|
Sleep is a one (1) round cast. It can't be used inside a surprise round which limits you to either a standard or move action only. It would only work in a surprise round if started as a standard action and completed with another standard action on the caster's next turn. This leaves him blowing in the wind as any disruption is going to force a concentration check and possibly blow the spell.
Coup de gras is a full round action also. You can't "run up and coup de gras".
Without knowing more details about the combat I can't fairly backseat your GM, but on the surface it sounds like some rules were forgotten. I think I know which scenario you are describing and you should ask the GM if he followed the tactics included in the act.
Both these actions are game-enders, and that's why they are designed as more than a standard action. If a GM is using this tactic against tier 1-2 players I suggest you don't play under him or her any more and send them a message. The game isn't about a GM building a body count. I know they call me "Massacre Miles" but after 237 PFS sessions I would argue I'm going to have an odd TPK or two.
|
There's a lot of text in your initial post, so let me see if I understand this correctly?
You're upset because your character was killed in a way you didn't have control of and are thus upset.
First of all as pointed out by Doug Miles there were probably some rules mistakes made, which contributed significantly to the lethality of the situation.
Second of all I find it hard to listen to your point as you've chosen to get behind the don't kill people because it's bad for morale and thus will discourage players bus that has been clearly explained before. There is no need to go over it in detail again.
Does losing a character suck? Yes. Does losing a character in a way you feel powerless to change 10x worse? Yes.
Does this mean coup de gras needs to be eliminated as an action for monsters? No.
According to Frost, and I'm inclined to believe him, is that GM's not listening to the tactics sections for monsters and instead choosing a more efficient action is the leading cause of player death.
This, combined with what is likely a pair of rules mistakes (which are both there specifically to stop issues such as this) caused you to die.
Could your GM have done a better job? Sure. Could you have wrote a less passive aggressive whine filled post? Sure. Could I have been more receptive and less "mean" with with my post? Sure.
How about we come to the understanding that mistakes have been made, and consider it all water under the bridge?
(Post includes backseat GMing under the assumption that the OP's description of what happened is accurate)
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless a monster or NPC's tactics specifically direct it to coup de grace or sunder magic items, or attack a PC which no longer poses a threat, these actions are covered by the "don't be a jerk" rule of PFS. These tactics punish players, not PCs, and GMs do not have license to break the "don't be a jerk" rule. Without knowing what scenario this was, it's hard to really dissect the elements that lead to this, but my guess here is that the GM chose tactics that made sense from a gamist perspective (ie. "kill the PC now, cause this NPC is going to die anyway") rather than realistic perspective (ie "That guy I just put to sleep is vulnerable, but his buddy is still coming at me with an axe, so maybe I should consider self-preservation.") As has been pointed out above, the incorrect adjudication of several rules facilitated the use of a coup de grace, but the GM was still being a jerk by using them in the first place.
|
|
I'm betting it was
|
|
Unless a monster or NPC's tactics specifically direct it to coup de grace or sunder magic items, or attack a PC which no longer poses a threat, these actions are covered by the "don't be a jerk" rule of PFS. These tactics punish players, not PCs, and GMs do not have license to break the "don't be a jerk" rule. Without knowing what scenario this was, it's hard to really dissect the elements that lead to this, but my guess here is that the GM chose tactics that made sense from a gamist perspective (ie. "kill the PC now, cause this NPC is going to die anyway") rather than realistic perspective (ie "That guy I just put to sleep is vulnerable, but his buddy is still coming at me with an axe, so maybe I should consider self-preservation.") As has been pointed out above, the incorrect adjudication of several rules facilitated the use of a coup de grace, but the GM was still being a jerk by using them in the first place.
Don't forget that many monsters don't have tactics. Some monsters "live" to create more of themselves (Mohrg come to mind). It's perfectly reasonable in situations like this to "finish off" defenseless characters before moving on to the next, however, even then it's still situational. (A Mohrg likely wouldn't kill a paralyzed character when standing toe-to-toe with the party's fighter)
As noted by Mark and Doug, any GM trying to kill a level 1-2 character is an ass. No other way to put it.
|
|
Some party tactics do cause the GM to have to re-write the encounter
Thanks for that too!
|
Unless a monster or NPC's tactics specifically direct it to coup de grace or sunder magic items, or attack a PC which no longer poses a threat, these actions are covered by the "don't be a jerk" rule of PFS. These tactics punish players, not PCs, and GMs do not have license to break the "don't be a jerk" rule.
I have run a single session of PFS and played about 10. However, I ran about 200 sessions of LG, wrote six adventures, and helped on the stat-block copy editing, and developmental editing of another 15. So, while my experience with PFS is limited, my experience with organized play is fairly extensive.
I had two characters die in LG. One due to a coup de grace and one due a low level sleep encounter. I do not regret either of them. In the case of the cdg, I made a point of putting my character in the position that resulted in his death. I did so because after the surprise round and a won initiative by the NPC, the DM announced that the NPC tactics called for cdg, but she was refusing to execute those instructions, which called for her to cdg my PC.
As a DM, in the 200 or so sessions that I ran, I judged approximately 15 character deaths. Most of these came as the result of tactical isolation or unwise tactics. In one case, a PC fired a CL 7 scorching ray at a huge behir holding a PC in his mouth. Adjudicating a 10% chance of hitting the grappled PC, the caster hit the PC with both rays, killing him. That's a 1% chance of death. PC deaths happen.
During this time, I cdg'd a single PC. The situation was an encounter with CE raging orcs supported by a druid. Disjoint party interactions included tactical isolation. Two PCs went down. Two others left the scene of the scene of the battle while a raging orc stood over their fallen and dying comrade. I pointed out the situation. When moving his figure away from the battle, one of the players of the fleeing characters announced, "Nothing to worry about. Dave won't do it." I do not think that the resulting cdg was being a jerk.
Mark, I appreciate the "don't be a jerk" concept. However, if you are saying that, without reference to the actions at the table, any GM executing a cdg without it being described in the tactics is 1) being a jerk, and 2) thereby breaking a campaign rule, I have to disagree. But, if this is the campaign you wish to run, please let me know and I will change my plans with respect to the monthly gameday I have scheduled starting next weekend.
This isn't an ultimatum nor am I throwing down a gauntlet. Rather, I am striving to illustrate that games take turns that administrators and authors cannot foresee and that some degree of independence is necessary for the judges to conduct their game without second guessing every decision.
Most Sincerely,
David Howard
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Mark, I appreciate the "don't be a jerk" concept. However, if you are saying that, without reference to the actions at the table, any GM executing a cdg without it being described in the tactics is 1) being a jerk, and 2) thereby breaking a campaign rule, I have to disagree. But, if this is the campaign you wish to run, please let me know and I will change my plans with respect to the monthly gameday I have scheduled starting next weekend.
This isn't an ultimatum nor am I throwing down a gauntlet. Rather, I am striving to illustrate that games take turns that administrators and authors cannot foresee and that some degree of independence is necessary for the judges to conduct their game without second guessing every decision.
The cdg is part of the rules and it has its place, but a GM altering the encounter to use a different spell in reaction to a PCs' action and a GM adding in a coup de grace are very different. While I am here to develop the campaign and coordinate it across the board, I can't make judgment calls at the table. The same way I can't determine for sure that someone was being a jerk by deliberately fouling up someone else's faction missions without being there, I can't make the call on whether a coup de grace was warranted or not either. And I shouldn't have to. PCs and GMs alike should be able to police themselves with regard to the "don't be a jerk" rule. In the end, there's little I can do about it anyway, especially if it's a GM doing it, as he can't ask himself to leave the table.
Whether it's a dealbreaker for you or not is your decision, but the official stance is that coup de graces are very shaky ground when it comes to this rule and are generally frowned upon as dirty pool. There are plenty of ways for PCs to die without them, and few cause as many hard feelings.
|
|
Whether it's a dealbreaker for you or not is your decision, but the official stance is that coup de graces are very shaky ground when it comes to this rule and are generally frowned upon as dirty pool. There are plenty of ways for PCs to die without them, and few cause as many hard feelings.
As long as we would be in agreement that they are not to be taken lightly and to be done with due consideration game conditions and NPCs involved, as well as the metagame consideration of the player and the role of the character within her stable, I'm fine. It's the blanket statement that I take exception to.
Just a comment:
That's Coup de Grâce, not coup de gras.
Just to point out, besides the already mentioned GM rules mistakes in the OP`s scenario (casting Sleep within Surprise Round when it is a 1 Round spell, enemy `running up´ and then CdG`ing when CdG is a Full Round Action which at most allows a 5´ step), it seems like a MAJOR mistake was also made if the GM allowed the enemy to CdG ALL the sleeping Fighter types in one go, which it sounds like was the case (`before anyone else in the party can act another bad guy runs up and Coup De Graces the fighter types that are laying on the ground`). ...It`s hard to tell for sure because the OP only focuses on his own character. :-/ Anyhow, CdG takes a Full Round Action to CdG ONE helpless enemy.
With only 1 non-sleeping caster ally, it should be fairly easy to awaken at least some of the remaining fighter types before they are CdG`d.
If I was this GM, I would offer to re-run the game from the point of the Surprise Round after the Fighters had failed their Saves, but running the rules correctly. I also think people should grow a thick skin.
|
Just a comment:
That's Coup de Grâce, not coup de gras.
Oh come now, we can spell check each other all day:) Everyone knows what it means......lol
But other than that, great post. CdG can definitely be used IMO, and should be if the situation is right as I'm sure PLENTY of PC's use it on the baddies out there when they can.
|
|
Adding another story to the thread; I'm rather surprised I forgot this one as it was both recent and in PFS. :)
We get to a BBG encounter. We wade through the mooks as we're having various non-harmful but annoying effects. My PC breaks through and I'm about to finally get my glaive into the guy. My PC then fails to save vs. sleep and fall at his feet with the rest of the party 20-60 feet away. BBG draws weapon, 5-ft steps up and begins the full round action to CdG my PC. The rest of the party then acts in heroic fashion to get at him. The BBG is killed before he can finish. My PC doesn't die. All is good in the universe.
When the GM was considering the option, I told him I would be just fine with it, and in fact would be disappointed if he didn't go with it.
It was a very fine, dramatic, memorable finish that could not have happened if CdG were outright banned.
|
I'm the GM.
I took some time to cool off after reading the responses in this thread because I resent the implication that I'm wantonly "being a jerk" or that because a 1st-level character died at my table I'm an "ass." Understand that my response is civil-minded, despite feeling slighted by the community.
To clarify: The sleep spell was cast as two standard actions, one in the surprise round, one in the first round.
The coup de grace-dealing character moved in the surprise round and delivered the coup de grace in the first round of combat. There were no other PCs threatening that character at the start of his turn.
The initiative happened in such a way that the fighter who died wasn't going to get a turn before the ambushers had gone twice (ambushers had high initiative, fighter had low) — it's possible the fighter would have died anyway, being "in the front" as he was.
Beyond setting the record straight, I have no interest in defending my choices as GM. My goal behind that GM screen is to lead everyone in having fun for four and a half hours, and I make choices in accord with that goal.
Good to hear the whole story.
I don`t think SOME usage of CdG by NPCs is `badbadwrong`, though I would default to saying if the situations is where Cdg is equal with another option, take the other one. If CdG really makes the most sense, go with it. Most often there will be a benefit from being able to take a Move Action, etc... With Vital Strike (+IVS/GVS) single Attack Action themselves can easily trigger Massive Damage saves at higher levels anyways. And though we all love to cry, writing up a low level character is pretty easy to do... so I repeat my advice to thicken one`s skin.
Just a comment:
That's Coup de Grâce, not coup de gras.
Isn't it called a coup de gras when you give someone a fat lip?
I've played maybe 15 different scenarios, and a coup de grace only came up once. The situation was a bit hinky, because the bad guy was clearly going to lose but the GM decided he would take a PC with him. In the end, the bad guy died provoking an attack of opportunity, but otherwise it might have gotten a little ugly.
|
Characters put to sleep in the surprise round(or even first round) of combat aren't given the chance to run away, aren't given the chance to use diplomacy, aren't given a chance to role-play. Character put to sleep in the surprise round (or first round) of combat aren't given a chance.
To be fair, the same could be said for Hideous Laughter, Color Spray, Entangle, or any other spell or affect with the "save or suck" tag. At higher levels you have to deal with things like Disintegrate, Circle of Death, or Slay Living. Even a readied fireball with good dice and a missed save could mean death. Some expectation has to be placed on the players to properly prepare against foreseeable challenges. If a spell or tactic is highly useful and effective against "monsters" it should be expected that the monsters will use it against the PC's. Don't all intelligent melee creatures attempt to flank? So maybe the fighter who wants to open the door should pause and allow the perceptive rogue or ranger to listen at the door first. Perhaps, the cleric should hit the fighter with guidance and resistance (they stack and as level zero spells, they are unlimited). Or maybe protection from evil for a +2 to saves. Or even a haste for a +1 to reflex. There is a lot players can do to improve their survivability if they just take a moment to examine the options.
|
|
We get to a BBG encounter. We wade through the mooks as we're having various non-harmful but annoying effects. My PC breaks through and I'm about to finally get my glaive into the guy. My PC then fails to save vs. sleep and fall at his feet with the rest of the party 20-60 feet away. BBG draws weapon, 5-ft steps up and begins the full round action to CdG my PC. The rest of the party then acts in heroic fashion to get at him. The BBG is killed before he can finish. My PC doesn't die. All is good in the universe.
I haven't used CdG in Pathfinder (not sure I ever used it in 3.5 either) but I feel I ought to check - isn't CdG a full-round action akin to full attacking, not a one-round 'action' akin to casting sleep or a summon spell? In other words, it goes: 1) Bad guy's initiative comes up; 2) Bad guy says 'I coup de grace the sleeping person at my feet'; 3) Bad guy's turn ends; 4) Next person's initiative comes up. So no ally of the poor sleeping person gets to act before the CdG is completed.
Am I missing something? (CdG as a one-round 'action' would be a good rule, creating some great tension in a game, but I didn't think that was how it worked).
|
|
I agree that there's not any call to ban the use of either sleep or coup de grâce. I also concur that mechanically there was nothing wrong with Tom's execution of either action. I recognize that Tom is not obligated to defend his actions to anyone. Perhaps he would be willing to discuss it after further reflection, and perhaps not. I think that it does call attention to the debate over the use of the tactics included in the scenario, as opposed to the GM being creative.
I recall having an imp use coup de grâce in The Asmodeus Mirage against a 5th level tank, figuring the devil would take someone out with him. It would be a dramatic way to go out. His companions were threatening so they'd get AOOs--and how difficult would it be for a 5th level tank to make the Fort save against a 1d4 stinger (x2)? I recall they all missed and he rolled a 2.
|
|
To clarify: The sleep spell was cast as two standard actions, one in the surprise round, one in the first round.
This is not how a spell with a one-round casting time works. Spells cast as a full-round action requires a full-round to cast. You cannot "break up" that casting time between a standard action in two rounds.
I hate to toss you under the bus, but under your own description of the events, I think a PC may have died due to a bad rules call.
As for the use of a coup de grâce, yes it's a valid action and one cannot argue that it was "against any rules", but it does seem like a bit of dirty pool to pull that on a player during a surprise round. It's one thing to watch a character die in an exciting manner, it's another to simply sit on your hands and watch them die.
|
|
Page 186
Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start
undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete
in the following round by using another standard action.
You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack,
charge, run, or withdraw.
|
|
The main difference (to me) between Pathfinder Society and Living Forgotten Realms is that it is virtually impossible to have a character die in LFR. As long as one member of your party makes it through the adventure in LFR, everyone gets to live. You may not get xp or treasure, but your character comes back with only a slight hangover.
I've long held that any encounter where your character has no chance of dying is simply a grind. It's "let's spend four hours harvesting experience packets and gold" so that we can later spend another four hours doing the same. As you might guess, I no longer play LFR. (Many people enjoy LFR, if you do, I am sincerely happy for you, and will say nothing bad about either 4th edition or LFR in this post.)
You can approach character building and encounters completely differently if there is no real chance of dying. You can build a glass cannon who can swing for massive damage, but can't take any real hit. You can dump-stat wisdom and dexterity (will and reflex saves) in favor of strength and constitution.
The possibility of someone casting sleep, color spray, or any number of other effects and then killing your character dead dead dead. Should drive players to make compromise choices. I know that I seriously look at how bad my saving throws are whenever I dump-stat CON, WIS or DEX. (My level 1 rogue that I just started working up currently has saves of 0,7,0 - I know that I'm seriously vulnerable, and if I get hit with a will-save spell, I'm pretty much toast. She also has only 8 hp, and a mediocre armor class. To paraphrase Dolf Lundgren "If she dies, she dies).
Yes, it sucks to have a character die. I had an LG character die due to a surprise round unholy blight that took that character from full hit points (2nd level) to negative hit points. The DM running that game proceeded to hunt down and kill every character that survived the blast and ran for their lives. But guess what? I've played a lot of organized play characters. I don't remember most sessions. I remember that one. It's the games that you play in where your character is most in danger that are the most fun. (At least to me). I personally would prefer a DM who plays monsters as a threat who honestly want my characters dead. When I DM, I try to play smart monsters as smart, and bloodthirsty monsters as bloodthirsty.
Reading the DM's tactics above, sound to me like that DM was playing smart monsters as smart. ("I'll sleep the party - whoever goes to sleep, slit their throats.")
The problem is that all of the actions that particular character could have taken occurred way before the actual encounter. Higher Dex would have given a better chance at a higher initiative. Higher Wisdom would have given a better chance at making the will save, and maybe a better chance at the perception check which would have avoided the surprise round. Maybe putting ranks into stealth, or letting a rogue scout ahead would have prevented the surprise round. Yes, these statements make a lot of assumptions about the encounter that might not be true, but in playing a game that involves the rolling of a lot of dice, everything is about increasing the overall odds. I'd be interested to know a few things about the character that died. What was his initiative modifier, and what did he roll on the die. (apparently from the post, both the enemy wizard and coup-de-grace'r had higher init scores). What was his wisdom modifier, and what did he roll on the saving throw? What was the DC of the sleep spell? (Guessing around 14 - first level spell, +3 ability score on the caster). Did anyone in the party act before him? If so, did anyone in the party come to his defense? If so, how? What level character was he playing? (I generally don't start to get too attached to characters below third level. "We just call you rookie until you prove that you aren't going to get yourself or everyone around you killed.")
|
|
Yes, save that he broke a rule to do so. You don't get cast a full round spell by splitting it between two standard actions. I have no problems with using the tactics the DM describes, but I would not have let a player break a rule that way, the NPCs get no special grace on that call.
This is one of three posts in the last couple of hours stating or questioning this. Doug has posted the text. Yes, spells with one-round casting time and coup de grace, a full round action, can both be started in one round and finished in the other.
Tom didn't do anything wrong with that call. My DM didn't do anything wrong in my situation. Both were running the action correctly.
|
|
Page 186
Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start
undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete
in the following round by using another standard action.
You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack,
charge, run, or withdraw.
I stand corrected.
I do believe; however, that although a valid tactic, there would have been better ways to run the combat than to simply kill a character on the first round.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
*waves*
As a GM, I've used Coup-de-Grace in PFS, as a rare tactic. Many opponents wouldn't think to employ it, even when it's available, but others are ruthless or truly hate the PCs, and I try to give enemies tactics appropriate to their intentions.
After I ruled that the Big Bad Guy in an adventure I ran at Gen Con would notice that his summoned fiendish bug had only one legitimate target, a helpless barbarian, and would order it to Coup-de-Grace the PC, my hotel roommate (a fellow GM and a friend to the player) respectfully took me to task for making deliberate choices that might ruin that player's first session with Pathfinder organized play.
So, I've thought about this question at some length.
I've concluded that Coup-de-Grace in 3.5 / Pathfinder is akin to "killing attacks" in Champions; the GM ought to signal that the kid-gloves are off in this encounter. Not only should the tactic inform the players about what kind of opponent they're fighting, but the party needs to know that they're in an unusual degree of danger. For example, a team of opponents might kill an NPC in cold blood, or might announce a contest to see which of them would land the greatest number of killing blows against the party.
I'm familiar with the module Tom ran; if this was one of the Consortium teams, the PCs might well have expected that they were up against people who play for keeps.
|
|
EDIT: Ignore what I have written - just read the following again:
Off course a clumb of 4 low levels gets just targeted dead center ...
--------------
In general I don't think is helps to discuss these topics here openly. But as the damage seems to be done anyhow ...
I just have one question about the CdG. The fighter doing the CdG - wasn't he in the range of the sleep spell when it actually became active and also needed to save. Off course he could be immune (elf? or too high level? compared to the players - but I doubt the latter as the remaining group still seemed to be successful)
I would regard it as difficult (not impossible) to target the spell in a way not to include the moving fighter(s) as well. And the wizard shouldn't know that his flunkies are save in level and the PCs are not.
Off course if they did the save, then the player was just very unlucky as he missed a string of dice rolls (Ini AND Fort save in his disfavour)
Thod
|
|
Page 186
Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
This one's actually tougher than it looks at first glance.
"Casting Time
Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a swift action.
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed."
So, the question becomes... if this GM split the full-round action part of casting a one-round spell, does the spell come into effect one round after the first standard action used to cast, or one round after the second standard action used to cast?
Upon closer inspection, it's actually clear that the GM was in the wrong rules-wise. We can rule out the possibility that Sleep came into effect during the first round of combat:
The GM had the turn order work like this:
Surprise:
-Cast Sleep
Round 1:
-Sleep takes effect
-Continue casting Sleep
That doesn't make any sense. Since one-round spells take effect "just before the beginning of your turn," then the spell would be complete, and the caster would no longer be required to spend his standard action on Round 1, because if he decided to cut off the casting, it wouldn't matter; the spell had already resolved. Instead, he would "act normally after the spell is completed."
So, clearly, the way the GM ran the combat is incorrect.
Thus, the other possibility must be true:
Surprise:
-Cast Sleep
Round 1:
-Continue casting Sleep
Round 2:
-Sleep takes effect
Thus, the GM was in the wrong, and that combat should have went very differently.
-Matt
|
|
I think that, clearly, the discussion about sleep & full-round casting belongs under Rules Questions. I disagree with you Matt, but debating it here is not appropriate because this is the Pathfinder Society board. Let's not cloud the thread with a topic that is better hashed out under the Rules Questions board.
|
|
Speculation on splitting full-round actions aside, I also noticed one other bit of inconsistency in this report. To correct it, I'll repost the surprise and first round initiative actions leading up to the fighter's death as best I can remember.
Surprise Round
Witch: begin casting sleep.
Guards: move to block easy access to witch/move adjacent to party.
PC (Andrinor): Ranged attack (ray of frost) on witch (success); witch succeeds concentration check.
First Round
PC (Tyrth): attack nearest guard, misses
Witch: finishes casting sleep; spell takes effect
Guard: delivers coup de grace.
As to *why* I chose such a lethal tactic:
I've run this scenario five times now. The first three times through, the final battle destroyed the PCs. In each of those first three, I made judicious use of the mod's special "resurrect them to get information" caveat to save the defeated PCs.
The sleep spell took out half the party. Outnumbered, the out-of-spells sorcerer and the longbow-wielding ranger who entered melee didn't look like they were going to last long. We were already running late (past the store's closing time) and I figured I'd hurry along the end result. Some amazing luck for the PCs (including a crit ray of frost which disrupted a spell from the witch) and terrible rolls for GM later — sorry Larry.
|
|
Suck it up. Sleep spells are not overpowered. They effect very limited hit dice and unless every caster you ecounter has the combo effect of 18 in casting stat plus greater spell focus in enchantment, the spell save is easy to make.
That being said there are many options to help with sleep spells.
1) Play a dwarf. +2 to saves vs magic and +2 to wisdom stat should make most dwarves +2 to +7 on will saves vs sleep spells.
2) Play an elf or half elf. Never worrry about sleep spells again.
3) Take iron will as a feat. There is also a higher level feat after iron will that allows one reroll on a failed will save once per day.
4) Bump up your wisdom score and stop using it as a dump stat. In addition to the improved will save, Wisdom is a great help in many other skills such as Perception, Heal, Sense Motive and Profession.
And also, Coup De Grace is a full round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. Also, slapping someone or treating them roughly is usually enough to rouse a sleeping character. In our game anyone using a standard action when adjacent to a sleeping character can wake them up. It wastes two standard actions. One from the sleeping character and another from the character waking her up. That is a fair penalty for a spell effect and this is a teamwork game.
|
|
Sasuga
First of all - I think it's great that you brought up the topic. CdG and how to handle it should be discussed here. I don't think there never can be a rule - as a CdG is allowed by the rules and it really depends on the cricumstances.
I think where you did a disfavour yourself is when you added your own personal experience. Part of this helped to create the monster that it became because we started to discuss specifics and not in general what is best to do.
So back to my opinion that there never could be a rule. There are multiple reason why I think this is the case. Circumstances are often so different and if there would be a hard rule I know that players would start to misuse it - oh now - you can't kill me - this would be a CdG - see page xyz in the PFS rules.
But where this discussion should help is give GMs some feel how the majority of GMs handles it.
So here is my take:
1) In a combat situation I would try to avoid CdG if other PCs are still up and threatening.
2) If characters are left on their own, then it would depend on the opposition. Example - half the group goes down (either by spells or through damage), the other half of the group retreats to come back later. Here I see three options and it depends on circumstances what I would do. a) heal/stabilize the characters (could happen if the opponent is intelligent and wants the character as slave, for information, etc.) b) leave them to die (they either stabilize themselves or die). c) Activly killing them (for example a hnugry monster will start eating the character. This might not strictly be a CdG - but it results in the same. It isn't a CdG as I wouldn't bother to roll as I assume the monster/enemy has enough time so even a few saves won't help d) an active instand CdG at the first opportunity
Of all the above I would use d) sparingly. I don't say I would never use it. c) depends a lot on the monster. b) is likely the default and to have a) you will have to be lucky - something in the background of the enemy would make him do that.
I hope this helps to bring the thread back on topic
Thod
Ps: There is in addition the contentious BBE knows he will go down and tries to take one PC with him. Not sure about this one. Maybe too softhearted to try maximising death in this case ...
|
|
Witch: finishes casting sleep; spell takes effect
I think it is debatable whether the sleep would kick in then, or just before the Witch's turn on round 3. Unfortunately by using two Standard actions to cast the spell it throws up an ambiguity in the rules.
PRD says: A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
Now, you could read that as the witch has spent a round but just put part of her Full Round action at the end of the round, and it does say it comes into effect "in the round after you began casting the spell". This reading would support the way you ran things.
However, you could also put emphasis on the "It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn" part of that sentence. And you could say that the spell could not come into effect then as the witch has not yet spent the second Standard action to complete the Full Round action. Therefore it could be argued that the spell would come into effect just before the beginning of the witch's turn in the next round.
I could see the ruling going either way.
Now, if the rules had said "It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you complete the Full Round action to begin casting the spell" there would be no ambiguity.
I would very much appreciate more/official analysis of what happens when you start casting a 1 round spell during the surprise round.
|
|
Ps: There is in addition the contentious BBE knows he will go down and tries to take one PC with him. Not sure about this one. Maybe too softhearted to try maximising death in this case ...
I am also not a big fan of the "taking someone with me" mentality that some GM's use. However, in rare cases, it makes some sense. Perhaps the BBEG is a devil and knows that when he "dies" he'll just be redeposited in the quagmire that is hell and respawned as a lemure. Knowing that, he might want to CDG the rogue with questionable morals in hopes they join him in hell. Or maybe the paladin, to eliminate one more holy warrior against hell.