I've been trying to figure out the fairness of allowing a character the opportunity to "coup de grace" an opponent they have snuck up on. The opponent must be "helpless" and the PHB describes helpless as:
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets. Etcetera.......
It's the line that states "or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy" that catches my attention. IMHO it would be reasonable to assume that an opponent whom you threaten who is completely unaware of your presense is helpless against at least one action which (if you've got the time) could be a coup de grace.
Now granted, this is a powerful tool for Rogues and other sneaky types but I do believe it's fair. It's not always easy sneaking up on people and it's really only useful against one opponent before you give yourself away.
Otherwise, how useful is the coup de grace anyway? It seems a little anti-climactic to paste an opponent you've already beaten anyway. Does anyone make use of the rule?
Any thoughts? Agree, Disagree?
Cheers,
C.
Now I don't have the books with me (I'm at work), but isn't a 'Coup-de-Grâce' a full round action? If it is, it would be hard to sneak up on someone and use the move on him.
Furthermore, a person not aware of your presence (flat-footed)only takes away his dexterity (bonus) modifier to his AC to simulate that he wasn't quite ready for an attack. It doesn't mean, however, that he'll just stand there while you slit his throat.
Flat-footed = Still reacts but wasn't ready...
Coup-de-Grâce = Can't react at all.
The Coup-de-Grâce would be a great way to finish off a still-strong opponent while three other members of your group pin him down.
Ultradan
I think the phrase "otherwise at your mercy" is one of the most misinterpreted pieces of text in the 3.5 core rules. In fact, I was recently involved in a discussion on this very subject on the WotC message boards, because of the exact same text.
Before I get into those four words, two other comments.
1) Coup de Grace requires a full round action. So not only would the rogue need to catch somebody in a surprise round (which is only a standard action), they'd need to win initiative too.
2) Allowing something like this goes a long way to weakening classes such as the assassin that have a "death attack" type ability. Frankly, I find the assassin's death attack to be weak already, but allowing anybody to do the same thing - only better - just makes it worse.
So, as to the phrase, "otherwise at your mercy" ... It's my opinion this phrase serves two purposes:
First, it's flavorful. It's there to add a bit of color to the rules. Second, it's there to provide a bit of rules flexibility going forward, in case a future book ever adds another condition that makes you helpless.
Finally, a rules reason why "at your mercy" doesn't include being surprised. Note that when somebody is helpless (and therefore subject to a CdG), they effectively have no Dex score. This makes sense - you can take your time (full round) lining up the perfect shot because the target is unable to move at all. Somebody who is flat-footed, though, has a Dex score still - even if it's no better than 11. The target can still move around normally, and therefore you can't line up the "perfect" killing shot, no matter how long you take.
~ It's the line that states "or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy" that catches my attention. IMHO it would be reasonable to assume that an opponent whom you threaten who is completely unaware of your presense is helpless against at least one action which (if you've got the time) could be a coup de grace.
Otherwise, how useful is the coup de grace anyway? It seems a little anti-climactic to paste an opponent you've already beaten anyway. Does anyone make use of the rule?
Any thoughts? Agree, Disagree?
Cheers,
C.
In agreement with Ultradan, it's the spirit of the Coup de Gras that is important...being totally caught by surprise might leave you flatfooted, but no one short of willing would stand there motionless upon the sudden sensation of feeling a sharp, cold edge against their neck.
The best use of a Coup de Gras is for dramatic effect; once a villain has someone helpless, the party can be terrorized by the cold murder of someone in a single round as they helplessly watch, too busy fighting their own opponents to do anything to save the victim. Of course, the action is inherently Evil, so use of this is a dramatic statement in the vein of, "Yes - I am Evil, for I do this!"
I also think the action best remedies one of the old "rule holes" that goes back to the first edition; how many of us can remember...
Player: - "yay! We've managed to knock out the 14th level fighter because he rolled a '1' on his will save and now he's unconscious! Good job, Wizard!"
DM: - "Dang - bad roll; ok, you got him."
Wizard Player: - "I got lucky - kill him, fast!"
Player: - "Alright, I slit his throat and take his loot!"
DM: - "Sorry - can't do that; he's AC -4 in his full plate, even lying still. You'd need to roll a natural 19 just to hit him."
Player: - "OK, I'll poke my dagger through the eyeslits of his helm."
DM: - "That's a Called Shot; your chance to hit would go down, not up. You'd be striking at -4, at least."
Player: - "Why don't I just drop a rock on his head?"
DM: - "You're not proficient with thrown rocks - again, you'd have to roll a natural '20' just to hit him, much less do any damage."
Player: - "So he's lying there unconscious, yet totally inpenetrable to my attacks??"
DM: - "Yup. Just because you're lower level than he is. If you hack at him enough, you'll probably roll high enough eventually to hit; but then you'd just do normal damage - maybe crit damage - until you hack him up enough to kill him."
Player: - "ARRGH - that might take a while... he has 120 hit points."
DM: - "You better hurry...he's starting to wake up."
M ;-)
Hmmm. Interesting arguments. I can see your points too but remain bothered by the whole situation. Maybe I can explain my trouble by setting up a hypothetical scenario.
Frank the Rogue leaves a tavern and spots somebody tailing him. It’s probably the inspector from the town watch hoping to discover Frank’s hideout so he can send in the militia later. Frank leads his pursuer to a decoy building (any old building that is open to the public) assuming he/she will wait and watch for Frank’s re-emergence. Frank sneaks out the back uses stealth to locate his pursuer (spot checks from shadowy back alleys and the like). Frank spots his pursuer watching the decoy building from the cover of an alley across the street. Frank circles around the block and sneaks up the alley from behind drawing his sap on the way. Frank is now directly behind his opponent. His opponent failed his listen check and has no idea Frank is there. Frank’s pursuer isn’t going anywhere. Frank has all night to set up his attack. Frank can only do 1d6 damage with his sap and an extra 2d6 sneak attack damage because he’s a low level Rogue; alas, his pursuer is a mid level Expert with 30 hit points.
Personally, I think “Frank” did a lot of work to spot his opponent, deploy a ruse, and successfully sneak up on him. Now he has time on his hands, an unaware opponent and unfortunately no real chance of knocking him out. To me there isn’t a lot to separate this situation from the one Marc Chin presented. I think this situation is broken (if you can call it that); but, I like to look for fixes within the existing rules. So, it seems reasonable he could coup de grace his opponent. He’d get an extra d6 damage and (because the damage is non lethal) a chance for a knock out. If Frank rolled average damage he’d deal 12 hit points to his opponent (barely scratching the 30 point total) who must then make a DC 22 Fort check “or die” – since it was non lethal damage I’ll assume it’s a knock out.
Still think it’s a bad idea?
Cheers,
C.
Being able to use Coup de Grace on a surprised or unaware opponent would completely negate the usefulness of sneak attack.
Imagine. Invisible wizard sneaks up on guard. Wizard does a Coup de Grace against the guard with his dagger. Guard dies.
The only use Rogues would have then is for disarming traps.
Uh, let's just settle this.
"Surprised" or "unaware" or "flat-footed" are absolutely, positively *not* conditions that make someone "completely at your mercy."
You can only coup de grace someone with zero DEX.
Still think it’s a bad idea?
Let's see...
Assume their positions were reversed and that the NPC is using a lethal weapon.Yep, bad idea.
Of course, if you want to make special fort-save-or-pass-out rules for sneak attack saps over the head, I think that's a solid house rule.
Also, the plan would work great with a standard sneak attack if the guy didn't have more than about 10 hp. You can't expect to knock out a 6th level NPC with one hit of a sap.
I generally only allow a coup de grace when the opponent is knocked out, asleep and hasn't woken up, or if the opponent is pinned. "At your mercy" is very vague, but cool sounding.
(A goblin sorcerer who managed to get his fingers cut off by a party member I considered at the party's mercy - because nobody would react too well after getting their fingers cut off.)
I'd make a judgement call, depending on the situation.
Uh, let's just settle this.
"Surprised" or "unaware" or "flat-footed" are absolutely, positively *not* conditions that make someone "completely at your mercy."
You can only coup de grace someone with zero DEX.
Still think it’s a bad idea?
Let's see...
Assume their positions were reversed and that the NPC is using a lethal weapon.Yep, bad idea.
Of course, if you want to make special fort-save-or-pass-out rules for sneak attack saps over the head, I think that's a solid house rule.
Rob, thanks for clarifying the official rules position. I don’t have a problem accepting the rule as either a DM or a Player as it’s necessary to adhere to an accepted set of rules in the interest of consistency and fair play. That said, it’s still hard to take a step back and wonder why it’s so difficult to knock out an unaware opponent. It’s really not that easy to sneak up on someone and very unrealistic to expect much less than a knock out (or a kill for the violent types) if accomplished.
If you the take the example from “GAAAHHHH” (Invisible wizard sneaks up on a guard) how likely is it that the wizard is going to sneak up on a guard in the first place. The wizard would have to be aware of the guard before the guard is aware of the wizard (i.e. win surprise). Even if the wizard happened to be wondering around invisible (I don’t know too many players who use invisibility before they know they need it) she’d still have to beat the guard’s listen check (most wizard’s wouldn’t waste skill points on this cross class skill but they usually do have dexterity going for them so maybe its possible). After all that the wizard gets to do a whopping 2d4 damage with his dagger plus any strength bonus (not a typically high ability for wizards). Lets say this wizard get a +1 STR bonus and has a +1 dagger and does MAX damage: 10pts. The damage will definitely NOT kill your typical low level fighter guard. That makes a DC20 Fort Save for the guard who may well survive it (especially at mid level up); then its bye bye wizard.
I still think your average rogue has a safe place in the party.
Anyway, fine. The official ruling is against the idea and popular opinion is against it. I’m still frustrated by what I perceive to be a gap in the rules (i.e. stealthy knock outs and kills) especially for low level characters. The Rogue’s sneak attack is inadequate for the situation (please note I’m not saying “in general” – the sneak attack is more than sufficient for the other situations it was designed to cover) and the coup de grace attack seems like a perfect candidate to fill the gap without the need for special house rules. Otherwise (assuming, like me, there is a problem worth addressing) it requires a big rethink on hit points or a bunch of patches for weapon’s or classes, etc…. If you take the time to run through a couple of scenarios you may find its not as frightening an idea as people seem to think.
Cheers,
C.
BTW, Robert, if I was the character who went after a rogue on my own and allowed myself to get snuck up upon then yes, I’d take my medicine, lethal or otherwise. After all, it’s dangerous out there.
Also, the plan would work great with a standard sneak attack if the guy didn't have more than about 10 hp. You can't expect to knock out a 6th level NPC with one hit of a sap.
Why not? Seriously, I'm not trying to be facetious. Is it totally unreasonable to think that a character of any level has a vulnerability? Maybe characters with the uncanny dodge ability have a realistic excuse but I can't see the rationale for placing mid to high level characters above the possibility of falling victem to a stealthy knock out - especially by thier peers (PCs & NPCs of similar level).
(Please see my other comments on the difficulty and skill dedication required to engineer a situation where any character might be able to use a coup de grace as I describe.)
Cheers,
C.
|
I suppose my question would lie in this:
If the rogue character is capable of knocking out foes with one blow, then he must seriously outclass them... or get v. lucky.
Your expert example sets in my mind a rogue who is in over his head; a foe with higher CR than his class level may very well be too much for him, and really shouldn't be taken out in one blow (I imagine flatfooted foes still roll with the blow, if it doesn't knock them out- Your expert may shift just in time to take a savage blow to his shoulder, solid or max sneak attack damage placing him with perhaps only 1/2 of his hp left).
After all, a good rogue facing a tough foe might not take him out in the first hit, but neither is he likely to go down in one hit either- he may feint the expert and escape into the shadows for another assault.
We all have a different picture in our heads of how this situation should go down, but I honestly think a rogue should seriously outclass an opponent (i.e. 7th level rogue vs. 1st level warriors) before the one hit-kill becomes truly feasible. A 5th or 3rd level rogue might take them out in one hit, but he certainly fights better irregardless, and likely can use hit-and-run tactics vs. the overmatched warriors.
*shrug* Just my 2c on the matter
The rules are clear; no Coup de Gras unless DEX is 0.
Otherwise, within the realm of House Rules...
Addressing Cernunos' hypothetical scenario that mirrors my own, older example:
Isn't there an optional rule for Massive damage that would force the higher-level victim to make a save after getting whacked by the rogue with a sap?
That would provide the DM with the framework to have his well-prepared (and lucky) rogue get a "perfect" sneak attack on the unsuspecting expert and allow him to POSSIBLY knock him out in a single blow - with the administration of greater than 50% of the victim's hit points via sneak attack, followed by a failed Fort save for massive damage.
M
Also, the plan would work great with a standard sneak attack if the guy didn't have more than about 10 hp. You can't expect to knock out a 6th level NPC with one hit of a sap.Why not? Seriously, I'm not trying to be facetious. Is it totally unreasonable to think that a character of any level has a vulnerability? Maybe characters with the uncanny dodge ability have a realistic excuse but I can't see the rationale for placing mid to high level characters above the possibility of falling victem to a stealthy knock out - especially by thier peers (PCs & NPCs of similar level).
(Please see my other comments on the difficulty and skill dedication required to engineer a situation where any character might be able to use a coup de grace as I describe.)
Cheers,
C.
I'm sure Magagumo will back me up on this after reading his post in response to my tidbit on crit hits... If you want this level of "threat / realism" added you should switch to Vitality / Wounds system. Again I'll throw in the statement that if you do read up on the Action Point system and the Crit Hits / Misses as presented in Spycraft. If you want a quick rundown check out:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/dragon/dnd/general/critsAndFumblesAreT heyNeeded
However, the way the rules for D&D work, they really don't allow for what you want. If you don't like the rules you can always change them to suit your gaming group. Just make it VERY clear to the PCs that every rule works both ways, so that when the NPC rogue or assassin sneaks in and oneshots the __(insert character here)___ and drops him dead that they won't be able to complain. Basically every PC in your game will have to max out listen, spot, etc. to avoid instant death.
If you the take the example from “GAAAHHHH” (Invisible wizard sneaks up on a guard) how likely is it that the wizard is going to sneak up on a guard in the first place. The wizard would have to be aware of the guard before the guard is aware of the wizard (i.e. win surprise). Even if the wizard happened to be wondering around invisible (I don’t know too many players who use invisibility before they know they need it) she’d still have to beat the guard’s listen check (most wizard’s wouldn’t waste skill points on this cross class skill but they usually do have dexterity going for them so maybe its possible). After all that the wizard gets to do a whopping 2d4 damage with his dagger plus any strength bonus (not a typically high ability for wizards). Lets say this wizard get a +1 STR bonus and has a +1 dagger and does MAX damage: 10pts. The damage will definitely NOT kill your typical low level fighter guard. That makes a DC20 Fort Save...
I don't understand why you feel the wizard should be able to knock out a guard in a single hit. I understand that it would be difficult for the wizard to even be able to sneak up to the guard undetected, but I don't think a wizard should be able to take out the guard like that just because getting into that position was hard.
The wizard is neither a class that provides training for stealth or for melee fighting. Why should I expect a wizard to accomplish something he is not good at? Also I find it odd that you are using the weakest melee class for your arguement. (In fact I don't understand why the wizard in that situation wouldn't just cast a spell on the guard.)
If we put practically any other class in the wizard's situation the guard would would be taken out with that first attack.
(Please see my other comments on the difficulty and skill dedication required to engineer a situation where any character might be able to use a coup de grace as I describe.)
Cheers,
C.
But your describing a difficult situation. As it stands unless your a construct or undead you almost certianly have to sleep. Moderatly stealthy individuals can sneak up on anyone who is asleep. Even if, say the party is on watch, there is still a descent chance for a stealthy adversary to sneak up and make a Coup de Grace. My concern is actually more that the rule is too powerful rather then too weak. I have a fairly low level party out to Coup de Grace a Troll. They know where it lives and are all set to do it in. They know its got to sleep and have reasonably convionced my that its unlikely that the Troll is completely silent in its sleeping. Hopefully it will make its fort save but I worry for my troll and in some ways I worry for the rest of my poor monsters - if they pull this off they'll be trying to Coup de Grace everything.
If you the take the example from “GAAAHHHH” (Invisible wizard sneaks up on a guard) how likely is it that the wizard is going to sneak up on a guard in the first place. The wizard would have to be aware of the guard before the guard is aware of the wizard (i.e. win surprise). Even if the wizard happened to be wondering around invisible (I don’t know too many players who use invisibility before they know they need it) she’d still have to beat the guard’s listen check (most wizard’s wouldn’t waste skill points on this cross class skill but they usually do have dexterity going for them so maybe its possible). After all that the wizard gets to do a whopping 2d4 damage with his dagger plus any strength bonus (not a typically high ability for wizards). Lets say this wizard get a +1 STR bonus and has a +1 dagger and does MAX damage: 10pts. The damage will definitely NOT kill your typical low level fighter guard. That makes a DC20 Fort Save...I don't understand why you feel the wizard should be able to knock out a guard in a single hit. I understand that it would be difficult for the wizard to even be able to sneak up to the guard undetected, but I don't think a wizard should be able to take out the guard like that just because getting into that position was hard.
The wizard is neither a class that provides training for stealth or for melee fighting. Why should I expect a wizard to accomplish something he is not good at? Also I find it odd that you are using the weakest melee class for your arguement. (In fact I don't understand why the wizard in that situation wouldn't just cast a spell on the guard.)
If we put practically any other class in the wizard's situation the guard would would be taken out with that first attack.
I'm not sure how this example was so completely misunderstood. Your arguement that wizards should not be sneaking around trying to knock people out is the entire point of the example. It was intended to illustrate the difficulty of such a thing.
But your describing a difficult situation. As it stands unless your a construct or undead you almost certianly have to sleep. Moderatly stealthy individuals can sneak up on anyone who is asleep. Even if, say the party is on watch, there is still a descent chance for a stealthy adversary to sneak up and make a Coup de Grace. My concern is actually more that the rule is too powerful rather then too weak. I have a fairly low level party out to Coup de Grace a Troll. They know where it lives and are all set to do it in. They know its got to sleep and have reasonably convionced my that its unlikely that the Troll is completely silent in its sleeping. Hopefully it will make its fort save but I worry for my troll and in some ways I worry for the rest of my poor monsters - if they pull this off they'll be trying to Coup de Grace everything.
(Please see my other comments on the difficulty and skill dedication required to engineer a situation where any character might be able to use a coup de grace as I describe.)
Cheers,
C.
What about the consequences of time? Is there nothing else going on in your campaign of significance that would make it difficult for your characters to stake out monster hovels and wait for them to sleep? What if the troll has a bell on a trip wire?
I'm still not convinced the elevated level of concern over the use of coup de grace is warranted.
Cheers,
C.
I also think the action best remedies one of the old "rule holes" that goes back to the first edition; how many of us can remember...
Player: - "Alright, I slit his throat and take his loot!"
DM: - "Sorry - can't do that; he's AC -4 in his full plate, even lying still. You'd need to roll a natural 19 just to hit him."
If this was an issue in 1st ed, it was cleared up in 2nd ed. DMG stated attack on sleeping or held defender is an automatic hit; and, if there's no other combat going on, an automtic kill.
I'd say sneaking up on a conscious, mobile opponent doesn't allow a coup de gras. Perhaps such a target could get some sort of subconscious cue that something is afoot (certainly you'd like your heroic PCs to get such a break).
If they can react in any meaningful way, I don't allow it. I'm iffy on conceding that sleeping opponents are vulnerable. Perhaps they could hear or sense something at the last second -- it happens in fantasy novels all the time.
Jack
If this was an issue in 1st ed, it was cleared up in 2nd ed. DMG stated attack on sleeping or held defender is an automatic hit; and, if there's no other combat going on, an automtic kill.
I also think the action best remedies one of the old "rule holes" that goes back to the first edition; how many of us can remember...Player: - "Alright, I slit his throat and take his loot!"
DM: - "Sorry - can't do that; he's AC -4 in his full plate, even lying still. You'd need to roll a natural 19 just to hit him."
This would reinforce the concept that 'helpless' means, "unaware of the act of attacking (NOT surprised or ambushed) or unable to respond to it in any way".
Regardless of how surprised, ambushed or unaware a victim is before an attack, as long as they can react to the attack in some reflexive way, it is not a Coup de Gras.
M
This would reinforce the concept that 'helpless' means, "unaware of the act of attacking (NOT surprised or ambushed) or unable to respond to it in any way".Regardless of how surprised, ambushed or unaware a victim is before an attack, as long as they can react to the attack in some reflexive way, it is not a Coup de Gras.
M
I agree completely. Magically Held, Paralyzed, buried up to your neck in dirt with the villain holding your head steady by your hair... you are completely helpless.
Sleeping would be a borderline example in that a sixth sense might click in at the last second for your eyes to open as the knife is coming down or some such typical fantasy/Hollywood example.
So basically, if you can react in ANY way to interfere with the coup de grace during a 6 second period from when it starts, to include involuntary responses that are not restrained by a force greater than what you can break free of, then it should never be a coup de grace. That means that even if 2 thugs were holding a PC’s arms and legs while a third moved up to perform a coup de grace, I would give the PC another grapple/strength check to break free at the last moment… coup de grace needs to be used sparingly IMO.
Sleeping would be a borderline example in that a sixth sense might click in at the last second for your eyes to open as the knife is coming down or some such typical fantasy/Hollywood example.
I would allow a Coup de Gras on a sleeping target IF the attacking rogue (assuming the class with the best ability to do this) passes both move silent and hide checks against the slumbering target's rolls (with applicable penalties for being asleep).
Failure of any of these would indicate that the assassin woke the victim and they would lose the Coup de Gras - however, the VERY flatfooted victim is still in a world of hurt....and probably unarmored...
...the victim could possibly be killed anyways, by Massive Damage (and the required Fort save).
P.S. - (A truly Evil and sadistic assassin might just wake the victim, so he could witness his own murder...I would definitely award extra XPs in these cases)
M
I would allow a Coup de Gras on a sleeping target IF the attacking rogue (assuming the class with the best ability to do this) passes both move silent and hide checks against the slumbering target's rolls (with applicable penalties for being asleep).Failure of any of these would indicate that the assassin woke the victim and they would lose the Coup de Gras - however, the VERY flatfooted victim is still in a world of hurt....and probably unarmored...
...the victim could possibly be killed anyways, by Massive Damage (and the required Fort save).
P.S. - (A truly Evil and sadistic assassin might just wake the victim, so he could witness his own murder...I would definitely award extra XPs in these cases)
M
True true.. of course even if a decent level rogue was denied a coup de grace, he would lay into the prone victim who is denied his dex for 2-3 (or more!) sneak attacks in a surprise round... and then if he wins init... another full round of sneak attacks... IF the opponent is somehow still alive this will be followed up by an attack of opportunity as his victim tries to stand up, weaponless and armorless... so unless you are targeting a high level monk, the sleeping victim is almost as good as dead without a coup de grace with a rogue type bringing the pain.
The best route that I can think of for this conundrum (which I happen to have issue with myself) would be some sort of house rule that perhaps lowers the massive damage threshold while you're flatfooted. A sudden and powerful blow might be more traumatizing when you aren't expecting it than it would be if you saw it coming. Perhaps if you catch an opponent flat-footed, you only need to inflict 25 points of damage in a single attack to force a DC 15 Fort save vs. instant death (from lethal damage) or unconsciousness (from nonlethal damage). This adds another very dangerous element to every character's life, but still a DC 15 save isn't all that stellar for even a 1st level character (but no 1st level character will survive 25 points of damage anyway). This allows for the possibility of stealthily disabling a foe in a single blow with proper planning, without making it an instant-killer for anyone and everyone ever subjected to it. Any thoughts?
The best route that I can think of for this conundrum (which I happen to have issue with myself) would be some sort of house rule that perhaps lowers the massive damage threshold while you're flatfooted. A sudden and powerful blow might be more traumatizing when you aren't expecting it than it would be if you saw it coming. Perhaps if you catch an opponent flat-footed, you only need to inflict 25 points of damage in a single attack to force a DC 15 Fort save vs. instant death (from lethal damage) or unconsciousness (from nonlethal damage). This adds another very dangerous element to every character's life, but still a DC 15 save isn't all that stellar for even a 1st level character (but no 1st level character will survive 25 points of damage anyway). This allows for the possibility of stealthily disabling a foe in a single blow with proper planning, without making it an instant-killer for anyone and everyone ever subjected to it. Any thoughts?
I would consider modifying the Massive Damage threshold based on game circumstances...but this kind of messing with the numbers is strictly in the DMs realm to fudge, and not something that could be quantified in a book.
M
Also, the plan would work great with a standard sneak attack if the guy didn't have more than about 10 hp. You can't expect to knock out a 6th level NPC with one hit of a sap.
Why not?
I'd say because D&D is not a simulation. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun.
How would you feel if your 6th level character was playing in my game and, out of the blue, I asked you to make a DC30 FORT save? If you fail, you die. Is that fun?
The long answer is that hit points are inherently unrealistic. Your technique would work against low level characters, but not mid- or high-level characters, which is central to the nature of D&D.
I'd also add, depending our how a DM requires and adjudicates skill checks, sneaking up on someone doesn't have to be supremely hard.
A well placed silence spell makes it as simple as a rogue's hide against the victim's spot.
Anyway, I agree with the suggestion that the wound/vitality system would handle this better.
Or house rule it! That's why this game is so fun. You get to build your own world and your own rules, if you like.
This would reinforce the concept that 'helpless' means, "unaware of the act of attacking (NOT surprised or ambushed) or unable to respond to it in any way".Regardless of how surprised, ambushed or unaware a victim is before an attack, as long as they can react to the attack in some reflexive way, it is not a Coup de Gras.
M
I agree completely. Magically Held, Paralyzed, buried up to your neck in dirt with the villain holding your head steady by your hair... you are completely helpless.
Sleeping would be a borderline example in that a sixth sense might click in at the last second for your eyes to open as the knife is coming down or some such typical fantasy/Hollywood example.
So basically, if you can react in ANY way to interfere with the coup de grace during a 6 second period from when it starts, to include involuntary responses that are not restrained by a force greater than what you can break free of, then it should never be a coup de grace. That means that even if 2 thugs were holding a PC’s arms and legs while a third moved up to perform a coup de grace. . .
If this is helpful, I would think of a coup de grace situation as one where the NPC in question still could not act in the following round, despite what you do to him/her. In my opinion, a coup de grace is like taking 20 on an attack roll . . . you do it because there will be no response from your victim.
Using the "dexterity at 0" mechanic is perfect. But if my players still had a problem understanding it, I would restate it as: "If an opponent has the possibility to defend or respond to a regular attack by a PC, then said PC CANNOT coup de grace."
As in the previous examples above, paralyzed/held/etc. opponents cannot act or respond in defense no matter what you did, whether it's gutting them with a blunt spoon or tweaking their nose like Mr. Miagi at a karate tournament. Coup de Gras is an option.
However, sneaking up on a unsuspecting NPC and vulcan mind gripping them, hitting them with a vase, or doing whatever movie scenario it is that you have in mind, is not an option. The very fact that an NPC CAN get a spot check, movement rate, retaliate with an attack, etc. AFTER any normal action by the player, is precisely why it won't work. Also, in my game, I won't allow coup de gras on a naturally sleeping NPCs either, for that same reason.
Sorry if this was repetitive. Just my two cents.
Player: - "yay! We've managed to knock out the 14th level fighter because he rolled a '1' on his will save and now he's unconscious! Good job, Wizard!"
Bit of a topic change here. but we've house rulled it that a 1 on a saving throw is not an automatic failure. If your save bonus is high enough, there are just some things you are imune to. High FORT. some toxins just don't affect you. High WILL you are just to smart to fall for somethings. High REF, you just never fall when walking on slippery surfaces or the like.
As for the Coup De Grace topic. One shot one kill is great in movies, but almost never happens in D&D...much to the detriment of cinimagraphic effect. But that takes us back to the first level campaign I once wrote a thread on.
ASEO out
Player: - "yay! We've managed to knock out the 14th level fighter because he rolled a '1' on his will save and now he's unconscious! Good job, Wizard!"
Bit of a topic change here. but we've house rulled it that a 1 on a saving throw is not an automatic failure. If your save bonus is high enough, there are just some things you are imune to. High FORT. some toxins just don't affect you. High WILL you are just to smart to fall for somethings. High REF, you just never fall when walking on slippery surfaces or the like.
As for the Coup De Grace topic. One shot one kill is great in movies, but almost never happens in D&D...much to the detriment of cinimagraphic effect. But that takes us back to the first level campaign I once wrote a thread on.
ASEO out
I knew it was a matter of time before you chimed in, dude... ;-)
Regarding that particular event in the example... I just pulled that out of my a$$ to set up the hypothetical question being debated here; any DM can insert their own anecdote as applicable for this...
I also agree with you on "one shot one kill" blows being all about dramatic license... in a gaming situation, it would require patience, preparation and a significant level advantage to pull off, one-on-one.
M
Bit of a topic change here. but we've house rulled it that a 1 on a saving throw is not an automatic failure. If your save bonus is high enough, there are just some things you are imune to. High FORT. some toxins just don't affect you. High WILL you are just to smart to fall for somethings. High REF, you just never fall when walking on slippery surfaces or the like.
Off topic. . . but I'd liek to say that this could be a pretty good rule. What's the rule, exactly?
The "Imune to some bad things" rule:
You roll your d20 and add your save bonus. If the number is equal to or higher than the DC, you don't fail the save. In some instances, a character's Save bonus may be high enough for them to make the save without a roll. (although I usually have them roll so thay don't necessarily know they are being confronted with something they are imune to.) A natural "1" is just a number to add to your roll.
Part of the reason this natural "1" is not necessarily a failure came from an instant where a creature was threaening a town. The town hires 20 archers and gave them each DC2 Save or die poison to coat their arrows. Upon engaging the monster all 20 fired and since they wera all first level Mages with "True Strike" all hit. and the creature forced to make 20 saving throws eventually rolled a 1 and "Automatically failed" and died... even though it had millions of Hp...Ok the story isn't ture, but the concept is...
Thoughts?
ASEO out
Regarding that particular event in the example... I just pulled that out of my a$$ to set up the hypothetical question being debated here; any DM can insert their own anecdote as applicable for this...
Good/funny example though. I've seen things like that happen in games. Also, I've seen Coup De Grace roll min damage and not kill the target.
Still to me unconscious/asleep/paralized is "at your mercy".
I have seen several authors try to create rules for an instand death strike to kill a guard in 1 shot so as to not raise an alarm. All have been unbalenced in some way. The best shot is the Assassin ability (and maybe you can house rule the class so that you don't have to be evil to join) alternatively, you can go with the rogue sneak attack (which is what it was origionally ment for).
Poison is another alternative. Something that paralizes or renders the target uncosncious. Once again, a Mage is big help in situations like this with "Silence" "Sleep" and "True Strike".
I really like ASEO's idea on "immune to some bad things" and for things like Fort > DC of poison = immune is really an awesome idea.
The only problem I have is that I still have this nagging in the back of my head that says there should still always be a chance to succeed and always be a chance to fail in a fantasy game. The D20 is the biggest problem with it... 5% is a large number when you start dealing with masses of things. When 100 Skilled Marksmen fire bows in an archery contest and 5 of them critically miss, 5 critically hit, and everyone else hits the same (because they all needed anything but a 1) Then math and probability starts getting in the way of common sense.
Perhaps a system where if you have no chance to fail: If you roll a 1, then add 10 to the target DC and roll again. If you roll a 20, then subtract 10 from the DC and roll again. This would give a *chance* to succeed or fail where previously there wasn't one... and spreads the problem with the math a lot thinner. I know that there is something like this for epic levels, but never really read too much on it.
I'd say because D&D is not a simulation. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun.
How would you feel if your 6th level character was playing in my game and, out of the blue, I asked you to make a DC30 FORT save? If you fail, you die. Is that fun?
The long answer is that hit points are inherently unrealistic. Your technique would work against low level characters, but not mid- or high-level characters, which is central to the nature of D&D.
I think this analysis really addresses the heart of the debate. In reading the responses to my post it is clear that the disagreement is probably less to do with my suggested use of the coup de grace manoeuvre than it is a philosophical disagreement on how close the game should (or should not) simulate reality. My bias is probably pretty clear. I like a more lethal and grittier game. It’s ironic but I find that this approach tends to focus the game into aspects of play that are less combat oriented. For this reason I tend to enjoy (both as a DM and a Player) lower level games.
The whole knock out issue arose from this perspective. The traditional approach to D&D is to assume some open combat is going to take place. My gaming group is starting from the perspective that open combat isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion and that killing an opponent is the least preferable way of defeating them. It's a style that I think reflects a lot of children's and young adult fantasy adventure (the Hobbit, Harry Potter, Narnia, etc...). In most books and movies where the hero behaves this way it's more common for them to sneak up behind a guard and knock him over the head with a frying pan (and the obligatory hiding of the unconscious body in the broom closet) than it is to hack him to death with a great sword. Unfortunately it’s not an easy thing to do in D&D. Things start to get a little ugly and look more like a beating than a merciful and stealthy blow.
In general it’s not a problem to play D&D this way at low levels but the whole approach starts to break down as the levels rise. Suddenly the assumptions we make about our character’s vulnerabilities change. We feel insulted at the thought they might be harmed by mundane means. To me it becomes more of a super hero genre and loses the flair of the ordinary mortal struggling against the seemingly impossible (personally, I really like the idea that a hobbit brought down the dark lord).
In any case, this knock out issue seemed like a minor symptom of the game's "super heroism" at higher levels that could be addressed through a liberal interpretation of the coup de grace rules. The backlash has really been fascinating, I totally didn’t anticipate it. Not even one supporter. Go figure.
I have to reply to Robert: If I had a 6th level character playing in Robert's game and was asked, out of the blue, to make a DC30 Fort save or die I would assume my opponent earned the chance (i.e. Robert would have given my character opportunities to avoid the situation, to hear or spot the enemy, etc...). What about this situation is different than being targeted by a disintegration or death ray (other the numerical DC30 which I believe to be an exaggeration of what a 6th level character might have to face)?
Anyway, I can see my opinion is an unpopular one. I think the fundamental difference lies at the core of play style preferences. None-the-less, it’s good to know where the majority of other players are coming from as well as the official rules interpretation (thanks Robert). I can probably get by with a massive damage rule (I like the one in D20 Modern - I'm sure I'll get flak for this).
Cheers,
C.
BTW, What's the wound/vitality point thing people keep mentioning?
The long answer is that hit points are inherently unrealistic.
I like a more lethal and grittier game
BTW, What's the wound/vitality point thing people keep mentioning?
Yes, hitpoints are unrealistic and yes, it gets a little silly at high levels when a fighter can take 50 arrows to the chest and keep on trucking. If that isn't the style of play you are looking for, and judging by your comment of wanting a more lethal / gritty game I REALLY think that Vitality / Wounds is the way to go for you. It is outlined in the Unearthed Arcana and also used in D20 Modern & Spycraft.
Got the following from a WOTC page through a google search for Vitality and Wounds:
Vitality and Wound Points
The vitality and wound points damage system was originally developed for the Star Wars Roleplaying Game as a more cinematic method of handling damage than the traditional hit point system. The system allows for characters to improve the amount of punishment they can withstand as they go up in level, while still allowing for a single lucky attack to take down a character.
Vitality Points
Vitality points are a measure of a character's ability to turn a direct hit into a graze or a glancing blow with no serious consequences. Like hit points in the standard D&D rules, vitality points go up with level, giving high-level characters more ability to shrug off attacks. Most types of damage reduce vitality points.
Characters gain vitality points as they gain levels. Just as with hit points in the standard D&D rules, at each level a character rolls a vitality die and adds his Constitution modifier, adding the total to his vitality point total. (And, just as with hit points, a character always gains a minimum of at least 1 vitality point per level, regardless of his roll or Constitution modifier.) A 1st-level character gets the maximum vitality die result rather than rolling, as shown on Table 4-6 below.
Table 4-6: Vitality Points
Class Vitality Points
at 1st level Vitality
Die
Barbarian 12 + Con mod d12
Bard 6 + Con mod d6
Cleric 8 + Con mod d8
Druid 8 + Con mod d8
Fighter 10 + Con mod d10
Monk 8 + Con mod d8
Paladin 10 + Con mod d10
Ranger 8 + Con mod d8
Rogue 6 + Con mod d6
Sorcerer 4 + Con mod d4
Wizard 4 + Con mod d4
Wound Points
Wound points measure how much true physical damage a character can withstand. Damage reduces wound points only after all vitality points are gone, or when a character is struck by a critical hit. A character has a number of wound points equal to her current Constitution score.
Critical Hits
A critical hit deals the same amount of damage as a normal hit, but that damage is deducted from wound points rather than from vitality points. Critical hits do not deal extra damage; for that reason, no weapon in this system has a damage multiplier for its critical hits.
Any critical hit automatically overcomes a creature's damage reduction, regardless of whether the attack could normally do so.
Most weapons retain their normal critical threat range. If a weapon normally has a critical multiplier greater than x2, the weapon's threat range expands by 1 point per additional multiplier, as indicated on the table below.
Multiplier New Threat
Range
x3 19-20
x4 18-20
x5 17-20
Injury and Death
Vitality and wound points together measure how hard a character is to hurt and kill. The damage from each successful attack and each fight accumulates, dropping a character's vitality point or wound point totals until he runs out of points.
Nonlethal Damage
This system doesn't differentiate between lethal and nonlethal damage. Attacks and effects that normally deal nonlethal damage reduce vitality points, except on a critical hit, in which case they reduce wound points.
0 Vitality Points
At 0 vitality points, a character can no longer avoid taking real physical damage. Any additional damage he receives reduces his wound points.
Taking Wound Damage
The first time a character takes wound damage -- even a single point -- he becomes fatigued. A fatigued character can't run or charge and takes a -2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity until he has rested for 8 hours (or until the wound damage is healed, if that occurs first). Additional wound damage doesn't make the character exhausted.
In addition, any time an attack deals wound damage to a character, he must succeed on a Fortitude saving throw (DC 5 + number of wound points lost from the attack) or be stunned for 1d4 rounds. (During that time, any other character can take a standard action to help the stunned character recover; doing so ends the stunned condition.)
0 Wound Points
Wound points cannot drop below 0; any damage that would cause a character's wound point total to drop below 0 simply causes the character to have 0 wound points.
At 0 wound points, a character is disabled must attempt a DC 15 Fortitude save. If he succeeds on the save, he is merely disabled. If he fails, he falls unconscious and begins dying.
Disabled: A disabled character is conscious, but can only take a single move or standard action each turn (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions). She moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn't risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the DM deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) worsens the character's condition to dying (unless it involved healing; see below).
Dying: A dying character is unconscious and near death. Each round on his turn, a dying character must make a Fortitude save (DC 10, +1 per turn after the first) to become stable.
If the character fails the save, he dies.
If the character succeeds on the save by less than 5, he does not die but does not improve. He is still dying and must continue to make Fortitude saves every round.
If the character succeeds on the save by 5 or more but by less than 10, he becomes stable but remains unconscious.
If the character succeeds on the save by 10 or more, he becomes conscious and disabled.
Another character can make a dying character stable by succeeding on a DC 15 Heal check as a standard action (which provokes attacks of opportunity).
Stable Characters and Recovery
A stable character is unconscious. Every hour, a stable character must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC 10, +1 per hour after the first) to remain stable.
If the character fails the save, he becomes dying.
If the character succeeds on the save by less than 5, he does not get any worse, but does not improve. He is still stable and unconscious, and must continue to make Fortitude saves every hour.
If the character succeeds on the save by 5 or more, he becomes conscious and disabled.
An unaided stable, conscious character at 0 wound points has a 10% chance to start recovering wound points naturally that day.
Once an unaided character starts recovering wound points naturally, he is no longer in danger of dying.
Recovering with Help: A dying character can be made stable with a DC 15 Heal check (a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity). One hour after a tended, dying character becomes stable, roll d%. He has a 10% chance of regaining consciousness, at which point he becomes disabled. If he remains unconscious, he has the same chance to regain consciousness every hour. Even while unconscious, he recovers wound points naturally, becoming conscious and able to resume normal activity when his wound points rise to 1 or higher.
Monster Challenge Ratings
Increase the CR of any Gargantuan or Colossal creature by +1, unless the creature does not have a Constitution score.
Monsters with fractional CRs move up to the next highest fraction. The kobold (ordinarily CR 1/4) becomes CR 1/3, for example, while the goblin (normally CR 1/2) becomes CR 1.
Vitality Points and Wound Points are great -- they are used in the Star Wars RPG, and give a much more realistic flavor to combat.
They also dramatically change the structure of the game, and dramatically increase the chance of your PC dying. Is 'realism' (which I claim can't be achieved with an RPG anyway) worth that?
Combat becomes much more realistic, and heroes become much less heroic. Conan could be cut down by a Commoner 1 (yeah, that'll happen...).
Jack
BTW, I love VP/WP in Star Wars, an I would use them in any game in which I wanted a higher level of realism -- I just don't want it in D&D.
Combat becomes much more realistic, and heroes become much less heroic. Conan could be cut down by a Commoner 1 (yeah, that'll happen...).
Jack
Yours is an example of a great reason to add the action points(APs) in if you are going to use Vitality/Wounds. That way you can change it so that only someone with APs can inflict crit hits / cause crit fumbles (a la spycraft). This lets Conan wade through a swarm of commoners to face the big bad guy, where one solid strike (crit) can cause sudden death.
Bottom line, more PCs will die when WP/VP are used.
That may be worth the realism to many -- it's not to me, and I would discourage it. Player mortality rates seem to have been carefully considered in D&D 3/3.5, and I think it's risky tweaking too much with the rules.
Of course, that may be good in some game systems, campaign worlds, or certain groups of players. If so, go for it.
For what it's worth.
Jack
|
|
I'm impressed we can openly post Vit/Wd on the boards, good stuff :D.
As I ntoed in the other thread, Vit/Wd is primarily good for low-magic or no healing magic games, but it does make that 16th level fighter every bit as dangerous as the 16th level mage (One crit often leaves one disabled at that level).
Of course, I've found quite a few "rough spots" in the above rules {as they are essentially just guidelines and not tested as well as one could hope w/ regards to a std. D&D campaign).
Anyone who is interested in hearing a few {tested} house rules re: regeneration, ignoring DR, crits when Vit is gone, etc just let me know on this thread and I'll be happy to post what I and my friends have worked out in the past year on a separate thread, along w/ the logic behind each adjustment. It certainly results in less character deaths, and faster recovery times, but I find death is still not an impossibility, and it does balance the lack of healing b/t battles.
I'm impressed we can openly post Vit/Wd on the boards, good stuff :D.
As I ntoed in the other thread, Vit/Wd is primarily good for low-magic or no healing magic games, but it does make that 16th level fighter every bit as dangerous as the 16th level mage (One crit often leaves one disabled at that level).
Of course, I've found quite a few "rough spots" in the above rules {as they are essentially just guidelines and not tested as well as one could hope w/ regards to a std. D&D campaign).
Anyone who is interested in hearing a few {tested} house rules re: regeneration, ignoring DR, crits when Vit is gone, etc just let me know on this thread and I'll be happy to post what I and my friends have worked out in the past year on a separate thread, along w/ the logic behind each adjustment. It certainly results in less character deaths, and faster recovery times, but I find death is still not an impossibility, and it does balance the lack of healing b/t battles.
I'd be interested in hearing more. This Vitality / Wound system sounds like my kinda thing. I have the D20 Modern book - where'd I miss this???
I'm impressed we can openly post Vit/Wd on the boards, good stuff :D.
Hmm, hope I didn't break any rules... I just went to google and did a search for Vitality and Wounds...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vitality+and+wounds
and then clicked on the very first link that came up, which was a WOTC page:
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040206a&page=3
then just copied and pasted a bunch of the info to answer his question on what Vit/Wounds are.
We would prefer that you simply link to the page rather than copying and pasting all of the content.
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040206a&page=3
Hmm, tried to start a new thread re: those house rules.. thought I posted it in this forum but it's not showing up anywhere... :/ I'll give it sometime as I can't say typing all of that up once again appeals to me much.
If you posted something and you can't figure out where, a good solution is to search for your own avatar name.
Cheers!
rob
|
|
If you posted something and you can't figure out where, a good solution is to search for your own avatar name.Cheers!
rob
To no avail, but I did leave the thread open for 2 hrs before posting. *Shrug* Thanky ou for the advice though.
Will post the second version (altered due to memory loss) in a moment.
I'd be interested in hearing more. This Vitality / Wound system sounds like my kinda thing. I have the D20 Modern book - where'd I miss this???
Unearthed Arcana (I think that's the title) has it, including significant guidelines on how a variey of things (like regeneration) are to be treated.
Jack
But your describing a difficult situation. As it stands unless your a construct or undead you almost certianly have to sleep. Moderatly stealthy individuals can sneak up on anyone who is asleep. Even if, say the party is on watch, there is still a descent chance for a stealthy adversary to sneak up and make a Coup de Grace. My concern is actually more that the rule is too powerful rather then too weak. I have a fairly low level party out to Coup de Grace a Troll. They know where it lives and are all set to do it in. They know its got to sleep and have reasonably convionced my that its unlikely that the Troll is completely silent in its sleeping. Hopefully it will make its fort save but I worry for my troll and in some ways I worry for the rest of my poor monsters - if they pull this off they'll be trying to Coup de Grace everything.What about the consequences of time? Is there nothing else going on in your campaign of significance that would make it difficult for your characters to stake out monster hovels and wait for them to sleep? What if the troll has a bell on a trip wire?
I'm still not convinced the elevated level of concern over the use of coup de grace is warranted.
Cheers,
C.
Sometimes there is a time contraint that means the tactic is not possible but certianly its not always the case that the players are in a situation where they must acomplish X immediatly and rest breaks and such are impossible. Generally speaking if the players are not so rushed that they cannot take rest breaks then they are probably not so rushed that they cannot wait for enemies to sleep and such. If something precludes one it usually precludes the other.
Also Trolls with bell ringing traps and such are possible - but thats a pretty smart Troll (or Owlbear or whatnot) and furthermore such precations can usually be overcome - I can hardly say that the Trolls bell on a string is DC 40 to locate.
That may be worth the realism to many -- it's not to me, and I would discourage it. Player mortality rates seem to have been carefully considered in D&D 3/3.5, and I think it's risky tweaking too much with the rules.
This I doubt - in fact I suspect that character mortality is probably one of the most variable aspects between campaigns run by different DMs. In some the characters are the real hero's and they never die in others its like there is a revolving door introducing new characters and players are offed right left and centre - and of course everything in between can be found.