PDA

View Full Version : So... one of my players ran out of the room crying today when I killed her character



Wonton
2013-02-21, 10:17 PM
I didn't think she had that much emotional investment in her character, considering she did next to zero RP and barely even had a personality or appearance for her character ("mercenary fighter" was the closest we ever got to a description).

The death wasn't sudden or unfair - it was in the middle of the climactic battle the adventure had been leading up to the whole time. At one point, her Power Attack Fighter dealt over half the BBEG's hit points in one round, so she was clearly a threat to the Barbarian chieftain. It wasn't even a Coup de Grace - actually just a crit on her immediately after she got healed to consciousness.

Aside from fudging the actual die roll, I don't see how I could have been any "nicer" about it. Characters die sometimes, and boss battles is where it happens the most.

Not really sure what to say... :|

BRC
2013-02-21, 10:22 PM
Crit Happens, that's really all that can be said.

Assuming you did not grab her character sheet, spit on it, crumple it up, then throw it at her while laughing (or similar behavior, up to and including a personalized "You Died Because You Suck" song and dance routine with a chorus line of backup dancers dressed like Orcs, Bandits, and Demon Cultists), just let her calm down about it.


If she was really attached to her character, there is always a spirit quest to retrieve her soul from the afterlife, or the ever-popular "Your spirit possesses a weapon that your next character gets to wield"

Wonton
2013-02-21, 10:25 PM
Crit Happens, that's really all that can be said.

Assuming you did not grab her character sheet, spit on it, crumple it up, then throw it at her while laughing (or similar behavior, up to and including a personalized "You Died Because You Suck" song and dance routine with a chorus line of backup dancers dressed like Orcs, Bandits, and Demon Cultists), just let her calm down about it.

Yeah, I dunno. They'd been near-death before and on the whole our sessions were fairly light-hearted and I figured everyone in the group was good at separating in-game stuff from real life. Because when you put it as "your fictional character killed my fictional character", it really doesn't make sense to get upset about it.

Needless to say, it killed the mood of the session. And I wouldn't be surprised if it kills the campaign. I'm just... confused.

HMS Invincible
2013-02-21, 10:29 PM
I didn't think she had that much emotional investment in her character, considering she did next to zero RP and barely even had a personality or appearance for her character ("mercenary fighter" was the closest we ever got to a description).

The death wasn't sudden or unfair - it was in the middle of the climactic battle the adventure had been leading up to the whole time. At one point, her Power Attack Fighter dealt over half the BBEG's hit points in one round, so she was clearly a threat to the Barbarian chieftain. It wasn't even a Coup de Grace - actually just a crit on her immediately after she got healed to consciousness.

Aside from fudging the actual die roll, I don't see how I could have been any "nicer" about it. Characters die sometimes, and boss battles is where it happens the most.

Not really sure what to say... :|

Does she not know about resurrection? I mean, if she does know, then she's upset about the level loss, which sounds unlikely. Look, nobody likes being killed, but it's hard to be upset about some lost xp, unless you're a power gamer like me. You haven't posted enough information, so just do what normal human beings do: Talk to her/him w/e.

ArcturusV
2013-02-21, 10:36 PM
Well, you never really know what is going to happen or what people think. It might have had less to do with the character and more to do with some percieved OOC thing. "You're picking on me" being the classic quote that I get from players if they are upset about their character dying. Particularly if it wasn't a TPK. Sometimes even IF it was a TPK.

Jack of Spades
2013-02-21, 10:36 PM
Well, talk to her about it. There might be something else going on that caused the outburst. Also, make sure you give the party some sort of chance to bring the character back. If they're low-level, a higher-level NPC should be able to help (for some sort of price, probably a favor AKA their next quest).

For future, similar situations:

Her character was knocked out at some point, right? So, for your part, houserule some grogginess after a character gets healed from 0 or negative HP to prevent them charging back in. Alternatively, have your villain assume that a character who's been put down and then healed a bit is weakened sufficiently that they won't be a major threat (of course, this isn't the case in the game's rules, but to the villain there is no game). Or build your villains in such a way that they prefer to do something other than kill their enemies outright (gloating Bond-villain stuff, essentially).

In the end, remember that you're dealing with the emotions of a person here. We don't (generally) control our emotions, and we don't control what we get attached to. Try to empathize. If you can't do that, try to understand. Ignore your perceptions of her emotions-- the "Well, I don't see how she was so attached" bit you've got going there is toxic to this sort of situation. Just accept the emotions for what they are, and deal with this like you would any other time someone gets upset.

But do not backpedal or anything like that, game- or plot-wise. Just find alternatives for the path forward. We play this game for fun, and as the DM it's your job to make sure that the fun occurs. For everyone.

GolemsVoice
2013-02-21, 10:37 PM
Yeah, what the others said. Tell her you're sorry, it wasn't a personal attack, and it happens. Be reasonable and calm about it, I'm sure she'll understand.

She wouldn't happen to have a thief named Em Blackleaf? :smallwink:

Acanous
2013-02-21, 11:30 PM
Yeah, what the others said. Tell her you're sorry, it wasn't a personal attack, and it happens. Be reasonable and calm about it, I'm sure she'll understand.

She wouldn't happen to have a thief named Em Blackleaf? :smallwink:

Blackleaf, NOOoooo!

http://media.chick.com/tractimages67491/0046/0046_12.gif

Wonton
2013-02-21, 11:31 PM
Okay, here's precisely what happened:

Her character was in melee with the chieftain (who was several levels higher so she would have been hard-pressed to win a 1v1). A spellcaster in the back cast Cause Fear on her, which caused her to run away and provoke an AoO. The AoO caused her to drop, which she and the party were actually happy about - because the alternative was being out of the fight for 4 rounds (2 running away, 2 running back). 2 rounds later, she was healed. The chieftain was at that point in melee with her and one other character - a Tengu who was still up but hadn't dealt too much damage. I said that the chieftain saw her open her eyes and decided she was the more dangerous enemy.

This is where **** went south, because apparently the group thought he should go for the Tengu in front of him. I stood by my decision, stating that she dealt over half his health in one attack and therefore was the bigger threat to him. 1 hit + 1 crit later, she was dead. At this point the player said something bitter like "well have fun playing without me, guys" and left for a solid 10 minutes.

At first, like you, I thought that maybe she was just upset for some other reason (we've all had those outbursts that we immediately regretted 5 minutes later) so I gave her the benefit of the doubt. However, she continued giving me the cold shoulder the rest of the session, basically ignoring me while starting up her laptop to play Guild Wars. Mind you, each player had 2 characters for this combat (I gave each one an NPC at the start), so it's not like she was out of the fight completely. Each time I asked her "So what does Pezock do?", she basically went "Moves and attacks, I don't care."

I just don't know. I've seen people less upset over the death of a family member than she was over the death of her D&D character. The strangest thing is that this behaviour came out of nowhere.

Matticussama
2013-02-21, 11:36 PM
Any game with a heavy combat element has a risk of character death. Removing that threat removes the reward for winning. If a player gets that upset about a character death from an otherwise fair fight, that seems like an immature moment to me. It is one thing to be upset for a few minutes but then to later get over it; it is quite another to hold a grudge about it.

Try and work something out with them if you can (Resurrection, new characters tied to the deceased seeking vengeance, etc) but if the player cannot accept that their character might die without throwing a fit then you might want to consider asking them to leave your group. Just my 2 cents.

Grinner
2013-02-21, 11:43 PM
@Wonton: Sounds like she thought you were biased against her. Assuming you were playing fairly low level D&D 3.5 (or even 4e), that last blow might have been a killing blow anyway.

I agree that, for the sake of coherence, you made the right call. I'd have gone for the barbarian over the overgrown crow any day.

endoperez
2013-02-21, 11:52 PM
To me, it sounds like she is used to the way AI works in video games and MMOs. The enemies can usually be "aggroed" to target a character chosen by the players, so the damage dealers wouldn't have been in the danger in a situation like that.

icefractal
2013-02-22, 12:16 AM
That later description sounds less like "overcome with emotion" and more like "pissed off about the GM's call". Which is understandable - while attacking the near-death character may be an entirely logical action by the chieftan, it's still a decision by the GM, and one that was likely to (and did) result in killing that character. It could very easily feel like the GM was gunning for that character intentionally.

Incidentally, a lot of people are talking about Resurrection like it's trivial, but depending on the level, wealth, and location of the characters, that's a lot to assume. Which is not to say that PCs should never die, just that it's entirely possible for a player to be unhappy with that outcome.


Edit: And seriously, video gamer accusations already? Feels like an over-used meme by this point. Honestly, if she was really "playing it like an MMO", then death would be no big deal because she'd just respawn.

Jack of Spades
2013-02-22, 12:33 AM
Sounds like a sloppy call on your part, to me. Who turns their back on an active combatant to kill someone who (although they dealt a large amount of damage earlier on) is still down and nearly out? At least, that's how you've described it. Remember, your big bad doesn't realize that his health was halved by this barbarian. He knows she landed a solid, painful hit, but he also knows that she is damn close to death. Also, he 'knows' her resistance to disabling spells like Cause Fear is minimal. He doesn't know how hurt the Tengu with whom he is actively engaged is, and he doesn't know what tricks the primary opponent may have up his sleeve. The opponent with more unknown variables is generally easy to rationalize as the more dangerous one.

That, and that was the second time you had taken the character down in the same combat-- NPC or no NPC, her actual character just got taken down, healed to stability/consciousness, and then killed in rapid succession. How would you feel, as a player? Not saying she had the most mature response, just appealing for empathy.

Wonton
2013-02-22, 01:14 AM
a) Maybe if you play with hit points being very abstract, someone wouldn't know exactly how "hard" they were hit or how "healthy" an enemy is. But in my game, people know whether an attack hit someone for 1/4 ("he takes the hit in stride"), 1/2 ("it's a solid blow and your opponent staggers") or 3/4 ("he looks like he's barely standing") of their health. He knew the Fighter had done 2 really hard hits on him while the Tengu had barely scratched him. He did not "turn his back" on an enemy (stop reading into my comments), they were both adjacent to him and to each other and if they were an equal threat I would have just done a 50/50 roll.

b) I do feel empathic - I would be okay if my character died in an epic fight but I understand that some people feel differently. Once again, I was just surprised at how strongly she reacted. I dunno, maybe I have toughened skin from internet and online gaming but I would never let in-game and out-of-game feelings affect each other. I can have a heated in-character argument with another player and then brush it off and laugh about it as friends later.

Rakmakallan
2013-02-22, 01:27 AM
Okay, here's precisely what happened:

Her character was in melee with the chieftain (who was several levels higher so she would have been hard-pressed to win a 1v1). A spellcaster in the back cast Cause Fear on her, which caused her to run away and provoke an AoO. The AoO caused her to drop, which she and the party were actually happy about - because the alternative was being out of the fight for 4 rounds (2 running away, 2 running back). 2 rounds later, she was healed. The chieftain was at that point in melee with her and one other character - a Tengu who was still up but hadn't dealt too much damage. I said that the chieftain saw her open her eyes and decided she was the more dangerous enemy.

This is where **** went south, because apparently the group thought he should go for the Tengu in front of him. I stood by my decision, stating that she dealt over half his health in one attack and therefore was the bigger threat to him. 1 hit + 1 crit later, she was dead. At this point the player said something bitter like "well have fun playing without me, guys" and left for a solid 10 minutes.

At first, like you, I thought that maybe she was just upset for some other reason (we've all had those outbursts that we immediately regretted 5 minutes later) so I gave her the benefit of the doubt. However, she continued giving me the cold shoulder the rest of the session, basically ignoring me while starting up her laptop to play Guild Wars. Mind you, each player had 2 characters for this combat (I gave each one an NPC at the start), so it's not like she was out of the fight completely. Each time I asked her "So what does Pezock do?", she basically went "Moves and attacks, I don't care."

I just don't know. I've seen people less upset over the death of a family member than she was over the death of her D&D character. The strangest thing is that this behaviour came out of nowhere.

I played for many years with a group in which everyone would react this way upon character death, sometimes even quitting the game for a few weeks (to flog a dead horse, they were all mainly mmo players). Even I would probably have a similar reaction, pelting the GM with dice. Since then I have learnt two important things:

1) Ask everyone beforehand how they feel about character death and whether you are allowed to kill their characters. If anyone wants to play with the konami code on, let them do so. Matters of life and death are within the boundaries of character ownership and control of the players.

2) Death should me meaningful. Barring D&D which is little more than a glorified wargame, every other RPG revolves around a story. Characters should die, after consensus is given by their respective player ooc, only when it serves to advance the story and increase the dramatic effect. Dice and random elements are there only as narrative aids and should have absolute control over an outcome.

Averis Vol
2013-02-22, 01:38 AM
How old is she? this is ludicrous behavior for an adult. Now, I'm not one for kicking someone from a group, but you should seriously consider asking her if this behavior is going to continue. If she wants to stay mad, tell her not to play, if she is just upset over a character death and needs a few days to shake it off and make a new character, good for her.

Regardless, do not let it just fester and create tension, that will only lead to ruin.

Rhynn
2013-02-22, 01:56 AM
Aside from fudging the actual die roll, I don't see how I could have been any "nicer" about it. Characters die sometimes, and boss battles is where it happens the most.

This is so. Players who get upset over this are "playing wrong", basically. (Unless you are, in fact, unfairly picking on someone, but that hardly seems the case.)

Talk to your player, but don't get pushed around. PCs will continue to die sometimes. That's the game. Without a risk, there's on real fun.

Don't make new rules on account of this. Completely unnecessary, and they won't address the issue, whatever it was. (Some sort of entitlement deal, probably.)

Even if you were "wrong" to attack her character over the tengu, the reaction is disproportionate. (Personally, I tend to dice off for this sort of thing - "okay, the black dragon flies overhead and breaths on... d6, you're 1, it goes around the table clockwise... you!")


How old is she? this is ludicrous behavior for an adult. Now, I'm not one for kicking someone from a group, but you should seriously consider asking her if this behavior is going to continue. If she wants to stay mad, tell her not to play, if she is just upset over a character death and needs a few days to shake it off and make a new character, good for her.

Regardless, do not let it just fester and create tension, that will only lead to ruin.

Wise words. Follow this advice.

Giggling Ghast
2013-02-22, 02:08 AM
Her character's name wasn't Blackleaf, was it? If so, she's probably upset she won't get to learn real magic now.

You might want to put her on suicide watch.

Daer
2013-02-22, 02:10 AM
Seems kind odd behavior, you sure there isn't something else behind it? Maybe bad day or other reasons that then just happened to cause it when character died? You should ask her if she is ok and what happened there.

and just in case ask if you did something wrong.

Sith_Happens
2013-02-22, 03:07 AM
Since it sounds like you're playing 3.X, are they high enough level and/or capable of scrounging up the cash for a Raise Dead*? If so, her reaction is even more overblown. If not, then that's nothing an appropriate quest can't fix.

As for the circumstances of the death, while it could easily look to a player like you're picking on them, I agree that the chieftan's logic was fairly sound. My only quibble is that rather than actually choosing to attack her over the Tengu, he could have just AoO'd her when she inevitably tried to stand up (and if she tried to attack from prone instead then she wouldn't have been repeating her earlier Power Attack any time soon anyways).


* For a much cheaper and slightly lower-level option, a Movanic Deva (Fiend Folio p56) has Raise Dead as a 1/day SLA, is callable with Lesser Planar Ally, and will generally charge 300 gp to use the above (as a non-hazardous task taking up to 1 minute per caster level). If you don't want it to be quite that easy, the Deva may ask for payment in the form of some action that furthers the cause of Good, in which case you have your res-quest (albeit a very minor one, since the action the party is asked to perform should still equate to ~300 gp in value).

GnomeFighter
2013-02-22, 05:10 AM
Ok, since we only know one side of the story I just want to bring in another perspective.

I used to have a realy annoying GM. He would always go after the most "logical" target. The one who was able to deal the highest damage or the healer, even to the point in 4e of ignoring marking, and even if that player had not done anything yet. You would find without casting a single heal every bad guy would charge across the room at your casters. It can be extreamly frustrating for a player when a GM seems to meta game like that, where he knows the whole partys strenths, weeknesses, powers and HP.

I'm not saying this is what happend here, but from what has been said it seems there is a possibility that this is how it might have come across. She felt like she had landed one big hit, and probably had no idea how much damage it had done (as a % of the bosses HP). Like others have said this boss turned his back on someone he was in combat with to attack someone who he thought was down and was just standing up.

However it may also be that the player completly over reacted, or did have allot of attachment to the charicter. Just because the player dose not RP dose not mean they don't have an attachement to there PC.

Personaly I would make the party aware of rezing, the costs and benefits. Make it possible to find an NPC that will rez her, but let her and the party decide if that is something they want to do.

Wonton
2013-02-22, 06:04 AM
Since it sounds like you're playing 3.X, are they high enough level and/or capable of scrounging up the cash for a Raise Dead*? If so, her reaction is even more overblown. If not, then that's nothing an appropriate quest can't fix.

They're level 2 and if they blow all their gold they might have 5000, but the problem is they're on an island that they can't leave for a while yet. There's no one to buy a scroll from, and they might not even be able to reach the mainland in 9 days (at which point it would need to be Resurrection).


Ok, since we only know one side of the story I just want to bring in another perspective.

I used to have a realy annoying GM. He would always go after the most "logical" target.

Thanks for the input, but that's not what happened here. If I was that kind of DM I would not have had the enemies waste like 6 attacks on the start on illusions, for one. They never went for the healer, and mostly just hit the target that was in melee and was the biggest threat at the time. And as I mentioned before, he did not "turn his back" on an enemy to attack her. :smallannoyed:


. X X
. O .
. . .

He was O and had a choice of two Xs to attack. One was a Tengu Rogue who'd barely injured him. The other was a Human Fighter who'd severely injured him and had just regained consciousness through magical healing, but was not yet up and therefore an easy target.

In-character, it was 100% justified (in fact, a coup-de-grace when she was unconscious earlier was justified, but I'm not that mean). But I don't want to argue about whether it was justified or not anymore, I was more curious about the player perspective.

Honestly, people are being too harsh on her. I came here to vent a bit (after being a state of complete shock over what happened, basically) and maybe seek some different viewpoints. She's an adult like the rest of us. MMOs have nothing to do with it, like half of tabletop gamers have played one at some point.

Once again, I'm not saying that I don't see how losing a character can be sad, and I'm even willing to admit that I might have been a little harsher than usual (it was a climactic battle and not a random encounter, after all). But even if I accept that it could have been seen that I was "picking on her", I just can't believe the reaction. By comparison, the second most emotional situation I've ever had in a group was when we got slightly mad at a DM for railroading us. But even then, the situation blew over pretty quickly and did not feel nearly as awkward as today was.

icefractal
2013-02-22, 06:15 AM
Once again, I was just surprised at how strongly she reacted. I dunno, maybe I have toughened skin from internet and online gaming but I would never let in-game and out-of-game feelings affect each other. I can have a heated in-character argument with another player and then brush it off and laugh about it as friends later.Unless I'm misreading things from your description, this is where the disconnect is - she's not mad in-game at the chieftan, she's mad out-of-game at you, personally. For deciding on a course of events that killed her character.

That doesn't mean it's necessarily justified, and she may get over it by the next time you meet, but there's no in-game/out-of-game confusion going on here.

Ashtagon
2013-02-22, 06:48 AM
I normally play it that, where enemies are choosing targets, the go for the strongest apparent target, not the "quickest weapon kill". That is, they demonstrate no genre savviness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy). They also dismiss casters as non-combatants unless and until those characters demonstrate spell-casting ability, or draw attention to themselves by wearing arcane robes. Finally, they will stay at the same melee opponent as long as that opponent continues to engage in melee.

If I break these rules, it'll be after I have telegraphed their greater tactical intelligence to the players.

Blarmb
2013-02-22, 07:26 AM
If the story as you told it is true, you didn't do anything wrong and the player in question acted immaturely in response to a natural consequence of the game. You should stop feeling bad and she was acting like jerk.

Ashtagon
2013-02-22, 07:30 AM
If the story as you told it is true, you didn't do anything wrong and the player in question acted immaturely in response to a natural consequence of the game. You should stop feeling bad and she was acting like jerk.

Clearly, Blackleaf was weak and deserved to die :smallannoyed:

GnomeFighter
2013-02-22, 07:56 AM
Thanks for the input, but that's not what happened here. If I was that kind of DM I would not have had the enemies waste like 6 attacks on the start on illusions, for one. They never went for the healer, and mostly just hit the target that was in melee and was the biggest threat at the time. And as I mentioned before, he did not "turn his back" on an enemy to attack her. :smallannoyed:


Edit... Just re-read what happend. No, you chose to attack a prone PC that they monster would probably have had no idea was awake and the monster turned away from the imidiat threat. Ye, you totally meta gamed it to me and did a similar thing to what i was describing. You went for the "logical" target biased on knowledge of who would be a threat long term and the safety of ignoring blows. You also took away the players chance to get away. It sounds like she is annoyed not for the death, as she was already down, but the second kill.

ReaderAt2046
2013-02-22, 10:06 AM
How smart was the boss supposed to be? Maybe she felt that you were making the boss too good of a strategist in having him target the nearly dead enemy instead of the healthy one who's in his face stabbing.

PlusSixPelican
2013-02-22, 10:41 AM
Tengu Rogue...Fighters being useful...is this Pathfinder, by chance?

As long as she doesn't have to roll up at level one again, she's being ridiculous. PCs die. You gotta avoid death when doing things, since in tabletops there IS the risk of it, and that makes the whole thing fun. Her character could get revived, or she can take another PC. Ish a lesson in being cautious, or hopping out of a fight when you've been stabilized but not put at full. She's a fighter, did she stock up on throwing weapons or a bow to use at further range for when she couldn't comfortably take hits? And well, a crit isn't anyone's fault. Plus she still had an NPC to pilot, but bein' all dismissive? Uggh. It's probably been said, but was this her first campaign? Anyways, the only DM lapse was not informing them beforehand of how character revival works in the game, but at the same time, PCs would want to know that anyways.

BRC
2013-02-22, 10:43 AM
How smart was the boss supposed to be? Maybe she felt that you were making the boss too good of a strategist in having him target the nearly dead enemy instead of the healthy one who's in his face stabbing.

"Attacking the person who dealt half my hitpoints" isn't exactly high tactics. that's the level of tactics I give things with animal intelligence in my games.

Sebastrd
2013-02-22, 10:49 AM
How old is she? this is ludicrous behavior for an adult. Now, I'm not one for kicking someone from a group, but you should seriously consider asking her if this behavior is going to continue. If she wants to stay mad, tell her not to play, if she is just upset over a character death and needs a few days to shake it off and make a new character, good for her.

Good luck if you ever decide to get married...

Khatoblepas
2013-02-22, 10:57 AM
Her character was in melee with the chieftain (who was several levels higher so she would have been hard-pressed to win a 1v1). A spellcaster in the back cast Cause Fear on her, which caused her to run away and provoke an AoO. The AoO caused her to drop, which she and the party were actually happy about - because the alternative was being out of the fight for 4 rounds (2 running away, 2 running back). 2 rounds later, she was healed. The chieftain was at that point in melee with her and one other character - a Tengu who was still up but hadn't dealt too much damage. I said that the chieftain saw her open her eyes and decided she was the more dangerous enemy.

This is where **** went south, because apparently the group thought he should go for the Tengu in front of him. I stood by my decision, stating that she dealt over half his health in one attack and therefore was the bigger threat to him. 1 hit + 1 crit later, she was dead. At this point the player said something bitter like "well have fun playing without me, guys" and left for a solid 10 minutes.

From her perspective:

- She was in melee with the chieftain, fighting a climatic battle.
- Spellcaster casts Cause Fear on her, causing her to lose agency over her character.
- Her character runs, and is dropped by an AoO, through no action of her own.
- Her character is healed, and she thinks she can get back into the fight.
- Before she can act again, the chieftain "sees her eyes opening" (he doesn't see the cleric rush over to heal her??) and attacks her prone body, threatening a critical.
- Her character is now dead through bad dice rolling and the chieftain lacking honour alone. She has not taken an action since the Cause Fear.

A few questions come to mind:

- Why did the barbarian chieftain think a prone target was more of a threat than the healthy one he's currently dealing with?
- Did the chieftain roll a good Spot check in order to see eyes opening on a downed opponent while engaged in melee with the Tengu? And even if her eyes open, is that really a sign that she's ready to kick his ass? She might actually still be barely conscious, and her eyes opening would mean nothing (and he wasted an attack getting rid of a non-threat)
- In order to get back to her feet, the mercenary would need to take a move action, that would provoke an attack of opportunity. Attacking her while she's prone is a waste of an action when he could attack the Tengu and AoO her when she tries to get up (her 5ft stepping away and then getting up notwithstanding). She was not the most dangerous target at the time. Even if she attacked, she had -4 to hit, which at level 2 is a very large amount (it would destroy her Power Attack advantage). The Tengu could have done well to 5ft step and sneak attack him at any moment, regardless of her condition. Not that the Barbarian would know the sneak attack mechanics off by heart - he's facing down a warrior who has balls enough to face him down. He might keep an eye out for the mercenary (thus unwittingly letting her be a flanking partner), but the main threat is the bird-man, who is all up in his face with knives or something right now. Take a chance getting rid of the prone, barely alive mercenary who can't properly attack him right now? Or deal with the bird-man, who is squaring up to stab you in the kidneys? This isn't a master strategist we're talking about here. Killing the mercenary is, in fact, the MOST strategically sound route (kill a character entirely, stop the rogue from getting a flanking bonus), but not the most narratively sound, since it requires knowledge of your enemy's abilities - knowledge the chieftain couldn't possibly know. Barbarian chieftains don't read the PHB. They don't read at all.

So yeah, from your point of view, it was just good sense to make your enemy lose 3 turns of actions and then kill them. But from hers? You took away her agency and then killed her outright. She probably already thought she was being excluded the moment you AoOed her fleeing body. That's 3 rounds of not making a decision with the character she made (1 being panicked, 2 bleeding out). Depending on how fast you run combat, that's a significant amount of time! She was looking forward to getting back up and helping destroy this boss... but then you killed her.

If this was like, her fighting and a random critical downed her, then fair enough. But it doesn't look like she was able to contribute effectively for half the battle. (NPC notwithstanding, but I don't think she was really into having an NPC controlled influence. It wasn't her character)

Just a bit of infernal advocacy.

Lord Torath
2013-02-22, 11:20 AM
Talk to her, away from the gaming table. Tell you you sympathize with her, maybe tell her a story about one time one of your favorite characters got killed, and how badly you felt about it. Ask her how you can help her cope with the death of her character.

Do NOT tell her she shouldn't be feeling they way she does. Don't try to tell her there's no logical reason for her to be upset, because she can just get raised/rezzed/a new character. She is upset, and telling her she shouldn't feel upset will just make it worse. Do NOT tell her that when your character died, you coped with just fine, and so should she.


In the end, remember that you're dealing with the emotions of a person here. We don't (generally) control our emotions, and we don't control what we get attached to. Try to empathize. If you can't do that, try to understand. Ignore your perceptions of her emotions-- the "Well, I don't see how she was so attached" bit you've got going there is toxic to this sort of situation. Just accept the emotions for what they are, and deal with this like you would any other time someone gets upset.
Quoted for Truth.

Brewdude
2013-02-22, 11:31 AM
They're level 2 and if they blow all their gold they might have 5000, but the problem is they're on an island that they can't leave for a while yet. There's no one to buy a scroll from, and they might not even be able to reach the mainland in 9 days (at which point it would need to be Resurrection).

level...2? Man, I don't even bother playing games at less than level 3. The lower levels are just too boring with too much chance for random death.

On a basic storytelling level, the issue isn't "you killed her", it's "there should have been some other obvious action that could have been taken to not die that she didn't do". Key points being "obvious" and "didn't".

Also, there's clearly more going on than just this. Adult, non adult, gamers, as a class of people, tend to not be the best as expressing their emotions maturely, and it's up to you to make the game fun for everyone. You've just found that your players aren't really interested in the risk of death by random numbers and only prefer the risk of death by obvious stupidity.

One of my favorite DMs has a rule of death only by other players' action, and runs games where the very nature of the adventure can only allow half of the players to live.

Rhynn
2013-02-22, 11:56 AM
On a basic storytelling level, the issue isn't "you killed her", it's "there should have been some other obvious action that could have been taken to not die that she didn't do". Key points being "obvious" and "didn't".

Unfortunately, that action is "don't go adventuring", or, more reasonably, "don't enter combat" (unfortunately, since at least AD&D 2E, this has been a lost aspect of D&D - avoiding combat when it's dangerous and there's nothing much to gain).

Without risk, there's no real challenge. D&D isn't, generally, a story about a bunch of people going around doing cool things. It's a story about dangerous adventure, and that means characters get killed.

Bastian Weaver
2013-02-22, 12:36 PM
The whole "it's not fun unless you can die" thing seems kind of silly to me. There are other things you can lose while still keeping your character. Weapons. Wealth. Freedom. Risk isn't limited to just "be tough or be dead", you know.
And discussing the rules of character death with the players beforehand sounds like a good idea. If the players don't mind it, sure, let the dice reign supreme. If the players don't want their characters to die, let's think of something else. Let's make the game interesting for all the participants, not blame someone for "acting ridiculous".

Thajocoth
2013-02-22, 01:05 PM
Personally, I'd've waited until she was standing to have her get attacked again. This way, she gets the chance to do something & isn't at a big disadvantage from being prone. After all, the enemy saw her go down, so he's going to be focused on the next guy. He's not going to notice every detail at all times. In character, these fights don't happen turn by turn. Everyone's acting at the same time. That's a lot to pay attention to.

Deathslayer7
2013-02-22, 01:25 PM
From her perspective:

- She was in melee with the chieftain, fighting a climatic battle.
- Spellcaster casts Cause Fear on her, causing her to lose agency over her character.
- Her character runs, and is dropped by an AoO, through no action of her own.
- Her character is healed, and she thinks she can get back into the fight.
- Before she can act again, the chieftain "sees her eyes opening" (he doesn't see the cleric rush over to heal her??) and attacks her prone body, threatening a critical.
- Her character is now dead through bad dice rolling and the chieftain lacking honour alone. She has not taken an action since the Cause Fear.

A few questions come to mind:

- Why did the barbarian chieftain think a prone target was more of a threat than the healthy one he's currently dealing with?
- Did the chieftain roll a good Spot check in order to see eyes opening on a downed opponent while engaged in melee with the Tengu? And even if her eyes open, is that really a sign that she's ready to kick his ass? She might actually still be barely conscious, and her eyes opening would mean nothing (and he wasted an attack getting rid of a non-threat)
- In order to get back to her feet, the mercenary would need to take a move action, that would provoke an attack of opportunity. Attacking her while she's prone is a waste of an action when he could attack the Tengu and AoO her when she tries to get up (her 5ft stepping away and then getting up notwithstanding). She was not the most dangerous target at the time. Even if she attacked, she had -4 to hit, which at level 2 is a very large amount (it would destroy her Power Attack advantage). The Tengu could have done well to 5ft step and sneak attack him at any moment, regardless of her condition. Not that the Barbarian would know the sneak attack mechanics off by heart - he's facing down a warrior who has balls enough to face him down. He might keep an eye out for the mercenary (thus unwittingly letting her be a flanking partner), but the main threat is the bird-man, who is all up in his face with knives or something right now. Take a chance getting rid of the prone, barely alive mercenary who can't properly attack him right now? Or deal with the bird-man, who is squaring up to stab you in the kidneys? This isn't a master strategist we're talking about here. Killing the mercenary is, in fact, the MOST strategically sound route (kill a character entirely, stop the rogue from getting a flanking bonus), but not the most narratively sound, since it requires knowledge of your enemy's abilities - knowledge the chieftain couldn't possibly know. Barbarian chieftains don't read the PHB. They don't read at all.

So yeah, from your point of view, it was just good sense to make your enemy lose 3 turns of actions and then kill them. But from hers? You took away her agency and then killed her outright. She probably already thought she was being excluded the moment you AoOed her fleeing body. That's 3 rounds of not making a decision with the character she made (1 being panicked, 2 bleeding out). Depending on how fast you run combat, that's a significant amount of time! She was looking forward to getting back up and helping destroy this boss... but then you killed her.

If this was like, her fighting and a random critical downed her, then fair enough. But it doesn't look like she was able to contribute effectively for half the battle. (NPC notwithstanding, but I don't think she was really into having an NPC controlled influence. It wasn't her character)

Just a bit of infernal advocacy.

this. she never really got a chance to act in combat. Second, he probably wouldn't notice her opening her eyes while she is unconscious on the floor. Third, attacking her before she could do anything else (even get away) doesn't seem fair at all. Even if that is what you would do, I do not think that is what the chieftain would have done since he is engaged in combat with another person.

But either way talk to her. Can't avoid it.

Jornophelanthas
2013-02-22, 01:31 PM
Personally, I'd've waited until she was standing to have her get attacked again. This way, she gets the chance to do something & isn't at a big disadvantage from being prone. After all, the enemy saw her go down, so he's going to be focused on the next guy. He's not going to notice every detail at all times. In character, these fights don't happen turn by turn. Everyone's acting at the same time. That's a lot to pay attention to.

I second this. Additionally, unlike someone else said, it is NOT possible to first take a 5-foot step and then get up, because moving 5 feet while prone is considered a full-round action AND provokes an attack of opportunity. The only sensible thing to do in that position is to use full-defense as a standard action, and not moving until the enemy moves away. Spending a round this way is generally called "cowering".
PERHAPS (if you're feel like taking a risk), you can use the move action to stand up AFTER performing full defense.

However, I also second the suggestion to NOT take back any outcome of the battle. Still, you need to talk to this player outside of the game, express understanding for her feelings, and tell her that you did not deliberately pick on her or anything of the sort, that you value her contribution as a player, and that you were surprised by her reaction. She needs to tell you her side of the story. And you need to respond to that appropriately. Perhaps she even has a longer-standing frustration at the game table that came to a boil upon the death of her character.
Ask her if things are okay BEFORE even mentioning anything that has to do with the next session, what character she might be playing, or whether she even wants to return. Chances are, if she has not decided on how to deal with the situation going forward, you directly asking her could aggravate things. Ideally, she should bring this up herself.

Talakeal
2013-02-22, 02:08 PM
I had an almost identical situation occur last summer. Even after the character in question was raised the player spent the rest of the day silent and sulking refusing to act in character even when directly prompted, and when I asked what was wrong they told me they just didn't care about my stupid game anymore.

Some people are just poor losers and don't have the maturity to handle defeat.

Doxkid
2013-02-22, 02:20 PM
Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

Khatoblepas
2013-02-22, 02:42 PM
I second this. Additionally, unlike someone else said, it is NOT possible to first take a 5-foot step and then get up, because moving 5 feet while prone is considered a full-round action AND provokes an attack of opportunity.

Whoops, I forgot that rule, sorry! I knew there was something odd about it. But the point remains.

The only out she had was total defense and hoping the chieftain moves to avoid a flanking (and that's assuming she had a turn at all!). She didn't really have any choices that would lead to her not dying.

People seem to be reacting to this situation as if it was just this random thing, but really what choice did she have but to die completely? She did her job, that is, attack the enemy, but got downed and healed so she didn't die. She seemed happy to take the fall just so she could be back in the fight quicker (2 rounds vs. 4), but you didn't really give her a chance to act after the Cause Fear? What actions could she have taken after that point that wouldn't lead to the chieftain running her through?

Delvin Darkwood
2013-02-22, 02:47 PM
Character death, level loss... oh yeah. Been there, done that.

Is this her first experience with a character death? If so, its understandable. Player rarely notice how attatched to their characters they are until theyre ripped from them (even if it was fair on the DM's part).

For example, my first character death was in an AD&D game; I was playing a Half Elf Ranger, who was suprised by a giant slug while the party was arguing in a swamp, and was critted on for abut 23 damage. Technically, the rolls were all fair. The DM rolled to see if i was surprised, he rolled to hit, and rolled the damage. It was all "fair" per say, but on my side of the screen it was a very different story. Needless to say, i was pretty aggravated.

Ide just say to give her time, give her a session to cool down and talk to her out of game. Character death isnt always easy to get used to, and the first death is always the hardest.

On the upside, at least all the other PC's will now be instilled with fear and terror.

Toliudar
2013-02-22, 02:59 PM
Talk to her, away from the gaming table. Tell you you sympathize with her, maybe tell her a story about one time one of your favorite characters got killed, and how badly you felt about it. Ask her how you can help her cope with the death of her character.

Do NOT tell her she shouldn't be feeling they way she does. Don't try to tell her there's no logical reason for her to be upset, because she can just get raised/rezzed/a new character. She is upset, and telling her she shouldn't feel upset will just make it worse. Do NOT tell her that when your character died, you coped with just fine, and so should she.


Quoted for Truth.

Reposting this because it really is your only reliable way out of this situation. Whether either you or she were right is irrelevant. What you need to do is find out what she's thinking/feeling, and work out a way forward with her as a part of the group.

Players react unpredictably to things happening to their characters. A male player with twenty years of D&D experience was sanguine about the death of a beloved character, made jokes and made popcorn - but then completely freaked out when our druid (the group's only divine caster) reincarnated him as a female human. People are funny.

eepop
2013-02-22, 03:47 PM
The question is not whether she over-reacted or if you should've targeted someone else. Neither of those moves the group forward, it just puts the blame on someone.

The question is whether the DM and the players had a misunderstanding on the lethality of the game.

Groups rarely go over expectations, so its not a surprise that there might be a difference in expectations.

Apologize that you acted in a way she did not expect. Listen to her criticisms.

Later sit down with your group and as a whole decide how lethal you all want the game to be. Any level you agree upon is fine, the important part is that you all see eye to eye, or at least can come to an amenable compromise.

A few examples:
a) No holds barred. We do what the dice say should happen, and the DM is able to be as aggressive as he wants with targetting.
b) A character can never go from alive straight to dead. Regardless of how much damage is done, they will be knocked down to -1. The DM is still open to use subsequent attacks to finish the job if deemed necessary.
c) A character can never go from alive straight to dead. Regardless of how much damage is done, they will be knocked down to -1. The DM is still open to kill them off, but it requires a full round action to do so.
d) Players can go to any amount of negative HP. No player dies, regardless of how low they go until all players are in negative HP.


If that decision contradicts your actions previously, be open to band-aiding the outcome of the previous battle. Its no one's fault things went wrong, there was just a misunderstanding. Heck, even with a decision that they want a no-holds-barred style, I would probably be open to a one time pass on this on account that the issue had not yet been discussed so she didn't know what to expect.

Triaxx
2013-02-22, 04:37 PM
I have to say I've been on both ends of this. I tend to over react, but I make it clear that I do this. I've had players walk out on me.

My answer is to ignore it. It's not the right answer for everyone, I recognize some people have to 'fix' things. I find that if they're going to get over it, they will. If not, then they'll come and talk to me. Frankly, I always roll for targetting when there's a choice.

Yes, you can go and talk about it and that might help. I've never noticed it myself, but I lack people skills. It always seems to me that they want me to change my style to suit them. Of course, it's possible I'm reading it wrong.

If you think you can talk it out and come up with the right answers to mollify the player, do it, if not, just ignore it. Either it will go away, or they will.

kyoryu
2013-02-22, 05:32 PM
Unfortunately, this seems like a combination of two things to me:

1) Most versions of D&D aren't well suited to narrative play, especially at low levels. Presumptions of lethality that made sense back in the 1e day don't work with "modern" storyline driven games.

2) From her POV, it was a one-shot kill. She was feared, and after that there was literally no action she could take as she was killed over several rounds. Dying can suck. Getting one-shotted sucks more. Effectively having to watch your character being slowly killed over several rounds sucks most.

I'd also question, as others have, the decision to have the warchief instantly see her eyes open and break off combat with someone he was currently engaged with. That seems questionable.

Ultimately, though, you need to make sure that your group is on the same page, as eepop has suggested. Modify the rules as necessary to achieve that.

Synovia
2013-02-22, 07:31 PM
I'd also question, as others have, the decision to have the warchief instantly see her eyes open and break off combat with someone he was currently engaged with. That seems questionable.

A character who is conscious on the ground, and prone, can still attack. That means they're not just opening their eyes... when they get healed to +HP, they're active combatants again.

I don't know that I would have attacked her, but she would have taken an AO if she'd tried to do anything.

turkey901
2013-02-22, 08:01 PM
The way I see it, the only "possible" thing on your end that you could have done wrong was attacking her when she was down. Personally I would be completely in your corner on this one. From what I am reading she had already beaten most of the piss out of the boss and through a few (un)lucky rolls he was able to drop her. Now I don't know how mechanics savvy NPC's are supposed to be to other people but I agree that the boss shouldn't be thinking to himself;

Well, I can make at least 1 AoO when she tries to get up, so I will avoid using my actual attack on her for now

Especially when you consider if he just watched someone run up and heal her. Not knowing how much HP she is still packing it only makes sense to remove the CLEAR (1/2 his health in 1 round) threat is just playing with kid gloves. If some people hate character death that is fine but personally I play poker differently when I am using fake money and I know I would game differently is I knew the GM would always keep me alive. If there is a logical way a GM can save me after a few bad rolls, sure, but I don't want to be thinking I can charge a nest of trolls solo because the worst that will happen is I may lose an item.

Now I get attachment to your character, just because she never shared an elaborate back story doesn't mean she hadn't been crafting one, and if she is a newer player then I think I get her attitude. All that it should need is taking her out for a beer or pizza and explaining things. One of the greatest parts of RPG's for me is playing the lower levels. You are a stiff breeze away from going down so it always forced me to think outside of the box, a goblin with a short sword is 1 lucky crit away from dropping your front line fighter. If she is that dedicated to her "current" character and doesn't want to make a new one I would have the party pool their resources, pay for the Raise Dead,( maybe the Chieftan had a scroll from ages ago, who cares) (fiat that she doesn't take the Con damage but still the penalties of 2 levels ) then give them some quests that instead of payment they can get a Restoration out it.

In the end if the group as a whole doesn't want character death or wants it to be super hard then you either have to change your style or request someone else take over the GM spot. Either way good luck to you and your group.

AttilaTheGeek
2013-02-22, 08:14 PM
This happened to me once, and I was on the player's end. It really did feel like I was being targeted, but only because the GM did all his rolls behind a screen. Later, in another campaign, when I saw an enemy roll two 20's in a row on an attack roll on me, I felt like I was dying because I hadn't prayed to the great dice gods enough had bad luck, not because the GM didn't like me.

So what it really comes down to is, did your player see the dice? Or were they behind a screen?

Driderman
2013-02-22, 08:15 PM
Just to be clear, this doesn't sound at all like "Dying in a epic fight", it sounds a lot more like " getting crowd-controlled, getting smacked down by the DM, healed up by party members and then smacked down again by the DM, this time fatally so".
It sounds pointless and arbitrary and I can totally understand why a player would be annoyed at being treated that way. Losing your character to mechanics and a poor DM call is never fun.

It also sounds, to me at least, like mechanics is dominating the combat, which will quickly remove any potential for memorable or gripping death scenes which might otherwise ease the loss of a character.

It the end, it's mostly a matter of different expectations. Your player(s) obviously expected otherwise from you, and things like that can shock.

Verte
2013-02-22, 08:20 PM
Personally, I would talk things over and explain that there was no intention to unfairly target her through her character. If she's new to the game, I would go over past experiences with character death and try to figure out what she wants to do going forward.

I don't think she was acting especially irrationally. I've seen players overreact to the discovery of house rules that they had overlooked at the beginning of the game by starting a long, drawn-out argument with the DM. I've also seen players become pushy and belligerent because they didn't get to use a specific build they wanted. I've also dealt with other players trying to control my characters' actions. My point is that compared to those people, she wasn't acting any more childish or disruptive.

I would also say that no one in this situation was clearly right or wrong, so determining that shouldn't be the main priority.

Talakeal
2013-02-22, 08:39 PM
It looks to me like the biggest issue here is that because the attack that took her down came from an aoo the bad guy essentially got two turns in a row. In this case we don't know how the pc would have acted on her turn. It looks like the DM assumed she would keep fighting while she wanted to withdraw but never got the option to make that clear. This is one of the really messy results of aoos which led to me removing them from my game.

kyoryu
2013-02-22, 08:39 PM
A character who is conscious on the ground, and prone, can still attack. That means they're not just opening their eyes... when they get healed to +HP, they're active combatants again.


The OP described the fatal blow as happening "immediately" after she was healed to +hp. Not "the round after she healed" or "after her turn" or "after she did ...".

Based on his description, it sounds like she never had a chance to act after the Fear spell.

Templarkommando
2013-02-22, 09:37 PM
There are things that I really like about RP, and though it seems grim and macabre, it's something that we need to examine maturely. Why do we die? Hopefully death is the result of a life lived fully, but that's not always the case. Sometimes life is wasted irresponsibly - people die in car crashes or get drunk and jump off of buildings, but one of the most beautiful things in literature is a death taken in a good cause. Most of the time - not every time but mostly - I think of my characters as heroes. So it comes as no surprise that we are sad when a beloved character dies - even if we didn't roleplay them as frequently or well as we thought they deserved. Consider this though:

She died with her boots on standing up to an evil barbarian chieftain. How many people would have suffered at his hands if her character hadn't taken on death itself to defend them? Her's wasn't a wasted life, on the contrary it makes life more worthwhile for others. Her selfless death may have been sad, but the sacrifice that she made has in fact given even those of us that are not fictional characters a reason for reflection. How do I face death? How shall I live my life so that I might benefit others? Is there some way that I might live up to this example and fight for the ideals (whether physically or metaphorically) that this character upholds?

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-22, 09:58 PM
Going ahead and weighing in with my two sense.

First, as far as what happens, it sounds like the earlier analysis was correct - it wasn't just the death of the character, it was the loss of control through the fear spell, the AoO, all of that building together to be frustrating.

My advice is this: Do not talk about it. Not with her, not with the other players, nothing. Chances are she feels embarrassed about what happened, and wants to put it behind her. If you talk to her about it and apologize, it's gonna be awkward, she's gonna feel like you're pitying her, and you'll have lost power over your PCs in the future. If you talk to her about it and *don't* apologize, then you'll come off as mean, you'll make it into a fight, and you'll lose friendship and camaraderie with your PCs in the future.

Next session, pretend it didn't happen. Give her some sort of a cheap and easy resurrection or raise dead, but don't say anything about it. She learns not to get too emotional over in-game stuffs, you learn to better consider things from your players point of view, and the campaign continues unhindered.

Of course, if she's clearly still angry about it next time yous see her... then I have no idea what you should do. Panic and jump out a window, probably.

Kesnit
2013-02-22, 10:02 PM
It may not have had everything to do with you. Or rather, the death may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

Several months ago, I was playing in a oWoD LARP, in a system I had never played before. I had built my character, and was having a good time. Over the course of the evening, my character (who was built for social) had several challenges, all of which I lost. (It's a rock-paper-scissors system with some other things thrown in. I was mostly losing through bad luck.) It was frustrating, but that's the way the game is. :smallannoyed:

Eventually, my character was sent by another PC to join the majority of the party to try to help with whatever they were doing. (Can't remember the exact details now.) I got slapped down in-character.

I lost it, but managed to get to the bathroom before I broke down in tears. There was nothing personal, and I knew it. I knew the players involved and knew they were not cruel people. The slap-down was in-character only. But on top of everything else that had gone wrong, that one thing was just one thing too many.

That may be what happened with your player. She was feared, knocked out, healed, and killed, all in quick succession. Any of those alone may have been OK with her, but all together were just too much.

Averis Vol
2013-02-22, 11:09 PM
Good luck if you ever decide to get married...

not quite sure what that has to do pertaining to the situation, Its for reasons like this I make sure whoever I date can take a joke; so they don't go running the first time one of my friends makes fun of them (and it happens..... a lot.)

Driderman
2013-02-23, 08:12 AM
Also, it's hard to create an "epic death" on level 2. No matter how you perceive it as a DM, for players a character death will most likely feel as two random hits and suddenly -10 HP.
I don't know the roleplaying effort put into this, but I have a hard time seeing how "epic" a "boss fight" at level 2 can be unless you have a VERY slow xp progression.

How many sessions exactly did you use to build up the threat and enmity between the players and the barbarian chieftain? Or does "epic" simply mean "overpowered statblock" or "an enemy NPC I'm personally invested in and found awesome"?

ReaderAt2046
2013-02-23, 03:07 PM
She died with her boots on standing up to an evil barbarian chieftain. How many people would have suffered at his hands if her character hadn't taken on death itself to defend them? Her's wasn't a wasted life, on the contrary it makes life more worthwhile for others. Her selfless death may have been sad, but the sacrifice that she made has in fact given even those of us that are not fictional characters a reason for reflection. How do I face death? How shall I live my life so that I might benefit others? Is there some way that I might live up to this example and fight for the ideals (whether physically or metaphorically) that this character upholds?

I'd suggest that if your player wants to roll up a new character instead of ressurrecting the old one, you play this angle up IC. Give her an in-character funeral with recounts of her courage in charging the enemy cheif and her heroic dealing of a lot of damage to him. Make the death feel more heroic and less random and grindy.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-23, 04:01 PM
I'd suggest that if your player wants to roll up a new character instead of ressurrecting the old one, you play this angle up IC. Give her an in-character funeral with recounts of her courage in charging the enemy cheif and her heroic dealing of a lot of damage to him. Make the death feel more heroic and less random and grindy.

Eh...

It sounds like the player is more upset about what happened to her (Bad luck, loss of control) than what happened to her character (Death), especially given the lack of role-playing. I expect that she might just want to put the incident behind her, so going through a whole funeral might feel like rubbing it in.

Zeful
2013-02-23, 04:26 PM
not quite sure what that has to do pertaining to the situation, Its for reasons like this I make sure whoever I date can take a joke; so they don't go running the first time one of my friends makes fun of them (and it happens..... a lot.)

It's pretty much calling out your behavior as insensitive and needlessly confrontational, qualities that make long term intimate relationships... difficult to politely understate it.

Averis Vol
2013-02-23, 07:56 PM
It's pretty much calling out your behavior as insensitive and needlessly confrontational, qualities that make long term intimate relationships... difficult to politely understate it.

We must have different notions of what insensitive and needlessly confrontational are; I don't really see my line of reasoning being offensive, but that behavior is way out of line for an adult. I may just be thick skinned to these kind of things, but still, I stand by my point.

Zeful
2013-02-23, 08:13 PM
We must have different notions of what insensitive and needlessly confrontational are; I don't really see my line of reasoning being offensive, but that behavior is way out of line for an adult. I may just be thick skinned to these kind of things, but still, I stand by my point.

We do. I view your attitude as one a bully or thug; while were I too expand on my own, you'd likely view it as highly immature and emotional (your use of "thick skinned" very much alludes such), though I'd only contest the first, as I'm all to aware of how emotional I get. We would not get along in real life.

Seriously considering throwing someone out of the group because of a highly emotional response does not make the situation better, and is far more likely to get them to lash out emotionally at you in response, which does not lead to good things most of the time, and is not very sensitive (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensitive) to the player's feelings in any case (and is thus insensitive). Most of the time issues like these can in fact be solved with talking to and learning the limits the other person is capable of handling, as well as how to expand them for certain scenes.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-23, 10:04 PM
Meh... unless it's someone you're close to (Read: Family or love interest, maybe best friends), pretending things didn't happen isn't actually the worst way to go.

Certainly better than aggressively shaming them for actions they may already have come to regret on their own, anyway.

Rhynn
2013-02-23, 10:58 PM
Meh... unless it's someone you're close to (Read: Family or love interest, maybe best friends), pretending things didn't happen isn't actually the worst way to go.

Seriously. There are so many incidents, events, and nights me and my friends pretend didn't happen at this point in our lives... usually involving alcohol, but sometimes just being generally embarrassing (and many having occurred around RPGs!). It's a pretty standard way of dealing with embarrassing things. (And good friends keep pretending when you're not around...)

Averis Vol
2013-02-23, 11:50 PM
We do. I view your attitude as one a bully or thug; while were I too expand on my own, you'd likely view it as highly immature and emotional (your use of "thick skinned" very much alludes such), though I'd only contest the first, as I'm all to aware of how emotional I get. We would not get along in real life.

Seriously considering throwing someone out of the group because of a highly emotional response does not make the situation better, and is far more likely to get them to lash out emotionally at you in response, which does not lead to good things most of the time, and is not very sensitive (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensitive) to the player's feelings in any case (and is thus insensitive). Most of the time issues like these can in fact be solved with talking to and learning the limits the other person is capable of handling, as well as how to expand them for certain scenes.

I never said to kick her from the group, in fact, I specifically said not to let it fester quietly, I said,"if she is going to keep being mad, tell her not the play", though perhaps I should have said ask her if she wants to play or just mope.

I'm generally not one to complain openly about someones attitude, but when I see something like this, and assuming they're adults, I feel the need to speak my piece about it being immature.

As to you personally, I probably wouldn't mind; we probably wouldn't be great friends if your prone to constant emotional outbursts, but if you aren't a bad guy, I've got nothing against you. I'm just going to leave this derailing conversation at this post. hope you and your player come to a reasonable compromise.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-24, 12:24 AM
I'm generally not one to complain openly about someones attitude, but when I see something like this, and assuming they're adults, I feel the need to speak my piece about it being immature.

Problem is... in my experience, that instinct is never helpful. Telling someone their actions are immature just makes them defensive, and provokes the same sort of emotional response that led to the immature action in the first place. It may feel good to you, or establish some sort of position of superiority, but it does nothing to improve their behavior, or fix the faulty dynamic.

Averis Vol
2013-02-24, 01:14 AM
Problem is... in my experience, that instinct is never helpful. Telling someone their actions are immature just makes them defensive, and provokes the same sort of emotional response that led to the immature action in the first place. It may feel good to you, or establish some sort of position of superiority, but it does nothing to improve their behavior, or fix the faulty dynamic.

For fear of this turning into an ethical debate, this will be the last thing I'm going to say. First of all, this behavior is counter productive to getting someone to grow up, in fact, this is the kind of attitude that breeds temper tantrums in the first place.

Secondly, if someone can't handle being told that they are acting like a child, can't handle when an act of complete dumb luck doesn't go in their favor (after the same dumb luck was on their side already once that day) and refuses to even talk to you because of some believed slight, there is a problem that is already deeply ingrained within the person that needs to be seen to before you can even attempt to fix something like a dead character in a game.

Jornophelanthas
2013-02-24, 07:45 AM
For fear of this turning into an ethical debate, this will be the last thing I'm going to say. First of all, this behavior is counter productive to getting someone to grow up, in fact, this is the kind of attitude that breeds temper tantrums in the first place.

Secondly, if someone can't handle being told that they are acting like a child, can't handle when an act of complete dumb luck doesn't go in their favor (after the same dumb luck was on their side already once that day) and refuses to even talk to you because of some believed slight, there is a problem that is already deeply ingrained within the person that needs to be seen to before you can even attempt to fix something like a dead character in a game.

It is not the responsibility of casual friends to see to the emotional upbringing of a person. Unless this roleplaying group is more than casual friends, and closer to (surrogate) family.
Still, breeding maturity never works if the person at whom the efforts are directed is made aware of the efforts. (When was the last time someone responded to a chastising "Oh, grow up!" with a sincere and non-sarcastic "Thank you, I will"?)

Besides, a fantasy roleplaying game is certainly not the correct setting for it.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-24, 10:26 AM
For fear of this turning into an ethical debate, this will be the last thing I'm going to say. First of all, this behavior is counter productive to getting someone to grow up, in fact, this is the kind of attitude that breeds temper tantrums in the first place.

Secondly, if someone can't handle being told that they are acting like a child, can't handle when an act of complete dumb luck doesn't go in their favor (after the same dumb luck was on their side already once that day) and refuses to even talk to you because of some believed slight, there is a problem that is already deeply ingrained within the person that needs to be seen to before you can even attempt to fix something like a dead character in a game.

People don't introspect when they feel they're under attack; they defend. Once they calm down, though, then they can start to see things from other points of view.

By the way... If the OP is around, I'd like to know what happened since the original incident.

Averis Vol
2013-02-24, 06:15 PM
By the way... If the OP is around, I'd like to know what happened since the original incident.

Agreed, hope it turned out well enough.

Guizonde
2013-02-24, 08:41 PM
reminds me of my own reactions to my close calls: first time 'round was my halfling paladin who irked the dm to no end. since the campaign went out the window for irl reasons, it was dm-fiated that the expedition failed, leaving my beloved halfling paladin inside, alive. i was saying "bah, she'll have managed to flee and recuperate! she's a level 5 paladin. she's got wits!"... theeeeeeeen i learned that she had spent the last 3 weeks being tortured to death and back to unlife. i admit it, i took it pretty hard, calling the dm bad names (nevermind that that revelation dated to a campaign held a year back), and saying that he targetted my character specifically (he doesn't hide the fact that he hated that character and that he wanted to break her). now he's telling me to reroll her as undead. i've got one more chance to make her count. it rankles to know that she died an atrocious death, but hey. we're adults, and the dm and i have grown attached to that character. me because she's my first dnd character ever (took me 3 years of pen and paper before hitting dnd), and him because he finds it fun to make her suffer to no end.
then, during the reboot of that campaign, i got nailed for 9/10 my health in one hit by the local boss monster, telling the others to run on for their lives. i was bitter, but hey. the dice spoke (the boss beat my AC by quite a bit, and it was a X5 crit, i think). so here i am, getting progressively angrier at that unfairness, and so i roleplayed my dwarf cleric venting his rage at that boss. i lived (unbelievably), healed myself back to full, and that was that. he went from an optimist following the group for kicks and giggles to grimdark (character development yay!), dour and jaded, but him surviving taught me that yes, in serious campaigns, suckage happens on everyone. he apologized for forgetting that i don't move fast (dwarves and their fixed speed...), but we talked it out, and all was good. since i vented in-character, he allowed the torrent of abuse i hurled at that boss. i wasn't mad at the DM, just at the situation... theeeeen my cleric 6 hours later had to fight a demonic possession. i admit it, books were thrown at the dm when he pulled that one on me (but it wasn't dm-fiat. it was a cursed weapon that hit me, and we found out the hard way).

how long has the cold shoulder been going for? i was mad at my dm's rulings for a few hours at most (well, except for the paladin. that's been going on for like, a year), but let's be serious. it's a game. it's not the end of the world (ok, except for blackleaf, or an awful custom of my dm's teacher to rip apart charsheets when the characters are annihilated). at least try to find out if she's mad at you (she shouldn't be), or at the ruling/situation (she lost her character, she's got every right to be). remember to tell her different options exist (resurrection, reincarnation...), and that when you take out the "game" of "role-playing game", no one has fun anymore, and no one has a reason to keep playing.

(my very wordy two bits)

Synovia
2013-02-25, 12:00 AM
The OP described the fatal blow as happening "immediately" after she was healed to +hp. Not "the round after she healed" or "after her turn" or "after she did ...".

Based on his description, it sounds like she never had a chance to act after the Fear spell.

So? As soon as shes healed, shes a meaningful combatant again, which means the enemy shouldn't just ignore her.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-25, 12:03 AM
So? As soon as shes healed, shes a meaningful combatant again, which means the enemy shouldn't just ignore her.

I don't think that was his point. As I read it, the point wasn't "And this makes what the BBEG did irrational" - it was "And this compounded how frustrating an experience this was for the player, leading to her emotional response."

Synovia
2013-02-25, 12:04 AM
It is not the responsibility of casual friends to see to the emotional upbringing of a person. Unless this roleplaying group is more than casual friends, and closer to (surrogate) family.

Its also not the duty of casual friends to take on the burden of emotionally supporting unstable people.

I don't think that was his point. As I read it, the point wasn't "And this makes what the BBEG did irrational" - it was "And this compounded how frustrating an experience this was for the player, leading to her emotional response."



Oh, clearly its a frustrating experience. But its frustrating the other way.

I just played a game wednesday night where a character of mine got put into the negatives by an enemy cleric's Flamestrike, got healed up to about 1/3 of my hp, and then the enemy cleric seemed to flamestrike people all around me, while never moving the radius to include me. It really ruined that game for me, knowing that the character really wasn't in any danger.

I'm just not sure what the DM could have done here.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-25, 12:07 AM
Its also not the duty of casual friends to take on the burden of emotionally supporting unstable people.

Who said anything about "Duty"? All I'm talking about is "What will resolve the situation in the best manner."

Empathy isn't charity, it's functionality.

Synovia
2013-02-25, 12:14 AM
Who said anything about "Duty"? All I'm talking about is "What will resolve the situation in the best manner."

Empathy isn't charity, it's functionality.

You can feel empathy towards a person and still not think its worth playing with them, or worth spending time with them. Everyone has that friend they no longer hang out with because they're simply a drag. Its not your duty to try to live with, or fix their emotional issues. That's what family is for.


Sometimes its not worth getting involved with the sort of people who can't handle themselves emotionally.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-25, 12:34 AM
You can feel empathy towards a person and still not think its worth playing with them, or worth spending time with them. Everyone has that friend they no longer hang out with because they're simply a drag. Its not your duty to try to live with, or fix their emotional issues. That's what family is for.


Sometimes its not worth getting involved with the sort of people who can't handle themselves emotionally.

I never said get involved, either. My advice was to pretend it didn't happen, and give her the chance to do the same. If this sort of behavior repeated itself, then eventually, yeah, I might try to pull away from that person.

In the meantime, understanding the root of her frustrations makes it easier to be a better DM in the future - note that "Being a better DM in the future" does not require "Being a bad one now."

Ashtagon
2013-02-25, 12:50 AM
So? As soon as shes healed, shes a meaningful combatant again, which means the enemy shouldn't just ignore her.

I prefer not to play NPCs with excessive levels of gene savvy. It breaks immersion.

ArcturusV
2013-02-25, 12:51 AM
Unless they are a bard. Then they should be Genre Savvy. :smallwink:

Wonton
2013-02-25, 07:55 AM
Wow, this thread's still going, huh. I was kinda done thinking about the issue.

In any case, as I read through this thread it became more and more apparent that some people didn't actually read any of my posts (although I thank those of you who offered some helpful discussion), so here's a few bold points so that the first group will stop saying blatant lies:


The enemy was a human Barbarian/Ranger with 8 Int. Although no genius, he still has humanoid intelligence. Yes, even while raging. There's a big difference between "flying into an animal frenzy" and actually being an animal with 2 Int.
He did not "turn his back" on one party member to attack another. Click on the spoiler below: he was the O and they were the two Xs, so they were both in front of him and both equally viable targets.

. X X
. O .
. . .

The two Xs were a Tengu Rogue (NPC, but controlled by a player for this battle) and a Human Fighter (PC of the player in question). The Barbarian had 48 hit points at the start of the battle, and the Rogue had dealt maybe 6 damage to him after a series of misses. The Fighter had dealt 33... in one round. Even an animal, even a mindless golem would know that the fighter was the bigger threat. You can argue that one was standing and one wasn't, but that's a load of bull. If one person is holding a water gun and the other an M-16, I know who I'd be more scared of.



Now, with that out of the way, time for some actual responses. I promise they will be less angry.

1) Okay, since 10+ people pointed out to me, I agree: Fear into Unconsciousness into Death might have been a little too much. Although such is the nature of any combat vs a spellcaster (one of the PCs spent most of the fight under Hideous Laughter...), all of that in a row might have seemed a little... personal. However I should add that this did not happen until the last 1/3 of the fight or so, so it's not like I smacked her character down the moment she showed up. She kicked ass vs a few mooks, took a huge chunk out of the boss' health bar, at which point the enemies decided to focus her and she died.

2)
So what it really comes down to is, did your player see the dice? Or were they behind a screen?

I roll all dice in front of my players. When I rolled 23 damage on that killing blow, I had to really think hard since the dice were clearly in front of them. But I said "23 damage", and the ****storm followed...

3)
Also, it's hard to create an "epic death" on level 2. No matter how you perceive it as a DM, for players a character death will most likely feel as two random hits and suddenly -10 HP.
I don't know the roleplaying effort put into this, but I have a hard time seeing how "epic" a "boss fight" at level 2 can be unless you have a VERY slow xp progression.

How many sessions exactly did you use to build up the threat and enmity between the players and the barbarian chieftain? Or does "epic" simply mean "overpowered statblock" or "an enemy NPC I'm personally invested in and found awesome"?

I'm not gonna lie, I'm a new DM and not great at foreshadowing and RP and things like that. When I say epic, I mean a few things. They had known they have to go to "the lighthouse" since the first session, and that the island also had cannibals on it. They had fought two packs of cannibals (4 and 6) with varying success (first fight was hard at level 1, second fight was a piece of cake with the Fighter's Cleave at level 2). Out of character, I'd shown them the battle map I had drawn and sent several e-mails hyping up the encounter.

The battle had 18 enemies, 4 PCs, and 4 friendly NPCs, making it by far the biggest encounter of the campaign so far, and for many of us, the biggest we'd ever seen (I certainly had never been in an encounter that required 26 minis...). Tactically, it was epic. Hell, at the start of the fight, my players complimented me on how awesome this encounter was shaping up to be (I know I'm just bragging now, but like I said, I'm a new DM and it meant a lot to me). RP-wise, it was a climax since it was accomplishing their biggest goal from the first 5 sessions and had the toughest opponent they'd ever faced.

4)
By the way... If the OP is around, I'd like to know what happened since the original incident.

Nothing, yet. The session was supposed to be a farewell for one of the players who had no time to game anymore because he was writing his thesis. Ideally, it should have been an epic send-off and then we'd continue, possibly finding someone to replace him. Instead, at the end of the session I got "oh yeah, I might also be too busy to continue playing... we'll see...". I'll likely send out the "Hi, so are we gaming this Thursday?" e-mail tomorrow but I wouldn't at all be surprised if the players simply don't come back. :smallsigh:

GnomeFighter
2013-02-25, 08:17 AM
You can argue that one was standing and one wasn't, but that's a load of bull. If one person is holding a water gun and the other an M-16, I know who I'd be more scared of.

The problem people are having is that it is not one person holding a watergun and one holding an M16, its one person holding a knife and one person lieing on the floor dead with an M16.

You cannot dismiss the fact that she was on the floor, just healed and had done nothing. Personaly, as a GM, I would treat that PC as no longer a threat until she did something. How would the monster know she had been healed? Unless it was a touch heal then I would say he had no way of knowing unless you are very clear that healing has a visable effect prior to this or she did something. Yes, if healing is agreed as having a visable external effect and the party are happy with that kind of meta play, fine, but you admit yourself the group felt you were in the wrong.

Also, this is not about PC killing, but about the killing of a PC on the floor because you know OOC that she is more of a threat.

It seems to me that you are not hear to get help, but to justify your actions that the group did not agree with. Moreso with your admission that the other players may not come back.

Madeiner
2013-02-25, 08:25 AM
I am with the OP on this one.
A BBEG is surely intelligent, and knows that he can't take another hit from the m-16 wielder, while the other one did about 1 damage per round so is basically useless.
The right move would have been an attack on the m16 guy, as soon as he saw the character laying on the ground but not dead.
He surely knows that most parties have healers (being a BBEG) and also knows that killing one of them breaks morale.

Now, whether this is a course of action to take in a game, i don't know. It happened while i was DMing too. One of the PCs was down but had fast healing. That fast healing was what killed him: the bbeg saw the PCs wounds fast healing, and decided to take no chances.

About healing having flashy effects, i think its in the manual somewhere telling that most spell effects are clearly visible and flashy unless otherwise specified.

GnomeFighter
2013-02-25, 09:13 AM
The person on the ground was on negative HP until healed, so effectivly dead. The guy chose to attack someone he would have thought dead rather than someone who was attacking him.

I don't know about the healing spells, but unless it specificly says there is a flashy effect at the point of the healing (I.e. on the PC not the caster) then I would be annoyed and see this as meta gaming. However, this has never been brought up by the OP. He has never said anything about the guy seeing the healing, only that the guy attacked knowing that the PC had become a threat.

eulmanis12
2013-02-25, 09:47 AM
It might not have been because the character died. There might be something else going on and it was the relativly minor thing in game that proved to be the last little push needed to go over the edge.

I've had a similiar situation a little while back, I'd had a bad week leading up tp game night, including having to quit my job and failing several important tests, and I was looking towards game night as a few hours of not having to think about how badly I'd screwed up, and when ten minutes in I rolled a string of natural ones that lead to a TPK... ... Well lets say I lost my temper a little.

I'm not saying that this is what happened to your player but it's definitly possible that she just had a bad week, or a bad day, and was looking towards the game to be an escape only to see her character get killed, normally it's just an inconvienience but sometimes it's a little more.

Thialfi
2013-02-25, 10:07 AM
As a DM I usually don't go out of my way to kill a character and I feel this was going out of your way to kill a character. I also feel it was exceedingly poor tactics on the part of the bad guy to ignore an active combatant and go after someone that is currently not a threat. Your basically giving the guy right in your face free swings at you.

I question your decision that he could see that she was conscious. In the midst of combat it is asking a lot for someone to be able to pay that much attention to multiple opponents.

Finally, I question why the bad guy was in melee range of the downed character. She had been feared and turned to run and was dropped by an AoO. She should have been far enough away that for him to go to her would have given the character that was currently engaged with him an attack of opportunity.

Madeiner
2013-02-25, 10:25 AM
The person on the ground was on negative HP until healed, so effectivly dead. The guy chose to attack someone he would have thought dead rather than someone who was attacking him.

I don't know about the healing spells, but unless it specificly says there is a flashy effect at the point of the healing (I.e. on the PC not the caster) then I would be annoyed and see this as meta gaming. However, this has never been brought up by the OP. He has never said anything about the guy seeing the healing, only that the guy attacked knowing that the PC had become a threat.

Let's try an put it this way. You are an experienced adventurer. Two people are in melee with you. One of them is completely ineffective, dealing only very very minor damage over the course of 6 rounds. The other swings at you ONCE, and you know you can't take another hit like that. Smart as you are, you decide to drop him, and you see him gurgling blood.
Next round, a divine spellcaster, who probably stood there the whole combat healing allies at a distance, says some words that produce the same visual effect as they did a few rounds ago when he healed his allies, and you see him pointed in the direction of the dying enemy. (and maybe you even have spellcraft).
What do you do?
a) you attack the guy who did 6 damage over 6 rounds total, effectively useless
b) Attack the dying guy, on the (let's say) "off-chance" that he might have been healed. (probably a DC 5 wisdom check to notice)

Heck, even option C), run and attack the spellcaster and taking an AoO from the useless guy would be smarter than stay and waste rounds attacking him.





Finally, I question why the bad guy was in melee range of the downed character. She had been feared and turned to run and was dropped by an AoO. She should have been far enough away that for him to go to her would have given the character that was currently engaged with him an attack of opportunity.

By RAW, AoO resolve before the triggering action, so the PC never even left the square adjacent to the BBEG

Rhynn
2013-02-25, 11:43 AM
By RAW, AoO resolve before the triggering action, so the PC never even left the square adjacent to the BBEG

Actually, this makes me think... would a frightened character get to use a withdraw action? The panicked condition says "run", but frightened just says "flee"... granted, it's as fast as you can, but in the long run it's not very fast fleeing if you get dropped by an AoO trying to get out of the first square.

Amnestic
2013-02-25, 12:34 PM
Instead, at the end of the session I got "oh yeah, I might also be too busy to continue playing... we'll see...". I'll likely send out the "Hi, so are we gaming this Thursday?" e-mail tomorrow but I wouldn't at all be surprised if the players simply don't come back. :smallsigh:

Seems like a shame, since it sounds like you're willing to admit any mistakes and ask for help if you did make them.

Gotta ask yourself if it's worth trying to bring it back together or if it's better to just give it up for lost and hope it doesn't all go wrong with your next group, I guess?

Thialfi
2013-02-25, 01:18 PM
By RAW, AoO resolve before the triggering action, so the PC never even left the square adjacent to the BBEG

I am admittedly far less familiar with rules after 1st & 2nd Editions as those are the only games my group has played for our 32 year history. I am sure you are right about this, but it makes little sense.

So, the attack the bad guy gets as a result of the character being put in a helpless position resolves before the character puts herself in a helpless position?

Madeiner
2013-02-25, 01:49 PM
I am admittedly far less familiar with rules after 1st & 2nd Editions as those are the only games my group has played for our 32 year history. I am sure you are right about this, but it makes little sense.

So, the attack the bad guy gets as a result of the character being put in a helpless position resolves before the character puts herself in a helpless position?

It is that way because of the logical complications that could happen otherwise, but think of it as one character in a fight that suddenly turns their back to the other combatant, and gets stabbed in the back as soon as he moves.

kyoryu
2013-02-25, 02:21 PM
So? As soon as shes healed, shes a meaningful combatant again, which means the enemy shouldn't just ignore her.

That's fine, but my point was that she had no chance to act between the first fear and her death.

Which, from everything we can tell, she didn't.

Abombom
2013-02-25, 02:27 PM
Worst case scenario, take it as a learning experience... Human beings are a lot more immature than they let on, and so you should spend even more time before starting a campaign or a session talking about 'expectations'... i.e. "We're all here to have fun" or "There's a very real chance your character could die." etc.

I don't know why everyone would stop playing though, even if it was a sour note to leave the last session on. What, is that one person like the heart of the group or something? :smallconfused:

-

That said if you want to salvage play with your group, you may consider making an exception just this once and providing some form of resurrection. Perhaps she transferred consciousness to a new body (?!) or the gods said It Was Not Meant to Be, or she comes back with some ghost-like aspects and maybe reduced stats. I wouldn't recommend doing this since it's low-level and breaks logic, but it could be a one-time thing.

However, either way, as stated, even if your group doesn't die you need to address the issue. Even if she's no longer playing!

Boci
2013-02-25, 03:14 PM
So, the attack the bad guy gets as a result of the character being put in a helpless position resolves before the character puts herself in a helpless position?

Its not about being helpless, its about lowering your defences. To not have attacks of opertunity interupt the action that trigers them would change the game, and in most cases not for the better.

1. Chain tripping would become viable, as you could re-trip someone with the AoO they generate from standing up.

2. Running away would no longer generate an AoO in some situations, since by the time the opponent is in a position to take the AoO I would have moved a square, and thus be out of the reach of most medium creatures.

3. Spellcasters would no longer need to make Concentration checks to keep their spells.

Rhynn
2013-02-25, 03:17 PM
So, the attack the bad guy gets as a result of the character being put in a helpless position resolves before the character puts herself in a helpless position?

Them's the rules. 3.5 attacks of opportunity explicitly resolve before the provoking action resolves. Basically, if you cast a spell/turn to run away, you get interrupted by someone hitting you with a weapon before you can finish what you were trying to do. In this case, she turned her back on the enemy or even just dropped her guard, intending to run away, and immediately got hit and dropped.

Thialfi
2013-02-25, 03:54 PM
Not doubting the rules. I still think it would make sense to have the character fall at least 6-8 feet away.

I also don't know anything about the class specifics of the character that was currently fighting the BBEG. From what I understand when the BBEG turned his attention back to the prone fighter, he allowed himself to be flanked by a rogue. Does this class not get sneak attack damage?

It also seems this BBEG had the morale of a berserker. By the OPs admission he had taken over half his hp in damage in one hit and suffered more damage since. It seems he was still facing several opponents and had only taken out one of his adversaries. At this point my BBEG would be at least looking for the door.

Instead, he attacked the only helpless target that he could. This effectively took surrender off the table as an option for him. As he now had to realize that should he lose, his death was now 100% certain.

ReaderAt2046
2013-02-25, 04:31 PM
It also seems this BBEG had the morale of a berserker. By the OPs admission he had taken over half his hp in damage in one hit and suffered more damage since. It seems he was still facing several opponents and had only taken out one of his adversaries. At this point my BBEG would be at least looking for the door.

This makes sense, as I'm pretty sure he is a berserker (a barbarian cheiftain in rage.)

Boci
2013-02-25, 04:35 PM
Not doubting the rules. I still think it would make sense to have the character fall at least 6-8 feet away.

But hoe do the mechanics of that work (not game mechanics)? You turn to run screaming, and I down you the moment you drop your guard. How do you end up 6-8ft away from me? You can't have built up that much momentum, and if the attack drops you to negatives you were already pretty beat up.

Madeiner
2013-02-25, 05:23 PM
I also don't know anything about the class specifics of the character that was currently fighting the BBEG. From what I understand when the BBEG turned his attention back to the prone fighter, he allowed himself to be flanked by a rogue. Does this class not get sneak attack damage?


It also seems this BBEG had the morale of a berserker.



I don't know if this is the place for rules discussions, but no, in d&d there is no "facing" per se. You dont turn your back to anyone, ever, in combat terms.
For a rogue to flank, there must another active combatant on the other side of the enemy, on exactly the opposite square.

Now, PC one and two were adjacent going by the OP's diagram, so there was never any flanking. Even if there was, a dying character is not an active combatant as he is not threating anyone. IF the dying character was healed and he retained grasp of his weapon while falling prone at negative hp (unlikely) or could consider his fists as weapons (monk class, for example), then he maybe would have been threatening. Actually, as a DM i wouldn't consider him threatening the BBEG, but that would be rule 0.


On the second part, yes, i agree with the berserker comment. If that action was actually justified or not in terms of character personality, we can't know. He was described as a raging barbarian, so its totally in character to just want to kill one of those who may be able to kill him.

Exediron
2013-02-25, 06:06 PM
First of all, it sounds like a regrettable incident all around, and I hope you manage to work things out with your players.

Assuming your pride doesn't get in the way (mine would, I admit) I think your best course of action is probably to apologize to the player for the incident. Even if you don't think you're in the wrong. Sometimes you just have to stomach your pride and think of the other person and/or the group.

In my estimation, you didn't do anything wrong with regards to playing the villain, but you did do something wrong in making one of your players unhappy, however unintentionally. The DM's job is to run the game, and part of running the game is making sure the players are having fun. This depends somewhat on how casual the game is, but I'm assuming from your description (5 sessions in) that it isn't some sort of 8-year extravaganza that everyone is deeply emotionally invested in the realism and story of.

Now, my tactical analysis of the situation:

Assuming your villain is both lacking in a sense of honor and passably experienced in combat, I see nothing wrong with what he did. I think it's taking hit point abstraction entirely too far to say that he couldn't tell his blow was not instantly fatal. Coming from an opponent that dangerous, anything which isn't obviously a kill should be treated as leaving a live and potentially dangerous opponent behind. Personally, I think from an evil barbarian an entirely reasonable course of action would have been to follow it up with another hit while she was on the ground, just to make sure she wasn't getting back up. That's certainly what I would do, without a sense of honor to hold me back.

The only reasons to hold back would have been either:
a) An immediate threat requiring his attention
b) A sense of honor prohibiting him from hitting a downed opponent

From your description, it doesn't seem like either of these were the case. Therefore, I think he made a tactically sound and realistic (if evil) choice in the battle. The only argument for him not to hit her while she was down would be to make the player less unhappy. Which, if you knew she would react like that, you probably should have, all things considered. But I'm going to assume you didn't.

PS (as no one else seems to have noticed this post):


Actually, this makes me think... would a frightened character get to use a withdraw action? The panicked condition says "run", but frightened just says "flee"... granted, it's as fast as you can, but in the long run it's not very fast fleeing if you get dropped by an AoO trying to get out of the first square.

I would say no. I don't know the actual RAW on this issue, but fleeing due to terror is not a rational state. Withdrawing (as the action) requires a passably calm state, as it assumes you are leaving carefully and protecting yourself from attacks while doing so. Ask any person with a real phobia if they're capable of calmly withdrawing when faced with the object of their fear, and you'll get an idea what someone afflicted by a fear spell probably feels like.

TuggyNE
2013-02-25, 07:07 PM
I would say no. I don't know the actual RAW on this issue, but fleeing due to terror is not a rational state. Withdrawing (as the action) requires a passably calm state, as it assumes you are leaving carefully and protecting yourself from attacks while doing so. Ask any person with a real phobia if they're capable of calmly withdrawing when faced with the object of their fear, and you'll get an idea what someone afflicted by a fear spell probably feels like.

I agree, especially since you could say "well, you won't flee very far if you neglect X" about nearly anything: killing foes, grabbing equipment you dropped, casting spells to delay enemies, etc. None of these things should be included, because the idea is you're so terrified you're acting against your own best chances of surviving.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 01:13 AM
The person on the ground was on negative HP until healed, so effectivly dead. The guy chose to attack someone he would have thought dead rather than someone who was attacking him..

No, he didn't. The character got healed above Zero, and as soon as that happens, the character is now threatening, providing flanking, etc. They're an active combatant. In D&D, characters with low HP don't do any less damage.

As soon as the character got healed, she became the most dangerous combatant again.

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 01:18 AM
No, he didn't. The character got healed above Zero, and as soon as that happens, the character is now threatening, providing flanking, etc. They're an active combatant. In D&D, characters with low HP don't do any less damage.

As soon as the character got healed, she became the most dangerous combatant again.

Unless the character had also spent an action picking up a weapon, they aren't threatening.

An armed prone character does threaten by RAW, but an unarmed one does not.

ArcturusV
2013-02-26, 03:03 AM
Course, unless said character had a Locked Gauntlet, so that her weapon can't be dropped even by dying, thus it was still in her hand when she came to. Not sure how many players actually use Locked Gauntlets. I know my martial/melee characters usually run around with one (And only one).

GnomeFighter
2013-02-26, 08:42 AM
No, he didn't. The character got healed above Zero, and as soon as that happens, the character is now threatening, providing flanking, etc. They're an active combatant. In D&D, characters with low HP don't do any less damage.

As soon as the character got healed, she became the most dangerous combatant again.
1) A prone PC is less of a threat. They have a -4 to attack.
2) As others have said, she may have had no weapon so would have done allot less damage, and would not have been threataning.
3) My point was, this relies on the monster knowing the PC has been healed and is no longer on -ve hit points. IMO until either the PC dose something they should be treated as still being unconscious. If your players came across an NPC lieing on the ground would you tell them "They are pretending to be unconscious to trick you" or "Make a heal check". If the PC had grabed for there weapon, tried to stand, or whatever, fine, but it seems to be a clear case of the GM meta gaming to know the PC conscious. At the very least there should be a check from the bad guy.

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 08:52 AM
Regarding the spell itself. Before the spell, the PC was at negative hp. After, he was at postive hp, but still prone, still breathing same as before, and the only difference would be possibly open eyes, which isn't something you would directly notice in the heat of combat, unless you spend an action to take stock of the overall situation by looking around carefully.

I'd allow him a Spellcraft check to ID the spell (DC 15 + spell level) as it is being cast. Since it is a healing spell, I'd let him substitute the Heal skill for that check. Maybe allow the Spot skill to substitute at a -5 penalty.

Either way, since we've been told he was a berserker type, it's not likely he'd be able to make that check. So until prone girl actually did something that indicates a threat action (get up, grab weapon, etc), prone girl should have been off the target list.

All berserker guy should have known was that caster dude touched prone girl, but prone girl didn't get up. Caster dude probbaly cast a spell, but it apparently did nothing, or nothing threatening. Could have been a bluff. You never know with these tricksy caster dudes.

Boci
2013-02-26, 10:12 AM
All berserker guy should have known was that caster dude touched prone girl, but prone girl didn't get up. Caster dude probbaly cast a spell, but it apparently did nothing, or nothing threatening. Could have been a bluff. You never know with these tricksy caster dudes.

So the seserker does not have time to properly asses the downed foe, but does have enough time to run through their laudry list of bias they have against casters? You're really stretching. This is D&D, magic is commonly availble and people know you can heal it. If someone is felled by a wound and their ally rushes over and casts a spell, they've healed them. That isn't metagaming. You won't be certain without a successful skill check, but its a fair assumption.

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 10:22 AM
So the seserker does not have time to properly asses the downed foe, but does have enough time to run through their laudry list of bias they have against casters? You're really stretching. This is D&D, magic is commonly availble and people know you can heal it. If someone is felled by a wound and their ally rushes over and casts a spell, they've healed them. That isn't metagaming. You won't be certain without a successful skill check, but its a fair assumption.

There's a gazillion other things that the touch could have been. All he knows is that, WHATEVER the touch spell was, it was not something that brought her back into the action, because she plainly isn't up and moving about. And when there is someone up and moving about waving a sword in his face, he has an actual threat to worry about.

Even if berserker guy does figure out that caster dude did a healing spell, he still knows prone girl isn't in the fight because she isn't armed or standing or even moving enough to matter at this time.

Boci
2013-02-26, 10:34 AM
There's a gazillion other things that the touch could have been.

No there are not. I've been playing D&D for quite a while, I can't think of that many situations in which a character has run over to a fallen ally and not used their action to heal them in some way.


All he knows is that, WHATEVER the touch spell was, it was not something that brought her back into the action, because she plainly isn't up and moving about. And when there is someone up and moving about waving a sword in his face, he has an actual threat to worry about.

Only if you use a silly literal interpretation of D&D's round system. Otherwise she started getting up as soon as the spell had taken affect and would be in a position to attack soon (i.e. when it was her turn in initiative).


Even if berserker guy does figure out that caster dude did a healing spell, he still knows prone girl isn't in the fight because she isn't armed or standing or even moving enough to matter at this time.

Which means she's vulnerable, and this is the fighter who took out half his life in one hit, compared to the rogue who is attacking him without flanking. Granted if the rogue had some other form of getting SA it would be a tougher call to justify, but if they didn't, it makes sense.

Thialfi
2013-02-26, 10:42 AM
But hoe do the mechanics of that work (not game mechanics)? You turn to run screaming, and I down you the moment you drop your guard. How do you end up 6-8ft away from me? You can't have built up that much momentum, and if the attack drops you to negatives you were already pretty beat up.

That's just it. I have a problem with when the attack is granted but then I am influenced by only ever DMing 1st and 2nd edition. Free attacks are simply not granted that quickly in those editions.

Further showing my ignorance of 3e, are healing spells touch spells as they are in 1e/2e? I was wondering where the cleric was in this example. Shouldn't he have been in combat on the same space as the barbarian?

Boci
2013-02-26, 11:05 AM
Further showing my ignorance of 3e, are healing spells touch spells as they are in 1e/2e? I was wondering where the cleric was in this example. Shouldn't he have been in combat on the same space as the barbarian?

The basic ones are, but the cleric was probably adjacent to the fighter but on the opposite side to the barbarian.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 12:26 PM
Unless the character had also spent an action picking up a weapon, they aren't threatening.

An armed prone character does threaten by RAW, but an unarmed one does not.

I'm not seeing anywhere in the SRD where a dying character loses their weapon:


A dying character is unconscious and near death. She has -1 to -9 current hit points. A dying character can take no actions and is unconscious. At the end of each round (starting with the round in which the character dropped below 0 hit points), the character rolls d% to see whether she becomes stable. She has a 10% chance to become stable. If she does not, she loses 1 hit point. If a dying character reaches -10 hit points, she is dead.

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 12:28 PM
I'm not seeing anywhere in the SRD where a dying character loses their weapon:

If you're unconscious, you drop anything you're holding.

Jornophelanthas
2013-02-26, 12:30 PM
I'm not seeing anywhere in the SRD where a dying character loses their weapon:

A panicked character drops anything they're holding. And the panick was the cause of turning to flee, which was the cause of the attack of opportunity, which was the cause of falling prone, dying.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 12:30 PM
Even if berserker guy does figure out that caster dude did a healing spell, he still knows prone girl isn't in the fight because she isn't armed or standing or even moving enough to matter at this time.

This just isn't true at all.

The way the rules work, as soon as the heal spell goes off, and she goes above 0 hitpoints, shes now an active combatant. That means shes bobbing and weaving and all that. She threatens, etc.

There are plenty of abilities (feats/spells/etc) that allow you to feign death. If she didn't have any of those, then shes defending herself from the ground.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 12:35 PM
If you're unconscious, you drop anything you're holding.

You have a page number for that? The SRD doesn't mention anything:


Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

The DMG basically says the same thing. No mention of dropping things.

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 12:36 PM
This just isn't true at all.

The way the rules work, as soon as the heal spell goes off, and she goes above 0 hitpoints, shes now an active combatant. That means shes bobbing and weaving and all that. She threatens, etc.

There are plenty of abilities (feats/spells/etc) that allow you to feign death. If she didn't have any of those, then shes defending herself from the ground.

She went down to negative hp. That means she automatically fell to the ground unconscious. The heal spell restores hit points, but it doesn't also literally put her back on her feet.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 12:41 PM
She went down to negative hp. That means she automatically fell to the ground unconscious. The heal spell restores hit points, but it doesn't also literally put her back on her feet.

She doesn't have to be on her feet to be a combatant. She receives a -4 to to-hit rolls for being prone. The heal system doesn't stand her up, but it DOES automatically make her a combatant again. This is D&D, as long as you have more than 0 hp, you are fully functional (other than being prone).



A panicked...

From the OP:

Her character was in melee with the chieftain (who was several levels higher so she would have been hard-pressed to win a 1v1). A spellcaster in the back cast Cause Fear on her, which caused her to run away and provoke an AoO.

The enemy cast Cause Fear, which only takes a target to Frightened, which causes you to flee, but does not cause you to drop your weapon:



A frightened creature flees from the source of its fear as best it can. If unable to flee, it may fight. A frightened creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.

Darius Kane
2013-02-26, 12:41 PM
She went down to negative hp. That means she automatically fell to the ground unconscious. The heal spell restores hit points, but it doesn't also literally put her back on her feet.
But it makes her conscious. The berserker dude would have to be incredibly stupid or blind to not notice that. And I'm pretty sure an experienced combatant knows the difference between an unconscious and conscious foe.

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 12:43 PM
But it makes her conscious. The berserker dude would have to be incredibly stupid or blind to not notice that.

Or distracted. The only meaningful; difference between unconscious and conscious is "eyes open", and not always that. When you have someone waving a sword in your face, that's kind of hard to notice.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 12:48 PM
Or distracted. The only meaningful; difference between unconscious and conscious is "eyes open", and not always that. When you have someone waving a sword in your face, that's kind of hard to notice.

Again, no, its not. Not in D&D combat.

The only difference between a fully active combatant, and a character who has just been healed from unconsciousess in D&D is a -4 to attack rolls from being prone. That's the only meaningful difference.

This is magical healing. At +1 hp, you're a fully active person.

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 12:51 PM
Again, no, its not. Not in D&D combat.

The only difference between a fully active combatant, and a character who has just been healed from unconsciousess in D&D is a -4 to attack rolls from being prone. That's the only meaningful difference.

This is magical healing. At +1 hp, you're a fully active person.

...who just woke up. Since he hasn't actually acted since regaining consciousness, it's fair to regard him as flat-footed. And he is undeniably prone. "Playing dead" is a free action.

Darius Kane
2013-02-26, 12:54 PM
Unless you provide some rules pages, you're just quoting your houserules.

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 12:56 PM
Unless you provide some rules pages, you're just quoting your houserules.

http://www.d20srd.org/
:smalltongue:

Synovia
2013-02-26, 12:58 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/
:smalltongue:

Nice try. Specific quotes please, like I've done.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 01:00 PM
...who just woke up. Since he hasn't actually acted since regaining consciousness, it's fair to regard him as flat-footed. And he is undeniably prone. "Playing dead" is a free action.

"just woke up" has no rules standing. Its irrelevant. Please quote the page of the rules reference where "playing dead" is a free action.

There are feats that allow you to play dead (yeah, thats a bit ridiculous, but thems the rules)

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 01:00 PM
Nice try. Specific quotes please, like I've done.

Terribly sorry. I'm much too lazy.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 01:04 PM
Terribly sorry. I'm much too lazy.
If you're too lazy to back up your claims in a rules discussion, then you should probably bow out of such discussions.

Jornophelanthas
2013-02-26, 01:31 PM
A dying character is by definition both helpless and unconscious.

There is a significant combat difference between being helpless and being prone.

Helpless (which is a condition that is a part of dying) means having your Dexterity modifier reset to -5, counting as flat-footed, giving the attacker a +4 bonus on attacks, and being vulnerable to coup de grace maneuvers. As well as having no actions on your turn.

Prone (i.e. lying on the ground) means having NO dexterity penalty, NOT counting as flat-footed, STILL giving the attacker a +4 bonus on attacks, but NOT being vulnerable to coup de grace maneuvers. As well as having normal actions on your turn (unless you happen to be staggered, disabled or having a similar condition that prevents these). This also implies that the creature threatens as normal, if it holds a weapon.

By being healed from negative to positive hitpoints, the characters is no longer dying. It also stops being unconscious, and is thus is not prohibited from taking actions on its turn, so therefore it is also no longer helpless.

There is no specific rule that states that unconscious characters fall to the ground and become prone, but it is a significant suspension of disbelief to actually rule that they don't. The authors probably thought that saying a dying character is helpless is enough, because being helpless is similar to being prone, only a lot worse.
On a related note, nowhere does it say that any kind of healing adds or removes the prone condition.

Therefore, if the character is still lying on the ground (which the DM ruled), and is no longer helpless, it becomes significantly harder to hit for the NPC barbarian, because (1) its dexterity modifier goes up from -5 to its current score, (2) it is no longer flat-footed, and (3) it can no longer be hit with a coup de grace. This is meant to represent that the character is actively moving to defend itself again, even if it is flat on the ground.
It is not unreasonable to assume that a combatant can detect such a change on a creature that is inside its threatened space and that it fought with only scant seconds (rounds) ago. The rules certainly provide no opinion on this point.

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 02:38 PM
"There is no specific rule that states that unconscious characters fall to the ground and become prone"

You're right. There's also no rule that says a dead character can't take actions. At some point, a little common sense must be taken.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 02:41 PM
"There is no specific rule that states that unconscious characters fall to the ground and become prone"

You're right. There's also no rule that says a dead character can't take actions. At some point, a little common sense must be taken.
He's agreeing with you on that particular point. Why are you arguing with him?

Kalebold
2013-02-26, 03:02 PM
Actually is this the barbarian chieften from Serpent skull? If it is then he really shouldent have done that according to his own tactics write up.

Exediron
2013-02-26, 03:19 PM
"Playing dead" is a free action.

I was unable to find any support for this position in the SRD, although I tried.

On the other hand, I don't think it makes any sense to assume that (ignoring the RAW, which I am aware supports this interpretation) a character who has just regained consciousness but is not in any (so far as she knows) immediate danger would start moving around and raising her weapon to block while still prone. It would make a lot more sense to wait until the barbarian looks away, then roll out of striking distance or otherwise withdraw before standing.

And in my opinion, assuming the cleric did use a standard touch-based spell with at least a verbal component, the berserker has a darned good idea what he just did. Let's play this scenario out:

You're in combat with a group of adventurers. One of them strikes you powerfully, and you drop her in return. As you turn to face her rogue ally, out of the corner of your eye you notice the man in armor with the holy symbol who had been hanging back rush over to her side, kneel beside her and cast a spell, laying his hand on her unconscious form. What do you think he just did? Buff a dead person?

I approve of not using out-of-character (or in this case DM) knowledge in your role-playing decisions. But this is taking it too far; everything needed for the barbarian to decide to attack her is something that was available to him in character. Although I still think he should have just finished her when she went down in the first place. He's evil, and she's much more dangerous than her allies (based on his experience so far).

Darius Kane
2013-02-26, 03:33 PM
On the other hand, I don't think it makes any sense to assume that (ignoring the RAW, which I am aware supports this interpretation) a character who has just regained consciousness but is not in any (so far as she knows) immediate danger would start moving around and raising her weapon to block while still prone. It would make a lot more sense to wait until the barbarian looks away, then roll out of striking distance or otherwise withdraw before standing.
Huh. I think it would be exactly the opposite. The last thing she remembered before losing consciousness was an enemy giving her a fatal wound. It totally makes sense that, after regaining said consciousness and still seeing the above mentioned enemy towering over her, she would instinctively/impulsively react to it.

Exediron
2013-02-26, 03:37 PM
Well, I am assuming that as a trained (class leveled) fighter she has the ability to control her instincts when they're counterproductive. But ignoring that, I think most people's instinct if they're knocked out by an opponent and come to with that opponent still present, but not paying attention to them for the moment, is not to do anything to draw notice. I suppose it depends on the person, however.

Darius Kane
2013-02-26, 05:13 PM
Well, I am assuming that as a trained (class leveled) fighter she has the ability to control her instincts when they're counterproductive.
It would be a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. As was pointed out, the moment the character is healed to consciousness he becomes a threat by RAW.


But ignoring that, I think most people's instinct if they're knocked out by an opponent and come to with that opponent still present, but not paying attention to them for the moment, is not to do anything to draw notice. I suppose it depends on the person, however.
What you think you might do and what you will actually do are often very different. It's not easy to control instincts or emotions.

Exediron
2013-02-26, 05:27 PM
It would be a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. As was pointed out, the moment the character is healed to consciousness he becomes a threat by RAW.

What you think you might do and what you will actually do are often very different. It's not easy to control instincts or emotions.

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right - but clearly we've both got an opinion, and unless we're going to enter into a fight with sharpened weapons to find out, it's going to stay opinion. I'm willing to admit that you may be correct.

Plenty of people have been able to control this hypothetical instinct, however. You don't often hear about a person being knocked down by a bear and then instinctively leaping to their feet as soon as they regain consciousness, or soldiers in a combat zone taking a round to the chest, pinned down by fire but leaping back to their feet instead of lying low. It's just not a good idea. If your opponent has counted you out, you stay out until you can fight back, and I really think some conditioning of this sort would be amongst the training and experience of a fighter.

However, if you're willing I would prefer to let this tangent die. It's not really important to the main discussion to any significant degree. It doesn't matter if I think it's realistic or sensible for her to lie low, because the rules do indeed state that she becomes a combatant by automation when she regains positive health. Also, I don't think rather she was technically 'threatening' made or should have made any difference to what the barbarian villain did.

Darius Kane
2013-02-26, 05:35 PM
You don't often hear about a person being knocked down by a bear and then instinctively leaping to their feet as soon as they regain consciousness, or soldiers in a combat zone taking a round to the chest, pinned down by fire but leaping back to their feet instead of lying low. It's just not a good idea.
Who said anything about leaping back to their feet?

Synovia
2013-02-26, 05:38 PM
You also don't hear about people being magically healed.

Exediron
2013-02-26, 05:42 PM
Who said anything about leaping back to their feet?

That's mostly a semantic difference. It's a generic way of indicating drawing attention to yourself rather than lying low or trying to get out of the way. I said leaping to their feet to exaggerate my point - which is not altogether uncommon.


You also don't hear about people being magically healed.

You don't need to. Both of my examples have the person in fighting condition after taking the hit (glancing blow in the first and the assumption of body armor in the second). The principle is the same.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 05:56 PM
That's mostly a semantic difference. It's a generic way of indicating drawing attention to yourself rather than lying low or trying to get out of the way. I said leaping to their feet to exaggerate my point - which is not altogether uncommon.


No, its not semantic at all. They're drastically different in D&D. By rule, a prone character, after being healed, immediately gains back their dex bonus, which means they are actively fighting.




You don't need to. Both of my examples have the person in fighting condition after taking the hit (glancing blow in the first and the assumption of body armor in the second). The principle is the same.
Again, we're talking about a universe where wounds just disappear when a holyman touches you. A D&D combatant, after being healed above 0HP is fully, 100% functional.

GolemsVoice
2013-02-26, 06:07 PM
To me, finishing off a foe, by which I mean taking him out of the fight permanently, is actually a pretty smart move. Because as others have said, unless you're completely dead, either by being destroyed in some way or falling below -10 HP, you're just one spell away from being fully functional again. In D&D, there are no wounded characters as in other games, meaning a 1 HP character is as effective as a 100 HP character, and even a -9 character might rejoin the fight any time if a cleric or even just a dude with a potion is around.

So to me it makes a lot of sense to make sure your enemy is properly and lastingly dead.


It still makes the situation pretty sad, and I can sympathize with both the DM and the player, but what the Orc did wasn't that stupid, actually.

Kesnit
2013-02-26, 06:25 PM
All berserker guy should have known was that caster dude touched prone girl, but prone girl didn't get up.

^ This.

How did the chieftain know that the girl laying on the ground, who had not moved, was now healed enough to attack him?

We can metagame and know that she was healed, but that is metagaming. Did the chieftain make a Spellcraft roll to know that was a healing spell? A Heal check to know she was conscious?

There's two ways to view a D&D combat - real time and rounds.

If we view the combat as real time, then the rogue was in the chief's face, actively attacking. Would he really take the time to look away from the active combatant to look at the person he assumes is unconscious, if not dead? Put another way, when you are fighting monsters, do you check each one when they fall to make sure they are really dead? Or do you just say "it fell, next enemy" and move on?

If we view combat as rounds, then the fighter could not have moved in any way. Her turn had not come around, so she would have been in the same state as her last round (laying down, probably in a ragdoll-ed position). The chief would not have known she was healed (without a check of some sort) since she could not have actually done anything.

Averis Vol
2013-02-26, 07:06 PM
Just to shed light on the whole "playing dead after being healed schtick", its an alternate class feature for rangers and rogues called feign death in EoE, and a class feature for the ghostwalker from sword and fist.

And as someone who has been knocked out and come to with someone standing over you, it's instinctive to clench up and try to get away. not that you have to actually try and scramble away, but the body has natural survival instincts that take over at a point. Also, I wouldn't think it would be hard to see the flesh of someone you just put down re knit itself.

The last part is completely rules illegitimate, but it's what would be reasonable in my eyes..

Kesnit
2013-02-26, 07:12 PM
Also, I wouldn't think it would be hard to see the flesh of someone you just put down re knit itself.

If she had armor on, it would cover the re-knitting flesh.

ArcturusV
2013-02-26, 07:14 PM
Well, if she had armor on, and the guy put her down with something like an axe, you'd still be seeing it reknit itself under the rend you made in the armor.

Agincourt
2013-02-26, 07:33 PM
^ This.

How did the chieftain know that the girl laying on the ground, who had not moved, was now healed enough to attack him?

We can metagame and know that she was healed, but that is metagaming. Did the chieftain make a Spellcraft roll to know that was a healing spell? A Heal check to know she was conscious?

There's two ways to view a D&D combat - real time and rounds.

If we view the combat as real time, then the rogue was in the chief's face, actively attacking. Would he really take the time to look away from the active combatant to look at the person he assumes is unconscious, if not dead? Put another way, when you are fighting monsters, do you check each one when they fall to make sure they are really dead? Or do you just say "it fell, next enemy" and move on?
You're leaving out the pretty important part that a healer walked right up to her, cast a spell, and then touched her. As a player, if a DM stopped me from attacking a now conscious person because "that is megamaging," I'd be pretty upset. You don't have to be a car expert to know that when someone is looking under the hood of a car, they are trying to fix something. You may not know precisely what they are doing, but you get the general idea.




If we view combat as rounds, then the fighter could not have moved in any way. Her turn had not come around, so she would have been in the same state as her last round (laying down, probably in a ragdoll-ed position). The chief would not have known she was healed (without a check of some sort) since she could not have actually done anything.
The reason dexterity even comes into play for AC is because you are presumed to be moving and dodging even when it's not your turn. The moment she regained consciousness, she ceased to be helpless. You're basically arguing that when someone first becomes conscious, their eyes are closed and they cannot move until it is their action. This is not a friendly interpretation for players; I do not want to be blind and have an effective 0 dex until I have a chance to take my turn.

Kesnit
2013-02-26, 08:46 PM
You're leaving out the pretty important part that a healer walked right up to her, cast a spell, and then touched her.

Yes, but the chief didn't know what the spell was, or if it worked. For all the chief knew, she was "all-dead," not just "mostly dead," before the spell. Just because the cleric cast a spell, that doesn't mean she was alive enough to actually heal. And that's assuming the chief knew the cleric cast a healing spell.


As a player, if a DM stopped me from attacking a now conscious person because "that is megamaging," I'd be pretty upset.

Except the chief didn't know she was now conscious. Short of her actually moving in a clearly conscious manner, the chief didn't have a way to know she was conscious. Armor would cover most wounds, so he probably wouldn't see them closing. Her eyes may or may not open all the way right away. (They may flutter, which could be hard to see if the light was low.) Especially if his attention was where it logically would be - on the person who was actively attacking him.


You don't have to be a car expert to know that when someone is looking under the hood of a car, they are trying to fix something.

But you do have to know what you are looking at to know if they actually fixed it.


The reason dexterity even comes into play for AC is because you are presumed to be moving and dodging even when it's not your turn.

Except she had no reason to move or dodge yet since until she was not being attacked. Using your argument, she could have stood up or rolled away, even though it wasn't her turn, because she is assumed to be "moving and dodging." However, you cannot move out of your space except on your turn, and she had no reason to be dodging since no one attacked her between being healed and being attacked by the chief.

Acanous
2013-02-26, 08:53 PM
Thing the first: While I agree that the chieftan should have smacked down the Tengu on his turn, if he saw the cleric touch the girl, it would have also made sense for him to hold his action (Seeing if she gets up on her initiative).
He doesn't actually lose a round, if she didn't move he could still slaughter the Tengu.
Of course, she would still end up dead.

Thing the second: if she had *Moved at all* she'd be provoking an AO from him. Given that it was ONE hit to take her from HP->Dead, she was dead on her next turn anyhow, without him even needing to DO anything. At least this way, she can feel important instead of likea fly casually swatted.
She could have stood from prone as a full-round action, but then she is STILL dead on his next turn, repeating the scenerio.

Thing the third: This reaction was entirely out of line, and while I can see people getting emotional over character death, if you as the DM provide a means of ressurrection (Perhaps a quest? Or just use her share from the Boss' treasure to Rez her) then the loss would be temporary. Sure, you get less loot, but loot is a river :p

Of course, then you mentioned her playing Guild Wars.
INCOMING RANT
The latest WoW (http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCmc1Ca7OiO7tmatNsqNhmzQsEurGO4 Lmj0jyPa13gNfu8MLhEK3Jh5E6s) Clone (http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcROtb1GHW8Vb616CcoGLnYhkYtezKE5e MuOU8Y7ry8SWTGHIdYB) pretending to be original, run by a company Flirting with Bankruptcy (www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE-5Tc4g7zQ
) and known for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Rasa_(video_game)) dropping games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Assault) without notice. The birthing pains of which killed City of Heroes (www.cityofheroes.com), a game known for introducing more player agency than any other MMO before or since. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Heroes)

Ok, so maybe she's ignorant to the business political side of things.
It's possible she also had no idea that Guild Wars 2's launch was Plagued with problems (http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/08/25/guild-wars-2-is-off-to-a-bumpy-start/) that not even gaming sites could put a positive spin on (http://www.examiner.com/article/guild-wars-2-head-start-begins-with-problems). Maybe she knows but thinks the Bans for playing the market (http://www.neckbeard.ca/r/Guildwars2/comments/16mot8/market_manipulation_on_wine/) were justified. Maybe she thinks the Constant explots have been fixed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTayQ7g8qSQ).
NOPE. WALUIGI TIME.
This game is horrible. The people who made this game are horrible. The people that PUBLISH this game are horrible. The people who PAYED THEM MONEY are not worth wasting your time on in a roleplaying setting.

/rant.

Agincourt
2013-02-26, 10:12 PM
Yes, but the chief didn't know what the spell was, or if it worked. For all the chief knew, she was "all-dead," not just "mostly dead," before the spell. Just because the cleric cast a spell, that doesn't mean she was alive enough to actually heal. And that's assuming the chief knew the cleric cast a healing spell.

Except the chief didn't know she was now conscious. Short of her actually moving in a clearly conscious manner, the chief didn't have a way to know she was conscious. Armor would cover most wounds, so he probably wouldn't see them closing. Her eyes may or may not open all the way right away. (They may flutter, which could be hard to see if the light was low.) Especially if his attention was where it logically would be - on the person who was actively attacking him.
Even if I accepted the premise that he cannot see she's alive—I don't—he doesn't need to be 100% sure she's alive for him to behave as though she could be. The healer thought she was alive and it's not unreasonable for him to make sure the #1 threat is out of the picture.



Except she had no reason to move or dodge yet since until she was not being attacked. Using your argument, she could have stood up or rolled away, even though it wasn't her turn, because she is assumed to be "moving and dodging." However, you cannot move out of your space except on your turn, and she had no reason to be dodging since no one attacked her between being healed and being attacked by the chief.
You're fighting against the rules as written here. When an enemy is helpless, you automatically hit them for the very reason that they are not moving. When a person is moving, they don't have to move out of their square, ever, to get their dexterity bonus. The combat rules are an abstraction and among those abstractions are that movement within a square is sufficient.

If you want to say she isn't moving at all and has her eyes closed, then her AC was at a -5 (at least) for her lack of dex, or she should have had at least -2 to her AC for being blinded. That doesn't help her argument.

Synovia
2013-02-27, 12:58 AM
^ This.

How did the chieftain know that the girl laying on the ground, who had not moved, was now healed enough to attack him?

Because her getting her AC bonus from dex back signifies she did move.

Remember, in D&D, as soon as you get >0HP, you're awake, feeling fine, and a fully active combatant by rule. That means you're looking for oportunities, avoiding blows, etc. Not just lying there.

Yogibear41
2013-02-27, 01:18 AM
They're level 2


I've come very close to dying a few times recently and I honestly would have been very unhappy about it, but my character isn't level 2... and in the game I currently play in EXP roles in very very slow and it would litterally take like 2 months of real life playing to gain the level back if I lost it. Assuming of course my character wasn't alone when he died, no body/no body part= no ressurection in the game I play in.


Then again I'd get over it

To the person talking about how their DM always targets the optimal target with his monsters, My DM often times roles int checks for the monsters we are fighting so see if they would do what he would do, or if they would do something "stupid" lol

I don't really see anything wrong with a group of smart monsters (int 12+ or so) from making smart decisions about who to attack as well as strategies for combat.

Ashtagon
2013-02-27, 01:24 AM
Because her getting her AC bonus from dex back signifies she did move.

Remember, in D&D, as soon as you get >0HP, you're awake, feeling fine, and a fully active combatant by rule. That means you're looking for oportunities, avoiding blows, etc. Not just lying there.

Having a Dexterity bonus doesn't mean she is literally moving around dodging. It can just as easily mean she is watching the situation out of half-open eyes, ready to spring out of the way the moment something sharp or pointy moves towards her. That requires almost no movement until the last second. And unless she is wearing skintight clothing, you won't even see muscles tensed ready to spring out of the way.

Given that she is actually still prone in game terms, that's also a more reasonable explanation for how her Dex bonus is getting fluffed.

Synovia
2013-02-27, 01:28 AM
Having a Dexterity bonus doesn't mean she is literally moving around dodging. It can just as easily mean she is watching the situation out of half-open eyes, ready to spring out of the way the moment something sharp or pointy moves towards her. That requires almost no movement until the last second. And unless she is wearing skintight clothing, you won't even see muscles tensed ready to spring out of the way.

Given that she is actually still prone in game terms, that's also a more reasonable explanation for how her Dex bonus is getting fluffed.

She threatens adjacent squares. That means she is actively moving. You don't get to be basically invisible to enemies and get all the bonuses of being an active combatant. The rules are pretty clear about this.

ArcturusV
2013-02-27, 01:29 AM
Wait... fantasy women warriors don't all have skintight clothing/plate mail bikinis? :smallbiggrin:

Ashtagon
2013-02-27, 01:38 AM
She threatens adjacent squares. That means she is actively moving. You don't get to be basically invisible to enemies and get all the bonuses of being an active combatant. The rules are pretty clear about this.

Okay, this is one of those common sense rulings. Common sense says that unconscious is a more severe form of the stunned condition. And stunned characters drop what they are holding. Which means no weapon so no threatening anything.

Or in real world terms, Unconscious means no motor muscle control, and one notable part of motor muscle control is being able to grip anything. Exceptional situations where a muscle spasm occurred aside, people lose their grip when unconscious and can't hold on to anything (including weapons).

Acanous
2013-02-27, 03:05 AM
Okay, this is one of those common sense rulings. Common sense says that unconscious is a more severe form of the stunned condition. And stunned characters drop what they are holding. Which means no weapon so no threatening anything.

Or in real world terms, Unconscious means no motor muscle control, and one notable part of motor muscle control is being able to grip anything. Exceptional situations where a muscle spasm occurred aside, people lose their grip when unconscious and can't hold on to anything (including weapons).

There are real world examples of people being knocked out and still standing, but the overwhelming majority of cases (As evidenced by sports like Boxing), you end up on the ground.

Ashtagon
2013-02-27, 03:10 AM
There are real world examples of people being knocked out and still standing, but the overwhelming majority of cases (As evidenced by sports like Boxing), you end up on the ground.

If you're going to play that you don't fall prone and drop stuff when knocked unconscious (assuming nothing to prop you up and items not locked in place onto your hands), then I want to play that I can still attack and cast spells when dead.

Wonton
2013-02-27, 03:49 AM
Actually, this makes me think... would a frightened character get to use a withdraw action? The panicked condition says "run", but frightened just says "flee"... granted, it's as fast as you can, but in the long run it's not very fast fleeing if you get dropped by an AoO trying to get out of the first square.

I actually allowed the Withdraw. She was one square down when she started (so in the 3-o-clock position from the Barbarian), which negated the first AoO, but she still provoked one for leaving the 1:30-o-clock square, which is what dropped her and put her in that square.


Actually is this the barbarian chieften from Serpent skull? If it is then he really shouldent have done that according to his own tactics write up.

Actually, yes. Props to you for recognizing the AP. Yeah, his flavour text states that if he drops a PC, he tries to smear their blood all over himself. But it also states "feel free to omit this behaviour if the PCs are having an easy time in the fight", and it's not like I'm bound to follow the AP to the letter anyway. The Barbarian had not been too effective until that point (dropping the Fighter from the AoO was one of his first successful attacks) so I decided he wouldn't do that.

---

As to everyone arguing that you can't tell the difference between unconsciousness and prone, that just makes no sense.

A) The rules are against you. Several good RAW arguments on the past 2 pages point this out.

B) Outside RAW and inside the Rules-as-I-interpret-them: An enemy that chooses to play dead can do so (in fact, another party member did exactly this later in the combat, and having rolled a 26 on Bluff, I allowed it to work 100%), but in general it can be assumed that you start making SOME movements when you are healed from unconscious to prone. Otherwise, what do having your Dex bonus and threatened area back mean, if not the fact that you're actively dodging and attacking once again?

C) Outside the Rules-as-I-interpret them and in the realm of common sense: Everyone in the D&D world knows magic exists. A 1st-level Commoner might have never seen magic firsthand, but he still knows it exists. The 4th level Barbarian chieftain has certainly seen magic (like I said, one of the women in his tribe is a spellcaster, and he's seen her cast many spells, including Cure Light Wounds). If his attack fells a foe and then an ally runs up casting a spell (takes a Spellcraft check to identify the spell, but no check is required to just guess that someone waving their hands and saying nonsense words is casting one) he can probably guess a healing spell was cast. His suspicions are affirmed when he sees the Fighter open her eyes and reach for her sword. Basically, it comes down to this: don't assume fantasy characters are any dumber than you. Just because they've never read the PHB doesn't mean they have no clue how magic works. You don't need to be Genre Savvy or even particularly intelligent to understand how the world you live in works.

P.S.


It seems to me that you are not hear to get help, but to justify your actions that the group did not agree with. Moreso with your admission that the other players may not come back.

And it seems to me that you're not here to help, but to argue against everything I say by completely misreading my posts, making up information that suits your arguments, and straight up ignoring points that I was kind enough to put in bold for you. Like when you said he "turned his back" on an enemy to attack the Fighter. Or when you called the 8 Int human completely capable of tactical thought a "monster", twice. Or when you said that he attacked because I knew "OOC that she is more of a threat" even though I'd already explained that she dealt more than half his health in one round. Besides, if you actually read all my posts you'd know that I empathized with my players, wasn't seeking to prove them wrong, and had already admitted that I could have handled some things better overall.

Dullahan544
2013-02-27, 03:51 AM
If you're going to play that you don't fall prone and drop stuff when knocked unconscious (assuming nothing to prop you up and items not locked in place onto your hands), then I want to play that I can still attack and cast spells when dead.

I made an account just to reply to this. Don't be petulant about rule discussions, people are debating the semantics of the rules and there is no need to be sarcastic/rude about it by exagerating someone elses stance until it seems more extreme than it is.

Personally, I would always say that if the PC had been happy to use their full AC and Dex bonuses, they were fully 'active' in combat and anyone can notice anybody who is 'active' nearby. That is admittedly my own solution since my group are far from being rules lawyers, but it has always seemed fair.


In response to the thread in general, the issue is an intelligent boss fighter attacking a dangerous opponent in an adjacent square after a cleric had approached them. As long as the chieftain was aware that healing techniques exist and the PC let the attack be rolled against their full AC stat, I would say their character was back on their feet or otherwise combat ready.

That's just me, though.


On a final note, it seems like this whole 'was she combat ready or not?' issue should have been resolved through the sort of light RP most players would manage, at least while in combat. Her not RPing in the slightest makes me think she just takes losing poorly, or felt 'picked on' for an enemy using basic human levels of logic. Admittedly logic isn't commonplace in MMO's, though...

Wonton
2013-02-27, 04:48 AM
Assuming your pride doesn't get in the way (mine would, I admit) I think your best course of action is probably to apologize to the player for the incident. Even if you don't think you're in the wrong. Sometimes you just have to stomach your pride and think of the other person and/or the group.

This is probably the best advice in the thread. Normally I'd be the sort of person to say "I did nothing wrong" and refuse to apologize... but for the sake of the campaign it's probably best to swallow my pride. Sent off that e-mail just now, explaining that I wasn't picking on her OR her character. Hopefully I'll still have a game in 2 days.

StClair
2013-02-27, 05:09 AM
Can we put the rules lawyering aside for a bit and try, maybe, to come up with some suggestions on what to say if (as I expect) there's a reply along the lines of "why should I bother" and/or "just go ahead and decide what happens to her/run her as an NPC ... it's not like I had any say/input/control last time"?

Averis Vol
2013-02-27, 05:41 AM
Okay, this is one of those common sense rulings. Common sense says that unconscious is a more severe form of the stunned condition. And stunned characters drop what they are holding. Which means no weapon so no threatening anything.

Or in real world terms, Unconscious means no motor muscle control, and one notable part of motor muscle control is being able to grip anything. Exceptional situations where a muscle spasm occurred aside, people lose their grip when unconscious and can't hold on to anything (including weapons).


These aren't really even common sense. Let's take things from the perspective of a martial artist. When fighting, whether it be one or multiple opponents, your eyes are trained to watch everything. So it isn't unrealistic for the chieftain to keep tabs on the fighter as he parries the rogues sloppy blows with minimal ease. Equally, when you are hit, your muscles tense naturally to lessen the damage to the squisher parts below them, it is why flatfooted people are denied their dexterity if you want to rationalise fantasy in the real world, and if you sustain great enough wounds your body will not let go, thats why theres a thing called a deathgrip. (and yes, a deathgrip actually forms before rigor mortis sets in. It is the body attempting to harden itself by clenching muscles to lessen physical damage inflicted while the person isn't coherent.)

This is perfectly in line with someone who was previously in mortal combat and sustained enough physical trauma to knock them out.

EDIT: Good to see that things may still work out with your group.

Boci
2013-02-27, 07:58 AM
Put another way, when you are fighting monsters, do you check each one when they fall to make sure they are really dead? Or do you just say "it fell, next enemy" and move on?

You mean if I drop a monster and the evil cleric moves adjacent to it and casts a spell? Yeah, I think I'd double check he wasn't alieve. I know, I'm a horrible metagaming. A roleplayer would of course assume that the cleric had infact just wanted to wish their friend a good jounrey into the afterlife. With a spell. That couldn't wait until combat was over.

Synovia
2013-02-27, 10:29 AM
This is probably the best advice in the thread. Normally I'd be the sort of person to say "I did nothing wrong" and refuse to apologize... but for the sake of the campaign it's probably best to swallow my pride. Sent off that e-mail just now, explaining that I wasn't picking on her OR her character. Hopefully I'll still have a game in 2 days.

I disagree completely. Apologizing to people when you've done nothing wrong is a good way to end up the proverbial doormat, and a good way to encourage such petulant behavior.

It'll help the group for the time being, but you need to make sure this person knows what the rules are, how combat is handled, and that these sort of outbursts aren't part of mature play.

Ashtagon
2013-02-27, 11:41 AM
I disagree completely. Apologizing to people when you've done nothing wrong is a good way to end up the proverbial doormat, and a good way to encourage such petulant behavior.

It'll help the group for the time being, but you need to make sure this person knows what the rules are, how combat is handled, and that these sort of outbursts aren't part of mature play.

In other news, Black Leaf is dead :xykon:

Wonton
2013-02-27, 12:21 PM
It'll help the group for the time being, but you need to make sure this person knows what the rules are, how combat is handled, and that these sort of outbursts aren't part of mature play.

Spoken like someone with no shortage of people to play D&D with. I'm not saying "I'm so desperate for players I'll put up with anything", but if I only ever played with people I was 100% happy with, I'd never play role-playing games.

Having said that, if this all blows over, I will probably have a "how lethal do you want the campaign to be" talk in a session or two.

Guizonde
2013-02-27, 01:16 PM
Having said that, if this all blows over, I will probably have a "how lethal do you want the campaign to be" talk in a session or two.

that actually is the pep-talk the dm gave us shortly before the latest two recruits to our dnd campaign came in (i joined a few months back, now there's a cheesy sorc/dragon disciple). right off the bat, we know it's a lethal campaign (return to the temple of elemental evil). so far, by talking to the players, the pattern is the same.

1- happy player, outlines of character.
2-character suffers uncontrollably (be it insanity points from cthulu, major damage, sees major suffering being done to others...). the player is pissed.
3-other players tell him he's fine with only 1/30 his hitpoints, player grumbles, campaign continues
4-player talks to other players, gets that it's normal, and that they've survived.
5-player talks to dm, finally gets that the campaign is grimdark, and either accepts it or leaves.
6-character undergoes major character development, but not to the point of being jaded, just very careful (crouching moron hidden badass is bonus)
7-player and character become a well-integrated part of the team. the campaign continues.

i'll say it honestly. i hated living that (took about 2 1/2 scenarii for me to be integrated). i hate the fact that it's grimdark enough to cut with a knife. but i've never roleplayed so effectively. (playing a dwarven doctor is fun too:"your arms off? don't worry 'bout it, you're a big boy") i just wish i could've come into the group expecting that, rather than seeing a "kindly town doctor" archetype suffer cerebus syndrome and come back with an unhealthy amount of gallows humor.

i talked about it to my dm, and he apologized. when the new player came in, the dm warned him. except the guy is a newbie to pen and paper (he's a pbp powergamer), and he simply does not play for the team... the confrontation between him and the dm had the dm asking me if i could "accidentaly" miss next time i cast searing light, since he's making everyone really annoyed. we only keep coming back because we want to finish the story. not win vs the dm, just see the story unravel. and if we're pure awesomesauce during a session, that's even better. the other player is playing to win, solo preferrably. as a level 5 sorc3/dragon disciple2... yeah...

rant over, hope this doesn't sour your campaign too much, wonton. i know what my dm did did sour it (well, that and the other player won't back down...)

GnomeGninjas
2013-02-27, 01:32 PM
My guess is that she was having some real life troubles and was really looking forward to DnD because she'd get a chance to kill monsters and have fun. Dying in DnD is usually discouraging, that combined with significant real life troubles and the fact that you were looking forward to killing monsters and being a badass (when it turns out that you're the 1st person to die instead) could certainly cause an emotional breakdown.

ArcturusV
2013-02-27, 01:35 PM
Ah, it's THAT guy. I know that guy Guizonde. I've ran with that guy. I made him cry because without DM prompting about it I effectively worked behind his back to turn everyone we ever met against him. The epilogue of the campaign had me leading a multi-national strike team to assassinate him for his Crimes Against The World. Mostly real, though he refused to believe his character ever did anything wrong. In the end he decided his character would be Exiled from the world. Was kinda butthurt about it for 2 weeks. Then begged our DM for a sequel campaign where he could get revenge against my character that we are in the middle of now, and has actually been a lot of fun. And apparently "corrected" most of his more annoying behavior.

Guizonde
2013-02-27, 02:56 PM
Ah, it's THAT guy. I know that guy Guizonde. I've ran with that guy. I made him cry because without DM prompting about it I effectively worked behind his back to turn everyone we ever met against him. The epilogue of the campaign had me leading a multi-national strike team to assassinate him for his Crimes Against The World. Mostly real, though he refused to believe his character ever did anything wrong. In the end he decided his character would be Exiled from the world. Was kinda butthurt about it for 2 weeks. Then begged our DM for a sequel campaign where he could get revenge against my character that we are in the middle of now, and has actually been a lot of fun. And apparently "corrected" most of his more annoying behavior.


0.o please tell me you're talking about "that guy" as an archetype, or i'm seriously thinking we know each other IRL.

honestly, the guy i'm talking about has so far joined up in our comical whfrp campaign as a loner wood elf (redundant since i'm the better sneak/scout, and too serious), as a loner rogue in the PF campaign i'm dm'ing in (ok for being a loner, not ok for being redundant), and apparently has joined up in a pendragon game, as well as a shadowrun game to boot, always redundant, trying to be a skillmonkey-beatstick-sniper-mage one man army... i don't think he learns fast.

ArcturusV
2013-02-27, 03:08 PM
Nah, this was an actual that guy I ran into on an online group playing over Skype. Playing an Anima: Beyond Fantasy campaign styled closer to a normal DnDish world. He's the guy who made his character out to be the heir to some throne to start out with, kick ass warrior, master summoner as well, who could "Seduce" (In about 90% of the situations it was more like a Charm/Dominate magic effect he used) any woman he thought was hot. And had this idea that because he was using blatantly loaded dice or just lying about his rolls (DM never called him on it), that he could handle anything that came his way and if he couldn't the DM would nerf it down so he could.

... which lead to him nearly causing a Demon AND Dragon Apocalypse in the game world after he failed to Mindrape the Goddess of Seduction (She had enough Gnosis to just say No and throw him back to the mortal world), so decided the next best thing was to overthrow the "Corrupt" Empire of his Fatherland, who was obviously corrupt because he wasn't ruling it and he was the Rightful Heir, not for any actual corruption in their system.

Thialfi
2013-02-27, 04:00 PM
You mean if I drop a monster and the evil cleric moves adjacent to it and casts a spell? Yeah, I think I'd double check he wasn't alieve. I know, I'm a horrible metagaming. A roleplayer would of course assume that the cleric had infact just wanted to wish their friend a good jounrey into the afterlife. With a spell. That couldn't wait until combat was over.

As a player, I certainly wouldn't be attacking the figure that was still on the ground. I'd be attacking the cleric and hoping the rest of my party focused fire on the cleric as well.

But then our campaign has always been run with the understanding that ALL intelligent beings on both sides of combat will always focus fire and attack with extreme prejudice opponents in the following order;

1. Arcane casters
2. Anyone that looks like they may be an arcane caster, but you are not absolutely sure.
3. Anyone that could on the off chance maybe have an arcane spell.
4. Unconscious characters from 1 to 3 above, since those wizards are tricksy like that.
5. Dead characters from 1 to 3 above, cause you just gots to be sure they are good and dead.
6. Divine casters.
7. Anyone that looks like that may be a divine caster, but you are not absolutely sure.
8. Anyone that could on the off chance, maybe have a divine spell.
9. Martial characters.
10. Go back and stab the dead wizard one more time, just for general principle.
11. Rogues.

Thialfi
2013-02-27, 04:17 PM
I disagree completely. Apologizing to people when you've done nothing wrong is a good way to end up the proverbial doormat, and a good way to encourage such petulant behavior.

It'll help the group for the time being, but you need to make sure this person knows what the rules are, how combat is handled, and that these sort of outbursts aren't part of mature play.

This person seems to be very worried about the continuation of his game and is skeptical about more than one person coming back. A frank conversation between the DM and all the players is more than warranted. Any apology from him should be phrased in the manner of "I am sorry if we miscommunicated about how our game was going to go. I apparently had a different understanding than you did. I am sorry if this affected your enjoyment of the game, because I really want us all to have a good time."

Every DM everywhere should understand that it is not his game that he is running. It's the group's game. DMs that lay down laws that no one wants to follow end up not DMing anymore.

Ashtagon
2013-02-27, 04:21 PM
As a player, I certainly wouldn't be attacking the figure that was still on the ground. I'd be attacking the cleric and hoping the rest of my party focused fire on the cleric as well.

But then our campaign has always been run with the understanding that ALL intelligent beings on both sides of combat will always focus fire and attack with extreme prejudice opponents in the following order;

1. Arcane casters
2. Anyone that looks like they may be an arcane caster, but you are not absolutely sure.
3. Anyone that could on the off chance maybe have an arcane spell.
4. Unconscious characters from 1 to 3 above, since those wizards are tricksy like that.
5. Dead characters from 1 to 3 above, cause you just gots to be sure they are good and dead.
6. Divine casters.
7. Anyone that looks like that may be a divine caster, but you are not absolutely sure.
8. Anyone that could on the off chance, maybe have a divine spell.
9. Martial characters.
10. Go back and stab the dead wizard one more time, just for general principle.
11. Rogues.

If ever I'm in your campaign, I'm playing a rogue.

Boci
2013-02-27, 04:52 PM
As a player, I certainly wouldn't be attacking the figure that was still on the ground.

So just to clarify, you're not attacking the adjacent, prone and recent recipient of a spell, who took out half your life in one attack and who was recently downed so cannot have that much HP. Instead you are going to attack the further away and relativly unharmed, unprone cleric, who did not remove half your HP with one spell?


If ever I'm in your campaign, I'm playing a rogue.

Or just make yourself look like one. Leather armour, lithe figure, plenty of daggers and gagets on display. Or a fighter, since they are not targeted at all.

Darius Kane
2013-02-27, 05:24 PM
So just to clarify, you're not attacking the adjacent, prone and recent recipient of a spell, who took out half your life in one attack and who was recently downed so cannot have that much HP. Instead you are going to attack the further away and relativly unharmed, unprone cleric, who did not remove half your HP with one spell?
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/217534009_hZ5oD-L-2.jpg

Thialfi
2013-02-28, 09:44 AM
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/217534009_hZ5oD-L-2.jpg

I was going to reply with something along those lines, but that comic sums up my 32 year playing career perfectly.

Always kill the casters first, especially when there is a martial character that can't do squat to you the next round.

Take attacks of opportunity from blockers if you have to, but get to those casters first and take them out quickly.

If you have a party of four and you run into an evil wizard and his evil priest, fighter, and rogue buddies, all four of you should be attacking the wizard until he is good and dead, then move to the priest, then the fighter, then the rogue.

Madeiner
2013-02-28, 10:44 AM
I was going to reply with something along those lines, but that comic sums up my 32 year playing career perfectly.

Always kill the casters first, especially when there is a martial character that can't do squat to you the next round.

Take attacks of opportunity from blockers if you have to, but get to those casters first and take them out quickly.

If you have a party of four and you run into an evil wizard and his evil priest, fighter, and rogue buddies, all four of you should be attacking the wizard until he is good and dead, then move to the priest, then the fighter, then the rogue.

Wait, does anyone NOT know that? In the mmorpg era?

Boci
2013-02-28, 02:20 PM
I was going to reply with something along those lines, but that comic sums up my 32 year playing career perfectly.

Always kill the casters first, especially when there is a martial character that can't do squat to you the next round.

Take attacks of opportunity from blockers if you have to, but get to those casters first and take them out quickly.

Sound tactics in general, but not the best course of action in this specific scenario, as the warrior was not only far more damaged than the cleric, but also far more dangerous.

Plus in D&D 3.5, you generally don't go for the healers first, because they cannot hope to keep up with your damage outout. You only prioritize divine casters if they aren't deicated healers.

ArcturusV
2013-02-28, 02:26 PM
Tactics are always situational. If the spellcaster just burn all his spells casting long term buffs, and has no other real capability, killing him does nothing. Meanwhile if it's a Healer like the Cleric, and they have no capability of dealing with Spike Damage like the enemy did, then there's no reason to go after the Cleric.

Of course there's also the line from "Ready to Rumble".

"Always attack their Strengths!"

"Don't you mean their weaknesses?"

"Pssh! Everyone expects their weaknesses to be attacked, no one guards their strengths!"

The fact that most parties presume the Barbarian, or Fighter, Paladin, etc, can "take the damage" because that's their strength often means they'll let things slip into dangerous territory before they really think about acting. You can end up downing a potentially fatal Fighter because everyone figured "Oh, he can take it" until the Fighter tells everyone "Oh **** guys... I only have 2 HP left and the guy has been doing 6-13 damage to me every turn!"

Thialfi
2013-02-28, 02:51 PM
Sound tactics in general, but not the best course of action in this specific scenario, as the warrior was not only far more damaged than the cleric, but also far more dangerous.

Plus in D&D 3.5, you generally don't go for the healers first, because they cannot hope to keep up with your damage outout. You only prioritize divine casters if they aren't deicated healers.

Not up on the mythology for barbarians in 3e and above, but in my campaign I would also seriously dock experience awards to a barbarian character that failed to attack a caster when they had the opportunity. Very poor roleplaying.

Regardless, I still think it is ill advised to go after a character that has no chance of causing you harm in the current round. I could see using whirlwind attack and putting your opponent down at little cost to your actions against opponents that are actually trying to cause you harm, especially if both the rogue and the cleric were in range.

RFLS
2013-02-28, 02:56 PM
EDIT: Once again, I missed that there were 6 more pages. I feel kinda dumb right now.

Boci
2013-02-28, 03:01 PM
Not up on the mythology for barbarians in 3e and above, but in my campaign I would also seriously dock experience awards to a barbarian character that failed to attack a caster when they had the opportunity. Very poor roleplaying.

3e moved away from that. Barbarians no longer gain XP for smashing magical item, and the anti-magic fluff was watered down. In fact it moved away from XP docking in general, although I am sure there are some groups who still employ it.


Regardless, I still think it is ill advised to go after a character that has no chance of causing you harm in the current round. I could see using whirlwind attack and putting your opponent down at little cost to your actions against opponents that are actually trying to cause you harm, especially if both the rogue and the cleric were in range.

But they do have a chance of causing you harm. You could miss with your AoO as they stand up, or they could attack from prone and suffer the -4 to hit. If the fighter was an arcane caster it doesn't sound like you would have had a problem with the orc's tactics.

Thialfi
2013-02-28, 03:35 PM
3e moved away from that. Barbarians no longer gain XP for smashing magical item, and the anti-magic fluff was watered down. In fact it moved away from XP docking in general, although I am sure there are some groups who still employ it.



But they do have a chance of causing you harm. You could miss with your AoO as they stand up, or they could attack from prone and suffer the -4 to hit. If the fighter was an arcane caster it doesn't sound like you would have had a problem with the orc's tactics.

Ah, I was unaware of that. I was assuming the character would have to take a full round to stand up. If I was the DM they would also have to recover their weapon or use another weapon that was secured to their person regardless of what the rules may say.

Of course I would not have a problem with it if it were an arcane caster. But my group all are on the same page about the deadliness of our campaign and I would still go out of my way to not instajib a PC if I felt there was another option.

Dice roll extremes happen though. Almost 30 years later I still give my friend playful grief over what he did to my illusionist on a random encounter. I had a 10th level illusionist get attacked by 3 orcs with halberds. I wasn't at all worried as the magic items I had at the time meant the orcs needed a 20 to hit him. He proceeded to roll 20, 20, and 20 for their attacks and all three attacks did maximum damage.

If this were an isolated incident where one player got emotional over the loss of a character, I would still recommend talking to that person and working things out. However, I get the impression from the OP that multiple people in his gaming group had an issue with how he handled the situation. That requires at least a mea culpa for not understanding the group dynamic. I would personally never suffer an imperious DM and I believe the OP is worried that is what is thought of him.

Jornophelanthas
2013-03-06, 08:38 AM
I was wondering if the OP would be willing to give an update on how things went at the next game meeting, or whether there was one. I am hoping the big problem proved not to be a big problem anymore once all participants had a chance to cool down and create some distance from the issue.

SN137
2013-03-06, 05:57 PM
I don't really get this thread ? Why are people simultaneously arguing game rules make it a logical action , and then arguing that it would be a logical action in reality ?

I mean isn't it kind of one or the other ? Either the GM should play like the rules reflect reality perfectly (even if they don't because who cares) , or house rule in things so it makes more sense to some degree .

I mean in game terms it is a logical action . In reality a barely armoured (?) person would be in danger of being murdered if they turned their sword away from an active threat to murder a person who was lying down and probably couldn't reach them to hurt them unless they threw their weapon at them . (I mean they might try to swing to threaten two foes at once , forcing the standing person to either be cut or give ground and be less able to help their friend, but that's besides the point in this instance)

I mean I can see why just playing the rules as they stand is fair enough , as it saves effort , however people kind of carry over basic logic and knowledge from the real world . And (even considering the healing magic) the chieftains actions are dumb in that context. Very dumb . Of course the NPCs playing like it's real and the PCs not gives them an unfair advantage . (wait is that what metagaming is ? I'm unsure ?)

Boci
2013-03-06, 06:12 PM
I mean I can see why just playing the rules as they stand is fair enough , as it saves effort , however people kind of carry over basic logic and knowledge from the real world . And (even considering the healing magic) the chieftains actions are dumb in that context. Very dumb.

But why even consider them in that context, when its entierly irrelevant? Its assumed that any intelligent creature with combat expirience will understand basic concepts of the game, like how HP works, otherwise it makes no sense.

Agincourt
2013-03-06, 06:41 PM
I'll just echo what Boci said. In order for their to be any sort of immersion, the NPCs and the PCs need to behave as though the D&D world is completely normal, despite fundamental differences from the real world. A person can fight to their full abilities at 1 hit point. Magic exists and everyone has at least a passing familiarity with its potential. Good and evil, law and chaos are objective, quantifiable, detectable forces.

As a result, in character, the OP's chieftain knows that magic can heal, and if the cleric sufficiently heals the fighter, the fighter poses just as much a threat as if the fighter were unharmed. The fighter will not be winded, and as soon as she stands up, she can fight just as well as she could 6 seconds ago.

Exediron
2013-03-06, 08:17 PM
I don't really get this thread ? Why are people simultaneously arguing game rules make it a logical action , and then arguing that it would be a logical action in reality ?

Presumably because they have something objective to say on both sides of the issue. If I see a point for both sides, I don't see why I won't raise both. It's not like I'm defending myself at court here, or even at all - I view it entirely as an exchange of ideas. Dialectics not debate, if you will.


I'll just echo what Boci said. In order for their to be any sort of immersion, the NPCs and the PCs need to behave as though the D&D world is completely normal, despite fundamental differences from the real world. A person can fight to their full abilities at 1 hit point. Magic exists and everyone has at least a passing familiarity with its potential. Good and evil, law and chaos are objective, quantifiable, detectable forces.

As a result, in character, the OP's chieftain knows that magic can heal, and if the cleric sufficiently heals the fighter, the fighter poses just as much a threat as if the fighter were unharmed. The fighter will not be winded, and as soon as she stands up, she can fight just as well as she could 6 seconds ago.

I don't really agree. I think what you say is one way to look at it, but the way I see it is that if some rule interferes with the realistic functioning of the world you fix that rule. Yes, I know D&D isn't the most realistic of systems in the first place, but it can be interpreted and changed to eliminate the worst inconsistencies.

I also don't see 'Magic exists and everyone has at least a passing familiarity with its potential'. Yes, magic does exist in most D&D settings, but everything we know about science was still true (well, the parts that are true now, but that's another thing) in the 13th century and most of it was totally unknown. Just because something exists and can even be proved to exist doesn't mean that everyone knows about it. Note that I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion here (the barbarian knows a healing spell when he sees it) but merely with the general statement. Even today most people don't really understand how a nuclear weapon works beyond the most basic principles, but everyone can recognize one. Healing magic may not be on the same level of destruction, but it no doubt changed war forever when it came along and is now a ubiquitous symbol of its own. I think it's safe to say that any experienced opponent knows what it is and knows to look for it.

And rather Good or Evil are objective is really not something universally agreed on just because you're playing D&D. My answer is no; good and evil are descriptions that reflect a character and do not dictate that character, and they are not objectively determined. I suppose every group probably does that differently, however. That they're detectable is unfortunately unavoidable, so I concede that one.

SN137
2013-03-06, 09:15 PM
Its assumed that any intelligent creature with combat expirience will understand basic concepts of the game, like how HP works, otherwise it makes no sense.
Exactly my point . You play the rules like they reflect the reality of the game world , thus someone described as an effective fighter will fight as if in knowledge of them to some degree . It is the only way to keep things fair for the NPCs and simplifies things in designing encounters .

But why even consider them in that context, when its entierly irrelevant?
Houserules are born from people not liking something or thinking something could be improved aren't they ? Not entirely irrelevant , and could be houseruled that the character could live if you wanted the hassle . For the record I think hassle is an entirely legitimate excuse not to let her live .
But then many posters and the original poster (with M-16s and watergun and whatnot) brung "in reality someone would ...." , into their arguments . Thus I brung it into mine . Now I can see why someone could argue from the game perspective that it was the right move , but bringing reality into it , makes the OPs argument lose weight to me .

Presumably because they have something objective to say on both sides of the issue.
Yeah but they just seemed to weaken one argument if used in conjuction . And potentially be adressing different arguments of "to houserule or not to houserule" , rather then "target or not target that lady". Maybe I'm overthinking it though .

Alaris
2013-03-06, 10:06 PM
I was wondering if the OP would be willing to give an update on how things went at the next game meeting, or whether there was one. I am hoping the big problem proved not to be a big problem anymore once all participants had a chance to cool down and create some distance from the issue.

Indeed, this. Please give us an update, OP. I'm curious as to if it all worked out... >.<

Agincourt
2013-03-07, 12:00 AM
I don't really agree. I think what you say is one way to look at it, but the way I see it is that if some rule interferes with the realistic functioning of the world you fix that rule. Yes, I know D&D isn't the most realistic of systems in the first place, but it can be interpreted and changed to eliminate the worst inconsistencies.
If there is a simple rule fix for D&D's HP system, I'd be interested. A complex rule, though, would not. D&D combat is complicated enough as it is. The bottom line for me is that the HP system has lasted for 40 years or so because it's fun. Personally, fun is higher on my priority list for an RPG than realism.

Seeing as how characters are living in this world of HPs, it makes sense to me for characters to behave as though anyone and everyone can keep on fighting as long as they have 1 HP.


I also don't see 'Magic exists and everyone has at least a passing familiarity with its potential'. Yes, magic does exist in most D&D settings, but everything we know about science was still true (well, the parts that are true now, but that's another thing) in the 13th century and most of it was totally unknown. Just because something exists and can even be proved to exist doesn't mean that everyone knows about it. Note that I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion here (the barbarian knows a healing spell when he sees it) but merely with the general statement. Even today most people don't really understand how a nuclear weapon works beyond the most basic principles, but everyone can recognize one. Healing magic may not be on the same level of destruction, but it no doubt changed war forever when it came along and is now a ubiquitous symbol of its own. I think it's safe to say that any experienced opponent knows what it is and knows to look for it.
I feel like you're putting words in my mouth here. I was careful not to say that everyone understands the ins-an-outs of magic. "A passing familiarity" implies a very basic knowledge. Anything more than that falls into the realm of Spellcraft. To stick with your nuclear weapon analogy, someone with zero ranks in Spellcraft would know that militaries can blow stuff up, but should not be able tell you the difference between a nuclear bomb and any other type of bomb.

But in D&D, magic is undeniably a part of life. Just as a 13th century person could not explain anything about the force of gravity, not even name it, they regularly saw the earth's gravitational pull and behaved accordingly. And today you don't have to know anything about the physics of flight to know that it is possible to fly half-way around the world in a matter of hours.

Nor do you have to know anything about surgery to know doctors can help you, and you can know literally nothing about biochemistry and still know it's possible to take a pill to feel better. So too with healing magic in D&D. A character may know nothing about the gods, positive energy, spell theory, or whatever, but still know there are things called "spells" that can heal some or all of a person's wounds, nearly instantaneously.

Cerlis
2013-03-07, 01:54 AM
And rather Good or Evil are objective is really not something universally agreed on just because you're playing D&D. My answer is no; good and evil are descriptions that reflect a character and do not dictate that character, and they are not objectively determined. I suppose every group probably does that differently, however. That they're detectable is unfortunately unavoidable, so I concede that one.

seeing as a good character can LITERALLY put "Good!" into his spells, i'd say its not debatable at all.

good is subjective.
Good isnt.

-------------------------

I think a big problem from what i see is the fact that there is a sentiment of "if the world is like This, then people will think This, and thus do This".

I'm sure everyone here has done something they thought they'd never do. Done something without thinking. Done something even though they knew it wasnt the right choice. And done something they thought was right, but they where taught or told was wrong.

Each and every reason and scenario given is viable. The chief could see the fighter who is back on his feat as a bigger threat, he could see the person capable of healing those fighters as the bigger threat. He could try to take out the bigger threat first, or take out the Immediate threat first and then take out the bigger threat.

Hell he could just go after the nearest opponent or the person he think he can beat.

All of these are viable actions espessially in the heat of combat.

Exediron
2013-03-07, 02:38 AM
If there is a simple rule fix for D&D's HP system, I'd be interested. A complex rule, though, would not. D&D combat is complicated enough as it is. The bottom line for me is that the HP system has lasted for 40 years or so because it's fun. Personally, fun is higher on my priority list for an RPG than realism.

Seeing as how characters are living in this world of HPs, it makes sense to me for characters to behave as though anyone and everyone can keep on fighting as long as they have 1 HP.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is one. Any system fundamentally based on a pool of hit points going from healthy to dead is pretty much going to fall short on simulating damage. So yes, I agree that for the characters - regardless of the real world - a person should be treated as dangerous the moment they wake up. Dangerous and vulnerable. Which is a great combination for a target.


I feel like you're putting words in my mouth here. I was careful not to say that everyone understands the ins-an-outs of magic. "A passing familiarity" implies a very basic knowledge. Anything more than that falls into the realm of Spellcraft. To stick with your nuclear weapon analogy, someone with zero ranks in Spellcraft would know that militaries can blow stuff up, but should not be able tell you the difference between a nuclear bomb and any other type of bomb.

But in D&D, magic is undeniably a part of life. Just as a 13th century person could not explain anything about the force of gravity, not even name it, they regularly saw the earth's gravitational pull and behaved accordingly. And today you don't have to know anything about the physics of flight to know that it is possible to fly half-way around the world in a matter of hours.

Nor do you have to know anything about surgery to know doctors can help you, and you can know literally nothing about biochemistry and still know it's possible to take a pill to feel better. So too with healing magic in D&D. A character may know nothing about the gods, positive energy, spell theory, or whatever, but still know there are things called "spells" that can heal some or all of a person's wounds, nearly instantaneously.

I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I was responding to what I thought was your point. From your above post it seems that I was wrong and you were thinking of a much lower level of familiarity than I assumed you meant. However, misunderstandings aside, it does sound like we're basically agreeing here that a person with no magical training or knowledge whatsoever in a magical world would be capable of recognizing (or at least safely guessing) the use of a healing spell.

Anyway, yes - I would be interested to hear how the OP's talk went. It seems as though the thread has pretty much run its purpose otherwise (and several that weren't its purpose). Hopefully everything went okay and the game is still alive. :smallcool:

Boci
2013-03-07, 02:46 AM
but bringing reality into it , makes the OPs argument lose weight to me.

Why? They never mentioned any houserules that attempt to emulate reality. On a sidenote, such houserules are rare, because its a very difficult result to achieve.

SN137
2013-03-07, 06:16 AM
Why? They never mentioned any houserules that attempt to emulate reality.
Perhaps the OP didn't . I'm fairly sure others did though . You haven't disputed it so far so I'm assuming you agree with that .
I'm just saying that there seemed to be two different arguments going on without either side acknowledging that they were making different arguments . I'm not actually making either sides myself , just describing what they seemed to be to me . I may be wrong , but you either don't disagree with me as you haven't bought what I just said up , or have been focusing on the wrong parts of my post , and not understanding what I'd written . :smallconfused:

Darius Kane
2013-03-07, 06:56 AM
To be honest I have trouble reading your post. Your grammar hurts my eyes.

SN137
2013-03-07, 08:44 AM
To be honest I have trouble reading your post. Your grammar hurts my eyes.
This post adds slightly less to the thread then my posts . And of course you can't understand it , what I'm referring to is spread all over every previous post I made , and several other people .

Darius Kane
2013-03-07, 09:19 AM
This post adds slightly less to the thread then my posts .
But it's less hurtful to eyes.


And of course you can't understand it , what I'm referring to is spread all over every previous post I made , and several other people .
Um, no, you don't understand. I can't read your post because of the grammar, not because it's unclear.