Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 1737592" data-attributes="member: 259">Ultimately, as I said before, this isn't a rules question, and I'd be astounded and a little contemptuous of a player who argued with a creature's action.  Just as I'd never tell a player who attempted a CdG, "No, you wouldn't do that," my players may not tell me what a monster would or would not do. If I use a fiendish monster, it may be the result of a wizard's evil experiment; it may be a result of an icky woodlands coupling between a bear and a lonely demon; it may be a creature born and raised in Hell; it may be the feverish nightmare of a druid, given form.  How the creatures acts will depend on my rationale for its existence. We might similarly ask whether a fiendish dragon would CdG.  The fiendish dragon in a recent game I ran had no intention of doing so, however; instead, it interrogated the PCs about the nature of existence, about whether it could be said to exist, and other such questions as Rosecrantz and Guildenstern might entertain.   Creatures have different motives and will act in different fashions. As for humans/humanoids not CdGing, I do think DMs need to think carefully about this and about an enemy's motive.  Again, someone who's fighting for non-hate reasons (money, power, fear of a commander, etc.) is as unlikely to CdG as a normal animal, in my opinion.  A cultist driven by bloodlust, a schmoe whose older sister was killed by the PCs, a trained assassin are likelier to CdG.  But the norm, IMO, is to attack until an opponent is down, and then move on to the next standing opponent. Daniel</blockquote>

Verification