Rules people don't seem to know about when they make houserules

[TuggyNE]

So, I was reading about houserules people use in their games, and this one came up: "2) More class HD doesn't make you harder to kill, only better at surviving. Level 1st or level 20th; having your throat cut in your sleep kills you - get a guard dog."

I was more than a little puzzled, because there's a specific rule for surviving this: coup de grace attempts. Moreover, it's not an obviously terrible rule the way the books have it; it allows unlikely heroic survival, but requires you to make some effort at it. (In particular, a Rogue with more than 5 levels is likely to really bring the pain. Can you say "scythe autocrit with 3d6 sneak attack for a DC of 8d4+3d6+10"?) Worse yet, at the levels you can reasonably have a chance to survive this, a guard dog is likely to get mercilessly cut down by any kind of serious opposition, possibly before it can give an alarm.

So, what other odd houserules have you seen in the wild that just seem off?

[ArcturusV]

I understand the reasoning behind that. I've seen things where say, a Rogue gets a drop on someone with a knife, has it pointed at the guy's back, ready to plunge into his lung, and says "Don't move or I'll kill you!"

And the high level guy just goes, "Pssh, hell do I care, what, you'll do 1d4+1d6?"

Or blatantly ignoring things that logically should be threats like the 5 guys that have crossbows drawn and aimed at him from a close distance (But not adjacent), and have for a good minute because he's thinking "I have 45 HP, they do 1d8 each, if they hit. Pssh, they might take out half my HP, but then I slaughter them all!"

It's just a weird bit of DnD that's always existed. Almost ever edition has had some unofficial rule, alternate rule, etc, to deal with it. But sometimes the Coup de Grace doesn't quite apply but a similar effect should be in play. Like the mass of aimed, readied crossbows.

[rweird]

Critical Failures, &, Critical Hits. That about sums it up. In some groups, regardless of how many times I pointed it out, they refused to acknowledge it was a house rule. This lead to the PCs seeming to be a band of misfits instead of heroes considering how commonly a PC hit someone else in the party or whatnot.

For critical hits, people don't know that threats don't automatically it, and house rule without calling it a house rule otherwise.

[Pickford]

So, I was reading about houserules people use in their games, and this one came up: "2) More class HD doesn't make you harder to kill, only better at surviving. Level 1st or level 20th; having your throat cut in your sleep kills you - get a guard dog."

I was more than a little puzzled, because there's a specific rule for surviving this: coup de grace attempts. Moreover, it's not an obviously terrible rule the way the books have it; it allows unlikely heroic survival, but requires you to make some effort at it. (In particular, a Rogue with more than 5 levels is likely to really bring the pain. Can you say "scythe autocrit with 3d6 sneak attack for a DC of 8d4+3d6+10"?) Worse yet, at the levels you can reasonably have a chance to survive this, a guard dog is likely to get mercilessly cut down by any kind of serious opposition, possibly before it can give an alarm.

So, what other odd houserules have you seen in the wild that just seem off?

Tying into that:
edit: In case this is unclear, it's under Listen in the PHB.


A sleeping character may make Listen checks at a -10 penalty. A successful check awakens the sleeper.

So...good listen checks are light sleepers who don't need guard dogs. I don't think I can ever recall anyone 'using' that rule in any game I've played though.

[Keneth]

I understand the reasoning behind that. I've seen things where say, a Rogue gets a drop on someone with a knife, has it pointed at the guy's back, ready to plunge into his lung, and says "Don't move or I'll kill you!"

And yet, if you watch movies at all, you'll know that a sufficiently heroic character can deal with such situations. This includes blades on one's throat, guns pointed at the head, explosions in the immediate vicinity, etc. In extreme cases, one should use the coup de grace rules, but there's nothing worse than a DM going "you're dead", without any basis in actual rules. Some DM's then feel bad and try to salvage the situation with a deux ex machina, but that just makes the whole thing even worse.

[DonDuckie]

So, I was reading about houserules people use in their games, and this one came up: "2) More class HD doesn't make you harder to kill, only better at surviving. Level 1st or level 20th; having your throat cut in your sleep kills you - get a guard dog."

I was more than a little puzzled, because there's a specific rule for surviving this: coup de grace attempts. Moreover, it's not an obviously terrible rule the way the books have it; it allows unlikely heroic survival, but requires you to make some effort at it. (In particular, a Rogue with more than 5 levels is likely to really bring the pain. Can you say "scythe autocrit with 3d6 sneak attack for a DC of 8d4+3d6+10"?) Worse yet, at the levels you can reasonably have a chance to survive this, a guard dog is likely to get mercilessly cut down by any kind of serious opposition, possibly before it can give an alarm.

So, what other odd houserules have you seen in the wild that just seem off?

I wrote that:smallbiggrin: and I like it and I also wrote "1) the combat chapter is for combat only."
I know about coup de grace, I also know in which chapter it is found.

It's to tell people they are still VERY mortal, even at high levels.

[TuggyNE]

I understand the reasoning behind that. I've seen things where say, a Rogue gets a drop on someone with a knife, has it pointed at the guy's back, ready to plunge into his lung, and says "Don't move or I'll kill you!"

And the high level guy just goes, "Pssh, hell do I care, what, you'll do 1d4+1d6?"

Or blatantly ignoring things that logically should be threats like the 5 guys that have crossbows drawn and aimed at him from a close distance (But not adjacent), and have for a good minute because he's thinking "I have 45 HP, they do 1d8 each, if they hit. Pssh, they might take out half my HP, but then I slaughter them all!"

It's just a weird bit of DnD that's always existed. Almost ever edition has had some unofficial rule, alternate rule, etc, to deal with it. But sometimes the Coup de Grace doesn't quite apply but a similar effect should be in play. Like the mass of aimed, readied crossbows.

Well, sure. Coup de grace is flawed, but mostly in that there are situations where you can't apply it without houserules. But then turning around and saying "oh yeah, and you can't apply it here either, even if it would make sense" … that just puzzles me.


I wrote that:smallbiggrin: and I like it and I also wrote "1) the combat chapter is for combat only."
I know about coup de grace, I also know in which chapter it is found.

It's to tell people they are still VERY mortal, even at high levels.

I know you did, and in fact I rather think that's a good goal to have. I just don't get why a) it's so essential to pick that particular avenue to emphasize mortality; b) you didn't just revamp HP entirely; or c) you make such a hard-and-fast distinction between "combat" and "non-combat" (and stick "sleeping while someone tries to stab you" under "non-combat", no less). Basically, it's a houserule that (in isolation, without a number of other changes) fits poorly into 3.x's scheme of things.

My own vaguely formed approach to this (which you can find in my homebrew sig) gives characters very slowly-scaling HP, such that if you can get past all of even a very high-level character's defenses, they go down just about as easily as a baker's apprentice. The trick, of course, is getting past those defenses, some of which are well-nigh instinctive, and which are generally able to either dodge/block/parry/deflect hits, or soak the brunt more safely. That way there are defined ways to get past given defenses, and once you're past those, or out of stamina to power them, well, hope you've made your peace! (Whether five poorly-trained ruffians with crossbows can actually get past those defenses is, of course, another matter.)

[DonDuckie]

I know you did, and in fact I rather think that's a good goal to have. I just don't get why a) it's so essential to pick that particular avenue to emphasize mortality; b) you didn't just revamp HP entirely; or c) you make such a hard-and-fast distinction between "combat" and "non-combat" (and stick "sleeping while someone tries to stab you" under "non-combat", no less). Basically, it's a houserule that (in isolation, without a number of other changes) fits poorly into 3.x's scheme of things.


a) it's not that essential, it's just key to my fellow RPG'ers expectation of the system(PF).
b) because I believe that - inside the scope of combat - HP is not a bad system for representing the abstract mechanics of what is going on. (This may be repetition, but: in-game combat isn't "stand face-to-face in 5ft-square areas; low-levels attack once, high-levels attack four times", it's moving, ducking, striking, circling, tireing, distracting, parrying, waiting, dancing, shouting, stumbling, taunting, observing, etcetera... the combat system is just how we decide the outcome)
c) No I don't, that was an example, in combat you use coup de grace, out of combat there are other rules for determining the outcome(to make assassinations more possible, which is what started the house rule).

Also, your title claims I don't know about coup de grace, when you completely ignore that (I ruled) there is no coup de grace option out-of-combat.

And about the "get a guard dog". That's not a rule, that you must aquire a litteral guarding animal of the canine family. It can be dragons, spells, outsiders bound by planar binding, friends or a hired commoner named "Jeff"... it's a hint: consider your own safety... you are even allowed to have more than one. Hire four Jeffs...

[Warren Peace]

So, I was reading about houserules people use in their games, and this one came up: "2) More class HD doesn't make you harder to kill, only better at surviving. Level 1st or level 20th; having your throat cut in your sleep kills you - get a guard dog."

I was more than a little puzzled, because there's a specific rule for surviving this: coup de grace attempts. Moreover, it's not an obviously terrible rule the way the books have it; it allows unlikely heroic survival, but requires you to make some effort at it. (In particular, a Rogue with more than 5 levels is likely to really bring the pain. Can you say "scythe autocrit with 3d6 sneak attack for a DC of 8d4+3d6+10"?) Worse yet, at the levels you can reasonably have a chance to survive this, a guard dog is likely to get mercilessly cut down by any kind of serious opposition, possibly before it can give an alarm.

So, what other odd houserules have you seen in the wild that just seem off?As a new DM I have even encountered problems with this. Just because the tank has 100 some LP and a 25 ac doesn't mean the assassin standing behind him unnoticed with a knife to his throat can't kill him instantly. This is where role playing heavily comes into play. Like for example if the threatened player were to say to me "I quickly bat his hand aside taking a small cut to my throat and finish him off with my axe" then my parties cleric or anyone with an ability to heal could mend his wounds. Role Playing really helps with that situation. In my first ever mission I was level 1 and had never ever EVER (get the point?) played before, sneaked up behind a veteran player friend of mine his dwarf was level 13 and I was a level 1 Tiefling assassin (well soon to be assassin I was still a rouge back then) and I stuck my sword into his back and the other pressed to his throat and I told him if he dared move I would part his head from his body! My friend just looked at our DM and he was grinning and said I would suggest you seriously don't move :smalltongue: So it pays to play out your role regardless of level :smallsmile:

[PersonMan]

As a new DM I have even encountered problems with this. Just because the tank has 100 some LP and a 25 ac doesn't mean the assassin standing behind him unnoticed with a knife to his throat can't kill him instantly. This is where role playing heavily comes into play.

This is one of the times I'd say that, in my view, if a high-level DnD frontliner is afraid of a knife at his throat, he's not roleplaying.

Unless you play with significant houseruling, you've left the great heroes of myth way behind you by level 12 - why should you be afraid of a random guy with a knife?

If I'm playing a high-level fighter or similar and am threatened by a group of guards with crossbows, it's ridiculous for me to think "oh no, I better surrender or they'll kill me!". With that attitude, you'd never get past level 1. By the time you're high level, you've fought all sorts of monsters, taken claws, spells, teeth, tentacles, hooves, swords, arrows, spears...and lived. Why would a few crossbowmen scare you?

Logically, these are no threat at all. If their bolts can even get past your armor - and that's a big 'if', since you're probably sporting something with more magic in it than they will ever see - you can probably count on them not getting very far into you, due to the superhuman toughness you've gained while adventuring.

If you want a guy with a knife or a handful of crossbowmen to remain a threat for a long time, play e6 - rather than twisting the game with strange houserules, it just puts a level cap on advancement so nobody argues about whether or not their level 15 whatever is so far removed from normal people that they shouldn't fear them.

EDIT: Also, the difference between "I let him slit my throat, laugh at the puny damage and chop him in half" and "I keep him from cutting me and, taking a minor nick to the neck, and chop him in half" is just style of character - whether you want HP to be "how many swords I can store in my gut before I die" or "how many swords only minorly cut me before I get hit for real".

It's also related to group playstyle, which is why I'd recommend talking about it if such a thing might come up before the actual event.

EDIT2: Back on topic, I love it when people houserule Drown Healing away because, unless you use the Stormwrack drowning rules, it's just a no-save delayed kill (go to 0 HP, next round die) with no way to stop it.

I've also seen some people "houserule" that skill natural 20s and 1s aren't auto-fails.

[Muggins]

Critical Failures, &, Critical Hits. That about sums it up. In some groups, regardless of how many times I pointed it out, they refused to acknowledge it was a house rule. This lead to the PCs seeming to be a band of misfits instead of heroes considering how commonly a PC hit someone else in the party or whatnot.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, especially in regards to critical failures. The Player's Handbook states that a natural 1 on an attack roll is an automatic failure, and so is a natural 1 on a saving throw.

I agree on your point on the critical/confirmation rolls, though, and add the note of how critical hits work. "1d4" with a critical hit of "x2" just means you roll 1d4 twice, not that you double your original roll.

Edit: Swordsaged by the above, to some extent.

[Fouredged Sword]

The issue of mortality and high level characters is somewhat addressed in the vitality point system. Your levels don't actually add HP, and that CDG bypasses all those nice vitality points the character has, straight to his very limited pool of HP.

And a fighter with 30 con at level 20 is still hard to kill, even with a knife to his throat. He has a con of 30!

[Matticussama]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, especially in regards to critical failures. The Player's Handbook states that a natural 1 on an attack roll is an automatic failure, and so is a natural 1 on a saving throw.

I believe that by crit failures the poster means things like critical fumble charts; a nat 1 isn't just an auto-miss, but something else bad happens as a result. Breaking your weapon, hitting an ally, etc.

[WhatBigTeeth]

I was more than a little puzzled, because there's a specific rule for surviving this: coup de grace attempts.
When people say "Having your throat slit kills you," I don't think they're talking about what happens when a level 5 rogue with a specific and unusual weapon hits a sleeping character. I think they're talking about what happens when Joe the commoner sticks his dagger into a sleeping character's neck. Between maybe 5 damage and a DC 15 Fort save, that's not quite an insta-kill against a fighter with +25 Fort.

[tyckspoon]

I believe that by crit failures the poster means things like critical fumble charts; a nat 1 isn't just an auto-miss, but something else bad happens as a result. Breaking your weapon, hitting an ally, etc.

He was referring to specifically skill (and ability) checks, which do *not* have RAW Natural 20/Natural 1 rules. Some players assume they do, because they read it on attack rolls and saves and apply it from that to all D20 rolls.. and then find out that that creates unusually silly results and 'houserule' that there is no automatic success/failure for skills, thus 'changing' the rule to the way it already works.

[Keneth]

When people say "Having your throat slit kills you," I don't think they're talking about what happens when a level 5 rogue with a specific and unusual weapon hits a sleeping character. I think they're talking about what happens when Joe the commoner sticks his dagger into a sleeping character's neck. Between maybe 5 damage and a DC 15 Fort save, that's not quite an insta-kill against a fighter with +25 Fort.

Even ignoring the fact that there should be no way a commoner sneaks up on a high-level characters while they're sleeping, instant death effects with no save have no place in a D&D game. Either you get dealt enough damage to kill you, or you get a saving throw to resist the effect. Even if it seems ridiculous, high-level characters are far beyond normal individuals, they are and should be able to perform amazing feats that defy the laws of ordinary men. Otherwise it's just a "rocks fall" situation and I think we all agree that's a bad thing.

[Barsoom]

If one wants a knife to the throat be an autokill no matter what level you are, they're not playing the right game system. D&D 3.5 is a game of heroic fantasy. It doesn't support the gritty style of play they may be interested in. Just look into different game systems, because the odd of successfully "fixing" this one to meet your interests without hopelessly breaking it in some other aspects are nonexistant.

[Sith_Happens]

Or blatantly ignoring things that logically should be threats like the 5 guys that have crossbows drawn and aimed at him from a close distance (But not adjacent), and have for a good minute because he's thinking "I have 45 HP, they do 1d8 each, if they hit. Pssh, they might take out half my HP, but then I slaughter them all!"

Depends on whether you think five people with crossbows "logically should be a threat" to someone who's survived being clawed by a dragon and then falling 100 feet into lava.

[ArcturusV]

Well there's a lot of difference between something like getting hit by a claw when you're ducking, dodging, weaving, blocking out some of the damage, rolling with the blow, etc (As presumed by the rules). And just standing still somewhere with a mass of weapons not aimed by stormtroopers at your head.

And Lava in DnD is always silly.

[Keneth]

There really isn't unless you're helpless, in which case CDG rules apply.

[ahenobarbi]

Well there's a lot of difference between something like getting hit by a claw when you're ducking, dodging, weaving, blocking out some of the damage, rolling with the blow, etc (As presumed by the rules). And just standing still somewhere with a mass of weapons not aimed by stormtroopers at your head.

And Lava in DnD is always silly.

If stormtroopers are aiming at you then you are pretty safe :smallwink:

[Tar Palantir]

Yeah, high level D&D characters are way stronger than most people who say things like that think. Epic heroes like Hercules and Achilles would be around level 10 or so, and I don't think you'd hear many complaints about Hercules catching arrows with his chest (he couldn't do it forever, but long enough that the archers would have time to wet themselves before he went down). The best analogues to high level characters are something like the heroes of Dragon Ball Z or high-end super heroes. Would slitting Superman's throat kill him? Is Thor in any danger whatsoever from guards with crossbows?

[3WhiteFox3]

Well there's a lot of difference between something like getting hit by a claw when you're ducking, dodging, weaving, blocking out some of the damage, rolling with the blow, etc (As presumed by the rules). And just standing still somewhere with a mass of weapons not aimed by stormtroopers at your head.

And Lava in DnD is always silly.

The problem with HP in D&D is that it is, by it's very nature, abstract. The above scenario where you easily survive the barrage of crossbows isn't so much I got hit but I just don't die. (though, this is thematic in some works, in fact that's the whole point of the Determinator (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Determinator) (Warning: Tvtropes link)) It can also be representative of the character's ability to narrowly dodge and keep the bolts from hitting his vital spots, because he is simply that good.

EDIT: It's all about the style of game you want, and if you want a gritty game, then either play at very low levels or try a different system.

[rweird]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, especially in regards to critical failures. The Player's Handbook states that a natural 1 on an attack roll is an automatic failure, and so is a natural 1 on a saving throw.

I agree on your point on the critical/confirmation rolls, though, and add the note of how critical hits work. "1d4" with a critical hit of "x2" just means you roll 1d4 twice, not that you double your original roll.

Edit: Swordsaged by the above, to some extent.

As others stated, that is so, a lot of people assume critical threats are automatic hits, natural 1s on skill checks lead to automatic failures (often ignoring the take 10 rule in the process). I hate it because statistically if 2000 people fight each other, some 100 people would embarrassingly fail, potentially killing themselves or there allies.

[PersonMan]

I hate it because statistically if 2000 people fight each other, some 100 people would embarrassingly fail, potentially killing themselves or there allies.

"The king of the realm, having himself been a soldier, decided to forge an army of a few hundred, the best trained and equipped on the continent. When the hordes of their enemies washed over them, they simply raised their shields and waited for the battle to resolve itself.

It took three days of guarded vigil, but by the end the mighty hordes of the north had been broken by their own hand - axes flew through the crowd, killing dozens, slipped strikes cutting down the ones who were behind them..."

[Phelix-Mu]

I dunno. Sometimes the issue of a character taking threats seriously boils down to a divergence in player wisdom and character experience. Any character that has been hurt a lot in combat will know that sometimes an insignificant wolf hit an artery, an arrow catches you in the neck, or someone grabs you while you are drunk and snaps your neck. Life is dangerous; a melee tank has to have one real terrible Wisdom to not take precautions against crap luck.

On the other hand, the player of the melee tank thinks "hey, I've survived worse." This is, unfortunately, an example of fallacious thinking, as your previous survival implies nothing about your current situation. That "random guy with a knife" could be an accomplished assassin using the Disguise skill. Those ruffians might get lucky, or the crossbow bolts might be poisoned (can always crit fail those saves).

Unless lack of caution is some kind of role play device (possibly reflected by the character's stats), I usually take these kind of opportunities to mention out-of-game that Sense Motive checks can be used to more judiciously judge threats (a bit of a house rule here...I try to encourage players to have their characters use their brains in a realistic manner), and I use such rolls to mention, casually, that there is always reason for even a pretty stupid, brash person to be worried about danger and physical pain. Just cause hp and such suggest you can survive it, doesn't make the experience fun or safe.

Sometimes it's a role play thing, though, and the barbarian or tank wants to show his (isn't it usually a guy?) machismo by soaking some crossbow bolts or letting someone stab him in the neck. Sometimes this gets my DM dander up, but my gaming style tends to be lethal enough that players save their good luck for instances where the characters are really in danger instead of acts of testosterone-fueled bad judgement. I try not to slap characters around arbitrarily, but occasionally the ruffians have sneak attack dice or poison or what have you. Terrible things happen all of the time.

[TuggyNE]

Whee, topic explosion! :smallbiggrin:


b) because I believe that - inside the scope of combat - HP is not a bad system for representing the abstract mechanics of what is going on. (This may be repetition, but: in-game combat isn't "stand face-to-face in 5ft-square areas; low-levels attack once, high-levels attack four times", it's moving, ducking, striking, circling, tireing, distracting, parrying, waiting, dancing, shouting, stumbling, taunting, observing, etcetera... the combat system is just how we decide the outcome)
c) No I don't, that was an example, in combat you use coup de grace, out of combat there are other rules for determining the outcome(to make assassinations more possible, which is what started the house rule).

Again, I find the inconsistency here puzzling; there's this really unnecessary separation you're making between "combat" and "non-combat", and it feels inelegant to me to say "well, OK, in combat if you fail a save against sleep and someone takes a full round to try to kill you, you follow such-and-such rules, but if they snuck up on you while you're in your sleeping bag, you just die". What, in character, actually makes the difference? Is there a big jarring "battle fade" when you start an encounter or something?

Now, I could understand it if the rules were kind of lousy, but I actually think they do the job OK; it's not especially difficult to make an enemy that can genuinely threaten you by sneaking up with a knife (well, a heavy pick is probably a better assassination weapon, but eh), so houseruling in "sorry, knife falls, you die" quite frankly seems a bit lazy.


Also, your title claims I don't know about coup de grace, when you completely ignore that (I ruled) there is no coup de grace option out-of-combat.

And about the "get a guard dog". That's not a rule, that you must aquire a litteral guarding animal of the canine family. It can be dragons, spells, outsiders bound by planar binding, friends or a hired commoner named "Jeff"... it's a hint: consider your own safety... you are even allowed to have more than one. Hire four Jeffs...

I did say "seem to", didn't I? I have no way of knowing what you do or do not know about, nor do I claim to; it just, well, "seemed" very counter-intuitive to me to slice out a perfectly functional rule, but only in certain circumstances; as such, it "seemed" most likely that you just didn't know about it, which is actually fairly common: hardly anyone really knows the rules well enough to never be surprised by odd corner cases, and there's no shame in discovering something like that.


This is one of the times I'd say that, in my view, if a high-level DnD frontliner is afraid of a knife at his throat, he's not roleplaying.

Unless you play with significant houseruling, you've left the great heroes of myth way behind you by level 12 - why should you be afraid of a random guy with a knife?
[…]
EDIT: Also, the difference between "I let him slit my throat, laugh at the puny damage and chop him in half" and "I keep him from cutting me and, taking a minor nick to the neck, and chop him in half" is just style of character - whether you want HP to be "how many swords I can store in my gut before I die" or "how many swords only minorly cut me before I get hit for real".

It's also related to group playstyle, which is why I'd recommend talking about it if such a thing might come up before the actual event.

Yeah, agreed. In particular, houseruling for more lethality is not unreasonable (if done with care, and for a group that wants it), but spotty application of "well sometimes you die, no save, if you get hit for 1d8, and sometimes you just take 1d8 damage, and sometimes …" — that just feels off.


EDIT2: Back on topic, I love it when people houserule Drown Healing away because, unless you use the Stormwrack drowning rules, it's just a no-save delayed kill (go to 0 HP, next round die) with no way to stop it.

Oh, you mean you're amused when they ignore the strict RAW answer to a strict RAW abuse? Yeah. I do like finding those, when they work.


I've also seen some people "houserule" that skill natural 20s and 1s aren't auto-fails.

Heh. :smallamused:


The issue of mortality and high level characters is somewhat addressed in the vitality point system. Your levels don't actually add HP, and that CDG bypasses all those nice vitality points the character has, straight to his very limited pool of HP.

Yes! Use this one! It's consistent!


When people say "Having your throat slit kills you," I don't think they're talking about what happens when a level 5 rogue with a specific and unusual weapon hits a sleeping character. I think they're talking about what happens when Joe the commoner sticks his dagger into a sleeping character's neck. Between maybe 5 damage and a DC 15 Fort save, that's not quite an insta-kill against a fighter with +25 Fort.

I know. I'm just saying that it's not especially difficult to come up with a genuine threat (and also that Joe the Commoner with a knife is not a genuine threat for a level 20 Fighter). Whether you use three Rogue 3s with daggers, a Rogue 7 with a shortsword, or a Rogue 5 with a heavy pick doesn't matter too much; what matters is that much weaker characters have a defined way of causing some substantial risk of death without auto-killing.


If one wants a knife to the throat be an autokill no matter what level you are, they're not playing the right game system. D&D 3.5 is a game of heroic fantasy. It doesn't support the gritty style of play they may be interested in. Just look into different game systems, because the odd of successfully "fixing" this one to meet your interests without hopelessly breaking it in some other aspects are nonexistant.

Well, mostly. The wound/vitality system is a decent hack; it's more complete and self-consistent (although it has a few flaws of its own: in particular, fortification armor becomes the #1 purchase). And it undeniably does the job desired here.


The problem with HP in D&D is that it is, by it's very nature, abstract. The above scenario where you easily survive the barrage of crossbows isn't so much I got hit but I just don't die. (though, this is thematic in some works, in fact that's the whole point of the Determinator (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Determinator) (Warning: Tvtropes link))

Basically, this; if you don't want Determinators, you're gonna need to fiddle with the system quite substantially to get rid of all the traces.


"The king of the realm, having himself been a soldier, decided to forge an army of a few hundred, the best trained and equipped on the continent. When the hordes of their enemies washed over them, they simply raised their shields and waited for the battle to resolve itself.

It took three days of guarded vigil, but by the end the mighty hordes of the north had been broken by their own hand - axes flew through the crowd, killing dozens, slipped strikes cutting down the ones who were behind them..."

I love this so much. So much. Can I stick this in my quotebox?

[PersonMan]

I love this so much. So much. Can I stick this in my quotebox?

Go right ahead.

[Spuddles]

And yet, if you watch movies at all, you'll know that a sufficiently heroic character can deal with such situations. This includes blades on one's throat, guns pointed at the head, explosions in the immediate vicinity, etc. In extreme cases, one should use the coup de grace rules, but there's nothing worse than a DM going "you're dead", without any basis in actual rules. Some DM's then feel bad and try to salvage the situation with a deux ex machina, but that just makes the whole thing even worse.

Yep, and it shows up in a ton of different action genres- spy action, fantasy action, comic book action, wire-fu action, space action, action action. I can think of at least a half dozen major movies where that sort of stuff gets pulled.

Don't send level 1 mooks to do a level 10's job, duh.


When people say "Having your throat slit kills you," I don't think they're talking about what happens when a level 5 rogue with a specific and unusual weapon hits a sleeping character. I think they're talking about what happens when Joe the commoner sticks his dagger into a sleeping character's neck. Between maybe 5 damage and a DC 15 Fort save, that's not quite an insta-kill against a fighter with +25 Fort.

Having your throat doesn't kill you, not even in real life. It takes awhile to die, and the more badass amongst us don't even die then. I am not sure why everyone is so intent on making sure joe the commoner system stays perfectly relevant at level 20 when characters are basically performing the feats of gods in real life religions.


Well there's a lot of difference between something like getting hit by a claw when you're ducking, dodging, weaving, blocking out some of the damage, rolling with the blow, etc (As presumed by the rules). And just standing still somewhere with a mass of weapons not aimed by stormtroopers at your head.

And Lava in DnD is always silly.

How, exactly, are the crossbow men catching me flat footed?

[PersonMan]

How, exactly, are the crossbow men catching me flat footed?

Yeah, there's some dissonance between

"character is threatened by crossbowmen"
and
"character is caught surprised, and is therefore flatfooted, by crossbowmen"

The whole "character is flatfooted" falls apart when you realize that

A) They probably have double or triple the guards' Spot/Listen modifiers
B) Almost assuredly have a similar advantage in initiative

[Coidzor]

On the other hand, the player of the melee tank thinks "hey, I've survived worse." This is, unfortunately, an example of fallacious thinking, as your previous survival implies nothing about your current situation. That "random guy with a knife" could be an accomplished assassin using the Disguise skill. Those ruffians might get lucky, or the crossbow bolts might be poisoned (can always crit fail those saves).

You say "fallacious thinking," I say "default assumptions." *shrug*

[The Random NPC]

I usually take these kind of opportunities to mention out-of-game that Sense Motive checks can be used to more judiciously judge threats (a bit of a house rule here...I try to encourage players to have their characters use their brains in a realistic manner), and I use such rolls to mention, casually, that there is always reason for even a pretty stupid, brash person to be worried about danger and physical pain.

FYI, that use of Sense Motive was detailed in Complete Adventurer, and thus, is not a house rule (although the exact mechanic you use to judge threats may be).

[Worira]

People have survived having their throats slashed. People who were not capable of beating a grizzly bear in a fist fight.

[3WhiteFox3]

People have survived having their throats slashed. People who were not capable of beating a grizzly bear in a fist fight.

Can I sig this? It is seriously awesome.

[Worira]

Sure, go ahead.

[Phelix-Mu]

FYI, that use of Sense Motive was detailed in Complete Adventurer, and thus, is not a house rule (although the exact mechanic you use to judge threats may be).

Hmm, I may have to re-examine that part in Complete Adventurer. I've been lead to believe that the given "assess CR"-ish Sense Motive use took much longer than I thought practical. I house-ruled it down to a swift action if you have past so many ranks in Sense Motive.

As for the fallacious thinking comment, it was mostly in response to someone who had earlier suggested that it is logical to assume that your character will survive an threat below your character's level/appropriate EL/CR/etc. That's only logical if both the character and the player have correctly perceived the danger and accounted for all possible outcomes in their calculation. Yes, in any given encounter, there is a maximum damage that any given creature can inflict in one round. But this maximum isn't painted on their foreheads in bright colors. Neither are the stat blocks of the monsters. I use enough custom/heavily modified/refluffed stuff in my campaigns that my players know not to make assumptions about Random Guy's abilities.

Moreover, it's highly metagame for your character to really judge much about the class levels of that guy holding the knife. It could be anyone. Disguise is a thing. Better safe than sorry, in my mind. Of course, players/characters aren't always sensible, and are often mislead by fallacious thinking (i.e., past outcomes determine present chance of success). It's not a bad thing, really, and kind of realistic.

As for what characters would in-game perceive about the limits of coup-de-grace, I think it sensible that even tough characters be worried about getting ganked. After all, it happens to just about everyone else around them at some point (particularly the enemies, who die in the untold thousands). Even if I am a tough warrior and know I can take a few knife blows, I'd probably still be worried about the typical cowardly ways of murdering people (this is essentially why such ways are viewed as cowardly, because irl they work regardless of the vitality of the target...poison, stabbed while sleeping).

If, culturally, it were known that such cowardly behavior didn't have a chance of killing people that had more than x HD, and that adventuring could make anyone strong enough to survive just about anything after a while, then I'd think adventuring would be a much more viable lifestyle. Commoners and warriors could gang up and go slaughter kobolds, and shortly they wouldn't have to worry about the kind of things that in-game normal people worry about. I guess the kobolds could actually do this, too. Just a weird thing to think about, and kind of strains the realism when everyone above a certain level can afford to be more or less fearless.

I'm not an expert on coup de grace, frankly. For some reason, it rarely comes up in my games.

[Fyermind]

When people say "Having your throat slit kills you," I don't think they're talking about what happens when a level 5 rogue with a specific and unusual weapon hits a sleeping character. I think they're talking about what happens when Joe the commoner sticks his dagger into a sleeping character's neck. Between maybe 5 damage and a DC 15 Fort save, that's not quite an insta-kill against a fighter with +25 Fort.

There is a skill for this. Profession (Executioner) has the ability to autokill with an attack. The fact is, a lot of people miss the vital organs they thing are there and experienced adventures wake up quickly and have good reactions.

If Joe Shmoe stabs McPincussion the fighter 2 with 21 HP and 16 con with a dagger and rolls that he deals 5 damage and forces a DC 15 fortitude save, there is a roughly 8/20 chance that the McPinsussion dies instantly from the knife to the neck and a 12/20 chance that his neck is so muscular that Joe Shmoe didn't hit an artery that would cause immediate death or that McPincussion woke up and rolled to avoid most of the knife between the stabby end touching him and the end of the swing.

Repeat the scenario with a fighter 12 with 20 con (he might have 131 HP) and you see the chance of him dying from 5 damage goes down to about 1/20 chance of dying. So what does this mean? Well he is about as physically tough as a bull elephant (con 21 to con 20, fort +12 to fort +13). His scores and saves say so. He must have a seriously buff neck, be quite lucky, and have some very good awareness of danger and instinctive reactions to minimize harm to himself.

[TuggyNE]

If, culturally, it were known that such cowardly behavior didn't have a chance of killing people that had more than x HD, and that adventuring could make anyone strong enough to survive just about anything after a while, then I'd think adventuring would be a much more viable lifestyle. Commoners and warriors could gang up and go slaughter kobolds, and shortly they wouldn't have to worry about the kind of things that in-game normal people worry about. I guess the kobolds could actually do this, too. Just a weird thing to think about, and kind of strains the realism when everyone above a certain level can afford to be more or less fearless.

Two things: first, adventuring is so absurdly risky, and so likely to make you more enemies, that "oh, I won't have to worry about burglars coming in and murdering my face anymore!" is not really a sensible motivation for most people; they just don't have what it takes to pull off that kind of wildly daring lifestyle to begin with. (IRL, I myself am in that category, to be quite frank.)

Secondly, no one is actually immune to having their throat cut (unless they wear heavy fortification armor all the time or something); they're merely highly resistant to it. What's more, it's not terribly difficult for a would-be assassin to get a bit of specialized equipment and some experience, and remain a credible threat to all but the very sturdiest characters, enough to justify putting some defenses up.

In fact, the best assassins would probably be at least Rogue 5/Assassin 1, and would be perfectly capable of forcing not one but two saves against death: Death Attack + Coup De Grace. I sure wouldn't want to face 3d8+4d6 + DC ~15 + DC ~37, would you?

[Sith_Happens]

In fact, the best assassins would probably be at least Rogue 5/Assassin 1, and would be perfectly capable of forcing not one but two saves against death: Death Attack + Coup De Grace. I sure wouldn't want to face 3d8+4d6 + DC ~15 + DC ~37, would you?

Don't forget the poison.

[Heliomance]

It's actually interesting to think about the logical consequences of a world where human defensive capacity outpaces human offensive capacity to the same extent as it does in D&D. IRL, a single stab, gunshot, whatever, can and probably will kil you. In D&D that's just not true. And a world like that would promote a very different psychology in people.

A universe that works like that is necessary for Heroes to exist. It makes individual power much more of a thing, because you can train to the point where you are Just Better than other people. IRL, you can train your offensive capacity massively. But even the best trained special forces marine will die to one bullet from an attacker he didn't notice, or who just got lucky. And that means you can't get Heroes, because one person just can't survive long enough, no matter how good they are.

[TuggyNE]

Don't forget the poison.

Right, right. Either black lotus (contact on blade, DC 20 or probably die and certainly fail succeeding Fort saves!) or deathblade (probably won't debuff future saves, but still, DC 20 or take a fair chunk of Con).

Black lotus is so OP.

[DonDuckie]

Whee, topic explosion! :smallbiggrin:



Again, I find the inconsistency here puzzling; there's this really unnecessary separation you're making between "combat" and "non-combat", and it feels inelegant to me to say "well, OK, in combat if you fail a save against sleep and someone takes a full round to try to kill you, you follow such-and-such rules, but if they snuck up on you while you're in your sleeping bag, you just die". What, in character, actually makes the difference? Is there a big jarring "battle fade" when you start an encounter or something?
He uses CDG in combat only if there are still threats around, otherwise I consider the combat to be over. He uses CDG because he still needs to be aware.


Now, I could understand it if the rules were kind of lousy, but I actually think they do the job OK; it's not especially difficult to make an enemy that can genuinely threaten you by sneaking up with a knife (well, a heavy pick is probably a better assassination weapon, but eh), so houseruling in "sorry, knife falls, you die" quite frankly seems a bit lazy.
I agree, the rules are good, for combat. And that's not my style of play... I didn't make this to kill my players(I can do that well within the existing rules)... I wanted rules to handle assassination missions in a more story-based way - and less round by round stealth checks, and less combat rolls. Truth be told: I usually make a judgement call and a roll to determine the outcome... and I have no problem with (read: I prefer) players not being able to calculate the exact probability of succes before making a decision. It ties to another rule of mine: play your character (don't play the dice or rules or whatever else).
But if players want to use combat rules for these encounters... fine by me. Many GMs(those I know, not necessarily many) handle these encounters a little hand-wavey.



I did say "seem to", didn't I? I have no way of knowing what you do or do not know about, nor do I claim to; it just, well, "seemed" very counter-intuitive to me to slice out a perfectly functional rule, but only in certain circumstances; as such, it "seemed" most likely that you just didn't know about it, which is actually fairly common: hardly anyone really knows the rules well enough to never be surprised by odd corner cases, and there's no shame in discovering something like that.
You're right: You did... you don't... it may have... it may be... they don't... there isn't...

About the "try other systems" - I have, many are good. I like the options of 3/PF. And I play PF because I love the system... but I still make extra rules where (I find) the books are lacking. I have rules for the necessity of sleep, rules that prevent players from gaming the food&drink system, rules that allow low-levels to accomplish great feats at great cost(blood-magic, rituals, etc.), rules that say large purchases are payed by weighing the gold pieces - rather than counting them, and gold pieces are filed down, or worn, and things will cost more, and I have rules for overland travel with animals, and a rule that says finding food in a desert isn't a flat DC 10 Survival check... I like rules... and I hate when players(including me) know "the Way of the Multiverse", so I throw rules at them, not rocks. It's my meditation...

[Frozen_Feet]

A universe that works like that is necessary for Heroes to exist. It makes individual power much more of a thing, because you can train to the point where you are Just Better than other people. IRL, you can train your offensive capacity massively. But even the best trained special forces marine will die to one bullet from an attacker he didn't notice, or who just got lucky. And that means you can't get Heroes, because one person just can't survive long enough, no matter how good they are.

ORLY? (http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-*****.html)

Disclaimer: yes, Cracked exaggerates things, but people can and have survived injuries and done things that would appear implausible even in movies.

Also, at low levels, D&D is just as swingy as real life, and is so at high levels also when dealing with level-approriate challenges. John Doe the Commoner might not be a threat to level 6 Barbarian, but the Rogue 5 / Assassin 1 sure as hell is.

[supermonkeyjoe]

I think the whole sleeping character being stabbed in the throat= instant death is being looked at the wrong way around, at high levels you don't just get stabbed in the throat.

If it drops you to negative HP then sure, you have been stabbed in the throat, otherwise your eyes snap open at the last second and you stop the blade as it barely nicks your throat, you throw off the attacker, roll initiative (fort saved passed, take X amount of damage).

If you're level 20, crossbows don't worry you, even if you're caught flat footed it doesn't mean you just stand there like a chump as the bolt sticks in you and then you carry on regardless, it means 20 levels of instincts kick in at the last second and you manage to turn what would be a fatal shot for lesser characters into a glancing blow. If you get dropped into negatives by the attack somehow then yes, you have been shot standing there like a chump.

[Spuddles]

ORLY? (http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-*****.html)

Disclaimer: yes, Cracked exaggerates things, but people can and have survived injuries and done things that would appear implausible even in movies.

Also, at low levels, D&D is just as swingy as real life, and is so at high levels also when dealing with level-approriate challenges. John Doe the Commoner might not be a threat to level 6 Barbarian, but the Rogue 5 / Assassin 1 sure as hell is.

Heroes seem to be more common in D&D, and the Heroes can routinely jump out planes without a parachute and walk away from it with literally no hindrance at all to any of their capabilities.

Basically, HP inflation/abstraction leads to much, much higher levels of badassery in D&D than RL.

[LordHenry]

In a current campaign, the knife-to-throat situation is where we last made cut: And I have been wondering since then? How do I, as a DM, treat the situation? Are the players flat-footed? Should I give the attackers an advantage? Would it be reasonable to let them have readied an action for when somebody tries to break loose or casts a spell?
How would you handle the situation as a DM?

[Spuddles]

In a current campaign, the knife-to-throat situation is where we last made cut: And I have been wondering since then? How do I, as a DM, treat the situation? Are the players flat-footed? Should I give the attackers an advantage? Would it be reasonable to let them have readied an action for when somebody tries to break loose or casts a spell?
How would you handle the situation as a DM?

How did the player end up in a situation with a knife at their throat? Did someone walk up and draw the blade and the PC failed their spot checks?

[Frozen_Feet]

Sure it does. But the "people die when killed in real life" argument is really old and tired. People, in real life, occasionally do survive the kind of injuries that some people use as appeal to absurdity to mock the hitpoint system. So I really have to wonder why some people go to lenghts to assure that characters who are essentially superheroes remain threatened by mundane things.

[Spuddles]

Sure it does. But the "people die when killed in real life" argument is really old and tired. People, in real life, occasionally do survive the kind of injuries that some people use as appeal to absurdity to mock the hitpoint system. So I really have to wonder why some people go to lenghts to assure that characters who are essentially superheroes remain threatened by mundane things.

That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that due to the mechanics of the system, hero density and repeat badassness is much, much more common.

[TuggyNE]

He uses CDG in combat only if there are still threats around, otherwise I consider the combat to be over. He uses CDG because he still needs to be aware.

OK, OK, one more: who would use CDG (full round action, provokes AoOs, only works on helpless targets) if there are still viable threats around, unless the helpless condition is quite transient? :smallconfused:


John Doe the Commoner might not be a threat to level 6 Barbarian, but the Rogue 5 / Assassin 1 sure as hell is.

For that matter, I submit that a Rogue 5/Assassin 1 is at least potentially a threat even to a Barbarian 20. All it takes is a spear and a potion of bull's strength on a base of 10 Str, and the DC of ~43 is too high* 75% of the time, without any further effort.

*Assuming 30 Con and +5 resistance cloak.

[Raineh Daze]

For that matter, I submit that a Rogue 5/Assassin 1 is at least potentially a threat even to a Barbarian 20. All it takes is a spear and a potion of bull's strength on a base of 10 Str, and the DC of ~43 is too high* 75% of the time, without any further effort.

*Assuming 30 Con and +5 resistance cloak.

Why would anyone even be throwing a level 6 assassin at a level 20 barbarian? In universe, you're picking an accomplished hero likely known for nigh invulnerability and wrecking things; out of universe it's a giant screw you to send someone like that sneaking around. :smallannoyed:

There are games where assassination and wounds can be handled realistically. A game that is a fantasy melting pot with constantly escalating foes is really not one of them.

[Spuddles]

OK, OK, one more: who would use CDG (full round action, provokes AoOs, only works on helpless targets) if there are still viable threats around, unless the helpless condition is quite transient? :smallconfused

It's pretty easy to wake a sleeping creature up.

[PersonMan]

I think the whole sleeping character being stabbed in the throat= instant death is being looked at the wrong way around, at high levels you don't just get stabbed in the throat.

Again, it depends on what you see HP as. Some people, myself included, like to play up the "physical toughness" aspect over the "dodging at the last second" one.

If I have a character who I describe as not dodging or weaving, but just facetanking enemy attacks (especially with something like Con to AC to make even "missed" attacks just be something that hit them and was ignored), then the assassin can surely stab her in the throat while she sleeps. It'll probably wake her up.

If I have a character who gets by on insane luck and amazing reflexes, always only getting nicked by their opponents (ignoring the "how does Cure Light Wounds heal your ability to dodge?" and the subsequent explaining) and never really taking a big hit (unless they plunge into the negatives), then an attempt by an assassin to stab him in the throat will be a near miss as he rolls to the side, waking up as the dagger grazes his neck.

[TuggyNE]

Why would anyone even be throwing a level 6 assassin at a level 20 barbarian? In universe, you're picking an accomplished hero likely known for nigh invulnerability and wrecking things; out of universe it's a giant screw you to send someone like that sneaking around. :smallannoyed:

No one should be! But, if someone feels the urge to make a Barbarian 20 vulnerable to a weak lowbie, here's how the rules say to do it. It's basically trivial, and doesn't need any houseruling.

(Well, as trivial as can be after you set up the complicated conditions for "I can totally cut his throat now!", at least.)

[DonDuckie]

OK, OK, one more: who would use CDG (full round action, provokes AoOs, only works on helpless targets) if there are still viable threats around, unless the helpless condition is quite transient? :smallconfused:
Now you are debating whether CDG is a good tactic, this discussion is(at least to me) whether the rules are good. I say the rules are good. But out of combat, you just kill the helpless dude... there's no point in rolling damage and save, when failure means you just repeat the process...

Is CDG an acceptable tactic? sometimes, you even mention one of those times... and I can probably come up with a few more, if I try.

[PersonMan]

Now you are debating whether CDG is a good tactic, this discussion is(at least to me) whether the rules are good. I say the rules are good. But out of combat, you just kill the helpless dude... there's no point in rolling damage and save, when failure means you just repeat the process...

I think getting stabbed in the neck is a legit reason to wake up.

[DonDuckie]

I think getting stabbed in the neck is a legit reason to wake up.

This feels like one of those gotcha moments, but I'm not sure I quite get it... Are you saying that my prefered style of play and (headline) houserules aren't all-encompassing? :smallsmile: I kinda knew that...

[Bogardan_Mage]

This feels like one of those gotcha moments, but I'm not sure I quite get it... Are you saying that my prefered style of play and (headline) houserules aren't all-encompassing? :smallsmile: I kinda knew that...
I think the recurring theme is that the standard rules are all-encompassing, or at least that they encompass precisely that which you have houseruled. Whether this concerns you or not is another matter, although there are several reasons why it might.

[DonDuckie]

I think the recurring theme is that the standard rules are all-encompassing, or at least that they encompass precisely that which you have houseruled. Whether this concerns you or not is another matter, although there are several reasons why it might.underline; mine...

I disagree.

[PersonMan]

This feels like one of those gotcha moments, but I'm not sure I quite get it... Are you saying that my prefered style of play and (headline) houserules aren't all-encompassing? :smallsmile: I kinda knew that...

It was a semi-humorous comment aimed at the "if you fail, you just try again" aspect of why you don't use CdG out of combat. The point was: if the target is asleep, then the result of a failed one-shot kill isn't that you just try again, because they'd wake up.

[Bogardan_Mage]

underline; mine...

I disagree.
I'd love to know why. In this context it seems pretty clear, there is no arbitrary distinction between combat and not combat and there are reasonably consistent guidelines for almost everything the players will want to do. If that doesn't suit you then that's fine, but the argument against you is that the rules which are integrated with all other aspects of the game already accomplish exactly what your houserules accomplish.

[Phelix-Mu]

It was a semi-humorous comment aimed at the "if you fail, you just try again" aspect of why you don't use CdG out of combat. The point was: if the target is asleep, then the result of a failed one-shot kill isn't that you just try again, because they'd wake up.

Well, with the realism thing, this does strain it a bit. Acceptable given the nature of the game, but it is weird.

I mean, doesn't this make it hard for Johnny the Commoner to be strangled in his sleep by his neighbor Eddy? Or even if Strength 10 guy with a knife takes six seconds to stab his bunkmate, the save isn't that high. I guess this reflects lack of expertise, and after the stab the commoner is certain to be in the negatives.

Hmm. Always double-tap, kids. And always confirm your kills.

P.S.- I guess strangling is more a matter of holding breath and such, which you can't do while you're sleeping.:smallamused:

[DonDuckie]

I'd love to know why. In this context it seems pretty clear, there is no arbitrary distinction between combat and not combat and there are reasonably consistent guidelines for almost everything the players will want to do. If that doesn't suit you then that's fine, but the argument against you is that the rules which are integrated with all other aspects of the game already accomplish exactly what your houserules accomplish.

I like the rules, and for combat encounters, they are King. But outside of combat, there are more options, and those options are largely based on speechbased adventuring, with less dice rolls.

What I use my house rule(level 1st or level 20th; a human is still very mortal) for is having my players think about their characters' actions(rather than: "this village can't stand against me, because I'm level 16"), and explain why every wizard 20th isn't a god. Is it perfect? No. Do I like it? Yes. It also helps to keep player and character knowledge seperate.

But if players want to go round by round moving at half speed making stealth checks or attempt the bull rushes it takes to move through a more or less panicked crowd(with more than one creature per 5ft square), I'll probably roll with it, but the DCs would still be (somewhat) handwaved. The rules are a simplification made for encounter-style battles.
So I just prefer asking "you're the only active player, what do you wish to accomplish?", and then make fewer checks to accomplish this with good storytelling.

The distinction between combat and non-combat isn't that hard if you're not trying to game the system. If you are in combat, combat rules apply: you charge, delay, feint and so on... if you are not, then tell in in-game terms what you wish to accomplish.
If you are in combat and want to devote everything to killing a helpless creature, then I might consider you to be out-of-combat and an aimed crossbow bolt through the eye may be fatal(or just cost you the eye), but you will most likely succeed in your task.

It's not meant to be a mathematical function where the same actions always produce the same outcomes with the same probabilities. And it's not made to stand against people trying to abuse it.

[PersonMan]

It also helps to keep player and character knowledge seperate.

How so? I can't see how it would do so, myself.

[DonDuckie]

How so? I can't see how it would do so, myself.

You're right, that was a remnant from something else, which had no baring on this discussion and was removed before posting.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I like the rules, and for combat encounters, they are King. But outside of combat, there are more options, and those options are largely based on speechbased adventuring, with less dice rolls.

What I use my house rule(level 1st or level 20th; a human is still very mortal) for is having my players think about their characters' actions(rather than: "this village can't stand against me, because I'm level 16"), and explain why every wizard 20th isn't a god. Is it perfect? No. Do I like it? Yes. It also helps to keep player and character knowledge seperate.
That's great, but I didn't ask if it was perfect or whether you liked it. I asked if it accomplished anything the standard rules couldn't already. I'm not convinced that it does. Especially if you believe that 20th level characters ought to be no less mortal than 1st level characters, why not just make would be threats a higher level (or as someone suggested, go E6)? Again, it's fine if it works for you, but I just don't understand what flaw you're trying to fix.

[SiuiS]

Mine only apply to 2e, unfortunately.

A DM I knew decided he wanted his games to e more epic, so attributes were decides funny; you rolled percentile, and below 80% your stats were 1d10+9, above 80% they were 1d12+10. Never foun out what exactly rolling 80% would do...

But the DM decided the PCs weren't threatened enough because they were all level 15 fighter/cleric/rogue/magic users, so he house rules that A) demihumans couldn't dual class and B) you stopped getting hit dice after around level 10 or so.

He also do stuff like impose drastic penaties to saves if you dealt with anything above weak sauce level, up to -10, and you Tolle saves and skills on 2d12 so there was still a chance to fail... Despite save failing on a 4 or lower automatically.

Lots o cascading house rules to fix things made by that one decision to make everyone 'epic' and to patch holes in the rules that weren't holes... Still, fun game as far as it went.


I understand the reasoning behind that. I've seen things where say, a Rogue gets a drop on someone with a knife, has it pointed at the guy's back, ready to plunge into his lung, and says "Don't move or I'll kill you!"

And the high level guy just goes, "Pssh, hell do I care, what, you'll do 1d4+1d6?"

Or blatantly ignoring things that logically should be threats like the 5 guys that have crossbows drawn and aimed at him from a close distance (But not adjacent), and have for a good minute because he's thinking "I have 45 HP, they do 1d8 each, if they hit. Pssh, they might take out half my HP, but then I slaughter them all!"

It's just a weird bit of DnD that's always existed. Almost ever edition has had some unofficial rule, alternate rule, etc, to deal with it. But sometimes the Coup de Grace doesn't quite apply but a similar effect should be in play. Like the mass of aimed, readied crossbows.

There are keys to fix this.
1) the begin full-round action rules. The rogue readies his action to Begin Full Round Action if the fighter resists. If te fighter does resist, the rogue gets a surprise round type action, and starts a CDG. They both roll initiative, and if the fighter fails...

This is a house rule though, because no amount of common sense applies. The only way to make an enemy helpless is to completely bind them, knock them out, or grapple them – and grappling only works if you're not grappling them, too.

2) barrage. It's not much, but enough crossbows will ruin anyone's day, because the target AC is 15. Fill a square with enough arrows, anyone will bleed. And storing guard quarrels in a chamber pot is free poison for all the peoples! Or disease. Whichever.


As a new DM I have even encountered problems with this. Just because the tank has 100 some LP and a 25 ac doesn't mean the assassin standing behind him unnoticed with a knife to his throat can't kill him instantly. This is where role playing heavily comes into play. Like for example if the threatened player were to say to me "I quickly bat his hand aside taking a small cut to my throat and finish him off with my axe" then my parties cleric or anyone with an ability to heal could mend his wounds. Role Playing really helps with that situation. In my first ever mission I was level 1 and had never ever EVER (get the point?) played before, sneaked up behind a veteran player friend of mine his dwarf was level 13 and I was a level 1 Tiefling assassin (well soon to be assassin I was still a rouge back then) and I stuck my sword into his back and the other pressed to his throat and I told him if he dared move I would part his head from his body! My friend just looked at our DM and he was grinning and said I would suggest you seriously don't move :smalltongue: So it pays to play out your role regardless of level :smallsmile:

Aye.

Assassins are pretty solid for assassinating, by the way. The DC is somewhat low, but save or die in melee is pretty cool.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, especially in regards to critical failures. The Player's Handbook states that a natural 1 on an attack roll is an automatic failure, and so is a natural 1 on a saving throw.

Critical failure in attack is "you miss, and throw your swor into your ally for 4d12 damage" which is ridiculous.


When people say "Having your throat slit kills you," I don't think they're talking about what happens when a level 5 rogue with a specific and unusual weapon hits a sleeping character. I think they're talking about what happens when Joe the commoner sticks his dagger into a sleeping character's neck. Between maybe 5 damage and a DC 15 Fort save, that's not quite an insta-kill against a fighter with +25 Fort.

Should be a DC 20 save, actually, on account of CDG being an automatic critical. Though really, any commoner worth his salt will bring the tools of his trade. Te mason's likely to bring a hammer and chisel, and that's closest to being a horseman's pick...


Depends on whether you think five people with crossbows "logically should be a threat" to someone who's survived being clawed by a dragon and then falling 100 feet into lava.

If you survive being clawed by a dragon (d4 minimum) and then falling 100 (10d6) onto liquid-esque superheated basalt (2d6 if you're lucky, save versus fire) then I'll be impressed. The minimum is 13 damage, sure, but the average is 39 plus you're on fire and can't stop/drop/roll because that boosts the 2d6 to 20d6.

You've only got 45 hit points, Example McFighty! Be careful out there!


Well, with the realism thing, this does strain it a bit. Acceptable given the nature of the game, but it is weird.

I mean, doesn't this make it hard for Johnny the Commoner to be strangled in his sleep by his neighbor Eddy? Or even if Strength 10 guy with a knife takes six seconds to stab his bunkmate, the save isn't that high. I guess this reflects lack of expertise, and after the stab the commoner is certain to be in the negatives.

This is how those house rules that aren't needed get born. :smallbiggrin:

You try to strangle your neighbor in his sleep, he can't hold his breath, begins "drowning" and immediately passes out at 0 hp. I see you caught that, but it should be pretty quick if it involves breathing go bye bye.

Even better? Hope DM uses Stormwrack because otherwise, there are no rules for stopping someone from dying of asphyxiation once they start. You poke someone in the neck, it's a magic, unstoppable 3 round trip to the afterlife.

[DonDuckie]

That's great, but I didn't ask if it was perfect or whether you liked it. I asked if it accomplished anything the standard rules couldn't already. I'm not convinced that it does. Especially if you believe that 20th level characters ought to be no less mortal than 1st level characters, why not just make would be threats a higher level (or as someone suggested, go E6)? Again, it's fine if it works for you, but I just don't understand what flaw you're trying to fix.

E6 doesn't have 9th level spells, I like those.

I never said "no less mortal". I said they are both VERY mortal. Not the same as equally mortal. (and if I did in another post, I'm sure it will pop up soon in a quote:smallbiggrin:)

As the system is by RAW(and RAI), the luckiest knife(not dagger) wielding commoner 2nd can't kill a sleeping gear-less fighter 20th. And by allowing for that to happen, I hope my players become more paranoid.

[ahenobarbi]

E6 doesn't have 9th level spells, I like those.

I never said "no less mortal". I said they are both VERY mortal. Not the same as equally mortal. (and if I did in another post, I'm sure it will pop up soon in a quote:smallbiggrin:)

As the system is by RAW(and RAI), the luckiest knife(not dagger) wielding commoner 2nd can't kill a sleeping gear-less fighter 20th. And by allowing for that to happen, I hope my players become more paranoid.

As pointed out the commoner can kill the fighter (unless the fighter is undead, construct or something like that). Coup de Grace followed by failed save from the fighter.

Not likely? True. But somewhat realistic. Because you know what - it's commoner 2 with a poor tool for the job. Maybe the commoer thought he (she? it?) is cutting right through fighters artery... to bad he doens't know anatomy and he tried to cut his tendon.

[Snails]

It sounds to me that some people neither understand* the rules of CdG in game nor understand the rules of Real Life out of game. That does not seem like a strong foundation on which to build an argument for a houserule.

Sleeping victims occasionally survive assassinations attempts. IIRC Saladin survived more than one such attack, by the original Hassassins (tm). We live in an "E3"-ish world. E3-based common sense will be misleading for heroic games. If a level 10 hero is not challenging your common sense, to some degree, that would be a Bad Thing.

* By "understand", I do not mean "is aware of the text of the rule". I mean has any useful intuition for the probabilities of various results of the rules under common conditions, and how those rules scale.

[ArcturusV]

*shrug* It's all up to Plot stuff. I mean we can say things like "Well come on, this guy survived wrestling dragons into submission and going toe to toe with rabid vampire demon dogs from the Abyss!" and such. And that's true. But we can also look at the sort of stuff that DnD is inspired by. There's lots of heroes and lore out there where your kick ass, invincible warrior is pretty much killed/crippled for life by someone who by DnD stats probably would be a level 1 Commoner, or Aristocrat, or maybe Expert. Just part of the dramatic twists of fate.

Often tied into the removal of the Hero's Pants, and thus all awareness from their minds. But not always.

I think the only sort of house rule I commonly (rarely, but it's come up in different campaigns) I've used is basically for Human Shields. Not that I'm aware of any official rules for it. I think there was a magical armor in Book of Vile Darkness which kinda had that theme going on. Where if you were damaged you could instantly heal by draining life from a victim who was chained and leashed to your armor.

But for the sake of drama and interest I started adopting rules for "Okay, the bad guy just grabbed a hostage and is using them as an Improvised Tower Shield". Usually going with 20% miss chance if the bad guy is moving at full speed. Anything that misses due to the miss chance hits the hostage. If moving at half speed or less, gets the effects of Total Cover, any and all misses due to AC or Miss Chance hits the hostage.

Which has been a way at low levels for some of my recurring villains to escape from situations. Also been a reason why a Paladin fell in my games, as her player said "Screw this! I stab THROUGH the hostage to hit him!"

If there is rules for doing this out there, I don't know of it. I know there are rules for providing AC bumps if someone is sharing your square/in the line of effect. But that's more just for general melee confusion and the like rather than purposefully being used as a shield.

[Phelix-Mu]

It sounds to me that some people neither understand* the rules of CdG in game nor understand the rules of Real Life out of game. That does not seem like a strong foundation on which to build an argument for a houserule.

Sleeping victims occasionally survive assassinations attempts. IIRC Saladin survived more than one such attack, by the original Hassassins (tm). We live in an "E3"-ish world. E3-based common sense will be misleading for heroic games. If a level 10 hero is not challenging your common sense, to some degree, that would be a Bad Thing.

* By "understand", I do not mean "is aware of the text of the rule". I mean has any useful intuition for the probabilities of various results of the rules under common conditions, and how those rules scale.

I don't mind it if the heroes do occasionally survive even competent assassination attempts. The only problem that I have is if the rule is extrapolated to everyone, then sometimes weird stuff becomes apparent. It seems to work pretty well in this case. Yay!:smallamused:

Basically, I only worry about the impression being spread that x or y doesn't look dangerous, let's do it. But I generally agree with everyone's heroism comments. Not sure I agree on the real world anecdotes as suitable evidence, since statistical survival is not based on anecdotes, but numbers. Some people do survive getting ganked. But many thousands don't.

It's all pretty academic, really. As I mentioned before, for some reason, no one in my campaigns ever really ends up using CdG rules. I just ran into them recently with a campaign I'm a player in.

[Starbuck_II]

Again, I find the inconsistency here puzzling; there's this really unnecessary separation you're making between "combat" and "non-combat", and it feels inelegant to me to say "well, OK, in combat if you fail a save against sleep and someone takes a full round to try to kill you, you follow such-and-such rules, but if they snuck up on you while you're in your sleeping bag, you just die". What, in character, actually makes the difference? Is there a big jarring "battle fade" when you start an encounter or something?


Cut Scene power?
Played ff7? Well, in a cut scene a single sword strike can kill Aeris/Aerith, but in combat she is too high level for that to work.

Counter examples:
Rasputin survived multiple assassination attempts.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Cut Scene power?
Played ff7? Well, in a cut scene a single sword strike can kill Aeris/Aerith, but in combat she is too high level for that to work.

Aeris had decided she needed to die at that point and blatantly refused to defend herself. Sephiroth CDG her and she refused to pass the save.


Counter examples:
Rasputin survived multiple assassination attempts.
That probably never happened. There are a TON of good real life examples though. A man chokes a bear to unconsciousness with his teeth, then beats it to death, a little girl picks up a riding lawn mower, and those are just to name a few.

[Snails]

Basically, I only worry about the impression being spread that x or y doesn't look dangerous, let's do it.

I think that is the key point: Are you, the DM, offering a coherent picture of danger?

The default rules are far from perfect, but they are fairly coherent and understandable.

Throwing in house rules for the sake of "paranoia" does not seem like a plus to me. Fear that my 20th level Barbarian might get ganked by an 11th level Rogue might be sensible for a particular campaign. But "Watch out for those Commoner1's! Heh heh heh!" is not a good thing. It seems like an effort to put players in their place. That is more likely to go wrong than right IME; rather than instill useful caution, players perceive that failure to read the DM's mind from vague hints will result in arbitrary PC death.

[3WhiteFox3]

Basically, I only worry about the impression being spread that x or y doesn't look dangerous, let's do it. But I generally agree with everyone's heroism comments. Not sure I agree on the real world anecdotes as suitable evidence, since statistical survival is not based on anecdotes, but numbers. Some people do survive getting ganked. But many thousands don't.

Emphasis mine. That's true, except the D&D is essentially a game based on the anecdotes of the exceptional. They are exceptions to the normal rule; yes, thousands die when ganked. However, in D&D you aren't playing one of those thousands.

You are playing one of the survivors, the outliers, those who don't fit into the normal statistical analysis. Was Odysseus an average joe who would get ganked in his sleep? What about Frodo? Harry Potter? Conan? All of those had various attempts on their life from things much greater than a mundane assassin and didn't die. In fact they did much more than simply survive. Those are the types of people who get past level 3 in D&D.

[Starbuck_II]

Aeris had decided she needed to die at that point and blatantly refused to defend herself. Sephiroth CDG her and she refused to pass the save.


That probably never happened. There are a TON of good real life examples though. A man chokes a bear to unconsciousness with his teeth, then beats it to death, a little girl picks up a riding lawn mower, and those are just to name a few.

Rasputin disagrees:
http://www.oddee.com/item_96861.aspx

"
The first attempt on Rasputin's life failed; on June 29, 1914, after either just receiving a telegram or exiting church, he was attacked suddenly by Khionia Guseva, a former prostitute. The woman thrust a knife into Rasputin's abdomen, and his entrails hung out of what seemed like a mortal wound. Convinced of her success, Guseva supposedly screamed, "I have killed the antichrist!". After intensive surgery, however, Rasputin recovered.
"
Heck Fidel Castro: survived 638 assassination attempts and counting.

[Phelix-Mu]

Emphasis mine. That's true, except the D&D is essentially a game based on the anecdotes of the exceptional. They are exceptions to the normal rule; yes, thousands die when ganked. However, in D&D you aren't playing one of those thousands.

You are playing one of the survivors, the outliers, those who don't fit into the normal statistical analysis. Was Odysseus an average joe who would get ganked in his sleep? What about Frodo? Harry Potter? Conan? All of those had various attempts on their life from things much greater than a mundane assassin and didn't die. In fact they did much more than simply survive. Those are the types of people who get past level 3 in D&D.

I agree with all of this.

The only issue that I see is that it affects in-game character psychology more than I think a mechanic should.

Real-life base assumption: People with knives are dangerous.

Suitable (IMO) in-game assumption: Some people with knives are dangerous.

What the rules might lead a player to have their higher-level character assume: Less than 1% of the people that draw a knife on my character will be dangerous. (As per the percentage of the populace with significant enough class levels.)

If it wasn't dangerous, why am I as DM doing it? Yes, occasionally the bereft widow will grab a knife and attempt to murder the sleeping barbarian that snapped her husband's neck in the bar fight. And yes, a barbarian should be guaranteed to survive (or virtually so).

But a great portion of the time, it won't be a widow. It will be some level-appropriate person that just looks innocuous.

Moreover, caution is at least as realistic a result of assassination attempts as overconfidence.

Few people are gravely injured while helpless and think "man, now I can survive anything." If in game it's different SOME OF THE TIME, fine. I just don't want it to be seem that for some reason, the player character isn't going to get killed by ganking, so ignore that guy with the knife.

But I skew paranoid, so take all of this with a grain of salt.:smalltongue: Heroic characters should be heroic. I'm not suggesting any houserule. I am just suggesting that players avoid having their characters metagame off of knowing how the CdG mechanic works, or underestimate my intent to challenge them in unexpected ways.

[Raineh Daze]

Have I mentioned that I find the ability of a sixth level assassin to successfully kill a 20th level anything in its sleep at a minimum 3/4 of the time fairly ludicrous? Here we have this nigh-epic adventurer that has seen and fought many things, and may possibly have suffered enough damage to flatten a building.

Yet one guy with some anatomical knowledge and poison will be able to kill them in one hit? Eh. You don't get to 20th level if you'll die like that.

[dascarletm]

Have I mentioned that I find the ability of a sixth level assassin to successfully kill a 20th level anything in its sleep at a minimum 3/4 of the time fairly ludicrous? Here we have this nigh-epic adventurer that has seen and fought many things, and may possibly have suffered enough damage to flatten a building.

Yet one guy with some anatomical knowledge and poison will be able to kill them in one hit? Eh. You don't get to 20th level if you'll die like that.

Character's fault for just sleeping apparently with no allies around him, or anything to protect him.

Move silent check average of a 6th level: 10+4+9=23
Listen for sleeping 20th if listen is pumped=10+23+3-10=26
if listen is middle-road=10-10+3+11=14
if listen is 0 ranks=-7

[Phelix-Mu]

Have I mentioned that I find the ability of a sixth level assassin to successfully kill a 20th level anything in its sleep at a minimum 3/4 of the time fairly ludicrous? Here we have this nigh-epic adventurer that has seen and fought many things, and may possibly have suffered enough damage to flatten a building.

Yet one guy with some anatomical knowledge and poison will be able to kill them in one hit? Eh. You don't get to 20th level if you'll die like that.

20th level people still sleep?:smalltongue:

[ZamielVanWeber]

20th level people still sleep?:smalltongue:

On any plane of existence anyone has heard of? Stupid rope trick.

[Raineh Daze]

Character's fault for just sleeping apparently with no allies around him, or anything to protect him.

Move silent check average of a 6th level: 10+4+9=23
Listen for sleeping 20th if listen is pumped=10+23+3-10=26
if listen is middle-road=10-10+3+11=14
if listen is 0 ranks=-7

Aside from the numbers here making minimal sense (no ranks in listen, with a -10 penalty, equals an average result of... -7 rather than 0-1?) I have to say: if I was a 20th level barbarian, and therefore amongst the hardest to kill people on the planet, I don't think that just going to sleep in my own home should require obsessive paranoia.

[TuggyNE]

Now you are debating whether CDG is a good tactic, this discussion is(at least to me) whether the rules are good. I say the rules are good. But out of combat, you just kill the helpless dude... there's no point in rolling damage and save, when failure means you just repeat the process...

Is CDG an acceptable tactic? sometimes, you even mention one of those times... and I can probably come up with a few more, if I try.

Of course it's an acceptable tactic. However, it's in the rules not just so that hold person and sleep have a convenient thing to help them do effective damage, but also for any number of other situations. For example, when the target is sleeping normally, or tied up, or whatever.

What I was trying to get at is that you're artificially limiting the situations in which it's applicable, and as it happens, limiting it to those situations when it's actually less useful than it could be. And then, to fill the gap left by this artificial limitation, putting in an extra houserule to satisfy an urge for lethality that can be reasonably approximated by the standard rules, or more thoroughly and consistently implemented by any of a number of variants.

Basically, extra rules, less elegance, less consistency, less immersion. *shrug*


It sounds to me that some people neither understand* the rules of CdG in game nor understand the rules of Real Life out of game. That does not seem like a strong foundation on which to build an argument for a houserule.
[…]
* By "understand", I do not mean "is aware of the text of the rule". I mean has any useful intuition for the probabilities of various results of the rules under common conditions, and how those rules scale.

Yeah, I think that's more accurate to what I meant than "doesn't know about".


Cut Scene power?
Played ff7? Well, in a cut scene a single sword strike can kill Aeris/Aerith, but in combat she is too high level for that to work.

HRNG. Excuse me for a minute while I go throw up in my mouth.

OK, that's better. I absolutely hate cutscenes, for reasons which should be fairly apparent by this time. But I guess some people like them? It's a matter of taste in the end, but the discontinuity is just too much for me.


1 Anyhoo, I think I've adequately explained my viewpoint on that, so here's another one, this time from my very own homebrew: I built rules for volley shots, not knowing about the ones in Heroes of Battle. :smallredface:

[Coidzor]

If it wasn't dangerous, why am I as DM doing it? Yes, occasionally the bereft widow will grab a knife and attempt to murder the sleeping barbarian that snapped her husband's neck in the bar fight. And yes, a barbarian should be guaranteed to survive (or virtually so).


Good question. Why are you throwing red herrings at your players in the first place that this all got started?

[Bogardan_Mage]

E6 doesn't have 9th level spells, I like those.

I never said "no less mortal". I said they are both VERY mortal. Not the same as equally mortal. (and if I did in another post, I'm sure it will pop up soon in a quote:smallbiggrin:)

As the system is by RAW(and RAI), the luckiest knife(not dagger) wielding commoner 2nd can't kill a sleeping gear-less fighter 20th. And by allowing for that to happen, I hope my players become more paranoid.
If a 20th level fighter is less mortal than a 1st level fighter then why should the commoner have equal ability to kill either of them? That's why I thought you were arguing for equally mortal. If it's a matter of combat readiness, then the rules take that into account too with things like Armor Class and tactics. Basically my issue is that by adopting this D&D/freeform hybrid you've created a situation where the mortality of characters is not consistent, especially as you've said that there are circumstances when a character can be judged not to be "in combat" when there is in fact combat going on all around them. It just seems a very inelegant solution to a problem that arguably doesn't even exist (as others have pointed out, the commoner can in fact kill the fighter so it seems the initial claim leveled against you, that you aren't fully aware of the relevant rules, is correct).

[icefractal]

Or blatantly ignoring things that logically should be threats like the 5 guys that have crossbows drawn and aimed at him from a close distance (But not adjacent), and have for a good minute because he's thinking "I have 45 HP, they do 1d8 each, if they hit. Pssh, they might take out half my HP, but then I slaughter them all!"Should they really be a threat though? If five guys with crossbows = dead, then forget about taking on the skeleton army of the evil lich king! Sorry guys, we're going to flee with the rest of you - hope slaying the stragglers delays the horde long enough for some people to escape.

Confront the dragon that's menacing the town? Hell no. The way you deal with dragons is to put out a bunch of alcohol soaked meat, hide in a trench, and hope they get drunk enough from eating it that you can pop out and stab their gut, then run away while they bleed out. Walking up and demanding it stop its evil ways means you get bitten in half.

Essentially, saying that a few people with average skills should be a serious threat is inconsistent with saying that armies of the undead, animated statues the size of houses, dragons, acid-spitting demons - lets just say about 3/4 of the Monster Manual - are something that you have a chance in hell of defeating.

Sure, there's media that jumps into that inconsistency with both feet. There's a lot of media that's sloppy in other ways as well. I'm with tuggyn here - "cutscene logic" is something that I barely tolerate in videogames (sometimes don't, in fact) - it has no excuse raising its ugly head in an RPG.

[DonDuckie]

If a 20th level fighter is less mortal than a 1st level fighter then why should the commoner have equal ability to kill either of them? That's why I thought you were arguing for equally mortal. If it's a matter of combat readiness, then the rules take that into account too with things like Armor Class and tactics. Basically my issue is that by adopting this D&D/freeform hybrid you've created a situation where the mortality of characters is not consistent, especially as you've said that there are circumstances when a character can be judged not to be "in combat" when there is in fact combat going on all around them. It just seems a very inelegant solution to a problem that arguably doesn't even exist (as others have pointed out, the commoner can in fact kill the fighter so it seems the initial claim leveled against you, that you aren't fully aware of the relevant rules, is correct).

This convinced me. I'm dropping the rule.

[TuggyNE]

This convinced me. I'm dropping the rule.

*shakes hand* Sir*, admitting to changing one's mind is quite a tricky thing. I commend you. :smallsmile:


*Well, or madam, but I assume….

[DonDuckie]

Ah, well, a situation where the houserule applies hasn't come up yet...

So; How do you guys handle stealth and infiltration? 10 stealth checks per 300 ft or ???
or do you make them roll, when there are guards around?

[TuggyNE]

So; How do you guys handle stealth and infiltration? 10 stealth checks per 300 ft or ???
or do you make them roll, when there are guards around?

Well, they're opposed rolls, so probably the latter? *shrug*

[ArcturusV]

Not counting some "fake" rolls just to keep players from getting cocky.

[Phelix-Mu]

Good question. Why are you throwing red herrings at your players in the first place that this all got started?

Actually, this hardly applies in my games. I usually just straight up kill pcs in combat. Thus, the players know that I'm trying to kill them, and thus are suitably out-of-game suspicious, and this carries over into their character's psychology. Sometimes they do play idiot characters that don't care about their safety, and I don't mind that; it's an intentional role playing conceit. I just don't want a mechanic to make a person think "x or y can't kill me," because it's probably not actually x or y. Bad guys using deception to seem harmless is pretty standard fare, but likewise, even weak enemies will be motivated by vendettas and attempt stupid, cowardly attacks on the party.

I'm really not sure why sleep and hold monster never get used in our games in situations that lead to CdG. Two of the people that play offensive spellcasters tend to favor blasters, so I guess it often just isn't a tactic in their bag of tricks. My players, being suitably paranoid, post guards, use countermeasures, and make sure to have a scout type person/critter (with pumped perception) in the party that can wake everyone up in case of night-time ambush.

I guess part of the issue is a change in tone from 2e to 3e. Back then, dying sucked much harder, and often was much easier to accomplish. Very powerful parties were still very powerful, but it all seems much worse in 3e.

[ahenobarbi]

Ah, well, a situation where the houserule applies hasn't come up yet...

So; How do you guys handle stealth and infiltration? 10 stealth checks per 300 ft or ???
or do you make them roll, when there are guards around?
In my group PCs usually take 10 in situations that would require a lot of rolling ( hiding, moving silently, searching for traps, ...).


Sometimes we decide to roll (like after Rogue found 3 traps the hard way he guessed DC for too high to beat while taking 10). Then DM makes behind-screen roll when we start doing something and uses it first time it matters (or not at all if the situation won't come up).

[Coidzor]

Actually, this hardly applies in my games. I usually just straight up kill pcs in combat. Thus, the players know that I'm trying to kill them, and thus are suitably out-of-game suspicious, and this carries over into their character's psychology. Sometimes they do play idiot characters that don't care about their safety, and I don't mind that; it's an intentional role playing conceit. I just don't want a mechanic to make a person think "x or y can't kill me," because it's probably not actually x or y. Bad guys using deception to seem harmless is pretty standard fare, but likewise, even weak enemies will be motivated by vendettas and attempt stupid, cowardly attacks on the party.

Why would enemies powerful enough to take out the PCs with a single standard action waste time on a pitifiul deception when scry and die is so much more satisfying? :smalltongue:

Weak enemies are irrelevant non-challenges that really should be limited in how they're used rather than touted as a huge big deal in an internet debate.

[Heliomance]

Sure it does. But the "people die when killed in real life" argument is really old and tired. People, in real life, occasionally do survive the kind of injuries that some people use as appeal to absurdity to mock the hitpoint system. So I really have to wonder why some people go to lenghts to assure that characters who are essentially superheroes remain threatened by mundane things.
That's not the argument I was making, though. I wasn't saying "people die when they're killed in real life, so they should die whenthey're killed in D&D". I was saying "people die when they're killed in real life, which makes it very hard to get Heroes. The fact that this is different in D&D is what makes the entire concept of adventurers possible." Yes, people IRL have survived some pretty impressive things. But those have all been flukes, not something that they can rely on every time like D&D characters can. No RL human, no matter how good, could go up against an army single handed and win. A high level D&D character can.


Cut Scene power?
Played ff7? Well, in a cut scene a single sword strike can kill Aeris/Aerith, but in combat she is too high level for that to work.

Nah, Sephiroth didn't kill Aeris. That sword didn't go through anything that would be immediately fatal. He severed her spinal cord, paralysing her, and messed up her liver and intestines but good, but that takes a while to kill, and she probably could have been saved with immediate surgery. The shock and pain made her pass out, then Cloud went and dunked her in the pool, drowning her. Cloud killed her, not Sephiroth.

[ksbsnowowl]

It's actually interesting to think about the logical consequences of a world where human defensive capacity outpaces human offensive capacity to the same extent as it does in D&D. IRL, a single stab, gunshot, whatever, can and probably will [kill] you.
Minor nitpick - an effective coup de grace, sure (and I know that's what we are debating; the person who puts a gun to the back of your head sort of thing), but gunshot wounds in combat usually won't stop an attacker until a LONG TIME after you need him to stop.

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/


Again, Gamins [the cop] shot dry and reloaded.

“I thought I was hitting him, but with shots going through his clothing it was hard to tell for sure. This much was certain: he kept moving and kept shooting, trying his damnedest to kill me.”

In this free-for-all, the assailant had, in fact, been struck 14 times. Any one of six of these wounds — in the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney — could have produced fatal consequences…“in time,” Gramins emphasizes.
...
When the suspect bent down to peer under the car, Gramins carefully established a sight picture, and squeezed off three controlled bursts in rapid succession.

Each round slammed into the suspect’s head
...
The whole shootout had lasted 56 seconds, Gramins said. The assailant had fired 21 rounds from his two handguns. ...
Gramins had discharged 33 rounds. Four remained in his magazine.
...
Remarkably, the gunman was still showing vital signs when EMS arrived. Sheer determination, it seemed, kept him going, for no evidence of drugs or alcohol was found in his system.
...
They shared an ER bay with only a curtain between them as medical personnel fought unsuccessfully to save the robber’s life.

At one point Gramins heard a doctor exclaim, “We may as well stop. Every bag of blood we give him ends up on the floor. This guy’s like Swiss cheese. Why’d that cop have to shoot him so many times!”

Gramins thought, “He just tried to kill me! Where’s that part of it?”

[tyckspoon]

Nah, Sephiroth didn't kill Aeris. That sword didn't go through anything that would be immediately fatal. He severed her spinal cord, paralysing her, and messed up her liver and intestines but good, but that takes a while to kill, and she probably could have been saved with immediate surgery. The shock and pain made her pass out, then Cloud went and dunked her in the pool, drowning her. Cloud killed her, not Sephiroth.

Immediate surgery provided by which accessible surgeon using which nearby equipped operating room, exactly? Even if you grant that Aeris wasn't actually dead when Sephiroth stabbed her, the event happened in a remote location that was only reachable by hiking there through at least 2 rugged and hostile areas. It's not like they could get a medevac copter out there.. if Aeris's injuries were beyond the capacity of potions/Cure spells/Phoenix Downs, there wasn't any practical way to save her anyway.

[JadePhoenix]

It all comes down to high level D&D characters being superheroes. Well, that's just how D&D goes, guys. If you don't like that, there are plenty of other systems out there.
Or you could just stick to the lower levels.

[Heliomance]

Immediate surgery provided by which accessible surgeon using which nearby equipped operating room, exactly? Even if you grant that Aeris wasn't actually dead when Sephiroth stabbed her, the event happened in a remote location that was only reachable by hiking there through at least 2 rugged and hostile areas. It's not like they could get a medevac copter out there.. if Aeris's injuries were beyond the capacity of potions/Cure spells/Phoenix Downs, there wasn't any practical way to save her anyway.

Seeing as phoenix downs and cure spells can heal characters from being within 6 inches of the edge of an exploding sun, I seriously doubt that her injuries were beyond their power. I'm still blaming Cloud.

Also, the setting was shown to have helicopters in Advent Children, so why couldn't they get a medivac copter out there?

[NinjaInTheRye]

Seeing as phoenix downs and cure spells can heal characters from being within 6 inches of the edge of an exploding sun, I seriously doubt that her injuries were beyond their power. I'm still blaming Cloud.

Also, the setting was shown to have helicopters in Advent Children, so why couldn't they get a medivac copter out there?

I can't believe I'm seriously answering this in 2013, but in FF VII phoenix down restores a character from the Knocked Out status. Knocked Out and death by "physics defying 20 foot long sword through the torso" are two different things.

[Starbuck_II]

Seeing as phoenix downs and cure spells can heal characters from being within 6 inches of the edge of an exploding sun, I seriously doubt that her injuries were beyond their power. I'm still blaming Cloud.

Also, the setting was shown to have helicopters in Advent Children, so why couldn't they get a medivac copter out there?

Sephiroth is an illusionist. That "super Nova" spell isn't really happening anywhere but your mind.

[Phelix-Mu]

Didn't this whole FF7 discussion happen earlier, like page 2?

Man, I'm getting some strong deja vu.

[RogueDM]

Not counting some "fake" rolls just to keep players from getting cocky.

A bit tangential here, I love rolling unnecessarily, as well as demanding d20 rolls and not announcing results, just an "okay" and then move on. Additionally having their Spot/Listen/and Saves recorded prevents them from knowing if what they just failed was a Spot or a Will Save. Which makes the random rolls scarier.

A bit more on topic, I don't know the exact rule... but I sat in on my friend's D&D session, a total homebrew ruleset combining 4e and 3.5. One of his players, at level 7, consistently attacked with a modifier of +46. Strictly speaking he was a fighter/samurai. So he was getting +39 from... the gnargles or something. It... I... Ugh... It was mind-bottling.

Additionally, I like to think of PCs surviving the seemingly unsurvivable (save for the silliest of circumstances) as their "Heroic Nature" saving them via those natural flukes. Every arrow miraculously piercing non-vital areas, the blade failing to cut deeply enough through your thick skin and massive neck muscles... Wait! I found a good way to explain this in keeping with the rules system. Ever seen one of those body builders who's just so jacked that you can no longer discern his neck from his shoulders? I believe a lack of discernible anatomy protects you from all sorts of things... So, maybe? Okay, that was a bit silly...

[Yahzi]

It's actually interesting to think about the logical consequences of a world where human defensive capacity outpaces human offensive capacity to the same extent as it does in D&D. IRL, a single stab, gunshot, whatever, can and probably will kil you. In D&D that's just not true. And a world like that would promote a very different psychology in people.

I agree. Which is why in my world levels (and HPs) are tangible supernatural enhancements, not mere abstractions.

I think it actually makes for more drama, not less.



but gunshot wounds in combat usually won't stop an attacker until a LONG TIME after you need him to stop.
GURPS actually does that really well. I've had players pumping arrows into orcs that were already dead but just didn't know it yet.

D&D... not so much. In D&D you don't even slow down when you go from 99 to 1 HP. Not even a -1 to hit next round.

If you want realistic combat, play GURPS. If you want to investigate Heliomance's interesting idea, play D&D.

[Chronos]

Y'know, absurd things like that happen in real life, too. The legendary sniper Simo Häyhä (presumably a high-level fighter and/or ranger) got hit by a rifle shot directly in the head, that blew half his face off... And still didn't die from it. This really happened, in our real-life world. Is reality unrealistic?

[TuggyNE]

Is reality unrealistic?

Yes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic). (You're welcome.)

[Roguenewb]

trying to stay on topic.


Did you know you can use spellcraft to identify a potion? Right there, in the core rules. The number of house rules I have seen to allow people to identify without the spell, usually focus on potions, and the rule already exists!

[Eldan]

Is it spellcraft? I was so sure it was Alchemy.

[Yuki Akuma]

Aside from the numbers here making minimal sense (no ranks in listen, with a -10 penalty, equals an average result of... -7 rather than 0-1?) I have to say: if I was a 20th level barbarian, and therefore amongst the hardest to kill people on the planet, I don't think that just going to sleep in my own home should require obsessive paranoia.

You don't get to 20th level as a Barbarian without being obsessively paranoid.

Or as anything else, really.

[Chronos]

It's like it's said about Genghis Cohen: When you're in that line of work, you don't ever get to be that old unless you're very, very good at it.

[Sith_Happens]

You know, I thought about telling TuggyNE what's likely to happen when he links an old thread, but it's more fun to watch.:smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

You know, I thought about telling TuggyNE what's likely to happen when he links an old thread, but it's more fun to watch.:smalltongue:

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND why people can't check dates. :smallsigh:

1 That said, I did have one thing I never got to post previously because of double-posting, and that is a humble link to my own volley homebrew, which is a perfect example of the thread topic; I wasn't aware of the HoB rules until later.

[Sith_Happens]

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND why people can't check dates. :smallsigh:

Most of them did, or else it wouldn't have taken as long for this to happen.

[137beth]

House rule:
A Knowledge (History) check should allow you to identify the date of the last post in a thread. DC 10+#weeks since the first post.
Justification: There is no way in the Core Rule Book to see how old a thread is:smalltongue:


And, surprise surprise, there is already a way to tell!

[TuggyNE]

House rule:
A Knowledge (History) check should allow you to identify the date of the last post in a thread. DC 10+#weeks since the first post.
Justification: There is no way in the Core Rule Book to see how old a thread is:smalltongue:


And, surprise surprise, there is already a way to tell!

I

I think that I love you. *wipes manly tear from eye*

[Thanatosia]

I understand the reasoning behind that. I've seen things where say, a Rogue gets a drop on someone with a knife, has it pointed at the guy's back, ready to plunge into his lung, and says "Don't move or I'll kill you!"

And the high level guy just goes, "Pssh, hell do I care, what, you'll do 1d4+1d6?"
1) the begin full-round action rules. The rogue readies his action to Begin Full Round Action if the fighter resists. If te fighter does resist, the rogue gets a surprise round type action, and starts a CDG. They both roll initiative, and if the fighter fails...

This is a house rule though, because no amount of common sense applies. The only way to make an enemy helpless is to completely bind them, knock them out, or grapple them – and grappling only works if you're not grappling them, too.
I'd say the biggest problem with ever allowing CDG actions against non-completely helpless victems (ie, the knife at throught or back scenario), is that it is ludicrously unfair to have reality work different for players and NPCs simply on the basis of them being Characters vs NPCs, esp when it's to the characters detriment.

The instant you make it ok for the assassin with a dagger at the fighters back to in any way CDG the fighter, you just greenlit the Party's rogue or Invisible wizard to CDG any opponent they manage to sneak up on.

Unless you want to fill your campaign with nothing but CDG immune creature types like Undead and Constructs, I think stealth options could easily spiral completely out of control balance-wise under those conditions.

[Roguenewb]

Is it spellcraft? I was so sure it was Alchemy.

25 Identify a potion. Requires 1 minute. No retry.

Spellcraft. Craft checks have no rules other than the rules to make stuff.

[Eldan]

Hmm. True. I just looked at the 3.0 SRD, that's where I remember that rule from. Alchemy was a weird skill.

In 3.0, it's a DC 25 alchemy check that takes a minute and allows retries, but costs 1 GP per attempt.

[erikun]

Hmm. True. I just looked at the 3.0 SRD, that's where I remember that rule from. Alchemy was a weird skill.

In 3.0, it's a DC 25 alchemy check that takes a minute and allows retries, but costs 1 GP per attempt.
That's because, in 3.0, Alchemy was it's own separate skill that was distinct from Craft skills and had its own restrictions. Non-magic users could not take Alchemy, for example (or at least could not make use of it).

[Pickford]

You don't get to 20th level as a Barbarian without being obsessively paranoid.

Or as anything else, really.

My preferred playstyle in d&d and online videogames is to be recklessly careless. I like to see how that turns out. YOLO? :smallbiggrin:

edit: Erikun, in 3.5 that's still true (in the sense that craft alchemy requires spells to get).
edit2: Actually I think ignoring that restriction is a common house-rule.

[GreenSerpent]

To be honest, a fair houserule would be allowing anyone to use Craft (alchemy) to ID a potion at a -4 penalty (similar to the interaction between alchemy and poisonmaking).