• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Armor and Extended Rest

KarinsDad

Adventurer
Killing a PC before they can act is harsh (thoug s**t happens), but taking one unconscious is not. At very worst, in a Leaderless group, someone has to take a standard action to make a DC 10 Heal check to activate the PC's second wind. More commonly, a Leader will heal them up as a minor action.

It depends on how a given DM runs the game. Making a PC unconscious before the player can act can be harsh.

You've mentioned on a few occasions that your encounters can be sometimes a bit brutal. Does that include Coup de Grace? If so, then unconsciousness can lead to PC death quickly. If not, then you are not quite as brutal as you have indicated.

In either case, a single area effect power that includes an unconscious PC is an automatic Coup de Grace (assuming the DM knows that) as long as the attacker is standing adjacent to the unconscious PC. With bunched up initiatives, this can sometimes easily be arranged. With less bunched up initiatives like I suggested, there are more opportunities for other players to do the Heal check that you mentioned.

The odds of a Leader using a healing power before any monster has an opportunity to finish off the unconscious PC are a lot lower. In order to prevent a Coup de Grace, the Leader's initiative has to go before any monster that might kill the unconscious PC. Course, most DMs will have the monsters ignore unconscious PCs, so again, it depends on how one runs the game.


But even ignoring this, knocking a PC unconscious in round one is often tantamount to limiting that player to a partial encounter of playing. Sure, the leader might get the PC back up to close to half hit points, but leaders are limited in how many heals they get. The PC is often still bloodied and often still a prime target of the NPCs. If knocked unconscious in round one, there's a fairly decent chance that the PC will get knocked unconscious a second time, especially if it is a squishy PC like your Wizard example.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

KarinsDad

Adventurer
I'm happy for players to know all that stuff, at least after a round or two of combat. I tend not to reveal monster hp until they're in single digits, though: "1 hp left. Too bad..." :lol:

One issue I see with handing out extra monster information is that extremely good tactical players will shred encounters with it. I know some players that are extremely tactically minded and they'll do some things that would surprise even experienced DMs.

Once that starts happening, then the game starts becoming an arms race as the DM starts trying to challenge the players more via stronger encounters and the players start trying to eek out the very last ounce of optimization/tactical ability to win encounters faster. The game also can become an exercise in metagaming thinking.

Meh.

It's better to just keep the mystery in the encounter and then, even the very strong tactical players are playing a bit of a guessing game, at least part of the time. The DM can challenge them with reasonable encounters by mixing some things up a little, but without necessarily increasing the difficulty of the encounter.

And I find that more fun for those types of really tactically minded players than spoon feeding them the info. When they have to work for the knowledge throughout the encounter, then it feels better when they succeed. They actually overcame the challenge and figured it out on their own, as opposed to the DM giving them the answer.

DM: "That ones a Soldier and that ones a Lurker." (note: most DMs would do this via descriptive text, but it amounts to the same thing)
Good player: "Ok, let's take out the Lurker cause it'll do more damage and go down faster than the Soldier."

Rinse and repeat. Yawn. One might as well be playing Chess.

Even something as simple as DM: "That one's in single digit hit points" leads to the Striker players automatically ignoring that foe and anyone else, sometimes only the players with the PC with the absolutely worst attacks, taking it out. Meh. As a player, I would never ever ever ever ever want a DM telling me that a given foe is in single digit hit points. Ever. Does he want to hold my hand going to the bathroom as well??? :lol:

Come on, make it interesting. Don't give me metagame info, hide that stuff from me, make some aspects of the encounter a bit of a mystery, and make it fun. Spoon feeding the info??? Yawn. Make it challenging, don't tell me everything I need to know so that my decisions are no brainers. I want to make my own decisions, I don't want the DM showing me the best way.

Note: My opinion of this extends into cross table talk as well. A little of it is inevitable, but if the better players start consistently giving advice to the less skilled players, I'll sometimes step in as DM and say "Let Joe play his own PC. You play yours.". Every player should have the ability to play their own PC without a lot of outside DM or other player hints. If the player is struggling, sure the DM should help out a little. But for most players, let them play their own PC their own way. They'll enjoy their own successes a lot more and when they do make mistakes, they'll learn from them.

In my opinion, the DM is making his game too easy if he hands out monster role information, single digit hit points, defenses, etc. And then most likely, he's upping the difficulty of the encounters in order to challenge his players. Meh. I prefer a more subtle DM who challenges me with misdirection than a DM who challenges me via brute force/monster levels, but at the same time tells me many metagaming things about his wonderful monsters that gives me hints on the best way to defeat them. zzzzzz

Hints should be for when the players are stuck in other aspects of the game, not for combat encounters. JMO.
 

S'mon

Legend
It depends on how a given DM runs the game. Making a PC unconscious before the player can act can be harsh.

You've mentioned on a few occasions that your encounters can be sometimes a bit brutal. Does that include Coup de Grace? If so, then unconsciousness can lead to PC death quickly. If not, then you are not quite as brutal as you have indicated.

Well, Ashara had her throat ripped out by a wolf when she was already down and dying (the encounter script says the wolves want to kill one victim & drag them off to eat), but normally I stick with the DMG advice not to CDG downed PCs - the first time. The enemy usually don't know that dying PCs can pop back up again. After they've seen it once, the 2nd+ time a PC falls they will be CDG'd. Although doing Bloodied value on a crit at higher levels is actually quite hard. Crit value goes up 2 hp/level on average, only Wizards have a Bloodied value increase that low.
 

S'mon

Legend
In either case, a single area effect power that includes an unconscious PC is an automatic Coup de Grace (assuming the DM knows that) as long as the attacker is standing adjacent to the unconscious PC.

I didn't know that was RAW or intended - I wouldn't allow CDG except by melee or ranged attack.
 

S'mon

Legend
In my opinion, the DM is making his game too easy if he hands out monster role information, single digit hit points, defenses, etc. And then most likely, he's upping the difficulty of the encounters in order to challenge his players. Meh. I prefer a more subtle DM who challenges me with misdirection than a DM who challenges me via brute force/monster levels, but at the same time tells me many metagaming things about his wonderful monsters that gives me hints on the best way to defeat them. zzzzzz

Clearly my mileage varies! :lol:

Sometimes - occasionally - I get a kick out of beating the PCs up with weak encounters, but mostly I want the players to kick butt, win, and feel good about it. And since I never fudge, I run tough fights/adventures, and PC death is a real possibility, they deserve to feel good about it when they do win. Also I often DM for a mix of experienced and novice players, I certainly wouldn't want to deprive the novice players of the rules/tactical info they need to play 4e, whether from me or from the other players.
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
Clearly my mileage varies! :lol:

Clearly. :lol:

Sometimes - occasionally - I get a kick out of beating the PCs up with weak encounters, but mostly I want the players to kick butt, win, and feel good about it. And since I never fudge, I run tough fights/adventures, and PC death is a real possibility, they deserve to feel good about it when they do win. Also I often DM for a mix of experienced and novice players, I certainly wouldn't want to deprive the novice players of the rules/tactical info they need to play 4e, whether from me or from the other players.

Well, I agree about novice players. The DM needs to add to their game knowledge by showing them basic tactics and such. But once a player has a fairly firm grasp of the game, the DM should stop being a coach and go back to be a storyteller/referee.

I also agree about never fudging. Let the dice fall where they may. But, I do feel that experienced players shouldn't be given too much combat information (and no player should be given role information). To me, a fun portion of the game is about mystery and surprises. Experienced players already know a ton about the game, the monsters they can encounter, etc. By keeping them in the dark about things the PCs shouldn't know about (PCs don't know about roles or hit points or AC, those are metagame terms) and only know about things the PCs know or can observe, even experienced players can re-live some of the wonder of when they were novice players.

Player: "Wow, that must have been an elite. I thought my third shot would take him out, but he just kept coming for more." is more enjoyable than knowing it is an elite ahead of time.

It's one thing to say "After that last hit, the ogre looks pretty hurt." (which I would rarely do, but a DM might). It's another to say "Wow. You knocked him down to 5 hit points.". There's a difference between saying that the PC missed with a 23, and saying that the 23 misses the monster's AC of 26. One gives information that the PC can observe, the other mystically gives info that the PC, and the player, shouldn't know.

And there is nothing wrong with running tough fights, but the combination of running tough fights along with handling out a ton of metagame monster information (beyond what a monster knowledge check and normal perception can observe) seems like holding a carrot in one hand and a stick in the other. "Here, I'm going to help you win the fight, but it's gonna be really really tough.". ;)

There's a pretty broad line between telling the players what they need to know about the environment and the monsters in order for them to run their PCs, and telling the players monster information so that they never make mistakes. Minion information is telling the players "Hey, don't use certain powers on these guys cause they are minions.".
 

S'mon

Legend
I generally feel that once a PC has attacked a monster they should have a pretty good idea how well protected it is, in the defense they attacked - whether they missed by 4 or 8, say. I treat monsters the same - if they miss the PC by 20 they're more likely to run away than if they missed by 2. All the numbers and crunch re ACs, attack bonuses, hp et al represent real stuff to me, real stuff that is observable. YMDV. :)
 

S'mon

Legend
And there is nothing wrong with running tough fights, but the combination of running tough fights along with handling out a ton of metagame monster information (beyond what a monster knowledge check and normal perception can observe) seems like holding a carrot in one hand and a stick in the other. "Here, I'm going to help you win the fight, but it's gonna be really really tough.". ;)

No - I make the players tell me their ACs, hp tallies etc, and I'm likely to target the low AC, low hp PC in preference to the high hp, high AC guy. Especially if she's standing out front using Burning Hands. :p

Don't you think it's weird BTW you've accused me of being biased both for and against the players, in the same thread?
 

Well, I do agree with KD that reeling off mechanical information about the monsters tends to play to optimization and meta-game thinking, and in any case isn't terribly atmospheric.

OTOH the way I look at it the PCs are experienced combatants, even at level 1. The players are looking at little lead figures on a grid and rolling dice. There are TONS of things that the characters would pick up on, and look for, that the players simply have neither the experience as actual combat experts nor the opportunity to pick up on unless the DM provides lots of description. Beyond that the DM isn't a combat expert either, and has not ever been in a lethal sword fight. He has no better idea of how to describe an orc that has about run out of luck than anyone else.

So, it makes sense to provide information to the players that generally indicates what the characters would naturally be able to determine at a glance. Is an enemy close to defeat, is it an unusually quick (higher ref) opponent, or does its equipment or general construction make it especially difficult to effect with weapon attacks (higher AC). Given that the DM may not always know how to describe every one of these kinds of details narratively, and some of them don't really HAVE a single narrative explanation anyway, like HP, I've always felt that stating "oh, that guy looks to be in bad shape, you almost killed him." is pretty reasonable, and even saying, "you barely missed, his helmet deflected the shot" likewise.

Yes, this may be grist for the mill for some players who are really into meta-gaming, but that seems to me to be a player issue that isn't going to be solved by the DM. If you have a group that WANTS to play a tactical wargame of D&D, well, you probably should give them what they want, or talk to the players about it if it doesn't suite you.

I would also point out that the developers of 4e probably feel similarly, they DID after all describe half hit points as "bloodied" and I don't think that was accidental.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I didn't know that was RAW or intended - I wouldn't allow CDG except by melee or ranged attack.
You must be adjacent to make a CdG, and it's a Standard Action in it's own right. However, it simply states that you use one of your attack powers on the target - so I suppose you could CdG with a Close, or even Area power (though you'd catch yourself in it).

So, no, any dropped character caught in a blast or burst isn't automatically CdG'd.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top