Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Exydus Feb 12, 2015 12:23:00	I am the DM od a group of about 7 people. We are all rather new to D&D, about as long as 5e has been out. We play once a week. Recently, I had a player almost leave because they beleived my ruling was unfair. The ruling resulted in his PC's death. The story: His character was a 4th level bard with very good charisma. While on a 3 month journey in acaravan, His character decided to use a disguise kit to look like an NPC who was driving one of the cultists wagons. They had 7 wagons, each with 3 man teams assigned to them. All belonging to the cultists. He tried to arrive early in the morning at the wagon before the real person showed up, but when the NPC showed up - there were two of them. It is good to note that he rolled a nat 20 on the diaguise. After the other NPC's noticed there was two of them, they both had there hands tied behind their backs and were brought over to the side to find out which was real. They were both questioned, and ultimately, they still had no idea who the real one was. Then it happened, the PC decided to shout out to them, "They should both both sacrifice themselves in tiamats honor if they could not fins who was real!" The NPC, being a cult fanatic, totally agreed with this and happily sacrificed himself by impaling himself on one of the four guards drawn sword. Up to this point i gave the PC a multitude of chances to talk himself out of this situation, but they all failed. The PC now had 4 guards, swords drawn, within 5 feet of him and his hands were tied. By my understanding, i considered his character to be helpless towarda them, seeing as he was at there mercy, thus making him open to Coup De Grace. I gave the rogue, who was in constant contact with him via the message spell, a chance to intervene. I explained that she could do something to try and save him, but i warned her that they have 9 other guards by the other wagon that were watching and that she should weigh her options. She decided to try and distract them, but it failed. I then told the PC that his character was then stabbed to death by the 4 guards. The question is, was i right or wrong in how i applied CDG? I understand most people say they have to be unconscince, but it says that if they are "at the complete mercy of another" which is what i considered he was.
#2 pukunui Feb 12, 2015 12:53:19	For starters, there is no coup de grace rule in 5e. It's been absorbed into the dying rules: if you take damage while dying, it counts as a failed death save. If you get critted while dying - and any hit on an unconscious target is an auto-crit - that counts as two failed death saves.   In addition, "helpless" is not a condition in 5e. An incapacitated target can't take actions or reactions, although they can still move. A restrained target's speed is 0, but they can still take actions and reactions. It doesn't sound like the bard was either incapacitated or restrained, since only his hands were tied.   I would've had the guards make attack rolls, and I would've given the bard a chance to slip past them and make a run for it.   All that being said, though, the player did make a rather foolish move with the whole "we should both sacrifice ourselves to Tiamat!" thing. Given the situation, the player was pretty much asking for their PC to be killed.
#3 OoftaMeg Feb 12, 2015 12:55:16	I probably would have ruled that they had advantage, but not that they automatically crit since the PC was effectively restrained but not unconscious.     However, it really does sound like this character was being suicidal.  I've had players do this to me - they want to push the boundaries to see if you're willing to kill off a PC.   Given the situation you were well within your rights as a DM to make the call you made.  The rules are guidelines, as long as you try to be fair (and it sounds like you were) the players have to live with their choices.
#4 Angry_Steak Feb 12, 2015 13:09:47	If one of my players did that, I'd pre-empt it with some questions of intent and warnings of possible consequences. If it went as far as being surrounded and potentially dying, I'd attempt to come up with some dramatic ending. It could be a horrific death and ritual sacrifice, a daring escape and triumphant return, or a high stakes hostage situation and interrogation.     What was the Bard's expected result? Does he know that the cultists are truly fanatic through previous experiences?   When I ran my players through episode 2 of Hoard, I presented them with a variety of NPCs from the simple recruit looking to make a name for himself to the true fanatic who swallowed acid to prove his faith. From this information, they could learn just how wild the fire they're playing is and act accordingly.
#5 Coredump00 Feb 12, 2015 13:30:31	This doesn't really have anything to do with CDG, they were going to kill him and he couldn't do anything about it.  Whether it took one hit, or several, or even multiple rounds... the outcome was going to be the same.   But the situation seems less than ideal... first the plan was bad. He knew the real guy was going to show up eventually, should have taken him out first. Even a 20 on disguise is not going to hold up with a hands on inspection...make up is still make up. The *PC* suggesting they both die is um..... a bit odd....   But as a DM, I would have been loathe to put him into a situation he could not get out of....    But my real question is... was it *only* cultists in the caravan?  This was cold blooded murder, why was it allowed by everyone else? Impersonating someone is not a capital crime.     Also, welcome to the Boards.  Next time it would help if you used some paragraph breaks to make your post easier to read.
#6 bawylie Feb 12, 2015 13:37:07	"The faith of the fallen having proved true, the cultists draw their knives and stab you to death."   "Rogue, you hear the sounds of Bard's pleading death throes. It occurs to you that your distraction coudlve been a little more distracting. What do you do now?"
#7 Archon007 Feb 12, 2015 14:32:08	Yeah as others have said there is no coup de grace rule in 5e. It seems like the player seemed focused on the 1 task. Honestly, I would have given the player a chance in the beginning by saying something like:   "as you approach the caravan you notice the cult leader you are impersonating." or "as you are talking with the cult members by the wagon you notice the cult leader you are impersonating approaching" what do you do?   I can understand the player being upset because as the GM you where in control of whether or not the NPC showed up while the player was impersonating them and by your description it seems you didn't give him enough information on the situation.
#8 BoldItalic Feb 12, 2015 16:08:06	I think you were too quick to slaughter him. He wasn't unconscious so the guards shouldn't have had automatic critical hits. His hands were tied, but that didn't stop him doging and moving. He wasn't incapacitated or restrained.   A single hit by a guard only does 4 damage so they couldn't possibly have killed him outright. It would have taken several rounds, during which he would have had the opportunity to move and act. Even if he stood there and did nothing and they kept attacking until he was unconscious, he would still have been entitled to death rolls.   He could have made a run for it. His hands were tied, but that didn't stop him moving. On his turn, he could have taken the disengage action and moved his speed to escape. Even though there were four guards surrounding him, he could have moved through the gaps between them. He was clear to run away.The guards might have followed after him and It might have turned into a chase, but there are rules in the DMG for resolving that. But he didn't choose to run away. He chose to stay, knowing that he was expected to die. His choice.   He could have attacked the guards with his feet. Not very effective, perhaps, it would count as an unarmed attack so it wouldn't do much damage but it would be something.   Given that he chose to stay and not even attack,he could still have taken the Dodge action, so that they guards would have been attacking at disadvantage. That would have delayed his death, and might have given time for the other PCs to come to his aid. And he would have had more chances to run away.   Did he try to run away? Did he lash out with his feet? Did he try to Dodge? No? Then he had made his choice. He died, proclaiming his allegience to Tiamat.   So, yes, you were a bit quick to kill him but he had already chosen not to resist, so the result was inevitable anyway. There is a saying "It is no kindness to hang a man slowly"
#9 Barky Feb 12, 2015 16:41:07	You should have played the combat out.    In general, I find it's always better to either a) let the rules play out the effects of a bad decision or b) if rules are vague or you have to make something up on the fly, tell the PC your ruling in the form of a check, and let them change their mind if it's too hard.    "The river is deep & swift" "I want to swim across the river." "Your Athletics will be rolled at disadvantage." "Hmmm, let me rethink,"   Otherwise, rulings sound capricious. Let the dice let them fail.
#10 Archon007 Feb 12, 2015 17:49:09	Barky wrote:
#11 Azylynne Feb 12, 2015 22:59:14	Everything said and done, I probably would of had the guards knock unconscious the bard so they could interrogate him later on to find out who he is working for, what he is doing with the caravan, and anything else important.  Meanwhile, this would have given the other players a chance at a rescue mission.
#12 Noon Feb 13, 2015 2:44:58	He wasn't open to a coup de grace. It's not even really a thing in 5e. You were wrong to apply it as if you were applying the rules - you weren't.   Ask the player if he wants to ret con the situation, either he was just knocked unconcious but the guards thought him dead, or replay the scene or just remain dead (sometimes a player might just choose to keep the PC dead, but being asked makes them feel better about the event). Ask the other players how they feel - in that if they don't like the players choice on this, then that's your fault as GM, not the players fault.   Sometimes as GM you've got to bite bullets, otherwise you end up a petty dictator.   And I don't see him choosing not to resist - I see a player under the 'do anything and your PC dies by CDG' threat of the GM. That's not choosing not to resist, that's being denied being able to resist.
#13 El_Condoro Feb 13, 2015 3:10:11	My first response is that a high-risk approach like the one the PC took may lead to an epic fail and he should be willing to suffer the consequences of his actions. The mechanics of the situation aside, the player didn't think the plan through enough and brought even more trouble on himself by the Tiamat exclamation.   However, it sounds like he was trying to draw on the story of King Solomon who was faced with the dilemma of deciding who was the real mother of a baby. He deduced which of the two women was the real mother by ordering the baby be cut in half with half going to each woman, to which the real mother gave up her right to the child. Solomon gave the child to her.   So, even with the high risk approach that went horribly wrong, I would be trying to save the PC and I would have had the NPC cultist balk at the idea of being sacrificed - he may have a valid reason to want to stay alive (seeing Tiamat rise would be the obvious one) or he just wanted to live, which is natural, too. In any case, the NPC is the one killed and the PC gets to continue the heroic, though suspense-filled ruse, knowing that he nearly died. Good for tension and the narrative of the game.
#14 Coredump00 Feb 13, 2015 5:55:44	Don't let people convince you sacrifice story because of mechanics. You only ever roll anything if the outcome is in doubt. There is nothing wrong with narrating that the cultists guards killed him.   That said, I think the suggestion to take him prisoner may have been a better option. Gives them a chance to salvage the fiasco they have created. Or other parts of the caravan could have intervened to stay the execution until you get to town.
#15 Ranthalan Feb 13, 2015 9:04:43	What was the player's intent by impersonating the NPC?  Was there any reason he would think the other NPC wouldn't show up?  As stated, it sounds like the player just wanted to play with his disguise kit.  If a player's motivations seem suspect to me, I'll usually ask them what they're trying to accomplish.  In this case I might have asked the player if he'd planned what he was going to do when the NPC showed up to do his job.
#16 Exydus Feb 13, 2015 13:47:45	I appritiate all the responses. This is a learning experience for us all. Me and the player have talked it over and come to an understanding. This sort of thing was bound to happen at some point. I do beleive, however, that the rules are guidelines like some people have said. Some of you have posted about CDG not being in 5e, but i feel it has a place as a roleplaying mechenic. Should i have to do a combat encounter for an outcome i already know?
(Reply to #16) Baphogoat	Exydus wrote:
#18 Exydus Feb 13, 2015 14:24:16	We are playing it as it stands, which means his character is still dead. In the furture i will tell players if they are getting into a situation where they can be CDG, so that they know what they are getting into. He agree's with the ruling and everything is fine.
#19 Devils-Advocate Feb 13, 2015 14:51:32	I think it's your use of the term Coup De Gras that's throwing people off. In previous editions, that phrase has carried specific mechanical meaning. I would just call what you're describing adjudication. If the outcome of an action isn't uncertain, there's no need to rely on dice rolls, and I'd say the outcome of slitting a subdued prisoner's throat is pretty darn certain. Personally, I would have adjudicated differently in this case, because the scenario you described sounded like the PC might still have been able to try to run. But I also don't think it would have called for a full-on combat swoosh either. In any case, that sort of adjudication is not only allowed by the rules, it's an important part of the DM's job. Just make sure your rulings are fair to the players and to the fiction.
#20 Exydus Feb 13, 2015 15:27:02	Well, maybe i am using the term wrong. I just remember doing searches for this mechanic, and people bringing up the example of slitting people's throats while sleeping. and how if they did not notice your presence you could just kill them, no rolls needed.I guess that is maybe why I'm stuck on this term when used in this sort of situation, like I said before I consider it mainly a roleplaying mechanic, and not so much a combat mechanic. Say for instance, a character decides to infiltrate enemy stronghold, and is promptly captured or even surrounded by a multitude of enemies all by himself. in that case I would just rule that he has no chance of getting out alive.
#21 Noon Feb 13, 2015 16:13:47	Exydus wrote:
#22 BoldItalic Feb 13, 2015 17:19:35	Exydus wrote:
(Reply to #21) Coredump00	Noon wrote:
#24 Noon Feb 13, 2015 20:42:39	Coredump00 wrote:
#25 Lady_Auralla Feb 13, 2015 21:53:24	Exydus wrote:
#26 Undrhil Feb 13, 2015 22:29:16	I think this played out how the Bard set it into motion.  He is the one that suggested they both sacrifice themselves.  When he didn't, the guards attacked him.  It might have taken longer to actually kill him, but he was bound and surrounded.  If he stood up and ran, they might have let him go, but then his character would forever be ....   Wait.  Did he ever take off the disguise?  Did the guards ever actually see who he was?   If not, then he could have gotten away, and they would never know who it was that was impersonating that NPC.  Later, he could slip back into the convoy and no one would notice, possibly.   Definitely could have found another way than killing him.   But, as I said first ... it *was* the Bard's idea to sacrifice themselves......
#27 Archon007 Feb 14, 2015 1:14:46	The other I noticed is you said [ Exydus wrote:
(Reply to #25) Macv12	Lady_Auralla wrote:
#29 Exydus Feb 14, 2015 8:05:13	I gave the character a multitude of chances to role play himself out of the situation. As forhis actual actions, as I said before the character woke up at the crack of dawn and try to take the place of the NPC on the wagon so that when they all arrived at the wagon the next morning they would have two of them. The PC expected this to happen. He was very confident and his talking ability, and his ability to get out of the situation or maybe even get the other guy killed in the process. The player even agrees that I gave him more than enough chances to get out of the situation, he just complained that he didn't understand the gravity of the situation as to how I was going to handle it. As for the rogue, she tried to distract them so that the bard could escape, she used a spell to create a loud noise. I did wisdom rolls for them against her spell save DC which they won. That is not me making a decision that is me leaving it up to an honest to god roll. I usually like to let them roll the dice for certain outcomes but then again I believe that I can't always allow that 50000 times. As for the cultist willing to die, they are part of a fanatical cult and if you've ever known anything about fanatical cults they're ready to die for what they believe in. I would have never made that the character say something like that but then again I'm not the one who brought it up, he did.
(Reply to #24) Coredump00	Noon wrote:
(Reply to #25) Coredump00	Lady_Auralla wrote:
#32 killjester Feb 14, 2015 13:08:38	There may be no "CDG" rule in 5E, but the potential for death occurred well before a sword was drawn. When the character in disguise saw the genuine NPC show up, and he didn't use the better part of discretion and bail, the future was set. He was among fanatical cultists, allowed himself to get tied up, and allowed the guards to draw swords...and did nothing.   Then, he opened his mouth and pretty much dared them to kill him.   I've been playing D&D since 1981. I would have let him die too. If he quit because he:   1. Failed to recognize his cover was blown. 2. Failed to retreat when that cover was blown. 3. Allowed himself to be restrained 4. Dared the guards to kill him. 5. And his party failed to act to rescue him...   then he wins a handful of 27 points to make a new character. If he blames you for this series of events, he has bigger problems than a CDG. He needs to give his head a shake.   With regard to CDG and it's like: I have seen many one-shot kills in the past with or without a CDG ruling in the books. Falls from very tall cliffs or flying vessels, swan dives into pools of lava, jumping into deep dark crevasses "to see what that noise is", and other marks of pure genius have been the downfall of players regardless of saving throws, hit points, and magical teddy bears.   If a player ties your hands with their bad choices, give them the gruesome death that they obviously want. Otherwise, you'll end up in a campaign where they expect to backhand Tiamat and get away with it. I'm all for trying to make a player understand the peril they may be in, but I have a general rule for my campaign that may fit:   "I might save you from monsters. I may even save you from a bad die roll, But I refuse to save you from yourself."   If you make a ruling, try to stand by it. DMing as much a work-in-progress as playing, and we all have room to learn and grow. If a player quits simply because they didn't get their way, you may well be better off without them, as they are making a carte blanch statement on refusing to adapt.   I can also promise you this: No on else will dare pull the same stunt again. If they do, kill them too. Then make a snack. And perhaps a cup of coffee.
#33 Noon Feb 15, 2015 16:00:56	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #29) evil_warlock	Exydus wrote:
#35 Barky Feb 15, 2015 5:49:28	evil_warlock wrote:
#36 killjester Feb 15, 2015 13:07:22	Barky, you hit the nail on the head: "Totally depends on the personalities, maturity levels".   In that situation, based on the poor planning, attrotious execution of said plan, and  willingness to basically dare someone to kill him, that player was bound to die horribly. It may have been later than it actually happened. But, one way or another, his lack of forethought, planning, and maturity guaranteed it.   And that's not the DMs fault - with or without dice rolls, rules, or Chuck Norris.   Exydus, stand by your ruling. Don't feel the need to justify every ruling if common sense and logic are the largest factors in play. Sometimes things fail. Sometimes things do not go as planned. Heck, the best way to make sure any plan never travels in a straight line is to hand it to a group of players. Players need to accept that they have something called hit points, and that means they are mortal. Part of the game is the risk of death. Otherwise, it's not an adventure, it's Dora the frikkin' Explorer. Bad decisions are not the fault of the DM.    On the other hand, DMs need to be fair and objective. I get the feeling that you were certainly objective, and I would accept your decision as fair. Rules or no rules.
#37 Noon Feb 15, 2015 16:07:30	killjester wrote:
(Reply to #29) Macv12	Exydus wrote:
#39 Psikerlord Feb 15, 2015 19:20:57	Exydus wrote:
#40 Jaxom Feb 16, 2015 17:31:42	Hmm... I don't like to kill characters, if it's in combat due to a bad decision or dice rolls then it happens.   I might have had the cultists pull their swords and advance on the character and they bring their weapons up to strike and one of them quickly hits the character in the haed with their hilt to knock him out. Maybe a really tough Constitution save, if he's still conscious he gets hit again, Constitution save at Disadvantage. Wether that works or it doesn't, the character is bound up well and tossed in the back of the wagon.   There's some questions that need answering... 1. Is this character working alone, if not who's he working for and with. 2. This character could be sold or held for ransome for some good money. 3. The character could be a threat to the cults whole operation, it's good to know what his plans are. 4. The cult could have a ceremony where they have the character choose to join them or be sacrificed.   Like stated above, this sets up a rescue mission. Who knows what the other players might try in order to help their friend. It also will give the captured character a first hand look at how this cult operates and who's in charge.   Lots of options. I wouldn't say your ruling wrong. It shows the remaining characters that this cult needs to be dealt with carefully and actions need to be thought out.
#41 FrogReaver Feb 16, 2015 21:27:38	The funny thing is the bard still may could have gotten out of being killed.  "Begin by admitting he is the imposter and suggesting that a true follower of tiamat would take me to their leader bound and unharmed so the leader could adaquetly interrogate me."  Or "maybe suggest a true follower of Tiamat would keep him alive to bait his friends into being captured as well"   (I mean apparently these men take any suggestion or challenge about their loyalty to Tiamat very seriosuly)....
#42 Noon Feb 17, 2015 0:41:22	Again, AFAICT, the PC in question did NOT shout out "They should both both sacrifice themselves in tiamats honor if they could not fins who was real!"   Maybe the OP could clarify that.
#43 OoftaMeg Feb 17, 2015 6:29:46	In this particular scenario the PC could have been captured instead of killed and I probably wouldn't have given the bad guys auto-crits but I don't worry about those kind of spur-of-the-moment decisions.  It's going to happen all the time, you have to make an on-the-spot decision, sometimes they're going to be brilliant and exactly what's called for other times ... not so much.   But I'm not sure the specifics of this particular scenario matter as much as a decision that every DM has to make, how deadly is your campaign?  Long ago, I found that I had gotten into a pattern of never (permanently) killing PCs.  I'd fudge die rolls, have NPCs come in at the last minute to save the day, basically do whatever I had to do to ensure no PC ever died.   There's not a problem with that approach, but it does mean that there's no real risk, no sense of negative consequences to PCs actions.  Nowadays?  I let people know in hopefully subtle (sometimes not so subtle) ways that they are risking everything.  I rarely pull punches unless I simply messed up and threw too much at the group.     I've found that some of the most memorable encounters happen when PC's lives are on the line, and that they frequently surprise me how often they manage to pull off the seemingly impossible.  Whether it's the lone mage hiding under the table (to get cover) firing off her last magic missiles while everybody else is unconscious or the paladin rolling a 20 on their death saves just in the nick of time when the party managed to trigger pretty much every encounter at the same time in a certain mansion close to Phandalver.   It's not for every group, or every game session, but every once in a while putting your PC's lives on the line while they try to achieve their goal can be part of an exciting, engaging campaign.  Part of that is that you have to be willing as a DM to give the PC's enough rope to hange themselves with.
(Reply to #42) FrogReaver	Noon wrote:
#45 warpiglet Feb 17, 2015 18:38:31	That was not cool overall.  The rules were not followed AFTER a natural 20 and "fair" plan.  How about have them take him in for questioning? What does he know?  Give time for another rescue attempt.  How about the player pretend he used the power of his faith to charm the imposter?  Etc etc etc      So why go to that trouble?  FOR FUN.  I am not busting your chops.  I am growing As a long time player and newish dm.  Before the campaign goes much further have him awaken bound and being questioned!