| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Over a long period of play, I've come to observe that my GM friend and I have fundamentally different view points on how Hero Points should work when used to cheat death. We continue to try to find common ground, but if a solution isn't found soon, I fear the Hero Point rules may soon be thrown out altogether in our games.
I am writing this post not to bash my GM or to say his way is "wrong." (It's not, his rulings are fair, if a bit harsh. It's just not the way I would do it in my game, nor the way I would like it to be when I play under him). I am writing this to hear about how other people use this particular Hero Point option in their games--out of mere curiosity. If it happens to help provide a better understanding for one or both of us, then all the better for it!
Here are the Cheat Death rules for easy reference:
Some examples of how my GM and I see the rule:
In a recent spell battle against cultists inside a rickety bell tower over two-hundred feet tall, the tower collapsed instantly killing everyone inside from damage alone (the GM wisely used the Cave-Ins and Collapses rules--as I would have).
Two of the PCs, and several enemies were caught in the collapse and were instantly killed by the damage alone. The other player and I, whose PCs died, said that we would use Hero Points to cheat death. The GM pretty much flat out told us that there was no point. Even if we used the Hero Points to not die from the damage, we would still be buried alive and would run out of air before we had any hope of escape or rescue. And that assumed that the enemies didn't do a search for our bodies.
This is not the first time he's ruled in this fashion. In another game, our characters were captured and hanged. One character managed to escape the noose, but failed to rescue his companion, who was then hanged after the commotion died down. The player to the hanged character wanted to use two Hero Points to cheat death, saying that they were hanged into unconsciousness (possibly even with a broken neck) and then discarded into a ditch somewhere only to regain consciousness--a testament to the character's sheer toughness and durability--something the character was built for. The player in question also enjoyed goth themes with vampires and stuff, so the opportunity to "sort of" rise from the dead would have been an amazing scene for them to roleplay out. However, the GM stated plainly that executioners generally check to ensure their victims are dead.
In past games, after using Hero Points to cheat death during a battle, astute enemies would take note that we are not quite dead and make us quite dead. I am not certain that we have ever been able to use the Cheat Death option without much fuss, which I find odd, because we implemented the Hero Point rules to increase character survivability to begin with (we tend to underperform in Paizo adventure paths for some reason).
Contrast that to how I might have run those scenarios: If player characters had been caught in a tower collapse and killed, but spent two Hero Points to Cheat Death, I would have them be alive and stable 1 hit point away from death. They would be buried in a small pocket of debris which gives them just enough air to allow for someone (PC or NPC) to come rescue them. We see this in rescue dramas on TV all the time. It's exciting, doesn't force anyone to reroll new characters, and doesn't cheapen those oh so rare Hero Points.
If a player wanted to survive a hanging as described above, I would also allow it, saying that the hangman was incompetent, or half drunk, or distracted, or rushed or any number of a hundred other reasons why they might have botched the checking a pulse.
In short, I allow the character to survive the given danger/scenario, letting them move on to the next encounter. My GM on the other hand, is of the opinion that spending those Hero Points will only stave off the immediate danger/attack one time.
In short, its staving off drowning for one more round (meaning you drown anyways) versus a mermaid coming out of nowhere and rescuing you.
Every example above actually occurred in our games, and in every case the GM ruled as described and I argued the point until he relented and let us live (though rarely in the fashion I would like). As an unfortunate result, he now has a reputation in our group of being overly harsh, and I now have a reputation for throwing fits every time a character dies.
Which way do you rule in your games and why? Am I just a player with an overinflated sense of entitlement and too much attachment to his characters? Or is the GM being overly harsh and seriously devaluing Hero Points? The rules are not much help, as the example provided (getting shot) is extremely limited in scope or concept (it doesn't even consider the possibility that the shooter might stick around to check the body).
I generally rule like you do...else the whole cheat death thing makes no sense. You cheat death for about 5 seconds? Kinda pointless, especially with a 2 hero point cost. I would strongly disagree with the other GM on this as well. My vote goes toward the other GM being overly harsh and seriously devaluing hero points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would rule that, yes, you can use Hero Points to escape such situations. Why? Because it's not about realism (which is how your GM is playing it). It's about having fun and a good time. And if that means tossing realism out the window in favor of something that works better for everyone having fun, then out the window it goes.
I think the GM is being overly harsh.
Hmm..tough call. Before playing Pathfinder I was used to systems that included a mechanic like Hero Points into the base (Fate, True 20) so adding it to Pathfinder was no big jump for me. Spending two Hero Points isn't anything to sneeze at for the players so I don't want to nullify that, but it also doesn't negate the fact that there may be a threat still present. For instance, one time my party found themselves on small boats and a group of hungry lacedons attacking from the water below. Their skills at controlling the boats were less than adequate and one member went overboard and was killed by the lacedons underwater. He spent his two points to avoid death but that didn't negate the fact that he could still drown and I made him aware of this before he spent the points.
Essentially it bought him time and it was up to the rest of the party to try and retrieve him (they fished him out of the water and focused more on getting to shore rather than fighting in the boats afterwards). I would't have had some random NPC appear to save the character--the character's situation hasn't changed, they just got lucky and bought a reprieve for a moment. Usually in my game, when Hero Points get spent, its a sign that sh*t just got real and the next round is usually spent regrouping, retreating or focusing fire (which kinda makes sense. To use the example you cited from the book, the character that got shot would probably be thanking his lucky stars that he just managed to escape death and would try to find cover or reposition or just hightail it outta there).
For the two situations you mentioned, I would be on your side of things for the most part. For the collapse, I'd make sure that the players understood that while they'd survive the damage, there is no guarantee they can get out of the cave-in (i.e.: they're still buried, but alive at least) before they spend the points. If they have a plan on how to get out, then cool. Otherwise, I probably would just have them get excavated by the enemy and taken prisoner. It's not an optimal situation, but again, you are alive at least (after all, my goal as GM is to move the story forward and make sure everyone is having fun--not to TPK the party...usually). Completely denying the option of surviving it seems a bit railroad-y to me.
It could also be that the GM is just not used to the effect that Hero Points actually have on the game and is used to the lethality of RAW 3.5/Pathfinder rules. Having been in a reverse situation (going from having points to spend to playing 3.5 with no points) was jarring to me as I was always used to having "a backup" if I rolled poor or something.
He's a bit harsh.
It seems to me as if your GM has almost removed the option of using cheat death, and he is allowed to rule as he did, harsh as it may be.
It's not what I would have done; if players use 2 hero points to cheat death, they don't die. They may be ressed after a couple of days or weeks by an NPC with her own motives. But using cheat death does just that - it changes the outcome of an event from "dead and deal with it" to simply "not dead".
I don't strive for realism, but I do appreciate it. And people have survived for weeks in collapsed buildings, and people have been alive even when all experts claimed they were dead. For the ever careful executioner, spending two hero points means he was a bit off his game that day due to his wife being run over by a horse that morning... or your body suddenly disappears from the noose by way of magic.
But if he doesn't want you to use cheat death, he should just ban it. Maybe rename it to "die next round instead."
Let's try not to focus on my GM. Not trying to judge anyone here, just trying to get the lay of the land in other peoples' games.
...or your body suddenly disappears from the noose by way of magic.
Ironically, that's exactly how the GM said the character escaped, even though it wasn't necessarily what anyone wanted.
I don't strive for realism, but I do appreciate it. And people have survived for weeks in collapsed buildings, and people have been alive even when all experts claimed they were dead. For the ever careful executioner, spending two hero points means he was a bit off his game that day due to his wife being run over by a horse that morning... or your body suddenly disappears from the noose by way of magic.
I think part of the problem is some people can't think on their feet like others can or otherwise aren't as imaginative. A GM who can't come up with a plausible reason for why the character doesn't die quickly will likely end up not enjoying the cheat death rule as much.
Another part of the problem is that a lot of the harder "end-game" encounters (whereas the need for cheating death most often occurs) are held for last, when it is late enough in the evening, everyone is tired, and no one can really think on their feet easily.
During the tower collapse scenario, the others largely agreed with the GM I think. I mean, how does one survive something like that? Between being crushed to death, or suffocating to death, or being found alive by powerful enemies still on the field, it's pretty much impossible, right?
They asked me how I would rationalize the characters surviving, to which I immediately said to treat it like the rescue dramas on TV, where the rubble collapses in such away as to leave the heroes trapped in a small chamber with enough air left to either rescue themselves or get rescued by NPCs.
Judging from the looks on their faces, they hadn't even thought of that.
When my group has someone who's used Cheat Death, it has always resulted in the character stabilizing at maximum negative hit points. This might include ongoing bleed stopping or ongoing poison damage stopping, but does not include ongoing environmental damage. In other words, if you cheat death in the middle of a burning building, your comrades have until your turn comes up again to get you out or you'll have to cheat death a second time. Thank goodness for clerics with "reach spell".
PS: The cave-in and collapses link doesn't work for me, it says I've made too many requests for that page in too short a time.
The "OK you survive for one turn" save basically makes hero points worthless as a narrative device. I'm with Dork.
It is strictly a metagame mechanic in a game of imagination. That means you can think up anything, absolutely anything, as long as it makes a modicum of sense.
For me, that's pretty easy. Been dreaming up with stuff all my life. For others, maybe not so much (and it's hard for everyone when we are tired and unfocused).
When I DM, when a PC uses the cheat death option, they are alive (barely) and removed from any ongoing threat until they are brought back to positive hit points. Very deus ex machina, but I only award hero points for leveling up and at the end of an adventure arc. If a character blows two points to save his skin, it gets saved.
|
I rule like you do RD. I think simply incapacitating a PC to the point they die anyways makes the cheat death option pointless. I like a lethal game and dont have a problem with character death but I also like the idea of escaping death in some weird twist of fate and seems exactly like soemthing that would happen to PCs.
With that said, the GM sounds like the type that doesnt want to loosen his grip on the narrative. I can kind of relate I like to limit PC narrative power to rare exceptions myself. Though I dont keep an iron fist grip on it. You need to weigh several things. How important is it to you that hero points work they way you feel they should? How badly would it grind your gears to just give in and let the GM go on this way? How disruptive are these disagreements? Your answer lies somewhere in the context of all that.
I've only offered up my own narrative when the GM couldn't come up with one or when he tried to shut me down without even trying.
Perhaps because I was used to the idea of burning Fate Points from Dark Heresy before reading about Hero Points for Pathfinder, but I never really imagined that using Hero Points in such a fashion could still lead to dying by another source. In Dark Heresy burning a Fate Point (which means permanently loosing that point) lets you survive everything, up to and including the detonation of 6 mile long space cruiser with ordnance that can kill planets.
I treat Hero Points, when used, much the same way - through an incredible act of agility you land outside the bulk of the collapsing tower, badly crushed but breathing.
This doesn't create plot armour for the character - if a wandering Orc happened to come up and shank them, then he's gonna need to use some more Hero Points to stay alive. But the event, and it's immediate consequences, that caused the need for Hero Points being spent will no longer prove lethal (so Shankhappy the Orc wouldn't realize his blade had caught on masonry and made only a shallow scalp wound - he'd assume the guy's skull was split and move on.)
It seems kinda unfair to go, "OK, your character manages to grab a potion of water breathing from the wreckage of the sinking ship you're trapped to. But two rounds later you die from the water pressure anyway." Since Hero Points are an optional rule, it seems silly to allow something you're then going to basically rule against using.
I would have ruled that you jumped out a window, or did that 'running on falling debris' thing ... something. That's up there with saying you spend 2HP so the fall doesn't kill you, but the Gm rules the sudden stop at the bottom did.
We actually go real easy with hero points.
It only takes one hero point to cheat death. We can use more then one in a round if we have to.
You get one a level per level with no maximum.
You survive the scenario with no exceptions. If you fell into water and would have drowned, you'll find yourself washed up on shore. If you wind up falling into lava, you'll still wash up, just now you'll be looking like Darth Vader. (We can use a second hero point to protect our gear.) If a monster dragged you back to it's lair NPC rangers or guards or somebody will end up saving you, or at least there will be other bodies to be eaten first leaving the group time to save the PC.
We can use a hero point to force a critical confirmation reroll, or as we use the critical hit deck, we can automatically makes saves to avoid effects like lost limbs or beheading. We still take damage.
We can use hero points to survive save or die spells.
However with all of that leeway, we have no resurrection magic at all. If you run out of hero points you're outta luck.
Our style is more like Hollywood where heroes are not being brought back from the dead on a regular basis, rather surviving if only by the skin of their teeth.
As is he ruling, the Cheat Death option is utterly pointless, you spend the grand total of TWO points to the effective result of nothing while one point can do great things.
You should just user your hero points to spam high level spells (by recovering spell slots as the Hero points rules allow or even higher level spells tha you coul cast; heck the cleric could have resurrected you out of spite with his hero points) and you GM will maybe realize the power of Hero Points and that spending TWO of the should leat to great effect.
At first our GM did like yours, but it was largely inconsequential because the situation wasn't dire as yours. The first time I cheated death was when a Remorhaz (CR 7, our party was level 3) spew a jet of lava on me and I was without any equipement. The GM left me with the maximum negative and alive in front of the beast, the scene was that I was scorched but somewhat still alive. Thankfully the cleric was there in the same round. The wizard died in the same fight as he was out of points, but the cleric used one to raise him.
Later he chaged method in a second campaing in which I played an Aasimar Paladin (planning to take the wings feat at 11). During a fight against a Black Pudding (still CR7, but at least we were level 4) my Paladin should have died in the grab, and I cheated death knowing that I would have been still in the grab, but hopingh the party archer would have freed me with an arrow. But the GM asked me how I saved myself, as he wouldn see fit spending so much as two points to just having the effect of enduring the damage for the round. So I said that my ancestry rescued me by the impending doom as two wings sprouted by my back (foreshadowing what I would do with the build) and flew me out of the pudding, reaching the other side of the pool, while I was still unconscious.
Entryhazard: I have observed that our group more frequently avoids the cheat death option in his games in favor of the "act out of turn to avoid the consequence in the first place" option or the "cast a spell you don't have to avoid the consequence" option. It's a little upsetting to me as those often seem more cheesy and less exciting.
I see it as you escape the primary cause of death, not any cause of death attached to the situation, but I run harsh games at times. However I think both methods are viable.
As an example if you take a crit and it would kill you the hero point keeps you alive(but unconscious), but if you falling down would also make you drown or kill you by some other hazard that hero points don't negate the 2nd cause of death.
However the party might be able to save you from death #2 since it is hard to be that unlucky.
I go by RAW, cheat death leaves you alive stable at negative hit points. How that is explained is up the GM with help from the players but in the end the rule states you are alive.
Sounds to me that youf GM should just not allow hero points to be spent on Cheat Death instead of making up excuses why it doesn't work. Excuses when the GM is control of it doesn't really make sense. I mean you cheat death, spend your points now it's up to the GM to figure out how it plays out. The GM saying you can't because of X when the GM is the in control of X doesn't make sense.
Hmm...
1) If the rule had been around 25 years ago, I probably would have ruled like RD's GM. Everyone expected the game to be incredibly lethal.
2) My current group would rule it even more lenient than you would have. You leaped out of the tower just before it collapsed. The hangman was drunk and the noose slipped off. Everyone was so shocked that you managed to run away.
3) My personal preference would be somewhere in-between RD and his GM. Even with the Cheat-Death option, I would rather see it as very nearly dead and gone.
So maybe the tower killed collapse you, but the authorities raised you from the dead to question you, put you on trial, and properly execute you as a public spectacle to appease the angry public. So you are alive, have 2 negative level, a handful of hitpoints, no gear, are in prison, under guard, on trial, and expecting to get your head chopped off in a couple of days.
The noose didn't kill you, but you didn't get away. Now the even angrier authorities (you are after all making their life more difficult than necessary) are arguing over whether or not the law allows them to hang you again, if they have to use a different execution method, or if they have to imprison you for life (which none of them want to do). The guards are royally peeved (and beating you when the get the chance) and really on the lookout for your friends to make a rescue attempt.
That is how I would prefer it, but my group would not like that.
-----------------------------------------------------
As far as what to do...
Our group mostly uses hero points for re-rolls or the bonus to saving throws. If he is never/rarely going to allow cheat death to succeed why save the points for that? I would make a point of stating that is why I'm not saving them.
The other option which several people in our group use is to give up the hero points entirely in favor of an extra feat. (I think it is a poor choice, but several people often pick the this.)
.
.
...
In any event, I think your GM has severely handicapped hero points from a RAW perspective and the spirit of hero points. I don't use hero points but, in thinking about this thread, I may rethink it, and give the PCs that extra edge and in-game "excuse" for me to "fudge" to keep a story from being a TPK and what not. :)
I like to think of the Hero Points as representing the luck of the stories heroes, their destiny, being favored by their god, ... Whatever, it their luck in action.
I would rather play in a game where the PC's actually didn't have all that high of abilities scores. They have to survive by being intelligent (or at least clever), making use of their training, and maybe just a bit luckier than they have any right to expect.
In my experience, by far and away the most common use of Cheat Death is for when your character either got critted by a high multiplier weapon or failed a save against a save-or-high-damage spell. While I expect my use of Hero Points to result in the character not immediately dying, I don't have any expectation of no longer being in danger.
In RD's tower case, I would have expected to be trapped in a pocket. It might be up to my comrades to dig me out, or I might have to recover consciousness by the regular rules procedure and then use my resources to get myself out.
...
I don't strive for realism, but I do appreciate it. And people have survived for weeks in collapsed buildings, and people have been alive even when all experts claimed they were dead. For the ever careful executioner, spending two hero points means he was a bit off his game that day due to his wife being run over by a horse that morning... or your body suddenly disappears from the noose by way of magic.I think part of the problem is some people can't think on their feet like others can or otherwise aren't as imaginative. A GM who can't come up with a plausible reason for why the character doesn't die quickly will likely end up not enjoying the cheat death rule as much.
Another part of the problem is that a lot of the harder "end-game" encounters (whereas the need for cheating death most often occurs) are held for last, when it is late enough in the evening, everyone is tired, and no one can really think on their feet easily.
During the tower collapse scenario, the others largely agreed with the GM I think. I mean, how does one survive something like that? Between being crushed to death, or suffocating to death, or being found alive by powerful enemies still on the field, it's pretty much impossible, right?
They asked me how I would rationalize the characters surviving, to which I immediately said to treat it like the rescue dramas on TV, where the rubble collapses in such away as to leave the heroes trapped in a small chamber with enough air left to either rescue themselves or get rescued by NPCs.
Judging from the looks on their faces, they hadn't even thought of that.
I don't think it's just about thinking on your feet or being imaginative, it's about letting a player take control of the story, spending hero points is - as you said - a metagame mechanic. It allows you to cheat; survive death, act out of turn, cast unprepared spell, etc. Essentially giving players GM-powers.
And for some GMs, it is very hard to give up control of what is in some way their story. (I am still new to GM'ing, but I was a control freak to the extreme when I started, what I had written for the first table was a script to a play, and not an interactive world and plotline at all.)
And not everything needs to be rationalized to death... it's fiction. And surviving certain death is everyday life for adventurers :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could also be an antihero, and get a bonus feat rather than the Hero Points, Wycen.
I like the characters that the players created in my campaign. They are well thought out and well played. I want to see how they succeed against the deadly challenges I throw at them. But a real combat challenge means a risk of death. A run of bad rolls or the character being in the wrong place at the wrong time can make that risk come true.
I want to give the player characters plot armor, but I don't want them to know that. The Hero Points give me an excuse. The character surviving by Cheating Death means that to the player the risk was real and the escape had a cost. The tension from lethal danger still exists in the game after the miraculous survival.
Therefore, in my game Cheat Death works effectively. The player and I plan out an escape that fits the character: plausible or heroic or stylish or humorous--and the escape is real, not simply a delayed doom.
And why did that rickety bell tower collapse without a GM-planned avenue of escape? Too many fireballs throw by each side? Or did the GM think that fighting in a deathtrap made a good story and forgot to think it through?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally how Cheat Death works in my games becomes one of two things, and both come down to action movies:
A: The other characters are aware there is a *chance* that the other player could be alive--and so try against all hope to save them ("Live, damn you!"). By some miracle, they are alive but will certainly need some help/healing. This is usually when the Death Cheating character's "body" is easy to access, though maybe not without taking a few rounds and maybe a couple of skill checks. See: the dramas you were talking about before
B: The other characters believe there is no way the Death Cheating character could have survived that fall/cave-in/explosion/etc, and so gloomily continue on without them. After a certain period of time (preferably during a time the party is in a pinch or some other dramatic moment), the "dead" character reappears, battered and bruised, with a shocking tale of how they survived. If the player is able to come up with a particularly compelling/exciting story of how they survived, they get one of their Hero Points back (which hugely boosts creativity!). See: Gandalf falling into the pit and fighting the Balrog, Aragorn being pushed off the cliff and being saved by his horse, millions of other fantasy/action movie near-death fake-outs.
It sounds like you prefer your games to be more of the edge-of-your-seat action movies where the hero defies all odds and always wins in the end (like me!) whereas your GM prefers their games to be the darker action(/horror?) movies filled with gritty realism. Neither is the "wrong" way to play, but it will cause some frustrations at your table if there's a split on what genre your games are. It's a discussion that should include your GM and all your players at the table that basically boils down to "how realistic do I want my fantasy?"
Bring your GM a collection of movies in which the Hero miraculously survives certain doom as evidence of what "Cheat Death" should be able to accomplish.