"He's beyond my healing ability..."

[Celebrim]

I was hoping to find some middleground where I could still have NPCs die in the PCs' arms when appropriate, while not pissing off healer players and providing some kind of rules justification. But maybe that's just not possible.

If you want a different game, change the rules of the game.

In my game, under certain circumstances - massive damage, struck by a killing blow when helpless, critical hits that drop you below 0, or falls that drop you below 0 - you must make a traumatic damage save. If you fail that save, you are subject not to immediate death - as in the standard conventional version of the game - but to some extremely harsh conditions.

For example, you might have a massive chest injury resulting in hemoraging. Under this condition, the DC of healing checks to help you increases, and cure minor or cure light wounds do not stabilize you. They aren't enough to stop you from bleeding out, because your wound isn't minor. Also in my game, multiple heals in a short time period do not stack. A second cure light wounds does you no good. So even the PC was healed, the players are fighting a losing battle to keep the NPC alive using these methods.

It would be quite easy to have even harsher conditions which might thwart even fairly powerful magic.

This gains me certain specific things compared to stock D&D (and it probably also involves giving up certain things, everything is a tradeoff).

One of those is that there are fewer immediate death situations. So, there are fewer cases where a player dies without prolonged drama and a chance to be saed. But also, there are cases where I can have the PC's attempts to save the life of a NPC be dramatic. And of course, there are cases where the PC's attempts to save the life of an PC or NPC are dramatic whether I intended it or not.

It's also worth noting that anyone who is dying is not automatically unconscious, but can make saving throws to remain conscious.

Now, the game is fair again. I'm not imposing my will on the players. I've given up some control of the game, but the game state that I desire is possible within the game world and I've attained it essentially without fudging, fiat, or dramatically increasing the possibility of PC death.

DM's don't have to be hidebound to a rule set just because some professional created it. But once committed to a rule set, they should adhere to it.

I disagree with the whole idea of "derailing" cause that implies a railroad which is not the end of the spectrum I lean toward. It's not about the DM forcing their plot on on the players - its about creating drama, gravitas, driving home a harsh blow as a sign of an enemy's brutality, or the heroic sacrifice of an NPC, or as a consequence of a PC choice, or failure at a quest.

I say this with full respect, but I can't help but see a lot of cognitive dissonance in those claims.

 

[Piratecat]

I hate it when this happens in published modules, but don't mind it so much when a trusted DM uses it.

What's tricky is when this happens to a crucial NPC whose death drives the plot -- and the PCs just cast resurrect. Bastards. When I make this goof, it's a sign of sloppy DMing on my part. I should know better.

That said, I once got a 4 month plotline out of this happening when the PCs resurrected their slain king. The subconscious knowledge that he'd gone to Hell for past sins started driving him into insanity, and his brother - oh so briefly king! - refused to give up the throne. Made for some tough choices and fun roleplaying.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I rarely use dying last words, unless it's a final sneer from one of the bad guys like,
DM: "Your sword slices deep into the chest of the evil warrior, as blood spurts out of his chest, with his dying breath, he sneers, 'you think you've won?' and you see an insane leer form on his mouth for a split second, just before his lifeless body falls to the floor..."

From there, if the PCs want to heal him up & question him, that is fine with me, but they could have a potentially dangerous foe as a captive after that. And, healing him up only to question him and then kill him again is not exactly an honorable or good act...

 

[Celebrim]

That said, I once got a 4 month plotline out of this happening when the PCs resurrected their slain king. The subconscious knowledge that he'd gone to Hell for past sins started driving him into insanity, and his brother - oh so briefly king! - refused to give up the throne. Made for some tough choices and fun roleplaying.

Fun.

It's usually worth working out ahead of time the legal consequences of widespread magic.

In most of my nations, it's illegal to ressurect the King precisely because it creates succession crisises. No reputable priest would do it. In some cases, this extends down to any member of the nobility with an inheritable title, so becoming a Baronette might actually have some downside.

It's also generally illegal to ressurrect anyone that is executed (though generally, execution methods are specifically designed to make this difficult)

In Harlond, one of my main nations, if you are killed and resurrected you are legally considered to be a different person. If you possessions and titles are transfered to your heirs (or lacking heirs, the state!), you can't claim them back nor are you considered to have title to them. In fact, the only things considered to be yours is the stuff that was buried with you. So make sure you are buried with a purse. The reason for this law? Harlond is a basically a plutocracy, and so if the son or daughter inherits the family business, the people of Harlond object to the idea that you are obligated to give it back if your parents turn up a few weeks after being buried.

In the Prestian Confederacy, the ruling families are all alchemists who have discovered the secret of Potions of Longevity and so the partriarchs of the three main families live for centuries. In most parts of the world though, living an unnaturally long period is socially frowned on - with pitchforks and torches if necessary - because it tends to tie wealth and power to the old and oppress the younger generations. Young men for example typically don't appreciate competing for the affections of a young lady, with a guy who is not only their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, but doesn't even have the decency to be old and feeble.

Even if magic is not ubiquitous, it's going to change things. If your culture has a history, then just about anything the PC's do will have happened before and society will have had to deal with it in some fashion. Sometime in the past, some idiots decided it would be a good idea to resurrect the king who had died untimely, and then he went crazy, and there was a civil war between the followers of the King and the followers of his heir who had been briefly king and the survivors of that madness decided that whatever other laws they were going to pass, they were going to write down in great big letters in the binding laws of customs of the kingdom something like - "Thou Shalt Not Restore the King Who Has Died to Life, and if Thou Doest, then Thou are't a Witch and a Traitor and thy Body Shall Be Beheaded and Burned. As for the former King, He Shall NOT regain his crown through this Device but being confined in honor He Shall Remain in the Abbey of St. Crorlucia in Humble Service with the Brothers There for the Remainder of His Days"

 

[Corathon]

Ive come across this situation several times across multiple editions and variants of D&D: The PCs come across a dying NPC give their final words, an important element for telling the story being the NPC's death, and the party healer says "I cast heal on the guy. Now let's get all the details from him."

If the DM says the NPC is too close to death to heal, the healer PC feels crimped because nowhere in the rules does it say "you can't heal NPCs" or "a creature at death's door cannot be healed."

If the DM lets the healer revive the NPC, the DM will need to quickly adapt and either reveal more than intended so soon or come up with a way to convincingly string the PCs on further with this NPC's information. Thing is, once you do this that basically precludes any future scenario where the PCs can be present at the time of an NPC's death (well, maybe expect old age) - they'll just let the healer do their thing.

How do you handle this kind of situation in your games?

In 1E, a character might be at, e.g. negative 5 hit points and be beyond the ability of cure light wounds to save (a death's door spell or better would be needed). Such a character would be unconscious by the rules, but one could imagine him gasping out a few words by sheer effort of will. Low level PCs would not be able to heal him.

In higher level games, just invent an effect that kills the NPC slowly by some other means than draining hit points. E.g. the NPC is slowly being consumed by some curse that is turning him into an undead. He gives the group the clues that you want - then finishes the transformation to undead monster and attacks them! A magical disease in its last stages might create a situation like that imagined in the OP - or a parasite eating the NPC from the inside.

 

[Umbran]

But happening to die right as the heroes arrive to hear the speech? Easily dodgy, unless you play it just right.

I think the term that fits best might be, "cliché".

 

[Kaodi]

This is simple. If your PCs come across a dying man in the wilderness who has last words, and they cast a healing spell on him, then his last words are cut short: because positive energy is injurious to undead. His spirit was lingering in his corpse, and the healing magic sent him on his merry way.

This even sounds like a good idea for a monster, now that I think of it. An evil priest comes by and listens to such a person's last words, but binds their spirit more securely to their body. Instant non-vampire, non-ghoul undead creature with a purpose! You could even make an adventure, a novel or a movie... "The Last Words of Jeronimus Smyke" or something like that...

 

[CAFRedblade]

I've always liked the idea that all healing derives from the bodies natural reserves to make one whole. Magical healing only speeds up the process an incredible amount. If the NPC's body is beyond this limit, the healing might even kill him outright.

But it all depends on campaign setting and DM style.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I abide by the sentiments written by Gary Gygax in the 1E DMG Preface: "As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't and devise thing beyond my capability."

EVERY game designer who has worked on D&D since then SHOULD have embraced these words as if they were their own. The current subject at hand is all the more proof you need of that.

The dying clues or testimony of a doomed NPC is certainly cliche, but cliches and stereotypes get used for a reason. They are convenient. They work. However, being a cliche means it IS over-used and so a good DM should be cautious about going that route in the first place. Rather than just go the easy route look for more interesting ways to get your information to the PC's with the limitations you want, especially since D&D has more than one means within its rules to render that tack moot. It's not just a matter of healing a dying NPC, you can speak with the dead and bring the dead back to life. If the healing fails then even if players are willing to accept THAT failure the more desirable the information the NPC seems to have the more likely it is the players will try to end-run around your roadblock.

This is a not-unreasonable expectation on the part of players for whom the DM has not previously told them that he can and will take such liberties with "the rules". This doesn't mean the DM is a jerk for disallowing such player actions either - the DM has a reasonable expectation of being allowed to create what he thinks is a good story (even with cliches) without the players inisisting that he must conform to the rules. If the situation were stood on its head and it were a PC wanting to make a dying statement, it is probably likely that the vast majority of DM's out there would disallow it: "Your PC is below 0 hit points, you're unconscious, OF COURSE you can't make a deathbed speech." Neither side is entirely wrong or right in their point of view.

Gary, however, had it correct. Just because nobody has yet built into D&D rules the ability for NPC's to make deathbed confessions, or limited clues, or dramatic and impassioned pleas for redemption, or whatever, doesn't mean that YOU CAN'T or shouldn't. OF COURSE you should if you really feel that you need it.

Personally, having bumped up against this issue before I avoid it. A D&D world, by dint of simple logic, is not one where a statement like, "The Holy Grail lies in the Castle aaaaaauuuggggghhhh..." is generally going to fly. If an NPC has information then the NPC will either die with that information or be able to pass it on. If I really felt I wanted to engineer such a situation then I'd probably use some manner of poison, a curse, or ongoing damage that has some specific requirement for ending it other than the usual heals. Still, better that the NPC should have motivations NOT to pass on information, or else to limit what he tells the PC's, and so not have to kill him off mid-sentence to create drama. Obviously that's because he can be healed just as a PC could. Even if not, the PC's could speak with his corpse, so if I wish to continue to keep certain information away from the PC's then I still have to have an NPC who in life would have been unwilling to just spill the beans forcing them to at least ask questions that can't be dodged. And of course raise dead/resurrection is even harder to scratch if the PC's are willing and able to go that far, at which point you're getting deities involved in disallowing select NPC's from being raised.

When I want PC's to have only clues or partial information then I present it to them in ways in which they will only obtain what I WANT them to obtain WHEN I want them to have it without playing silly buggers with how death/dying otherwise works.

One change I have added to my games regards raising the dead. Only those who are WILLING to return from the afterlife will do so. This means that although PLAYER characters will return every time unless/until the player wants to try something new, NON-player characters will only rarely - if ever - willingly return from the afterlife. So in my campaigns it wouldn't matter if everyone in the world got a free resurrection upon their death, only the NPC's I WANT to remain alive WILL remain alive. Those who DO return from the dead are treated rather differently. Some may see them as nearly cousins to the undead and shun them; others view them with reverence as if they may have some great purpose yet to achieve on the mortal plane; some may view them with sadness since they obviously have no paradise to go to which they would prefer over the harshness of mortality; most will simply not know what to think of them believing that they are probably a dangerous combination of all three.

So, while _I_ don't have a need to have unhealable NPC's so that they might drop foreshortened clues before their demise, if YOU do then you should do two things: first, formalize the procedure, and second, tell your players that it can and will happen when you want it to so they have no reason to complain about it when it does.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

To which I would reply: "Probably not!"

To which all of my players over the past 28 years would reply: "Great! Can we get on with the game now?" It'd be win-win.

My solution is to stay within the conceits and tropes a particular game emulates well. If I want to use dying last words or other tropes of dramatic fiction, I'll use a system that supports those well as opposed to D&D.

So, you enjoy letting the rules dictate the story? To each their own style, of course.

I hate it when this happens in published modules, but don't mind it so much when a trusted DM uses it.

That's the real crux of my point. I don't and wouldn't use this trope often. But when I do my players trust me enough to play along.

What's tricky is when this happens to a crucial NPC whose death drives the plot -- and the PCs just cast resurrect. Bastards. When I make this goof, it's a sign of sloppy DMing on my part. I should know better.

Even within the rues I don't find this to be a problem. This sort of magic requires a willing target. And the only person who gets to decide whether an NPC is willing is the DM.

That said, I once got a 4 month plotline out of this happening when the PCs resurrected their slain king. The subconscious knowledge that he'd gone to Hell for past sins started driving him into insanity, and his brother - oh so briefly king! - refused to give up the throne. Made for some tough choices and fun roleplaying.

Very imaginative plot elements. I strive to think like this when thrown a curve-ball by the players.