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="Destan" data-source="post: 2520206" data-attributes="member: 12157">I'm a bit hesitant to post this because I generally have a way of upsetting a large group of folks with my opinions, but here goes nothing!Alright, we had a PC death the other night. The situation seems to have been correctly resolved in accordance with the rules (at least, I think it was). A PC was paralyzed by an undead creature (homebrewed creature, but think ghoul) and - on a subsequent round - was coup de grace'd.A few of my players and a couple folks on these boards disliked my decision as the DM to execute a CDG on a downed character - especially because there were still very healthy, very active, very threatening PCs standing around.  One could (quite convincingly) argue that an intelligent undead creature would not concentrate its attacks on a fallen, helpless opponent - but would rather target those PCs that remained threats.As for me, I opted for the CDG. ***The facts:1) This was an intelligent (Int 13) creature.  (And since my Int is 7, I'm already playing over my head when running this guy.)2) The party had already mowed through many of the undead's buddies.  The proverbial writing was on the wall. The PCs would "win", eventually.3) The party was engaged in plundering the undead creatures' burial chamber.  Their home, so to speak.4) The undead creature saw an opportunity to "take one of the invaders down with him" and took it.5) Other than the CDG-delivering (badly wounded = 4 hp) undead, there was only one other undead creature still standing (out of an orginal grouping of six).***So, I guess the question here is: Was I incorrect to deliver a CDG in this situation?  I understand the type of question can only be interpreted by peoples' opinions, and that's fine. I'm interested to hear what those opinions are.Normally I take my kids to Dairy Queen and buy flowers for my wife whenever I kill a character.  It's cause for celebration.  But I felt a bit badly about this one, especially when some of my players (whose opinions I respect greatly) sorta gave me the ol' "Ahh...you sure that's what he'd do?" look.I guess what it comes down to is that when I'm playing baddies I usually try to play them as well as I can.  I try to inject motivations and emotion into their actions.  Sometimes this may mean they run away, even if there's still hope for defeating the PCs.  Sometimes it means, as in this case, that they just want to take down one of their enemies if they can before it all ends.  This question - To Kill or Not To Kill - sorta transcends this situation.  As a DM, especially in higher-level play, I've found myself sitting behind the screen wondering if I should go after a wounded, helpless, or exposed PC...or whether I should ignore him and concentrate on greater threats that are still around.  For me, I make that determination based upon the type of creatures I'm running in that encounter.I think, like most topics that get raised on these boards, it depends on the group at hand.  If you're playing with a group that wants challenged and wants "realism" - even if it means naughty DM tricks like CDG's - then you're good to go with this approach.  If you're playing with a group that would prefer "heroism" over "realism", then it'd be best to not get too deadly.Anyway, I'm not knocking either side of the question.  Again, I think we may have guys in both camps in my own gaming group.  Ultimately, I want to do what will be the most enjoyable for the most people. I'd like to hear what you do as a DM, or what you prefer as a player.  And, yes, feel free to slam me for my decision.  I'm pretty sure it can't get as bad as it did when I brought up cross-gender PCs.  At least, that's my hope.D</blockquote>

Verification