>The King has tasked us with rescuing his daughter from an evil warlord
>Said warlord does the whole "TAKE ANOTHER STEP AND THE GIRL DIES!" thing
>"I crossbow him in the face!"
>7 damage
>Warlord doesn't die
>Kills the Princess
>We kill Warlord
>"Well good job asshat the Princess is dead now. I'd be suprised if the King doesn't execute us let alone pay us."
>Wizard pauses for a second "Wait I got an idea."
>Keep in mind, the GM has made some BS clause about how reviving people's actually a huge risk of having a demon or another spirit posess a body unless you explicitly go find the soul and we're level 6
>So the wizard fucking revives her as a zombie
>"What the fuck man"
>"Look we'll just heal the throat wound with some inflict wounds- she's undead now it'll work- and then we return her to the castle"
>"She's a zombie!"
>"Noble's are always wearing white powder makeup we'll just say she touched herself up before she came home."
>"She's mindless!"
>"We'll just say she's under stress from her harrowing experience and command her to give some random responses to questions."
>"FOREVER!?"
>"Till we get our money! She drops dead in the castle, we run away and are never heard from again."
We're all gonna die next session I can tell
I'm not a big fan of when player take necromancy lightly. Out of all the schools of magic, the one that involves working with people's souls should be the last one considered for casual misuse.
This will end well, OP.
I like it.Tell me you have an escape plan.
>>47432477
Our escape plan is "the moment things get too hairy we compel the princess's corpse to set itself on fire as a distraction and run"
no really that's our wizard's suggestion
>>47432366
She wouldn't drop dead when the party leaves, she would turn into a feral zombie and start murdering everyone.
Better than the time we made a hollowed corpse peanut butter filled rat marionette.
>>47432630
They explicitly didn't touch her soul.
>>47432728
did you quote the wrong guy?
Wizards are dicks.
>>47432366
You deserve this.
>>47432366
this sounds like the origin story of some kind of horrible unique undead.
>>47432447
Everything is a tool to used how the wielder sees fit regardless of your opinion on the matter.
I believe nukes are not to be used lightly as they have huge after effects and are likely to do more harm than good. However ISIS, Kim, and the Holy Republic Sweden Empire might disagree.
>>47432447
Why do you hate fun?
>>47433781
This looks like it is dnd, in dnd creating undead is objectively evil per the rules of the game.
So no you can't get away with that by RAW.
You have an opportunity here to do something great, OP. Don't fuck it up.
>>47432366
>killing only her
>not just having your undead torch the entire damn castle
OP plz, ya'll dumbasses, the best thing to do is if you fuck up extra hard, you murderhobo until there are no witnesses.
its the only way it won't bite you in the ass.
>>47432366
>>Said warlord does the whole "TAKE ANOTHER STEP AND THE GIRL DIES!" thing
>>"I crossbow him in the face!"
>>7 damage
>>Warlord doesn't die
>>Kills the Princess
This is the sort of situation where you need a better GM or a different system.
>>47432366
Did the Princess have no class levels or something?
Anyway, OP, tell the king the warlord did despicable things to her, and just have your zombie commit suicide while you are mid negotiations. Hell, have her run shrieking out and jump into the moat while stabbing herself in the throat.
Easy.
>>47436741
Anon.. a zombie can not run and does not take damage from stabbing itself with a knife....
>The Princess shuffles over to the window attempting to scream well stabbing self in the neck with a knife leaving no noticeable damage.
>Eventually manages to fall into moat where she sits to this day stabbing herself in the neck.
This really does sound like the backstory to some unique undead.
>>47436793
>No damage
>no noticeable damage
These are two different things. You can cut a zombie it just doesn't care about it or take lethal damage from it.
>>47432366
Whatever campaign you thought you were doing, you're now starring in Weekend at Bernie's 2: Zombie Boogaloo
>>47436793
Zombies can be put down with slashing damage and sufficient bludgeoning damage. Just have her walk over to the window, slash her own neck open and jump.
The fall will take her out.
You don't need her to actually die, just look like she takes lethal damage then stop moving.
Hell, have your cleric get there first and cast cure serious wounds on the zombie, then say "I'm sorry, there was nothing I could do."
>>47436825
The issue is she won't bleed.
>>47436404
It was funny because Berny was an asshole. Not as much fun with someone innocent.
>>47436707
>>47432366
Nothing worse then a DM who cannot stretch the system just a wee bit, the warlord should have at least recoiled enough for the princess to get outta his grasp, just for the sake of a hostage situation.
>>47436707
Why?
>>47437015
>attacking everything that moves should solve whatever problem that moving thing causes
Get out and take your intriguing waifu with you.
>>47437036
But that's how we deal with hostages in real life, we blow their head off if we have a sniper around, unless it's a hard shot.
>>47437015
Sometimes the heroes fuck up because they did stupid shit.
A player's gotta roll with those punches just as well as a DM does.
>>47432447
>working with people's souls
>necromancy
Wew lad
>>47437061
It should have been a hard shot to make, penalties on the roll and the like, not an auto-fail.
>>47437024
See >>47437015
>>47437061
Since when is shooting the hostage taker in the face stupid?
>>47437075
Why would you expect an evil warlord in an obviously fantastical setting to go down from a single crossbow bolt. Real people have survived that.
>>47437081
Since he had the hostage in a position to kill them if it didn't work.
But really killing your hostage is in bad form, they make much better human shields, aka concealment if you keep them alive.
>>47432366
Congratulations, you're practically creating a new iteration of the "lethal female ghost" that every culture seems to have.
>Save me or I'll kill you.
I expect your trousers to be haunted quite soon. Ethereal itch can't be scratched anon.
>>47437100
But not even flinch? Come on now.
>>47437107
Shooting the hostage taker is the best route though, you cannot talk down a bandit chief and they were a pretty low level to start, only think I could think of is taking the corpse of one of his men and having it mozy on over to hit him in the back of the head, distracting him, but if he took a bolt to the fucking face and didn't even flinch I doubt a zombie hitting him would.
>>47436886
So cut a hole in her neck, put a blood bag in the hole, then seal her up again.
This isn't rocket science, people.
>>47437117
I'm not sure a flinch would help rescue the princess when said flinching man is (from what I can gather looking at the OP) pressing a knife against her neck.
If we're going full realism here, the flinch would be what got her throat slit
>>47436707
It doesn't even make sense, either. The whole point of that kind of hostage situation is that the baddie is banking on the goodies being unwilling to risk attacking them, for fear of hurting the hostage.
But if the baddie kills the hostage, they've just discarded the only thing keeping the goodies at bay. And if the goodies attack them regardless of the hostage, there's no point keeping the hostage anyway, because it's clear that the goodies aren't afraid of hurting them.
>>47436949
The joke is that the PCs are terrible people.
>>47437133
They had a mage that could make a zombie, I am now curious why the said mage did not have charm person handy for a hostage rescue mission.
>>47437152
Seems there is no way they could have saved her then.
>>47437158
Charm person would be nice, especially since bandits are usually retarded and cannot resist magic at all.
>>47437054
That's because we have absurdly powerful hardware to do so with, and why nobody serious stands in the open with a hostage. Nobody thinks trying to snipe somebody out with a normal weapon is a good idea unless they're a cowboy or have an inordinate amount of time to aim.
>>47437117
"Flinch," maybe. "Instantly lose grip on the person they were preparing to kill if the heroes didn't move," no.
In fact, you could pretty convincingly argue her throat should have been cut before the bolt hit him.
>>47437133
If he's bothering to take her hostage, two things are probably true. One, you probably have something he wants. Two, either saying no isn't going to work well or this world's inhabitants are retarded.
>>47432366
>7 damage
And this is the problem with abstracted damage.
You don't just eat a fucking crossbow bolt to the face and receive no ill effects, you gotta flinch, or something that allows the princess to move out of his grasp.
>>47437177
>no way
Plenty of ways, but going for an unplanned, solo frontal attack when he's got your person of interest at his mercy?
Not exactly the most intelligent course of action. If I were in that party I'd have smacked the crossbowman before he rolled any dice.
>>47437177
If they had a rogue, they could have snuck up behind them to grapple the guy and let the Princess get free. Coup de grace requires a full round action on a helpless target, so if you're in melee range you can probably stop it.
If they had a wizard spell to daze the warlord they could have got over to him.
If they had a spell to heat up the blade he might have dropped it.
If they had waited to talk and let him get unaware they could have tricked him.
If they had shot him in the arm he might have dropped the blade.
No, they shoot him in the face. Nothing else they could have done at all.
>>47437197
Well also let's be fair, the guy probably didn't literally get hit in the face, the op didn't mention concealment used at all, and the guy obviously was in a position to coup de grace the princess and he shot at the guy anyways.
Yeah most people would kill her and try to flee.Or perhaps the gm just didn't want the shoot every problem in the face, and create undead murder hobos to rape the npc,OP is probably also bait
>>47437181
Well maybe the OP does and wants to be a crossbow cowboy.
Flinching with a roll to see if she gets away is better than instant death.
>Giving the kings gold to him
We don't negotiate with barbarian scum, King shoulda sent a super pro sniper or some shit to help get his daughter back if we loves her so much.
What would you have done anon?
>>47432366
Hang on. He only took 7 damage from a crossbow, but the warlord can instagib the princess? She's gotta have a couple levels Noble by this point, she's probably sitting around 30HP. If he's doing that much in a single swing, then how the fuck did you survive the encounter?
>>47437221
>with a roll to see if she gets away
you mean "with a roll to see if his knife hand tenses up and stabs her in the fucking throat"
>>47437215
OP is most likely bait. I doubt it was a coup de grace though. The whole >"TAKE ANOTHER STEP AND THE GIRL DIES!" thing implies that he was holding a sword to her neck or something, which is still enough leeway in movement that you can't be coup de graced from memory. You need to be asleep or completely bound, which one arm around the shoulder is not. We just don't have enough information.
>>47432366
If I was the GM, you would be in deep shit if you do this kind of crap.
I have a low toleration for stupidity: it begets stupidity.
>>47437221
>Daze, sleep, invisibility, grease, hold person, charm person, summon creature.
I would have picked something that could actually stop him.
>>47437227
Probably coup de grace.
>>47437203
>If they had a rogue, they could have snuck up behind them to grapple the guy and let the Princess get free. Coup de grace requires a full round action on a helpless target, so if you're in melee range you can probably stop it.
I'm sure he has a good haul of goons watching his back, doubt he wouldn't notice you butchering a few to get to him.
>If they had a wizard spell to daze the warlord they could have got over to him.
As usual wizard solves fucking everything
>If they had a spell to heat up the blade he might have dropped it.
Once again, fucking wizards
>If they had waited to talk and let him get unaware they could have tricked him.
True they could have acted like they'd give him what he wanted and then rush him at the last second.
>If they had shot him in the arm he might have dropped the blade.
I dunno man, he took that bolt to the goddamn face pretty well.
>>47437243
maybe the warlord killed her by using her body to block the worst of the crossbow bolt
>>47437227
Cut scene deaths anon.
>>47437237
If you wanna put it that way sure, she might survive the damage though, I'm sure they have some sort of healer that can stop the bleeding.
>>47437260
I'm talking about those of us who don't shoot lasers out of our ass, plus their mage sounds retarded.
>>47437015
>Muh perfect outcomes
Fuck off Vaelys
>>47437277
>I'm talking about those of us who don't shoot lasers out of our ass, plus their mage sounds retarded.
Charge the bandit leader and smite the shit out of him.
Talk to him.
Agree to leave if the princess will be safe and come back later now that we know where she is.
Not be a god damn retard.
>>47437295
He got the roll, I don't see what the problem is, if you don't want a perfect outcome make it a bit more complicated. I mean he still has goons all over, maybe they grab her and drag him back for medical attention. But he shouldn't just laugh at the damage.
>>47437261
>lots of henchmen outta nowhere
No mention of them earlier, that's just guessing now.
But still a better chance of doing something than just initiating open combat.
Besides, level 6. They should have potions of invisibility for just this reason.
Ranged disarm is also a thing, though a really crap thing.
Heat metal is a druid spell, by the way.
Also, another option is to heal her before the life leaves her body - I mean, she has to bleed out first in most cases.
But really, lots of things they could have done.
>>47437277
>she might survive the damage though
okay, but you better stabilize her qui- oh wait he drove his sword through her chest because you shot him
>>47437299
>Charge him
I like the way you do things but that princess is fucked.
>talk to him
He is a warlord who wants something the king obviously isn't willing to give up, otherwise the king would have gave him it by now.
>agree to leave
True, sneaking in at night or getting the king to send someone who isn't a bunch of level 6 scrubs would be better. Hell they could even try to rush around and ambush them on the way back to the camp or set up a trap after they report back to the king.
>>47433781
>Holy Republic Sweden Empire
>not Halal Eurabian Caliphate
>>47437308
What warlord doesn't come with a bunch of goons? If he is that stupid the party shouldn't even be in that situation. The rushing over to heal her before she bleeds out is the best option since everyone has a healer, but I think the GM made her instantly die from it.
>>47437311
>stabilize her qui- oh wait he drove his sword through her chest because you shot him
I think you mean
>better slit her throat qui- oh wait the crossbowman just shot me through the fucking face
>>47437340
>ha ha these fags won't attack me while I have this blade directly against this princesses throat
>oh no some jackoff bounced a crossbow bolt off of my helmet and made me slit her dumbass neck open
>well, since these shitheels are obviously out for blood I may as well make their lives fucking miserable before they can kill me
It's almost like hostage situations are actually quite difficult to diffuse.
>>47437397
>helmet
Holy shit, this whole time I've been arguing in the favor of the crossbowman, and I've just been imagining him as a half armored barb. Well shit, sorry about that, wish OP would have told us what he wanted and what he was wearing.
>>47433781
>Sweden
>ISIS
>two different things
LOL
>>47437277
>cut scene death
Yet the BBEG is immune? Mid cut-scene he gets fucking shot with a crossbow and it's "only 7 damage". The moment the numbers come back its not a cut-scene and she should've taken one of his in game attacks. Consistency nigga.
>>47437340
>>47437411
Look, OP didn't mention what the guy is wearing or how many guards there were. For all we know the guy had no armour and his minons were all slaughtered, or this guy was talking to them over videophone and they shot the screen.
Why do this stupid scheme in the first place? "We tried to save her, but we arrived but a moment too late." There are no eye witnesses who aren't you.
>>47437227
He probably had left her at one HP just so the threat would be more effective.
>>47437446
Because they want to get paid.
Also because they are fucking morons.
I mean you saw the post where they shot the guy holding the hostage, most likely mid sentence.
>>47437446
>"You incompetent fools", exclaims the King, "my daughter's blood is on your hands! I'll have your heads!"
>the Royal Guard steps forward
>Roll for diplomacy?
You don't just go "eh we were too late :3" to a King
>>47437455
b-but that goes against the geneva convention
>>47437469
But you can flee the country and live under assumed names.
>>47437459
Yeah, they pretty clearly are morons. But still, if they tell a story that makes it clearly not their fault he ganked her, they could probably have still wiggled a payment for returning her body for a royal burial.
>>47437469
If you make yourselves out to be the incompetent fools, then you didn't tell the right story.
>>47437469
>bandit chops girl's head off
>guys show up too late
>its all your fault huehuehue
Fucking royals
>>47437469
Just bring her head back and say she was an imposter because her blood is red.
>>47437502
Well yeah that is the typical human reaction to blame someone and lash out at them.
Thus begins the comedy of errors. Just keep stacking on the lies. Let this situation get more complicated. If you have a cool GM who'll play along, this is now the campaign, or at least a good few adventures.This is potential for some great gaming right here.
You gotta look for the positives, guys.
>>47437511
Fucking sentients.
>>47437511
>Just bring her head back
I'm pretty sure they'd rather you bring back the full body
like, I'd expect nobles bury royal dead. Not mount their skulls on pikes.
>>47437536
Red blood means she is not royal anon.
Imposers do not deserve royal burial.
Itt retarded murder hobos angry that their retarded hurderhoboing had consequences.
>>47437469
>10 minutes later
>Kingdom overthrown by PCs because DM didn't even draw a line of Royal Guard levels
>using hitpoints in a hostage situation
Your GM is a dumb shit
>>47432447
>involves working with peoples souls
Nigger are you retired?
>>47437536
>Doesn't want to put the princess' head on a pike and prance around her former home.
Why even live?
>>47437555
To be fair, this is one of those times when killing someone would actually solve a problem in the real world. Shooting someone in the head is a viable way to resolve a hostage situation. Now if he missed and killed her then they'd deserve the consequences.
>>47437610
>Not marrying zombie princess
>Not waiting for father to die of old age and returning with her to claim her birthright
>Not abducting children and turning them into your brood of zombie children
Why live?
>>47436864
This, this is exactly how my party would handle it.
Kek
>>47432366
>clinging grimly to the rigors of an abstracted health system in a dramatic narrative event
This shit is why I'm foreverDM.
For real though, if you're not a piece of bait, your DM's incompetence has given you a unique opportunity to crash this campaign (or at least this kingdom) with no survivors. Whether you take it or not is up to you.
Also, this sounds a lot like the kind of thing that leads to some legendary undead monster being created.
>>47437665
> After your natural lifespan runs out, become a lich.
> Use illusions to make people think you and your zombie princess are in perfect health and never aging
> Over generations, they start worshipping you as the second coming
> God-Emperor status achieved
>>47437100
Suspension of disbelief ya shit head
>>47437820
>to the normal person its a happy kingdom full of people with little to no cares in the world, a beautiful queen and a honest and friendly king
>people who come to live there never die, the land is prosperous and starvation and crime are non existent
>dispelling illusions reveals everyone is undead beings
>have to decide if you should report them to the paladins or leave them be
>>47437938
>Look down.
>Realize you are an undead being.
>>47437815
The rules are stuck to, because otherwise, when the same exact fucking thing is done by the DM, to the PCs? They throw a fucking wobbler, shitting themselves in rage and come on here to cry about it.
>>47437971
>>47437938
>>47437820
>Faction of good undead
Why don't people do this more often, you would never have to worry about the king dying and his dickbag son taking over, because the king is ruling in death!
>>47438033
Because it's stupid.
>>47438066
No, its cool!
>>47438004
Maybe if your players are retarded.
If you have a hostage and an NPC succeeds in a difficult attempt to hit you with a crossbow bolt, I am 100% going to make you roll to keep your grip on your hostage. If a player whines about this, they're a little bitch.
I'm not saying the crossbow bolt should have been an autokill. But fuck, doesn't it take you out of shit when a character gets hit by something potentially lethal and just stands there like one of the invincible NPCs in some vidya RPG? Do you describe combat as "okay, you hit, and you do twelve damage, he's not dead, next", or do you describe people getting driven back, losing their balance, being clipped by the edge of a blade, etc etc etc?
>>47438077
No, it isn't. It doesn't matter how many times you fucking fags spout your bullshit, nor the how great the enthusiasm is with which you spout it, it's always going to be stupid.
>>47432366
TPK for stupidity hopefully
>>47438095
No, it doesn't take me out of it, because I'm not some retard that thinks HP = Meatpoints.
>>47438095
Honestly hp is the problem here, I liked the way the star wars revised edition handled it, hp was equal to your con score, and you gained vitality when you leveled, vitality represented the ability to walk it off, duck just in time, and near misses, ect.
>>47438105
Well whats bad about it? Surely the undead guys can't always be evil, one good group wont fuck everything we know and love.
>>47438152
>Surely the undead guys can't always be evil
Yeah, they fucking can. Deal with it.
>>47438118
Dude, nobody's saying they are literally meatpoints.
But this person is explicitly rolling to hit the warlord guy and break his hold. Furthermore, even if you abstract the hit into "the warlord dodges" (which is fine) it should still have some effect on what's going on. Giving the warlord HP immovability for a narrative scene, and then not applying this to anything else in the scene, is bad DMing.
The whole situation should not be handled like your average combat encounter.
>>47438164
>>47438152
>Still using alignment systems.
>>47438164
>anon can't handle skeltals not wanting to murder him
They are just people anon, just dead ones with none of the worries of living.
>>47438181
It's best just to go with it, people will bitch for eternity if you do not.
>>47438182
>undead
>people
I hope you don't think you're original. This shit has been run so far into the ground that using traditional undead would be more novel.
>>47438204
Really? I've ever only ran into skeltals that want to gut me on the spot, and I've played a lot of games, read a lot of books.
>>47438225
>this is my first day on /tg/: the post
dudes hear me out, what if we made the orcs the good guys and the paladins the bad guys
>>47438238
Oh you mean on /tg/, yeah I am new here, never really had a reason to come here until my friend wanted me to play pathfinder with him, usually stayed on the other boards.
>>47437152
If we were going full realism a bolt to the face would more likely than not killed him considering it's a large piece of wood slamming into his face.
>>47438175
>The whole situation should not be handled like your average combat encounter.
Except it should. The PCs had a chance to approach the situation from different angles. Instead they decided to treat it like a combat encounter and rolled dice right away.
Unless the system supports called shots and different effects to different body parts, I see nothing wrong with what happened.
No one bats an eye when an NPC smashes your chest with a mace or slices your exposed arm with a flaming sword, but a crossbow bolt to the face...omg realism must be obeyed.
This is why I'm glad my gm realizes that even if your a giant meat sack-o-hitpoints, if someone calls a shot for your head, hits, and does enough damage, he don't give a fuck about your 120hp, you head doesn't have all of them and your either dead from the bolt in your brain, your currently holding your currently cut open throat.
>>47438341
Or it skimmed past his head taking the appropriate number of hp off him.
>>47432366
For research purposes.
>>47438286
Depending on the player's bow and the warlord's equipment, a bolt to the head could be pretty inconsequential.
Most adventurer's crossbows aren't full-out arbalests, after all.
>>47438358
Yes that too but obviously too hence the part where I said "enough damage" which I should say is generaly a Crit or from something that does a decent amount of damage in one go, like an alchemists bomb.
Sounds like a DM that doesn't understand HP is an abstraction, not meat points.
>>47432366
>Said warlord does the whole "TAKE ANOTHER STEP AND THE GIRL DIES!" thing
>"I crossbow him in the face!"
>7 damage
>Warlord doesn't die
I fucking guarantee you that if you would've botched the roll and hit the princess she would've died instantly. Nobody just shrugs off a bolt to the face.
>>47438388
You realize in dnd, there are specific rules for when you crit with a called shot right? And most other systems have their own called shot rules or none at all.
>>47438397
>Nobody just shrugs off a bolt to the face.
Oh, you sweet, naive thing you.
>>47438402
>there are specific rules for when you crit with a called shot right
No there aren't, because D&D doesn't have called shot rules by default.
>>47438263
I wanted to do that once. Have a total reverse where humans were evil as all fuck and everyone else was in a coalition against them. Dwarves were pirates that lived in coral reefs, elves were high mountain stalkers that rode eagles. Orcs were shamanic tree huggers.
>>47438376
>>47438409
Crossbows can penetrate through full plate why do you think your little skull will be fine?
If the warlord is wearing a helmet he stands a chance of not dying on the spot.
>>47438448
Because I've got enough hitpoints to survive a terminal velocity fall into magma.
>>47438448
>Certain* crossbows can penetrate through full plate with the right bolts**
making blanket statements about an extremely varied class of weapon is no good, bro
>>47438448
The same way you survive being struck with a long sword. Abstraction.
>>47438409
Fuck you. Not saying he'd instantly die or whatever, but there should be more of a reaction than "oh, well, that's a mild inconvenience." Getting shot in the face is a big fucking deal.
https://youtu.be/zIcPprAOfw0?t=313
>>47438469
Ow yeah, from a game mechanics perspective it makes sense.
But still its a crossbow-bolt in the face, A BOLT TO THE FACE.
>Player A you wake up by cold steel being pressed against your neck.
>You see a ninja with a small knife, posed to strike.
>Player A: Hurr hurr a knife is only 1d4, I'll be fine.
>>47438490
pretty sure that counts as a good morning kiss to a warlord
>>47438534
Bullshit it does. A sharp bit of metal and wood entering sensitive fleshy bits at high velocity is no joke. Shit would hurt for fucking anyone, warlord or not.
>>47438564
>A sharp bit of metal and wood entering sensitive fleshy bits at high velocity is no joke
I dunno, sounds like my last date.
>>47438531
In the fourth grade, I had got in a fight with another kid who hit me in the head with a ministick. The cut on my forehead was so big it needed stitches. And did I give a fuck? No. I didn't even notice and kept on fighting until the kid laid off out of concern for my own head wound.
Now, if a literal child can go on fighting with a head wound, what makes you think an inhumanly tough man would be anything more than inconvenienced by a stick with a sharp piece of metal on the end hitting him in the face?
>>47438564
What's the draw of your crossbow?
>>47438564
Someone swinging a sword into your side is not a small joke but people "take hits" from fucking broadswords too and it's less than a fraction of their HP.
Deal with the system.
Or work round it, by perhaps doing something else than shooting the guy with more HP than a crit can kill.
>>47438586
Yeah yeah, you're a real tough guy. We all think you're cool, really. Do you really think for one second having a crossbow bolt embedded in your fucking face isn't a big deal? That's not something you ignore.
>>47438638
>That's not something you ignore.
Well, he didn't ignore it. He responded to it by acting out his threat.
>>47438586
If we talking about real life, not game mechanics.
It is 100% possible for people to keep fighting with a lot of mortal wounds.
That is why cops always empty the clip, because even if he is going to die in a minute,
he can still whip out a gun and start shooting back.
My problem is that if the crossbow bolt hits the top part of the skull, he is instantly dead.
If its hits his neck or mouth it still has a good chance of going through and break his neck.
>>47432366
>Wizard pauses for a second "Wait I got an idea."
When I GM, this phrase always makes me light up like a fucking christmas tree because it is a sign that one of my players is about to give me a gift. Wizard is Best Player, run with his crazy ideas forever.
>>47438638
>I literally cannot believe that anyone could have a pain tolerance higher than my own, even if they are an inhumanly tough fictional being
You scream in agony whenever a mosquito bites you, don't you?
>>47438674
>I literally get shot in the face all the goddamn time it's no big deal really brah I'm so fucking tough
Yeah, sure, you snap your own fingers for giggles, we get it.
Tell you what, get one of your chucklefuck buddies to shoot you in the face with an arrow and see how well you take it big guy.
>>47438719
>I literally get shot in the face all the goddamn time it's no big deal really brah I'm so fucking tough
I'll take things that nobody said for 400, Alex.
>>47438728
You could say the same thing about >>47438674
Now do you have an actual argument, or are we done here?
>>47438754
Not that guy, but there are numerous historical events of people getting mortally wounded and keep fighting until they drop death
>>47432366
you fools! The correct way to handle a dead princess situation is to scour the countryside for a commoner who looks a bit like the original princess, flesh to stone, find a mason who can carver your commoner into a close enough duplicate, stone to flesh, then hand her over to the king, get your money, and bam, you've added a little genetic variation into the local aristocratic gene pool.note also that unless your wizard has Serene Repose or whatever the spell is, that zombie is gonna rot
>>47437133
>you can not talk down a bandit chief
Oh dear no, that would require ~shudder~ r....roleplaying.
>>47438801
He could also give her body a good rubdown with some Oil of Timelessness.
>>47438811
if I'm not allowed to solve all problems by shooting them in the face you're a bad GM
>>47438845
Theoretically, the party still hasn't finished solving their problems by shooting them in the face. They just haven't shot ENOUGH things in the face.
>>47438845
Thats sarcasm right?
>>47438856
Look, I'm not sure you understand this, but he was SHOT in the FACE, which means he should be DEAD and I get to marry the princess.
Fuck off with your railroad, your "rules".if the OP's group is real, they seem to be at least coping with the fuckup in an interesting way compared to the anon whining about it here
>>47438845
Yeah, that's basically what this whole thing comes down to. Murderhobos want to murderhobo, and then bitch and whine when *gasp*, attacking the bandit chief who has a hostage is going to lead to him icing the hostage! How terribly unfair!
>>47438896
kinda screams of ham-handed DM "wahh the PCs aren't doing exactly what I want them to, better punish them for having fun wrong" bullshit to me.
I already know the answer to this, but do you guys really not ever talk about expectations and/or intentions before starting a new game/group?
>>47438286
if we're going that realistic a bolt to the face will make him likely cut her throat between flinching and/or deathspasms and falling whetger or not he ends up dead. Thats kinda the whole point to pressing a knife too their throat specifically.
>>47438950
That is retarded and so are you.
The villain made good on his threat because the PCs severely mishandled the situation, because they're too retarded to think of any alternative recourse to "I describe a cool attack and roll a dice at the problem."
Having a realistic outcome is not some fucking personal punishment, you whiny bitch.
Hell the bandit chief coulda just killed her for the principal of the matter and attempted his escape. You know nothing about this character, perhaps he considers his word to be his bond in all things, or doesn't want to be seen as weak and unwilling to follow up on a threat.
>My DM won't let me roll dice at every problem! What a railroading faggot!
Die
>>47438801
>flesh to stone/stone to flesh shenanigans
Why don't turn it into a Pretty Woman/the Prince and the Poor/Disney thing quest?
>>47438950
Without negative consequences for making inept choices, a roleplaying game basically just devolves in to.
>You roll some dice, and fail, a momentary disadvantage!
>DM FIAT: Congratulations! You win! Everyone wins all the time and therefore winning means nothing! Gold stars and tumblr hugboxes all around! Gee, failure sure is scary and makes you feel inadequate huh guys, I sure am glad we're not playing a roleplaying game and instead would rather just pat each other on the back constantly.
>>47438950
>wahh the PCs aren't doing exactly what I want them to, better punish them
but they took the job to rescue the princess
how is encountering a completely stereotypical hostage situation punishment
Everybody is forgetting one crucial point!
Crossbow-bolts are fast, but at a reasonable distance you can see them coming.
Now I dont know how far this hostage situation is taking place, but it is possible for the warlord to push the princess in front of the bolt.
>>47438323
>No one bats an eye when an NPC smashes your chest with a mace or slices your exposed arm with a flaming sword, but a crossbow bolt to the face...omg realism must be obeyed.
Oh, so now hitpoints are meatpoints, when it supports your argument?
If you're going to have a dramatic sequence going, you simply can't treat it like a videogame. If you're gonna describe the way people duck under sword swings or just about avoid a fatal blow when they're damaged, then you best apply that logical to your game's narrative. Holding on to a hostage while being clipped by or dodging a speeding weapon is hard.
>>47439059
me me me I did it first >>47437262
>>47439059
That would have been more dramatically appropriate
People always imagine arrows or crossbow bolts to be bullet style instantaneous...
They really aren't, at around 50 yards a normal human could manage some small action in the time before it reached them
About 300 feet per second is not unreasonable (on the fast side)
25 yards is 75 feet
Would give you .25 seconds to react, which people can definitely manage, especially in high adrenaline situations.
>>47439104
Not to mention the telltale signs that occur when someone has resigned to pulling the trigger.
You don't react to the bolt flying, you react to the shooter tensing to fire, holding their breath, their hand going to pull the trigger, reaffirming their aim etc. That easy gives you another few hundred milliseconds
>>47439046
Except the guy didn't fail. He made the shot.
A good DM would have made the shot difficult, and have success mean something in regards to how well the warlord can hold on to his hostage. A good DM rewards good decisiveness and luck as well as cunning, and tries to make their world make sense rather than being very obviously mechanical.
I mean, Christ, how many sequences are there in fiction where the bad guy has a hostage, and the protagonist has a human shield, and the protagonist takes a risk by shooting them, either killing the villain or freeing the hostage? Are those examples of 'murderhoboing?' No, they're examples of the protagonist demonstrating their skill and a measure of luck.
If the player in this situation botches? Bad things should happen. But if he succeeds by a wide margin? There's no reason to punish him. It's literally "this isn't what I wanted to happen" syndrome on the DM's part.
>>47439059
If the DM had been clever enough to do this, there would have been literally nothing the players could say.
Hell the warlord could even have been bluffing and not willing to kill her, but instinct made him move her to save his life.
The party would 100% be the murderers and would have to actually roleplay some fucking moral / psychological anguish instead of being fucking murderhobos.
>>47439059
This would be a good way to respond to a poor roll on the player's part. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've done this before.
>>47439167
No but you see the PCs did a combat when the DM wanted not that thing, which is bad. Bad PCs, not following the predestined plot.
>>47439167
>There's no reason to punish him
why is it a punishment that the bad dude does the bad thing he said he was going to do when you fail to kill him
consequences aren't punishments
>>47439167
I agree that dealing 7 damage at level 6 is not "Nothing happens and he slits her throat." material.
But it isn't a good enough success to straight up take him out.
The bolt should've torn a gash across his face, but that isn't going to stop him intentionally or accidentally slashing her throat.
Hell if he already had the knife up there the pain and shock of being hit like that would probably MAKE him kill her by accident in him recoiling while holding a knife to her throat.
The reason it can happen in movies and shit is because there is no HP system, and being shot in the face with a gun is not something you will survive / remain conscious from.
Getting clipped with a crossbow bolt, which is what had to happen considering I doubt he only had 7 hp, is not enough to stop someone dead, ergo taking the shot failed.
>>47439231
>>47439236
These people get it.
If you view the consequences of your actions as "punishments" in an rpg then you are a whiny faggot.
Especially when it straight up makes sense and you were retarded.
Its a game, no one is trying to punish you, the DM is just making happen what they believe would realistically happen as a result of your decisions. Your retarded, murderhobo, must solve everything with combat never ever roleplay decisions.
>>47439231
It's a nonsensical consequence. The PC made a shot specifically to release the hostage, and succeeded. Again, an an ideal world, the DM would make this a hard roll, and have severe consequences for failure. But as is, this is not a well conceived consequence. It's "oh, you want to do something cool and take a risk? Well, here, even if you succeed, things go completely wrong. Fuck you."
>>47439236
I don't think it's good enough to take him out either. But he should at least have had to roll to keep his grip on the princess.
Most people are going to dart to one side when they see a crossbow bolt coming. If it tears a gash across your face, you're going to reel back - it's very likely you're going to drop whatever you're holding out of sheer shock.
Here's how this should have been done:
The shot is at higher than normal difficulty, as there's a princess in the way, and the PC has to avoid telegraphing his move. From there, there are three outcomes:
1. The PC succeeds with a very high roll, and either clips the warlord or forces him to jump aside. The warlord must succeed in some kind of check to keep his grip on the princess.
2. The player fails normally. The warlord merely has to move his head aside slightly, and can hold on to the princess. What he does then depends on the character you're establishing for this warlord.
3. The player fails spectacularly. Either he hits the princess, or, if you want to drive home that this warlord guy is an asshole, he uses the princess as a shield.
This leaves room for dramatic success or dramatic failure. It creates an opportunity for the player to be lucky and get to do something cool, or fail and open another avenue in that failure. Either way, it all flows much better and makes more narrative sense than "oh okay, well, you hit him, but he has more than 7 HP, so he just eats the crossbow bolt and kills the princess."
>>47439356
Frankly, using the princess as a shield in that situation would be excusable.
He's generally not going to be expecting them to shoot, and a human being simply will reflexively attempt to do anything they can to save their life without so much as thinking about it first. The reptilian brain takes over in situations like that.
The responsibility would lie mostly on the player for taking the shot.
>>47439356
>The PC made a shot specifically to release the hostage, and succeeded.
>"I shoot him in the face!"
>>47438586
A ministick is usually made out of plastic, although usually the older ones are wooden, but they have no sharp edges. Head wounds bleed a lot, even superficial ones, and could have looked a lot worse than it was.
A crossbow bolt is tipped with sharp metal and is meant to turn you into a pin cushion. Your head being turned into a pin cushion is pretty bad for your health.
How you thought these were equivalent in any way is beyond me, but then again, I'm not retarded.
>>47439356
>It's a nonsensical consequence. The PC made a shot specifically to release the hostage, and succeeded
Or the DM, quite sensibly, decided that the player chose a foolish path of action, and had their NPC follow up on the stated consequences to that foolish action.
You can "succeed" at doing the complete wrong thing and still fail.
If I get my character to tape a knife to his dick and helicopter it to fight the encroaching orcish horde, and succeed in the roll. I should still get chopped to bits because my idea is retarded.
A mediocre roll is not enough to make up for a retarded choice of action.
>>47439356
>even if you succeed
no I'm pretty sure he failed to kill the target
>>47432630
This wizard is MVP!
>>47439263
>Your retarded, murderhobo, must solve everything with combat never ever roleplay decisions.
What if you're a great roleplayer, and your vigilante asshole ranger is exactly the kind of character to never negotiate with lawbreakers? And you succeed in a difficult skill check to perform the action you were attempting?
Do you really think that warrants "Well, according to this rulebook, my warlord doesn't care about your crossbow bolt tearing his ear off, and he just casually kills the hostage?"
You're assuming that this is some retarded rollplaying decision, but it's not necessarily.
>>47439406
This
The player chose an action which required an extreme measure of success (literal one shot, and they know the rules of the system they're in, it has HP, it isn't WoD or something.) to be effective. That is on them when it fails.
>>47439418
Then its fine, and the players should accept that they just failed at something. And that that happens, because if you succeed at every fucking thing you attempt there is no tension whatsoever.
>>47439418
Have you considered that distracting the warlord so that someone else could sneak up to him and grapple him, thus freeing the princess, would have been a far wiser course of action?
>>47439418
>it's what my character would do
I hope your fellow players smother you in your sleep.
>>47439439
But they didn't fail.
I literally just said that how you do a situation like this is make a success statistically unlikely. Making it literally "lol HP means the warlord has zero reaction to the crossbow bolt" is retarded.
>>47439445
It would be.
But if a PC decides to do something extremely difficult or risky, the right response as a DM isn't "no, you fail even if you succeed." It's to make the action very hard, and provide appropriate consequences for success and failure.
>>47439483
>But if a PC decides to do something extremely difficult or risky, the right response as a DM isn't "no, you fail even if you succeed." It's to make the action very hard, and provide appropriate consequences for success and failure.
Nigger, he didn't kill the warlord in one shot. Ergo, he failed.
>>47439451
>you can't roleplay! you're shit!
>but if you do roleplay I hope you die!
There's a difference between lolsorandumb and a consistent character acting consistently. "It's what my character would do!" is never a bad reason to do anything, unless that thing is something completely tonally inappropriate. Like, I dunno, strapping ducks to their arms in an attempt to fly or something.
>>47439483
>But they didn't fail.
I'm sure the dead princess would agree with you.
>>47439504
But a fucking crossbow bolt slicing across the slide of the warlord's face should have some effect.
Like I said, the shot itself should be hard. But hitting him should do SOMETHING other than "lol, you lose." It makes no sense. It makes the game feel mechanical, which is not what you're after as DM.
At the very least, the warlord should have to roll to keep his grip on the princess. Being winged by a crossbow bolt is not something you just shrug off without so much as flinching.
>>47439555
>But a fucking crossbow bolt slicing across the slide of the warlord's face should have some effect.
That's just your opinion.
>>47439563
It's exactly what you'd do to a player if they took a hostage and got hit by a lucky ranged attack. Don't pretend otherwise.
>>47439573
No, it isn't.
>>47439555
>But a fucking crossbow bolt slicing across the slide of the warlord's face should have some effect.
That effect could very well have been to make him spaz out and rake the knife he had held up to her neck across her fucking neck.
>>47439555
Maybe you should take less mechanical approaches to your problems if you want a less mechanical result.
>>47439104
If you can see the bolt coming, a quarter of a second to react is reasonable. Usually takes a quarter of a second to see it however. So it would need to be explicit that he was watching out for skullduggery from everyone individually and not just scanning the group for threats (in the case of a light crossbow). In the case of the shooter using an iron crossbow with a footloader or a goat's foot, it's entirely possible to just ignore the first quarter-second perception since you can see that coming.
Basically I'm saying if he was scanning for threats and a preloaded light crossbow got whipped out, he may not have time to also react.
>>47439606
Nigguh are you implying you think someone can pull out, aim and fire a preloaded crossbow before someone who is holding a knife at someone's neck can drag it across it?
Holy shit lol
>>47439606
If anything the already aimed iron crossbow would be the bigger threat, he knows it's there, and has to watch for the extremely small telltale signs that the guy is going to fire it, distracting him from everyone else.
Whipping out a small light crossbow, aiming it and firing it would take way fucking longer than squeezing your damn finger.
>>47439629
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. A handheld light crossbow is quite small and even somewhat concealable behind a cloak. It's absolutely trivial to in fact shoot it through a concealed cloak which would hide the fact that you even prepared it. Also when you're in a group, small slow motions make you less noticeable. Obviously OP didn't provide this information and it's likely his party are meatheads but this is something to think about.
>>47439263
>what they believe would realistically happen as a result of your decisions
But the realistic result of getting hit with a crossbow bolt in the head is dropping dead, anon. That's what the player expected to happen, but the rules mechanics didn't model that properly, thus resulting in a nonsensical result.
>>47439648
You have to load an iron crossbow and you can't preload them as keeping the bow bent back would damage them. Light crossbows are made of horn and can stay loaded for longer before needing to be unstrung.
>>47439653
>Knife
>Already at throat, ready to be dragged across instantaneously.
>Crossbow
>Arm movement to remove crossbow from concealment
>Arm movement to line crossbow up for shot
>Shot found, bolt is fired
>Travel time
>>47439677
Oh I see, is that why the bow needed to be reforged sometimes? I imagine they bent after long periods of use and lost some of their poundage?
>>47439592
Sure. But that's not what happened here. The warlord just ate the crossbow bolt and slit the princess' throat. Which is vidya physics.
>>47439601
Or just handle mechanics in a rational way. If a player hits someone in the process of doing something, that would effect what they are doing.
>>47439656
>That's what the player expected to happen
doubt.jpg. People can go for long-bombs, but no one expects to take out a head honcho in a single blow.
Player made a bad call, and their job got botched because of it. Shit happens, hopefully they learn not to dive into a powder keg head first next time.
>but it SHOULD have
nnah. "I shoot him lol" is the sort of thing that makes GMs go "are you sure about that?"
>>47439695
Almost always from misuse such as keeping it loaded for too long during practice or while marching. Improper stowing and the like. However, it's true that the more an iron or steel crossbow is fired, the less powerful it remains. Usually your string goes out first though just like any spring weapon (bows of all sizes). Horn reacts much better to being bent for a long time though it will eventually get "micro cracks" and look like dried out candy. That's when you have to replace your bow.
>>47439656
Except he did 7 damage, which clearly was not all of the bandit's health.
The only way to reasonably explain him being shot "in the head" with a crossbow bolt and not immediately dying is that it grazed him.
The players knew the rules of the system they were playing in. The result was not nonsensical, he was likely grazed, the expectations of the player were what were nonsensical.
>>47439713
>Or just handle mechanics in a rational way.
It's plenty fucking rational for medium or high fantasy, which is what D&D is built to do.
>>47439732
Oh, sure. If the warlord is a monster with iron skin or, I dunno, a demigod or something, then whatever.
>>47439724
It must be satisfying to get the first shot off on a newly assembled high poundage horse flipper of an iron crossbow.
Watching that shit hammer through a tree
Oh damn
>>47437155
I was once watching some cop show where the baddie took a hostage to which on of the cops replied with 'you shoot her and we will kill you, you shoot at us and we will kill you, you attempt to flee and we will kill you'.
The show itself was pretty bad but that one scene I thought rather aptly described a real life hostage scenario.
>>47439742
or just a veteran dude who can deal with getting shot at by crossbows
>>47437203
>If they had a wizard spell to daze the warlord they could have got over to him.
Sure, it would work. But you have to agree that getting hit in the head by a crossbow bolt would at the very least distract the warlord as much as a daze spell would.
And that's the rub, here. If you demand that martial classes should be limited by the bounds of what's realistic, then you also should keep the results of their actions realistic. Here the crossbow made just some small damage and *nothing else*, which is unrealistic. It's a failure of the system when a wizard has access to subsystem which effects of cannot be duplicated through use of common sense.
>>47439742
Holy shit you're being such a butthurt faggot about this.
The DM was right, the player's choice of action was inappropriate, and the princess died.
Get the fuck over it, and think before you shoot next time.
Just because shooting someone didn't solve one of your problems one fucking time doesn't make your DM inept you faggot.
>>47439742
Anon, people have survived getting rail spikes driven through their brain in real life. Surely, a man taking a crossbow bolt to the face like a champ is not unbelievable in a medium or high fantasy setting.
>>47437197
Since having low HP doesn't impact you at all in Pathfinder/DnD, I like to think of it more as 'This is a luck bar. You have three luck. Getting shot in the face? It grazes you. One luck remaining. Stabbed? You are no longer lucky, you are now at -1 hp/luck and you have a sword sticking out your chest'.
>>47439794
Agreed, this is how I run HP systems
While HP remains all injuries are superficial or minorly disabling
When HP runs out it is a possibly mortal wound which requires immediate attention.
>>47439807
To the degree where the hit that takes the player to zero HP, regardless of the damage it does, is always the dramatic kind of blow.
It could do one damage to them, I would still describe it as a hideous slash across the chest that leaves the player's breathing ragged, showing flecks of pink stained bone and muscle through their torn skin etc.
Because that is the blow that took them out, it matters the most.
>>47439720
There's a precedent in popular culture of resolving hostage situations by shooting the baddie (or one-shotting the BBEG), so the player had a reasonable expectation of that applying to a fantasy adventuring game.
> "I shoot him lol"
Could've very well been "I aim at his head and take him out with a single shot", we don't know either way so your assumption is hyperbolic.
>>47439774
I don't think I've actually played a game in years. Like I said, foreverDM.
The player's choice was risky, but the DM applied a retarded system to the bandit's response. If the player for some reason believed that the shot should kill the bandit in one hit, the appropriate thing to do is to make sure they actually know the fucking system, because they clearly don't in that case.
If, in the far more likely case, that the player is trying to compromise the bandit's hold with a risky action, you make the action very risky, but not impossible. Applying the absolute steadfast rigors of combat to everything in D&D is retarded. The system just isn't designed to work that way.
>>47439838
>"I aim at his head and take him out with a single shot"
Player deals 7 damage
"Nice try man, you failed, the bandit lord kills the princess."
"Oh fair enough."
>In character
"You monster! How could you?!"
>Cue player roleplaying feelings of guilt for taking the shot and failing
^
THAT IS HOW THAT ENTIRE SITUATION SHOULD HAVE GONE
HEY LOOK
A ROLEPLAYING EXPERIENCE
>>47439838
>one shot the BBEG
>reasonable expectation
>>47439867
>bandit leader
>bbeg
pick one
>>47439857
Saving the princess with a well-placed headshot would have also been a roleplaying experience. I fail to see the distinction you're trying to make?
>>47439873
Main enemy in an encounter
Also not reasonable to expect to be able to one shot them in a D&D style system.
>>47439873
>bandit leader
OP didn't mention a bandit leader, he mentioned an evil warlord.
>>47439776
I'd like to see rail spike man achieve anything remotely coordinated a second or two after than impact. Seriously, I'd like to see that, it would be amazing.
Either way, for the most part, humans in high fantasy are still humans. They still get fucked up when shot in the head. Or shot anywhere. Which is why HP is generally resolved as an abstraction.
Unless you're going to run his bandit guy as having some kind of supernatural quality that makes him immovable or makes him able to just keep going with a bolt through his brain, describing a hit as "crossbow bolt goes through him, but he just keeps chugging." Is probably a bad idea. It makes the setting inconsistent. Why does this guy do that when others just die like normal people? If you've got an actual story mechanic in place that explains this, it's fine, but otherwise, it sorta violates suspension of disbelief.
>>47439867
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jv9wfZefPI
>>47439876
The distinction I am trying to make is that instead of being a butthurt faggot about failing their super special badass im the best hero moment, the player could be a mature roleplayer, accept they failed at a thing, and roleplay appropriately.
>>47439876
>Saving the princess with a well-placed headshot would have also been a roleplaying experience
you didn't roll well enough to do that
>>47439891
>Which is why HP is generally resolved as an abstraction.
Explain falling damage.
>>47439891
>Co-ordinated assault
>Dragging a knife across someone's neck when it is already there
They are different
The second one is considerably easier, to the degree where you could theoretically do it by accident.
Stop being a faggot.
>>47439895
...or they could play a system that models reality better, which kinda has been my point.
>>47439898
This.
>>47439911
And what if that group is comfortable with the level of realism in D&D, you stupid motherfucker?
>>47439911
Except maturing up and not being a butthurt faggot is a much better course of action for everyone involved, and will result in the player being a much more pleasant human being that people will enjoy playing roleplaying games with.
>>47439911
Okay, your character is branded a heretic for using a crossbow against a fellow christian. He is stoned to death.
>>47439903
Extremely stupid and best reworked entirely.
>>47439906
I didn't say "coordinate assault." I said "anything remotely coordinated."
Nobody is doing ANYTHING except flail around and fall over after getting a rail spike launched into their head. Not for a few seconds before, at the very least, they pick themselves up off the floor.
>>47439957
And my point is that dragging a knife across someone's neck when you already have it there, after being hit by a crossbow bolt, is so easy as to be feasibly possible by accident.
So your point is irrelevant.
Stop
Being
A
Butthurt
Faggot
>>47439941
Generally speaking not playing D&D is the sign of maturing up, anon :D
>>47439957
But this isn't someone in rail life taking a rail spike to the brain. This is a tough guy taking a crossbow bolt to the face in a medium or high fantasy setting. Chances are it didn't even get past his skull.
>>47439977
>Is on /tg/
>Is shit talking roleplaying games
Alright faggot, you lost the argument and no longer have anything worthwhile to say.
Noted.
>>47439857
Like I said, if the player actually expects to kill a full HP for with a single shot, it's time to actually explain the rules of the game to them.
If they're trying to compromise the warlord's hold, just make it difficult. If they succeed, they succeed. If they fail, they fail. Either way is a roleplaying experience.
>>47439997
>Expects the DM to explain the ruleset of the RPG to the players.
How about they take 5 minutes to read the cunting handbook.
I am a player, but I will never be 1/50th of the shit player apologist that you, a DM are.
>>47439898
That's the problem with the system, really. In D&D after a certain point it becomes impossible to kill someone with a single blow from a weapon even if you were to roll maximum damage. In fact, if the princess had at least some levels and a knife doing 1d4 damage, well, the warlord would have needed to stab her for several rounds to kill her *even though* the fiction described him having her at knife point. (he has her at best pinned, which means he can't use coup de grace, but gets free shots at her of course)
And that's silly.
>>47440031
The problem is not the system.
The problem here is that the player was retarded, both in character and out, and so their action failed, both because they chose to undertake an action that they knew out of character required an insane (quite possibly impossible) roll, and their player in character chose a course of action that was insanely risky for no reason.
The system is fine, the player just failed to roleplay with it in mind.
>>47439989
To be honest D&D is more of a tactical combat simulator than a RPG, so it doesn't technically count as talking shit about roleplaying games.
>>47440031
>And that's silly.
Pretty sure breaking out the "I shoot him" card is what's silly here, bro.
>>47440053
It has a fleshed out combat system.
The roleplaying is on you, as it always is in every system.
There is no ruleset that is going to make you more creative than you are.
Stop using D&D as an excuse for being a crap roleplayer.
>OP is clearly fine with the warlord not flinching after taking a crossbow bolt to the face
>faggots reeeeeeeeeeeeing at the DM because the warlord didn't flinch
>>47439973
It really isn't. Most people won't even stay balanced when hit by something like that, or even clipped. If the player's intention was to compromise the warlord's hold, his hit should have a chance of doing that. And maybe it could cause the warlord to kill the princess by mistake?
Just leaving it at "lol, crossbow bolt bounces off his skull because more than 7HP" is dumb.
>>47439982
I've already explained why that violates consistency. If your setting has a reason why people can take crossbow bolts to the face and not react, and you've established that hitpoints are indeed meatpoints, that's fine. But if not, it becomes pretty jarring and weird when some humans are just arbitrarily able to survive things others can't. Most people, even in high fantasy, expect a level of consistency... and expect humans to still be mostly human. LotR is high fantasy, but people still died via arrows. Even Boromir was basically dead after one shot, and simply managed to keep fighting long enough to go down gloriously.
In fact, how many high fantasy settings can you name where some humans can just arbitrarily keep fighting with half their brain caved in?
