Playing dead in combat

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree that there is a lot of overlap between bluff and perform in a case like this. A bluff *IS* a form of performance!

Thus I would allow either skill to be used.

 

[Dirty Magurdy]

The "feats" I mentioned are the three tactics of Combat Panache, already linked to. It's a tactical feat, it gives you three "tactical" abilities that require certain conditions to be met to be used, instead of a singular benefit like most feats. Play Dead is only one of the tactics, and definitely not the best of them.

I say it's worthless if you can't decieve the enemies immediately because there's no point in dropping fake dead if until your turn they still think you're alive and/or a threat. All you did was give yourself -4 AC from prone. And how believable is it, after they've laid waste to you and you're still ok far as they can tell, to suddenly hit "dead" once your turn comes up. Heck, if you can't actually fake your death until yourturn comes up, there's no point in even starting the process by dropping to the floor limp out of turn. I'd probably just leave it as an immediate action, but if it seemed too strong I'd include a clause that it costs you your turn next round, since bluff is normally a full round action it seems.

EDIT:

Why do you keep implying that I seem to think dropping "dead" as an immediate action is too strong? I don't think it's too strong, I think it adds a loop hole for players to come up with other combat actions that they feel are comparable to feigning death which they may also want to be instituted as an immediate action. I'd rather not start down that path at all.

As for the split seconds between when a blow lands and when a foe falls, well, perhaps they are staggered or woozy or teetering or any number of split second incidents the player wants to come up with to explain why their character fell after they were hit. If I don't penalize their roll because of the very slight time delay then I don't think it weakens the tactic. If the players worried about not surviving the monster's 1st attack (when dealing with multiple attacking monsters) then he should hold his actions to fake dead after the monster scores its first hit.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

If the players worried about not surviving the monster's 1st attack (when dealing with multiple attacking monsters) then he should hold his actions to fake dead after the monster scores its first hit.

This also requires an exception to the rules. You can delay and take your full turn later, but if you do so, it cannot interrupt another creature's actions it can only come completely before or completely after in the initiative count. If you wish to ready an action, then yes, you can disrupt the normal flow of events on another creature's turn and take your readied action. However, the best you could ready is a standard action, not the full round action required to bluff. That said, you could just treat it as a variation of Feinting in combat, in which case it would be a standard action that you culd ready (or a move action with the Improved Feint feat).

 

[radmod]

Again, I don't like the idea of using it as a full-round immediate action - might bring up other instances where other types reactions could arguably become immediate actions.

Good point. I don't think anyone here would argue AGAINST a DM being consistent.
I don't do standard initiative, but simultaneous initiative. (Argument for doing it on one's turn: ) How much does it matter that it's not an immediate action? Is requiring the player do it on his int really that different than the immediate?
Consider:
A PC gets hit for a bunch and wants to play dead. You rule he has to do it on his init. In standard init, isn't doing it on his init, essentially the same as the immediate action? It sounds different sure: "Alright, player, you got hit and everyone else has gone what are you doing?" But in game terms, is it really different? Isn't it really "whack, player gets hit. Player drops and plays dead."
The only time I could see a player needing it to be an immediate is if his init was after multiple creatures that could attack him. That is, monster 1 hits him and knocks him down to 1 hp. Monster 2 goes next. In that case, he's probably in DeepS anyway.

I can't agree with the idea that the player has to be 10 hp or less. As a roleplaying thing, I think a PC should be able to do it at anytime (it still costs the loss of an action). However, if he's not too banged up, I would add a circumstance bonus to the creature's Sense Motive.
"The orc hits you for 12 points."
"Ouch, I play dead."
"Hmm, how many hp do you have left? 45? Okkkaaaayyy, let's see if the orc believes, or even cares that you're dead."

 

[radmod]

This also requires an exception to the rules. You can delay and take your full turn later, but if you do so, it cannot interrupt another creature's actions it can only come completely before or completely after in the initiative count. If you wish to ready an action, then yes, you can disrupt the normal flow of events on another creature's turn and take your readied action. However, the best you could ready is a standard action, not the full round action required to bluff. That said, you could just treat it as a variation of Feinting in combat, in which case it would be a standard action that you culd ready (or a move action with the Improved Feint feat).

I don't see that as an exception. The 'drop to the floor' action is a free action. The Bluff check is a variable action, and the full round is based on general interaction. I read it as if you spend the round bluffing then it's a full action. If you don't then it isn't. If no one chooses to interact then it's not a full round action, e.g. you don't have to keep up the pretense. However, like you I would treat it as a 'feinting' action (or 'fainting' action) and cause the loss of at least a standard action.

 

[Deset Gled]

Note that the action for a bluff is actually "varies", and playing dead is not exactly like any of the options listed, but is reasonably within the realm of the skill. I think that using a readied action and a Bluff check (with appropriate modifiers based on the damage of the blow) is the most elegant way to handle playing dead. A feat to allow it as an immediate action is fine, if you're into that sort of thing. Anything beyond this is unnecessarily complicated.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Fwiw, here's a take on using Bluff to "play dead", from Kobold Quarterly #11, "A Coward's Life pt.2":
[sblock]Bluff (Play Dead)

Sometimes the best way to convince enemies not to kill you is to make them believe you’re already dead. However, successfully pulling off such a trick requires significant expertise in the arts of deceiving and acting.

Check This skill has two uses, playing dead and pretending a non-fatal wound was fatal.

◊ Playing dead—You can lie down very still, stop your breath, smear blood all over yourself, and so forth to appear dead to the casual observer. This is a standard Bluff check opposed by your opponent’s Heal with the following modifiers:

Circumstance Bluff check modifier

You are disguised +5 to +15 depending on quality

You are more than 10 ft. from +5
enemies

You are being poked and handled success grants
(make a DC 15 + damage inflicted +10 bonus, failure
Concentration check) a -30 penalty

Your opponent has a vastly +10
different anatomy

You are being checked for vital -20
signs (requires a successful
DC 15 Heal check)

◊ Pretending to be mortally wounded—In order to pretend a non-fatal wound has killed you, you must succeed on a Bluff check opposed by your opponent’s Heal. For every 10 hp you have lost so far, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your Bluff check.

Action Varies. Playing dead can take anything from one round (just lying on the ground very still) to hours (preparing the perfect disguise). Pretending to be mortally wounded is always a free action.

Try Again Varies. Once opponents have seen through your disguise, it is next to impossible to convince them that you’re dead. However, you can continue to pretend you are mortally wounded every time you are hit until you are actually killed.

Synergy If you have 5 or more ranks in Disguise, you get a +2 bonus on Bluff (play dead) checks.

Special The use of this skill doesn’t necessarily count as a cowardly action. It is up for the GM to decide when faking your own death stems from fear and when it is a cunning ruse.
[/sblock]

 

[Jhaelen]

I'd rather be consistent with the ruling. Not have a method in use for when things are going bad and a seperate one for normal uses - really, would someone feign death if things weren't going bad?

In my group? Definitely. Not every PC cares about the rest of the group. Especially the party's rogue is the kind of guy who'd feign death just to get out of immediate trouble or sneak into a more favorable position.

And I'm unsure what you mean by consistent ruling? Every combat is different, as are the opponents. It depends on them and their view of the situation at hand that should decide what they do. What are their goals? Are they hired killers who have to make extra sure the pcs are dead? Are they of animal-like intelligence and simply hungry?

There cannot be a single answer to each of these situations.

 

[radmod]

There cannot be a single answer to each of these situations.

I have to disagree with this.
There has to be a consistent framework. For example, you can take a full round action, a move + standard, or a standard + move. Now the actions may be different based on the situation, but the framework is consistent.

I think what dirty's trying to get at is: what if he allows a PC to do something specific by altering the rules (framework) slightly? Then in a similar, but not exact situation, the PC wants to use this new alteration of the rules to do something else. Precedent has been set. It makes it hard to say 'no' when the player says "but you allowed so-and-so to do the same thing." While players can often be stupid, they seem to have a knack for exploiting the rules, especially house rules.
The rules need to be consistent.
For example, in the house rule threads, I discuss why I don't allow the withdrawal action per RAW. I feel that it is inconsistent with the rest of the rules and sets a bad precedent.

 

[Dirty Magurdy]

I have to disagree with this.
There has to be a consistent framework. For example, you can take a full round action, a move + standard, or a standard + move. Now the actions may be different based on the situation, but the framework is consistent.

I think what dirty's trying to get at is: what if he allows a PC to do something specific by altering the rules (framework) slightly? Then in a similar, but not exact situation, the PC wants to use this new alteration of the rules to do something else. Precedent has been set. It makes it hard to say 'no' when the player says "but you allowed so-and-so to do the same thing." While players can often be stupid, they seem to have a knack for exploiting the rules, especially house rules.
The rules need to be consistent.
For example, in the house rule threads, I discuss why I don't allow the withdrawal action per RAW. I feel that it is inconsistent with the rest of the rules and sets a bad precedent.

Yea, that was pretty much my concern Radmod. Thanks everyone for the feedback, been very helpful.