Our group just ran through an encounter in which our 4th-level characters got ambushed in a small cavern by 8 chokers. My witch got flanked, ripped into, grabbed, choked, and constricted in the opening round.
They continued to rip into my body for two rounds, eventually killing me. I spent 2 hero points to cheat death, at which point the GM informed me that they dragged my body down a small side tunnel (which had been mysteriously absent up to that point) to be devoured at their leisure.
At first I thought, well, that's cool. I'm not dead. I would either regain consciousness in their lair (ala Luke and the Wampa) or maybe be taken to their masters who (presumably) run the dungeon we were in.
The GM then informed me that I was dead. That I had been eaten.
I was like "What? What good were those two hero points for then?"
He then explained to me that it basically brought me one round of life and that "cheating death" did not protect me from ongoing attacks.
I may be biased because it was my character who died, but I'm curious to know if you think my GM acted fairly. I always figured cheating death actually meant CHEATING DEATH. If I died anyways, then I haven't really cheated death.
I get sucked out of an air lock and spend 2 hero points to not die. By some miraculous bit of luck I don't get sucked out after all (or I float back onto the ship through a hangar bar opening or some such).
To play it any other way is to greatly undervalue hero points.
*Whack!*
"Oy, this one's still breathing!"
*whack*
"There we go."
Does not seem heroic at all. What the F is the point if they don't allow you to cheat death?
*Whack!*
"Oy, this one's still breathing!"
*whack*
"There we go."
Hilarious!
I think you're right, ravingdork.
I would never burn 2 hero points under that ruling. I think your GM short-changed you here.
That being said, it is, ultimately, his call. He should have made it clear at the beginning of the campaign exactly how he was going to use it, if not word-for-word from the book. But it does seem like a waste.
The next time you meet, I would take him aside and ask him about it in detail. He should confirm his ruling in that particular instance, but do it different next time. Unless he really feels that's how Hero Points should be used (one more round of life). In which case, that is his prerogative as the DM.
At the very least, he should have informed you that this was not a situation where Hero Points would help. For instance, if you are grappled and getting absolutely pegged by multiple assailants...there just might not be a way to cheat death without completely breaking the rules of reality, like having you randomly teleport 40 feet away.
It should have been explained at the time. Allowing you to cash in your hero points and then offering no actual way to still survive is just pointless.
However, I don't think it is really terrible for a DM to disallow Hero Points at some points in the game, as long as it is clear. I've seen Hero Points used as a mechanic to simply make boss fights easier rather than as actual Heroic things that the characters are doing. Getting an extra attack at full BAB in the first round of a boss fight isn't heroic. Taking one extra attack when 3 companions are down and you won't survive one more round and you're desperately trying to kill the BBEG as you stand protectively over the unconscious body of the party wizard...now that is Hero Point time.
Definitely unfair. If Hero Points are allowed, then they are allowed. You earned them, the DM awarded them, it's up to the DM to figure out how to make it work when you decide to use them.
*Whack!*
"Oy, this one's still breathing!"
*whack*
"There we go."
Hilarious!
I think you're right, ravingdork.
I would never burn 2 hero points under that ruling. I think your GM short-changed you here.
That being said, it is, ultimately, his call. He should have made it clear at the beginning of the campaign exactly how he was going to use it, if not word-for-word from the book. But it does seem like a waste.
The next time you meet, I would take him aside and ask him about it in detail. He should confirm his ruling in that particular instance, but do it different next time. Unless he really feels that's how Hero Points should be used (one more round of life). In which case, that is his prerogative as the DM.
Part of the problem is the Hero Point rules actually provide an example of a character getting critical'd to death by an arrow. He cheats death and the arrow instead pierces his holy symbol, doing just enough damage to leave him unconscious, but alive. Oh, and he stabilizes without a roll.
My GM actually believes that means it only protects him from that one attack, that a second arrow, if fired at the body would likely kill him.
And he may have a point. I just don't think that was the intent of Hero Points.
One must be wary of the alternative, however, it can be just as silly if not more so, for an unconscious duded to be pumped full of a hundred arrows and somehow not die just because he cheated death.
That's why I think one should use story elements. He didn't miraculously survive 100 arrows, he survived because a giant eagle snatched him up before he could be shot again. Therefore he "cheated death."
To basically tell a player his HP mean nothing is simply a cop out for GMs with a lack of imagination.
EDIT: I take that back. Some GMs just aren't good at "winging it on the spot," that doesn't necessarily mean they lack imagination.
You should point out to your DM that how it plays out is up to him. It doesn't have to be a 1-round delaying tactic. Heck, they can be played out of turn, and don't require any action whatsoever on the part of the character. Who's to say that you couldn't have waited until the entire combat was over and THEN spend the two points?
"Geez, it's a shame about Bob..."
"Wait, he still has a pulse! It's faint, but it's there! Where's the Cleric, quick!!"
I mostly agree with you Ravingdork.
The situation in the book is fairly straightforward, but I don't think story elements are even necessary. If I'm fighting a battle, and I shoot opponent X, and he drops, I'm turning my attention to opponents A, B, and C, who happens to be charging me. Once someone is down, I don't worry about them unless they get healed by someone. If someone were to plug another arrow in, I would probably have it deal normal damage, but would never run a monster like that unless he really had nothing else to do. Even with nothing to do, I think it's still kinda cheesy.
In your particular instance, I think I would have had them stab you over and over, and then toss you off to the side while they deal with the party or something. When they threw you, a bone on the ground went into the worst wound, and miraculously stopped the bleeding, while your position causes all the other wounds to not bleed out, leaving you alive at -9 HP, and stable.
Our group just ran through an encounter in which our 4th-level characters got ambushed in a small cavern by 8 chokers. My witch got flanked, ripped into, grabbed, choked, and constricted in the opening round.
They continued to rip into my body for two rounds, eventually killing me. I spent 2 hero points to cheat death, at which point the GM informed me that they dragged my body down a small side tunnel (which had been mysteriously absent up to that point) to be devoured at their leisure.
At first I thought, well, that's cool. I'm not dead. I would either regain consciousness in their lair (ala Luke and the Wampa) or maybe be taken to their masters who (presumably) run the dungeon we were in.
The GM then informed me that I was dead. That I had been eaten.
I was like "What? What good were those two hero points for then?"
He then explained to me that it basically brought me one round of life and that "cheating death" did not protect me from ongoing attacks.
I may be biased because it was my character who died, but I'm curious to know if you think my GM acted fairly. I always figured cheating death actually meant CHEATING DEATH. If I died anyways, then I haven't really cheated death.
I get sucked out of an air lock and spend 2 hero points to not die. By some miraculous bit of luck I don't get sucked out after all (or I float back onto the ship through a hangar bar opening or some such).
To play it any other way is to greatly undervalue hero points.
*Whack!*
"Oy, this one's still breathing!"
*whack*
"There we go."
Does not seem heroic at all. What the F is the point if they don't allow you to cheat death?
Cheat Death: A character can spend 2 hero points to cheat death. How this plays out is up to the GM, but generally the character is left alive, with negative hit points but stable. For example, a character is about to be slain by a critical hit from an arrow. If the character spends 2 hero points, the GM decides that the arrow pierced the character’s holy symbol, reducing the damage enough to prevent him from being killed, and that he made his stabilization roll at the end of his turn. Cheating death is the only way for a character to spend more than 1 hero point in a turn. The character can spend hero points in this way to prevent the death of a familiar, animal companion, eidolon, or special mount, but not another character or NPC.
That does not mean auto-survive. It means for each instance that you would have died that you get to live.
If I have 2 possible kills against your character, but you only have two hero points you may be out of luck. I don't know how the rest of the party was faring, but extra rounds to distract that choker is essentially what you were given.You will notice that in that in the quoted text the 2 hero points only saves you from one attack. If another arrow comes in you die.
That does not mean auto-survive. It means for each instance that you would have died that you get to live.
If I have 2 possible kills against your character, but you only have two hero points you may be out of luck. I don't know how the rest of the party was faring, but extra rounds to distract that choker is essentially what you were given.
You will notice that in that in the quoted text the 2 hero points only saves you from one attack. If another arrow comes in you die.
You're right and wrong, Wraith.
By RAW, you are right, and using Hero Points now does not guarantee you death later on, even in the same combat. But I think the DM should make a concession if you've been saving points in that instance. I'm not saying players should be immune to death - but if you've bothered to use the points in this fashion, you clearly expect some kind of chance to be saved - even if it isn't successful (such as the party attempting to save someone, but gets beaten back and THEN he dies).
I think creating a situation like Luke and the Wampa, as the OP offers, is better all around - no one dies, the campaign isn't disrupted, the DM doesn't have to work in a new character somehow (they were in a dungeon), no one feels cheated. He even missed the chance for great Role-playing, as the OP offered, maybe bringing him to their master, which can be played out with a long conversation as the other PCs (and the temporary PC the OP is using) bust into the room to save their friend, who has miraculously survived.
That creates a wonderful hook, tension, and a dramatic story. I think to not grant someone who uses hero points in this fashion a chance to live at all is excessively harsh in most groups.
It is precisely this kind of entitled sounding reasoning that has soured me on hero points. They are supposed to be cool, climactic, heroic things your character can do. But the reality is that players just use them to game the system, for the most part. Personally, I think they should be used for the +8 before a roll is made or +4 after a roll ONLY, and everything else should be DM discretion. It's cool for players to ask, "Can I use a hero point to do a spring attack this one turn even though I don't have the feat?" And then the DM can adjudicate that stuff. If you want to use hero points for cool, heroic things that is awesome. Just using them as an additional buffer from death (when you have FAILED to be a hero) and flat out expecting some Deus Ex Machina to save you cause you have a few points simply from leveling up...bleh.
(when you have FAILED to be a hero)What.
Well, except actual heroic deaths. Otherwise, death is the fail.
That does not mean auto-survive. It means for each instance that you would have died that you get to live.
If I have 2 possible kills against your character, but you only have two hero points you may be out of luck. I don't know how the rest of the party was faring, but extra rounds to distract that choker is essentially what you were given.
You will notice that in that in the quoted text the 2 hero points only saves you from one attack. If another arrow comes in you die.You're right and wrong, Wraith.
By RAW, you are right, and using Hero Points now does not guarantee you death later on, even in the same combat. But I think the DM should make a concession if you've been saving points in that instance. I'm not saying players should be immune to death - but if you've bothered to use the points in this fashion, you clearly expect some kind of chance to be saved - even if it isn't successful (such as the party attempting to save someone, but gets beaten back and THEN he dies).
I think creating a situation like Luke and the Wampa, as the OP offers, is better all around - no one dies, the campaign isn't disrupted, the DM doesn't have to work in a new character somehow (they were in a dungeon), no one feels cheated. He even missed the chance for great Role-playing, as the OP offered, maybe bringing him to their master, which can be played out with a long conversation as the other PCs (and the temporary PC the OP is using) bust into the room to save their friend, who has miraculously survived.
That creates a wonderful hook, tension, and a dramatic story. I think to not grant someone who uses hero points in this fashion a chance to live at all is excessively harsh in most groups.
That is a playstyle and you can't really have a wrong play style. I think if you as a player expect anything more than what the rules you get you should discuss it with the GM. I thought the arrow thing was meant to save you from dying from that attack, not the actual monster or situation. I don't think there is anything wrong with having hero points that save you in the way RD wants them to work, but it makes them substantially more powerful, and if I were a player I would horde them all for the final boss fight, or as much as I could anyway.
We don't really know what the rest of the party was doing so maybe he could have been saved, but the party dropped the ball. Most groups I play with have the squishy's in the middle so that no direct front or rear attacks can get to them. Where was the tank?
That is a playstyle and you can't really have a wrong play style. I think if you as a player expect anything more than what the rules you get you should discuss it with the GM. I thought the arrow thing was meant to save you from dying from that attack, not the actual...
Ninja scouted ahead. Saw a creature in a cave. Turned around to tell the party only to find seven more of the chokers blocking his entrance/exit.
He called out a warning so we rushed in to help him. The clever chokers had moved up into the ceiling moments before we came in, with two hiding on either side of the entrance. Coming into the scene we only ever saw two of them attacking our ninja.
Then the others dropped down from the ceiling all around us, grappled some of us as we came in through the door, an (in general) utilized their ambush, their reach, and flanking bonuses to really lay the hurt on.
There were four of us and eight of them. If one didn't grapple you, the second one would. With everyone in the party tied up, no one could really maneuver to help anyone else.
I died and spent hero points to cheat death. The GM and I had words (both good and bad, both civilized and yelling). We took a break. I posted the OP above.
When the break ended and we resumed the GM, thankfully, recanted his original statement and, rather than having chokers drag me off down a tunnel to never be seen again, had another monster appear, ala the balrog in Lord of the Rings.
It was a basalisk. It scared all the chokers away (who were in the process of dragging my body up to the ceiling a the time). They dropped me cause I was "slowing them down."
They healed me back to consciousness and we fought the basalisk to much better success (our tank was petrified, but my witch and our cleric made our knowledge: arcana checks and washed him with the basalisk's blood after the battle).
After the basalisk, we didn't even loot the cave. We simply fled the area before those horrible chokers could return and get us again.
We had other encounters and yet another character was forced to use the cheat death option (he was knocked out by a flaming sphere, then the enemy caster was knocked out, so the GM ruled that the uncontrolled motionless sphere continued to burn his unconscious body until he died and had to use Hero Points).
Even though it did eventually work out in the end, I think that the GM felt that he was pushed into a grudging ruling (to keep his players happy).
nice explanation
Hero points should be used in my opinion in cinematic type games(last minute nigh implausible escapes), and it seems the DM wants to run a gritty campaign. The two don't work well together. How he plans to run this needs to be addressed, IMHO.
Sample rules for how I do each.
If I run Serpent's Skull it will be Indiana Jones type in nature and I will have a my hero point(which is more like the destiny points from SW Saga), and actions points(force points from Saga) from Eberron. I might even bring DM Gifts back.
Sample DM Gifts:
1. Weapon's current crit range increases by one.
2. 4 to one ability score.
The next game I run will be gritty and neither of the above will be options. Warforged will also be banned due to the immunities they possess. I decided this a while back to set the feel of the story.
I do not think the ruling on cheating death was bad at all, perhaps the killing part was a bit harsh, but it doesn't seem unrealistic or unfair. It created an oppurtunity for the party to save your character.
In most cases the party would be able to save you if they were near, I do wonder if they even tried, couldnt they move to you at the expense of an attack of oppurtunity, why was the witch separated from the others to begin with ? Giving the party a round or so to save you would be fair GM'ing in my opinion, if they fail at that, or don't try I'd say the chokers earned their meal.
It is about GM'ing style though, not the cheating death rules, personally I can appreciate a gritty campaign, though it isn't always fun if you aren't prepared for that particular GM style. Maybe the GM should make it clear that he doesn't like to hold back and character death is a real possibility if it fits the situation.
partial Ninja by Wraithstrike
Even though it did eventually work out in the end, I think that the GM felt that he was pushed into a grudging ruling (to keep his players happy).
That might be the case, but I think the solution your DM eventually ended up with was a pretty good one :)
I do not think the ruling on cheating death was bad at all, perhaps the killing part was a bit harsh, but it doesn't seem unrealistic or unfair. It created an oppurtunity for the party to save your character.
Except their wasn't any real opporunity. Everyone was grappled or otherwise occupied. Escaping takes actions, moving to my location takes actions. Having bought a round MEANT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because there was nothing you could do.
I do not think the ruling on cheating death was bad at all, perhaps the killing part was a bit harsh, but it doesn't seem unrealistic or unfair. It created an oppurtunity for the party to save your character.Except their wasn't any real opporunity. Everyone was grappled or otherwise occupied. Escaping takes actions, moving to my location takes actions. Having bought a round MEANT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because there was nothing you could do.
I do not have any real problem with the ruling about the hero point. It seems correct as per RAW and such. The chokers were not fighting for dominance or to take your possessions. They were hunting and you were the meal.
A larger problem is the cr8 encounter in the first place for a party of level 4 characters. Did the party have any advance warning that there would be a nest of chokers there? How many characters in your party?
I do not think the ruling on cheating death was bad at all, perhaps the killing part was a bit harsh, but it doesn't seem unrealistic or unfair. It created an oppurtunity for the party to save your character.Except their wasn't any real opporunity. Everyone was grappled or otherwise occupied. Escaping takes actions, moving to my location takes actions. Having bought a round MEANT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because there was nothing you could do.
The opportunity was there. It just wasn't a good one because your party could not escape the grapple. The ability of your party to break free or not break free should not affect how a rule generally works. That is like the GM deciding the barbarian has a CMB of 30(random number) so you should be allowed to die, but if the CMB is only 10 you should live.
I do not think the ruling on cheating death was bad at all, perhaps the killing part was a bit harsh, but it doesn't seem unrealistic or unfair. It created an oppurtunity for the party to save your character.Except their wasn't any real opporunity. Everyone was grappled or otherwise occupied. Escaping takes actions, moving to my location takes actions. Having bought a round MEANT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because there was nothing you could do.I do not have any real problem with the ruling about the hero point. It seems correct as per RAW and such. The chokers were not fighting for dominance or to take your possessions. They were hunting and you were the meal.
A larger problem is the cr8 encounter in the first place for a party of level 4 characters. Did the party have any advance warning that there would be a nest of chokers there? How many characters in your party?
I do agree the encounter was harder than what it should have been, and it being an ambush only made it harder.
The most alluring point of "hero points" (not using them in PF, but the similar sytsem in Warhammer) from a DM point of view was always a bit of leeway when you calculated difficulty wrong yourself.
So from RD's description, as his DM I'd be relieved to have a mechanic of officially not having to kill off his character due to an encounter that was propbably simply designed too hard.
In my eyes, "cheat death" should just be that, a way to really cheat death in an otherwise hopeless situation.
A lot of win.
+42 to your last few posts.
The grittier style sounds cool - besides restricting some races and "abilities" the DM grants, what else will you be doing to ensue it is fair, yet difficult? Perhaps lower ability scores?
You're 100% right about playstyle. Everyone has a preferred style, and no one's is right or wrong. My own DM recently decided on a slightly lower-powered game (we were using 25 point buy, but he has dropped it to 15), which I'm somewhat on board with. I dunno. I partly play D&D for a fantastic adventure with a super-human character in terms of abilities, who surpasses lesser men in his valor, skill, and courage.
Others don't. And there's nothing wrong with that - it's preference, through and through.
|
Hey RD,
Stop playing with that GM. From your various threads of yours I have a recurring feeling that you are playing with a dolt who likes to have some fun at your expense.
(I also do get a recurring feeling that he also enjoys having fun from the fact that you didn't notice that yet.)
+1,000,000. You play with douches.
Aside however, that use of Hero Points is pretty similar to the WFRP ruleset use of burning a fate point to avoid death. In the GM section of the rulebook it gives advice on how to do that; for example a massive blow from an enemy that would kill you instead sends you flying into a bookcase, which then collapses on you, leaving you unconcious and inches from death, but alive. You would definitely be out of the combat, but they were never meant to be used as 'delay death for a round until GM kills you anyway'.
I don't know, guys. Yes RD does report a lot of problems to us, but I don't think I can take a biased description and pronounce that everyone he plays with is a jerk.
I'm not saying that RD is lying to us or anything, just giving the benefit of the doubt to a GM who has no chance to explain himself here. You know the old gem: "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained through incompetence."
I would interpret Cheating Death as buying one round for the party to rescue you. That's what RD got.
Now, there are obviously deeper problems here. The encounter may have been a bit challenging, but I won't criticize a GM for that. I do that all the time and it generally makes for a better game.
The real problem here is that the GM seems oblivious to RD's unhappiness about the campaign and his style of play in general. But part of the responsibility lies with RD to communicate this to the GM! He may well have tried that. If he did and he was rebuffed, then and only then can I say with certainty that his GM was a jerk. Until then, I presume the GM is just ignorant of his player's dissatisfaction.
It seems a tad unfair. The flavor of Hero Points is derived from the idea that their use triggers some dramatic twist that just happens to cause something to happen, a la the holy symbol example in the book. Just having you mauled to death is anticlimactic at best; that would have been the perfect opportunity for the GM to wing a rescue mission for the other PCs.