|
4 years ago ::
May 01, 2009 - 8:24AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2001
|
HEALING A DYING CHARACTER
✦ Regain Hit Points: When you are dying and receive
healing, you go to 0 hit points and then regain hit
points from the healing effect. If the healing effect
requires you to spend a healing surge but you have
none left, you are restored to 1 hit point.
-karma
LFR Characters:
Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard
Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard
Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 01, 2009 - 8:31AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2008
|
Simple question:
As a DM, how do you feel about the dreaded coup de grace? Do you use it? Ever? If you do, in what situations? Is a DM who never uses it being too soft? Is a DM who uses it a lot being a jerk? Is it inherently unfair to the players in an LFR context, for some reason?
Also, is there a difference between using coup de grace on a foe who is actually dropped and dying, and a foe who is merely temporarily helpless (such as the victim of a Sleep spell)? I mean, a philosophical difference, not a rules difference.-Josiah
Hate it. Never use it. Ever. Not applicable. Yes. It isn't 'unfair', except to the extent that it's a strictly META-game choice based on your knowledge (that the monster doesn't necessarily share) that the PC who has just gone down and is NO LONGER A THREAT isn't actually 'all the way dead', that his buddy has a Healing Word left, etc; it's part of the rules, it's there to use, it's just petty and vindictive.
On a PC? Not really, they're both cheese moves. I personally dislike coup de grace more than any other rule in the game. It's the mechanic that comes closest to reviving the odious and deservedly-reviled 'save or die' of previous Editions. ESPECIALLY given that we're going to be running LFR for new players and customers of our store, I can't imagine whipping an auto-kill on some 12 year-old 2 hours into a 4-hour session will be fun for ANYONE involved. I'd 'fire' any DMs who did such a thing in our in-store games.
-Lefty
Jim Crocker, Managing Partner
Modern Myths, LLC
Northampton, MA
www.modern-myths.com
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 01, 2009 - 10:33AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
It isn't 'unfair', except to the extent that it's a strictly META-game choice based on your knowledge (that the monster doesn't necessarily share) that the PC who has just gone down and is NO LONGER A THREAT isn't actually 'all the way dead', that his buddy has a Healing Word left, etc; it's part of the rules, it's there to use, it's just petty and vindictive.
You assume that the PCs' enemies aren't intelligent and are not living in a world where many people have a power, potion or other ability able to get a fallen ally back in the fight. (Even if you want to assume that, you also have to assume that an enemy is unable to deduce that, the second or third time he takes a guy down who's standing on Consecrated Ground, that he better do something a little more permanent.)
I'm not sure those assumptions are warranted.
If you want to argue that it's not fun, sure, that's a valid point. If you want to argue that it doesn't make perfect sense for intelligent tactical-minded foes, that argument is a bit tougher to make with a straight face.
Personally, as noted above in this thread, I advocate letting creatures also use the "choose whether to kill or knock unconscious" rules, which has the effect of taking the PC out of the fight and unable to be revived until after a short rest, without taking them out of the adventure as death does. While not strictly speaking in the rules, it's unlikely to be challenged. ("Hey, you can't do that." "Okay, you're right. You're just dead.")
Beyond that, I think taking CdG out of the equation is a bad idea. A friend being knocked out at the feet of an enemy should be a big deal. The point at which the other players start thinking, "Eh, we've got at least two rounds before we have to worry about the death saves and at least no one else will attack him while he's helpless" is the point at which the DM needs to re-introduce fear.
Going through with a CdG isn't always necessary; sometimes the threat can be enough. Demanding that the PCs withdraw from a fight if they don't want to see their friend killed, while readying an action to CdG if the other PCs do anything but talk or move away, can be quite effective at motivating the PCs to start being a bit more careful. (Or, alternatively, effective at finding out how well-liked a particular PC is.)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 01, 2009 - 8:42PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2008
|
If you want to argue that it's not fun, sure, that's a valid point. If you want to argue that it doesn't make perfect sense for intelligent tactical-minded foes, that argument is a bit tougher to make with a straight face.
I'm actually not prepared to 'argue' about how I FEEL about it, with a straight face or otherwise. 'Intelligent, tactical-minded foes' don't actually exist, they're a creation of the DM who has complete and total control of whether he's going to be a jerk or not. I've had a great time playing D&D for three decades without 'coup de grace', I see no reason to start now for the sole purpose of spoiling my players' enjoyment of the game without in any way adding to my own.
-Lefty
Jim Crocker, Managing Partner
Modern Myths, LLC
Northampton, MA
www.modern-myths.com
|
|
|
