Playing Dead
- Thread starter Steven
- Start date
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Darklone said:
That could work -- but it effectively eliminates the possibility of playing dead only on a critical hit, which I think should be a possibility (essentially, the player says, "He just hit me for HOW MUCH damage?! Yikes! I'm gonna fall over and pretend to be dead so he doesn't take a second swing at me.")
I'm talking about adding a slight extra level of generosity to the rules, in order to allow folks to play dead at any moment when they could actually BE dead. To make up for that generosity, I'm saying I'd make it a full-round action to do this.
As for allowing a rogue to sneak-attack after playing dead -- I think I'd do so, but ONLY if he didn't take any MEA or move action before doing so. In other words, no standing up first. He could either attack while prone (taking appropriate penalties) or could kip-up (a class feature of the Acrobat PrC, I think). I'd treat this as a variant of the feinting-in-combat bluff.
Daniel
Sneak attack after playing dead
I don't see any reason to not allow someone to sneak attack after they have played dead, provided the opponent beleives them to be dead. If the opponent didn't beleive you were dead then they would still be aware of you and therefore still gain their dexterity bonus, but then again this is just how I would run my game, other people's games are their games. At the end of the day you would have to handle this in a manner that would satisfy everyone in your group, or at least cause minimal damage to your game. Next question: This hasn't yet occurred in a 3ed game I have run, but sooner or later it probably will. What if multiple combatants witness the attempt to play dead (other PC's, NPC's, whatever..) the situation would of course be difficult for other player's to continue on as if they don't know what is occuring and it might seem obvious to a reoccuring villain that something was amiss simply because of the actions of the player characters. What if the villain had seen the party behave differently in the past when a companion fell? Would he naturally assume that the party has lost all compassion for its' fallen member? This is more of a role-playing issue I know, but still I thought I would throw it out there and see what other people thought. I am new to this board (or any other for that matter), but not to gaming. Once again thanks for all of your input, it helps for me to see the opinions of others.
I don't see any reason to not allow someone to sneak attack after they have played dead, provided the opponent beleives them to be dead. If the opponent didn't beleive you were dead then they would still be aware of you and therefore still gain their dexterity bonus, but then again this is just how I would run my game, other people's games are their games. At the end of the day you would have to handle this in a manner that would satisfy everyone in your group, or at least cause minimal damage to your game. Next question: This hasn't yet occurred in a 3ed game I have run, but sooner or later it probably will. What if multiple combatants witness the attempt to play dead (other PC's, NPC's, whatever..) the situation would of course be difficult for other player's to continue on as if they don't know what is occuring and it might seem obvious to a reoccuring villain that something was amiss simply because of the actions of the player characters. What if the villain had seen the party behave differently in the past when a companion fell? Would he naturally assume that the party has lost all compassion for its' fallen member? This is more of a role-playing issue I know, but still I thought I would throw it out there and see what other people thought. I am new to this board (or any other for that matter), but not to gaming. Once again thanks for all of your input, it helps for me to see the opinions of others.
The description of the bluff skill quoted of bluff included this line:
Because of these, but because I want this valid tatic to work under the rules, I would rule that the bluff check is rolled immediately but the bluffing person forfeits their next entire turn. This way, you don't need to ready action to bluff and can do it if you just get scared of all the damage you just took.
As for the cleave situation, I would allow it regardless of whether the attacker realized the attacker was bluffing or not. The rules I offer to back this up come from the unclear definition of "dropping an oppent" and the description in the DMG of basic soldiers. Those NPCs are likely to "drop" if they take any wound. Dropping a creature with ferosity is harder than other creatures in general. I would say "dropping" a creature happens when they are hit and no longer have the capabilty to fight, physically or because they don't choose to. Bluff only makes you think you killed them rather than they just don't want to fight.
There is also the issue of taking actions, even free actions, on turns other than your own.
Because of these, but because I want this valid tatic to work under the rules, I would rule that the bluff check is rolled immediately but the bluffing person forfeits their next entire turn. This way, you don't need to ready action to bluff and can do it if you just get scared of all the damage you just took.
As for the cleave situation, I would allow it regardless of whether the attacker realized the attacker was bluffing or not. The rules I offer to back this up come from the unclear definition of "dropping an oppent" and the description in the DMG of basic soldiers. Those NPCs are likely to "drop" if they take any wound. Dropping a creature with ferosity is harder than other creatures in general. I would say "dropping" a creature happens when they are hit and no longer have the capabilty to fight, physically or because they don't choose to. Bluff only makes you think you killed them rather than they just don't want to fight.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Just wanted to mention that I'd not use the bluff skill because it would be YET ANOTHER use for the uber-skill Bluff. I'd also draw attention to the un-bolded portion in the second paragraph which Pielorinho quotes...
Bluff is only there to cause a momentary distraction. Arguably it wouldn't work for more than a single round. Not the best way of playing dead.
My personal preference is to expand the usage of other skills that are currently over specialised IMO, and avoid providing yet another reason why skill x is brilliant to have.
In almost every case when I'm DMing I allow someone to fall with the blow with no extra skill checks being made to determine how convincing it is - it normally only ever happens after a blow where very significant damage is caused. The bad guy will in nearly every circumstance just move on to address one of the other opponents, certainly not bothering to check in the heat of a battle. As a DM I could arrange for the PC's to be slaughtered at any time in any adventure, but I prefer not to
I much prefer capture and imprisonment 
Cheers
Bluff is only there to cause a momentary distraction. Arguably it wouldn't work for more than a single round. Not the best way of playing dead.
My personal preference is to expand the usage of other skills that are currently over specialised IMO, and avoid providing yet another reason why skill x is brilliant to have.
In almost every case when I'm DMing I allow someone to fall with the blow with no extra skill checks being made to determine how convincing it is - it normally only ever happens after a blow where very significant damage is caused. The bad guy will in nearly every circumstance just move on to address one of the other opponents, certainly not bothering to check in the heat of a battle. As a DM I could arrange for the PC's to be slaughtered at any time in any adventure, but I prefer not to
I much prefer capture and imprisonment Cheers
Pretending to fall to a blow is a perfectly valid tatic.
Now picture this. NPC's round: take full attack. PC decides to fall after the second attack, to prevent futher damage. The PC's turn comes up next, and he stands up and attacks the target. If that PC is a rogue, they should get sneak attack. But, they never spent a round to perform the action of bluffing. They get sneak attack for free.
You might say they shouldn't get sneak attack at all. I would say this would make an excellent feint though. I am not going to pay attention to a person who I think is unconcious. Hence a skill check.
I most combats I have seen in D&D, you want to make sure opponents will not attack you again. So, if a person I was fighting were to fall and I noticed they were not unconcious, I would keep attacking them. If they fell, they are probably close to dropping unconcious anyway. If there is a more powerful foe, I will finish my current opponent to prevent him from aiding the more powerful foe. Dropping to the ground isn't surrender, after all, it is a deception.
Now picture this. NPC's round: take full attack. PC decides to fall after the second attack, to prevent futher damage. The PC's turn comes up next, and he stands up and attacks the target. If that PC is a rogue, they should get sneak attack. But, they never spent a round to perform the action of bluffing. They get sneak attack for free.
You might say they shouldn't get sneak attack at all. I would say this would make an excellent feint though. I am not going to pay attention to a person who I think is unconcious. Hence a skill check.
I most combats I have seen in D&D, you want to make sure opponents will not attack you again. So, if a person I was fighting were to fall and I noticed they were not unconcious, I would keep attacking them. If they fell, they are probably close to dropping unconcious anyway. If there is a more powerful foe, I will finish my current opponent to prevent him from aiding the more powerful foe. Dropping to the ground isn't surrender, after all, it is a deception.
Similar Threads
