Death:
The character’s hit points are reduced to negative amount equal to his Constitution score (minimum –10), his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic.
A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
-----
For my campaign I have been having the monsters stop attacking my party once they drop to 0. Theoretically they should be in for 1 more attack since they aren't incapacitated at 0, but once a player falls into the negative hp range. Do monsters stop attacking them or do they finish them off? Do some creatures start eating instead?
Along the same lines, when you reduce an enemy to 0 do you need to take a turn to finish them off to keep their cohorts from bringing them back to fighting condition? Or do you assume that they are dead once they hit 0?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dojen wrote: Do monsters stop attacking them or do they finish them off? Do some creatures start eating instead? Most creatures, even "mindless" ones, have self-preservation instincts; if something is trying to do them harm, they'll defend themselves rather than sitting down to lunch. Ever approached a dog while it was eating? It's a bad idea, because it will stop eating to fight you.
Quote: Along the same lines, when you reduce an enemy to 0 do you need to take a turn to finish them off to keep their cohorts from bringing them back to fighting condition? Or do you assume that they are dead once they hit 0? Well, it's not a binary choice between "attack again" and "houserule that 0=dead". Putting aside for a moment that landing at exactly 0 is somewhat rare, how an intelligent character treats such an opponent will vary by situation.
If the enemy group is seen to have a dedicated healer? Might be good to finish him. But if you have other threats to defend yourself from (remember that if the guy at 0 attacks, he drops to -1) it might not be worth the action to "finish" the guy at 0.
Jiggy, I may start having creatures continue to ravage my players once they are down depending on the type of creature.
I have been playing most creatures without dimension, they attack and strategize as i would.
I think I need to start playing some characters differently, some run away, some actively and cruelly dispatch the characters, some continue to attack even after a player is dead unless interrupted, and some eat the character while they are down but still alive.
Also I don't think I have been playing good characters right, though admittedly the characters I have been playing are oppressive and not good. Were there good nazi soldiers just following order, good mongols taking over territories, or even lawful romans just enforcing the edicts against the Christians when they crucified Jesus. Lots to consider.
Dojen wrote: Jiggy, I may start having creatures continue to ravage my players once they are down depending on the type of creature.
I have been playing most creatures without dimension, they attack and strategize as i would.
I think I need to start playing some characters differently, some run away, some actively and cruelly dispatch the characters, some continue to attack even after a player is dead unless interrupted, and some eat the character while they are down but still alive.
Also I don't think I have been playing good characters right, though admittedly the characters I have been playing are oppressive and not good. Were there good nazi soldiers just following order, good mongols taking over territories, or even lawful romans just enforcing the edicts against the Christians when they crucified Jesus. Lots to consider.
Playinig creatures according to what you think they'd do is actually more fun than always having them do the most effective thing you can think of.
I would avoid creatures that kept attacking characters that goes down (not just staggering) unless said creature had a very good reason to. As Jiggy said, it is a very rare creature that values malice or food over self-preservation. Of course if it is die hard fanatics that have been told to kill characters of the group then it would be fair game.
But even then I'd avoid doing it as a GM.
The game is about having fun. Dying is not fun. Does that mean that you should NEVER kill your players? I don't think it does, because without the threat of death, the game gets less exciting.
How deadly you want to be is up to you, but I generally try to avoid it unless the death would be a memorable and epic one. Or if the players are being exeptionally stupid/reckless.
I don't want my characters to die. I have actively changed outcomes to prevent such a thing from happening. However a zombie eating your flesh unless it is pulled off of you is something that probably will happen. And if you don't get out of a group of zombies and they manage to pull you down, your probably a goner.
I feel like its loosing some of the suspense and the first time someone dies because they are being careless they will be more careful and stop taking huge risks.
With that being said I think I will hold off on applying any enemies that outright kill my characters since they are all family.
I will however remember this the next time I start a campaign and if it fits into the scenario I will warn the players at the start that it is a dangerous world, and things seek to kill/destroy them so be careful.
Dojen wrote: I don't want my characters to die. I have actively changed outcomes to prevent such a thing from happening. However a zombie eating your flesh unless it is pulled off of you is something that probably will happen. And if you don't get out of a group of zombies and they manage to pull you down, your probably a goner.
I feel like its loosing some of the suspense and the first time someone dies because they are being careless they will be more careful and stop taking huge risks.
With that being said I think I will hold off on applying any enemies that outright kill my characters since they are all family.
I will however remember this the next time I start a campaign and if it fits into the scenario I will warn the players at the start that it is a dangerous world, and things seek to kill/destroy them so be careful.
I think you are justified in having zombies eat the flesh off of a fallen comrade. It adds to the horrific nature of such creatures. I wouldn't have the zombies munch on the fallen comrade if they were in a threatened area though, ie. another melee combatant standing close. The zombies outside this combatants reach could be eating the flesh though.
It can really play up the horror to have a zombie keep eating a downed foe while the rest of the party tries to pull it off the downed player. It will really reinforce that these things do not think like something alive.
I like to think about it like this.
Said creature and the PCs are in combat. The creature takes a PC down to zero or a little below. That PC stops fighting and falls down. Does the creature stop fighting to? No. There are still others that are attacking it. If I stop to eat or waste my turn beating a downed PC it's an attack I could have used to down another PC.
That said I only really use this logic for none intelligent monsters. Any enemy with a intelligence over 14 knows that you finish the job.
Also flesh eating mindless undead will also begin eating PCs the minute they go down. They don't care about their well being just lunch.
Honestly, "Finishing the job" is also a waste of an action in a combat that you intend to win unless the opponents you face have some way of returning a fallen combatant to the fray. And by returning I mean getting the combatant back into so much health that the combatant doesn't get downed by a single hit.
Killing a PC, in my opinion, should be a dramatic event. The aforementioned going down in a pile of zombies is a very dramatic event that brings home the horror of the mindless undead. Having an intelligent bad guy holding a downed PC hostage to stop the party from continuing attacks on him sounds like a very smart move, and seems common in modern film and television. Should the players decide to have their characters continue the attack, then you have the drama of consequences to actions performed.
In a large battle with trained guards or soldiers, it may depend on the culture they are from. Are the guards allowed to hold captives for ransom? Then killing a downed foe without a healer to bring her back into the fight is probably not a goal for those guards. Ransom can be a powerful motivator, and is a great reason to -not- kill off PC's.
In a pure survival consideration, as M.E. and Lifat pointed out, if those PC's get back up and into the fight, taking the time to make very sure they are out of the fight might be the best way to go. The movie Zombieland had the rule of the double-tap: spend the bullet to make damned sure that zombie didn't get back up and bite.
So, in summation, creatures have different motivations and expectations. Apply those as is appropriate, and you'll have a richer setting and experience for the players. Spend time thinking about why your creatures do stuff, and you can understand what they do.
I /hate/ every creature fighting to the death. One dimension, repeatedly, really bothers me. Humanoid troops are much more likely to run off and regroup than sacrifice themselves. The Spartans and Immortals of 300 need to be the special, dramatic exceptions, not the norm.
DesolateHarmony wrote: Killing a PC, in my opinion, should be a dramatic event. The aforementioned going down in a pile of zombies is a very dramatic event that brings home the horror of the mindless undead. Having an intelligent bad guy holding a downed PC hostage to stop the party from continuing attacks on him sounds like a very smart move, and seems common in modern film and television. Should the players decide to have their characters continue the attack, then you have the drama of consequences to actions performed.
In a large battle with trained guards or soldiers, it may depend on the culture they are from. Are the guards allowed to hold captives for ransom? Then killing a downed foe without a healer to bring her back into the fight is probably not a goal for those guards. Ransom can be a powerful motivator, and is a great reason to -not- kill off PC's.
In a pure survival consideration, as M.E. and Lifat pointed out, if those PC's get back up and into the fight, taking the time to make very sure they are out of the fight might be the best way to go. The movie Zombieland had the rule of the double-tap: spend the bullet to make damned sure that zombie didn't get back up and bite.
So, in summation, creatures have different motivations and expectations. Apply those as is appropriate, and you'll have a richer setting and experience for the players. Spend time thinking about why your creatures do stuff, and you can understand what they do.
I /hate/ every creature fighting to the death. One dimension, repeatedly, really bothers me. Humanoid troops are much more likely to run off and regroup than sacrifice themselves. The Spartans and Immortals of 300 need to be the special, dramatic exceptions, not the norm.
YUP! Always always ALWAYS have creature motivation clear. The group doesn't always need to know their enemies motivation, but you as a GM do. It will make it a much richer experience.
Having a motivation and mannerism clear will make it clear to you if the creature should go for the kill or not.
Poor Wandering One wrote: It can really play up the horror to have a zombie keep eating a downed foe while the rest of the party tries to pull it off the downed player. It will really reinforce that these things do not think like something alive.
When my PCs do something stupid, I kill them. They deserve it. But, if they can get out of it, I wont stop them. That is the excitement. Such as the PC jumping into the middle of a bunch of zombies...DEAD! Unless it was a controlled decisions. Now, that is not always my rule, but if there is no threat, as said before, there is no realism, thus, the players don't feeeeeeeel it.
One campaign, a sorcerer was leading the party down a dark path (lvl 1). A cave fisher pop'd out and hit the sorcerer hard, the rest of the party tried to recover, they all died. I loved it, they hated it. But, the sorcerer should not have been in the front. A Cave fisher is there to wait for prey, so of course he finished them off, he hate 'em! They wont make that mistake again, at least they haven't.
It can be a good story, and then you make new characters. That's what it's about. Learning and storytelling. We still talk about it and we laugh about it (they were pretty mad at the time, especially the sorcerer).
Remember when he got eaten by all those zombies!? What where you thinking!?
I have had this same question, though, and I think there have been good answers and things to think about. A good thing to do, and I have done this before, is to set something up in the background. Some, watchful eye that that when the new adventurers (lvl 1) go in somewhere dangerous, the NPC who gave them the quest set up a watch dog, or something. Just in case. Make it very real, not just some deus ex machina, or they will be way more disappointed then if you just killed them. Trust me on that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
