To kill a downed player?


Advice

51 to 100 of 247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Many, many players would rather have their character die than have the GM save them by fudging die rolls or hand waving. Yes, the GM using a screen can largely hide the practice, but if they knew, they'd definitely feel a reduction in the tension and challenge of combat.

For GMs who insist on fudging to save characters, start rolling your dice out in the open and then try to retroactively fudge to save the character and see what your players really think.

Most people have a general sense of fairness and would rather lose their character or negotiate some sort of horrible consequence then be saved by the GM setting aside the rules to protect their character.

The fact that most GMs who will fudge dice to keep characters alive never let their players know they are doing this means that they never get to truly find out what the players think about the situation. And the ones that stop attacking downed foes might be able to convince the players of the plausibility of the attacker moving on to someone else in some circumstances, but when it starts happening in all circumstances, the players are going to realize their characters have protagonist protection and are invincible.

Most of these discussions are GMs debating about what they do, without ever having an honest discussion with the players. Try asking what your players think about the idea that if the dice go horribly against the player's that you'll change the results in their favour and that if one of them becomes unconscious or helpless, they will never, ever be attacked until their back in the action.

I know, I know, talking to the players to find out what kind of game they want? What madness. :D


frozenwastes wrote:

Many, many players would rather have their character die than have the GM save them by fudging die rolls or hand waving. Yes, the GM using a screen can largely hide the practice, but if they knew, they'd definitely feel a reduction in the tension and challenge of combat.

For GMs who insist on fudging to save characters, start rolling your dice out in the open and then try to retroactively fudge to save the character and see what your players really think.

Most people have a general sense of fairness and would rather lose their character or negotiate some sort of horrible consequence then be saved by the GM setting aside the rules to protect their character.

I am one of those players who would rather see the DM fudge dice. I've been part of a game where a player died because he drowned, trapped under a recently felled beast. That's not cool. If the player's ok with it, but all means kill them, but I prefer to game with people who want to stick with the same party makeup from start to finish.


Holy cow, a lot of responses while i slept!
From what im reading here seems like just going with the flow like i have been seem to work, but this Saturday's session will be interesting No peeking to my players.

Game!:

They just killed 3 werewolves, a hunting pack of a larger clan, and are planning on raiding their den. but they kinda brutally executed the hunting pack (evil characters, and the goblin did some unmentionable stuff to their corpses) so they might be motivated to do the same to my PCs

Also I sometimes fudge dice, but usually only at the lowest levels when some unlucky crit would kill a level 1-2 PC, just cause I have had it happen before and character attachment gets really shaky with low level PCs dying so easily.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
If I were playing a character who was trading blows with an Ogre barbaran at higher levels and it downed my character and then walked away before killing my character? That action would pull me right out of the game. I dont care if I'd been playing that PC for two or three years straight with multiple story threads focused on my character. His story ENDS THERE. Messily. At the hands of a superior foe.
Depends on if the ogre knows he didn't kill the character. If his greatclub sends the guy flying into the wall to collapse in an unmoving heap, he might think the job is already done. I don't tell players the status of downed characters without a Heal check except for very obvious deaths. If the ogre has other targets to kill, he won't waste time on a corpse.

Not to mention, ogres are not known for their smarts. They likely wouldn't think to check, then again, they might go up and go to take the PC's skull as a trophy.

Anyway, I haven't killed a downed PC yet. I did relent on one critical hit roll. Instead of loosing his life, he just lost an eye. (he then managed to loose a leg the next day). However... I have killed a PC's downed pet.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No threat of death? No point playing.

As a GM I am there to be fair but firm. I don't seek player deaths but neither do I sugar coat the world into cotton wool fairy land for them either.

If you always fudge the game to save PC's then the players will notice. If the players notice then they will realise there is no risk after which you might as well have encounters that go like this:

GM: Three ravenous Chimera leap out and you kill them.
Player: Yay... How much XP do I get?

Sound fun? No I didn't think so.

You can say that character death removes an important character from the story and lessens the narrative. To which I would say "Game of Thrones" and leave it there.

For the OP. My rule is "give me an excuse not to." If the players wilfully leave their comrade in a position where he can get CDG'd then more fool them. On the other hand if they try to make a legitimate effort to draw the attention of said monster then it should attack the still conscious players instead. Leave it to the players to protect their own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as to the question asked by the OP, I agree with a lot of the others who've posted already. This is situational and depends on the intellect and motivations of the NPC's. If it's an assassin sent to kill a specific PC, they will make sure that the PC is dead. If it's an unthinking animal and the other PCs are attacking it, it will wait until it has run off the other PCs before eating the one it killed as it's about survival for it at that point. The situation has to be played out as true to what the NPC would do as possible.

To the other topic about killing PCs or not killing PCs in the game:
As a player, I want to see the dice fall where they may. I don't expect my PC to be a god at 2nd level when he purposely charges an ogre that kills him with one swipe of its club, nor do I expect my level 8 PC to live against an ancient dracolich who's been known to kill gods if I marched into its lair to try to kill it and claim its horde. I would actually be more angry if I did something utterly stupid and the DM allowed me to live through it because my character is a "hero" as opposed to allowing it to die an epic death.

It is silly to keep PCs alive simply because it would end their story when they take stupid and/or reckless actions in the game. That's part of the mantle that PCs take up, they know they will encounter dangerous situations and it's up to them to figure out how to resolve them, whether it be combat or diplomacy. This is what makes it fun to me and my groups, the threat of danger and the challenge.

As a DM, I don't intentionally kill PCs, but I will also let the players know if I am running a lethal campaign where they may have to have other backup characters rolled up in case their current ones die. Usually I just run a normal game where their actions define what happens to them and the luck of the dice determines if they survive or not.

Liberty's Edge

One thing that hasn't really been mentioned is that nobody really knows if a downed character is dead or not. (Edit: I read part of the thread. It's been mentioned.)

An NPC might be likely to know that he does between 3 and 10 points with his longsword and didn't score a critical hit, and he dropped a guy in armor, so the guy in armor probably isn't dead, but if you're fighting an ogre who's power attacking with a club and hits a character in light or no armor, it's kinda hard for that ogre to know if the PC is down or dead because there's a high probability that if the ogre knocks something down, he's overkilled it, and should move on to another target within striking distance. So some NPCs will usually have a good idea whether they've killed someone or knocked them down, and I'd see no problem with them behaving accordingly.

Now, there's a way to determine dead vs. down, and I let PCs play with the knowledge of whether other party members are dead or down without rolling a heal check because it enables additional player involvement, but for villains, I'd force them to roll a heal check.

Well, I'd do one of three things:

1) Villains generally move on from downed PCs. They're not sure if they're dead or not, but even if they're not dead, if they get healed, they'll be attacking from the ground or provoking as they stand up.
2) Smart villains ALWAYS strike one additional time to make sure. This is even if the PC is already dead.
3) If someone on team villain wants to spend an action doing a heal check to see if the PC is actually dropped (a cleric with nothing to do, or something), then he can advise the rest of team villain as to whether or not the hero has been slain or is merely unconscious.

If you have villains only choose to kill PCs without spells like Deathwatch up or without abilities like lifesense, you're giving them more information than they should have and artificially increasing the challenge and lethality of an encounter without increasing its rewards.

Of course, if a PC goes down in the middle of a crowd of PCs, and there's a sorcerer with fireball, the sorcerer probably isn't going to randomly switch over to magic missile to spare the downed character.


TOZ wrote:
Because death is not the only failure condition.

..depends on the game. If the game has no time limit and advances to the PC's schedule then dying might be the only way to fail.

If the game has other things that have to be done, that can't be resolved through combat and/or has a time limit then players can fail without dying, but if the failure is catastrophic many GM's will fudge that also.

That is not a necessarily a bad thing, but I think it lines up with the other poster's point about knowing what will happen before it happens. He spoke of death, but the idea could apply to other ways of defeat/failure.

Sczarni

wraithstrike wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Because death is not the only failure condition.

..depends on the game. If the game has no time limit and advances to the PC's schedule then dying might be the only way to fail.

If the game has other things that have to be done, that can't be resolved through combat and/or has a time limit then players can fail without dying, but if the failure is catastrophic many GM's will fudge that also.

That is not a necessarily a bad thing, but I think it lines up with the other poster's point about knowing what will happen before it happens. He spoke of death, but the idea could apply to other ways of defeat/failure.

To me that sounds like the lamest game ever..."Oh no the bad guy kidnapped the princess...well lets all go jump off cliffs...good thing we can't die."

Even if I failed at something for not winning combat I wouldn't feel bad because apparently no one dies...its a win win for the whole world. May as well go sandbox and do whatever we want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Axebeard wrote:

One thing that hasn't really been mentioned is that nobody really knows if a downed character is dead or not. (Edit: I read part of the thread. It's been mentioned.)

An NPC might be likely to know that he does between 3 and 10 points with his longsword and didn't score a critical hit, and he dropped a guy in armor, so the guy in armor probably isn't dead, but if you're fighting an ogre who's power attacking with a club and hits a character in light or no armor, it's kinda hard for that ogre to know if the PC is down or dead because there's a high probability that if the ogre knocks something down, he's overkilled it, and should move on to another target within striking distance. So some NPCs will usually have a good idea whether they've killed someone or knocked them down, and I'd see no problem with them behaving accordingly.

Now, there's a way to determine dead vs. down, and I let PCs play with the knowledge of whether other party members are dead or down without rolling a heal check because it enables additional player involvement, but for villains, I'd force them to roll a heal check.

Well, I'd do one of three things:

1) Villains generally move on from downed PCs. They're not sure if they're dead or not, but even if they're not dead, if they get healed, they'll be attacking from the ground or provoking as they stand up.
2) Smart villains ALWAYS strike one additional time to make sure. This is even if the PC is already dead.
3) If someone on team villain wants to spend an action doing a heal check to see if the PC is actually dropped (a cleric with nothing to do, or something), then he can advise the rest of team villain as to whether or not the hero has been slain or is merely unconscious.

If you have villains only choose to kill PCs without spells like Deathwatch up or without abilities like lifesense, you're giving them more information than they should have and artificially increasing the challenge and lethality of an encounter without increasing its rewards.

Of course, if a PC goes down in the middle of a crowd of PCs, and there's a sorcerer with fireball, the sorcerer probably isn't going to randomly switch over to magic missile to spare the downed character.

The fact that the bad guys don't know if the PC is dead is just a reason to ensure he is dead. Yeah he might be attacking a corpse, but now he can be reasonably sure it is a corpse.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
ossian666 wrote:

To me that sounds like the lamest game ever..."Oh no the bad guy kidnapped the princess...well lets all go jump off cliffs...good thing we can't die."

Even if I failed at something for not winning combat I wouldn't feel bad because apparently no one dies...its a win win for the whole world. May as well go sandbox and do whatever we want.

Who said no one dies?

Sczarni

As a character if I never die and I am always in crappy situations and losing then for all my character knows no one is dying.


karpad wrote:

There are basically two scenarios where the characters get killed.

1. The rule of large numbers (or luck if you prefer) doesn't favor the character(s) and the challenge suddenly becomes too great through no fault of your own.
2. You set the encounter difficulty too high to begin with.

In either case you should either fudge rolls, or if that's not possible/desirable you should do a deus ex machina.

What the heck are you talking about? Do you play in a glass house and roll your dice on feather down pillows?

You can have a noir setting where the PC's are bartering with a Red Dragon for a mutually beneficial outcome. If one of the PC's thinks it's a great idea to attempt to kill the dragon and dies, that's not the GM's fault.

3. Cause of Death: player stupidity.

At the middle of a dungeon, and old man holds before you a deck of many things. To get to the next room at least one PC must choose one card. A PC does choose a card, and behold gets 1d3 wishes. Another PC simply cannot help himself, and also pulls from the deck though they are free to pass, and gets to fight death himself. He dies...

4. Cause of Death: player willingly takes risk

There is such a thing as a GM that is too harsh, but there's also a GM that never really challenges the group, they know they'll never die and have infinite continues. That is you my friend.

My first great GM ran 2E Dark Sun and used random encounter rolls. You learn pretty fast that players can willingly get themselves killed. You also learn pretty quick to value a character that lives past level 3, and start playing smart.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The leaps of logic in this thread are amazing.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
If I were playing a character who was trading blows with an Ogre barbaran at higher levels and it downed my character and then walked away before killing my character? That action would pull me right out of the game. I dont care if I'd been playing that PC for two or three years straight with multiple story threads focused on my character. His story ENDS THERE. Messily. At the hands of a superior foe.
Depends on if the ogre knows he didn't kill the character. If his greatclub sends the guy flying into the wall to collapse in an unmoving heap, he might think the job is already done. I don't tell players the status of downed characters without a Heal check except for very obvious deaths. If the ogre has other targets to kill, he won't waste time on a corpse.

Agreed. It's all about honest, good natured natural play. The Ogre/Barbarian is an idiot and would assume you're dead. I wouldn't stand up, push the chair back and call shinanigans. I'd only be put off if I 'felt' the GM was fudging.

But then again, I'm sure we are assuming that you feel the same as us, the example just wasn't flushed out enough.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I had a DM run a game where every time a character went negative, he ruled them 'unconscious'. He would ask how many HP a character had, and then not announce the damage if it was enough to kill. Myself and a couple other players engineered a TPK out of frustration.

Looking back, we were in the wrong, as it was an introductory game for new players. But we were just tired of putting up with it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
The leaps of logic in this thread are amazing.

Logic apparently has maxed out acrobatics and is equipped with both Boots of Striding and Springing as well as a Ring of Jumping.

Not very optimized, as logic goes.

Silver Crusade

When it comes to death, I stare it in the face and take it like a boss.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

When it comes to death, I take it like Captain Jack Harkness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you/your group want a tension filled game where death comes on a random die roll - that's fine. If your group wants a lighter game where the PCs are almost always just 'knocked out' and recover later - that's fine too. Depends on your style and the groups preferences. (most games I've played in people feel they have an investment in their PCs and death is typically something to avoid)

If you and your group are having fun, you are doing it right. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

First, it's not pointless to play the game even when the GM is wholly committed to not allowing PCs to die. There is still the role playing, story telling and even the specific implementation of tactics that can be more or less effective even when death is not truly an option.

However, some of us prefer playing in a world where there truly are risks of character death and feel that without that risk, the rewards are somewhat hollow.

Killing a down PC is part of the game when you are playing "gritty" versions of the game. Some monsters or NPCs will deliberately kill downed PCs for the same reason that some PCs will deliberately kill downed NPCs or monsters during combat. Sometimes you just wanna be sure they stay dead.

To me this is more of a flavor question than a "right/wrong" error. Some groups don't want to have characters die. Some groups don't care. Some groups actually enjoy highly lethal campaigns.

I don't like "highly lethal" campaigns. But I don't like non-lethal ones either. I like there to be a balance so that my skill in playing the game actually matters.

And that's how I try to run games too.


I agree with AD. I am somewhere in the middle. If you have a bad dice day I might help you out. If you do something that makes no sense such as the "talk smack" example here then you deserve what you get IMHO.

On the other hand if the players tell me they want to live and die, by the dice then that is what I give them. If I get a mixed group I would start to use heropoints so that those that don't like death can have a way out.

PS:Nobody likes death, but I think the point is clear.

Silver Crusade

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Killing a down PC is part of the game when you are playing "gritty" versions of the game.

Killing a down PC is actually the default setting of the game. We do have "Coup de grace" as a rule.

Playing the default game is not a playstyle. Playing anything outside of that is.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:


PS:Nobody likes death, but I think the point is clear.

I don't like death but I understand that it is a part of the game.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh for f%*#'s sake.


shallowsoul wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Killing a down PC is part of the game when you are playing "gritty" versions of the game.

Killing a down PC is actually the default setting of the game. We do have "Coup de grace" as a rule.

Playing the default game is not a playstyle. Playing anything outside of that is.

Coup de grace is a rule, not a "default setting." This is like saying that if you don't use "Cleave" in combat, you are playing outside of the default setting of the game.

There are tons and tons of rules that exist but which are applied infrequently. Not crafting magic items does not mean that your group is "outside the default setting of the game."


Shallowsoul has vulnerability to fire that stops his regeneration.


I'm leaning towards the posters that suggest following the NPCs behavior.

The "retreating bandits" hypothetical is a good illustration -- I pretend my NPC is asking "What's my motivation?" before doing things.

More often than not, I look at it as "PC A is downed and dying, so he's not getting up. That other guy can (1) heal A or (2) hurt me. Attack PC B so he can't (1) heal A or (2) hurt me, THEN go back and get PC A if he doesn't die all on his own."

Sczarni

I hope none of the players afraid of death ever play PFS...they will be up for a rude awakening.

Silver Crusade

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Killing a down PC is part of the game when you are playing "gritty" versions of the game.

Killing a down PC is actually the default setting of the game. We do have "Coup de grace" as a rule.

Playing the default game is not a playstyle. Playing anything outside of that is.

Coup de grace is a rule, not a "default setting." This is like saying that if you don't use "Cleave" in combat, you are playing outside of the default setting of the game.

There are tons and tons of rules that exist but which are applied infrequently. Not crafting magic items does not mean that your group is "outside the default setting of the game."

But you act like using "Coup de grace" goes outside the game and makes it gritty. I am trying to tell you that using "Coup de grace" is just like using any other rule such as AC, hit points, to hit etc...

Silver Crusade

Black_Lantern wrote:
Shallowsoul has vulnerability to fire that stops his regeneration.

Immunity "All" I'm afraid.


shallowsoul wrote:


But you act like using "Coup de grace" goes outside the game and makes it gritty. I am trying to tell you that using "Coup de grace" is just like using any other rule such as AC, hit points, to hit etc...

We are not understanding each other I'm afraid, shallowsoul.

Using coup de grace or not is simply a GM choice. There is nothing in the rules that compels a GM to use coup de grace in combat, or outside of combat. That is entirely a game style choice by the GM. Some GMs use grapple, others avoid it like the plague. Either style is fine. There are lots of rules that rely on GMs to make decisions of what their NPCs would do. That's the GM's role, and that is how GMs develop their own personal style.


ossian666 wrote:
I hope none of the players afraid of death ever play PFS...they will be up for a rude awakening.

By playing PFS you agree to play a more mechanical version of the game, where roleplay and character investment is kinda secondary.

In comparison to running a game with friends, it's pretty much an analogue video-game.

And then it is fine. I can die in one-offs without giving a crap. Just like I can die in videogames and be OK with it.

If I lose a character I have played for 6+ months (we play every other weekend or so) I get rather irked if the death was not meaningful.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
When it comes to death, I take it like Captain Jack Harkness.

I see whut you did thar


shallowsoul wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Killing a down PC is part of the game when you are playing "gritty" versions of the game.

Killing a down PC is actually the default setting of the game. We do have "Coup de grace" as a rule.

Playing the default game is not a playstyle. Playing anything outside of that is.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes...

Liberty's Edge

I always like hearing everyone's opinion on this part of the game. I'll throw this in as well:

I recently started GMing my third campaign. I'm not just known as a non-lethal DM - I actively try not to kill players most of the time. As a result, some of my players tend to be very reckless with their characters. For this new campaign I decided to change things up: characters that die are automatically revived at full health in their home base. "Oh wow, even easier!" my players thought. Little did they realize that I could then feel free to kill characters whenever the need arose. Six or so sessions in, and they are already guarding their characters like a family heirloom.

My point being that death and dying should fit the players just like any other part of the game rules.


So in regards to the question of killing a downed player: I as a GM do not coup-de-grace the pc, its cheap and it also makes little combat sense.

That being said I also don't veer away from player death, If a bad guy crits a pc who has 2 hp left and drops him to -18 then that pc is dead.

From the player standpoint it seems cheap to kill the downed player. From a badguy perspective I think that most thinking badguys would want to deal with the standing players before they deal with the dying ones.

If I have a evil cleric who uses hold person on the party's fighter he is not then going to inflict serious wounds on that guy- the fighter is taken care of already so let now pick off the next good guy. In my opinion it is the same thing with dropping a goodguy, once he is dropped lets move on.

It makes sense tactically as well: If that party member is dropped and the party wants to heal him it now takes 1 more person out of the fight for a round to do so, while as if he is dead it takes only the 1st guy out. That is an old military tactic- killing someone removes 1 person from the fight while wounding someone takes 3 people out, the wounded and his 2 battle buddies who have to take care of him.


I do feel a need to respond to the "NPCs would focus on the threat" argument here against coup de grace.

The argument seems to be "NPCs should ignore the unconscious character and instead focus on the active threats, so coup de gracing a down character is cheap metagaming or something."

In the real world that might be a valid argument.

In a world where some invisible dude hiding behind the shrubbery can wiggle their fingers and the next round the "down" wizard is tossing off maximized, empowered, quickened fireballs..... that "down" wizard is still a HELL of a threat, even unconscious.

And intelligent NPCs would realize that.

Not that I coup de grace PCs... I can't remember ever doing it. I just don't accept the argument that GMs shouldn't do it or that it makes no sense tactically.

It actually makes a hell of of a lot of sense tactically.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The PC's in my games will not hesitate to use "coup de grace" on a downed enemy and they know damn well that I will do the same.


It can make sense tactically if the party has no way to heal its members. If the party has a cleric it is better to finish the PC off since the bad guy is already there(by the victim) anyway. You don't have to worry about a channel or cure spell bringing him back into the fight. You also cut down on the party's action economy for the duration of the fight in many cases.

That idea of leaving someone wounded does not work so well in the game. Wounded people in real life are less effective. In the game whether someone has 1 hit point or 100 they are just as dangerous*, so once they get at least one hit point they can kill you. If you kill them now, they stay down.

*That is why blasting is generally considered to be a lesser option for casters.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I do feel a need to respond to the "NPCs would focus on the threat" argument here against coup de grace.

The argument seems to be "NPCs should ignore the unconscious character and instead focus on the active threats, so coup de gracing a down character is cheap metagaming or something."

In the real world that might be a valid argument.

In a world where some invisible dude hiding behind the shrubbery can wiggle their fingers and the next round the "down" wizard is tossing off maximized, empowered, quickened fireballs..... that "down" wizard is still a HELL of a threat, even unconscious.

And intelligent NPCs would realize that.

Not that I coup de grace PCs... I can't remember ever doing it. I just don't accept the argument that GMs shouldn't do it or that it makes no sense tactically.

It actually makes a hell of of a lot of sense tactically.

I would still disagree in part. yes that wizard could potentially be a threat soon. However the ranger that is STILL shooting arrows at me is a threat NOW.

When your players down a monster do they spend an action coup-de-gracing that monster or do they move on to the next threat?

Also, by leaving that dying player dying you now require someone to fix it, if they want that player fixed.

Okay so the cleric can either bring back the dying player into action OR he can channel smite the grave knight the party is facing. If the grave knight spends an action killing the dying player he is not only losing the chance to kill the cleric, but he now is ABSOLUTELY going to receive that channel smite.

I think the smart bad guy will now move on to kill the guy who could heal the goodguy back into the fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The more you fudge death in the game, the less realistic it becomes. If your players are getting into situations and you continuously have to bail them out by fudging dice, lying about damage and having the enemies unrealistically walking away then you take away from any role-playing involved.

If you want to play PF on the super-easy setting that your sister plays video games on, then that's your business.

I prefer to play a realistic game on a realistic setting. But hey, that's just me.

If the BBEG, based on intelligence, nature and motive would kill someone, then do it. If you want to lie and pretend he has 1 intelligence, or take away his natural 20 and re-roll it, your choice. If you want your players at level 10, fighting at CR 8, then fine.

To each his own.

Silver Crusade

The thing with Pathfinder and other fantasy type games is the fact that healing is fairly common so leaving someone that is wounded is a chance for that person to be up again in no time and kill you.


wraithstrike wrote:

It can make sense tactically if the party has no way to heal its members. If the party has a cleric it is better to finish the PC off since the bad guy is already there(by the victim) anyway. You don't have to worry about a channel or cure spell bringing him back into the fight. You also cut down on the party's action economy for the duration of the fight in many cases.

That idea of leaving someone wounded does not work so well in the game. Wounded people in real life are less effective. In the game whether someone has 1 hit point or 100 they are just as dangerous*, so once they get at least one hit point they can kill you. If you kill them now, they stay down.

*That is why blasting is generally considered to be a lesser option for casters.

wait are we talking about someone with 1hp or someone with 0 or fewer hp? At 1 hp I kill the guy, at 0 I try to take out the next guy. If I get everyone in the party to 0 its still a tpk. I don't need to absolutely kill each one, I just need to incapacitate them all.


Ubercroz wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I do feel a need to respond to the "NPCs would focus on the threat" argument here against coup de grace.

The argument seems to be "NPCs should ignore the unconscious character and instead focus on the active threats, so coup de gracing a down character is cheap metagaming or something."

In the real world that might be a valid argument.

In a world where some invisible dude hiding behind the shrubbery can wiggle their fingers and the next round the "down" wizard is tossing off maximized, empowered, quickened fireballs..... that "down" wizard is still a HELL of a threat, even unconscious.

And intelligent NPCs would realize that.

Not that I coup de grace PCs... I can't remember ever doing it. I just don't accept the argument that GMs shouldn't do it or that it makes no sense tactically.

It actually makes a hell of of a lot of sense tactically.

I would still disagree in part. yes that wizard could potentially be a threat soon. However the ranger that is STILL shooting arrows at me is a threat NOW.

When your players down a monster do they spend an action coup-de-gracing that monster or do they move on to the next threat?

Also, by leaving that dying player dying you now require someone to fix it, if they want that player fixed.

Okay so the cleric can either bring back the dying player into action OR he can channel smite the grave knight the party is facing. If the grave knight spends an action killing the dying player he is not only losing the chance to kill the cleric, but he now is ABSOLUTELY going to receive that channel smite.

I think the smart bad guy will now move on to kill the guy who could heal the goodguy back into the fight.

It's a question of threat management.

If the archer can do more damage to me before my next turn than the "down" wizard, then I should go after the archer. If the "down" wizard can do more damage to me before my next turn than the archer, then I should coup de grace the "down" wizard. That's just basic tactics. As an NPC could I reasonably make a determination of which of the two is the bigger threat?

Absolutely I can. And to conclude the wizard is the bigger threat in spite of being currently unconscious is a perfectly reasonable conclusion in many, if not MOST circumstances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Not that I coup de grace PCs... I can't remember ever doing it. I just don't accept the argument that GMs shouldn't do it or that it makes no sense tactically.

It actually makes a hell of of a lot of sense tactically.

I have used coup de grace on PCs. There were no tears around the table, and no fits of rage. I always set up the CdG with some dramatic descriptions so that the rest of the group has a chance to intervene if possible. This situation usually involves a lot of panic and lots of laughs afterwards. If the PC dies, well *stuff happens.

Many of the comments on this thread remind me of a great blues song lyric, "I've got nothing to lose, so I just can't win." Threat of failure is what makes success in the game so satisfying.


For some "are PCs meant to die" context, I run a DnD Basic game. Fighters get 1d8, clerics 1d6 and magic users 1d4 hit points per level. If you get to 0 hit points you die.

These are the 1981 rules for DnD. Later editions are far less deadly, often meaning that attacking downed characters is the only way to kill them. Certainly at lower levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
The thing with Pathfinder and other fantasy type games is the fact that healing is fairly common so leaving someone that is wounded is a chance for that person to be up again in no time and kill you.

I agree. There's tons of reasons to kill someone who is down. GM's and players just don't think. I find it's hard to find one even willing to put themselves in the NPC's shoes.

The evil maniacal wizard simply might not even care if it's risky to take the 6 seconds to finish off a character. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to CE!

The person may be faking it, throwing the old bluff out there. Only one way to be sure...

Anything with animal intelligence is going to make sure what they attack is dead. They simply don't have combat tactics.

Finally, an intelligent evil player may have already assessed that the battle is going against him, so he stabs the player one more time and runs. It's better for the next encounter to fight one less player.

I swear. It's like people don't even think anymore.

Shadow Lodge

Quori wrote:
I swear. It's like people don't even think anymore.

An excellent example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubercroz wrote:

So in regards to the question of killing a downed player: I as a GM do not coup-de-grace the pc, its cheap and it also makes little combat sense.

It varies whether it makes sense or doesn't.

What you want to avoid is the DM playing the game against the players since that's not the role of the DM. Nor is it to simply tell a story. The role of the DM is to present the world to the players, describe what their characters see, adjudicate the rules, and most importantly to roleplay the NPCs.

Sometimes it makes sense for the NPC to take the coup-de-grace action. If that's the case then they do it, if it's not the case then they don't. It should not be because the DM feels like it would be 'more challenging' or that 'so and so was stupid so this will show them' or the flip side. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for them to do so.

In either case going against the nature of the NPC disrupts any immersion you might have in this game, as it puts on the table 'out of character' issues and addresses them inside the game. It's a mistake.

One case where I had an NPC do a coup-de-grace was in 3.5 where the party was fighting a fiendish beholder. Not only an evil beholder mind you, but a fiendish one! Mechanically all of the beholder's attacks are free action eye rays, so it really has it's full round action available whenever it wants as long as it's not moving or double moving, etc. The party melee fighter had closed with it, jumped at it to attack, did some damage, fell and then was put to sleep by the sleep ray.

The rest of the party is not threatening the beholder, it's decidedly evil and cruel, it has a full round action available to it, and that smite good just looked so tempting to it as it would never otherwise have a decent use for it.

Now it happens that the player rolls a natural 20 for his fort save vs death (out in the open and everything), but if he didn't then the death would have been on the heads of the party and not the DM. They could have taken actions that would have woken the fighter, but they didn't. But that didn't weigh into the decision. It was simply 'what would this nasty evil creature do'?

I do admit to having the beholder say to the fighter that the rest of the party was just using him, having left him to die, he would do better to work for a more powerful master (charm ray hits but he saves), etc.. But it did have me wonder why the players didn't try to do something to rescue the fighter before it came to this (the fighter had been asleep for a full round as the beholder first moved to be directly over him).

Perhaps they encountered other DMs that felt that attacking a downed PC 'isn't cricket' and thus the players felt that the fighter lying helpless below a total evil and despicable creature trying to kill them all was the safest place in the world for him to be...

Now think on that for a minute. How much sense does that make in-game? Personally I say shame on their other DMs for such metagaming and leading those players to do the same by their example,

James

51 to 100 of 247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / To kill a downed player? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.