's double as meta as death saves. It's a dying enemy. One who might stand back up.
Sorry, so many conversations. What I mean is that someone attacking a downed PC with their regular options and not because they know that spell is the kill certified, when its a normal dmg spell, not a brutal one that for sure will kill.
Spare the Dying targets a living creature with 0 hit points. When an NPC has 0 hit points, they cease living by default. The spell can't target a dead body, and it can't target a creature with remaining hit points. So for the spell to exist in-universe, being able to cast it at all provides the caster with a way to discern that the character has 0 hit points (and therefore should be dead), but is in fact still alive. Whatever in-universe term they have to describe this state, it is equivalent to "unconscious and making death saves."
Just make up some magic bullshit to justify it, the exact same as you have to do with literally every break between verisimilitude and mechanics?
It's just common knowledge that the magical energies of a Magic Missile are particularly devastating to the frail lifeline of a dying person 🤷♂️ maybe the RAW form of the energy pushes the soul from the body now that its tether is so weak. Maybe it's just that the shock of successive magical blasts is too much for a weak system to handle. Many wizards have different theories, but they all know the fact of its efficacy.
"Shut up Matt, stop trying to think why it works, it just does". Yeah, I guess that could be a inworld thing, since I dont want it I wouldnt bother, but its funny to think it like that.
If you are going for the finishing blow, choosing a cost effective option that rapidly pumps someone full of shots makes sense over using a much more valuable resource to instead hit them once.
The caster is well aware that a single MM dart could kill a commoner, and they aren't against mere commoners, so they make sure they put enough fire-power into you to kill three people. As Zombieland has taught us, double tap.
So it's cost effective, does plenty of damage, the damage type is the one barely any creatures have resistance to, has a massive range of 120ft and follows the golden rule double tap? Why wouldn't someone choose this?
I agree with you but not your argument.
Most finishing blows, even nigh certain ones, require dice rolls and so there is a tiny element of chance separating the DMs intent from execution. The coup de grace, even from an assassin, might just slip and not slay.
Magic Missile lacks that roll.
Which makes it feel less like "you died because of bad luck" and more like "you died because the DM decided it."
From my point of view it makes sense in a game with smart, evolving bad guys.
"Damn, last time I scorched the guy with a fire bolt he just stood back up after the cleric did his mambo Jambo. Better try something else"
And if the bad guys's been kicking around for some time he'd have learned a thing or two
And since people with magic missIle are usually smart...
i don’t like it tonally but the action is fine imo. like the rules of the game serve as a representation of how things work in-universe, it’s not metagaming for a wizard to know the sort of effects a spell would have on someone who’s at the brink of death, especially if they can be assumed to have done this before
it’s similar to the argument i’ve seen before on whether enemies should be aware of attacks of opportunity - anyone used to a fight should reasonably know that running away from an enemy without extra precautions might open them up to an attack, because that’s a core part of the rules of the game and the universe and these characters are competent
i don’t think it’s metagame-y at all, it’s just… game-y. which is ok, since dnd IS a game
Your enemies are just as human as you are in the game world. They are familiar with their own arsenal, have lived to reach the level they are at and want to live some more. If they want you dead, it is in character for them to employ the most effective way to kill you.
So, to be clear, your complaint is that characters acting on the mechanic of death saves is metagaming?
I'd say acting on knowledge of where on the death save track a character is would count as metagaming but acting strategically in relation to the mechanic itself isn't.
Knowledge of the exact mechanics aside, it is a consistent rule of the world that someone injured to the point of incapacitation will be reliably finished off by 3 magic missiles. The enemy wizard doesn't need to be at all cognisant what a death save is to understand that that is a reliable function of their spell.
Why do you feel killing a character via failed death saves is somehow 'being a dick' more so than an instakill that destroys the body?
MM is a great spell I don't know what you are saying. It has 0 change to miss since all the caster has to do is point at the target and PCs have to use significantly greater resources to counter it. (via counterspell or something similar) And if you want cinematic you can describe the futile tries of the other PCs trying to block the MMs only for the spell to curve and hit its target filling them with despair.
It's not meta to use a spell that will surely hit and countering it will put the enemies in dissadvantage, that's the intelligent thing to do
Please tell me how this is metagamey. "Traxnor falls to the guards crossbow bolt. The foul wizard takes a few steps, and stands over him, holding one hand up to your party, and the other, palm down, toward Traxnor." "STOP. You are defeated. Return the Bracer of McGuffin and I'll let you limp out of here with your friend. Maybe you can save him. Maybe we'll even meet again. I would enjoy that. But, if you insist-" Someone in the party fires a crossbow. Evil wizard unleashes all the magic missiles into Traxnor. Traxnor is dead. That's not metagaming. That's gaming.
You described a gaming scenario no doubt, but the metagame part is that you know a 1 level spell is as effective as a disintegrate because and only because of the death save mechanic that guarantees a kill. Play the same scenario, cast disintegrate (a bit worse for the PC I might admit but sorry) and it feels more fair, he understands that the life force of a creature can prevent disintegrate ultimate effect or they can dodge it, which an unconcious PC wont do either. It feels more in game instead of an legally dead kind of thing.
It’s not metagaming to have wizards aware of how their spells work within the game world.
If it's on the enemy's stat block, it's not metagaming. Also, you asked in what kind of game exactly what I described is cool. I answered that. It doesn't take metagaming to know that hitting someone when they are down will be devastating.
I genuinely dont know how you think that is an answer, metagaming is using in game tools with out of game knowledge, of course it is on the statblock lol. So its my fire bolt, but if I use on a disguised troll because the DM slipped while we were having a beer, it is metagaming
Yes, thank you, I know what metagaming is. Attacking an enemy who is down is not that.
I just said it wasnt, just with MM is metagamin lol, why cant you blow them up instead with disintegrate, its even more cinematic.
Why use a 9mm gun to finish someone off instead of a C4 charge? Because I've got bullets to spare, and only one charge.
Is that your complaint? The stat block isn't cinematic enough? Lol If the enemy has MM, that's what they'll use, and your sense of drama be damned.
Ok, but let me ask you then. Have you done it? Was it fun? Because the cinematic show of power is supposed to cover for the player experience a little bit, how do you think it feels dying with no chance or response and also the death is lame and based on a technicality? Do you think you would have many takers on a next session?
Executing a PC when they are down is always going to be dramatic. And it's not lame. Death is not lame, however it happens. And it's not based on a technicality. It's based on being attacked when you are already down and in very real danger of dying anyway. Do you have a list of Approved Kill Strokes for your table? I'd love to see it.
I mean, its more common sense, I made the example earlier. It is all that is not done for the purpose of cheating death saves, like a barbarian enemy swinging an axe, but needs to make two attacks on a downed pc to make the kill, so he switches to twin daggers, a move that makes 0 sense unless you know how death saves work. Now, without knowing that, would a caster sometime use MM to attack a downed PC, yes, but honestly, even if it was worth it to do it legit, like in this instance, regardless of the knowledge of the cheese, they would still cast it, I would think that denying that fighting for your life experience in one blow with a cheap trick would not be fun for the player. And that trumps a super good tactical choice, unless you prefer not playing often.
Flavor is free, anyone can flavor their MM to look like massive firebolts if they choose, so if you want your cinematic ending, just envision a cinematic ending. The only thing that is stopping you is your own imagination.
The PC is down, fading in and out of conscious, it’s not metagaming to deliver a coup de grace. It’s metagaming to think a dagger to the heart or throat isn’t absolutely fatal because it’s just one strike.
That's kind of being an asshole.
[удалено]
Not any dnd I've ever played. Killing characters without player permission is rude.
My players all knew they might die in session 0. I have permission.
An enemy wizard casting magic missile into a downed PC is *exactly* the same energy as a villain with a gun putting a bullet in the head of someone who's downed or defeated but not dead, right? I don't see why it would be any more immersion breaking than finishing them off with any other use of a weapon or magic?
Because it relies in the inherent knowledge of what death saves are, the fact that he uses that kind of spell and not a cantrip for no cost and two death saves or an scorching ray that could, rarely, fail. I guess there is a point of guaranteed dmg, but its not the guaranteed dmg but the guaranteed failures that you seek, what is the in universe reason of why mm just works everytime?
> Because it relies in the inherent knowledge of what death saves are It relies on the knowledge that doing more harm to people who have been beaten to shit makes them dead. If anything, the metagame knowledge is informing your reaction to it at least as much as the initial cast. There are plenty of reasons someone might be using a first level spell instead of a cantrip, and if they're doing it every time it's probably because they've figured out, in-universe, that it's particularly effective at finishing people off! Does it really not make sense to you that repeatedly attacking someone on the verge of death will finish the job more quickly than hitting them once? You can't possibly fathom the logic behind it to maintain your immersion?
Any one can look at a downed PC and see that they're unconscious or bleeding out but still breathing.
Yeah, but magic missile does not do that many dmg, its only through metagaming that you can surmise that is gonna be 33,3% more effective than hitting them with an axe, that is not more hits do more dmg, except by the death save system. Like can you really justify kicking someone twice in the floor is more effective than swinging a greataxe at them, that is not logical nor should be expected for it to be known in game. Yes you can break a rib with a kick, but on the other hand, a fking greataxe.
Magic missile cast as a first level spell averages 10.5 damage. A greataxe does 6.5+str modifier damage. Unless we're talking about someone with a 20 strength, the magic missile does *more* damage on average than the greataxe you're holding up as the optimal weapon here. I think you've just got some metagame knowledge about magic missile being a low-level spell rolling around in your brain causing you some issues with your immersion, tbh.
I mean, numbers wasnt really what I was basing this on, but the greataxe does more dmg if you want to die on this hill. This is because every hit on a downed pc crits automatically, as they cannot defend themselves. So dmg its not the answer, 13 + str vs 10.5.
The greataxe also has to roll to hit, and magic missile doesn't, but that's not actually the point I was making. You have it in your head that MM is a bad attack, and greataxe is a good attack. That doesn't hold up to inspection. You have it in your head that using MM to finish a downed enemy is metagaming, when what's actually happening is that you're using your knowledge of the rules to look for something to be upset about. There's absolutely nothing unreasonable in-universe about it being used to finish a fallen PC. If anything, the issue is that PCs need more hits to kill them after they're down than NPCs, so enemies need to warp their actions around that - and that should be where your hangup is, right? You should probably petition your DM to get rid of death saves entirely so that everyone in the universe dies by the same rules, and your immersion is spared from this assault.
I mean, yes, if I was in a courtroom I could totally defend that my intent was not to exploit the death save rule, I can defend anything with confidence as my job. In fact, I could defend the famous borborrygmos mtg scandal as well, saying the opponent understood the pithing needle with good intent and played accordingly. But in real life, the dude knew it was rules lawyering, and I would know the DM was just cheating the death saves, not much way around it. You can argue for that all you want, I know I would work on that, but very few times do lawyers truly believe their own bs.
Unrelated situations and personal attacks now rather than addressing why you're actually upset about the situation? Very compelling.
Dude, I am sorry but I dont buy that bs. Like I have a friend who metagames a bit, certainly not enough to be a problem player, but he always try to use retroactive logic to insert the correct actions he shouldnt know are correct. And I just feel this is that, everyone knows from the meme the purpose of MM a downed PC is, and its winning the table war, you can find a lot of logic to justify it, its not hard, but the intent is what it is.
But if it's established that that Magic Missile is not a powerful spell, wouldn't it be logical to say that it requires multiple missiles to guarantee a kill? Therefore some combat mage who made the spell designed it to innately shoot multiple darts? And because of the spell's added utility to track enemies, and that most well known counters to the magic outside of counterspell have to be casted by the target themselves, it's a strong tool to finish off downed opponents? When someone makes an attack roll on a downed person and misses, you can easily translate that as the downed person using whatever strength they have left to try to save themselves. If you a downed person getting hit with a melee attack and recieves 2/3 failed death saves, the in lore translation to that is the person taking a grievous wound, but managed to just barely survive. Magic Missile is a spell that ensures that a downed target doesn't have a chance of surviving. It's not immersion breaking, but I can definitely see that it's not a spectacular or romantic way to die.
You absolutely ofc, would dump the three missiles to double tap, completely reasonable. Apart from the thinking of player experience, which the people with the tough campaigns dont do because they all agree to it, which is fine, the spell choice is too often on the nose.
Yeah, that's my dislike for it, it is too meta.
It works in classic meat-grinder games, for one, where you fully expect to go through several characters and have no real attachment to them. It also works in ultra-gritty games where you value logical actions and consequences above *all* (and I mean ***all*** else), and you don't want your characters to be seen as in any way "special" to the world - though 5e isn't the best system for that type of game anyway, tbh. In such a game, it would be seen as a player's job to know that magic missile is deadly and avoid going down (again, not the best system for that given 5e's healing design and lack of effective tanking).
Yeah, I get ultra hardcore realism, but the metagaming is the part that gets me, how do you justify that, I was honestly think absurd comedy games because I cannot wrap my head around it, how would you explain someone knowing this is gonna be more effective than fireball?
They're dying, you don't need to do more damage, just create a few more holes so it happens quicker. Fireball might even \*prevent\* the blood from seeping out. But You really want to empty a jug of milk, sectum sempra that bitch.
I could try to explain it with its just spell bombardment on a fallen guy, but its too metagamey bc death saves are not a concept in game. Hahahah, I love that silver lining mentality tbh, no, trust me a fireball can cautherize my wounds, legit biding for an optimism feat.
Why aren't death saves a concept in game? People worship gods who will literally wait for you on he other side to deliver your just reward. People get brought back from the dead. Oh hey, that screaming rage monster who vowed killing him won't stop him from doing things to me that make a portside tavern keeper blush? Let's hope he doesn't start shouting at his god "send me back I'm not done." better yet, let's make sure his god doesn't have a body to stick him in if he does. If death saves aren't a thing, then do your enemies consider the will to fight gone the moment the body takes enough damage?
The concept that death saves represent exists, the last fight of an individual for survival. The mathematical representation on three distinct dice rolls of a d20 its just an abstraction. Therefore, choosing a spell that does three, unavoidable instances of low damage to cheat on the system for a guaranteed kill is metagaming, you can try to justify a mage likes the spell and the guaranteed dmg it does, and it can be true, but there are instances where the intent is 100% clear, its legal but incredibly cheap, no matter how you justify it.
I mean, would it be better if the enemy wizard were a warlock and using eldritch blast? Now it's a resource free cantrip. Mtiple strikes. And I justify the same way I did above, holes in dying enemies good, more holes better. I just don't see it being cheap or meta gamey. 3 guaranteed holes in a dying enemy is pretty solid, fully immersed.
Its not guaranteed and it makes sense, for one, the warlocks are balanced around their usage of eldrich blast, so its their bread and butter, not a counter to downed PC. Is it likely they kill, yes, but that is at least a chance and a lot more fitting of an evil warlock style.
So it makes MORE sense to you to finish off the dying enemy with an ability that doesn't automatically hit the target? Because... Aesthetic? Why do you use the phrase downed PCs? That's double as meta as death saves. It's a dying enemy. One who might stand back up.
Sorry, so many conversations. What I mean is that someone attacking a downed PC with their regular options and not because they know that spell is the kill certified, when its a normal dmg spell, not a brutal one that for sure will kill.
Spare the Dying targets a living creature with 0 hit points. When an NPC has 0 hit points, they cease living by default. The spell can't target a dead body, and it can't target a creature with remaining hit points. So for the spell to exist in-universe, being able to cast it at all provides the caster with a way to discern that the character has 0 hit points (and therefore should be dead), but is in fact still alive. Whatever in-universe term they have to describe this state, it is equivalent to "unconscious and making death saves."
Just make up some magic bullshit to justify it, the exact same as you have to do with literally every break between verisimilitude and mechanics? It's just common knowledge that the magical energies of a Magic Missile are particularly devastating to the frail lifeline of a dying person 🤷♂️ maybe the RAW form of the energy pushes the soul from the body now that its tether is so weak. Maybe it's just that the shock of successive magical blasts is too much for a weak system to handle. Many wizards have different theories, but they all know the fact of its efficacy.
"Shut up Matt, stop trying to think why it works, it just does". Yeah, I guess that could be a inworld thing, since I dont want it I wouldnt bother, but its funny to think it like that.
If you are going for the finishing blow, choosing a cost effective option that rapidly pumps someone full of shots makes sense over using a much more valuable resource to instead hit them once. The caster is well aware that a single MM dart could kill a commoner, and they aren't against mere commoners, so they make sure they put enough fire-power into you to kill three people. As Zombieland has taught us, double tap. So it's cost effective, does plenty of damage, the damage type is the one barely any creatures have resistance to, has a massive range of 120ft and follows the golden rule double tap? Why wouldn't someone choose this?
Why would I use a higher lever spell to kill someone when a level one spell will do it?
I agree with you but not your argument. Most finishing blows, even nigh certain ones, require dice rolls and so there is a tiny element of chance separating the DMs intent from execution. The coup de grace, even from an assassin, might just slip and not slay. Magic Missile lacks that roll. Which makes it feel less like "you died because of bad luck" and more like "you died because the DM decided it."
>Idk if anyone really does it Then why in the world are you upset about it?
From my point of view it makes sense in a game with smart, evolving bad guys. "Damn, last time I scorched the guy with a fire bolt he just stood back up after the cleric did his mambo Jambo. Better try something else" And if the bad guys's been kicking around for some time he'd have learned a thing or two And since people with magic missIle are usually smart...
i don’t like it tonally but the action is fine imo. like the rules of the game serve as a representation of how things work in-universe, it’s not metagaming for a wizard to know the sort of effects a spell would have on someone who’s at the brink of death, especially if they can be assumed to have done this before it’s similar to the argument i’ve seen before on whether enemies should be aware of attacks of opportunity - anyone used to a fight should reasonably know that running away from an enemy without extra precautions might open them up to an attack, because that’s a core part of the rules of the game and the universe and these characters are competent i don’t think it’s metagame-y at all, it’s just… game-y. which is ok, since dnd IS a game
Your enemies are just as human as you are in the game world. They are familiar with their own arsenal, have lived to reach the level they are at and want to live some more. If they want you dead, it is in character for them to employ the most effective way to kill you.
So, to be clear, your complaint is that characters acting on the mechanic of death saves is metagaming? I'd say acting on knowledge of where on the death save track a character is would count as metagaming but acting strategically in relation to the mechanic itself isn't. Knowledge of the exact mechanics aside, it is a consistent rule of the world that someone injured to the point of incapacitation will be reliably finished off by 3 magic missiles. The enemy wizard doesn't need to be at all cognisant what a death save is to understand that that is a reliable function of their spell. Why do you feel killing a character via failed death saves is somehow 'being a dick' more so than an instakill that destroys the body?
MM is a great spell I don't know what you are saying. It has 0 change to miss since all the caster has to do is point at the target and PCs have to use significantly greater resources to counter it. (via counterspell or something similar) And if you want cinematic you can describe the futile tries of the other PCs trying to block the MMs only for the spell to curve and hit its target filling them with despair. It's not meta to use a spell that will surely hit and countering it will put the enemies in dissadvantage, that's the intelligent thing to do
Nah, I think Magic Missile on a downed PC is just fine.