| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hit him for nonlethal damage.
Was your barbarian raging at the time?
Was your barbarian raging at the time?
Does it matter?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO when a barbarian is raging anything that attacks him would be an enemy. When raging most barbarians cant truely think at all so if you get attacked you would hit it back. Plus a barbarian has no spell knowledge so for all the character new his ally just turned on him. I would have done the same in a home game.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You made a judgement call. It went badly, but the reverse could have easily been true and even if you went total defensive a crit could have had your barbarian pushing daisies.
The fighter became an NPC while dominated, you killed a NPC.
Although posters on both sides are correct, it all comes back to your judgement. If it were me I would've done the same. Although not required to strike back, a raging barbarian can't use int skills so even if he were well versed in arcana, he wouldn't be able to use it to ID the effect.
If you ended your rage you would have been even more helpless with a dangerous adversary adjacent to you.
If you attempted a combat maneuver, you may have incurred an AOO (depending on feats) that killed you in your round leaving other softer members vulnerable on the fighters next turn...
It seems to have had an emotional impact. In a RP game, that's a good thing. Sorry to hear about your friend.
Withdraw action and hope someone else can help or non-lethal damage. The attacks to do non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon are -4 to attack.
If you could have withdrawn to just the other side of someone who could heal you, that might have been good. Without knowing the map, I can't say of withdraw would have been a good idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You did the right thing. Now your friend has the opportunity to roll a character that doesn't have a crap will save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess. Starting at 1st level, a barbarian can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + her Constitution modifier. At each level after 1st, she can rage for 2 additional rounds. Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from rage and spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that a barbarian can rage per day. A barbarian can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.
While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death.
Nope, not seeing anything about having to murder everything you fight. Doing nonlethal damage is not a Charisma, Dexterity, or Intelligence based-skill, nor does it require patience or concentration.
As for the OP, don't forget combat maneuvers (disarm his weapon, probably much less likely to be able to kill you, bull rush to push him away so he only gets a single attack next round). It really depends on your build.
In fact, because he can still do wisdom based skills, it is perfectly justifiable to say that he has full control of the stat that says 'maybe I should not kill my ally'.
Of course, that doesn't prevent it from being a general moral standing. Personally, I always argue that you should not play along with hostage situations. Unless there is some complex political situation or thing holding the hostage takers back (in today's society, that would be the SWAT team and snipers that makes killing even 1 hostage rather risky), then the other side rarely holds to their word. So just try to DIE HARD the whole thing.
So, arguing that it would be better to kill the fighter than to risk him killing several of his team mates (if not TPK)? That is certainly a valid position. Obviously there were other options, but I would not necessarily give you too much flack about it personally (I might whisper those other options before you start doing attack rolls at me though).
Overall, this was a lesson. Maybe take one of those cool rage powers that give you maneuvers. I personally always like dirty savage trick myself, since the DC is insane and it applies 2 conditions). Blinded+staggered seems like it would delay things for at least 2 turns (long enough for you to figure something out). Even if he passed the save (which is 10+1/2 level+ your FREAKIN' STR MODIFIER), he would still be blinded until he spent a move action (which means that if you smack his face, and run, he has to fix his eyes and move; lather, rinse, repeat until your backup comes with a better solution)
Basically an ally fighter got dominated used his move to get into range of my barbarian and hit him once. So to stop my character being murdered next turn I had him full attack the allied fighter which accidentally killed him and caused a argument.
What should my character have done instead?
I think your barbarian two-handed the situation quite well.
If they have a problem with their dominated character being controlled and then being put down, maybe they should try a game without enchantment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, because metagaming isn't good, your Barbarian had no way to know that his ally had been dominated. For all he knew, this "ally" had turned on him, so in his view he killed a treacherous former ally who had joined the other side.For starters noticing that someone is under enchantment is a simple sense motive, which as a wis skill isn't prohibited.
Secondly:
An enemy clearly casts a spell (needs special feats to disquise spellcasting) and suddenly, your once loyal companion, who had your back for countless battles, turns around, walks to you, and smacks you.Yeah you need metagaming to notice that there is something wrong...
Yes, the thing that is wrong is that he is stabbing you!
Barbarian tries to win and preserve his life. Triumphs. Former ally now opponent lies dead. There is no need to have an argument over this. The fighter player can cool off, leave, or roll up a new character.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, could you have handled it better? Certainly - no one appreciates having their character killed. DMs have been kicked out of the RPGA for doing it. But hindsight is 20/20.
As a character, did you handle it in an appropriate fashion? Absolutely - if that's how your character would've reacted, then that's how your character would've reacted. You responded to a threat in a fairly archetypical barbarian fashion: with overwhelming force.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DMs kicked out of RPGA for character deaths in dungeons and the like? Whaaaaat?
IMO, because metagaming isn't good, your Barbarian had no way to know that his ally had been dominated. For all he knew, this "ally" had turned on him, so in his view he killed a treacherous former ally who had joined the other side.For starters noticing that someone is under enchantment is a simple sense motive, which as a wis skill isn't prohibited.
Secondly:
An enemy clearly casts a spell (needs special feats to disquise spellcasting) and suddenly, your once loyal companion, who had your back for countless battles, turns around, walks to you, and smacks you.Yeah you need metagaming to notice that there is something wrong...
You're right that he could have tried a Sense Motive check. I doubt many Barbarians put ranks into that skill, but he could have tried it. If the Sense Motive check failed to reveal the enchantment, he still did the right thing.
Seeing a spell being cast gives no idea what it is without some Spellcraft-- especially Barbarians who I, anyway, see as pretty much the most clueless class regarding magic.
Why shouldn't they take sense motive? I mean, lawful people can be some of the most insidious liars. While chaotic people might lure you into a trap and take your money and your life, it is usually the lawful person that gained a lot of power in those 'cities' that creates large, convoluted plots that can destroy your whole clan. Lawful people being dishonest can end up being the thing of LEGENDS (...and now I am stuck with the thought of devils and that Tom Cruise movie that has Tim Curry as the huge horned devil...)
Still, I think basic cause and effect trumps the need for spellcraft here. He doesn't need to know if it is dominate person or dominate monster here, he just needs to be able to tell that the wizard said some weird mumbo jumbo, and nothing has happened except that his friend is trying to cut his head off.
In the heat of battle, how likely would it be that the barbarian would notice a wizard that he was not engaged with cast a spell? If he is jockeying for position in a melee with an opponent or two, would he really have time to notice some spell caster in the back casting? I don't think so. Also the OP never states from what angle the fighter approached from. Did the dominated ally come from behind? If so it would be very plausible for any character, having just received damage from an unknown attacker to just turn and swing. While PC death at the hands of another player can cause hurt feelings in the group, it can make for some memorable role playing. And who's to say that the killed fighter doesn't have some sibling that hears of the action and comes seeking revenge. This will also allow the fighter player to finally create that build they had been thinking about.
In the heat of battle, how likely would it be that the barbarian would notice a wizard that he was not engaged with cast a spell? If he is jockeying for position in a melee with an opponent or two, would he really have time to notice some spell caster in the back casting? I don't think so. Also the OP never states from what angle the fighter approached from. Did the dominated ally come from behind? If so it would be very plausible for any character, having just received damage from an unknown attacker to just turn and swing. While PC death at the hands of another player can cause hurt feelings in the group, it can make for some memorable role playing. And who's to say that the killed fighter doesn't have some sibling that hears of the action and comes seeking revenge. This will also allow the fighter player to finally create that build they had been thinking about.
Perception check of DC 5 +1/10 feet distance between eachother, because he is 'destracted'. Maybe +2 if you decide the fight is particularly noisy. I still doubt you are going to break DC 10.
Plus, having a 'behind' is kind of not part of the game, except maybe for cone stuff. This is likely due to the fact that rogues in whatever edition of D&D got tired of having to circle around for back attacks just to find the enemy has spun around.
The fighters player was peeved because I killed his player and he had to sit out the rest of the session as no one had prepped a rez spell. The gm was peeved because I had been complaining about how much I disliked mind control spells and he saw my decision as an attempt to stir on the issue. Mainly it was just unfair imo accusations of pvp.
Yes, there are better ways it could have been handled. Hindsight allows us to come up with all sorts of things we didn't think of at the moment it happened.
You didn't do wrong. Yes, there may have been better ways to handle it, but you didn't see them at the time.
I agree that this isn't really PvP. It wasn't the other player's intent to attack you, and it sounds like you didn't want to kill the other player.
If someone stirred up the issue, it was the GM. He was evidently in full control of the other PC. He had that character attack your character KNOWING how you felt about mind control spells. Did he even give you any indication that your opponents were likely to have those sort of capabilities?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OilHorse: It is not metagaming for the Barbarian to see someone cast a spell and understand that his friend who is now attacking him is under some sort of influence. He may not know what spell is doing it or what it's exact effects are but generally killing the guy making your friend a meat puppet is a completely sound decision. That doesn't take a spellcraft check. A Barbarian is perfectly capable of seeing that 2+2=3.
His friend is still his friend, his enemy is still his enemy. That guy needs to die for doing this to his buddy. Magic is not to be trusted, if there is an enemy spellcaster about this is probably all his fault.
I think I somewhat agree with Wind Chime's DM that it may have just been the excuse he was looking for to PvP. No offense intended to Wind Chime, but we have to remember that we are really only hearing one side of the story here. But even when hearing from Wind Chime it sounds like his DM tends to agree with my (and others') perspective here. There were other options at his disposal than killing his friend.
To make it right I would pay for his resurrection and offer a deep, heartfelt apology in character. Perhaps, in the future think about how you as a player and your character could handle such situations better. Hopefully that would allow your game to move forward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter became an NPC while dominated, you killed a NPC.
This is incorrect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note: You can strike for non-lethal with just one of your attacks (probably the primary one), and the rest lethal (without the -4 penalty). Makes it very unlikely to kill him (unless you crit often).
With a Barbarian your best defense is a good offense. This is true. It is just a matter of where you direct that offense. You could have attacked the source of the problem. The source of the problem was NOT your friend. I believe you know that and it would be hard for your character to not know that as well.
Or, as everyone else suggested: you could have struck for non-lethal damage. That was the correct thing to do if you are dead set on attacking a party member.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighters player was peeved because I killed his player
Not cool to kill the players, cops are involved when that happens. Oh, you mean character, I hope?
In all seriousness, killing the character was unfortunate, yet the risk of the game / PC profession. Hopefully some type of resurrection quest is viable. This is also a lesson for the PC group to discuss in the future how to handle mesmerized members of the party. Also discuss how far the group should go to bring back a dead PC to life - binding them to a sort of adventuring group contract. (We'll take you to the city cleric, yet we use the deceased's gear to barter for it, for example. Or, whatever you do, don't subject me to reincarnation as I don't want to live life as a troll, etc.).
Some players handle PC death well, some don't. Just don't rub it in by haggling over looting the body or cracking jokes if the player is sensitive about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could have withdrawn in the caster's direction. Why are we just getting these details now by the way? I think you are trying to make excuses TO attack your friend and not enough NOT TO.