Questions, questions, questions!

[MrShowtime]

Sorry this may get long, but I really could use the help. Thanks for the input if you get to the end. lol

We had a dispute that ended in a shattered session last night. Our mage had an enemy paralyzed. He then wanted to go up to him and do a quick throat slice to finish the enemy. (The enemy had not taken any damage up to that point) Our GM said that's not something he's going to allow. We still have to whittle his health down instead of an instant kill. We couldn't understand the logic that when an enemy has absolutely no defense, he still needed to be taken down to his last hit point. Our logic was that if anyone, anywhere, ever had their throat sliced, they'd be dead within seconds.

Do you agree/disagree? How do you see this situation? How do/have you played a similar situation out? Please give me examples (from GM and Player Point of view) so we can resolve this.

This situation separated our GM from not only the mage but another player as well. I tried to to mediate but to no avail. I tried to see things from both sides. But it is quite hard to tear opposing friends from their throats. lol

The other problem that I accidentally made worse was, while I was defending our GM, I asked "If he allowed the instant kill and then down the road the situation was reversed and the enemy has you paralyzed, would you accept the instant kill from them?" To which I got a swift "NO!"

While I understand the Idea of hating your character getting killed off after however much work and time you've put into him/her, but do you guys believe the double standard should exist? Do you let things happen one way but not the other or if it happens to one side it happens to the other?

A little lighter question here lol Do you guys use/like a tile system with figures and such for reference such as is used in D&D? If so, without the movement system, how would/do you incorporate it into PFRPG?

Thanks for reading and thanks even more for responding. If anything I've got on here is unclear or you'd like more info before answering just ask away and I'll be happy to shed more light on what's needed.

Thanks again guys.

[kiralon]

First the rules don't actually support it because it is a very unfun way to die, but if it can happen to the bad guy it should be possible to happen to the players. Double standards shouldn't exist.
Cloud of slumber is the likely culprit, have a gust of wind hit the cloud as the person doing the killing walks up so they get a face full of sleep gas and have to save.
Also slitting somethings throat isn't easy, you would want a really sharp weapon for it to do it in a couple of seconds.
Also once the guy is paralysed its like having all tied up and then slitting someone's throat. In the middle of combat defending yourself its ok to kill someone, but murdering a defenceless person in their sleep is likely to head their alignment down the dark path, unless of course he just killed a friend or something like that.

Armour of Ithan, the sleeping guy has it active, you cant see any weak spots so you still have to penetrate the armour with a roll.

Witnesses - have a little kid or peasant pop out of the bushes just as he does the deed, all the peasant sees is the player slitting a sleeping guys throat, so he runs to the police.

I do use miniatures sometimes, I let the players move 1 square per 5 points of speed and each square moved reduces the players/creatures attacks per round by 1 to a minimum of 1, so if they move their full distance they get one attack at the end, but if they only move 2 squares and have 4 attacks they still get 2 attacks.

[Veknironth]

Well, I agree that slitting the throat isn't that easy. However, I think it's pretty easy for a trained medieval fighter type to slaughter a helpless person. I also think it's a pretty awful and dishonorable thing to so. Then again, if the PC is an awful and dishonorable character, I can see it being done. I don't think the GM should make you roll to strike and then roll damage. That's just an instant kill. And yes, if the PC is incapacitated in some way and the GM decides to kill the character off instead of being robbed, captured, or some other non lethal outcome, that's also on the table. We had a character sacrificed to Tezcat gods while he was paralyzed. The GM might have known we had a method of bringing said character back to life so he knew it wouldn't be permanent, but there were no double standards. What's good for the PC goose is good for the NPC gander. Of course, there should be repercussions for the PC's actions. Whether it be infamy, or people seeking vengeance, or some other negative, killing people wantonly in a society is usually frowned upon.

As for the miniatures, I think they're very helpful. We haven't bothered to place them on a grid or anything but having three dimensional representations really helps in combat situations. Everyone has the same idea because you're looking at a fair representation of the goings on.

-Vek
"It worried me how flippantly PC's resort to violence."

[eliakon]

I have had this sort of thing come up in games. I use the double standard explanation and explain that my NPCs are like a video game with learning AI.
I start with a certain level of tactics. If the PCs use various tactics (instant kills, combinations, spell effect stacking, etc.) then it will be assumed that those are now 'valid' tactics and I will be having the NPCs use them as well.
This cuts down radically on the desire to be able to annihilate all the foes with no chance of them fighting back....
....because it means that the PCs realize that they can get annihilated with no chance of fighting back too.
But it does put the ball in their court.
Basically it says "I wont fight like that.....first"

[The Beast]

Sorry this may get long, but I really could use the help. Thanks for the input if you get to the end. lol

We had a dispute that ended in a shattered session last night. Our mage had an enemy paralyzed. He then wanted to go up to him and do a quick throat slice to finish the enemy. (The enemy had not taken any damage up to that point) Our GM said that's not something he's going to allow. We still have to whittle his health down instead of an instant kill. We couldn't understand the logic that when an enemy has absolutely no defense, he still needed to be taken down to his last hit point. Our logic was that if anyone, anywhere, ever had their throat sliced, they'd be dead within seconds.

The only rule I can find about this is in Vampire Kingdoms on page 33. Basically says if you stake a sleeping vampire, as long as you don't roll a 1 - 4 you automatically hit the vampire in its heart and render it immobile. At the end of that section it then says that the rule only works on sleeping or incapacitated foes and not close combat (emphasis mine). My original group took that to mean that you could insta-kill targets that were incapable of any defensive counters. My original group though always had the rule "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." I also recall this being addressed and answered the same way in a more recent book (recent meaning being printed during this century and not the last one). Unfortunately I don't recall where I saw this.

[Jerell]

I remember some book, probably from over 15 years back having rules for getting shot point blank, that caused double damage direct to hit points on called shots. I could see adapting something similar.

I also remember a rule, I think from the REF Field Guide, that including instant death for jumping on explosives/grenades. You could also argue that rule creates a certain precedent for 'common-sense' you're dead rules, should a GM so choose.

That being said, when I GM I don't do double standards. In fact it sounds like I run my enemies are very similar to eliakon. If the PCs exploit a quick kill, the bad guys are much more likely to use it, especially if used often. I don't go for the cheap shot first, but will answer in kind.

As for slicing throats, while that works, stabbing throats works too. The thing is blood spilling down the trachea from either approach will almost certainly cause aspiration. When that happens on a big enough scale you're done for. I wouldn't say instantaneous, but the lack of oxygen will kill you with enough time, just like it will any other way you can suffocate. However, if you stab in from the side and manage to hit both carotid arteries, that could be quickly lethal. It's not going to be pretty any way.

[Hotrod]

From a game mechanics perspective, I would have no issue with that tactic. It can be done. But should a character do it? That's a far more interesting question.

From a roleplaying perspective, it's an interesting moral dilemma. Killing a helpless foe seems contrary to any decent moral code. Then again, there are plenty of morally upright people who support the death penalty. Even a principled character might use this technique as a means of dispensing a justice killing without inflicting needless suffering, since the subject is unconscious. Then again, is judgment something that should be dispensed so quickly? It's a tricky moral issue.

Even if you see the moral issue as a clearly wrong act, the circumstances of a fantasy world blur this even more. If the foe in question is a supernatural predator well beyond your means to otherwise defeat, and there is no way to practically capture them, or there were other special circumstances, it might be a morally defensible act. How does your draw that line? How does he/she respond to others who draw it somewhere else? Must a fight necessarily end in the enemy's death?

Sorry this came out to be a nasty disagreement between a player and a GM, when it could be such an interesting character-to-character debate and source of dramatic tension.

[The Dark Elf]

I don't allow throat slicing and what's good for the PCs is also good for npcs.

If the enemy is paralysed and the fight continues with other enemies then players will need to whittle down the enemies SDC.
If the paralysed enemy is the last or only NPC then I still say destroy all the SDC (purely for the fact that it not one rule for PCs and another for npcs) but depending how long he's paralysed for I'm not gonna actually role play out and make them roll for strikes. I'd just describe it "You murder the helpless, paralysed body of the defenceless man as you act out your new found role of judge, jury and executioner or your assailant"...

If you start allowing throat slicing then you'll be allowing heart or head shot one kills (cos in RL that's possible). But me and my group are pretty understandable about joining a game with RL physics.

Either way, if it's breaking up the group-get them all to read this post and then go with the majority vote so uve harmony back.

[MrShowtime]

Thanks for the input guys.

What do you guys think would be the best way to solve a player/GM dispute? This situation was between players and the GM.

I understand the morality dilemma. The characters we play are definitely not of good alignment. But not necessarily evil either. We have a "do what's necessary to succeed" mentality and that often does lead to some overkill. But everyone does play in character (fairly consistently too) so that problem sorts itself out.

A question about Carpet of adhesion. Do you use/like the fact that it has basically no saving throw? maybe there is a reason for that rule that I'm just not seeing but to either be stuck for a long time with no save or a short time if you do save seems like no save at all to me. How do we feel about this rule?

One last question... Cloud of Slumber... How does it work? I understand it's a magic induced sleeping cloud. but is it like a gas? can you avoid sleep if you hold your breath? or breathe without air? does it work underwater? does it affect the caster? Any other thoughts on it?

[ShadowLogan]

At this point I have to ask what the alignments are for the characters involved, actions like this really aren't "in character" for some alignments. I don't know how well the GM enforces that or such. Still it should be considered, though obviously not part of your question.

That said you are not wrong, while it isn't in the PF2E main book, there are times where such common sense has to take over because GM/Players are applying the HP/SDC/MDC thing a bit to literally in all cases. I know this is in the Robotech 1E's REF Field Guide in the back, and IINM it might even be in the Rifts Conversion Book 1 Revised and a few other places, but in this case you guys are correct.

In fact at this point, you could be seen as doing a ritual sacrifice IINM, unfortunately PF2E main book doesn't exactly have rules for this situation beyond the PPE you can get. However the rules on pg19 PF2E main book "Note: Unless a character stops the bleeding of cuts and stab wounds, he will continue to lose blood and suffer damage at the rate of one hit point per minute." So even w/o the blunt common sense thing found in Rifts/RT-1E examples (mentioned by another poster), there are ways to have killed the paralysed enemy from one hit, you just have to let them bleed.

I don't think there is an easy answer here. On the one hand you have the "if players can do it, why can't NPCs" angle that can come back to haunt the players, but on the other hand it seems pointless to roll like that. The GM could have simply story blocked it at that point to move forward or to give them an out to allow the NPC to escape). In one instance a player had developed a potent attack that was pointless to work out in terms of dice because of the damage being dealt to them and the targets could do, so it was just story blocked out.

[eliakon]

Thanks for the input guys.

A question about Carpet of adhesion. Do you use/like the fact that it has basically no saving throw? maybe there is a reason for that rule that I'm just not seeing but to either be stuck for a long time with no save or a short time if you do save seems like no save at all to me. How do we feel about this rule?

I have personally instituted a 'if you save you are not stuck' rule. It was either this or outright remove the spell as it turns quickly into an I Win Button for the first side to use it.

One last question... Cloud of Slumber... How does it work? I understand it's a magic induced sleeping cloud. but is it like a gas? can you avoid sleep if you hold your breath? or breathe without air? does it work underwater? does it affect the caster? Any other thoughts on it?

It is a cloud, so it can not be cast underwater.
It does NOT say you breathe it in though, so if you are in the cloud you save or go to sleep.
Also there is nothing in the spell to suggest that the caster is immune, and if they enter their own cloud they should fall asleep as well (just like a caster is blinded by their own cloud of smoke, or can be blown up by their own meteor spell.....)

[glitterboy2098]

IIRC palladium has some detailed rules for Blood loss (they are in the rifts GMG IIRC), i'd say you could start there. treat it as severe blood loss, the badguy looses a certain amount of HP per melee. assume the badguy is "action-hero" enough that he can still do stuff while bleeding out. this means that he has a certain amount of time to apply healing magic or psionics, or to escape, or just to inflict as much damage as possible before passing out and dying.

then just apply the same to PC's if it comes up.

it then becomes less of an instant-win, instead forcing the encounter to occur against the clock, and giving the badguy a distraction he has to deal with.

[Library Ogre]

Personally, I'd allow a throat to be slit and that to end an NPC, and wouldn't view that as a Rubicon that leads to NPCs cutting PC throats.

It's a game. The NPC is helpless, and there's no reason to make this run through combat. As for "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", yeah, there's some of that... but it's all about the GM making better choices. The game is less fun for most people if NPCs are going around slaughtering PCs whenever possible, so they choose other things to keep the game fun.

"You have to stab this guy with an icepick until he's made of bloody swiss cheese" is not fun. There's nothing stopping him from being instantly killed, so he's dead. "You all never wake up because shadow demons ate you with a single gulp" is not fun. So the players get chances the NPCs don't.

His table, his rules, but I'll err on the side of fun.

[flatline]

Auto kill.

Same if someone does it to a PC.

Game mechanics are only required when the outcome is in doubt.

Of course, if the victim has some fast way to heal...

[The Dark Elf]

Thanks for the input guys.

1. What do you guys think would be the best way to solve a player/GM dispute? This situation was between players and the GM.

2. A question about Carpet of adhesion. Do you use/like the fact that it has basically no saving throw? maybe there is a reason for that rule that I'm just not seeing but to either be stuck for a long time with no save or a short time if you do save seems like no save at all to me. How do we feel about this rule?

3. One last question... Cloud of Slumber... How does it work? I understand it's a magic induced sleeping cloud. but is it like a gas? can you avoid sleep if you hold your breath? or breathe without air? does it work underwater? does it affect the caster? Any other thoughts on it?

1. Address the elephant in the room - youre gonna have to openly discuss it but it affects the group so discuss it as a group. Mediate. allow both sides to say their and EXPLAIN their thought process. Usually neither is right nor wrong (so dont be offended) but each has an opinion. So if it cant be resolved, vote on it as a majority group or IMHO default to the GM this time. Next GM may choose another verdict on that ruling.
And get them to read this so no one feels like theyre being attacked or their opinion is being belittled (normal feelings in a dispute).

2. I plays rules as they are. I rarely pick it for a villain unless I specifically want to use it (which is great for recurring villains to flee!). If the players are fighting trash mobs then so be it. those enemies get slaughtered. Players feel uber.
If the players are fighting your prized NPC master villain then fudge your saving roll and make it the minimal duration. Also - prep said villain for the possibility that he may be stuck (turn to mist, energy field, ranged capabilities, levitation) also, once hes free he can run about freely whereas others cant...
But can you cast CoA on top of one already? Id play that as a no.
Make him levitate (most races can have minor psionics) so he cant be caught again.

3. Its a cloud so it is a gas but it effects you if you are within its confines, not by breathing it. I dont think itd work underwater (IMHO). No it doesnt affect the caster but I wish it did so that they cant slaughter everyone within it.... (I wish it was ruled that any violences awakens the effected victim).

[kiralon]

No it doesnt affect the caster but I wish it did so that they cant slaughter everyone within it.... (I wish it was ruled that any violences awakens the effected victim).

I have seen a few people say this but I'm not sure where it comes from, the rules say a Diabolist is immune to his own magic but I haven't been able to find this reference in the books I have read that's say's wizards and warlocks are (except for a warlock being fire resistant)

[eliakon]

No it doesnt affect the caster but I wish it did so that they cant slaughter everyone within it.... (I wish it was ruled that any violences awakens the effected victim).

I have seen a few people say this but I'm not sure where it comes from, the rules say a Diabolist is immune to his own magic but I haven't been able to find this reference in the books I have read that's say's wizards and warlocks are (except for a warlock being fire resistant)

It seems to be a common house rule that wizards are immune to their own spells.
It has become so common in play that most people seem to think it is canon.
As far as I know though, it is a house rule. Especially since as you pointed out the Diabolist is explicitly called out as being immune to their own magic, and there are a few other spells that also explicitly say that the caster is immune.

[mirithol]

We allow a Coup de Grace strike at a helpless opponent. It is a house rule and all have signed off on it. The strike takes 1 attack and requires a D20 roll not to fumble, which is a natural roll of "1". A fumble does no damage and would wake a sleeping NPC, but not a paralyzed one. If successful, the victim is in a coma, at -1 hit points and starts the bleed count based on P.E. per core rules p. 19. The victim does get a final long-odds save unless the head is severed completely. The save difficulty depends on the nature of the creature, the situation and the G.M.'s discretion. In either case, dead or "not quite dead yet" but appearing so, the NPC is out of the battle.

If, however, the long-odds roll is successful (evil force seeps through the stone reviving Torg), then G.M. has the opportunity for NPC vengeance later in the campaign. After the adventure the player characters are sitting at the Green Dragon enjoying an ale when the door bursts open revealing Torg the not-quite-dead ogre, slit throat scarred and badly sewn-up, the wound still weeping pus and blood. Torg points at the player characters and hisses "Murders." "But I killed you," gasps the surprised rogue. "I'd laugh, but you severed my vocal cords. Now die!"

This rule clearly has alignment consequences. We had a scrupulous priest refuse to heal the party member who used a morally questionable (at least to the priest) coup de grace instead of bringing the vile villain back to town for justice until the rogue involved completed penance. Extra XPs to the priest for role playing.

Which leads us to the second use of the rule: Justice. Your player characters may find themselves in the Ned Stark role of delivering the King's justice. Fumbling on a roll requiring several whacks to complete the "justice" instead of a clean death is considered bad form and some superstitious peasants and men-at-arms view this as a bad omen. The criminal is still dead since the head is removed entirely (no save). Some "unlucky rolling" nobles have taken to hanging to avoid fumble unrest, which allows the victim a save. The town's folk view the surviving "hung" victim as lucky, often giving him the moniker of "Lucky" before his name, as in Lucky Tubbs who survived the gallows.

What if the player characters are on the receiving end of the rule. Yes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and they enjoy the rules full effect. However, as several have mentioned, the game is supposed to be fun and being the subject of coup de graces is not fun. (Nor is falling to your death after a bad roll, etc. I generally don't do that in may game). The threat of the coups de grace rule does exist and my group takes it seriously.

Note: We use a house rule: Fate. At each level the character gains one fate point as a reward representing the character's growing heroic nature. A fate point represents a re-direction of fate and manifests as a "that didn't happen." Thus, a paralyzed character with a fate point to spend who is about to be coup de graced could call on fate to intervene because heroes are awesome and miraculously become un-paralyzed. The choice occurs before the coups de grace roll, not after the results, although it could arguably be used on the long-odds save. If used after, the character would have all of the effects of the coup de grace - scars, vocal cords cut, etc., but would be alive. This rule helps avert the bad die rolls death like rolling three 1's in a row to avoid falling over the cliff or the GM rolling extraordinarily well for critical hits - "G.M.: The Algor giant slams the great pine tree down on you - it's a 20, no it's a double 20. Do you want to take it? Player: As fate would have it lightning strikes the tree splitting in neatly in two, both sides missing my hero, and ruining the giant's club. G.M.; Nice use of a fate point - mark it off." I mention the rule on this thread because a 2nd level character who used her fate point to win a bar bet to buy some armor later ran afoul of the "Bad Lieutenant" - what our group calls the right hand of the Boss - in an ambush and was coup de graced in front of the party. That Bad Lieutenant was the most hated NPC ever - good for narrative story telling, and the event made coup de graces feared and fate points revered.

The final use is the mercy killing. When Ted the pony is hoarsely panting in pain, slowly dying from a broken leg, and there are no heal spells left, it is time to put Ted out of his misery.

That's how we do it.

Cheers,

Miri

[mirithol]

Thanks for the input guys.

What do you guys think would be the best way to solve a player/GM dispute? This situation was between players and the GM.

1) Have an out-of-game meeting when passions have cooled - we call it the Round Table. All members, G.M. and players alike are equal at the Round Table, although the G.M. gets the tie-breaker in the event of a tie. A different member of the group runs the Round Table each meeting, and the next meeting leader is set at the end of the current meeting. Topics allowed are the-state-of-the-game, rules clarifications, suggestions for or alterations of house rules, additions of new Palladium Fantasy RPG books into the game (Yeah!), things that were fun and things that weren't, Suggestions for campaign direction based on player interests (we want to be pirates or more combat and less puzzles), changes to scheduled/hours/who brings the Doritos, etc., and how to make the game more fun. Everyone gets an opening and closing statement. Personal or personality disputes should be handled before the meeting.

2) We have a gaming constitution - some of which is:
- We play games to have fun and fellowship. Everyone shares in this goal. If you disrupt this goal, you may be suspended from the group.
- House rules are agreed to before the game by voice vote (ours are written down so we don't go over the ones everybody knows and loves again and again). Changes to house rules are
taken up in the Round Table, not before the game, unless all agree and the change is unanimous. The G.M. has the final say over this if it occurs on game day.
- In game, the Game Master has the final say. The G.M. has the responsibility to create and pace the adventure and knows plot details the players do not. Disputes may be reviewed in the
Round Table.
- A Round Table may be called after the game, if needed. If tempers are hot, the G.M. may defer the Round Table to a later date. Often disputes (rules or otherwise) can and are encouraged
to be handled outside the game, and with unanimous approval be implemented on game day. (It is expected of the G.M to be the adult in the room).
- Any player may choose not to play.
- The Game Master may choose to end a campaign if he/she does not like the direction the game is taking or for the reason the G.M.'s vision of the game is not being fulfilled.
- A special Round Table may be called to suspend a disruptive player. Care should be taken who informs the player of suspension, and the reasons for the decision should be explained. A
player deserves notification of suspension rather than just never receiving another game invite. If we kick you out you will know why. It's the right thing to do.

Obviously, this is best done before a dispute happens. The great thing is you have passionate players that care about the game. Or are they just jack-wads? - in which case life is too short to play with.

Specifically to your dispute, the G.M.has the rules on his side about SDC - read core rules p. 18-19, but our group chooses the Coup de Grace house rule posted above.

Good luck and good gaming,

Miri

[Veknironth]

Well, the best way to mediate most any disagreement is by discussing it. Since everyone is trying to have fun you'd hope that everyone would chime in and be willing to work things out.

For the Carpet of Adhesion, there are ways around it. For one, you can have a mage in the bad guy's group, or have a bad guy with a scroll, which allows the enemies to similarly immobilize the PC's. Then they can all stare at each other, or shoot at each other, etc. If someone is caught in it, it can be tough, assuming that person can't fly, attack from a distance, or otherwise do anything outside of melee combat. But, it can be disabled quite easily if you're not already in it. You can simply throw a cloak over it if you need, or even spill water on it.

The Cloud of Slumber is even worse. Without any bonuses to save or spell strength, there is a 60% chance of incapacitating your opponent with just a few PPE. I say it affects the caster, if said caster is stupid enough to walk into the cloud. As far as holding breath, I think that's a way to save vs the spell. That would make the spell 100% effective in an enclosed space, I recognize that, but you can always have the person wake once the enclosed space is opened. There is no need to roll where the characters can see to determine the amount of time a creature is unconscious. Now, while the mage who casts the spell can't walk into the cloud with impunity, he or she could always cancel the spell and walk among the slumbering.

-Vek
"The best way to decide things is to ask me and accept my decisions."

[Hotrod]

There's another approach I've seen. It's how Kevin himself tends to resolve these sorts of "can I, can't I" issues. He rolls a 20-sided and then declares whether or not it's cool. Honestly, it's kind of genius. He doesn't say what the threshold for it is, but it's obvious that he does have one and accepts the outcome, even if it's not how he would interpret things.

He doesn't do this for everything, of course, but it's a nice way of settling issues quickly and quietly, keeping the game moving.

[Hendrik]

Our mage had an enemy paralyzed. He then wanted to go up to him and do a quick throat slice to finish the enemy. (The enemy had not taken any damage up to that point) ... How do you see this situation?

I asked "If he allowed the instant kill and then down the road the situation was reversed and the enemy has you paralyzed, would you accept the instant kill from them?" To which I got a swift "NO!" ... do you guys believe the double standard should exist?

Hi there,

late to the game, but here goes:

COUP DE GRACE AND RULES DISCUSSIONS TOPIC

- I use "coup de grace" as a rule. (I cannot check now but I believe I even read a rule on this in BtS and Rifts:Ultimate or in the Rifts GM's Guide. Be that as it may, though...) I use the coup de grace because I think it makes sense. Reason: People completely unable to defend themselves, i.e. bound, paralyzed, unconscious, etc. can be killed off without much ado.

- Consequences. The perhaps most important consequence of such deed is how the gaming world population will react to the (mis?)deed. Characters tend to get known for their deeds; I think this should be played out. If you are known not to be merciful ... do not expect it yourself. I am not saying I will be deliberately brutal or biased against someone off'ing the helpless, but the "world will react":


"Ooooh, if that is not Sir Sicamore the Merciless. Niiiice to meet you finally. You killed my brothers after they yielded to you. The poor men were bound, helpless! EXPECT NO MERCY, SIRRAH!"

Don't think even orcs will not remember. Perhaps they even think that ALL guys like Sir Sicamore will not grant mercy: "Ya tinbox, youz no give mercy to orc family, my great-grandfather said. Youz die in pain, bound to tree ... for target practice ... by younglings! ... Looong time to die." To which Sir Robustly Good answers, "but, but, I never killed an orc, let alone anyone who was unable to defend himself." And the orc relipes: "You'z tinbox! Ya all sick in head."

- Only rarely do I let people roll a strike for a coup de grace at all. A coup de grace needs a strike in my games only when the killer is under time or other pressure. When you slit someones throat while fireballs are hurled at you or while standing in a collapsing tower, that stress may lead to you to fail. Success would mean sudden death.

- I do not apply coup de grace in situations where the victim will be able to react the next action, e.g. when somebody is merely sleeping what you get is one strike with a sizeable bonus (hard to miss a sleeping person) but on being hit the opponent will wake up and be able to defend himself to at least some extent (attacker probably still has sizeable boni against the sleep drunk victim). You hit somebody sleeping, you make normal damage on a strike. I have also seen this as double damage, but I think it should not be a coup de grace.

- Alignment. Of course, whether or not a character would go for a coup de grace will also be a question of his alignment, although I would not disallow it if a charcter "fails" his alignment. I might just change the alignment after one or several infractions, depending on circumstance.

- All rules apply to all. There should be no double standard. It keeps players and the GM honest. It also tends to cut many rules discussions short when players who would love to have a rule to their benefit have to weigh if they were to like it against themselves. Do ut des!

- In a dispute the GM has final say. Of course, he should discuss but preferably after the game.

MINIs AND MOVEMENT TOPIC

A little lighter question here lol Do you guys use/like a tile system with figures and such for reference such as is used in D&D? If so, without the movement system, how would/do you incorporate it into PFRPG?

I love using minis and floorplans. It avoids (most of the time) arguments on "I have not been standing there when the fireball hit", etc. Also, it is a "boys love toys" thing, I guess.

With respect to the movement rules. This is a recurring topic Palladium does not really give movement rules. The only thing, from a rules perspective, which is clear is how many meters/yards per second you can move. The speed attribute allows for a simple translation. When you know that it is also easy to calculate how many meters/yards you can move in a given round. The rest is pretty much free flow. Most of the time people will either be in a fight or have to move. Sometimes people want to move, take an action (attack or other), and move again. The attacks are, for me, all actions BUT movement. I give the "move per round allotment" based on SPEED in addition to the actions.

There are a lot of people who handle it differently, but it works well for me.

Kindest regards
Hendrik

[Alrik Vas]

Ask the group how much realism is necessary in their fantasy game. Really. In D&D they don't let you get auto kills on the helpless during combat, you have to wait until after the action has settled down. Or if you do go for it during a fight, they get a saving throw.

Part of being a GM is explaining why things happen the way they do.

I have a lot of rules for quick kills. They apply to pretty much everything in the setting. If you've got skills, you can shank the big bad with an amazing move and end their reign of terror pretty quick.

To me, this seems like multiple people had a bad day at the same time and forgot to wear their grown up pants.

[Hendrik]

Ask the group how much realism is necessary in their fantasy game. Really.

Very much agree with Alrik Vas. That should be the core question.

As I tried to say above, the great equalizer is to use all rules for anyone at the table, whatever you agree or decide on. While you can play giving the players an "unfair" advantage, and you may want that for "comic book heroism", I personally think it is better/fairer to have the rules hit all equally hard. I found that the latter stance makes a lot of "rule advantage" discussions fade away pretty fast. Many players want realism to favour but not hit themselves.

[The Dark Elf]

No it doesnt affect the caster but I wish it did so that they cant slaughter everyone within it.... (I wish it was ruled that any violences awakens the effected victim).

I have seen a few people say this but I'm not sure where it comes from, the rules say a Diabolist is immune to his own magic but I haven't been able to find this reference in the books I have read that's say's wizards and warlocks are (except for a warlock being fire resistant)

It seems to be a common house rule that wizards are immune to their own spells.
It has become so common in play that most people seem to think it is canon.
As far as I know though, it is a house rule. Especially since as you pointed out the Diabolist is explicitly called out as being immune to their own magic, and there are a few other spells that also explicitly say that the caster is immune.

WOW Id best go re-read the booksas yeah Im sure it was in there - possibly a cross over misshap from 1st edition perhaps or as u say just a rule that over 25years is taken as canon when its not!

[Hendrik]

No it doesnt affect the caster but I wish it did so that they cant slaughter everyone within it.... (I wish it was ruled that any violences awakens the effected victim).

I have seen a few people say this but I'm not sure where it comes from, the rules say a Diabolist is immune to his own magic but I haven't been able to find this reference in the books I have read that's say's wizards and warlocks are (except for a warlock being fire resistant)

It seems to be a common house rule that wizards are immune to their own spells.
It has become so common in play that most people seem to think it is canon.
As far as I know though, it is a house rule. Especially since as you pointed out the Diabolist is explicitly called out as being immune to their own magic, and there are a few other spells that also explicitly say that the caster is immune.

WOW Id best go re-read the booksas yeah Im sure it was in there - possibly a cross over misshap from 1st edition perhaps or as u say just a rule that over 25years is taken as canon when its not!

Hiya,

2nd edition, as far as I can tell, does not make arcanists auto-immune to their own spells. Only Diabolists are immune to their own wards (which should also include a ward-rune combination). All others arcanists / men-of-magic should be able to suffer from their own spells. The entry on area effect spells explicitly says that "everybody in the area of effect" is affected!

I looked through 1st ed. as well and did not find a general immunity rule. We played it liked that in 1st ed. as well, though Maybe it was a fashion at the time, if not a rule.

Kindest regards
Hendrik

[The Dark Elf]

2nd edition, as far as I can tell, does not make arcanists auto-immune to their own spells. Only Diabolists are immune to their own wards (which should also include a ward-rune combination). All others arcanists / men-of-magic should be able to suffer from their own spells. The entry on area effect spells explicitly says that "everybody in the area of effect" is affected!

I looked through 1st ed. as well and did not find a general immunity rule. We played it liked that in 1st ed. as well, though Maybe it was a fashion at the time, if not a rule.

Kindest regards
Hendrik

Thanx for the time saver! Who knew!

[Hendrik]

2nd edition, as far as I can tell, does not make arcanists auto-immune to their own spells. Only Diabolists are immune to their own wards (which should also include a ward-rune combination). All others arcanists / men-of-magic should be able to suffer from their own spells. The entry on area effect spells explicitly says that "everybody in the area of effect" is affected!

I looked through 1st ed. as well and did not find a general immunity rule. We played it liked that in 1st ed. as well, though Maybe it was a fashion at the time, if not a rule.

Kindest regards
Hendrik

Thanx for the time saver! Who knew!

You are very welcome. I have been very intrigued by the issue.

Recently I had a similar issue with the number of attacks. In some thread someone was calculating the APR for an assassin and I was absolutely sure he was wrong. I still went back to the books - I guess drewkitty confirmed the APR and that threw me out of my assuredness - and checked ... Lo and behold, I was so wrong! When we started PFRPG again in 2007, we added the "2 attacks of the living" from the latest iteration of the "megaversial core" rules (Rifts: Ultimate, etc.). I was completely convinced that this holds true for PFRPG as well. ... And when you wrote that any arcanist is immune to his own spell effects, it made me stop in my tracks yet again and I needed to check.

Kindest regards
Hendrik

[Hendrik]

2nd edition, as far as I can tell, does not make arcanists auto-immune to their own spells. Only Diabolists are immune to their own wards (which should also include a ward-rune combination). All others arcanists / men-of-magic should be able to suffer from their own spells. The entry on area effect spells explicitly says that "everybody in the area of effect" is affected!

I looked through 1st ed. as well and did not find a general immunity rule. We played it liked that in 1st ed. as well, though Maybe it was a fashion at the time, if not a rule.

Kindest regards
Hendrik

Thanx for the time saver! Who knew!

You are very welcome. I have been very intrigued by the issue.

I have now also gone through the FAQ and it doesn't say something about it. Well, when you look through the "Magic FAQ" there are some hints that arcanists are not immune to their own effects.

The thing I have thought about further is that arcanists are able to cancel their own spells at any time. So, it ain't that bad. When he walks into his own cloud of slumber for example, he can always spend an action (rules not clear on this issue whether it the cancelling action just a "snap" or costs 1 action/attack - I guess the latter) to cancel his spell in the nick of time.

Asking for an action would result it nice situations potentially. A higher level spell could not be cancelled in the same round as casting it consumes all actions. Lower level (1-8) spells, however, could be cast and then cancelled in the same round. That would in my opinion even include attack spells. Tricky to stop a flying "bullet", but theoretically a warlock etc. should be able to do it. Which again makes the distinction - 1 action cost or not - very important, because without an action cost, an arcanist could stop every "oops" with a snap of his fingers, in the same round.

Kindest regards
Hendrik

[Prysus]

When we started PFRPG again in 2007, we added the "2 attacks of the living" from the latest iteration of the "megaversial core" rules (Rifts: Ultimate, etc.). I was completely convinced that this holds true for PFRPG as well. ... And when you wrote that any arcanist is immune to his own spell effects, it made me stop in my tracks yet again and I needed to check.

Kindest regards
Hendrik

Greetings and Salutations. In your defense, the NPC since ... um ... I want to say Western Empire, but too lazy to double check, included the 2 attacks. So the later books have it included in stats, but it's not in the early books and never officially added in the rules. It's kind of a shadow update ... without ever actually being updated. Err ... well, it's weird and complicated. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Hendrik]

... in 2007, we added the "2 attacks of the living" ...

... the later books have it included in stats, but it's not in the early books and never officially added in the rules. It's kind of a shadow update ... well, it's weird and complicated.

"Shadow update, weird and complicated", I like that

Thank you, Prysus.

At the time we were fully aware that it is not in PFRPG. I checked our houserules of the time - we added reasons for each change . I just forgot over time and took it as canon assuming it must be like that in PFRPG, too. Be that as it may, I will continue to play with the +2 attacks/actions. I prefer it like that and it does not hurt the game, arguably it improves combat.

Kindest regards
Hendrik

[Hotrod]

I have to say, a remarkable transformation has occurred in the Palladium Fantasy world. When I got started, my first character had one attack per melee at first level, and that melee lasted a full minute. Now we have player characters strutting about flinging six or seven attacks in 15 seconds!

[Hendrik]

I have to say, a remarkable transformation has occurred in the Palladium Fantasy world. When I got started, my first character had one attack per melee at first level, and that melee lasted a full minute. Now we have player characters strutting about flinging six or seven attacks in 15 seconds!

Lol. True.

I like it better now, it is more action-packed sword & sorcery style. It allows heroic feats. I can see Conan smiting and hewing with his sword; as Howard probably said, in a whirlwind of attacks, with his blue steel striking like lightning, in a blurr too fast for the eyes of normal men to folllow, crushing helmets and the skulls of his unfortunate enemies.

That said, I think the number of attacks per round, even if that is not always true or really important (to me), is even realistic, or more realistic than one strike a minute in any case. While swordfights, or other hand to hand, may go about without much in the way of actual blows for a while (but that is the situation and the decision of the combatants and not due to what is or is not possible), at some point there will be (or can be) a flurry of strokes, dodges, and parries.

From a technical viewpoint it comes down to how much damage can be dealt in a round. Can you kill in one round? I will answer the latter as a yes now and a no in the olden days. The damage potential is much higher now. The point is that more attacks per round allow for a better differentiation and calibration between OCCs, HtH styles, and most notably: levels, i.e. between combatants of different experience niveaus.

[Axelmania]

Who knows, maybe 3rd edition will get even faster and people will be flinging 1-2 attacks per second like in GURPS.

[flatline]

Who knows, maybe 3rd edition will get even faster and people will be flinging 1-2 attacks per second like in GURPS.

My house rules already work that way

[Hendrik]

It has been a while since I played Gurps but wasn't the whole combat round not only 1 second?

Well, what I like about the Palladium combat is that you have multiple actions/attacks. It is and feels very dynamic. That is what I wanted to stress. The difference is not the spatial dimension (length in seconds) but what you can do. Even if I think it more realistic, that does not matter so much for me for strikes. The time available comes really only into play when you have to perform non combat actions during combat, like when having to pick a lock or bandaging a friend while your comrades fight.

[Axelmania]

GURPS uses turns instead of melee rounds, they're 1 second long, normally you do attack/defense but you can sacrifice an attack to do two defenses or sacrifice defense to do two attacks. Or instead of two, you can opt to get a bonus to strike or damage or defense. Some stuff like Altered Time Rate / Compartmentalized Mind / Full Coordination allow additional attacks per turn.

[Hendrik]

GURPS uses turns instead of melee rounds, they're 1 second long, normally you do attack/defense but you can sacrifice an attack to do two defenses or sacrifice defense to do two attacks. Or instead of two, you can opt to get a bonus to strike or damage or defense. Some stuff like Altered Time Rate / Compartmentalized Mind / Full Coordination allow additional attacks per turn.

Thanks! Now I remember. How do normal actions link to the rounds, like bandaging somebody or picking a lock?

[Axelmania]

I'm only aware of the "lite" basic set stuff, that sounds like more advanced combat rules. Mages apparently 'concentrate' or something so it probably works like that.

[everloss]

It sounds like the GM was unable to let go of their predisposition on the fate of the NPC in question. It is a common failure, especially with inexperienced or inept GMs (not saying yours is either of those). Instead of allowing the player to do their thing, have fun, and deal with the problem in the fastest and simplest way, and keep the game moving, the GM chose to thwart the player, nix fun, and throw a tantrum. That's what I'm getting from this.

Me? I'd find a new GM. I've done it before and will probably do it again.

[Hendrik]

Hmm, I don't know, Everloss. I was not there when the dispute arose, but I have been witness and part of some, as probably all players and GMs. I guess the situation - from Showtime's description - was not handled in the best way by all parties involved. Showtime IMO asked the crucial question:

... I asked "If he allowed the instant kill and then down the road the situation was reversed and the enemy has you paralyzed, would you accept the instant kill from them?" To which I got a swift "NO!" ...

I totally agree with you, Everloss, that a game should be (i) fun first and foremost and (ii) rules discussions should not hold up the game, but it also needs to be fair (or if all agree lopsided). Evidently, there was no agreement on lopsided in favour of the players. I think that Showtime's question makes a good point and is really the point an experienced GM would make.

"You wanna open Pandora's box, players? Sure. Let's do that. You have two choices. Either you go ahead and slit that throat, then the monsters and NPCs will be able to do the same in the future ... or we don't do that and do it like this ... What will it be?" would have resolved the dispute at my table in under a minute. I do not want to dictate what the rule are, a discussion is always fine - applying the rules to all is my checks and balances tool and my players know that - and I will make a GM call if necessary.

I believe you are right also, Everloss, in chosing to stay or go. Every gaming round/"table" has a certain flair and not all people are alike or a good match. I do the same. I like it, I stay. I don't like it, I bow out. There is no right way to play, only a subjectively good way and if there is no agreement on that in a round of players, it is a mismatch and waste of time. Bickering groups are no fun.

[Hendrik]

I'm only aware of the "lite" basic set stuff, that sounds like more advanced combat rules. Mages apparently 'concentrate' or something so it probably works like that.

Thank you, Axelmania. I will look it up on the weekend (no Gurps books with me). The discussion got me curious. While I love the Palladium way for the above-stated reasons, it never hurts to look across the brim of one's own bowl of soup.

[mirithol]

To the original topic regarding the dispute - this from DMJ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XagehuzSYRM#t=3.859

[Axelmania]

Did not know YouTube did milliseconds now.