| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bluff vs Sense Motive, methinks. If they can't Sense Motive on his Bluff, then it's fair game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds OK to me. You might secretly roll a sense motive or perception check for the one that actually approaches the body, modified by his attitude at the time, and as you see fit. But, otherwise, ambushes are all part of the game...
Looks good to me as well. Are you going to have the players roll their own Bluff vs. sense motive rolls or will you do that in private. I would do that in private since you might alert them to the rogue playing dead...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's fair game, although not the wisest move. He's more effective when his friends are around to flank, right?
How about something like this:
The group comes upon a group of 2-3 men, surrounded by dead rogues. Upon seeing the party, the living men stop looting and attempt to run away. Meanwhile, all the "Dead bodies" they were pretending to loot are actually living rogues, pretending to be dead to lure the PCs in. If the PCs attempt to give chase, or don't bother and just try to loot the bodies, the trap is sprung and all the rogues jump up and attack. The runners can also return to the fight.
I'd give all the rogues a decent bluff, and bonii for being aided by their allies
Sorry, I think my evil is showing.
Also, roll them sense motive checks in secret!
My old DM did this all the time. We constantly stabbed our enemies an extra time just to be sure they were really dead.
Something I have used in the past to help avoid the problem of giving away a secret by asking for a roll is to have everyone make a couple of rolls at the beginning of the session. Then write them down for later. This let's players roll their own checks, helps keep things moving and does not hint that something is amiss.
"Everyone give me a Perception check, Sense Motive check and a Will Save."
I used to do exactly this in LARPs all the time.
:)
|
My old DM did this all the time. We constantly stabbed our enemies an extra time just to be sure they were really dead.
That's how you know that the DM did a good job with the encounter, because he left such an impression in your mind about dead bodies! I had a similar thing in the first campaign I ran... When the fighter was going down the stairs, the last stair was a MIMIC tripped him.. Then ate half of him, this was when they were low levels... After that, whenever they would go down stairs they would always poke the stairs with their weapons first... AND that was literally the only time I threw a mimic at them!!!
I find it humorous when people on the forums think that every NPC in the world should operate like they have a 16 Int and uncanny knowledge of the PCs ability to tear them to pieces.
As a DM, you expect your players to not metagame, even though they know the bandits probably have sneak attack because of rogue levels, or because the dragon's red they know it's gonna spit fire. Why should we expect that a brigand will always want to run away instead of ambushing someone to hold hostage?
Didn't you people see The Dark Knight? The Joker does just that to Gamble after he puts a bounty out on him, even though every single one of Gamble's men probably had a gun.
I say go for it, and have some others standing by in the shadows waiting to spring in. Don't make them all just rogues, either; maybe one's a sorcerer and another is pure fighter.
I wonder if "feign death" could be a rogue talent? *grin*
As others have said, this is definitely a viable tactic if not a questionable one. Having the rogue leap up and take the unsuspecting PC hostage is what I would attempt to do if I were the rogue.
In addition to sense motive checks for those nearby, a heal check might alert those with the skill that the "dead" one is still bleeding, or isn't bleeding much, or whatever. There's more than one way to discern someone's status.
Also, while bluff might be one way to "play dead" I think the more appropriate skill could be Perform (acting), but it's highly unlikely the rogue would have ranks in that so bluff would be preferable. Good luck!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to say it's a dick move, just to be different.
I'm going to say it's a dick move, just to be different.Just want to point out that if you do something because it's the opposite of what everyone else does, you're still letting the crowd dictate your actions. ;)
Nuh-uh!
|
Not necesarily. A rogue is weak in most cases, but if the group of rogues can choose the conditions of the fight then there is a lot of ways it could ended in a TPK.Ummm as long as they get a Sense Motive check against the Rogue's Bluff it sounds like a crazy tactic...
1 Rogue vs. Party of Heroes should equal REALLY dead Rogue.
I highlighted why I think your statement was silly as quoting me.
|
I highlighted why I think your statement was silly as quoting me.Not necesarily. A rogue is weak in most cases, but if the group of rogues can choose the conditions of the fight then there is a lot of ways it could ended in a TPK.Ummm as long as they get a Sense Motive check against the Rogue's Bluff it sounds like a crazy tactic...
1 Rogue vs. Party of Heroes should equal REALLY dead Rogue.
1) Rogue vs a part of people who have just faced six very powerful groups of nasties in a row, including something that may or may not be beyond their CR level (our druid is OP, so that's why the CR of everything is so high)
Anyway, they'll likely be tired out, at low HP and stuff.
Maybe if I had the rogue or Ninja (thinking of using the second one) play dead, until apporached, then attempt to knife the person investigating them. I'm betting on the wizard investigating first, since he always tries to get the best loot first.
Uses their Ki to vanish, and comes back with a bunch of friends.
It doesn't take a 16 Int to realise that if you're still facing 5 active PC's when you pull your surprise attack that at least four of them are going to active enough to react to whatever you pull of on the fifth.I find it humorous when people on the forums think that every NPC in the world should operate like they have a 16 Int and uncanny knowledge of the PCs ability to tear them to pieces.
I don't disagree. But I am under the impression that at some point it was decided there would be more than one baddie in the scenario, but just the one playing dead.
Wow. Complicated. In-game this isn't all that great a tactic.
Realistically the rogue needs to make a Sleight of Hand check to conceal that they're armed. I don't think any experienced adventurer is going to mistake a weapon limply and barely near a body's hand for an actual readied, usable weapon. The rogue needs to fake it, so SoH.
Next, the rogue needs to conceal that they're alive, while monitoring the situation around them. They probably have their eyes open a slit. More, they're going to be simulating having gone down in battle, which probably means they need to take a hit first. It can't be easy to hide shudders of pain and your breathing right after being whacked. So it's Bluff time. I'm conflicted as to what should oppose it. Sense Motive is technically correct, but I'd be inclined to allow best of: Sense Motive, Perception, or Heal, depending on the looter's character sheet. This is a dangerous, complicated tactic, and the looter might have noticed the rogue fell down in a controlled fashion (Sense Motive), might spot that the rogue has his eyes open a bit (Perception), or might realize that the wound the rogue took won't be fatal (Heal). So, hey, I'd ask the looter's player (once he's committed to looting the body) which is his highest score and to roll it versus the rogue's Bluff.
Third, don't forget the rogue is prone. He's -4 on hit attack(s) against the looter. The looter being flat-footed helps, but still... -4 sucks.
Fourth, remember you might be talking about a single attack. When this happens, you need to call for initiative. The rogue gets a surprise round, which is standard action or a move action. No full attack. So hey... one attack at -4 against flat-footed. THEN the initiative order actually happens. Unless your rogue goes first, he's going to get seriously owned.
Fifth, as a continuation to fourth, the rogue is prone. That's usually not something you want to voluntarily allow. -4 to AC except against ranged attacks. And you lose a move action to stand up. Which provokes AoO. If you don't do that, you can't move. This rogue is going to get surrounded and shanked, pronto, unless he sacrifices his surprise round to stand up. And then he's not guaranteed any attacks versus flat-footed, meaning he's potentially saying goodbye to his one and only sneak attack for the combat.
Sadly, this is mechanically a horrible choice.
What you're reaching for is an interesting scene, certainly. What you're trying is for a surprise-round standard action coup-de-grace. Maybe the rogue slits a throat in one quick motion. Dead looter. Good job. But the rules don't support it. They support a badly disadvantaged single attack followed by certain death.
Solution to the weapon issue: Assassin's Creed style "punching daggers."
As far as faking the hit: the rogue might have actually taken the hit and the drop. Fun? Nope. Does it leave him in prime condition for a fight? Nope. But it helps sell the act.
Holding a hostage isn't supported by the rules though... and holding a hostage should be a common thing! Evil wizard grabs the young heir(ess) to the throne and threatens to slit his/her throat if the PCs follow him in his escape (maybe he can't teleport yet, work with me). Something like that.
I did something similar but it was an assassin preparing his Death Attack instead of just a rogue looking to die.
as long as they get a sense motive It's fair imo.
It's not a badwrong thing to do as a GM. But before I did something like that I'd think hard about the following:
1. How does this fit into the overall story narrative?
2. Am I doing this just to "teach the party a lesson"?
3. What will this do to the future dynamics of the gaming group? Will it change player behavior in a way that will impact game play? (For example, will every combat now end with an obligatory "I slit everyone's throat before we loot them!"?)
Since the situation here seems suicidal for the rogue in question, it feels like something a GM would do, not necessarily what an actual rogue would do. What is the ambushing rogue's motivation for essentially sacrificing his life for a cheap shot at a PC with a significant penalty on what is likely the only attack he will be able to make?
If there is something in the narrative that makes sense (for example, the rogue is the follower of a maniacal evil mastermind who inspires his followers to suicidal actions) then fine, that would advance the plot and provide some flavor.
Otherwise I don't see the point to it. It's not a "dick move" it's just sorta pointless.
|
Ive done that very play dead tactic on a few rare occasions, it works best if the rogue plays dead for a bit or waits for the party to be scattered some. If they can take out one PC and have time to down a potion of Invis or Vanish then all the better.
As for if its a Dick move just ask yourself as a DM did I give the PCs a fair chance to avoid this or make choices that could have easily lead them to another situation? If the answer is yes then odds are its not a dick move if you ask me.
Ask each PC for their Caracter Shee at the begining, type some of their modifiers and, obviously their perception and sense motive bonus. Ask them roll without telling them what are they rolling and add their sense motive.
Humbly,
Yawar
An alternate to bluff and sense motive would be disguise and a heal check -- a heal check might be a good choice either way after the battle actually.
Actually... if you think about it, the detection roll doesn't need to be secret. Once the player declares that his character is inspecting the body, you can ask for the rolls out in the open. It's too late.
Fixes to some of the mechanical issues:
Monkey style will dispense with the penalty for fighting prone, and allow standing with no attacks of opportunity and as a swift action if an easy Acrobatic check is made.
Bandit archetype will allow a standard and move action in the surprise round.
Blind-fight could be used to explain how he knew where everyone was with his eyes closed, although that's not really a mechanical issue.
Underhanded could be used to do maximum damage, and a knife master archetype and river rat would make that aa high as possible.
Wrist sheaths could be used to hide a blade and get it into action quickly.
Finally, reactionary and improved initiative along with very high dexterity would make it likely to win the initiative next round
|
|
Wow. Complicated. In-game this isn't all that great a tactic.
Realistically the rogue needs to make a Sleight of Hand check to conceal that they're armed. I don't think any experienced adventurer is going to mistake a weapon limply and barely near a body's hand for an actual readied, usable weapon. The rogue needs to fake it, so SoH.
Next, the rogue needs to conceal that they're alive, while monitoring the situation around them. They probably have their eyes open a slit. More, they're going to be simulating having gone down in battle, which probably means they need to take a hit first. It can't be easy to hide shudders of pain and your breathing right after being whacked. So it's Bluff time. I'm conflicted as to what should oppose it. Sense Motive is technically correct, but I'd be inclined to allow best of: Sense Motive, Perception, or Heal, depending on the looter's character sheet. This is a dangerous, complicated tactic, and the looter might have noticed the rogue fell down in a controlled fashion (Sense Motive), might spot that the rogue has his eyes open a bit (Perception), or might realize that the wound the rogue took won't be fatal (Heal). So, hey, I'd ask the looter's player (once he's committed to looting the body) which is his highest score and to roll it versus the rogue's Bluff.
Third, don't forget the rogue is prone. He's -4 on hit attack(s) against the looter. The looter being flat-footed helps, but still... -4 sucks.
Fourth, remember you might be talking about a single attack. When this happens, you need to call for initiative. The rogue gets a surprise round, which is standard action or a move action. No full attack. So hey... one attack at -4 against flat-footed. THEN the initiative order actually happens. Unless your rogue goes first, he's going to get seriously owned.
Fifth, as a continuation to fourth, the rogue is prone. That's usually not something you want to voluntarily allow. -4 to AC except against ranged attacks. And you lose a move action to...
See this is exactly the point. By RAW you have someone on their back that will get a Standard Action to hit ONE of your player's and then you have a Rogue on their back somewhere in the middle of the initiative.
If you follow the rules you will have one pissed off player that gets hit, and then one super murderified rogue now REALLY dead.
I don't keep my player's character sheets. I don't leave my character sheets with the DM when I play.
I seem to remember someone suggesting a single "super-character" sheet that the DM kept where he looked at all of his players sheets and wrote down only the highest numbers from each on his copy. Then he only had one sheet to keep track of.
I ask for copies. It helps to know what the characters are capable of.
Our DM keeps copies just in case one of us is absent.
My group will the fighting some rogues, and I plan to have the strongest one play dead, and when a PC advances to loot the body, the rogue will suddenly attack.
Is this a dick move, or is it okay to do?
Expect that if this works (or even if it doesn't), people will stab every corpse with a longspear or other reach weapon -- probably with full sneak attack and/or power attack - from that point on. That's before they burn the bodies of their enemies anyway (a good tactic if your enemies may have been infected with certain diseases, or you just want to make raising them a pain in the butt).