Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kjenks 11-24-06, 09:23 PM	Nu?
Puggle Halfwine 11-24-06, 09:36 PM	All I can say is: "Anything the PCs can do, the NPCs can do better." Balor begins combat by having a minion cast a chained Delay Death on a handful of Jovocs and then proceeds to open up a can of full Power Attack on the things (who are helpless and thus have extremely low AC). However, I'd rather it was just banned. It does cause heaps of problems.. although I've begun noticing that the newer modules have specific tactics to deal with Delay Death, such as reckless coupe-de-grace and greater dispell, etc...
Japangirl 11-24-06, 11:39 PM	There are ways around it for both PCs and NPCs, and the spell itself, while powerful, isn't ungodly broken imo. If you get someone unconscious and burn the body, they are dead because they are a pile of ash. Any death effect will kill them, including several cleric and wizard spells, saves for massive damage, saves for coup de'graces, anything like that. Now the combination of the feat Diehard and Delay Death . . . that's nasty, if it works. And I believe it does, though that is subject to table variation most likely.
JohnduBois 11-24-06, 11:40 PM	Agreed. It's my opinion (as a player, as a DM, and as an author) that the risk of character death is part of what makes the game fun, and Delay Death takes that away to the point where the game stops being as fun to me. Let's put it this way - when my Favored Soul hits the level where he gets 4th level spells, Delay Death won't be one of them, whether it's in the campaign or not.
nobodez 11-25-06, 02:13 PM	i think that Delay Death does something that is very much needed in the campaign. It allows PCs to be heroes. Because with delay death you don't have to worry about the round after you charge the BBEG, Sure, you're unconscious and at like -100 or so, but you're not dead. It's the heroics that it allows that makes things fun. I hate how you have be overly cautious in today's LG mods, at least, without delay death at the table. Oh, and JohnduBois, I'd be surprised in your FS took it anyway. There are much better 4th level spells for a FS to take then Delay Death, but for a cleric, esp. a RSoP, it's good, at least, here in the CoU.
Howie23 11-25-06, 03:17 PM	i think that Delay Death does something that is very much needed in the campaign. It allows PCs to be heroes. Because with delay death you don't have to worry about the round after you charge the BBEG, Sure, you're unconscious and at like -100 or so, but you're not dead. It's the heroics that it allows that makes things fun. Is it heroic to do something dramatic without risk? I think that is kinda John's point... without risk, the action isn't heroic, and it doesn't provide the foil to make success seem as important. A hero does what others would not, despite the risk, not by eliminating the risk. David
copper_wyrmling 11-25-06, 03:43 PM	Is it heroic to do something dramatic without risk? I think that is kinda John's point... without risk, the action isn't heroic, and it doesn't provide the foil to make success seem as important. A hero does what others would not, despite the risk, not by eliminating the risk. David My experience, playing a high-level cleric, is that a surprisingly large number of PCs do what others would not, despite the risk, because it lets them look really *cool* - and then they expect the rest of the party to devote all their combat actions and limited-use resources to rescuing them. Delay Death means I can spend one immediate action and then leave the idiots to bleed :P To put it another way: I've played a cleric from L1 to L14 in LG. Obviously, for most of her career (about L1-12), Delay Death wasn't available. Prior to the introduction of the spell, there were no deaths on any of her tables that Delay Death would have prevented: the one death that DID occur (if I'm not forgetting any) happened while she was flat-footed. What Delay Death gives me isn't a reduction in the number of deaths at the table, it's a reduction in pressure from the other players to devote my actions to nothing more than cleaning up after other people's mistakes, which is not particularly interesting or heroic. That makes the game a LOT more fun for me. I just wonder how frequent deaths from damage (not from failing a save-or-die, level drain, ability damage etc) were before Delay Death, at tables with a cleric capable of casting L4 spells, who had already acted in the combat when the potential death situation came up? In my experience, it was extremely low, so Delay Death changes very little in that respect - but maybe my experience is anomalous.
zigspatty 11-25-06, 05:22 PM	Is it heroic to do something dramatic without risk? I think that is kinda John's point... without risk, the action isn't heroic, and it doesn't provide the foil to make success seem as important. A hero does what others would not, despite the risk, not by eliminating the risk. I am SO tired of this argument. There are plenty of other risks that Delay Death doesn't cover - level draining, massive damage, death effects. Delay Death is merely a bit of insurance that a lucky crit won't end the mod for the mage or the tank. And it has a definite opportunity cost... Air Walk, Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, GMW, or Tongues could all be better choices. Delay death doesn't change whether or not a PC goes down, merely whether or not the mod is over for that character. Because, ultimately, it's more fun to keep playing than to sit around waiting for your AR while the rest of the group continues without a PC. A FOOL does what others would not, despite the risk. A HERO does what needs to be done, eliminating as many risks as possible to increase his chances of success. Policemen wear bulletproof vests because it enables them to do thier jobs better - not because they are cowards. Heroes do what others cannot because they are clever enough to overcome the obstacles barring them from their goal. Patty
budleiser 11-25-06, 06:05 PM	Ive not seen any broken shenanigans with the spell. (ive yet to run into an NPC using it though) Personally I like the spell for a much different reason than whats been listed here. It lets more players feel comfortable playing when you tell them what APL the table is ;) Theres plenty of days when player X wants to play, but the rest of us planned to bring our high level characters. If player X only gets to play 1-2 times a month any chance to play is important to them.
Howie23 11-25-06, 08:49 PM	I am SO tired of this argument. Sorry to contribute to your fatigue. I'm not going to reply in detail to your quote, and will just recognize that we disagree. David
Japangirl 11-26-06, 04:04 AM	Besides, Delay Death lets all of us non-heroic cowardly types play with a little less risk! :) Not all PCs are heroes, in fact most of the PCs I've met are more interested in survival, revenge, and gold than in actually being "heroes". They fight evil guys because the good guys pay well and have good favors, and fight for the evil guys because then the evil guys might not kill them and pay very well.
Iswald 11-26-06, 10:19 AM	I have to agree with Patty. Delay death doesn't always work and there is a high cost associated with using it. If the problem is that characters don't fear death as much, then you should also ask to remove raise dead, reincarnate, true res, etc.
solbergb 11-26-06, 10:23 AM	The spell does nothing for NPC's unless they've got a dedicated healer who will eventually wake those downed and using it during the fight. Delay death is one of the rare things that helps those who fight zillions of encounters (PCs) a lot more than those who fight one battle ever (NPC's). Most of the delay death/diehard things actually don't work as the abilities are written around -1 to -9 hp (see Diehard, for example). Some do (see the boar ability) but are defeated by a single point of nonlethal damage. If you suspect some kind of delay death/neg hitpoints don't affect my ability to fight cheese is going on, mix in a nonlethal strike and see if it pops like a baloon.
Mattastrophic 11-26-06, 12:17 PM	Delay Death is nowhere near broken; in fact if anything it acts as an equalizer to prevent author brokenness, or more importantly, bad DMs, from killing people. -Matt
Swiftbrook 11-26-06, 02:07 PM	It's been implied that mod writers are taking this spell into account. If you ban Delay Death, what are the concequences to the mods? Does it become a TPK because the writter assumed the party would use it? -Swiftbrook
Britt 11-26-06, 02:17 PM	I think some authors are putting lines in the Tactics block directing judges to coup de grace downed PCs if/in case delay death is being used.
Howie23 11-26-06, 03:06 PM	Out of curiousity stemming from a recent conversation about this... Are players expecting to use delay death similar to close wounds, after the damaging strike, or are they using it prior to the damaging strike? It's an immediate action, so can be used outside of the casting character's turn, but people aren't expecting it to be used to interrupt game mechanics (attack roll, damage roll, evaluation of status) used to adjudicate an in-game action (attack), are they? David
Britt 11-26-06, 03:14 PM	The average adjudication is that it can be used after the attack roll hits but before damage is dealt. I've heard arguments for restricting it to before the attack roll hits and after the damage is dealt, but the first seems to be the norm.
Drezden 11-26-06, 03:37 PM	I don't know why this would need to be banned - it helps players enjoy the game a little more and reduces the risk of death a little. So what's wrong with that? If you are so opposed to it, don't cast it or tell the party cleric you don't want it. I really don't see it as unbalancing at all. Now, author's instructing DM's to coup de grace PCs is just dirty. That is what we should ban. I wouldn't do it (unless the NPC really had nothing - and I mean nothing - else to do). It also isn't very smart tactically as the down PC is out of things, but you have other PCs who are up and active. Daren
Akhamshyy 11-26-06, 03:55 PM	OK hold up... Combat is rageing and an npc is going to stop and either make a heal check to see if a downed PC is below -10 or have had to learn that the PC has had Delay Death cast on him/her (detect magic, spellcraft, whatever). Then use a round to coup de grace the PC. That's a bit much, just over one spell to define those tactics around. It'd be more worth while to ignore the downed PC and take the fight to the party. Normally if the PCs loose the combat and leave party members behind they get popped. That happens Delay death or no, unless the mod has them taken prisoner.
Britt 11-26-06, 04:06 PM	That's why I said "if/in case". Some authors might say that if the NPC has Spellcraft and knows delay death was cast, they coup de grace. Others might say that NPCs should coup de grace downed foes, either explicitly to counter delay death or implicitly. The argument I hear from Triads, authors, and judges most is not that delay death makes the game less heroic, that the spell is broken, or that it's being abused by some combination of other feats and spells; it's that removing the threat of death removes an element of the game. They then would go on to say that no matter what some players might think, they will actually enjoy the game more with that threat than without. Sure, this is a paternalistic argument and assumes that the authors know more about game design than the players, but it's an argument nonetheless. While I have an opinion on delay death and this tactic, I'm not arguing for one side or the other, as it wouldn't do any good; most people have already made up their mind and won't be swayed. I'm just trying to present the argument that would likely be made by authors.
JamesMaissen 11-26-06, 04:49 PM	While I have an opinion on delay death and this tactic, I'm not arguing for one side or the other, as it wouldn't do any good; most people have already made up their mind and won't be swayed. I'm just trying to present the argument that would likely be made by authors. The problem I have with this 'tactic' is that it is assuming that the bad guys know that they are going to loose. That I have fundamental issues with. Bad guys should in general be attacking because they think that they can win and prevail. They should not consider themselves obligatory thugs. If that's the case then they should be looking to flee and escape. Or they shouldn't have attacked in the first place. As to coup de gracing downed PCs that should either be a consideration for them to do or not do, but should have little to no relationship to whether delay death is on the table. If a person is dropped to -1hps they have 9 rounds before they die (baring stabilization), meanwhile at APL 10 someone under delay death has 10 rounds to be healed by an outside force. In my mind it just is a bandaid solution to extending the bleeding out range to higher levels. As while at 1st and 2nd level those 10hps are a large swing, by mid levels they are happenstance and by high levels just luck. To the point that I've seen some people drop a few points of subdual damage on themselves to extend this 'cushion'.. which I find as a telling flaw. Mind you, I think that if anything needs to be altered in this respect it's first the silly 'massive damage' fixed saving throw. It adds very little to combats and overvalues the already insane power of rerolls. It also goes askew to the fundamental idea of hps and scaling. When it happens in my favor I feel cheated out of a combat, and when I see it happen to a player's character I feel just as cheated by the experience. Anyway, I think that delay death is just the latest in 'favorite whipping boy' status and hype. Things look differently on paper than in practice, and it suffers from that, James
Jay_Ibero_911 11-26-06, 07:38 PM	Here's an idea! Raging barbarian with both Delay Death AND Deathward, as well as Diehard...Now that would be something that would take some stopping...
_m_ 11-26-06, 07:43 PM	i think you're all overlook the fact that some of us cannot actually be raised if we die. i know im not the only one who does not have access to the appropriate raise spell to brung me back. how would you feel if i told you your 3 years of work level 12 character was permenantly dead becasue someone decided delay death was cheesy? im not saying i wont ever die... but id rather not die like that.
Maesto 11-26-06, 07:46 PM	From a players point of view, delay death creates situations where players will do something stupid in order to get X, simply because they know that after they've done their job, delay death is available. It takes tactical play out of the equation, which decreases the fun for me. It also places a lot more emphasis on combinations which lower AC, such as shock trooper, as it effectively removes the associated risk. When the game loses it's risk, then it fails to be fun. I can understand that clerics love it, as they have a relieved pressure from it, but this pressure is relieved _because_ other players expect to be allowed to go below -10. From a DM's point of view, the spell really annoys me also. Reckless non-tactical play becomes more prevalent, and there's just no way to hit somebody and make sure that they stay down, without coup-de-graceing, which is particularly vindictive and I don't like to do (unless specifically instructed to by the module). On the casting time, I really don't like the "immediate action" part. On my tables, it will always need to be cast prior to the attack roll (unless I'm rolling 10 attack rolls then rolling the damage for simplicity), as I believe that attack roll + damage are simultaneous, and once you're dead, you're an object. I think abuse of this spell could be substantially reduced by making it a swift action rather than an immediate action. My clerics will not be preparing delay death. Cheers, Jolyon
_m_ 11-26-06, 07:49 PM	My clerics will not be preparing delay death. how convinient, because my characters will not be preparing 'die' either. we should go well together :D
Arvagor 11-26-06, 08:36 PM	i think you're all overlook the fact that some of us cannot actually be raised if we die. i know im not the only one who does not have access to the appropriate raise spell to brung me back.You don't have 9th level NPC clerics in Perrenland?
_m_ 11-26-06, 08:51 PM	You don't have 9th level NPC clerics in Perrenland? no, its not that. im not a legal target for raise dead / resurection. i could be wrong (theres actually been table variation on this, which is odd, given how kind of important it is), but due to my subtype and home plane, i think i need the raise outsider spell to get me back up.
Drezden 11-26-06, 09:11 PM	If you are an outsider, then a limited wish can restore you to life - see the MM definition of outsider. That isn't much harder to get than a raise dead. Wish, Miracle, and True Ressurection will also work - those are much harder to get. Of course, less than 1% of LG PCs will be unable to be raised. So that shouldn't really impact the discussion of delay death. Daren no, its not that. im not a legal target for raise dead / resurection. i could be wrong (theres actually been table variation on this, which is odd, given how kind of important it is), but due to my subtype and home plane, i think i need the raise outsider spell to get me back up.
Arvagor 11-26-06, 10:08 PM	no, its not that. im not a legal target for raise dead / resurection. i could be wrong (theres actually been table variation on this, which is odd, given how kind of important it is), but due to my subtype and home plane, i think i need the raise outsider spell to get me back up.If you're talking about the Dark template, it doesn't give you the (Outsider) type; you are simply given the (Extraplanar) subtype when you are not on the Plane of Shadow -- big difference, in that for the most part, (Extraplanar) does not change how spells effect you (notable exception being spells that produce a banishment effect; those will send you back to the Plane of Shadow). If somebody's denying you a raise dead from working because of that template, then they really need to go back and retake DM'ing 101...
Howie23 11-26-06, 10:12 PM	If you are an outsider, then a limited wish can restore you to life - see the MM definition of outsider. That isn't much harder to get than a raise dead. Limited wish is not on the list of Core NPC spellcasting services. That means it isn't available in Core mods at all. It is only available via PC, favor, or regionally-defined NPC spellcasting services in a regional mod. That is considerably different than a raise dead. David
_m_ 11-26-06, 10:13 PM	If you're talking about the Dark template, it doesn't give you the (Outsider) type; you are simply given the (Extraplanar) subtype when you are not on the Plane of Shadow -- big difference, in that for the most part, (Extraplanar) does not change how spells effect you (notable exception being spells that produce a banishment effect; those will send you back to the Plane of Shadow). If somebody's denying you a raise dead from working because of that template, then they really need to go back and retake DM'ing 101... well, i must say that is a relief :D meanwhile, unraisable pc's arent that uncommon. falling into volcanoes, off giant gears on a different plane, or a phenomanaly STUPID dm killing our areas entire high level party permenantly by playing a monster wrong and having it devour and somehow destroy all the corpses (sorry, thats a sore spot)... regardless, there are a number of deaths that are irrevocable unless you have true rez, which is pretty hard to get.
solbergb 11-26-06, 10:46 PM	I frankly think authors should worry less about what PC's might or might not have and worry more about writing interesting stories. When I write I don't assume anything about the PC's. I present the challenge, tierd for the APL it is up to the PC's to find a way to win. I don't care how they do it, as long as they're having a good time. Something that is not an instant "I win" thing (like Staggering Strike reward card or Quill Blast) that most players like and some authors hate...should come down on the side of players. Every single time. I understand not trivializing encounters. But I don't consider an effect that just extends the bleeding out range to be in that category. The PC is still down and is out of the fight until someone uses a "real" action to revive him. Just like he was in the old days, where neg 10 hitpoints was a meaningful buffer. Run it correctly. Immediate actions can't be used like close wounds after resolution. Some might argue about whether it's the hit roll or the damage roll that you interrupt..at my table you have to declare before I roll the attack dice (or give an appropriate "readied action" like contingency like when a "status" spell says they drop below 1/4 hitpoints and another attack is incoming if I'm rolling a lot of attacks and the player wants to save time over me rolling one at a time). Generally unexpected crits can still kill if folks played cute with when to drop the spell. Diehard does nothing once you drop below neg 9 hitpoints. There is no other core access feat or class ability that keeps you standing when at neg hitpoints. Some wildshape/polymorph cheese might be possible. If you see someone in boar form hit by a delay death and an NPC spellcrafts it...hit them with nonlethal damage. Aside from the boar ferocity power I don't think there are other options that leave you functional below neg9. Then just go with it. Delay death is not nearly as broken as divine metamagic, divine spellpower, holy word (or blasphemy), or any number of limited spells I see authors putting in modules without giving players access (Fleshshiver on hit die advanced casters anyone?)
Arvagor 11-26-06, 11:04 PM	Immediate actions can't be used like close wounds after resolution. Some might argue about whether it's the hit roll or the damage roll that you interrupt..at my table you have to declare before I roll the attack dice [...]That seems overly broad and restrictive, especially in light of the fact that many spells/abilities/etc. that function as immediate actions have very specific things you can and can't do as the action. For example, the granted power of the Destiny domain (a Core domain) states, "Once per day as an immediate action, you can grant another visible, willing creature within 30 feet the ability to reroll an attack, save, ability check or skill check." If your attack allows a save, then granting the creature a re-roll obviously occurs after your attack, and should not require the cleric with the ability to have readied an action at all -- that's the whole point of immediate actions, after all. The warp destiny spell can be cast in response to being struck in combat -- the spell generates an insight bonus to your AC, which if when added to your AC would have caused the original attack to fail, then the attack fails, so no damage is done. Again, no readied action required, as casting the spell is an immediate action, and is specifically doable in response to an attack.
copper_wyrmling 11-26-06, 11:24 PM	Immediate actions can't be used like close wounds after resolution. Some might argue about whether it's the hit roll or the damage roll that you interrupt..at my table you have to declare before I roll the attack dice (or give an appropriate "readied action" like contingency like when a "status" spell says they drop below 1/4 hitpoints and another attack is incoming if I'm rolling a lot of attacks and the player wants to save time over me rolling one at a time). Generally unexpected crits can still kill if folks played cute with when to drop the spell. Yeah, this is how I run it. I'm a bit more lenient in online games: it's not really fair to kill a PC because the cleric player was looking away from her screen when I said, "And then the nightmare materializes with its rider and he swings his scythe at the wizard, calling on the powers of darkness to smite his foe". In face-to-face games, I expect people to be listening. Incidentally, my L14 cleric recently went down to 22HP vs a CR14 advanced cadaver collector (she was fighting it one-on-one in melee - the rest of the party was busy), without Delay Death running, as the only person in the party who could even use wands of CLW. If it had critted at that point, she would have been dead. She had prepared a Delay Death, but used it on another PC, who was playing up and ended up in a very dangerous position through no fault of his own. Even if she'd had Delay Death running on herself, it wouldn't have helped: nobody else in the party could've risked getting close enough to the cadaver collector to retrieve her unconscious body. The spell most certainly does not eliminate danger from the game... (and in point of fact, in that particular encounter I would've done much better to prep two copies of Freedom of Movement, which is what I did pre-Delay-Death) Then just go with it. Delay death is not nearly as broken as divine metamagic, divine spellpower, holy word (or blasphemy), or any number of limited spells I see authors putting in modules without giving players access (Fleshshiver on hit die advanced casters anyone?) Sigh... any chance we could see Blasphemy and its variants Restricted? We already got rid of Mordenkainen's Disjunction... (looks hopeful) And yes, my cleric uses Holy Word. Despite the paucity of decent L7 cleric spells, I would not regret its banning for a moment, assuming its evil / lawful / chaotic counterparts went with it. -Tracy aka Yolande Morgenrood, cleric 8 / sacred exorcist 6 / contemplative 1 of Joramy, who was subjected to a CL13 Blasphemy at APL 8 as a L7 character, and has never quite recovered...
kjenks 11-27-06, 01:40 AM	If you are an outsider, then a limited wish can restore you to life - see the MM definition of outsider. Oddly enough, the MM2 definition of outsider doesn't allow Lim Wish to raise them.
Gwumph 11-27-06, 03:35 AM	Personally I think coup de grace is a totally legitmate action. how many times has a fleet footed cleric slipped around to a fallen comrade (-2) pumped a cure serious or cure critical into him and then bingo the enemy has a Pc in their rear flanking them. If the enemy has a party of 3 or 4 having one guy finishing off fallen enemy to make sure they pop back into the fight later is soo smart of a tactic. and I personally like fighting smart enemies!!
clik_ml 11-27-06, 04:08 AM	Personally I think coup de grace is a totally legitmate action. how many times has a fleet footed cleric slipped around to a fallen comrade (-2) pumped a cure serious or cure critical into him and then bingo the enemy has a Pc in their rear flanking them. If the enemy has a party of 3 or 4 having one guy finishing off fallen enemy to make sure they pop back into the fight later is soo smart of a tactic. and I personally like fighting smart enemies!! Trouble with that scenario is that bad guys will also be using coup de gras on corpses as well, unless they take their time to do a heal check. Also, by the time players can pump out cure serious and criticals into downed allies, the bad guys are strong enough to just put them back down again (unless they're augmented+divine empowered cures, I suppose), and maybe score a cleave in the process so they don't even lose any attacks. Unless the bad guys have no other useful actions, it almost always makes more tactical sense to concentrate fire on the enemies still posing a threat. I have however heard of scenarios where the bad guy saw he was going to lose the fight, but was standing over a dying PC and threatened to finish him off (with a readied attack, dunno if he had the Death Blow feat, but damage alone would have done the trick) if the party didn't leave empty handed (thus failing their mission). Now that's realistic and nasty tactics for a smart villain.
Cynric 11-27-06, 04:22 AM	i think you're all overlook the fact that some of us cannot actually be raised if we die. i know im not the only one who does not have access to the appropriate raise spell to brung me back. how would you feel if i told you your 3 years of work level 12 character was permenantly dead becasue someone decided delay death was cheesy? im not saying i wont ever die... but id rather not die like that. As someone who lost 2.5 years of AR's with multiple favours of that type and has got none bak, I would say fine, It makes you think about what you are doing and stops people taking crazy risks. As for copper wymling comment of clerics feeling the pain of not haveing it as they cannot heal themselves, I have to agree again, and she should know why.
Simpi 11-27-06, 08:40 AM	Personally I think coup de grace is a totally legitmate action. how many times has a fleet footed cleric slipped around to a fallen comrade (-2) pumped a cure serious or cure critical into him and then bingo the enemy has a Pc in their rear flanking them. If the enemy has a party of 3 or 4 having one guy finishing off fallen enemy to make sure they pop back into the fight later is soo smart of a tactic. and I personally like fighting smart enemies!! Quite true. After all, if monsters have levels as fighter, rogue or any "PC class", then they must surely be aware how simple it is for someone to get that +14 bonus to Tumble checks. And despite people might talk about tactical choices, coup-de-grace could be seen as full-attack that makes sure one enemy will never ever bother you again, at least without visiting a temple first. If an obvious cleric is present, then it makes even more sense. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
solbergb 11-27-06, 08:46 AM	It's a full attack that provokes and guarantees the entire enemy will get to act before they do. Against 99.99%of the enemies, just hitting them once when down is sufficient if you really want to do that, and it has an opportunity cost (std actions are precious). It is a tactic only for those who outnumber the PC's and even then it has an action cost that is generally prohibitive. You're better off just targeting the party healers. Even dead doesn't mean they're out of the fight, given spells like Revenenance and Last Breath. If you have the actions free to do it, consider standing over the body and readying an action to damage anybody attempting to heal the downed target. Same action cost, eventually same effect and if a healer tries to rescue the downed guy, you spoil his action too.
SgtHulka 11-27-06, 09:16 AM	Yeah, this is how I run it. I'm a bit more lenient in online games: it's not really fair to kill a PC because the cleric player was looking away from her screen when I said, "And then the nightmare materializes with its rider and he swings his scythe at the wizard, calling on the powers of darkness to smite his foe". Hey, I think that wizard was me! :) Yay, Delay Death!;)
trollbill 11-27-06, 10:53 AM	As to Coup de Gras being a valid tactic, all I can say is this: How many times have you seen PCs using it during an actual battle? I don't know about you, but aside from situations like sleep, paralysis, and regenerating creatures, I think my answer would be never. I have never seen PCs, while the battle is still raging, use Coup de Gras on an opponent that was taken out due to HP damage even if the enemy does have a cleric. It's much more effective to go attack that cleric than it is to waste a round Coup de Grasing someone who 'might' get back up. If PCs don't think it's a very good tactic, the NPCs won't either. From a players point of view, delay death creates situations where players will do something stupid in order to get X, simply because they know that after they've done their job, delay death is available. It takes tactical play out of the equation, which decreases the fun for me. It also places a lot more emphasis on combinations which lower AC, such as shock trooper, as it effectively removes the associated risk. When the game loses it's risk, then it fails to be fun. It doesn't take tactical play out of the equations one bit because taking actions based on this spell is a tactic, and often a fairly smart one. Tactics are all about playing smart. Now maybe you feel it is a cheese tactic, but there are plenty of those out there. Why pick on this one? As to losing risks, that is an over exageration. The risks may be diminished, but they are not lost. Now I agree there must be some sense of risk in order for the game to be enjoyable. As with anything, the greater the risk of failure, the greater the elation when you succeed. But no one likes failing very often. It is always a juggling act in D&D to balance the risk of death versus the enjoyement gotten from success. And often this balance can be dependent upon the players. Some like more risks, some don't. That's why its hard to sit there and say there is some diffinitive line in the sand that should never be crossed when it comes to the risk/reward ratio. Now one observation I will make is that I have only been playing LG long enough to make it to 6th level (though I have been playing D&D for a lot longer than that). During that time, no one has had Delay Death I have adventured with. That's 22 adventures where my level of chosen risk was determined without this spell. After playing it with a given risk level for that many adventures, I doubt my tactics will change just because I know there is a cleric with this one particular spell prepared. Now I will say that I do increase my risk level if I know we have a good cleric in the party simply because I know they can do stuff like auto-stabilize me when I go negative, protect me from certain effects, and remove certain types of permanent or semi-perminant effects I might otherwise avoid. So to me, Delay Death is just one more item in their arsenal that allows me to engage in risky behavior more safely. But that increase in risky behavior simply comes from having a cleric, so if you want to increase the risk by removing 'safety nets,' I suggest you promote the banning of Divine spellcasters, because that's really the problem, not this one spell. Of course, I think these safety nets are very important to the game, so I would not agree with this.
Mommy was an Orc 11-27-06, 11:41 AM	Personally I think coup de grace is a totally legitmate action. how many times has a fleet footed cleric slipped around to a fallen comrade (-2) pumped a cure serious or cure critical into him and then bingo the enemy has a Pc in their rear flanking them. If the enemy has a party of 3 or 4 having one guy finishing off fallen enemy to make sure they pop back into the fight later is soo smart of a tactic. and I personally like fighting smart enemies!! Coup-de-grace is a DM going out of his way to kill a character. The LGCS specifically warns DMs against doing just that. You're not allowed to go out of your way to punish or kill a character, but rather, you should let the mod do it for you.
gomeztoo 11-27-06, 12:03 PM	As to Coup de Gras being a valid tactic, all I can say is this: How many times have you seen PCs using it during an actual battle? I used it once, when the oppenent wizard who we thought had been downed got up again and used a elemental stone to summon a fire elemental. Made sure he was definitely dead after that happened... Normally I don't bother, but if my char have nothing else to do and the enemy is either a racial/favorite enemy (i.e. orcs for Nessie), or has proven to be very dangerous, I might get an extra attack in. And, after combat, some of my PCs may make sure that whoever is down is'nt coming back... again depending circumstances (have teetered on the brink of hetting noted down for an evil act with that). NPCs coup-de-gracing generally do not make much sense either. I.e. last weekend the only fighter left standing took his last action to coup-de-grace my druid's animal companion. I didn't particularly care as a player (though my PC was furious), but it struck me as a rather dumb 'last act', even for a NPC. Gomez
Nutation 11-27-06, 01:25 PM	Delay Death at 4th level competes heavily with Death Ward, FoM, and other spells that have equal life-saving value. (Spontaneous Dim Door for some clerics is another.) I don't see the spell used even once per module on average (at suitable APLs), so I don't think it's a problem. Presumably, the Circle is watching the situation. They have access to more comprehensive info than I do, so if they do Restrict the spell, I'll accept it. Delay Death as a 3rd level spell is also in the Destiny domain (also available through Arcane Disciple). As a 3rd, it might be too cheap. I haven't seen a lot of Destiny clerics, though, so this might be a minor issue. As a judge: Immediate actions are not retroactive unless they say so. They don't interrupt mechanically distinct parts of another action, so you can't insert one between the attack and damage rolls. Specific text can override (e.g., Close Wounds). I do make an exception for movement actions; at my table you can take an immediate/swift/free action as appropriate in any square of the acting character's movement.
Simpi 11-27-06, 02:04 PM	I used it once, when the oppenent wizard who we thought had been downed got up again and used a elemental stone to summon a fire elemental. Made sure he was definitely dead after that happened... I think you merely confuse that to my module where the group of enemies had "Insignia of Healing", which I had put there specifically since most APL6+ groups with cleric have one, so why not NPCs as well? Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Howie23 11-27-06, 02:28 PM	By way of disclaimer, I will say that I am of the school that a CdG of a PC is an appropriate action to take at some times for some creatures. I have done so exactly once in approximately 100 DM'd sessions of LG. This took place in an encounter where the two standing PCs left the field of battle leaving fallen comrades at the feet of foes with mod-stated motivations that were consistent with the action. The foes were fatigued and incapable of pursuing the departing PCs. The players of the two standing players vocally metagamed that the foes would not attack the downed PCs because doing so was socially unacceptable as a judge. I framed the situation in terms of the nature of the opponents, the fact that PCs had retreated out of sight, and that the opponents did not have other actions that they could take against standing PCs. I gave them the opportunity to change their retreating action. One of the players looked at me and, "No, I don't think you'll hit them while they're down." That is the payoff of the culture that NPCs should never kill/CdG a downed/helpless PC. Not particularly high quality role-play gaming, in my book. Coup-de-grace is a DM going out of his way to kill a character. I disagree. A CdG at the hands of a judge is an NPC going out of his way to kill an opponent. Should it be judicious, yes. The judge has an obligation to provide fair and impartial rulings while maintaining a fun environment that are true to the published adventure. (RPGA General Rules, p. 4) It is not impartial to rule that an NPC will not kill a PC because of metagame concerns such as how the PC will be raised, or whether the judge will become an outcast from LG society. The judge is responsible for both putting into actions the motivations of the NPCs on behalf of the author and DM (remember, the session judge is not the DM), and impartially adjudicating the rules associated with those actions. Fun gets thrown around as a watchword for survive or succeed. Fun references having a good time while playing, sometimes in spite of the events that take place in the game. I have had three PCs die in LG. One was by CdG at the hands of an assassin who had stated tactics to do so. Disappointing, yes. Fun, yes. The LGCS specifically warns DMs against doing just that. You're not allowed to go out of your way to punish or kill a character, but rather, you should let the mod do it for you. This statement is false. You are referring to page 60 of the LGCS. The bullet points are provided as "tips and guidelines." They are suggestions on how to deal with typical situations and how to have promote an enjoyable gaming experience within the LG campaign environment. They are not rules. As you've noted, one of those tips is not to go out of your way to kill or punish characters. That tip or guideline (not rule) reads: "Do not go out of your way to punish or kill characters. Character death and other unpleasant situations occur without any special effort on the part of a DM. Be fair." The next tip or guideline (not rule) is to not go out of your way to make it easy on the characters, force them to overcome the challenges, and keep the idea of risk active: "Do not go out of your way to make it easy on the players. Part of the fun and challenge of the game is to overcome obstacles. If the players feel that there is no risk, they may enjoy the game less." Enjoy the game less. In other words, have less fun. NPCs are allowed to intentionally kill PCs, and it takes a judge to make it happen. Doing so thoughtlessly violates one guideline. Not doing so thoughtlessly violates another. David Howard, Southern California (Nyrond) (full name provided for those who would seek or avoid my tables as a result of the above)
trollbill 11-27-06, 02:43 PM	Now we are just getting into arguments based on absolutes, which I doubt anyone really agrees with. I think almost everyone here agrees there are some situations wher CdG is a legitimate thing to do against a PC, especially if it is a tactically smart thing to do. But if there isn't a good reason for the NPC to do it, doing so is usually wrong, whether by DM choice, or by author choice. So: CdGing PCs because you think Delay Death is cheese = Wrong. It is not a Judges or author's responsibility to change the rules, it is their duty to enforce it. Punishing players for using valid tactics the rules allow is wrong. CdGing PCs because you haven't had enough deaths lately = Wrong. DMs should never be a quota for deaths, even an arbitrary one. Consistancy is the hallmark of a good DM. CdGing PCs because you want to punish them = Wrong. You were given power as a judge for a reason, and that reason isn't so you can wield it like a petty tyrant and take out your personal issues on the PCs.
Reylance 11-27-06, 02:58 PM	Out of curiousity stemming from a recent conversation about this... Are players expecting to use delay death similar to close wounds, after the damaging strike, or are they using it prior to the damaging strike? It's an immediate action, so can be used outside of the casting character's turn, but people aren't expecting it to be used to interrupt game mechanics (attack roll, damage roll, evaluation of status) used to adjudicate an in-game action (attack), are they? David I like to think of it like damage prevention in Magic: the Gathering. First damage goes on the stack (you know how much damage is going to be dealt), then you have a chance to respond with damage prevention effects before the damage actually resolves. I admit that's a generous interpretation, and would prefer to see it officially clarified.
Samwise 11-27-06, 04:09 PM	A coup de grace on a downed PC is not a "challenge" that can be overcome. Particularly when there are other PCs active that can be taken down by attacks, a coup de grace is going out of your way to kill a PC. Likewise doing so because of a specific spell is going out of your way to punish the player because of that spell.
Mommy was an Orc 11-27-06, 04:20 PM	I disagree. A CdG at the hands of a judge is an NPC going out of his way to kill an opponent. Should it be judicious, yes. The judge has an obligation to provide fair and impartial rulings while maintaining a fun environment that are true to the published adventure. (RPGA General Rules, p. 4) NPCs are allowed to intentionally kill PCs, and it takes a judge to make it happen. Doing so thoughtlessly violates one guideline. Not doing so thoughtlessly violates another. I've yet to argue that NPCs are not allowed to intentionally kill PCs. I'm saying that Coup de Grace is almost certainly a DM out to kill a character. Which the LGCS says you're not supposed to be doing. Especially in the context of the thread, where people are talking about NPCs essentially ignoring obvious threats(other PCs) to kill a helpless opponent(an unconcious PC) There's a distinct difference... If in the situation you mention, a couple of unconcious PCs are captured, then depending on the opponent, they have every right to kill the PCs rather than take them prisoner. If those PCs were captured by a Barghest, as an example, no one should argue with what happens next...(which actually happened in a mod I played).
gomeztoo 11-27-06, 05:42 PM	I think you merely confuse that to my module where the group of enemies had "Insignia of Healing", which I had put there specifically since most APL6+ groups with cleric have one, so why not NPCs as well? No confusion. We 'downed' the wizzie. He then woke up again (because he had insigina of healing), and used the stone. My char then made sure he DIDN'T get up again. As I wrote, the only time I figured a coupe-de-grace was warranted. It was a good effect, though. Made me waste an action. Gomez
Arvagor 11-27-06, 06:00 PM	Oddly enough, the MM2 definition of outsider doesn't allow Lim Wish to raise them.When two sources are in conflict, primary source wins. The Monster Manual is the primary source of the Outsider type definition (especially since the MM2 is not a 3.5 source); ergo, limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection are all valid methods for restoring an outsider to life.
_m_ 11-27-06, 06:00 PM	sometimes cdg is somewhat the only practical action for an npc to take. i mean, abviously not often, but for example: the npc party downs the warrior who is power attacking around waisitng heads and such. she gets an insignia heal, gets up, and keeps breaking heads. they down her again, she gets another heal, like a ranged cure, and gets up to continue thwacking things. if i got her down again, i'd cdg the bastard. its not reasonable in most situations to just do it, but if a pc gets up at least, or particularly more than, once, then next time she went down, you would expect the npcs to try put her down for good.
clannagh 11-27-06, 06:24 PM	I've yet to argue that NPCs are not allowed to intentionally kill PCs. I'm saying that Coup de Grace is almost certainly a DM out to kill a character. Which the LGCS says you're not supposed to be doing. Especially in the context of the thread, where people are talking about NPCs essentially ignoring obvious threats(other PCs) to kill a helpless opponent(an unconcious PC) There's a distinct difference... If in the situation you mention, a couple of unconcious PCs are captured, then depending on the opponent, they have every right to kill the PCs rather than take them prisoner. If those PCs were captured by a Barghest, as an example, no one should argue with what happens next...(which actually happened in a mod I played). Regardless of the LGCS "guidelines" a number of our local GM's (usually GM's also 40k/Fantasy gamers) still see the exercise as "their" team of monsters against the players team and definitely play to "win". These are the guys that at say APL8 will play the encounter just as hard core against a party of 4 bards in a party that barely reaches 7 average once the horse is included as they do against the balanced combat optimised grouip of 6 players who average out at 9 by the skin of their teeth. GM's of that inclination will take any suggestion that they cdg as open licenced to always do so.
_m_ 11-27-06, 06:32 PM	Regardless of the LGCS "guidelines" a number of our local GM's (usually GM's also 40k/Fantasy gamers) still see the exercise as "their" team of monsters against the players team and definitely play to "win". These are the guys that at say APL8 will play the encounter just as hard core against a party of 4 bards in a party that barely reaches 7 average once the horse is included as they do against the balanced combat optimised grouip of 6 players who average out at 9 by the skin of their teeth. GM's of that inclination will take any suggestion that they cdg as open licenced to always do so. note to self... stay above 0 :D
Mommy was an Orc 11-27-06, 07:15 PM	the npc party downs the warrior who is power attacking around waisitng heads and such. she gets an insignia heal, gets up, and keeps breaking heads. they down her again, she gets another heal, like a ranged cure, and gets up to continue thwacking things. if i got her down again, i'd cdg the bastard. Or you could do the obvious action - go after the person casting heal spells and take 'em out. Remember, the warrior is going to quickly run out of decent weapons, as she drops whatever she's holding when she goes unconcious...
Drezden 11-27-06, 07:35 PM	As Andy said, you could just go after the healer. Also, a downed PC will not just "get up and keep breaking heads." He needs to stand up (move action that provokes) and either draw another weapon (move action) or retrieve the one he dropped (move action that provokes). If an opponent is within melee range, chances are the downed PC will stay there and play dead, rather than incur AOOs and make themselves a target. As a DM, I have encouraged PCs NOT to heal a down but stable PC precisely because they would then likely die the next round. As a player, I usually feel the same way. The exceptions being if there are AOE spells going off or if the downed PC is the only capable damage dealer or if the PCs want to flee. Daren sometimes cdg is somewhat the only practical action for an npc to take. i mean, abviously not often, but for example: the npc party downs the warrior who is power attacking around waisitng heads and such. she gets an insignia heal, gets up, and keeps breaking heads. they down her again, she gets another heal, like a ranged cure, and gets up to continue thwacking things. if i got her down again, i'd cdg the bastard. its not reasonable in most situations to just do it, but if a pc gets up at least, or particularly more than, once, then next time she went down, you would expect the npcs to try put her down for good.
Drezden 11-27-06, 07:42 PM	4 Bards that barely reach APL 7 average should play down to APL6 or, much preferred, form a different, more balanced table, either through playing different characters or mixing in with other tables. I wouldn't really expect to do well with that kind of party. I remember 2-3 years ago watching a party of 2 Bards, a wizard and an archer attempt just such a stunt - play up to APL8. The archer and wizard were both very good; in fact, the archer was boasting about how easy LG was for him. Well, 3 of the 4 died - only the wizard Dim Doored away - narrowly averting a TPK. 4 player parties are dangerous and should be avoided, if possible. If they can't be avoided, the party should play down if they can. Misbalanced 4 player parties playing up is just asking for trouble. Daren Regardless of the LGCS "guidelines" a number of our local GM's (usually GM's also 40k/Fantasy gamers) still see the exercise as "their" team of monsters against the players team and definitely play to "win". These are the guys that at say APL8 will play the encounter just as hard core against a party of 4 bards in a party that barely reaches 7 average once the horse is included as they do against the balanced combat optimised grouip of 6 players who average out at 9 by the skin of their teeth. GM's of that inclination will take any suggestion that they cdg as open licenced to always do so.
_m_ 11-27-06, 08:02 PM	As Andy said, you could just go after the healer. Also, a downed PC will not just "get up and keep breaking heads." He needs to stand up (move action that provokes) and either draw another weapon (move action) or retrieve the one he dropped (move action that provokes). If an opponent is within melee range, chances are the downed PC will stay there and play dead, rather than incur AOOs and make themselves a target. As a DM, I have encouraged PCs NOT to heal a down but stable PC precisely because they would then likely die the next round. As a player, I usually feel the same way. The exceptions being if there are AOE spells going off or if the downed PC is the only capable damage dealer or if the PCs want to flee. Daren all fighters will have at least a few weapons. the heal they get may quite potentioaly get enough hp up to take an aoo without going down again, they usually have enough +to hit to attack when prone. they could have kip up, quick draw, or unarmed attacks. as for going after the cleric, he might have full plate, a tower shield, be back 30 feet behind a spiked chain aoo fighter... do you want to go get him, spend 5 rounds killing him, and have to take the warrior down for each of those rounds, or spend 1 round on teh fighter.
Japangirl 11-27-06, 08:34 PM	We have determined that DMs are allowed to coup de'grace PCs but not gratuitously. Bad guys can and should coup de'grace if it makes sense for them to but only if it makes sense. Speaking of PCs killing NPCs, my rogue has done so quite a few times. Assassin shows, she pulls out saps, he goes unconscious. After tying him up, rendering him helpless, and readying actions if he started to try to escape via magic, the assassin was healed up to a few HP and interrogated. After we learned what he knew, I CDG'ed him so he couldn't escape or warn his employer. Mean? Sure. But also necessary for my character's survival. This situation has occurred several times and each time, after interrogation, the baddie was killed. On the original topic, Delay Death is just that, a delaying action. It won't keep someone from going down, and if you have a party light on healing then if the person takes a lot of damage s/he can't be healed up to survivable range (this has happened at least once that I know of). It allows a cleric to use an immediate action to not have to run across the battlefield RIGHT NOW to save the person who got hit for 120 points of damage off her/his 111 total. Bleeding to death is a very ignominious death for anyone, and if it can be avoided some of the time why not? I know that I play no differently at tables where it is available than at tables where it isn't, because it takes a valuable 4th level spell slot that could be used in an actual emergency instead of me being stupid and reckless. No one wants their PC to take damage or die, but every adventure offers that risk and Delay Death doesn't change that.
clannagh 11-27-06, 08:57 PM	4 Bards that barely reach APL 7 average should play down to APL6 or, much preferred, form a different, more balanced table, either through playing different characters or mixing in with other tables. I wouldn't really expect to do well with that kind of party. Daren The classic case is where you need to play the last mod in a series and its about to expire and the minimal APL is only just in reach of the party you can raise. One of our local DM's (that people will not play with anymore) has TPKed a few under APL parties and justifies it as "teaching them a lesson about being too cocky and taking on too much). the same guy if he has a Vrock in a mod .. always grabs a PC and flies off for a no-resurrect kill becasue "thats what Vrock's do". In reality the APL band is simply the LG way to try and get balanced combat and playing the monsters to optimum and using techniques like cdg against a minimum party that barely qualifies is a blatant example of GM abuse of power that goes against teh spirit of the LGCS even if its technically legal.
JohnduBois 11-27-06, 09:14 PM	Speaking of PCs killing NPCs, my rogue has done so quite a few times. Assassin shows, she pulls out saps, he goes unconscious. After tying him up, rendering him helpless, and readying actions if he started to try to escape via magic, the assassin was healed up to a few HP and interrogated. After we learned what he knew, I CDG'ed him so he couldn't escape or warn his employer. Mean? Sure. But also necessary for my character's survival. This situation has occurred several times and each time, after interrogation, the baddie was killed. If I were you, I would be very, very careful about this tactic. An author in our area was recently told quite explicity by the regional Triad that using a coup de grace against a helpless character outside of combat was ALWAYS an evil act - to the point where the author was instructed to write it in the adventure to remind DMs.
_m_ 11-27-06, 09:27 PM	If I were you, I would be very, very careful about this tactic. An author in our area was recently told quite explicity by the regional Triad that using a coup de grace against a helpless character outside of combat was ALWAYS an evil act - to the point where the author was instructed to write it in the adventure to remind DMs. yeah id be a little cautious of that too. killing prisioers is supposed to be an evil act iirc. in fact, as far as i know, killing an npc that is running away is borderline evil, and has to be justified (as in, he was going for help). i got close to commiting an evil act in combat actually, by destroy an npc that quite clearly didnt pose much of a threat. its a fine line to tread. the knack: start good, then you can afford to change alignments at least once :D
Japangirl 11-27-06, 10:45 PM	If I were you, I would be very, very careful about this tactic. An author in our area was recently told quite explicity by the regional Triad that using a coup de grace against a helpless character outside of combat was ALWAYS an evil act - to the point where the author was instructed to write it in the adventure to remind DMs. As the blurb says, things are different in the Bandit Kingdoms . . . It's not a common tactic but it is something that does happens and needs to happen sometimes. In a recent Iuz module, the PCs were encouraged to hand over a sentient being as a sacrifice to Nerull. I at least leave the NPCs their souls. P.S. Liliana is chaotic neutral and sees no reason to start respecting law or decency any time soon, thanks anyways :D
_m_ 11-27-06, 11:13 PM	As the blurb says, things are different in the Bandit Kingdoms . . . It's not a common tactic but it is something that does happens and needs to happen sometimes. In a recent Iuz module, the PCs were encouraged to hand over a sentient being as a sacrifice to Nerull. I at least leave the NPCs their souls. P.S. Liliana is chaotic neutral and sees no reason to start respecting law or decency any time soon, thanks anyways :D chaotic neutral. when sanity is too restrictive.
Arvagor 11-28-06, 12:10 AM	As the blurb says, things are different in the Bandit Kingdoms . . . It's not a common tactic but it is something that does happens and needs to happen sometimes. In a recent Iuz module, the PCs were encouraged to hand over a sentient being as a sacrifice to Nerull. I at least leave the NPCs their souls."Encouraged", but not required? Sounds like you could have refused but didn't, so why is that any less evil? Unfortunately, I see this reason ("we do things different in the BK") as an all-too-often excuse for BK players to do things that would otherwise not be permitted by RPGA standards.
Mommy was an Orc 11-28-06, 12:11 AM	Go after the Cleric. The Cleric is the one causing the problem, either take him out or you won't win. If I'm DM and the opponents are intelligent, they probably unleash on the casters in the party before they go after the fighters if they can. It really shouldn't be an option in combat unless the Cleric makes it abundantly clear that there's no way to stop the Cleric except by killing the Fighter. Yes, they're guidelines for the DM. If you haven't noticed, the penalty document are not penalty rules, they're penalty guidelines... all fighters will have at least a few weapons. the heal they get may quite potentioaly get enough hp up to take an aoo without going down again, they usually have enough +to hit to attack when prone. they could have kip up, quick draw, or unarmed attacks. as for going after the cleric, he might have full plate, a tower shield, be back 30 feet behind a spiked chain aoo fighter... do you want to go get him, spend 5 rounds killing him, and have to take the warrior down for each of those rounds, or spend 1 round on teh fighter.
JohnduBois 11-28-06, 12:24 AM	In a recent Iuz module, the PCs were encouraged to hand over a sentient being as a sacrifice to Nerull. And... if this was IUZ4-01 Dorakka (us Michiganders get to play Iuz mods too), I seem to recall it being printed on the AR that you committed a morally questionable act by doing so... I'm not saying "ZOMG you CdG I take your character". I'm saying that if you do it at my table, you get a little note written on the AR explaining what you did. If you get lots of little notes, the Triad may have to make a decision regarding your character's continued playability. If the BK Triad thinks that's cool, great. I'm just saying that I'd be wary of putting my faith in the rulings of a region that actually prints things like "Top Ten Things Not To Say To Morginstaler"... :P (Totally no offense meant to those in the BK lounge... I hear the regional flavor's great, but in a region where Iuz rules, the legal limits have to bend a bit)
Britt 11-28-06, 12:34 AM	There is nothing in the rulebooks or campaign documentation that says or even implies that killing a captured foe, CDGing an enemy, or killing a fleeing enemy is evil or even borderline evil. All those arguments that say there is a ruling harken back to the days of Living City where their campaign administration thought it should be evil and made a campaign ruling about it. There are some DMs and Triads that feel that way, but it is not a rule at all, only an opinion.
Britt 11-28-06, 12:37 AM	Oh, and as in another thread, John's answer is a good one. If a DM ever feels that an act is questionable, they should probably notate it on the AR. If the Triad doesn't feel that the act was inappropriate, it won't matter. You could have 100 notations on ARs that would not matter one iota if they all said "channeled negative energy" or something like that. It's up to the player to know how their Triad would view acts and play accordingly.
Arvagor 11-28-06, 01:36 AM	There is nothing in the rulebooks or campaign documentation that says or even implies that killing a captured foe, CDGing an enemy, or killing a fleeing enemy is evil or even borderline evil.Well, at least as of the most recent FAQ, now there is (bottom of page 45, 11/22/06 version). Does that say "Coup de grace is evil"? No; but it does in essence say that the DM needs to pay attention to the context. I'm the first to admit that there should not be absolute black and white, but the (core) rules do give an indication that killing your enemies can be considered evil: "Some evil creatures [...] kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." Did you execute your captured foes after they surrendered to you? Did you shoot your foes in the back after they dropped their weapons, turned and ran? Both sound like situations where neither enemy needed to be killed, yet you did so anyway because it was convenient, and therefore likely evil as the rules define it. But we digress far off the topic at this point...
Simpi 11-28-06, 03:38 AM	No confusion. We 'downed' the wizzie. He then woke up again (because he had insigina of healing), and used the stone. My char then made sure he DIDN'T get up again. As I wrote, the only time I figured a coupe-de-grace was warranted. It was a good effect, though. Made me waste an action. Gomez Yeah, I was slightly confused there. I was thinking we still talked about Delay Death effect :D I have done few CdG:s on my career (some PCs have even survived them) but only complain ever was from player whose character died when he was fighting an enemy fighter in 5ft wide corridor. Enemy cleric appeared behind his fighter ally and used hold person on PC. Fighter then coup-de-graced because there was nowhere else to go or do. I mean, what was he supposed to do, take no action or do a "tactical retreat" from an advantageous position when he was not even wounded? Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
gomeztoo 11-28-06, 03:59 AM	Speaking of PCs killing NPCs, my rogue has done so quite a few times. Be aware that some DMs treat this as an evil act. I have been threatened with it several times when my PC (who is CG but has a vengeful streak) killed (or was about to kill) captive orcs or killers. It depends on the DM, and I can see their reasoning. Just saying that you should be a bit wary there (or willing to take the note). Gomez
gomeztoo 11-28-06, 04:10 AM	Its a fine line to tread. the knack: start good, then you can afford to change alignments at least once :D Or become a dragonm disciple. You can't change alignment ever...
Mommy was an Orc 11-28-06, 09:49 AM	Enemy cleric appeared behind his fighter ally and used hold person on PC. Fighter then coup-de-graced because there was nowhere else to go or do. I mean, what was he supposed to do, take no action or do a "tactical retreat" from an advantageous position when he was not even wounded? Presuming the Fighter understands the spell the Cleric is casting, that's different. The person who fails a save vs hold person does not need aid from the rest of the party to come back into the fight and could possibly do it within a round. However, the Fighter can move through the square of the held PC in any case - not sure how he didn't have anywhere else to go - the PC is paralyzed until he makes his save or hold person runs out...
GrahamWills 11-28-06, 10:57 AM	Presuming the Fighter understands the spell the Cleric is casting, that's different. The person who fails a save vs hold person does not need aid from the rest of the party to come back into the fight and could possibly do it within a round. For me as a GM, this is also the most likely time for me to CDG a player character. Hold Person is immediately obvious in effect, and fighter should know what spells his cleric has, so he can either (1) ignore the held person, walk past him and hope that he can clear off everyone else before the fighter makes his save, or (2) kill him now and be certain to remove a key opposition asset. Pretty easy choice really. I cannot see any common reason not to cdg held people. Other situations require more careful thought. NPC motivations are very important. Bandits with good connections will be very careful not to kill people and probably will heal a party if they manage a TPK. In most LG regions robbery can be bought off with good influence, but murder ... much harder. So a businesslike bandit should be careful to rob cautiously and move on. On the other hand, many NPCs have motivations that put their own survival below that of revenge. Your barbarian critted and crushed the head of the ogre's wife? And now the barbarian is unconcious at the ogre's feet? The ogre might prefer to die with the opportunity to bring the barbarian with him. Especially if he knows there is no escape for him anyway. Here's a fun thought for an inbetween situation. The party is invading the Grand Structure of Mod. They are clearly overwhelming the local guards who know they are mook encounters (the enemy has magic and we don't!), but they get lucky and down a foe. How about threatening to CDG him unless the PCs leave? Doesn't that sound very reasonable? The guards get to live without ******* off the PCs; they achieve their goal and will probably get promoted. Go team! Consider that as an alternative option for CdG situations that is both realistic and party-friendly: "You have 10 seconds to leave this room, or I cut your friend's throat. We all know you will be able to kill us easily if I renage on the deal, so you know I have no reason to lie to you. He could wake up any time now, so I can't give you more than that. Leave or he dies." Opposed diplomacy check to give you more rounds of conversation. (Dip. check - Sens Motive result. Every 5 successes gives an extra round of talking. Harsher GMs will force players to make Sense Motive checks to see when time has run out ...)
Simpi 11-28-06, 11:08 AM	However, the Fighter can move through the square of the held PC in any case - not sure how he didn't have anywhere else to go - the PC is paralyzed until he makes his save or hold person runs out... See above the comment on tactical advantage. The fighter was blocking a 5ft wide corridor which essentially prevented enemies from ganging up on him. Moving backwards behind cleric or through paralysed enemy would have removed this advantage from him, so why on earth he would have done it and not coup-de-graced. And comments on knowing spells. Let us assume that groups of statted NPCs know each other capabilities and how to work as a team. Why would every NPCs brain suddenly teleport into the locker room simply because they face "PCs"? Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Mommy was an Orc 11-28-06, 11:34 AM	And comments on knowing spells. Let us assume that groups of statted NPCs know each other capabilities and how to work as a team. Why would every NPCs brain suddenly teleport into the locker room simply because they face "PCs"? That assumes that each NPC has reasons to implicitly trust the other NPCs. If you're a cleric of Vecna, with some borderline insane CE Fighter in your retinue, do you explain exactly how long Hold Person lasts to him or do you just order him to kill the hapless PC in front of him?
chesspiece 11-28-06, 11:46 AM	Enemy cleric appeared behind his fighter ally and used hold person on PC. Fighter then coup-de-graced because there was nowhere else to go or do. I mean, what was he supposed to do, take no action or do a "tactical retreat" from an advantageous position when he was not even wounded? Makes sense to me. The cleric could even have said something like "Kill him quick before he breaks free." It's what I do with my PC spellcasters (after watching one of my Sleep spells expire). But (semi-OT) this might also be an issue with rolling a single Initiative for multiple BG's. If BG-Cleric & BG-Fighter are going on the same Init, I wouldn't do the CDG. If the rolls were legit (BGC then BGF with no PCs between) then them's the breaks. Alternatives would include: BG-Fighter does full attack; can 5' up if PC drops and continue with iteratives. BG-Fighter moves up (sharing square with helpless enemy costs 2 squares) and attacks the next rank; BG-Cleric might CDG next round. Either way, the PCs at least have a chance to save their buddy and aren't cheated by a "shortcut" (rolling 1 initiative). Stephen Martin Just a Player/Judge in Ket
Simpi 11-28-06, 12:06 PM	That assumes that each NPC has reasons to implicitly trust the other NPCs. If you're a cleric of Vecna, with some borderline insane CE Fighter in your retinue, do you explain exactly how long Hold Person lasts to him or do you just order him to kill the hapless PC in front of him? Unless the module says "This NPC is a pathological murderer" or "this NPC is a crazier than mad cow and stabs his ally in the back immediately" then I would say it is pretty safe to assume they do. Evil does not automatically mean "stupid", at least not for me. And even in example above, if the "fighter" is CE barbarian and cleric says "Kill it" and target in front of the barbarian stops moving, I would bet that CE barbarian keeps doing it but the result merely amounts to CdG instead of regular attack "Hah, stupid man stands still. Thog cuts him half from groin to head with full power attack, that way it hurts more!" Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Britt 11-28-06, 12:13 PM	"Hah, stupid man stands still. Thog cuts him half from groin to head with full power attack, that way it hurts more!" Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad Brilliant, simply brilliant :D
trollbill 11-28-06, 01:05 PM	And even in example above, if the "fighter" is CE barbarian and cleric says "Kill it" and target in front of the barbarian stops moving, I would bet that CE barbarian keeps doing it but the result merely amounts to CdG instead of regular attack "Hah, stupid man stands still. Thog cuts him half from groin to head with full power attack, that way it hurts more!" Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad The difference being that CdG provokes AoOs but a regular attack wouldn't. If one enemy is helpess and you are threatened by another, CdG usually isn't a smart move. Though obviously if the person threatening you is a wizard with a dagger and the person helpless is a full HP barbarian, provoking the AoO is probably worth it.
Japangirl 11-28-06, 04:20 PM	"Encouraged", but not required? Sounds like you could have refused but didn't, so why is that any less evil? Unfortunately, I see this reason ("we do things different in the BK") as an all-too-often excuse for BK players to do things that would otherwise not be permitted by RPGA standards. Encouraged as in you either turn over the sentient being, fight a whole freaking lot of Nerullites (several waves of EL +4 encounters), or fail the module. I think there was a diplomatic option with DCs in the 40s though . . . which none of us had a snowball's chance in the Abyss of making. Our table was not comfortable with the choice we made, but we felt we had no choice if we wanted to survive and achieve our objective, and the sentient sacrifice was an evil creature. As for BK being different, if I let people go they go report to the Church of Iuz that I smacked them down. Then I get wanted points and have to pay massive bribes and be in constant danger of my life as my picture and description is posted on boards at the gates of all major cities and most minor ones. It is a matter of my life or theirs, and I pick mine. Yes, BK players bend RPGA rules but it is pure survival tactics to do it, and then RPing it in other regions is fun! No other region has the Wanted point system and no other region has PCs pretty much automatically hunted no matter where they go. Until you play in a region like that, let us be ruthless and nasty.
Simpi 11-28-06, 04:30 PM	No other region has the Wanted point system and no other region has PCs pretty much automatically hunted no matter where they go. Until you play in a region like that, let us be ruthless and nasty. Ahlissa does have simple Wanted system without different ranks of renown points. I would like to think that in Naerie we do things bit differently as well. After all, we have lots of modules where your choice of opponent is either LN government or CG "terrorist" and none of them are 100% right choices. We even have a meta-organisation for Ex-Brotherhood soldiers who ended up as POWs 10 years ago when South Province kicked Scarlet Brotherhood out of Idee :D Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Mommy was an Orc 11-28-06, 05:42 PM	Unless the module says "This NPC is a pathological murderer" or "this NPC is a crazier than mad cow and stabs his ally in the back immediately" then I would say it is pretty safe to assume they do. Evil does not automatically mean "stupid", at least not for me. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad The definition of Chaotic Evil is that they are pathological murderers... Neutral Evil, "Malefactor": A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple." Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer": A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable...typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him." Now, I need to emphasize here - this doesn't mean to me that they can't cooperate and exchange some tactical information, but a Neutral Evil Cleric of the God of Secrets explaining exactly what all his spells do and how they behave to his Chaotic Evil Lackey is a bona fide idiot.
Arvagor 11-28-06, 06:23 PM	Encouraged as in you either turn over the sentient being, fight a whole freaking lot of Nerullites (several waves of EL +4 encounters), or fail the module.The point being? So do the right thing, and accept the consequences. This is one of the (few) problems I have with LG, and it's not so much a problem with LG itself, but rather, an observation of the player base in general -- namely the perception that players must always receive full XP/GP, and that nothing bad must ever happen to the PCs. It generally goes hand in hand with, or is just another side of the "I'm playing to win!" personality. Yes, BK players bend RPGA rules but it is pure survival tactics to do it, and then RPing it in other regions is fun! No other region has the Wanted point system and no other region has PCs pretty much automatically hunted no matter where they go. Until you play in a region like that, let us be ruthless and nasty.We may not have the Wanted "point" system in Veluna, but you certainly can be wanted -- in fact, I can safely say there are at least two BK PCs who are wanted by the authorities in Veluna, such that one will be serving a 26 TU sentence and the other a 52 TU sentence if they turn themselves in, otherwise it's twice that if they are caught.
gomeztoo 11-29-06, 01:12 AM	The point being? So do the right thing, and accept the consequences. I don't know the background of the story, but from what it sounds like, several of my PCs would go down fighting rather than go forth with what seems to be an evil act. But those are, ofcourse, Good PCs, and at least one is totally unfit to adventure in the Iuz region anyway, as she will be attacked on sight (Iuz has a personal grudge against her). My neutral PCs would probably have less problems with it. As a dilemma it is an interesting choice - but I also feel some choices should perhaps not be sicked on a player - at least, not if you cannot back out.
Galvin 11-29-06, 01:18 AM	The first rule should always be as a GM, that the players have a fun time, ive met many GM's that get there fun by killing the players, these same GM's hate Delay Death. I do my best to make a mod a challange, and if the players die to a nasty crit, or poor choice then thats fine, but i have seen alot of mods that the encounter is so unbalanced the players have no chance, on these i'll cheat/adjust for the players with no shame.
Mattastrophic 11-30-06, 04:36 PM	CdGing just creates lots of bad feelings, so don't do it. I'm starting to refer to such a concept as a "Living Greyhawk Gentlemen's Agreement:" 1. No sundering. This includes holy symbols and spell component pouches. It's just dumb to say to a player "Did you bring your extra symbol today? No? HAHAHA YOU SUCK!" 2. No Coup De Gracing. When the PC is down, he's been defeated (until he gets healed, of course), no need to rub it in. 3. No massive damage. It's just silly. 4. No restrictions on Delay Death. If Bob gets critted and the damage drops him to -21, Bill can then Delay Death him. 5. No soloing the game. This is intentionally very broad, and it includes stuff like don't use cracked-out Holy Words and don't kill everything with your Warchanter/Dervish. -Matt
Britt 11-30-06, 04:47 PM	Massive damage is a rule in D&D. You cannot arbitrarily ignore it, no matter how much you dislike it. Similarly, if the tactics of an adventure say to sunder, coup de grace, or use another tactic you don't like, you need to follow if it is still logical/feasible for the NPC. Those are there to ensure a consistent play environment across all tables. If you don't do it and someone else does, then your table had an easier time than someone else's, yet they received the same rewards.
Haro 12-01-06, 12:01 AM	Massive damage is a rule in D&D. You cannot arbitrarily ignore it, no matter how much you dislike it. Similarly, if the tactics of an adventure say to sunder, coup de grace, or use another tactic you don't like, you need to follow if it is still logical/feasible for the NPC. Those are there to ensure a consistent play environment across all tables. If you don't do it and someone else does, then your table had an easier time than someone else's, yet they received the same rewards. Amen to that. Homebrew rules and "let's just pretend that didn't just happen" roleplaying is the domain of non-LG home games. I once had someone run me through an APL 10 high level core special at a gamesday but thought that the final boss battle was too tough. To compensate they thought they'd just slot in the APL 8 boss from the low level version. When I found out a month later I felt completely cheated. I would rather my PC have died. A big part of why I play LG is for the consistency across the board. Joe
Morgen 12-01-06, 01:07 AM	Delay Death? Why on earth would you want to ban a spell like that? Arn't there other more horrifically broken spells that could easily be far more important to consider? So you can save a character from dying, maybe. Big deal, get over it. Stop trying to rack up kill counts in mods, no one is impressed with your stories of TPKs (well the boring ones, some can be funny if its the PC's fault.) I've heard enough whining on the grounds of immediate action spells while we're at it. All it really does is give someone the chance to survive a really rough combat assuming the rest of the party survives it too, and they can heal you up afterwards. Assuming the cleric survives too. The spell does have a duration you know, and the PC isn't exactly immune to any area of affect spells or constant effects either. I'd imagine an unconcious character is pretty well denied a save from a fireball or a radiant assult and doesn't hold much challenge for an Evard's to continue grappling. It doens't even stablise your character for Joramy's sake! I do appologise for the tone of my post but honestly there are far, far more broken spells, and even if it is that terrible to you we should never move dirrectly to banned status. We should shift it to limited and see how that works.
Nutation 12-01-06, 08:15 PM	You've obviously missed the point of this thread. Would you like it explained?
_m_ 12-06-06, 05:27 PM	Delay Death? Why on earth would you want to ban a spell like that? Arn't there other more horrifically broken spells that could easily be far more important to consider? So you can save a character from dying, maybe. Big deal, get over it. Stop trying to rack up kill counts in mods, no one is impressed with your stories of TPKs (well the boring ones, some can be funny if its the PC's fault.) I've heard enough whining on the grounds of immediate action spells while we're at it. All it really does is give someone the chance to survive a really rough combat assuming the rest of the party survives it too, and they can heal you up afterwards. Assuming the cleric survives too. The spell does have a duration you know, and the PC isn't exactly immune to any area of affect spells or constant effects either. I'd imagine an unconcious character is pretty well denied a save from a fireball or a radiant assult and doesn't hold much challenge for an Evard's to continue grappling. It doens't even stablise your character for Joramy's sake! I do appologise for the tone of my post but honestly there are far, far more broken spells, and even if it is that terrible to you we should never move dirrectly to banned status. We should shift it to limited and see how that works. yeah... that was kind of randomly abusive...
Munkwunk 12-08-06, 12:11 AM	A big part of why I play LG is for the consistency across the board. Then I'm afraid you may be in the wrong place. While it's great to be able to take the same character to nearly any major event in every major part of the world, you are going to get table variation, plain and simple. No two DMs are alike no matter how hard-and-fast the rules are. I do agree with you that it's no fun when a DM starts subbing in monsters (unless he really feels justified; I've heard some horror stories about certain intro mods...), but ignoring the author's "tactics" section when he says "this NPC will coup de grace the first downed PC no matter what the risk to himself', that's just dumb. Just like not all DMs are equal, not all authors are equal (nor are they all fair). When an author starts writing mods to account for Delay Death, he makes it more difficult on people who don't use Delay Death. When he writes sunder-happy NPCs, all he does is write characters whose lives are blatantly forefeit to begin with, in hopes of making a few PCs miserable when they find out their expensive sword just got shattered for no good reason. On the topic of Delay Death itself, all I have to say is that, as a 10th level Cleric, I always have it prepped but have never once had to cast it. In fact, the last time I saw someone at my table die due to damage was when an unfortunate 3rd-level rogue was playing up to 6 and was critted by a dire wolf. Even my very own Shock Trooper Barbarian (who has yet to ever play at a table which had Delay Death handy) hasn't died due to damage (just the blasted Finger of Death), and he once took three full-attacks by three Vrocks in one round. Maybe I just don't get around enough, but I really don't see this spell being cast very often (though it's prepped all the time) and I tend to see people die from methods other than hit point loss more often than not.
clannagh 12-08-06, 12:21 AM	i tend to agree I have recently been to a number of major Perrenland con's and never seen delay death cast the death's i did hear of were things like multiple wail of the banshee saves (you gotta love perrenland) I suspect people have just wanted to have monsters CDG all along and are leaping at delay death as an excuse to write it into mod's.
Simpi 12-08-06, 01:10 AM	I suspect people have just wanted to have monsters CDG all along and are leaping at delay death as an excuse to write it into mod's. I have always written CdG into my modules as option for enemies, no matter what tactics PCs might use. I do no tweak encounters with silly templates and other crap, keeping them rather basic but that does not mean I would write sub-standard tactics for monsters who are not stupid. Oh yeah, and your blanket statement "people" is quite confusing and/or insulting. Who are these mysterious "people" you refer to? I assume Circle, Triad and module authors and not regular players and DMs. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Puggle Halfwine 12-09-06, 12:10 PM	The only one time I have used CdG in a Living Greyhawk module was when every single PC was down except for one, who was under the effect of a Hold Person spell which had one round left to go. The person doing the CdG was the caster, so he knew how long he had left. This *would* have lead to a TPK (the three surviving baddies would immediately begin gleefully CdGing the downed PCs who they had strict orders to kill), but right before I declared the action I asked my players to do a favour-crawl for anything that might save them. Someone came up with something and (although I technically shouldn't have) I allowed it. Two PCs ended up dead from that encounter, I'm glad there were no more. Just as a side note, I don't go out of my way to kill PCs and I will allow slightly dodgy stuff (such as the above) to stop PC deaths. However, I do all my dice rolls out in the open, with the understanding that "everyone knows". If your time is up, it's up; let the dice fall as they may.