Community

In a home game, there may be times when a GM uses Coup de Grace because character death is dramatically appropriate and/or helps the storyline.  In LFR, character death by Coup de Grace does not advance the story and, in my opinion, is not part of what the module writers plan for.

How acceptable is it for a GM to use Coup de Grace in your LFR group?  Are there rules or accepted guidelines?  If Coup de Grace is taken off the table then do you consider the GM to be playing "softball"?

In my group, GM Coup de Grace is not acceptable in most circumstances.  GMs are supposed to referees with the primary responsibility of making sure the players have fun.  It is not fun to be CdG'd out of a module in the first fight.  There is some acceptance of using CdG if the players have set up a way to repeatedly return dropped PCs to their feet, like Consecrated Ground.  Otherwise, it is considered a sign of a killer GM and poor sportsmanship.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 4:24AM, ixnay wrote:

In my group, GM Coup de Grace is not acceptable in most circumstances.  GMs are supposed to referees with the primary responsibility of making sure the players have fun.  It is not fun to be CdG'd out of a module in the first fight.  There is some acceptance of using CdG if the players have set up a way to repeatedly return dropped PCs to their feet, like Consecrated Ground.  Otherwise, it is considered a sign of a killer GM and poor sportsmanship.

Its fully accepted in my group. For example Aglarond mods the Stone Bears CdG elves. Usually there is some reason for it (dazed creature thats only action available it to attack a down PC). The more powerful the PC, the more likely the CdG %.
It doesn't contribute to a loss of fun for me and I dont consider it poor sportsmanship, but thats just me personally.

The penalty for death in a mod is very generous, I think, so it considerably "softens the blow."

There's no special guidelines for it in LFR because it's in the rules, we play by the rules, so it's usable by both PCs and NPCs alike.  Now, a DM that runs around CdGing everything in sight is likely to find themselves without players, but there's nothing restricting them from doing it.

There was some discussion on this in a previous thread, and no there is no official reason to not use Coup de Grace.  However, the DMG recommends against it and as a judge I would only use it in highly unusual circumstances and I won't play with a judge that uses it on a regular basis.

I judge a lot and I have used Coup de Grace exactly once ... the BBEG was trying to escape so he grabbed a helpless PC and told everyone that he would kill the PC if they didn't let him go.  The party ignored the threat so the BBEG carried through with his readied action.  Fortunately the PC survived. 

Allen.

It is a legitimate tactic. Nice? Probably not. Too much? Depends on the situation.

I have to agree that it should be used sparingly, and in the right circumstances. For instance, when the BBEG has managed to drop a character next to/within reach of him and has the action to be able to threaten the rest of the PCs. A "Leave, or your friend dies! (ready action to CdG)" kind of thing. Or as a means of negotiating an escape.

To have it happen in the first fight of a module, seems rather a poor way to use it. Certainly it doesn't seem likely to serve the story or the player's fun.

I liken it to people who object to certain PCs or monsters being willing to turn tail and run in the middle of a fight, thus escaping and perhaps causing the PCs to be unable to claim a certain reward. Sometimes the NPCs are chicken. Or evil.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 10:47AM, tirianmal wrote:

For instance, when the BBEG has managed to drop a character next to/within reach of him and has the action to be able to threaten the rest of the PCs. A "Leave, or your friend dies! (ready action to CdG)" kind of thing. Or as a means of negotiating an escape.

The one time I saw this happen, one of the players reckoned that the monster could not do enough damage to kill with a CdG. So he ignored the threat and attacked.
Rather poor use of metagame, imo.
But it happens, and it really undermined such threats.

CdG is a legitimate tactic, rules-wise.  Also, the examples of its use are fitting.  I especially like the hostage scenario -- it still leaves the party in charge of their own fate.

The story that prompted this thread was posted by Elder Basilisk in another thread.  I would cross-link but I don't know how.

 For instance, one of the PC deaths I observed was a fellow player. His tempest fighter rode into the room on round 1 and got hit by a couple bad guys for relatively low damage. Then the rest of the party moved. Since he wasn't very injured (not bloodied, I think he was down by a little less than one healing surge), we didn't heal him. Then, at the bottom of the round, an owlbear came out of hiding, smacked him twice on its standard action, grabbed him, then spent its action point to do automatic bite damage, dropping him. The fighter's turn came up and he made a death save. Then all of the remaining soldiers coup de graced the fighter. He survived two, but the third coup de grace dropped him below negative bloodied. Then the rest of our team got to go.

In this case, it was the first fight of the module.  While legitimate, it seems gratuitous to me.

Depends on how far down below 0 the PC is. Certainly most monsters can't knock a PC from -1 to -Bloodied in a single crit. It might be metagame, but what can you do?

One CDG probably won't kill you, but five will.  The original case mentioned multiple badguys doing it. 

The reality is, in any adventure, the DM can always kill one character - especially if that character is a striker or controller (the squishiest).  He can accomplish this by making it his #1 goal.  All bad guys attack that PC, no matter what.  Especially if the bad guys go in a clump (denying the PC-allies the opportunity to help/intervene).  Just make sure to keep hitting him while he's down - hit him until he's dead, not till he's unconscious.

Marks (the -2 to hit, plus possible ill-effects) cannot (in most cases) prevent an attack (especially a ranged attack).  They are deterrents.  The net result of not "obeying the marks" is that monsters tend to die faster.  But if the DM doesn't care if his monsters die in the first round (and die stupidly) he can almost guarantee to kill one PC.

This is why I consider it bad form for a DM to focus fire on a single PC with the intent to kill (not to drop).  It's trivial, and takes no skill, intelligence, tactical ability, or real knowledge of rules or the game.  Anyone can do it.  You're not special.  You're just a giant jerk.

Yes, there are thematic times and reasons for the BBEG to threaten a CdG to get a chance to flee, or what have you. But to have badguys routinely use it as a common tactic, is bad form and bad sportsmanship.

This is a heroic game.  The PCs die at negative bloodied, the badguys die at 0.  The game is mechanically designed so you DONT die very often, but you DO get dropped to "dying" at some frequencey.  DM's using the CdG action routinely are having their monsters meta-game that it is a heroic game (i.e. that the PCs are "special" and don't die at 0 like everybody else).  That's going against the mechanical and intended design of the game.

Over-use of CdG, or intentionally hitting down Pcs to "kill them", is (IMHO) bad sportsmanship.  I won't play with DMs that routinely do this, nor do I encourage this behaviour.  If you want a more brutal game, I can suggest many other role playing systems.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 10:36AM, aljergensen wrote:

However, the DMG recommends against it and as a judge I would only use it in highly unusual circumstances and I won't play with a judge that uses it on a regular basis.

I would prefer to avoid a judge that does this, but as a player you don't always have a choice. Well, you do, but your choice is frequently accept your judge or go home. At a convention you've already paid your entry fee and at some stores you've already paid your entry fee before you find your judge. I think organizers need to address this with their judging group should it become a problem.

Fortunately where I play, the judges don't seem to have any interest in arbritrary CdG, so this isn't a problem for us.

It is not common in the SF Bay area. As far as I can tell, there are two players who occasionally judge at Endgame who follow the "all coup de grace all the time" principle and have every monster drop whatever it is doing to coup de grace the first character to go down in the hopes of getting a kill. It is not common at Endgame, however, and most judges there share Grandpoobah's opinion. There is one frequent judge at Black Diamond Games who offers players the "endgame" difficulty option (AFAIK, no-one has been dumb enough to take him up on the offer) but generally goes out of his way to avoid hitting downed characters (presumably that would change if players specifically asked for it. Given that it is only two occasional judges there, neither of whom have judged for several months, I don't think it's fair to call it the endgame option.

I mostly share Grandpoobah's opinion. I would use coup de grace when the bad guy has nothing else he can do (perhaps if he is immobilized until the end of his next turn (and therefore has no chance to escape by readying an action to charge when he can move) next to a downed PC with no ranged attacks), very occasionally for a hostage situation, if the PCs were going down and getting up every round due to an effect like consecrated ground, or if it seems especially in character for monsters (like ghouls or brain eating horror movie style zombies). And even then, it would be a very ususual situation indeed if I had the bad guys provoke OAs or trigger marks in order to coup de grace a downed character.

The reason that I have mentioned that particular scenario in a couple of threads is not because it is common or because I think it commendable (in fact, I think it is generally poor sportsmanship). Rather, I generally mention it for one of a few reasons:
A. it is probably the most extreme example of DM tactics making adventures more difficult than they would be otherwise.
B. it is a classic example of what I would call "team monster" play where behavior that is extremely advantageous for all of the monsters in an adventure is extremely disadvantageous for the specific monster in question.
C. it is probably the clearest example of how it can be more deadly to have all of the monsters go at once than to have the monstes running on separate initiatives interspersed between the PCs.

I don't generally CdG, but I'm contemplating changing that.

From an in-game POV, after the first time a PC goes from dying to "not even close to bloodied" after one healing word, I don't think it makes much sense for the bad guys to knock a PC unconscious and then count him out of the fight and move on.

From a metagame POV, I'm starting to see player behavior that indicates they're counting on the DM leaving them alone after they drop, such as a squishy melee striker who comes back with limited hit points (e.g., a dying PC who had a healing potion poured down his throat) who stays and fights rather than backing off and playing more cautiously.

I'm considering changing my policy to "One freebie, but the second guy who goes down, intelligent bad guys are going to make sure he stays down."

Then again, I also think NPCs can choose to subdue instead of kill just as easily as the PCs, and intelligent bad guys that bring a PC to negative bloodied can choose that option, rendering the PC unconscious (regardless of any further healing) until after a short rest.  I've never had a player argue that interpretation, since winning means "You're right, I can't do that; I guess you're just dead."

I would tend to go out of my way to avoid killing a PC prior to the last combat, since sitting around doing nothing for half of a module isn't much fun and you can generally always come up with a reason why the other side would want to keep the PCs alive.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 1:28PM, bgibbons wrote:

I'm considering changing my policy to "One freebie, but the second guy who goes down, intelligent bad guys are going to make sure he stays down."

Then again, I also think NPCs can choose to subdue instead of kill just as easily as the PCs, and intelligent bad guys that bring a PC to negative bloodied can choose that option, rendering the PC unconscious (regardless of any further healing) until after a short rest.  I've never had a player argue that interpretation, since winning means "You're right, I can't do that; I guess you're just dead."

Both of those match my policy. Monsters aren't idiots; once it's obvious there's healing floating around, they're capable of doing something about it.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 4:19AM, ixnay wrote:

How acceptable is it for a GM to use Coup de Grace in your LFR group?

I would normally expect DM's for follow DMG p.40:
"Monsters and Fallen Characters
Don’t hit people when they’re down. When a character falls unconscious, monsters turn their attention toenemies who are still up and fighting. Monsters don’t usually intentionally deal damage to fallen foes."

That said, if say an effect made a PC helpless for a round, I would still expect nearby monsters to try to get the free crit.

If the monsters realize that healing magic is preventing PC's from ever staying down (which is usually how combat is supposed to work anyway), then I would probably first have them try to eliminate the healer before resorting to double-tapping.

I would consider it poor form for a DM to go against the DM advice for a fallen character unless provoked to it, such as by powers like Consecrated Ground, or unable to take another action due to control (immobilize, divine challenge, certain 'cannot attack anyone else' effects, etc). I don't consider "someone could use a heal" as provoking - that's a reason to go after the healer, not to CdG the fallen.

Now, CdG on Helpless? Absolutely.

With the minimal penalty for death in 4.0, I don't think CDG is as big a deal.  That is, unless it is in the first fight of a mod and someone who died would have to quit.  I have never CDG in a mod, but if I did and it was the first combat I would allow the PC to be raised after the fight.  No one wants to have to stop a mod half-way or less through.

I do like the idea of at least some semblance of the threat of PC death though.  I play in a home game at mid-paragon (16th level) and our DM CDG our cleric last fight -- and he barely (within 3-4 HPs) survived.  It was the first time (in 8 levels of play - we started at 8th level) the DM had CDG and I was like "Whoaaa" but it made the fight much more epic and meaningful.  It made saving the Cleric and defeating those monsters feel that much better.

Daren

Jan 26, 2010 -- 3:19PM, Drezden wrote:

I play in a home game at mid-paragon (16th level) and our DM CDG our cleric last fight -- and he barely (within 3-4 HPs) survived.  It was the first time (in 8 levels of play - we started at 8th level) the DM had CDG and I was like "Whoaaa" but it made the fight much more epic and meaningful.  It made saving the Cleric and defeating those monsters feel that much better.

fwiw: I've heard of a DM using a CdG to build up animosity towards a particular BBEG in his home game. But even then it was a rare, memorable exception done mainly for dramatic purposes. Such occasions would be pretty rare in RPGA games.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 4:39AM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

Its fully accepted in my group. For example Aglarond mods the Stone Bears CdG elves.

I normally do not Coup de Grace. But if I read the tactics in a mod and it specifically says the enemy kills PCs, then I do it. AGLA 1-3 and AGLA 1-6 are perfect examples hence in the tactics it says (in short), "Stone Bears hate arcane characters. They hate anyone not human. Kill all non-human arcanist using efficient tactics."

DMs are encouraged to read the DMG (as are authors and Writing Directors).  I would not expect a Coup de Grace to be a routine or normal practice.  That said, there may be time due to either the situation or the dramatic buildup it might be appropriate.  If the PCs are warned up front that Group X is entirely ruthless and the DM is advised to show no mercy in their portrayal, I think it has story merit.  If you just see it as a combat tactic to make the adventure more challenging, because you think dead PCs equals fun, then I have some concerns.

Keith

I think it's ironic that it's bad form for the "bad guys" (the monsters) to attack someone when they're down; but the "good guys" (the PC's) do it all the time (with Knockout, Sleep, etc.) and that it's just fine.  I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I think the game works better that way.  I just thnk it's funny.  Bugbear stranglers, mind flayers, and zombies would never do anything unsporting, but a paladin will always kick a guy when he's down.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 8:07PM, Crodocile wrote:

I think it's ironic that it's bad form for the "bad guys" (the monsters) to attack someone when they're down; but the "good guys" (the PC's) do it all the time (with Knockout, Sleep, etc.) and that it's just fine.  I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I think the game works better that way.  I just thnk it's funny.  Bugbear stranglers, mind flayers, and zombies would never do anything unsporting, but a paladin will always kick a guy when he's down.

It's a very different context, though. CDG while under an Oni's unconsciousness breath effect would be kosher, but not while dying.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 8:07PM, Crodocile wrote:

I think it's ironic that it's bad form for the "bad guys" (the monsters) to attack someone when they're down; but the "good guys" (the PC's) do it all the time (with Knockout, Sleep, etc.) and that it's just fine.  I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I think the game works better that way.  I just thnk it's funny.  Bugbear stranglers, mind flayers, and zombies would never do anything unsporting, but a paladin will always kick a guy when he's down.

That's what happens when you don't force paladins to be lawful good anymore and give them stats that synergize well with pit-fighter.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 3:10PM, Keithric wrote:

I would consider it poor form for a DM to go against the DM advice for a fallen character unless provoked to it, such as by powers like Consecrated Ground

It would seem that clerics are the primary targets for CdG, due to their variety of powers like consec ground that make all teammates automatically stay up and active. Since dispelling isn't an option for most monsters, CdG is the only plausible way they have of dealing with most such powers.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 8:07PM, Crodocile wrote:

I think it's ironic that it's bad form for the "bad guys" (the monsters) to attack someone when they're down; but the "good guys" (the PC's) do it all the time (with Knockout, Sleep, etc.) and that it's just fine.  I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I think the game works better that way.  I just thnk it's funny.  Bugbear stranglers, mind flayers, and zombies would never do anything unsporting, but a paladin will always kick a guy when he's down.

The only time I've seen a PC try to attack a monster that was at 0 hp or lower was when it was a troll. When all the world falls down at 0 hp and doesn't get back up, then you don't attack people who are down. Indeed, even when monsters have a way to get back up such as a Deathlock, they go after the creature that can revive its comrades not trying to take extra actions to dismantle the body to prevent it from being used.

Now, using it on a Helpless foe, a creature using it because it literally has no other tactical options or would be punished for taking any other option, or threatening to use it to cover a retreat in normal villain fashion? Absolutely. But proactively CdGing because the monsters no longer care about winning the fight but are trying to take down as much PC gold as they can before dying? Poor form.

Fwiw, I was quite worried last month when I divine sanctioned a burst 3 of monsters then was Critical-ed and dropped that some that were sanctioned were going to CdG me. That's one example where I'd understand it, since sanction persists into unconscious. I'd not have faulted the DM if he'd chosen to - thankfully he didn't

Jan 26, 2010 -- 2:33PM, mvincent wrote:

Jan 26, 2010 -- 4:19AM, ixnay wrote:

How acceptable is it for a GM to use Coup de Grace in your LFR group?

I would normally expect DM's for follow DMG p.40:
"Monsters and Fallen Characters
Don’t hit people when they’re down. When a character falls unconscious, monsters turn their attention toenemies who are still up and fighting. Monsters don’t usually intentionally deal damage to fallen foes."

That said, if say an effect made a PC helpless for a round, I would still expect nearby monsters to try to get the free crit.

If the monsters realize that healing magic is preventing PC's from ever staying down (which is usually how combat is supposed to work anyway), then I would probably first have them try to eliminate the healer before resorting to double-tapping.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do have a question.

Would you make a distinction between "monsters" and humanoid races?  I could see a rage drake losing interest once a human goes unconscious, but I could also see an orc (or elf, or halfing) making the CdG to make sure the meatbag stays down. 

From a player perspective, I've been in one situation where my character "died" (and then the DM reversed himself realizing that for the table size, that particular monster should not have been in the fight), and I had not problems with the death. 

It's not LG make-a-new-character death.  It's simply no-further-xp death.  Without that risk of some downside, the fights just seem (looking for a word - uh...) pointless?  a grind?  If I know that my character might suffer some _real_ penalty (even as minor as forfeiting xp for the adventure), then the fight seems more interesting to me.  It's like the difference between playing a game in an arcade, and playing the rom in LAME with unlimited quarters.  When you are actually dropping quarters, your performance matters.

Jan 27, 2010 -- 6:32AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

Would you make a distinction between "monsters" and humanoid races?

Naw. The writers often use the term "monsters" to mean "enemies of the PC's". A semantic differentiation does not appear intended here.

 

Jan 27, 2010 -- 10:40AM, mvincent wrote:

Jan 27, 2010 -- 6:32AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

Would you make a distinction between "monsters" and humanoid races?

Naw. The writers often use the term "monsters" to mean "enemies of the PC's". A semantic differentiation does not appear intended here.

 

[visualizing the conversation]

"Der, Boss.  I knocked one o' dem hero dudes out cold, shoulda I uh finish im off?"

"No Vinnie.  You've read the DMG, you're suppose to lose interst in im and move on to someone else."

"But Boss, if I do dat, one of the cleriky guys'll haveim on his feet in no time.  Can't I just kill him this once?"

"No.  Only heroes kill their enemies.  We're the monsters and we just move on."

"Duh.  Okay... Yer da boss, but I don't feel like a monster, I feel like a half-orc thug."

Jan 27, 2010 -- 10:46AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

[visualizing the conversation]

"Der, Boss.  I knocked one o' dem hero dudes out cold, shoulda I uh finish im off?"

"No Vinnie.  You've read the DMG, you're suppose to lose interst in im and move on to someone else."

"But Boss, if I do dat, one of the cleriky guys'll haveim on his feet in no time.  Can't I just kill him this once?"

"No.  Only heroes kill their enemies.  We're the monsters and we just move on."

"Duh.  Okay... Yer da boss, but I don't feel like a monster, I feel like a half-orc thug."

"How many healing surges do you have?"

"Er... der nobody named Serge in our band, boss. Da eye of Gruumsch over there sometimes heals me, but he's Guido"

"No Vinnie, 'healing surges.' Look at your statblock then think back to the DMG"

"Oh yeah. I gots one healing surge. What's dat for anyway?"

"Vinnie, if you've got one healing surge, you're a monster. There are only two kinds of people with stats in this world: PCs and monsters. Monsters get 1, 2, or 3 surges depending on how good they are. I've got two surges. That means I'm the boss monster around here."

Jan 27, 2010 -- 10:46AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

"Duh.  Okay... Yer da boss, but I don't feel like a monster, I feel like a half-orc thug."

"Vinnie, I already tol' yuz a plethora o' times: there be no semantic differentiation."

Jan 27, 2010 -- 1:41PM, mvincent wrote:

Jan 27, 2010 -- 10:46AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

"Duh.  Okay... Yer da boss, but I don't feel like a monster, I feel like a half-orc thug."

"Vinnie, I already tol' yuz a plethora o' times: there be no semantic differentiation."

"Gee boss, ders no reason ta be swearin at me.  Yaz hurtsd my feeling."

Well, this all explains why the townsfolk being attacked by Gnolls aren't afraid of Gnoll PCs... they're all monsters!

Wait... maybe they should be afraid of all PCs... hmm...

Jan 27, 2010 -- 6:37PM, Joe_Shill wrote:

Jan 27, 2010 -- 1:41PM, mvincent wrote:

Jan 27, 2010 -- 10:46AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

"Duh.  Okay... Yer da boss, but I don't feel like a monster, I feel like a half-orc thug."

"Vinnie, I already tol' yuz a plethora o' times: there be no semantic differentiation."

"Gee boss, ders no reason ta be swearin at me.  Yaz hurtsd my feeling."

XD, I was about to say, 'plethora' seems like an awfully big word for these two guys.

I heard about a DM who, after knocking a PC unconscious with drow poison, had all of his monsters provoke from a striker (pursuit avenger) in order to gang coup-de-grace the unconscious PC.  Trying to kill a PC who has zero chance of being a threat in the combat anymore (kicking a guy when he's down and can't get back up) seems like really bad form to me.  Also, it makes no sense for the monsters to do that - why would they risk their lives to kill someone who can't possibly hurt them anymore while ignoring all the PCs that can hurt them?

It turns out it was a really bad tactic too.  The unconscious PC was still close to full hit points before the coup-de-graces, so the leader just healed all the wounds and undid the monster's turns (while the rest of the party continued to beat them up). 

Sorta goes against the "make the game fun for everyone" guideline when you try to kill PCs just to kill PCs.

Jan 26, 2010 -- 4:24AM, ixnay wrote:

In my group, GM Coup de Grace is not acceptable in most circumstances.

In some groups I play in, *not* Coup de Grace - ing is unacceptable.

Coup de grace is often the "correct" tactical thing for a monster to do.

For the monster *not* to do it, then, is . . . what?  For the DM to force the monster to be stupid.

If you want a "role-playing game" in which everything that opposes you is just naturally stupid, then, I don't know, maybe you should be clubbing helpless baby seals or something.

I would normally expect DM's for follow DMG p.40:
"Monsters and Fallen Characters
Don’t hit people when they’re down. When a character falls unconscious, monsters turn their attention toenemies who are still up and fighting. Monsters don’t usually intentionally deal damage to fallen foes."

So if the DMG told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

In some groups I play in, the expectation is that the DM is going to run the adventure with integrity, attempting to kill PCs whenever appropriate, which is usually the case when the monsters are in combat with the PCs.  For the DM to do otherwise is condescending.

Of course, that is *SOME* DMs.

Other DMs think role-playing "fun" means a largely consequence-free environment in which player decisions have no real impact on the characters lives.  Attack the guards, intimidate the king, and the monsters somehow never manage to bring the PCs down; it's brings a whole new meaning to the word "fantasy", if you understand what I mean.  True, it's not "all or none", but I respect DMs that coup de grace more than those that simply won't.

(Note:  DMs that coup de grace SHOULD make clear to the players what they intend to do *before* starting an adventure, and why.  If the players object, the DM shouldn't do it.)

Feb 1, 2010 -- 6:18AM, lorika wrote:

I heard about a DM who, after knocking a PC unconscious with drow poison, had all of his monsters provoke from a striker (pursuit avenger) in order to gang coup-de-grace the unconscious PC.  Trying to kill a PC who has zero chance of being a threat in the combat anymore (kicking a guy when he's down and can't get back up) seems like really bad form to me.  Also, it makes no sense for the monsters to do that - why would they risk their lives to kill someone who can't possibly hurt them anymore while ignoring all the PCs that can hurt them?

It turns out it was a really bad tactic too.  The unconscious PC was still close to full hit points before the coup-de-graces, so the leader just healed all the wounds and undid the monster's turns (while the rest of the party continued to beat them up).

This strikes me as one of the few times I would definitely CdG someone. If they were helpless but near full hit points, hitting them a bunch of times with auto crit-like damage would seem to be a way to cause a lot of damage. It might not kill them but it will sure as heck scare the party. And given the piss poor damage that some monsters deal, it might be one of the few times in their sad little monster lives that they get to do that much damage. ;-)

Feb 1, 2010 -- 8:17AM, Newpaintbrush wrote:

If you want a "role-playing game" in which everything that opposes you is just naturally stupid, then, I don't know, maybe you should be clubbing helpless baby seals or something.

So if the DMG told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

It's heartening to see that D&D can still attract young players.

Well this is LFR we are talking about. The idea is that the DM follows the guidelines in the module along with the tactics for the monsters during encounters. A wise DM would look at his/her monster stat block and play at their intelligence.

A good example is a Drow Daggermaster (not the PP) and a Guard Drake.

The Drow is intelligent and knows her poison will take the PC out of equation once it settles in. She'll move onto her next pray instead of killing the PC.

The Guard Drake sends a PC unconscious after ripping off a chunk of flesh. He'll keep doing so because it's a dumb creature and very hungry, CdC'ing the PC basically.

Feb 1, 2010 -- 6:18AM, lorika wrote:

I heard about a DM who, after knocking a PC unconscious with drow poison, had all of his monsters provoke from a striker (pursuit avenger) in order to gang coup-de-grace the unconscious PC.  Trying to kill a PC who has zero chance of being a threat in the combat anymore (kicking a guy when he's down and can't get back up) seems like really bad form to me.  Also, it makes no sense for the monsters to do that - why would they risk their lives to kill someone who can't possibly hurt them anymore while ignoring all the PCs that can hurt them?

It turns out it was a really bad tactic too.  The unconscious PC was still close to full hit points before the coup-de-graces, so the leader just healed all the wounds and undid the monster's turns (while the rest of the party continued to beat them up). 

Sorta goes against the "make the game fun for everyone" guideline when you try to kill PCs just to kill PCs.

This is what I would do if I thought the encounter was looking too hard, or was taking too long.  It's a great way to introduce fake difficulty: the PCs think you're out to get them, but instead you've made an incrediably stupid tactical move (because what you saw is what will happen.  Monster crits don't do much extra damage, PCs have a big HP buffer before death, healing starts at 0, and the extra attacks from provoking to move over will shorten the combat.)

Feb 1, 2010 -- 6:18AM, lorika wrote:

why would they risk their lives to kill someone who can't possibly hurt them anymore while ignoring all the PCs that can hurt them?

Well sounds like the PC did get up again and hurt them. So the CdG makes sense from a monsters perspective. 

Its not a stupid tactic, probably just a series of bad rolls that kept the PC alive-and thats part of the game too.

I could have CdGed several times at DDXP - I thought of this conversation every time it came up. I don't think it would have contributed anything to the combats. Rather, it would have likely detracted from the enjoyment of the players. This is true even in combats where the PCs used CdG on the monsters.

I can see it working in some situations, but very seldomly.

Feb 1, 2010 -- 2:31PM, kilpatds wrote:

Feb 1, 2010 -- 6:18AM, lorika wrote:

I heard about a DM who, after knocking a PC unconscious with drow poison, had all of his monsters provoke from a striker (pursuit avenger) in order to gang coup-de-grace the unconscious PC.  Trying to kill a PC who has zero chance of being a threat in the combat anymore (kicking a guy when he's down and can't get back up) seems like really bad form to me.  Also, it makes no sense for the monsters to do that - why would they risk their lives to kill someone who can't possibly hurt them anymore while ignoring all the PCs that can hurt them?

It turns out it was a really bad tactic too.  The unconscious PC was still close to full hit points before the coup-de-graces, so the leader just healed all the wounds and undid the monster's turns (while the rest of the party continued to beat them up). 

Sorta goes against the "make the game fun for everyone" guideline when you try to kill PCs just to kill PCs.

This is what I would do if I thought the encounter was looking too hard, or was taking too long.  It's a great way to introduce fake difficulty: the PCs think you're out to get them, but instead you've made an incrediably stupid tactical move (because what you saw is what will happen.  Monster crits don't do much extra damage, PCs have a big HP buffer before death, healing starts at 0, and the extra attacks from provoking to move over will shorten the combat.)

Also, from a character perspective, Drow would be the first ones to CdG someone.  Drow are jerks.

Feb 1, 2010 -- 11:15PM, Crodocile wrote:

Also, from a character perspective, Drow would be the first ones to CdG someone.  Drow are jerks.

 
We sure are.... One of my favorite things at DDXP was asking my table on saturday "Do you want me to kill you, or do you want to make it through this"  Not try to kill you mind you, but "Do you want me to kill you" they thought I was mostly, till I knocked the ranger unconscious with the first set of monstesr to go in one of the rounds, they had highest initiative and just dropped him, could have killed him had they asked for the super crunchy version =)

Feb 1, 2010 -- 12:45PM, Hibiki54 wrote:

Well this is LFR we are talking about. The idea is that the DM follows the guidelines in the module along with the tactics for the monsters during encounters. A wise DM would look at his/her monster stat block and play at their intelligence.

I hate this argument. Fisticuffs is generally not a hobby of geniuses. Canines are not intelligent creatures, but a pack can implement cunning tactics far beyond an untrained mob of violin prodigies. In addition, intelligent creatures are equally prone to survival instincts—panic and fear can greatly change a creature's tactics under duress.

Out of curiosity:

How would you feel about CdGing with Mind Flayers? 

Feb 1, 2010 -- 11:27PM, ibixat wrote:

We sure are.... One of my favorite things at DDXP was asking my table on saturday "Do you want me to kill you, or do you want to make it through this"  Not try to kill you mind you, but "Do you want me to kill you" they thought I was mostly, till I knocked the ranger unconscious with the first set of monstesr to go in one of the rounds, they had highest initiative and just dropped him, could have killed him had they asked for the super crunchy version =)

Not to derail, but... as a player, I hate this. I /know/ the DM can always kill my PC. The DM has all the cards, you can DME up the difficulty if you need to, and so on. It's not a fair competition. What I want is the illusion of danger. I want you to walk that line which makes me feel like my PC is about to die, but I've pulled it out because I'm smart. 

If you ask me if you should try and kill me, and I say yes, you can kill me. If I say no, you've stripped away the illusion of danger and the adventure becomes boring.

This is, of course, just me.  

Feb 1, 2010 -- 7:51PM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

Feb 1, 2010 -- 6:18AM, lorika wrote:

why would they risk their lives to kill someone who can't possibly hurt them anymore while ignoring all the PCs that can hurt them?

Well sounds like the PC did get up again and hurt them. So the CdG makes sense from a monsters perspective. 

Its not a stupid tactic, probably just a series of bad rolls that kept the PC alive-and thats part of the game too.

If you fail your saves from drow poison, you are unconscious for the entire encounter, no save.  There's absolutely nothing you or anyone in your party can do to get that PC back in the fight.  Unless the monster intends to run away and continue the fight again later (after a short rest so the PC can regain consciousness), the poisoned PC is absolutely no threat at all.  (All the leader's healing did was keep the PC from actually dying.  The PC was still unconscious and out of the fight completely.)


I wasn't actually playing at the table where this happened, so I don't know all the details, but there are several problems with having all of your monsters provoke in order to mass-CdG a drow-poisoned PC.

(1) It sucks for the poisoned PC if he really does get killed by these attacks.  It's no fun to be killed due to something you have absolutely no control over.  And it's not "challenging" either.  There's nothing you or anyone else can do - so what could be challenging about it?  I suppose finishing the mod with one fewer PC would add some challenge to the rest of the party, but there are better ways to add challenge than just killing off PCs.  It's not enjoyable for the poisoned PC to just sit at the table writing down the massive amounts of damage they're taking.  It's bad enough that they're essentially helpless/stunned for the entire encounter. 

(2) It's boring for the rest of the table.  In this case there were 2 leaders and the unconscious PC had plenty of hit points, so there was no real threat of actually killing the PC.  By focusing all their attacks on a PC that was already out of the combat and ignoring the entire rest of the party, the other PCs weren't threatened at all and it took the excitement and danger out of the fight for everyone else.  It's almost like walking in on a BBEG torturing someone, attacking him, and having the BBEG ignore you and continue to kick the unconscious prisoner while you rain death upon him.  (If you're using this tactic to reduce the difficulty of the fight..., well, I guess that makes sense, but since it's such a stupid tactic for your monsters to use your player's might see right through your little trick.  One monster doing this?  Fine.  ALL of the monsters provoking to do a stupid tactic - gets suspicious.)

(3) It doesn't make any sense for the drow to do this.  Yes, drow are jerks.  But they're also very cunning and intelligent.  They know how their poison works.  I'm assuming that these weren't supposed to be mentally challenged drow.  If there were only 1 or 2 PCs left standing, then I could buy that a drow might CdG one of the PCs.  But drow are also always looking out for themselves.  I find it hard to believe that a drow would really provoke from a striker in order to CdG a PC that had only been hit a few times and had two leaders standing over him when the entire rest of the party was still a threat and when the drow knew that the poisoned PC had absolutely no chance of being a threat again.  Now, if the PCs are storming the drow stronghold and the drow are particularly faithful and don't want the PCs to kill their leader in the next room (i.e. next fight), maybe I could see a drow CdGing a poisoned PC to protect their leader and reduce the threat to the temple/stronghold/whatever.

Comments -

1.  Whether mind flayers CdG or not is up to them.  Honestly.  They're mind flayers.  Who understands a mind flayer?

2.  People cry about drow poison.  That's why you use Keoghtom's ointment before the PC falls unconscious.  You have plenty of rounds to do it.  This is why people just don't think.  You know you're gonna face monsters that inflict the petrified condition at level 11+, you know you're gonna see drow poison at level 11+, you know saves are going to be important at level 11+, so prepare!  Buy the consumable that removes petrified condition, bring Keoghtom's ointment.  It isn't just halfling dice and war rings and bloodiron weapons that win the day, it's thinking ahead and being prepared!

3.  Teos mentioned he *could* have CdGed at DDXP.  You-know-who's verbal briefing for the DMs was "If you can kill these guys in the framework of D&D, I want you to do it."  Tsk tsk, you old softy you.

Of course, I can't really talk.  I CdGed once out of the twelve plus opportunities I had.  I did kill two PCs, though.

(Note:  I could EASILY have slaughtered the entire table twice over, and had extra PC deaths on top of that.  When you throw that many XP at a party, something's gonna pay unless the PCs were optimized, which the ones I faced weren't.  Well, there was a drow sorcerer that was pretty good, and a dwarf feat based build that was pretty good, but that wasn't enough to compensate for the lack of, say, an Astral Seal using pacifist cleric, or broken equipment like vicious and/or armbands of power, etc. etc.  Not bad for regular LFR, but for a BI, it's a wee bit different.)

(Note 2:  If the players that I DMed are happening to read this and wonder if they're the ones I'm writing about - remember the scimitar wielding ranger in hide that ran out in front for the first encounters that got pulverized, that ended up using a javelin in the encounter for the final round?  Also remember all the warnings I gave you guys about how the monsters weren't going to hold back, and how I told you "you CAN call for help" just before I was about to administer a CdG on a downed PC?  Wasn't your fault really - just needed more synergy & more brute healing, which a Str-based cleric can't really provide.)

Feb 2, 2010 -- 7:04AM, Newpaintbrush wrote:

I CdGed once out of the twelve plus opportunities I had.

Assuming it was against an Unconscious (rather than merely Helpless) target, why did you CdG that particular time? Ie, was it due to divine challenge, immobilization, specific tactics in the module, whatever?

Basically, was there a good reason to overrule the specific DMG instructions on this issue?

Feb 2, 2010 -- 4:34AM, Thanlis wrote:

Feb 1, 2010 -- 11:27PM, ibixat wrote:

We sure are.... One of my favorite things at DDXP was asking my table on saturday "Do you want me to kill you, or do you want to make it through this"  Not try to kill you mind you, but "Do you want me to kill you" they thought I was mostly, till I knocked the ranger unconscious with the first set of monstesr to go in one of the rounds, they had highest initiative and just dropped him, could have killed him had they asked for the super crunchy version =)

Not to derail, but... as a player, I hate this. I /know/ the DM can always kill my PC. The DM has all the cards, you can DME up the difficulty if you need to, and so on. It's not a fair competition. What I want is the illusion of danger. I want you to walk that line which makes me feel like my PC is about to die, but I've pulled it out because I'm smart. 

If you ask me if you should try and kill me, and I say yes, you can kill me. If I say no, you've stripped away the illusion of danger and the adventure becomes boring.

This is, of course, just me.  

While the derail is there:

I have been known to ask players if they would like the mean/deadly/extra crunchy version, but there is a trick to that which I am fairly sure ixibat was using as well. I would never ask just any table this and I would not do it with every adventure. I am fairly sure the adventure in question was a special. Those are high risk, high reward and tend to attract players that are there to be challenged. There is many a table that will actually enjoy "nightmare mode" in a special. Its a judgement call to ask at all, but if a table gives you the idea they might like it, I see no problem in the question. You will have to of course explain what makes up the extra crunchy mode.

For me:
Every NPC gets played to its intelligence or instincts no matter what.
A non brain dead NPC will not keep hitting the defender while the rogue is remodeling its back with a dagger simply because the defender has it marked, unless the price the NPC will have to pay for ignoring the mark is high enough. Pack hunters like wolves will flank, and neutral hungry monsters (like oh I don't know..Ankegs?) will try to grab their snack and run off with it. Smart NPC's will risk AO's to get as many people as possible in their burst or blast when they feel the tactical advantage is worth it and if needed include their NPC friends in the carnage, etc.
As for CdG's: all my NPC's will depend on the players to provide them with a better tactical option than using a CdG on a downed PC; an immobilized assassin standing over the unconscious body of their target will not suddenly decide to throw their dagger at someone else for piddling damage unless the PC's give it a reason to do so. How much of a reason is needed is variable and dependent on the tactical situation, the NPC in question, its motivation, its intelligence and last but definitely not least the players. I will always try very hard to not "be a ****" about it and it shouldn't normally take much to avoid the CdG. I have CdG'd often and will do it again, but up to now have not gotten complaints or even evil looks. Granted only one of the many resulted in a death .   

Basically there will always be danger, normal or crunchy doesn't matter there.

So then what is extra crunchy?
Well as DM's we all come across the slightly mean (maybe not the right word.. but its what I use) tricks NPC's can pull in combats. Things we will use if we feel a Yikes! moment is needed. Things that an NPC might not always logically think of but as a DM you do. Things like:
 

• Watching the avenger with fly movement zip around the battlefield and taking a ready action with your archer NPC to knock him prone at the highest point.
• Having the Halfling minion yell to the next room to "Kill that hafling in the dress, its the most dangerous!" and proceed to try and focus fire on the sorcerer in that next encounter.
• Dragging the cleric out of healing range from the rest of the party with your bugbear strangler. While they are all down a pit.
• Telling the greatbow archer to throw their bow in a portal while they are dominated.
• Having NPC's use a dominate effect on other NPC's to give them extra attacks.
• ..

I am sure everyone has lots of examples and since I am still jet-lagged the best ones wont come to mind Maybe something for a thread on its own. I am sure both players and and DM's have lots of these moments in the memory banks.

Anyway, normally if I think of tricks like that I might use them, but I will carefully consider the situation to make sure I am not adding difficulty where it is not needed, warranted or wanted.
In crunchy mode, I will probably just use them.

 

Feb 2, 2010 -- 7:36AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

While the derail is there:

I have been known to ask players if they would like the mean/deadly/extra crunchy version, but there is a trick to that which I am fairly sure ixibat was using as well. I would never ask just any table this and I would not do it with every adventure. I am fairly sure the adventure in question was a special. Those are high risk, high reward and tend to attract players that are there to be challenged. There is many a table that will actually enjoy "nightmare mode" in a special. Its a judgement call to ask at all, but if a table gives you the idea they might like it, I see no problem in the question. You will have to of course explain what makes up the extra crunchy mode.

For a special, you bet. And it's all in the phrasing too. I shouldn't assume ibixat was handling it poorly; sorry! If a DM asks me if they want to ramp up the challenge, that's awesome, particularly in that context.

I like your list of crunchy tactics. I have gotten great effects by dragging a down PC out of healing range. Throwing in the occasional "holy crap" is an awesome way to get people out of the rut, and a CdG is definitely one of those.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 7:31AM, Keithric wrote:

Feb 2, 2010 -- 7:04AM, Newpaintbrush wrote:

I CdGed once out of the twelve plus opportunities I had.

Assuming it was against an Unconscious (rather than merely Helpless) target, why did you CdG that particular time? Ie, was it due to divine challenge, immobilization, specific tactics in the module, whatever?

Basically, was there a good reason to overrule the specific DMG instructions on this issue?

See for me this is reversing the equation. 

Its not the DM that needs to provide a reason to CdG outside of it being the most reasonable thing for the NPC to do. Its the players that need to give the NPC a reason NOT to.

Yes, the DM should mind the "FUN!" mantra, but taking the responsibility away from the players entirely and letting them in essence ignore the imminent danger of a CdG seems wrong to me. Doesn't even have to mean the players have to engage the NPC, just being a viable threat and thus more pressing danger could do it. Making the NPC in question realize that if it proceeds with a CdG surrender is off the table could be plenty. And yes, a DM should, in my view, help players to find that way out if needed.
There should not be a blanket assumption that an NPC will clean its nails for a round rather than try and kill a downed foe. However it seems to be rapidly becoming the prevailing sentiment.
 

Feb 2, 2010 -- 7:52AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

See for me this is reversing the equation. Its not the DM that needs to provide a reason to CdG outside of it being the most reasonable thing for the NPC to do. Its the players that need to give the NPC a reason NOT to.

I'd imagine 'There is another action you could take that would affect someone who is actually active in the combat' would count.

Much like there is a rule that says "PCs don't attack other PCs without permission", certain rules and guidelines exist to protect the play experience. The DMG is quite explicit on this particular matter. Now, much like you can get permission to attack other PCs, some groups will want a CdG. But if you're at a con with a random group, they'll likely expect a DM to follow the explicit and clear instruction

"(DMG p40) Don’t hit people when they’re down. When a character falls unconscious, monsters turn their attention to enemies who are still up and fighting. Monsters don’t usually intentionally deal damage to fallen foes."

Remember, most creatures do not get back up after dropping unconscious. PCs do not stop to CdG monsters that they knock to 0 hp. Hungry creatures do not ignore the threat of still active combatants to sit down and eat. In many cases it is actually metagaming to go "Well, I should CdG because otherwise they're just going to heal him later and he'll be fine". It's also potentially un-Fun, depending on the group's wishes and how far into the module you are.

So, yes, as a DM you should have a good reason to CdG an unconscious (not Helpless) PC. That reason can include "Otherwise I'll take damage from a mark" "I'm immobilized next to this creature" "Consecrated Ground is up" Etc.  Now, if the creature has clearly lost and CdG is its only option, it could try to flee using the threat of CdG to get away. Or it could just flee. But in many cases for LFR, CdG is not a viable tactic for the creature in question, it is a viable tactic for the _module_ in question, to have a lasting effect on the PCs, put some scare in them, etc. But it's not a way to win.

Again, there's a clear instruction on this. There has to be a good reason to go against it. And good isn't "I want to be a DM that kills some PCs" unless those players ask for that. Much like the DM shouldn't go "Hmm, this module would make more logical sense if I moved this encounter closer and had the second encounter come in before they can get a short rest. Yeah, that'd make more sense. Why would the monsters be so stupid as to have a lair that could be defeated so easily?" Logic and gameplay do not necessarily see eye to eye on some things.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 8:05AM, Keithric wrote:

...

Much like there is a rule that says "PCs don't attack other PCs without permission", certain rules and guidelines exist to protect the play experience. The DMG is quite explicit on this particular matter. Now, much like you can get permission to attack other PCs, some groups will want a CdG. But if you're at a con with a random group, they'll likely expect a DM to follow the explicit and clear instruction

"(DMG p40) Don’t hit people when they’re down. When a character falls unconscious, monsters turn their attention to enemies who are still up and fighting. Monsters don’t usually intentionally deal damage to fallen foes."

I think part of the problem is that you are reading page 40 of the DMG as a rule, when the same page states that it is not part of the mechanics, but a tip.

(DMG p40) "Running Combat
Chapter 9 of the Player’s Handbook tells you everything you need to know about the mechanics of combat. Here are some tips to help you keep things moving smoothly."

The DMG contains some rules on the mechanics of how things work.  But the DMG also contains a huge amount of general advice to the DM. 

Pg 39 suggest using a white board to track initiative.  I doubt that you would insist all DM's must use a white board for want of being labeled a rulebreaker. 

Pg 41 discusses smart monsters: "Smart Monsters: Smart monsters act differently in combat than dumb ones do. Look at the monster’s Intelligence score to help you decide what it does. Smart
creatures plan their actions and choose the best course of action. A vampire might focus its attacks on the cleric who keeps hitting it with radiant damage. Less intelligent creatures don’t plan, they react. A wolf turns to bite the last opponent that hurt it or the nearest enemy."

Again, this is advice.  The chapter introduction itself makes clear that the chapter is divided between GM advice and rules mechanics:

(DMG pg34)"This chapter includes the following sections.
-Combat Fundamentals: How to run a combat as the DM: preparation, monster readiness, surprise, rolling and tracking initiative, tips on running the combat (including tracking individual monsters, conditions, and effects), and how to wrap up an encounter.
-Additional Rules: Rules for actions not covered by the rules, cover, forced movement, aquatic  combat, mounted combat, flying, disease, and poison."


It's only when we get to page 42, that the DMG starts to label "Additional Rules" that were not included in the Players Handbook "—in particular, mounted combat and combat underwater"

Communication between DMs and players is the key.

When presented with an opportunity to CdG, if the DM says, "Hmm . . . the monster could CdG the character lying there - - what do you think?"

Players who fully expect CdG to be a part of the game will say "Of course he would do it."
Players not a fan of this might point out "The character up over there is more of a threat."

In either case, the DM is providing a play experience that the players enjoy.  In my book, that's the bottom line.  

(I did one CdG action at DDXP - - one of those "the creature really has nothing else he can do with his turn" actions. The players understood and were very accepting that I wasn't actively trying to kill characters, which meshed with their play style/preference.)

I was at the table where the DM - in round 2 - ran all of the enemies over (and provoked) to CdG the drow-poisoned "Unconscious, no save" character.  It didn't make any sense to me from a tactics or role-playing standpoint. (From a threat level, Unconscious (no save)  is just as threatening as Dead.)

The other thing to keep in mind is - since healing starts at 0 - that unless your CdG will absolutely kill the character, you've wasted your turn.  (Whether the dying character is at -2 or -22, they'll be healed to the same amount.) 

Feb 2, 2010 -- 8:05AM, Keithric wrote:

Feb 2, 2010 -- 7:52AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

See for me this is reversing the equation. Its not the DM that needs to provide a reason to CdG outside of it being the most reasonable thing for the NPC to do. Its the players that need to give the NPC a reason NOT to.

I'd imagine 'There is another action you could take that would affect someone who is actually active in the combat' would count.

...snip....

We probably agree to a large extent, but the devil tends to be in the details. 
An action that would affect someone in combat is way too broad for me.
Yes, the immobilized owlbear could ignore the downed barbarian next to it and throw a rock at the other PC's that are currently ignoring it to get their attention..... It is essentially an action that would affect someone in combat, but i cannot on any level see that making sense to the owlbear.  Now if someone were to throw a rock at the owlbear or yell at it threateningly.. different story..

Now if I as a DM say nothing, the players ignore or fail to see the situation and I then go "GOTCHA, CdG!". I deserve to be shot/boo'd/derided. But when I point out the threat to the players (subtly if possible, bluntly if needed), or they indicate they do see it and then get "check DMG page 40" or a more subtle variation of that response, the CdG is the least they deserve..

Fun happens when everyone is at the table together. Players AND DM. The DM is not a NPC dice robot programmed with DMG rules there to follow the players whim. Team effort is key.

Forgive me if I am not making my position clear, its been a long day and DDXP was.. tiring and a blast , so I might be even more disjointed than usual

 

Feb 2, 2010 -- 8:29AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

Yes, the immobilized owlbear could ignore the downed barbarian next to it

I think I've used immobilized several times as a good reason to CdG

Anyhow, I think I misunderstood you slightly and we agree.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 8:24AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

I think part of the problem is that you are reading page 40 of the DMG as a rule, when the same page states that it is not part of the mechanics, but a tip.

It's not a rule - that's why I used guideline and instruction in reference to it. If it were a rule, I doubt we'd have this conversation at all

But it's still something there should be a good reason to ignore. And it sounds like for many DMs that good reason sounds awfully fishy. Like 'Because they could heal the down character!' or 'Otherwise it wouldn't be challenging' or 'Cause the monster is smart', none of which are all that good on their own. For clarity, "Because the players have said they like that threat to be more on the table" _is_ a good reason.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 9:12AM, Keithric wrote:

But it's still something there should be a good reason to ignore.

"Because the players have stopped being scared" strikes me as a good reason.

I think the implicit threat of a CdG is more important than the actual CdG.  It's when players start assuming that they're safe when unconscious that you need to start doing an occasional CdG to wake them up.

The D&D combat system could be described as an awful lot of time and energy spent on not killing PCs, while at the same time making them think they're at risk of death.

Part of that shared fiction is players behaving as though a PC lying unconscious next to a bad guy or staying in melee combat with single-digit hps are bad things.  At the point that players stop worrying about things like that, because they're counting on the DM moving on after dropping them (and the cleric will have them right back up on his turn), is when the DM needs to bring some fear back.

Worse, if players start not fearing CdGs because they would need to take at least three of them to get down to negative bloodied (or worst of all, appreciating them, because any damage that doesn't kill an unconscious PC is wasted), the DM might need to start actively attempting to kill the PC as a final option, though I can't say I've ever seen it get that far.

If at no point in the adventure were the players worried that they might fail or be killed, either the DM or the adventure author (and likely both) have failed.  CdG is just one tool in a DM's arsenal to help achieve that, and the more the players understand that it's a viable tool, the less the DM actually has to use it.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 10:16AM, bgibbons wrote:

Feb 2, 2010 -- 9:12AM, Keithric wrote:

But it's still something there should be a good reason to ignore.

"Because the players have stopped being scared" strikes me as a good reason.

I think the implicit threat of a CdG is more important than the actual CdG.  It's when players start assuming that they're safe when unconscious that you need to start doing an occasional CdG to wake them up.

The D&D combat system could be described as an awful lot of time and energy spent on not killing PCs, while at the same time making them think they're at risk of death.

Part of that shared fiction is players behaving as though a PC lying unconscious next to a bad guy or staying in melee combat with single-digit hps are bad things.  At the point that players stop worrying about things like that, because they're counting on the DM moving on after dropping them (and the cleric will have them right back up on his turn), is when the DM needs to bring some fear back.

Worse, if players start not fearing CdGs because they would need to take at least three of them to get down to negative bloodied (or worst of all, appreciating them, because any damage that doesn't kill an unconscious PC is wasted), the DM might need to start actively attempting to kill the PC as a final option, though I can't say I've ever seen it get that far.

If at no point in the adventure were the players worried that they might fail or be killed, either the DM or the adventure author (and likely both) have failed.  CdG is just one tool in a DM's arsenal to help achieve that, and the more the players understand that it's a viable tool, the less the DM actually has to use it.

Well said.  I usually condense it to "If there is no danger of my character actually dying in an encounter, then the entire encounter is simply a grind."

Feb 2, 2010 -- 10:16AM, bgibbons wrote:

Feb 2, 2010 -- 9:12AM, Keithric wrote:

But it's still something there should be a good reason to ignore.

"Because the players have stopped being scared" strikes me as a good reason.

It's funny.  I tend to scare/threaten players quite frequently without ignoring specific advice from the DMG.  Maybe it's because I use effective tactics or just because my dice are lucky, but I've killed (or knocked unconscious) more PCs in LFR than I can remember off the top of my head ... and I don't think I've ever used coup de grace in an LFR game.

Want to scare a party? Focus on the cleric first.  Drag people off.  Have that brute with a ton of hp ignore marks to go after the squishies in the back.  The game is supposed to be fun, not an excuse for the DM to see how they can "win" by killing helpless PCs.  Being helpless is bad enough for most characters, no reason to kick them while they're down.

On another note - does anyone have the bad guys knock PCs unconscious when they would otherwise die?  I've done this more than once when the PCs were facing intelligent monsters that would have a reason to not kill the PCs then and there.  This can be because they want slaves or "something to play with later".  It's nothing official, but I rule that the person is out for the rest of the encounter and needs 5 minutes to wake up after.  The penalty for dying in LFR isn't that great, but not being able to play the rest of the mod is annoying.

Allen.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 10:52AM, aljergensen wrote:

...

On another note - does anyone have the bad guys knock PCs unconscious when they would otherwise die?  I've done this more than once when the PCs were facing intelligent monsters that would have a reason to not kill the PCs then and there.  This can be because they want slaves or "something to play with later".  It's nothing official, but I rule that the person is out for the rest of the encounter and needs 5 minutes to wake up after.  The penalty for dying in LFR isn't that great, but not being able to play the rest of the mod is annoying.

At least one of the 1-4 mods specifically said to do this in the tactics section.

Well, the monsters had different motivations, so some of them knocked PCs unconscious and others killed the PCs.  We had a TPK and it was kind of random luck whether you lived or not (based on which monster happened to land the killing blow).  It was a little frustrating/weird that some PCs ended up unconscious while others got killed outright.  (I'm a tad bitter because my PC died but most of the rest of the party came through completely unscathed even though we had a "TPK.")  But at least it was the last encounter of the mod, so it wasn't a huge deal.

In another mod the tactics say that if the bad guys win, they kick the bodies down a pit and leave the PCs for dead.  Then at least the party can finish the mod assuming that some of them survive the fall.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 10:16AM, bgibbons wrote:

Feb 2, 2010 -- 9:12AM, Keithric wrote:

But it's still something there should be a good reason to ignore.

"Because the players have stopped being scared" strikes me as a good reason.

It's not. It's a reason, certainly, but it's not a good reason. If you add "and want to be more scared", then absolutely, sure. But a convention DM going out of his way to CdG a table that hasn't asked for it when there are perfectly good other actions to take is doing things wrong. The game says not to do so. There are perfectly decent reasons not to do so, and the first and primary is that it's an action that can actively take away the fun of another person and/or cause hurt feelings.

I've got a home game where we always try to kill whoever's birthday it is. I think it just happened twice to someone, and stuck, so now it's what we do. In such a game, you'd see every CdG opportunity there possibly could be. Much like the table described earlier where all the creatures provoke to run over to do it.

But I'd never do that to some strangers I'm running for at a convention. I'd consider it on par with specifically fudging dice rolls to endanger a particular PC because I didn't like his build. Obviously it's less distasteful in one sense (normal combat option vs. "cheating"), but in another the fudged dice rolls probably don't actually kill someone (with all that means) in an obviously blatant "screw you" fashion.

Once again: home game or you know the players or folks come in asking for a challenge? Or you ask them at the start, asking if they want the extra challenge? Absolutely, go nuts.

I think control/choice one of the biggest driving factors in whether a PC death is acceptable/fun to the players or not.  This same argument is why people are so frustrated about getting stun-locked.  Fun stops happening when the player (and the party) has absolutely no way to do anything to help their situation.  [We like to *play* D&D, not sit at a table and write down how many hit points we lost this turn, round after round.]

I've had characters die tons of times.  If my character died because I (or my party) was being stupid or brave or the monster got in a really lucky shot, then it's not as big a deal because at least I had some sort of choice in the matter.  (Maybe the cleric asked if I needed healing the round before and I turned it down because I wasn't even bloodied yet, maybe my squishy striker ran into the middle of a bunch of guys to pull off a really cool combo, maybe my PC at 5 HP heroically/stupidly ran in to save the prisoners, etc.)  I did something risky and it resulted in my character's death.  Fine.

But once I'm down and dying (or permanently unconscious because of drow poison), I personally no longer have any say about what happens to my character.  Perhaps my party can still save me (heal me, stabilize me, try to keep the bad guys off of me, etc.), but there's not always something useful the party can do to help.  Maybe other party members have been stunned, teleported to another dimension, are too far away to help, the monsters all go before the party does, etc.  CdG is especially un-cool if the party is doing everything they can to prevent the monsters from doing it (marking, getting in the way, presenting the monster with other targets, etc.) and the DM decides to do it anyway.  As others have pointed out - it's not that hard for a DM to kill a PC.

If a DM has a personal grudge against PC X, then they can easily spend an entire mod throwing everything they have at that PC (including using stupid tactics like provoking from the entire rest of the party just to get to this PC), and they'll inevitably kill the PC.  Not hard.  But it's also not fun for any of the players at the table (the one PC feels ganged up on and the other PCs are bored that they're not in any danger).  CdGing a character just to try to kill someone is not cool and breaks the "my job is to make sure everyone has fun" conventant between the DM and the players. 

I'm not saying that no one should ever CdG.  There are certainly times and places for it (like the monster has no other good action).  Some monsters tactics even involve CdGing.  [I forget any specific examples, but I remember hearing about monsters that heal when they kill a PC or get an action point or something.] 



Again - the big thing is choice and the PCs feeling like they can control what happens to their characters during the game.  I played in the 3.5 Eberron campaign and had a character die at the beginning of the mod in a way that neither I nor any of my party members had any control over whatsoever.  My character basically auto-died before the mod even began.  She was sleeping on a boat traveling to where the mod actually started, got surprise attacked by a 5-headed hydra (a wandering monster that had nothing to do with the rest of the mod), and my PC's dead body was dragged off underwater before most of the party had had time to wake up or react.  It's not even like my party could go save me or rescue my body because the hydra had already vanished.  I don't think I rolled a single die during that mod.  It's not a lot of fun to play for 15 minutes and then have to sit around for hours and watch the rest of the game.  (And I don't think the rest of the players had as much fun either since they really struggled without one of the party members.) 

Obviously that's an extreme case, but no one wants to die because of things they have absolutely no control over.  The same situation could happen in LFR if the monsters win initiative, pile damage on a PC and knock them out, and then all rush over to CdG them.  It's not a competition between players and the DM or between DMs (who can kill the most PCs).  It's supposed to be fun.  If your players think getting kicked while they're down is enjoyable, then go for it.  If not...

Feb 2, 2010 -- 12:29PM, Keithric wrote:

It's a reason, certainly, but it's not a good reason. If you add "and want to be more scared", then absolutely, sure. But a convention DM going out of his way to CdG a table that hasn't asked for it when there are perfectly good other actions to take is doing things wrong.

Let me preface this by saying that I can't remember the last time I CdGed a PC when there were other options for the creature to do.

However, particularly as PCs get higher level and CdG damage doesn't scale with their hit points, I'm considering doing this more often.

The particular situation that led to this thought was a squishy melee striker who charged into combat, got dropped, got healed, stood up on his next turn and attacked, got dropped again on one of the enemy's turns and then repeated that cycle at least once more (having been dropped to unconsciousness at least three times in this combat, perhaps four, by the time it was over).

I generally don't attack players when they're down, but I think that when their behavior indicates a reliance on the expectation that they're safe when unconscious, there's a need to disabuse them of that notion.  In most instances, a single CdG is equivalent to the enemy skipping a turn--the damage isn't enough to kill the PC and it'll get wiped when they're healed--so I think its primary use is as a shot across the bow, indicating that getting out of danger should be a priority.

Sure, going after the healer is always an option, but when the striker has lower health, lower defenses and is right next to you, he's a much nicer target.

And, yes, I've posted before that I prefer to have intelligent enemies knock someone into "unconsciousness until a short rest" than true death, but I think the larger issue is that taking CdG off the table (and more importantly, having PCs be aware that you have taken CdG off the table) hinders the creation of any tension in combat.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 10:16AM, bgibbons wrote:

Feb 2, 2010 -- 9:12AM, Keithric wrote:

But it's still something there should be a good reason to ignore.

"Because the players have stopped being scared" strikes me as a good reason.

I think the implicit threat of a CdG is more important than the actual CdG.  It's when players start assuming that they're safe when unconscious that you need to start doing an occasional CdG to wake them up.

The D&D combat system could be described as an awful lot of time and energy spent on not killing PCs, while at the same time making them think they're at risk of death.

Part of that shared fiction is players behaving as though a PC lying unconscious next to a bad guy or staying in melee combat with single-digit hps are bad things.  At the point that players stop worrying about things like that, because they're counting on the DM moving on after dropping them (and the cleric will have them right back up on his turn), is when the DM needs to bring some fear back.

Worse, if players start not fearing CdGs because they would need to take at least three of them to get down to negative bloodied (or worst of all, appreciating them, because any damage that doesn't kill an unconscious PC is wasted), the DM might need to start actively attempting to kill the PC as a final option, though I can't say I've ever seen it get that far.

If at no point in the adventure were the players worried that they might fail or be killed, either the DM or the adventure author (and likely both) have failed.  CdG is just one tool in a DM's arsenal to help achieve that, and the more the players understand that it's a viable tool, the less the DM actually has to use it.

And all this brings up a great point.  Especially as it pertains to at least one race: Warforged (I think they're LFR legal, aren't they?).  Warforged can't die unless you hack at their unconcious body (or for some reason they are taking a penalty to their death saves).  Talk about fearless players.  Warforged players should be put on notice every now and again so they know that yes, they can die also.  That is, of course, unless they aren't LFR legal.

(this is partly tongue in cheek, BTW)

Feb 2, 2010 -- 7:45AM, Thanlis wrote:

Feb 2, 2010 -- 7:36AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

While the derail is there:

I have been known to ask players if they would like the mean/deadly/extra crunchy version, but there is a trick to that which I am fairly sure ixibat was using as well. I would never ask just any table this and I would not do it with every adventure. I am fairly sure the adventure in question was a special. Those are high risk, high reward and tend to attract players that are there to be challenged. There is many a table that will actually enjoy "nightmare mode" in a special. Its a judgement call to ask at all, but if a table gives you the idea they might like it, I see no problem in the question. You will have to of course explain what makes up the extra crunchy mode.

For a special, you bet. And it's all in the phrasing too. I shouldn't assume ibixat was handling it poorly; sorry! If a DM asks me if they want to ramp up the challenge, that's awesome, particularly in that context.

I like your list of crunchy tactics. I have gotten great effects by dragging a down PC out of healing range. Throwing in the occasional "holy crap" is an awesome way to get people out of the rut, and a CdG is definitely one of those.

I asked my table about it during the second day of the BI, I explained the Kill you method was simply I will not stop hitting you when you're down, I will focus fire like a player would, I will treat my NPC's like a party of adventurers and run them ruthlessly, OR I can play them like tactics would describe in the tactics layout and not hit a downed PC unless I have no other viable targets etc.  Death is still an option in that version, just in the "I kill you" version, you may actually die before the end of the first monster group to win initiative if they are capable of doing it.

For the final fight I do believe I had them thinking they were all going to die and lose, but they still managed to pull through in the end, several of them at 0 surges and nothing but at wills remaining.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 9:14PM, ibixat wrote:

I asked my table about it during the second day of the BI, I explained the Kill you method was simply I will not stop hitting you when you're down, I will focus fire like a player would, I will treat my NPC's like a party of adventurers and run them ruthlessly, OR I can play them like tactics would describe in the tactics layout and not hit a downed PC unless I have no other viable targets etc.  Death is still an option in that version, just in the "I kill you" version, you may actually die before the end of the first monster group to win initiative if they are capable of doing it.

For the final fight I do believe I had them thinking they were all going to die and lose, but they still managed to pull through in the end, several of them at 0 surges and nothing but at wills remaining.

I'm pretty sure I was playing at ibixat's table Saturday in the BI(Elven wizard), and I voted against a straight up kill you for sure action, to me as a player thats just not fun.  I enjoy a good challenge and the fear of death.  Like he said in the last encounter I was starting to believe we were not going to make it but somehow we were able to pull it out.  It was tense and a lot of fun. The one encounter with the ranger at first didn't look too bad...until the ranger got pwned.  Then it was like heh those monster's are a little scary

I also played the P2 special at Alphastream1's table Saturday morning and frankly in the one fight he didn't need to CdG and there was several opportunities for him to do so.  In fact I was very certain I was going to die at one point, but thanks to the heroic actions of the battle cleric I lived, and in the end was able to save his butt too!

Re the thread:  I personally don't think there's a lot of need to CdG players, if a monster doesn't have any other actions thats fine.  Once (10th level) my paladin had someone marked, I got hit with a unconcious (save ends) and the party beat the guy I had marked down to less hit points than my mark does.  The DM pretty much had little option but to CdG me, and I was fine with it.  I lived but regardless found the actions there acceptable. 

Ben

Yep you were at my table I beleive, the double grasping javelin of doom from the melee ranger in the second fight and our amazing distraction at the nextdoor table....

Good times.

hehe Yeah grasping javalin probably needs some nerf of some sort but thats another thread, and the distraction from the adjacent table was quite enjoyable...generally don't expect something like that at a gamer con...


And btw I felt a little bad when I slept your dragon...kinda takes away some of the dm's fun...but I think you still ended up running that encounter where we got a great challenge.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 9:52PM, bhgarber wrote:

hehe Yeah grasping javalin probably needs some nerf of some sort but thats another thread, and the distraction from the adjacent table was quite enjoyable...generally don't expect something like that at a gamer con...


And btw I felt a little bad when I slept your dragon...kinda takes away some of the dm's fun...but I think you still ended up running that encounter where we got a great challenge.

I wasn't fond of that dragon anyway, he owed me 50g.  He got what he deserved!

Feb 2, 2010 -- 7:04AM, Newpaintbrush wrote:

1.  Whether mind flayers CdG or not is up to them.  Honestly.  They're mind flayers.  Who understands a mind flayer?

It all depends on whether they are monks. Mind flayer monks would totally CdG... see the Sheldomar Valley meta-regional Check the Fine Print if in doubt. (Mind Flayers with brilliant energy tentacles ftw!)

Feb 2, 2010 -- 7:04AM, Newpaintbrush wrote:

3.  Teos mentioned he *could* have CdGed at DDXP.  You-know-who's verbal briefing for the DMs was "If you can kill these guys in the framework of D&D, I want you to do it."  Tsk tsk, you old softy you.

I know, I know. And yet, the results tell me to keep on going. I took many pictures of a table I was running... the story of their bloodied markers and downed PCs was amusing. And at one point, having yet to "go boom" (DMs of that adventure know what I am talking about), I asked "would you guys like me to bring the pain?" and one of the players shook his head, eyes wide, and said "I think you already did..."

I checked one more time, then took my hand off the trigger and did something else. The result was a nail-biting challenge but one they surpassed. If I had "dropped the hammer"... I can't believe they would have made it... and I don't think it would have been more fun. I think they know now that LFR can threaten and that they can die. I had at least two cases where the players expected to die but they used clever thinking to just escape actual death. It was pretty fun for all of us. And at no point was it me vs. them. I cheered them on, let them re-do things they forgot, etc. I'm on their side.

Feb 2, 2010 -- 9:46PM, bhgarber wrote:

I also played the P2 special at Alphastream1's table Saturday morning and frankly in the one fight he didn't need to CdG and there was several opportunities for him to do so.  In fact I was very certain I was going to die at one point, but thanks to the heroic actions of the battle cleric I lived, and in the end was able to save his butt too!

Hey, it was a super-fun combat for me. You guys played up and yet worked hard as a team to overcome the odds. It isn't like I was soft... all my monsters did smart things outside of my not using one specific power. Big thing, but just one thing. It was a really fun table for me and watching you guys work together to make it out was awesome.

So reading all of this it seems to work out to the conclusion that CdG is fine, as long as it makes sense from the monsters perspective and is used with some restraint and/or finesse.

It can be a horrible fun breaking tool in the hands of a frenzied slayer DM, but then so can a lot of other things. A DM's toolbox is filled with a lot of sharp edged gadgets, how they are used is the difference between the butcher, the plastic surgeon and the general practitioner somewhere in the middle.

I wasn't fond of that dragon anyway, he owed me 50g.  He got what he  deserved!

Damn dirty dragons!

Feb 2, 2010 -- 11:37PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Feb 2, 2010 -- 9:46PM, bhgarber wrote:

I also played the P2 special at Alphastream1's table Saturday morning and frankly in the one fight he didn't need to CdG and there was several opportunities for him to do so.  In fact I was very certain I was going to die at one point, but thanks to the heroic actions of the battle cleric I lived, and in the end was able to save his butt too!

Hey, it was a super-fun combat for me. You guys played up and yet worked hard as a team to overcome the odds. It isn't like I was soft... all my monsters did smart things outside of my not using one specific power. Big thing, but just one thing. It was a really fun table for me and watching you guys work together to make it out was awesome.

I didn't want to leave the impression that I didn't have fun, I had a blast.  I feel we were a bad tactical decision or bad dice roll away from at least half the party dieing.  I was more pointing out that you didn't need to use a CdG to give a good challenge, at least not at our table!  And that even not using CdG you weren't softballing.

Seems to me that imaginaryfriend's post above pretty much caps the thread.  I agree!

Ben

Feb 2, 2010 -- 10:52AM, aljergensen wrote:

On another note - does anyone have the bad guys knock PCs unconscious when they would otherwise die?  I've done this more than once when the PCs were facing intelligent monsters that would have a reason to not kill the PCs then and there.  This can be because they want slaves or "something to play with later".  It's nothing official, but I rule that the person is out for the rest of the encounter and needs 5 minutes to wake up after.  The penalty for dying in LFR isn't that great, but not being able to play the rest of the mod is annoying.

Does this leave the unconscious player able to be healed?

Feb 3, 2010 -- 8:47PM, Thanlis wrote:

Feb 2, 2010 -- 10:52AM, aljergensen wrote:

On another note - does anyone have the bad guys knock PCs unconscious when they would otherwise die?  I've done this more than once when the PCs were facing intelligent monsters that would have a reason to not kill the PCs then and there.  This can be because they want slaves or "something to play with later".  It's nothing official, but I rule that the person is out for the rest of the encounter and needs 5 minutes to wake up after.  The penalty for dying in LFR isn't that great, but not being able to play the rest of the mod is annoying.

Does this leave the unconscious player able to be healed?

The way I run it, it works pretty much like dying - you're out for the rest of the encounter if you fail 3 death saves.  With death having so little impact on a character in LFR, it's just my way of saying that the character can continue to play for the rest of the slot.

Allen.

There is intelligent and there is Intelligent, intelligent monsters will walk away once the PC stops moving because now they can go tag team with a buddy speeding up the process of a TPK. An Intelligent monster is what happens when the DM runs the monster as though it's a PC and gives the monster a capacity for tactics, reasoning, and cerebral depth it really shouldn't possesse but the DM is allowed to do this because of the DME rule.  

Feb 11, 2010 -- 11:16PM, Vamroc wrote:

There is intelligent and there is Intelligent, intelligent monsters will walk away once the PC stops moving because now they can go tag team with a buddy speeding up the process of a TPK. An Intelligent monster is what happens when the DM runs the monster as though it's a PC and gives the monster a capacity for tactics, reasoning, and cerebral depth it really shouldn't possesse but the DM is allowed to do this because of the DME rule.

Some will walk away, some wont.
Some monsters are as or more intelligent/wise than the players and have complex motivations (written into the adventure). I fail to see what is unreasonable or DME about giving them a capacity for tactics, reasoning and cerebral depth. They are living beings with goals and instincts, not all monsters are there as target dummies for the PC's. 
You make it sound as if every time a monster does not stand still for its punishment that is DME. Its not, its just DM-ing. 

And some monsters are just plain cruel.




-karma

Just to be clear, the Knocking Creatures Unconscious paragraph on page 295 of the PH says:

"Until it regains hit points, the creature is unconscious but not dying.  Any healing makes the creature conscious.  If the creature doesn't receive any healing, it is restored to 1 hit point and becomes conscious after a short rest."

For a monster, if they have had a short rest, as DM, I would use their healing surges, which by standard rule are 1 for heroic tier, 2 for paragon tier and 3 for epic tier monsters.

Keith