Can we kill these guys?

[Totally Guy]

If a player asks if they think they can kill an adversary or not how should the GM respond?

Describe the group in more detail?
Ask for some kind of check to reveal a fight prediction?
Ask for some kind of check to reveal levels/CR?
Tell the player "no"?

[Lord Loss]

Should we create a new skill?

[Narazil]

Depends. If they're standing there, chatting with them, I'd be enclined to say it was said IC. I hate it when players discuss their options out of game, it just encourages meta-gaming too much.
Never tell them CR or level, never just say no. Have either the NPC's respond, ask for him to roll initiative, ect.

[Temet Nosce]

If a player asks if they think they can kill an adversary or not how should the GM respond?

Describe the group in more detail?
Ask for some kind of check to reveal a fight prediction?
Ask for some kind of check to reveal levels/CR?
Tell the player "no"?

I'd RP it. Ask them what they're looking for IC, give more details and don't tell them anything that will concretely say they can or can't kill them. Players should make their own decisions based on IC information, you just need to make sure you supply a sufficient quantity of quality information for them to make a decision.

[D-naras]

In 3.5 at least, there is a skill you can use for this question. It's in CW and its a sense motive vs bluff roll. Depending on the check you get information (which could be false if you fail) about the challenge of the encounter. There is even a feat that narrows it down, in the same book.

[BRC]

My DM's answer is always "How do you want to find out"

[kladams707]

Tell them "Have a plan".

[Rhiannon87]

In 3.5 at least, there is a skill you can use for this question. It's in CW and its a sense motive vs bluff roll. Depending on the check you get information (which could be false if you fail) about the challenge of the encounter. There is even a feat that narrows it down, in the same book.

This, plus relevant knowledge checks, is pretty much how my group does this. Our wizard rolls knowledges to get us general information about an enemy-- DR, immunities, resistances, vulnerabilities, etc-- and if that doesn't help us gauge it, someone with a good sense motive will size the enemy up and see if it seems beatable, or if it's time for a retreat. The knowledge skills usually get us what we need, though.

EDIT: Just checked, the expanded sense motive use is in Complete Adventurer, not Warrior.

[Asgardian]

I remember my group asking this one time and there was an an alternate use of Sense motive if you could actually study the person (i cant remember where it came from or if it was a home brew).

A sparring session was setup between one of the group's cohorts and one of the weaker opposing group's members. After watching them for a bit and a mediocre die roll later, we were told they appeared evenly matched. So we went into it thinking that the opposing group was our level or best one better

What the DM didnt tell us at the time however was that when rolling for the opponent, he wound up rolling a string of crap attack rolls (A higher sense motive check would have let us realize that). The opposing party was actually 3 levels higher than us and included a disguised Vrock.

(partially ninja'd)

[sadi]

The real question is how arrogant/evil/confident are your players. If your players are cocky enough the answer to do they think they can is yes. The only straight answers I'd give them is not every encounter has to lead to violence, and fleeing is always a valid option.

[bosssmiley]

If a player asks if they think they can kill an adversary or not how should the GM respond?

Describe the group in more detail?
Ask for some kind of check to reveal a fight prediction?
Ask for some kind of check to reveal levels/CR?
Tell the player "no"?

"Maybe you could. You wanna try?" :smallbiggrin:

The named characters in well-written swords-and-sorcery fantasy (R.E.Howard, K.E.Wagner, David Gemmell, etc.) know one another's reputations; not one another's effective CRs.

[PLUN]

well, if they're accepting a world where they can't always win forever and things might be above their caliber, i'm pretty impressed, and try to give them the appraisal their characters might give.

[Johel]

DM just say
"-Yes, you can try..."
That should confuse the players enough so that they'll think twice.

More seriously, what about :

an Intimidate check of the guys against the PC ? If the players resist, they aren't effraid of the target. If they fail, well... Let them know they better think twice.
an Knowledge (Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Planes, Religion, as appropriate) check to learn more about the "danger potential" of these guys.

[PinkysBrain]

Appraise check for the value of their gear. Wisdom check to sense if they feel at all intimidated (or sense motive if they are simply trying to act tough). Knowledge check to learn reputations.

Player wisdom check for starting fights with non hostile NPCs which the DM didn't intend them to fight ... already failed.

PS. if it's just one player asking it while the "guys" are there perhaps give the smarter people in the party a sense motive check to hold him back if he tries to initiate an attack alone ...

[theMycon]

"Well, yes, you can. If the rolls go in your favor enough, you could take down an ancient dragon.
"But this guy has a family, who will starve without him. If you kill them, and I'm not promising you will, even if you try, you've also killed their poor old mother who is baking the world's first batch of snickerdoodles right now- no-one else will make them for another 150 years without her. Do you really want to wipe the DM's favorite cookies from history?
"His dog will also die. And his illegitimate daughter, too."

[erikun]

If a player asks if they think they can kill an adversary or not how should the GM respond?
The correct answer, by the way, is "How?"

The Burning Wheel RPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_Wheel) actually talks about this exact senario. You see, the problem is between an action and an intent. Killing someone is an intent, like getting rich - you can't exactly tell someone if it will be successful, because they haven't exactly told you what they want to do.

"Can I get rich?" isn't something you could easily answer, mainly because the technical answer is "Yes." Yes, you can get rich, because a rich relative could die and leave you all their money. Yes, you can get rich, because you could be successful on the stock market. Yes, you can get rich, because you could rob a bank and get away with a lot of money.

When you start narrowing the intent down to actions, though, you get more relevant answers. "Can I get rich through the stock market?" is answerable - yes you can, if you have a large amount of money to start with and some good luck. "Can I get rich by robbing a bank?" No, because most banks don't keep large amounts of money on-hand anymore, and you will likely be tracked down by the police.

"Can I kill somebody?" is equally as vague. Sure, you could shove their head into a woodchipper - that will kill pretty much anyone. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean you can push them into one successfully, or that the police will just standby while you try...

Most of the time your players are asking "Can I kill somebody?" they really want to know how tough the person is. You can respond with "Well, he looks really tough, it probably won't be easy." Or you could ask for clarification - how?

"Can I kill him with my sword?" "Probably not, he looks like a hardened warrior."

"Can I kill him by stabbing him in the back?" "Not while he's watching you and asking for your weapons."

"Can I kill him with Finger of Death?" "No, you don't know that spell yet."

...and so on.

[Totally Guy]

The correct answer, by the way, is "How?"

The Burning Wheel RPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_Wheel) actually talks about this exact senario. You see, the problem is between an action and an intent. Killing someone is an intent, like getting rich - you can't exactly tell someone if it will be successful, because they haven't exactly told you what they want to do.

Interestingly that's the system I was looking at when I thought about this. And that's pretty much what Luke Crane, the author, said when I asked on their forums. But I didn't really understand his answer, when he said "How" I was thinking "with thier eyes", not "by using swords". Your answer is much clearer to me. Thanks.