Ive been gaming a long time but am new to the system. (Well not really, I played 2nd Ed way back but it was centuries ago)
Occasionally the confines of the rules compromise the storyline. When this occurs do you guys adhere to the "game" or deviate to let the plot flow?
For example - a 2nd level thief manages to sneak up on the sentry guarding the gate into the citadel. He backstabs but the players and GM realize that even with maximum damage rolls he cant kill the guy right off, he is going to live to fight at least another round. Sort of anti climatic after a great stealthy approach and all.
Do you implement some hand-wavy rule option to give him a chance to slit the guard's throat silently (3x damage or something, or maybe make the guard make a save to avoid buying it instantly)
Thoughts?
I don't change the rules to tell a "better story." The "story" is not something I'm actively creating, it's the thing that happens later, when we're all talking about what happened. If I wanted to "build a story," I'd play an RPG designed for that, like FATE (I hate FATE, personally, but I hate the idea of artificially creating a story and other disassociative game mechanics, and FATE is designed specifically with those in mind).
In short, no, I don't change the rules. However, the rules are not set up in a way that is conducive to Rogues not sucking. Ok, that's mostly a joke, but the kind of stealth situation you describe does not work because of the nature of Hit Points. So, if I want to play a more serious game where this kind of backstabbing is doable, I play a different RPG.
In other words, my advice is:
If you want to play a game where rogues sneak up and slit guard's throats, don't play Pathfinder.
Edit: The mechanic you're looking for is Coup de Grace, by the way. If the enemy is helpless, you can deal an automatic crit to them, and they have to make a Fort save with a DC = 10 + damage dealt or die instantly. So, if you're stubborn and want to stick to Pathfinder, you could rule that a totally unaware person is helpless for the purposes of coup de grace (or create a Rogue talent that allows that).
|
I think the OP's problem is that, even with a crit, the rogue is doing 3d6 damage, which unless boosted by other static bonuses, the average is barely enough to drop a level 1 warrior, and certainly not enough to take him past (minus CON) hp.
It's difficult for a rogue to one-shot an NPC of similar level, but it's not difficult to see why the game is built that way.
If you imagine from the other perspective, how much fun are players going to have, if their PCs an be one-shotted by an NPC rogue of similar level to one of them?
And once you've set a precedent, that a rogue can kill with one blow, what are the knock-on effects, at higher levels? Do you want a situation, where an NPC rogue is automatically taking out one PC per round? Or where four level 8 PCs are minding their own business, and a passing rogue 8 throws off her disguise, and slaughters all four in a surprise round? (Two weapons, haste, iterative attack at BAB6.)
Of course, other classes do have moves that can take out opponents of equal level, but they are often limited uses per day, and GMs tend to shy away from them, for fear of being labelled a jerk killer GM (case in point, a recent thread where a GM was castigated for having a kobold sorcerer color spray and sleep to defeat a whole party, despite these being valid tactics for any PC.)
It's one thing to be able to one shot an enemy whenever the rogue sets up a situation where they are sneak attacking.
It's a whole different thing when the rogue one shots an enemy during the surprise round.
I agree, once combat has really started, it shouldn't be possible without some really lucky rolls mixed in with a very solid character to just off creatures and NPCs all over the place, but during a surprise round when the rogue has every conceivable advantage on his side? There really should be some extra bonus damage there to increase the chance of "slitting a guard's throat", especially when you're starting to deal with things significantly lower than your CR.
Nothing says Bad Ass(TM) like having a 5% chance of possibly having the opportunity of making a mook pass out (Protip: Hyperbole).
I do things like that all the time to keep things fun for the players, especially when fighting the cannon fodder.
I would certainly fudge things to accommodate a player's good planning and narratively interesting actions. In the example the OP gave, the guard would be toast unless his survival or not was a critical part of the plot/scenario.
The rules are there to facilitate you having fun pretending to be fantasy heroes. They are not a straightjacket within which you have to struggle to achieve anything.
For example - a 2nd level thief manages to sneak up on the sentry guarding the gate into the citadel. He backstabs but the players and GM realize that even with maximum damage rolls he cant kill the guy right off, he is going to live to fight at least another round. Sort of anti climatic after a great stealthy approach and all.Do you implement some hand-wavy rule option to give him a chance to slit the guard's throat silently (3x damage or something, or maybe make the guard make a save to avoid buying it instantly)
Thoughts?
Absolutely. The idea of slitting someone's throat from behind is hardly beyond the realms of possibility either. At a rough guess, I'd be happy with a 2nd level thief that can sneak up behind an NPC of equal or lower level using "backstab" to slit their throat from behind and take them out instantly if it's done outside of combat involving other participants. Or I'll give them some kind of check to throw them off the battlements, or into the moat, or anything else the player wants to attempt that sounds like it'll work.
I saw a post by James Jacobs the other day in which he said "Story trumps Rules" (in the context of how he does things, not how he feels everyone else should), and I've since adopted it as my catchphrase. The rulebook is a toolkit for me to implement "world physics", and not a book of laws. When I feel the rulebook's definition of something isn't suitable, I don't hestitate to throw it away. I'm not playing against the players, and they're not trying to beat me, we're working together to tell a fantasy story that we all enjoy.
That doesn't mean the above works for every group, but it works for mine.
Granted, players and GM should agree on these sorts of things before they're sitting around arguing about why the party TPK'ed.And that goes for the OP's question too, make sure your whole group is on the same page as to how they want to run these things.
Oh, absolutely. I always try and recruit like-minded players, letting them know in advance what kind of game it'll be, what the story vs rules balance is, what the setting is, how much creativity they'll be given, etc.
One of the first games I ran I got burned because I decided to introduce an uncle for one of the characters as a plot hook, and the player hated me messing with "their family". Nowadays I make it clear up front what kind of things I expect to be able to do as GM, and what kind of things they should expect to be able to do too.
I doubt they're the first, but I know they said it before James Jacob posted it, so I give you the earliest known statement of "Story Trumps Rules".
LOL! And yeah, that's precisely the situation I try to avoid by vetting my players in advance now :)
I saw a post by James Jacobs the other day in which he said "Story trumps Rules" (in the context of how he does things, not how he feels everyone else should), and I've since adopted it as my catchphrase. The rulebook is a toolkit for me to implement "world physics", and not a book of laws. When I feel the rulebook's definition of something isn't suitable, I don't hestitate to throw it away. I'm not playing against the players, and they're not trying to beat me, we're working together to tell a fantasy story that we all enjoy.
This just goes to show that roleplaying means different things to different people. To me, the idea that "story trumps rules" and that you're "working together to tell a fantasy story" is so far away from roleplaying as I know it, we are almost talking about different hobbies.
To me, and those I play with, immersion is the most important factor, and directly manipulating the story is essentially the opposite of immersion. The rules inform that immersion, so in Pathfinder, we are immersed in a world in which it is basically impossible to sneak up and kill a conscious person that is a threat to you in combat in one hit (since it's pretty easy to one-shot someone that's significantly lower level). This world is not like the real world, but it is the world we're playing in if we're playing Pathfinder.
Of course, Pathfinder is never really my first choice of game...
To me, and those I play with, immersion is the most important factor, and directly manipulating the story is essentially the opposite of immersion. The rules inform that immersion, so in Pathfinder, we are immersed in a world in which it is basically impossible to sneak up and kill a conscious person that is a threat to you in combat in one hit (since it's pretty easy to one-shot someone that's significantly lower level). This world is not like the real world, but it is the world we're playing in if we're playing Pathfinder.Of course, Pathfinder is never really my first choice of game...
I think that's one of the coolest things about the hobby as a whole though - there isn't "one true way" and different people come to it with different styles, needs, and wishes.
I've experienced similar things in the wargaming world - the split between the players that get together to fight a battle against each other, and those who get together to set up a specific scenario to see how it plays out. The latter are far more likely to agree on a new rule in the middle of the game for something like "what if I use my grenade pack to blow up this bridge? There's no actual rules for it, but technically I ought to be able to...", while to the former the very idea is preposterous.
Not that it's ever that black and white of course, as you get various shades of grey between the two in both hobbies.
The funny thing is, my groups over the years have been "immersion first" too. It's just we tend to immerse ourselves in the setting and the story. The shared environment in our minds is what informs our immersion, with the rulebook being a default that we can choose to override when it doesn't feel like it fits properly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do use one universal fudge rule, though. Unless an enemy has ferocity or some other ability that lets him fight on at negative HP, NPCs and other villains die at zero HP or less. Why? Because I don't think it's very heroic to go, "OK, they're all below zero HP. Now let's kill them all while they're knocked out."
Make sure the players are aware of that, before they play.
I was in a PFS session once, and the mission required us to bring back an enemy for questioning.
We were jumped by some of these, and none of us in the combat pulled our punches, because we knew none of us had a hope in hell of dropping anyone to (minus CON) even with crits (this was an ambush, and the PC heavy hitter was unable to get into the fight.).
We dropped them, and started tying them up, and casting stabilise.
The GM asked why we were doing that, and we said, to question them later, and he sprung on us that he had every non-PC die at -1 hp.
Thanks a bunch.
Luckily, we were able to keep going, and find some more enemies, and these we made a point of dealing some non-lethal damage, so we could take them alive.
But it could so easily have been a failed mission, over something that really is a houserule, and not the rules as written.
Be aware also, that having every NPC die below 0hp makes any of their leaders with stabilise, cures, or positive-channeling clerics much less useful. You may want to drop their CR accordingly.
|
|
I've experienced similar things in the wargaming world - the split between the players that get together to fight a battle against each other, and those who get together to set up a specific scenario to see how it plays out. The latter are far more likely to agree on a new rule in the middle of the game for something like "what if I use my grenade pack to blow up this bridge? There's no actual rules for it, but technically I ought to be able to...", while to the former the very idea is preposterous.
If we were learning a game, and we came to such a point, where the rules on destroying scenery didn't exist, or weren't known or clear, we'd discuss it, and probably agree to some compromise with something that made sense during the game, with the understanding that we'd check it out after.
There'd be an understanding that this was a stopgap to avoid holding up the game.If we were playtesting a game that didn't yet have rules written for the situation, we'd do the same, and pass the suggestions on to the writers.
If we were playing a game, where it had been canonically proven, that bridges were immune to that kind of blast? I'd be less willing to allow an opponent to suddenly pull it out of his rear, with or without a referee coming over to adjudicate.
For example - a 2nd level thief manages to sneak up on the sentry guarding the gate into the citadel. He backstabs but the players and GM realize that even with maximum damage rolls he cant kill the guy right off, he is going to live to fight at least another round. Sort of anti climatic after a great stealthy approach and all.
My question is, how do the players realize that the result is not going to be a kill? Are they privy to the guard's hit points? They ought not be.
I guess I can understand if the damage roll was so abysmal they cannot fathom it would be enough to kill, even with a sneak attack. But even then, the GM should be the only one who ultimately knows if it was a kill.
I keep as much control over the knowledge of the enemies' stats as possible, to the point where it is understood that I rarely use a creature from a bestiary without altering it at least a little (there is always a story explanation for the alteration). My players are totally in the dark about that stuff, so if I need to fudge for some reason (I'd prefer not to, but if I NEED to), there is little to no worry about whether I've done so.
Typically, though, I do not fudge during combat unless it would be a real game breaker.
On the other hand, I do fill my games with plenty of magic and tropes not necessarily covered by rules. I used this example in another thread: I might, for instance, create a scenario in which a ghoul destroyed by the party reappears the next night, and every night, until they find and destroy the cursed talisman that keeps regenerating it. That is not typical for a ghoul, RAW, but it is the way in which I ignore rules or don't worry about them, when creating story points.
All that said, remember the GM's Best Friend. The rulebook actually encourages the GM to add or subtract a +2 or -2 to die rolls, stats, whatever, whenever an unusual situation not necessarily covered by the rules comes up. So in the case of the sneak attacking rogue, if the situation called for it (for instance, the whole table felt the Stealth roll was so spectacular it called for special circumstances), the GM could add that +2 to damage before calculating the sneak attack damage.
I've experienced similar things in the wargaming world - the split between the players that get together to fight a battle against each other, and those who get together to set up a specific scenario to see how it plays out. The latter are far more likely to agree on a new rule in the middle of the game for something like "what if I use my grenade pack to blow up this bridge? There's no actual rules for it, but technically I ought to be able to...", while to the former the very idea is preposterous.If we were learning a game, and we came to such a point, where the rules on destroying scenery didn't exist, or weren't known or clear, we'd discuss it, and probably agree to some compromise with something that made sense during the game, with the understanding that we'd check it out after.
There'd be an understanding that this was a stopgap to avoid holding up the game.If we were playtesting a game that didn't yet have rules written for the situation, we'd do the same, and pass the suggestions on to the writers.
If we were playing a game, where it had been canonically proven, that bridges were immune to that kind of blast? I'd be less willing to allow an opponent to suddenly pull it out of his rear, with or without a referee coming over to adjudicate.
I'd place you in what I tend to call the "competitive wargamer" group (I hope you don't take offence at the term, it's just a convenient box for the sake of labelling a playstyle.), and tend to be players of more modern systems like Warhammer with points values and balanced forces.
The other, for the sake of a better name, I call "simulation wargamers", and usually tend to play games with uneven sides to represent historical (or fictional) scenarios, and therefore really don't care about winners and losers. Sometimes they'll be making up the rules as they go anyway, and their main focus is on seeing how certain tactics can change the tide of the battle "What if Napoleon's reinforcements arrived on time? What if the 2nd Armored Company were not under the leadership of General Incompetence and were up on the ridge as they were supposed to be?"
In your example above, I'm thinking more along the lines of "The rulebook doesn't say anything about blowing up bridges, but common sense says I ought to at least be able to try, right? Besides, it's only made of wood!"
Someone usually hits me over the head at this point for trying to box people in two groups, but it really is just a way to illustrate two wildly differing yet still valid playstyles. Especially as some people play and enjoy both ;)
|
No I don't waive the rules for the sake of story. The rogue example given is like many when this type of discussion comes up: the problem isn't in the rules, it's in the desire for the story to be cooler to be in conflict that this is something possible, but at a higher level for the character or with different tactics and/or equipment. I don't want to take away the difference between play at level X vs level X-plus.
Lots of challenges scale with level, making level differences somewhat moot. One-shorting a low level guard isn't one of them. A 2nd level rogue isn't particularly capable of insuring the one shot will take him down. Take him to 3rd, and it's now close to assured. Take it to 5th level, and it would be a rare event to fail.
Sometimes, but not for easy kills etc.
The rogue indeed should have a "dafuq?" experience, but not slicing his throat could lead him to want to learn to slice better? ;)
There are abilities for this:
Death Attack (Assassin 1)
Assassinate (Ninja 10, advanced ninja trick)
Don't both of those have fairly low DCs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Death Attack is 10 + Assassin Level + Int.
Assassinate is 10 + 1/2 Ninja Level + Cha.
At the minimum level you can get it (6th), Death Attack is the same DC as a 1st level spell. This sucks. It reaches its highest at a minimu7m of level 15, where it has a DC of a 10th level spell (yes, I know there aren't any). This is good.
Assassinate progresses like any spell-like ability DC, so is average.
At level 20, both DCs are 20 + stat.
If you're facing enemies that would be little more than cannon fodder in a fair fight, then I wouldn't really see an issue with "I sneak up and slit his throat." Level 2 might not be the right level for that to happen flawlessly though.
When players are planning things like this I will usually provide info on how I'm going to use the rules. That lets players make their plans with full knowledge of how I'm going to run the mechanics. It doesn't guarantee them success, but it keeps them from being in a different world when I tell them how we're going to adjudicate the action. It also allows them to plan without having to guess what I'm going to do. Sometimes it stops them, sometimes it helps them find the right set of actions. If they don't ask though they don't get the info.
I'm generally willing to give some leeway in actions that build the story. Me and my players want to have fun and make headway in the campaign, so if it helps why not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ive been gaming a long time but am new to the system. (Well not really, I played 2nd Ed way back but it was centuries ago)
Occasionally the confines of the rules compromise the storyline. When this occurs do you guys adhere to the "game" or deviate to let the plot flow?
For example - a 2nd level thief manages to sneak up on the sentry guarding the gate into the citadel. He backstabs but the players and GM realize that even with maximum damage rolls he cant kill the guy right off, he is going to live to fight at least another round. Sort of anti climatic after a great stealthy approach and all.
Do you implement some hand-wavy rule option to give him a chance to slit the guard's throat silently (3x damage or something, or maybe make the guard make a save to avoid buying it instantly)
Thoughts?
I always, always, always stretch the rules in order to make a better story...or rather, adjust the story to the improve the enjoyment of the players around the table ( different players being greater or lesser rules lawyers mea s I adapt this to their personality).
Reason: to me point of roleplaying to to tell a mutually enjoyable story within a mutual agreed framework...not to defeat the GM in a rules-defined intellectual duel
(thats what wargames and boardgames are for, which I also play).
On one forum, my signature is "'rules are GUIDELINES" (i.e. only suggestions on good practice, but ones that should be ignored with a clear conscience when the situation warrants) ...which sums my GMing style up
Some people play roleplaying games as an intellectual duel -personally I think they're missing the best parts of the hobby, ...., but (shrug) different strokes for different folks.
Much like with sex, if everyone involved is having a good time, then (while I may not be interested in doing it that way myself), I say "go to it".
.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They way I look at it is it's a game, so the player's experience is the most important thing. If I only want to adhere to a strict rule set, I can go do some HTML programming. I've had mobs hit because the story necessitated they hit, just like I've had them miss because the story necessitated they miss. I've had a heroic attack that should have left the BBEG with 5 hit points kill him instead, and I've had BBEGs mysteriously come back from the dead later because the players hatred of them enhanced their experience.
If they are enjoying the thrill of victory as well as the occasional agony of defeat, you're doing it right. If they keep showing up to sessions, and ideally occasionally ask to play more often, you're doing it right.
|
Ive been gaming a long time but am new to the system. (Well not really, I played 2nd Ed way back but it was centuries ago)
Occasionally the confines of the rules compromise the storyline. When this occurs do you guys adhere to the "game" or deviate to let the plot flow?
For example - a 2nd level thief manages to sneak up on the sentry guarding the gate into the citadel. He backstabs but the players and GM realize that even with maximum damage rolls he cant kill the guy right off, he is going to live to fight at least another round. Sort of anti climatic after a great stealthy approach and all.
Do you implement some hand-wavy rule option to give him a chance to slit the guard's throat silently (3x damage or something, or maybe make the guard make a save to avoid buying it instantly)
Thoughts?
I am sure all sorts of opinions have been posted up thread. I guess to answer the OP's question, I guess i happen to see the rules as something that helps give me the GM a conduit through which i can tell a story in which my players PCs are the main characters. When the rules get in the way of the story, I feel as the GM, I can bend the rules to suite the story.
But this is just my opinion. There isn't a right or wrong answer.
I hope this helps.
Ive been gaming a long time but am new to the system. (Well not really, I played 2nd Ed way back but it was centuries ago)
Occasionally the confines of the rules compromise the storyline. When this occurs do you guys adhere to the "game" or deviate to let the plot flow?
For example - a 2nd level thief manages to sneak up on the sentry guarding the gate into the citadel. He backstabs but the players and GM realize that even with maximum damage rolls he cant kill the guy right off, he is going to live to fight at least another round. Sort of anti climatic after a great stealthy approach and all.
Do you implement some hand-wavy rule option to give him a chance to slit the guard's throat silently (3x damage or something, or maybe make the guard make a save to avoid buying it instantly)
Thoughts?
In my games I find myself bending the story for rules of the game. We base our PF in a much more realistic manner than most would probably bother with, so we run into conflicts constantly (sometimes I cringe at the amount of house rules I have made). Just a few months ago I ended up making entirely new systems for Stealth so as to allow it to function on a mechanical level (mostly dealing with modifiers for your clothing color contrasting to the environment, feet wear noise creation versus ground type, among too many others). Whereas people would change or forfeit rules for the sake of the story, I've found myself creating rules for it; and for the sake of having the "game" portion of what we've come to refer as our Roleplay. "There's not enough rules" is never something I thought I would associate with 3rd edition style mechanics.
In anycase; in your example I would (and have in the past) rule that successfully sneaking up on someone that is wholly unaware or prepared for danger, and then slicing their throat, will result in death for most humanoid creatures, no damage rolls required. Rolling to successfully maneuver yourself in relation to the attack might be enforced, circumstances providing. A roll might be necessary at lower levels (versus the level of the person attacked if equal or higher or their predisposition for these attacks) to ensure the attack is made quietly so as not to alert other people nearby. The ruling for instant death becomes more complex if the person attacked is of a non-standard variety of humanoid, or if they're not humanoid period. That'll be a case-by-case basis.
At the end of the day I and my players play PnP because we like telling/following/creating stories and memories. It's fun, so that will always be paramount to the decisions I, as my groups assumed life-long GM (gods save me), make. Sneaking up on a guard and rolling for sneak attack damage, only to not even down the guy might be "correct" in strict terms of the rules -- but whether the Rogue is going to find it fun isn't so black and white.
|
|
I've sometimes bent the rules, where the rules in question were an abstraction, that was getting in the way of realistic results.
Playing the game on a square grid often results in strange situations, which would not have come up on a gridless map, or in no-minis play.
Taking cover while shooting is something that can't be done, when the shooter has to be wholly in this square (totally behind cover, blocked line of sight), or that square (standing in the open, begging to be shot).
Shooting over battlements, or through arrowslits is another.
By RAW, both shooter and target always have the same level of cover from each other, but that would be silly.
I don't care if I can't 'trace a line from the corner of the shooter's square to any corner of the target', if the target is stood in the open, and the shooter is firing from a defensive position designed for firing from.
So, yes, I'll bend the rules to allow such shots, or to allow prepared attackers with surprise to lean around a corner to avoid the miss chance.
But I wouldn't increase the minimum damage for a level 2 sneak attack, to be an autokill, because I'm mindful of how this will escalate.
The high-BAB classes will demand to know "How could anyone survive a sword blow to the head? That should be a auto-kill."
The arcanists would ask "If I snuck up and pointed my finger in his ear, my magic missile should be a brain-shot, so it should be an auto-kill!".
The clerics would say "If I'm behind the target, touching the back of his head, when I cast inflict wounds, the damage should be dealt to his optic nerves, blinding him."
And would you be prepared to allow an NPC level 2 rogue autokill a PC?
Would you be prepared for the fallout, if that happened?
If the answer to either of those is no, it probably shouldn't be an option for the PC.
Shooting over battlements, or through arrowslits is another.
By RAW, both shooter and target always have the same level of cover from each other, but that would be silly.
I don't care if I can't 'trace a line from the corner of the shooter's square to any corner of the target', if the target is stood in the open, and the shooter is firing from a defensive position designed for firing from.
Slight tangent, but there's actually a rule that sort-of-kind-of covers this situation that I was unaware of until recently.
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.
Battlements and crenlations and the like provide cover for those within 30 feet, and if the attacker is standing right at the edge of the wall and firing, he gets a clear shot at anyone not directly on the other side.
Also, re: arrowslits:
Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.
Combine the two rules, and the attacker gets double cover, Improved Evasion, and +10 to Stealth against enemies on the other side, but it still allows for the money shot when Legolas/Hawkeye/whoever rolls high enough to shoot an arrow straight through the arrowslit and hit the guy right in the face as he's taking aim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually came across a quote from James Jacobs in an old thread about whether or not Blink and Displacement stack with one another that I think is relevant here. Including a bit more of the block quote for context (emphasis mine):
To clarify: I didn't read your edit as a direct quote from Mr. Jacobs.
That being said, I am utterly aghast that he would rule the spell as such. I thought one of the intention of Pathfinder was to reduce the god-like status of arcane spellcasters compared to melee. Making them nearly untouchable as low as level 5 with the application of only two defensive spells is not right.
Nerfing Great Cleave, without even any real explanation why the images would not count as separate adjacent targets for the purpose of cleaving them, is beyond my comprehension.
Damn right I won't be ruling it that way. It's unbelievably wrong.
Wow. "Utterly aghast" seems like a pretty strong reaction. "Nearly untouchable" and "god-like" are also great examples of internet overreaction.
First: If you think it's so wrong that it insults and harrows you to the core of everything you know... don't listen to me. Run the spell the way you want.
Personally, I probably WOULD allow cleave/great cleave to take out mirror images, but folks didn't ask me how I would run things. They asked me for an interpretation of the rules as written, which, in my opinion, is a TERRIBLE way to slave yourself to the game. If you as the GM can't adjust the rules as you wish to make the game more fun for you and your players' play style, you might as well just be playing an MMORPG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it will make the story and game more fun for all involved(including me as DM), I will stretch, twist and pull apart the rules to the 9 hells and back. Fun and immersion are most important to me, clunky numbers always take a back seat.
I'm not saying I fudge everything, my games do have a solid mechanical structure, but if something is just not working, players are getting bored, and/or is just plain unfun, I will grab it by it's scrawny neck and make it into something else.
For example, If the players are spending an hour or more wailing away on an enemy with massive DR and HP, but this enemy isn't causing much of a threat to the players, it's likely going to die much sooner than it's remaining HP would say. If something is unfun and contrary, I will push it out of the way so we can proceed on to the next thing.
I'm not going to just dump encounters and hand out free xp, but I have enough foresight that I can see when something goes from a normal encounter, to grindy boringness. This goes for story elements as well; if the group just does not seem interested in what's going on, then I will do what I can to quickly wrap it up(or just drop it) and try something else.
Example:
I was running a Star Wars Saga game in the Old Republic a few years ago. I had enough adventure material to take the party from level 1-20+. We played for over a year, everyone was up to about level 12 or so, and the game started coming apart. Some players had new jobs with wonky sechdules, I was getting married, basically we had a ton of distraction that were making it more and more difficult to meet up and play. We didn't want to just kill the game, but real life was preventing progress.
As such, some players started losing interest in side-quests and things not tied directly to the main plot, so I fast-forwarded the plot for the sake of closure. It meant chopping off about 5 or so full adventures, and manually rescaling a ton of high level foes(sith lords and all), but I did it for the sake of the group.
We basically "skipped to the end." Actual level numbers and stats don't mean much in the size and scale of a game; all that matters is that the players are challenged and make use of what they have at hand. A Sith Lord is still a Sith Lord, whether it's level 6 or 18, so long as it's challenging to a non-Sith Lord player.
Story-wise, their Republic contacts made a breakthrough discovery and deduced the exact location of the Sith base the players were looking for. The players made their way to the base, fought through a horde of level-adjusted Sith foes, and got all the way to the Sith Lords chamber door...
And we ran out of time. We never finished it. But, we got pretty dang far. I'm hoping we get back to it someday for that one, last session and finish it.
Ive been gaming a long time but am new to the system. (Well not really, I played 2nd Ed way back but it was centuries ago)
Occasionally the confines of the rules compromise the storyline. When this occurs do you guys adhere to the "game" or deviate to let the plot flow?
For example - a 2nd level thief manages to sneak up on the sentry guarding the gate into the citadel. He backstabs but the players and GM realize that even with maximum damage rolls he cant kill the guy right off, he is going to live to fight at least another round. Sort of anti climatic after a great stealthy approach and all.
Do you implement some hand-wavy rule option to give him a chance to slit the guard's throat silently (3x damage or something, or maybe make the guard make a save to avoid buying it instantly)
Thoughts?
A rule a friend threw in covered precisely this. A sneak attack against an average joe guard by a rogue, counts as a coup de grace with a KO or kill option. The guard had no idea, the rogue has the time to put them down, like the cool thief in the night they are meant to be.
Because otherwise, the rogue with the great weapon can take out a level 1 fighter or warrior, but the rogue with the short sword perfectly suited to shivving has real trouble. That didn't seem right to us at all.
I would give the rouge a chance if he made a very good stealth roll then use the CDG rules that way if he's lucky he can one shot the guard or you could give the rouge his sneak attack then if the guard lives roll initiative and if the rouge goes first in the next round he can sneak attack again
|
I'm not against changing the rules, but it's generally a good idea to have a good look at the existing rules first. In this situation I think the existing rules work fine.
A rogue doesn't automatically succeed at slitting someone's throat any more than a fighter automatically succeeds at decapitating someone with an attack. When you attack, you're looking for the best opening in your opponent's defenses. The damage roll is supposed to indicate how successful your attack is - whether you managed to land a vital blow or not. If you roll high damage, you slit someone's throat. Low damage: kidney stab. The increased sneak attack damage dice of an experienced rogue indicates that he/she is more skilled at cutting an unaware person's throat (bringing a weapon within their field of vision) rather than just stabbing them in the kidneys.
If you want the character to actually try for a cool attack instead of cool results just happening whenever someone rolls a crit / max damage, called shots mechanics work nicely to indicate that the character is passing up his best opening (taking a penalty to succeed)to try for an extra-devastating attack.
They had to be unaware, it worked because it sped up gameplay (and was a rule made to do precisely this).
No, I am silent as a mouse, I sneak attack the standard guard in the head, and he turns around slightly injured.
This was less of a problem with x3 backstabs.
This houserule did not apply to heroes, powerful npcs or uber monsters. It was about mook slaying.
The way I see it, a level 1 or 2 or 3 rogue isn't skilled enough to one shot an NPC from behind. I'd let the attack occur as in a surprise round, if the guard was not aware, and count damage normallu. If the rogue's attack plus sneak attack plus other bonuses was enough to kill the guard in the surprise round, so be it. If he misses or doesn't do enough damage, well, that's the risk the rogue took knowing he was not skilled enough to guarantee the guard's death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, a level 1 or 2 or 3 rogue isn't skilled enough to one shot an NPC from behind. I'd let the attack occur as in a surprise round, if the guard was not aware, and count damage normallu. If the rogue's attack plus sneak attack plus other bonuses was enough to kill the guard in the surprise round, so be it. If he misses or doesn't do enough damage, well, that's the risk the rogue took knowing he was not skilled enough to guarantee the guard's death.
The problem is that this makes sense in a world where everyone is a differently sized bag of hit points. But in any kind of realistic world, just about anyone is physically capable of killing a guy in one hit from a knife that he can't see coming (whether they're psychologically able to do it is another story, though).
So, the idea of a rogue "not skilled enough" to murder someone is silly--all the skill involved in murdering is in getting them unawares. The actual killing takes no skill, just willingness. A totally unskilled 10 year old that jams a knife into your neck has still killed you in one hit.
The problem here is that the rules weren't made for this situation. They were made to handle two aware combatants slugging it out. D&D style Hit Points* as a conceit just utterly fail when it comes to killing someone that is unaware (or helpless--the fort save not to die from a coup de grace is testament to that), but it's just so easy to be caught unaware that the game wouldn't actually be fun anymore if insta-killing an unaware target were a thing because it would happen constantly to the PCs.
The possible solutions are:
1) Houserule something like allowing a rogue to coup de grace someone caught unaware out of combat, possibly through a talent
2) Use something like the original d20 Star War's Vitality system where HP is like a fast regenerating cushion and Vitality is your actual physical health. Normal attacks have to go through your ablative HP armor, but certain ones (like crits, for example) go straight to Vitality.
3) Accept that D&D wasn't really meant to handle this kind of thing and play within the boundaries of the world set up by those rules (for this, you'd just internalize the fact that sneaking up and hitting someone unawares isn't a death sentence and plan your tactics accordingly).
4) Play a better game that is more suited for sneaky killing (practically every game that isn't d20 based, and even some that are).
5) Make some crap up on the spot because you are more concerned with directly manipulating the story than you are on playing roles and experiencing the consequences of your choices within a given set of parameters.
Ok, so I know I made that last one sound bad, but honestly, if that's what you're into (and that's totally cool if you are), there are games made specifically tailored to your tastes. FATE is a good example. Personally, I hate it with the passion of a million burning suns but many who like direct story manipulation consider the holy grail of gaming.
*For reference, "D&D Style Hit Points" are those that increase automatically with level. Many systems have "realistic" hit points where they stay basically the same no matter how awesome you are because they represent actual physical damage and not some other factor like luck/fatigue/close dodges/etc.
Yeah I think you get it, and I like your point that its a hp slog system not quite working with a sneak attack, which should probably be a coup de grace, but instead is meant to, by the rules, just be an attack against a lower ac with more damage.
One reason I liked garrottes in 3.5. Oh they survived the sneak, that is nice, they are now grappled, being choked, not letting out much noise, (apart from flailing about possibly in a cone of silence--thanks mage) and taking sneak again every round. Yeah, if it takes 12 seconds to kill them or 18, no biggie unless another patrol comes along.
If one were to use coup de grace on oblivious mook rule, could throw in a second check. A stealth check to see if they kill them loudly or quietly. If they do it via normal sneak, then its a subtle kill, if they go the coup, it could get loud. :P
