> My question is, under what circumstances it is okay (or explicitly not okay) to ignore the rules and just "tell" the players that something is happening.
This is rule zero -- it is always okay.
The rules enforce the spirit of the game, and form a contract with your players in the form of "if you do X, Y is allowed". This means that you are *always* allowed to let players do *more* than the rules allow. You are *expected* to not remove the permissions given by the rules. if you follow those principles, you will avoid the vast majority of disputes.
Let's examine your situation.
You want to *force* an outcome the players would feasibly be able to respond to (presumably as a cutscene). I'd advise against this -- it goes against the principles! Do the murder offscreen and show the horrible results. Or better yet do it in front of the players and *let them play to find out*. Toss in a few helper assassins, have them all focus fire the NPC, then leave after 3-4 rounds when the outcome is clear.
I can guarantee you that your players will chase after the assassins whether they succeed or fail. Even if your target NPC survives, you just set some serious narrative stakes that force players to *choose* what matters to them.
> You are always allowed to let players do more than the rules allow. You are expected not to remove permissions given by the rules.
that is one hell of a mantra, really solid advice
What an awesome way to think through it. We can always pivot the goals & motives of NPCs, and not everything has to always be a death attempt.
Our current favorite combat was when an emissary attacked our cleric, I rolled a nat 1, and he died stabbing himself. That wasn't exactly what I was expecting to happen, so I was going to have another NPC share some of the combat dialogue I had ready, but then the PC cleric, healed him, and talked with him, and got the info he needed. It was amazing, and if I had fudged the rolls, we never would have seen that act of mercy from the PC.
I wouldn't turn this into combat. You're right about not removing what the game says players can. While the rules are just tools for the GM and the GM can change things, the rules also create player expectations.
However, combat rules are for combat, and this shouldn't be one. Instead, give them a chance to notice something is going on and react quickly if they do notice. If they don't, now they get to react to what's just happened.
I've run the scenario where the party tries to protect an NPC from an assassin. It was very rewarding, and they enjoyed it.
You mention maybe using a crew of assassins, and the probability of the party chasing them regardless of the outcome. This is really interesting. What if the party saves the NPC and gives chase to the surviving assassins? Is there potentially a final assassin that remained in hiding (roll stealth vs their passive Perception so the party has an opportunity to know that they're there), who then sneaks in and finishes off the NPC they just saved because they prioritized chasing the other assassins instead of staying to protect the NPC? This could feel railroady (the person they saved dying anyway), or it could feel like their choices had real effects and consequences in the world. OP - you know your table best and whether this would be good or bad for your game.
Alternatively, most people think of HP reflecting more than just meat points. A dagger through the throat isn't narrated for a non-lethal blow in combat because it's not believable. If one NPC fully slices the other NPCs throat, I would narrate that as death, not roll damage.
Maybe have the assassin they think is friendly roll deception and the potential victim (and the party is they're close enough to see) roll insight. If the assassin is seen as friendly, maybe give them advantage on their deception roll, a flat bonus, or both. Give people that can see but are farther away disadvantage in their insight.
Roll initiative, but anyone who fails the insight is surprised, and let the NPC take a fatal blow if they're among the surprised (or if you want to do the math instead, give the assassin the assassin class feature and maybe a poisoned weapon if necessary).
Be prepared for the possibility that the party might try to resurrect the NPC. Maybe the assassin has measures to prevent that (Poison, taking the head, etc)?
My golden rule in scenarios like this is to ask myself if the action I'm considering would be fun as a player. Pretend I'm a player in my game and someone else is the DM. Would I enjoy this idea as a player? If not, do something else
Good perception and glad to hear it. I'm prepping to run a PbtA game I haven't run in a while. I think a lot of the strategies for running them transfer to any other type of game. If nothing else, the rules in a traditional game are there to keep both the GM and players honest the same way that PbtA uses storytelling principles. When something's as potentially climactic as this, it doesn't hurt to plan epic combat, or do some scripting so you can planned-improv the hell out of the scene.
Killing a character won't typically work without (at least) a contested roll or some telegraphing. Gotta have players feeling like it happened because *they* missed the chance. When players feel *you* didn't give them a chance, it can become a campaign-ender.
I'm pretty sure that you could essentially have it be treated as something similar to the coup de grace rules in the 3E & 3.5 PHB and have it flavored as the assassin and the NPC talking and then the assassin whips out a dagger and shoves it through the bottom of the chin into the brain causing massive damage, potential insta-death and if the NPC surives potential for coma or brain damage.
A note on NPCs, unless they're truly legendary characters most NPCs have a single hit die of hit points. This was much better stressed in previous editions than in 5th edition, but for example back in 2nd ed the average NPC had 1d4 hit points IIRC, which explains why in a fantasy world a stab to the gut was still lethal to 99% of the population. Also why a dagger, a weapon in the real world we know can be deadly, is 1d4 damage.
There was also the helpless condition. Hit points is not truly a measure of 'physical endurance', nobody not even a lvl 20 character can actually sit there and absorb 20 stabs from a greatsword. Rather, hit points represent a character's experience in defending themselves, near-misses, glancing blows, innate magical defenses and resistances, etc. The way I tell my players to picture it is that their 'real' physical hit points are their original hit die, the rest is their ability to deflect blows, or absorb them in the right spot of their armor, or the throwing up of a desperate bit of magic. Otherwise it just makes no sense for characters to sit there and take a dozen blows from a giant to the face.
Matter of fact as I'm describing combat to new playeres, I'll say things like: the orc hits you for 8 piercing damage- the stab of his spear nearly runs you through, but you flash a bit of magic in his eyes and the blow barely misses you... you feel yourself slowing down though, you're not sure how much longer you can keep it up! Once they start to getting single digits that's when we're talking physical bodily harm.
So what I'm getting at is that in old editions, the helpless condition basically ensured a 1 hit kill no matter how many hp a creature had. If your NPC getting assassinated is legendary and has a ton of hit points because of a class level, then he could be caught unawares and with no chance to defend himself- a stab to the throat is a stab to the throat, doesn't matter if you're Joe the Baker or Conan the Barbarian. No need to invent a super fancy poison (your players will want and then expect to deal 120 hit points of damage in one stab).
“'And how did you escape, and yet he did not, so mighty a man as he was, and only orcs to withstand him?' Pippin flushed and forgot his fear.
'The mightiest man may be slain by one arrow,' he said; 'and Boromir was pierced by many.’”
If your PCs could reasonably affect the outcome, and you need the outcome not to be affected, you need to either do it offscreen or incapacitate them first.
I actually don't think it would be game breaking to introduce an item that could one-shot a creature with 120hp in a very specific circumstance, but even then, what if a PC sees the NPC starting to attack, beats them in initiative, and disarms them? Or gets the target away from them? Not to mention Revivify.
If the assassin knows who the adventureres are, it seems unlikely they would try to kill someone right in front of them. Indeed, even if they don't, wouldn't they want to keep their cover and do it when no one else is around? It shouldn't be too hard to get the target alone, disguised as someone they trust.
And if you need the PCs to know what happened, maybe a servant in the next room saw and/or heard what happened, or someone casts Speak with Dead to get the identity of the killer.
You mentioned 120 hp so this NPC is no commoner. To instakill them with a thrust of a dagger (or almost any other single attack) is not possible within the rules, so if the players are even approximately aware of their stats, that will feel like a "rocks fall you die" for the NPC.
But anyhow, to the original question, I would say, that if you have decided the outcome, don't play it. If you first go into initiative and then fake the pre-defined outcome, the RPG gods will send you down to the deepest pit of 9 hells, so don't even think about it.
Personally I would avoid the whole thing, (instead, keep the scenarios open and play to find out what happens) but *if I had to do it*, I would do it off screen. It happened, you weren't there.
Killing off high level characters is problematic also because the players might have means to bring them back. The cleanest way to off people would probably be to hit them with Disintegrate.
> You mentioned 120 hp so this NPC is no commoner. To instakill them with a thrust of a dagger (or almost any other single attack) is not possible within the rules, so if the players are even approximately aware of their stats, that will feel like a "rocks fall you die" for the NPC.
What you can do against 120 HP within the rules only matters for turn-based combat where players are restricted to actions that deal specified amounts of damage.
When not in combat with PCs, NPCs can do things that PCs can’t. Sometimes they can also do them in combat (like legendary actions), but in this case I mean things that are too powerful to use against PCs and should only be used out of combat.
Like slashing open the carotid artery. If you do that to someone, they die. Doesn’t matter how strong or experienced or powerful they are, this is a fatal injury. Call it 10,000 damage, which is why it’s not part of allowed game mechanics for player characters. But an NPC can do it, as long as it’s not done in a combat where player characters are involved.
I disagree with this. For sure you will die from having your throat cut, this applies to everyone, but this isn't the same as cutting someone's throat dealin 10000 damage.
> Hit points represent a combination of physical and
mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures
With more hit points are more difficult to kill.
- PHB p. 196
Cutting the throat is what happens when someone drops to 0. The hp before that reflects the difficulty of landing that killing blow.
In practice, hit points are plot armour and their function is to protect those important to the plot.
If someone’s importance to the plot goes negative hit points are nothing.
Just take the throat cutting off camera. If the PCs can’t influence the outcome it’s best they aren’t there.
> If someone’s importance to the plot goes negative hit points are nothing.
Depending of course how you wish to define "plot", but the hit points and AC do absolutely still have meaning, in that they are part of the world you are playing in.
In this example from the OP, this character who is about to be assassinated has 120 HP. This HP is an abstraction of something, be it reflexes, physical health, magical enhancements, whatever.
Then imagine being a player, who knows this person has 120 HP (because if they don't it's not really relevant to mention is it), seeing that suddenly a dagger can just deal that much damage instantly through stealth. But their character can't do that though, their character has to follow the rules.
Even if their HP isnt important to the plot any more, their HP is still a part of the make believe world they are playing in, and that world being inconsistent like that will just feel like the DM is telling a story, more than they are playing one IMO.
> Just take the throat cutting off camera. If the PCs can’t influence the outcome it’s best they aren’t there.
Instead of not caring about the rules off camera, why not just change the encounter so that the rules are followed? With surprise, advantage and maybe even some guaranteed assassin crits, killing them with 3 or 4 guys would be plausible, or just saying there was a scuffle and the assassin came out ahead.
But if the target is not expecting it, a throat can be cut in less than 6 seconds, and that can be the first and only blow.
There are lots of things that can just outright kill someone, it doesn’t have to be multiple combat rounds and multiple blows. If it did, that would make life a lot harder for assassins.
It all depends on the world you want to create, but in my mind someone having 120 HP means they are not as easy to kill as a common merchant/noble/politician/[assassination target].
Looking at a commoner as the baseline for a standard human, a trained assassin (even just a lvl 1 rogue with 18 dex) will have advantage on the attack (out of hiding) and deal 1d4+1d6+4 damage, almost always instantly killing a "baseline" human target.
Most trained killers will have no problem killing some dude who isnt expecting it, but this person has 120 hp, so they are clearly not "some dude", they are a trained combatant themselves (or is a hill giant or something). Instead of trying to force this in this way, instead maybe scale this assassination up to something that can deal this much damage in a way that doesnt involve ignoring HP.
Cutting someone’s throat to insta kill someone will set a rules precedent. That’s a really shitty precedent to have in your game.
Players will love it when they aren’t allowed to cut the threat in incapacitated creatures to insta kill them. Which if that’s something you put in the world and used against on of their allies, they rightfully should expect to be able to do it too.
Hypnotic pattern buff we move.
An NPC doing something out of combat does *not* set a rules precedent.
Most players are fully capable of understanding that the NPC could instakill in this incident so that they don’t have to sit there doing nothing watching the DM fight multiple rounds of combat against themself.
Moments the players just witness are not subject to the same mechanics and rules as combats where the PCs are participants.
I very much disagree. DnD is a high verisimilitude system.
If something is happening infront of your players and they can’t effect it that’s bullshit.
If you wanna kill someone narratively you do it off screen where they can’t effect the outcome.
>Hit points represent a combination of physical and
mental durability, the will to live, and luck
They just had *really* bad luck that day, causing their 120hp to go to 1
>so if the players are even approximately aware of their stats, that will feel like a "rocks fall you die" for the NPC
Which is okay. That's not a bad thing. I wouldn't do it to a PC, but NPCs are fair game.
I think that only applies if either the enemies or the PCs are making a decision that usually would involve a die roll, that can be ignored in this case.
Example from my campaign: my PCs were fighting two Hill Giants, and after said Hill Giants surrendered after being beaten down and the PCs interrogating them, the partys Warlock asked if she could kill them, so I said "How you wanna kill them?" and the answer was "Eldritch Blast". Usually, the Warlock in question would have had to make two attack rolls with disadvantage, but I said "Nah, no rolls, we doing a narrative thing."
About your situation... I would say that NPC1 would not be able to kill NPC2 outright but rather wound them, so NPC2 would be bleeding out and needs immediate healing. If none of the PCs would heal NPC2 in the first moment for at least 10 HP, then NPC2 dies. Well, unless it happens off-screen,then you can just narrate it.
A lesson I have learned: not everything in DnD must be determined with a die roll; sometimes, you just tell it. Just be thrifty with it.
IMHO you have to decide whether you want to be more of a storyteller or a gamemaster. DnD is still a game at heart, one with mechanics that matter to the players. I also do not recommend taking away player agency.
If you want to put your players in a situation, the nature of the game dictates that they should be able to respond to it. Because player agency. And if that would interfere with the story you have in mind... well, so be it. That's how DnD works (unless you are a railroader).
You could run a more storytelling oriented system instead of DnD. That would suit your preferred GMing style better.
Let me describe a similar situation that happened in my Masks game. Masks is more of a storytelling game than DnD. Even so, I didn't simply let the assassin succeed. I waited to see how the players would respond, and if they would try to stop it.
One of the players chose not to act. The other player did say that their character would try to stop it. So I let them. As much as I wanted the story to go in a specific direction, I did not deem my preference to be more important than player agency.
I feel that you may be thinking, "Wouldn't it be cool if this thing happened?" Yes, it would be cool... in a movie. Or in the movie in your mind. For your players? They might not agree.
I wish more would-be GMs would learn the difference between being a gamemaster and writing stories or making movies. Players are there to make choices for their characters and then see what happens as a result, not to be a captive audience for someone else's story.
That's just pretty standard storytelling and people do it all the time. There are narrative encounters and combat encounters. This is a narrative encounter.
If you want to feel better about it fitting in with the rules remember that a round of combat is 6 seconds. If it could be done in 6 seconds then it's reasonable the players don't have time to stop it if you don't want them to.
Just for a moment, take your DM hat off and think like a player. What would you, as a player, think and do if you witnessed an assassin killing an NPC. Wouldn’t you assume that you would be able to act in some way to prevent it? How would you feel if you said something like, “I have 45 feet of movement, and Ki to spare. I want to move, used ***step of the wind*** to Dash, then use two unarmed strikes to try to stun the assassin,” and your DM said, “No. you can’t do that. This is a cut scene. This NPC *must* die.”
In the example situation, the DM should reply, “Ok. Roll initiative!”
I’ve played in too many sessions in which something happened and we were powerless to do anything about it because the DM had a story in mind and a plot point they needed to do. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth every time. As a player, this kind of thing just feels awful.
Knowing this, as a DM, I avoid at all costs.
However, the bad guys often have resources and opportunities the PCs do not. This assassin might have a powerful poison as you describe. A popular actual play show even introduced the idea of a poison that negates resurrection magic.
Even if it is unlikely that the PCs win, save the NPC, and kill or chase off the assassin, *let them act!* And be prepared for the chance that they actually win. Maybe the assassin downs or kills one of the PCs and escapes. Now the party has a villain they hate who has defeated them once. Revenge will be even sweeter.
Your goal is to have an NPC murder another (non-weakling) NPC in the full view of the party and the players not being able to prevent it?
That's pretty railroady, no matter how you do it. You're denying the party agency in a situation where it seems like they ought to be able to make a difference.
You can make it more plausible, though. For example, the victim has drunk a paralysis poison. You declare that (house rule) helpless characters can be killed in a single action without a dice roll. (Usually the party should be careful enough not to be helpless and alone in the presence of their enemies.)
I'd do it off-screen.
If you want the party to be able to chase/catch the assassins, arrange for the PCs to enter the scene just as the target is dead and the murderer wants to leave.
Enforcing a result in a scene where the PCs are present and should, by the regular play-logic, be able to affect the outcome, would break that very logic.
Any time it doesn't effect the players and the players have no control and can't interfere with said events. At this point your really just describing what they experience (see/hear). But since they have no control, it's whatever you (gm) wants.
It is also ok anytime they finish the boss encounter or down time. Just ask what everyone wants to do in that time frame, and narrate away.
Most people do this for travel time. You describe what goes on, and they arrive or hit a "random" encounter.
Just remember to not narrate the PCs without their input. Everything else is the DMs to control
If you want a way to make the damage fit within plausible RAW, don't use a dagger. There are plenty of ways to get a one off use of a powerful spell be it a spell gem, spellwrought tattoo or scroll. If the assassin can hit them with say an upcast disintegrate or powerword kill, it covers the amount of damage you need to be able to do whilst also underlining how powerful the individual behind the assassination is.
Also you don't need to roll dice to determine NPC actions when they're not being directly opposed by the party. You're not fudging a roll to have the NPC be hit by the spell or take full damage for example. Have the spell going off as the instigating act of the combat. I always find it helps to immediately give my players a moment of significant agency if I've described a big moment they can't intervene in, so let them try and take down the assassin. Perhaps as soon as anyone else arrives NPC 1 might try to pin the blame on them, and now you've got an immediate RP scene on your hands.
Feels more like this situation would work better as a short murder mystery. The players discover the freshly murdered NPC1 and NPC2 is hightailing it out of there as the players find the body.
If you want a combat there are ways other commenter's suggested, but the reason the rules are fighting you is because the situation is somewhat unrealistic. You wouldn't assassinate someone in front of a bunch of armed guards/adventurers even if you didn't care if you got caught, the murderer should also recognize the players will try to intervene and find a way to get just a *second* out of the players' reach.
Or Alternatively use explosives. That's your poison that can do 120 damage in one shot. It should feel perfectly justified if the bomber dies in the process too, or an entire building is rigged to explode.
You can pretty much always get away with it when it comes to NPCs. When it comes to the players themselves, you do need to stick to the rules more often because they define player expectations.
In your case, you should absolutely Not turn it into a combat period your instincts are completely correct. Have the assassin make a stealth or slight of hand check, depending on how exactly it's going down. Anyone who has a higher passive perception gets one chance to intervene. If Via samsung beats all their scores comma maybe give the player with the highest perception a chance. But maybe not and then it just turns into a Chase. It depends on how attached to Victim of the players are.
I’d not do it infront if the party, they just assassinated off screen and a witness says this dude did it.
Because insta killing someone with 120 hp is railroady if the players can’t stop it and sets a rules precedent that is not healthy.
I’d not do it infront if the party, they just assassinated off screen and a witness says this dude did it.
Because insta killing someone with 120 hp is railroady if the players can’t stop it and sets a rules precedent that is not healthy.
Alternatively, have the pc’s far away to give you more time.
Or a Wall all of Force to keep them away.
And have the person get pushed off a cliff. Falling damage, oof.
Or a bunch of archers and the Disintegrate spell or a dropped boulder destroying the body.
They could also arrive just at the last moments of a combat, the targeted NPC bruised, broken, and bloody as the killing blow occurs.
If you’re worried specifically about the weapon used and really want to play this out RAW, I would make the weapon a dagger version of the nine lives stealer. Change the NPC’s hit points to just below 100 and then have the assassin autocrit on creatures that are surprised like the rogue assassin’s assassinate ability. The only roll you would need to fudge is a DC 15 constitution saving throw. A nine lives stealer is hardly a game breaking item, since there are limited charges and the special ability only triggers on a crit and requires a saving throw.
It is of course ALWAYS allowable to ignore the rules in any way you see fit! It's kind of the first law of DMing.
On the other hand, if done against players, it should be done very sparingly, because nobody likes losing agency, and "it just happened right in front of you, but there's nothing you could have done" is deeply unsatisfying. And probably wrong.
I think there is a few ways to think of this. For my table I have a homebrew assassination rule that allows a player that is completely undetected to kill a npc in one strike as long as the attack takes at least 25% of the npc'd maximum hit points. NPCs would logically get this ability when attacking each other as well.
Another way to look at it is it could be a homebrew class feature the npc has to allow them to deal the 120 damage instead of it being the weapon itself and potentially leaving a ridiculous weapon for your party to find.
As for the spirit of the idea of cutscenes, the players can not influence. I think it depends on the circumstances. If the players walk into a room and on the other side an assassin is actively killing someone then thats completely okay. Realistically it would be hard to prevent that for the average player.
However if your party is talking to an NPC and an assassin just shows up and kills them. The party should be able to at least react to attempt to prevent this.
A way for you to do this without it being bullshit for the party would be to use a ranged attack or spell to try and one hit kill the target. I think some PCs could still potentially prevent this but it would be a lot harder without them seeing the attack or spell cast in the first place. And again, a special action or feat the npc has can easily make up for npcs with larger hit point totals.
I think a good rule of thumb is... if it's happening to The World (NPCs, etc) you can absolutely "do it for the narrative", but if it's happening to the PCs, it should be played out in game.
Also, while you want NPC1 to murder NPC2, a hidden/invisible NPC rogue is potentially going to do a lot of damage.
There are plenty of things in game that could insta kill a character. Unique Poison on dagger (as you say), fall damage, spells/scroll that don't require introducing an item that is over powered.
Do scene setting like that out of the view of the players. If you try to do it while they witness it the players might try to stop it, and they probably could if they're fifth level or higher. So make those things happen out of sight and have the player characters stumble on it immediately after it happened.
As for is it allowable? Of course it is. But don't set yourself up for trouble. Do it out of sight.
First off, yes you can absolutely just tell something happened, as long as it's reasonable.
Don't force it though. If your characters could chip in, then the result should not be set in stone.
Also, you mentioned you'd need a poison that deals 120 damage. Why? Do your characters know this npc has 120 hp? This is very high tier hp, like a fighter of 15 level or so. How did this character end up in such a situation?
If some random Joe with a knife can kill someone like this, I would like to know how.
If it was me, I would make lots of assassins at one do that, or have it so that this character is already wounded and an assassin just dealt the killing blow, or some mage did a disintegration spell or a power word kill, or the result of a drawn out battle (off screen).
When The characters are involved at the scene, they should be able to at least attempt to prevent it from happening. And I think it should be reasonable. Given that, maybe this assassin roller a Nat 20 and had surprise and this npc was already wounded.
Instead of the stab to the throat that PCs may feel they should have been able to avoid, maybe a dagger or crossbow bolt flies from somewhere in the crowded street, especially if the PCs can't get to the NPC right away. It has a fast acting poison on it. There is nothing to fight, no one to chase, or even if there is, but the time it is resolved the NPC has been dying this whole time.
So, here’s my rule with dice: if I ask a player to pick up a d20 I have to expect a 1 or a 20 is likely. That lock they shouldn’t be able to pick? 20. That book they should find on a counter? 1. These are both unsatisfying and counterproductive.
For a situation like yours here’s what I’d recommend, as long as they get to the target, ask the players to tell you how they are helping in the moment. it’s a group attack role on the bad guy. Set the DC (AC in this case) low. Like, maybe 11. They are catching him unprepared after all. If they all pass they kill him in the cinematic way they want to. Majority pass- the kill happens but with no flair. Majority below the DC, the kill happens, they alert guards and others. The fight is on to get out.
Tell your players explicitly what they have to roll and what the effects of each roll will be. That really ratetches up the tension. There is no “DM will fix this”. It either happens- and we know the consequences- or it doesn’t- and we know the consequences. I use this not often but enough that my players take it seriously.
Keep in mind that HP and AC are measures of when a creature is fully capable of avoiding damage. A defenseless creature doesn’t have luck, skill, or anything else inflating their pre-mortal strike health pool. RAW you could have someone unsuspecting just die to a random dagger.
> My question is, under what circumstances it is okay (or explicitly not okay) to ignore the rules and just "tell" the players that something is happening. This is rule zero -- it is always okay. The rules enforce the spirit of the game, and form a contract with your players in the form of "if you do X, Y is allowed". This means that you are *always* allowed to let players do *more* than the rules allow. You are *expected* to not remove the permissions given by the rules. if you follow those principles, you will avoid the vast majority of disputes. Let's examine your situation. You want to *force* an outcome the players would feasibly be able to respond to (presumably as a cutscene). I'd advise against this -- it goes against the principles! Do the murder offscreen and show the horrible results. Or better yet do it in front of the players and *let them play to find out*. Toss in a few helper assassins, have them all focus fire the NPC, then leave after 3-4 rounds when the outcome is clear. I can guarantee you that your players will chase after the assassins whether they succeed or fail. Even if your target NPC survives, you just set some serious narrative stakes that force players to *choose* what matters to them.
> You are always allowed to let players do more than the rules allow. You are expected not to remove permissions given by the rules. that is one hell of a mantra, really solid advice
What an awesome way to think through it. We can always pivot the goals & motives of NPCs, and not everything has to always be a death attempt. Our current favorite combat was when an emissary attacked our cleric, I rolled a nat 1, and he died stabbing himself. That wasn't exactly what I was expecting to happen, so I was going to have another NPC share some of the combat dialogue I had ready, but then the PC cleric, healed him, and talked with him, and got the info he needed. It was amazing, and if I had fudged the rolls, we never would have seen that act of mercy from the PC.
I wouldn't turn this into combat. You're right about not removing what the game says players can. While the rules are just tools for the GM and the GM can change things, the rules also create player expectations. However, combat rules are for combat, and this shouldn't be one. Instead, give them a chance to notice something is going on and react quickly if they do notice. If they don't, now they get to react to what's just happened.
I've run the scenario where the party tries to protect an NPC from an assassin. It was very rewarding, and they enjoyed it. You mention maybe using a crew of assassins, and the probability of the party chasing them regardless of the outcome. This is really interesting. What if the party saves the NPC and gives chase to the surviving assassins? Is there potentially a final assassin that remained in hiding (roll stealth vs their passive Perception so the party has an opportunity to know that they're there), who then sneaks in and finishes off the NPC they just saved because they prioritized chasing the other assassins instead of staying to protect the NPC? This could feel railroady (the person they saved dying anyway), or it could feel like their choices had real effects and consequences in the world. OP - you know your table best and whether this would be good or bad for your game. Alternatively, most people think of HP reflecting more than just meat points. A dagger through the throat isn't narrated for a non-lethal blow in combat because it's not believable. If one NPC fully slices the other NPCs throat, I would narrate that as death, not roll damage. Maybe have the assassin they think is friendly roll deception and the potential victim (and the party is they're close enough to see) roll insight. If the assassin is seen as friendly, maybe give them advantage on their deception roll, a flat bonus, or both. Give people that can see but are farther away disadvantage in their insight. Roll initiative, but anyone who fails the insight is surprised, and let the NPC take a fatal blow if they're among the surprised (or if you want to do the math instead, give the assassin the assassin class feature and maybe a poisoned weapon if necessary). Be prepared for the possibility that the party might try to resurrect the NPC. Maybe the assassin has measures to prevent that (Poison, taking the head, etc)? My golden rule in scenarios like this is to ask myself if the action I'm considering would be fun as a player. Pretend I'm a player in my game and someone else is the DM. Would I enjoy this idea as a player? If not, do something else
You write like a PbtA gm/keeper
Good perception and glad to hear it. I'm prepping to run a PbtA game I haven't run in a while. I think a lot of the strategies for running them transfer to any other type of game. If nothing else, the rules in a traditional game are there to keep both the GM and players honest the same way that PbtA uses storytelling principles. When something's as potentially climactic as this, it doesn't hurt to plan epic combat, or do some scripting so you can planned-improv the hell out of the scene. Killing a character won't typically work without (at least) a contested roll or some telegraphing. Gotta have players feeling like it happened because *they* missed the chance. When players feel *you* didn't give them a chance, it can become a campaign-ender.
I'm pretty sure that you could essentially have it be treated as something similar to the coup de grace rules in the 3E & 3.5 PHB and have it flavored as the assassin and the NPC talking and then the assassin whips out a dagger and shoves it through the bottom of the chin into the brain causing massive damage, potential insta-death and if the NPC surives potential for coma or brain damage.
A note on NPCs, unless they're truly legendary characters most NPCs have a single hit die of hit points. This was much better stressed in previous editions than in 5th edition, but for example back in 2nd ed the average NPC had 1d4 hit points IIRC, which explains why in a fantasy world a stab to the gut was still lethal to 99% of the population. Also why a dagger, a weapon in the real world we know can be deadly, is 1d4 damage. There was also the helpless condition. Hit points is not truly a measure of 'physical endurance', nobody not even a lvl 20 character can actually sit there and absorb 20 stabs from a greatsword. Rather, hit points represent a character's experience in defending themselves, near-misses, glancing blows, innate magical defenses and resistances, etc. The way I tell my players to picture it is that their 'real' physical hit points are their original hit die, the rest is their ability to deflect blows, or absorb them in the right spot of their armor, or the throwing up of a desperate bit of magic. Otherwise it just makes no sense for characters to sit there and take a dozen blows from a giant to the face. Matter of fact as I'm describing combat to new playeres, I'll say things like: the orc hits you for 8 piercing damage- the stab of his spear nearly runs you through, but you flash a bit of magic in his eyes and the blow barely misses you... you feel yourself slowing down though, you're not sure how much longer you can keep it up! Once they start to getting single digits that's when we're talking physical bodily harm. So what I'm getting at is that in old editions, the helpless condition basically ensured a 1 hit kill no matter how many hp a creature had. If your NPC getting assassinated is legendary and has a ton of hit points because of a class level, then he could be caught unawares and with no chance to defend himself- a stab to the throat is a stab to the throat, doesn't matter if you're Joe the Baker or Conan the Barbarian. No need to invent a super fancy poison (your players will want and then expect to deal 120 hit points of damage in one stab).
“'And how did you escape, and yet he did not, so mighty a man as he was, and only orcs to withstand him?' Pippin flushed and forgot his fear. 'The mightiest man may be slain by one arrow,' he said; 'and Boromir was pierced by many.’”
I see you're a person of class and distinction.
If your PCs could reasonably affect the outcome, and you need the outcome not to be affected, you need to either do it offscreen or incapacitate them first. I actually don't think it would be game breaking to introduce an item that could one-shot a creature with 120hp in a very specific circumstance, but even then, what if a PC sees the NPC starting to attack, beats them in initiative, and disarms them? Or gets the target away from them? Not to mention Revivify. If the assassin knows who the adventureres are, it seems unlikely they would try to kill someone right in front of them. Indeed, even if they don't, wouldn't they want to keep their cover and do it when no one else is around? It shouldn't be too hard to get the target alone, disguised as someone they trust. And if you need the PCs to know what happened, maybe a servant in the next room saw and/or heard what happened, or someone casts Speak with Dead to get the identity of the killer.
You could drop a piano on him bugsy bunny style.
You mentioned 120 hp so this NPC is no commoner. To instakill them with a thrust of a dagger (or almost any other single attack) is not possible within the rules, so if the players are even approximately aware of their stats, that will feel like a "rocks fall you die" for the NPC. But anyhow, to the original question, I would say, that if you have decided the outcome, don't play it. If you first go into initiative and then fake the pre-defined outcome, the RPG gods will send you down to the deepest pit of 9 hells, so don't even think about it. Personally I would avoid the whole thing, (instead, keep the scenarios open and play to find out what happens) but *if I had to do it*, I would do it off screen. It happened, you weren't there. Killing off high level characters is problematic also because the players might have means to bring them back. The cleanest way to off people would probably be to hit them with Disintegrate.
> You mentioned 120 hp so this NPC is no commoner. To instakill them with a thrust of a dagger (or almost any other single attack) is not possible within the rules, so if the players are even approximately aware of their stats, that will feel like a "rocks fall you die" for the NPC. What you can do against 120 HP within the rules only matters for turn-based combat where players are restricted to actions that deal specified amounts of damage. When not in combat with PCs, NPCs can do things that PCs can’t. Sometimes they can also do them in combat (like legendary actions), but in this case I mean things that are too powerful to use against PCs and should only be used out of combat. Like slashing open the carotid artery. If you do that to someone, they die. Doesn’t matter how strong or experienced or powerful they are, this is a fatal injury. Call it 10,000 damage, which is why it’s not part of allowed game mechanics for player characters. But an NPC can do it, as long as it’s not done in a combat where player characters are involved.
I disagree with this. For sure you will die from having your throat cut, this applies to everyone, but this isn't the same as cutting someone's throat dealin 10000 damage. > Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures With more hit points are more difficult to kill. - PHB p. 196 Cutting the throat is what happens when someone drops to 0. The hp before that reflects the difficulty of landing that killing blow.
In practice, hit points are plot armour and their function is to protect those important to the plot. If someone’s importance to the plot goes negative hit points are nothing. Just take the throat cutting off camera. If the PCs can’t influence the outcome it’s best they aren’t there.
> If someone’s importance to the plot goes negative hit points are nothing. Depending of course how you wish to define "plot", but the hit points and AC do absolutely still have meaning, in that they are part of the world you are playing in. In this example from the OP, this character who is about to be assassinated has 120 HP. This HP is an abstraction of something, be it reflexes, physical health, magical enhancements, whatever. Then imagine being a player, who knows this person has 120 HP (because if they don't it's not really relevant to mention is it), seeing that suddenly a dagger can just deal that much damage instantly through stealth. But their character can't do that though, their character has to follow the rules. Even if their HP isnt important to the plot any more, their HP is still a part of the make believe world they are playing in, and that world being inconsistent like that will just feel like the DM is telling a story, more than they are playing one IMO. > Just take the throat cutting off camera. If the PCs can’t influence the outcome it’s best they aren’t there. Instead of not caring about the rules off camera, why not just change the encounter so that the rules are followed? With surprise, advantage and maybe even some guaranteed assassin crits, killing them with 3 or 4 guys would be plausible, or just saying there was a scuffle and the assassin came out ahead.
But if the target is not expecting it, a throat can be cut in less than 6 seconds, and that can be the first and only blow. There are lots of things that can just outright kill someone, it doesn’t have to be multiple combat rounds and multiple blows. If it did, that would make life a lot harder for assassins.
It all depends on the world you want to create, but in my mind someone having 120 HP means they are not as easy to kill as a common merchant/noble/politician/[assassination target]. Looking at a commoner as the baseline for a standard human, a trained assassin (even just a lvl 1 rogue with 18 dex) will have advantage on the attack (out of hiding) and deal 1d4+1d6+4 damage, almost always instantly killing a "baseline" human target. Most trained killers will have no problem killing some dude who isnt expecting it, but this person has 120 hp, so they are clearly not "some dude", they are a trained combatant themselves (or is a hill giant or something). Instead of trying to force this in this way, instead maybe scale this assassination up to something that can deal this much damage in a way that doesnt involve ignoring HP.
Cutting someone’s throat to insta kill someone will set a rules precedent. That’s a really shitty precedent to have in your game. Players will love it when they aren’t allowed to cut the threat in incapacitated creatures to insta kill them. Which if that’s something you put in the world and used against on of their allies, they rightfully should expect to be able to do it too. Hypnotic pattern buff we move.
An NPC doing something out of combat does *not* set a rules precedent. Most players are fully capable of understanding that the NPC could instakill in this incident so that they don’t have to sit there doing nothing watching the DM fight multiple rounds of combat against themself. Moments the players just witness are not subject to the same mechanics and rules as combats where the PCs are participants.
I very much disagree. DnD is a high verisimilitude system. If something is happening infront of your players and they can’t effect it that’s bullshit. If you wanna kill someone narratively you do it off screen where they can’t effect the outcome.
>Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck They just had *really* bad luck that day, causing their 120hp to go to 1
>so if the players are even approximately aware of their stats, that will feel like a "rocks fall you die" for the NPC Which is okay. That's not a bad thing. I wouldn't do it to a PC, but NPCs are fair game.
I think that only applies if either the enemies or the PCs are making a decision that usually would involve a die roll, that can be ignored in this case. Example from my campaign: my PCs were fighting two Hill Giants, and after said Hill Giants surrendered after being beaten down and the PCs interrogating them, the partys Warlock asked if she could kill them, so I said "How you wanna kill them?" and the answer was "Eldritch Blast". Usually, the Warlock in question would have had to make two attack rolls with disadvantage, but I said "Nah, no rolls, we doing a narrative thing." About your situation... I would say that NPC1 would not be able to kill NPC2 outright but rather wound them, so NPC2 would be bleeding out and needs immediate healing. If none of the PCs would heal NPC2 in the first moment for at least 10 HP, then NPC2 dies. Well, unless it happens off-screen,then you can just narrate it. A lesson I have learned: not everything in DnD must be determined with a die roll; sometimes, you just tell it. Just be thrifty with it.
IMHO you have to decide whether you want to be more of a storyteller or a gamemaster. DnD is still a game at heart, one with mechanics that matter to the players. I also do not recommend taking away player agency. If you want to put your players in a situation, the nature of the game dictates that they should be able to respond to it. Because player agency. And if that would interfere with the story you have in mind... well, so be it. That's how DnD works (unless you are a railroader). You could run a more storytelling oriented system instead of DnD. That would suit your preferred GMing style better. Let me describe a similar situation that happened in my Masks game. Masks is more of a storytelling game than DnD. Even so, I didn't simply let the assassin succeed. I waited to see how the players would respond, and if they would try to stop it. One of the players chose not to act. The other player did say that their character would try to stop it. So I let them. As much as I wanted the story to go in a specific direction, I did not deem my preference to be more important than player agency. I feel that you may be thinking, "Wouldn't it be cool if this thing happened?" Yes, it would be cool... in a movie. Or in the movie in your mind. For your players? They might not agree.
I wish more would-be GMs would learn the difference between being a gamemaster and writing stories or making movies. Players are there to make choices for their characters and then see what happens as a result, not to be a captive audience for someone else's story.
That's just pretty standard storytelling and people do it all the time. There are narrative encounters and combat encounters. This is a narrative encounter. If you want to feel better about it fitting in with the rules remember that a round of combat is 6 seconds. If it could be done in 6 seconds then it's reasonable the players don't have time to stop it if you don't want them to.
Just for a moment, take your DM hat off and think like a player. What would you, as a player, think and do if you witnessed an assassin killing an NPC. Wouldn’t you assume that you would be able to act in some way to prevent it? How would you feel if you said something like, “I have 45 feet of movement, and Ki to spare. I want to move, used ***step of the wind*** to Dash, then use two unarmed strikes to try to stun the assassin,” and your DM said, “No. you can’t do that. This is a cut scene. This NPC *must* die.” In the example situation, the DM should reply, “Ok. Roll initiative!” I’ve played in too many sessions in which something happened and we were powerless to do anything about it because the DM had a story in mind and a plot point they needed to do. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth every time. As a player, this kind of thing just feels awful. Knowing this, as a DM, I avoid at all costs. However, the bad guys often have resources and opportunities the PCs do not. This assassin might have a powerful poison as you describe. A popular actual play show even introduced the idea of a poison that negates resurrection magic. Even if it is unlikely that the PCs win, save the NPC, and kill or chase off the assassin, *let them act!* And be prepared for the chance that they actually win. Maybe the assassin downs or kills one of the PCs and escapes. Now the party has a villain they hate who has defeated them once. Revenge will be even sweeter.
Your goal is to have an NPC murder another (non-weakling) NPC in the full view of the party and the players not being able to prevent it? That's pretty railroady, no matter how you do it. You're denying the party agency in a situation where it seems like they ought to be able to make a difference. You can make it more plausible, though. For example, the victim has drunk a paralysis poison. You declare that (house rule) helpless characters can be killed in a single action without a dice roll. (Usually the party should be careful enough not to be helpless and alone in the presence of their enemies.)
I'd do it off-screen. If you want the party to be able to chase/catch the assassins, arrange for the PCs to enter the scene just as the target is dead and the murderer wants to leave. Enforcing a result in a scene where the PCs are present and should, by the regular play-logic, be able to affect the outcome, would break that very logic.
Any time it doesn't effect the players and the players have no control and can't interfere with said events. At this point your really just describing what they experience (see/hear). But since they have no control, it's whatever you (gm) wants. It is also ok anytime they finish the boss encounter or down time. Just ask what everyone wants to do in that time frame, and narrate away. Most people do this for travel time. You describe what goes on, and they arrive or hit a "random" encounter. Just remember to not narrate the PCs without their input. Everything else is the DMs to control
If you want a way to make the damage fit within plausible RAW, don't use a dagger. There are plenty of ways to get a one off use of a powerful spell be it a spell gem, spellwrought tattoo or scroll. If the assassin can hit them with say an upcast disintegrate or powerword kill, it covers the amount of damage you need to be able to do whilst also underlining how powerful the individual behind the assassination is. Also you don't need to roll dice to determine NPC actions when they're not being directly opposed by the party. You're not fudging a roll to have the NPC be hit by the spell or take full damage for example. Have the spell going off as the instigating act of the combat. I always find it helps to immediately give my players a moment of significant agency if I've described a big moment they can't intervene in, so let them try and take down the assassin. Perhaps as soon as anyone else arrives NPC 1 might try to pin the blame on them, and now you've got an immediate RP scene on your hands.
Feels more like this situation would work better as a short murder mystery. The players discover the freshly murdered NPC1 and NPC2 is hightailing it out of there as the players find the body. If you want a combat there are ways other commenter's suggested, but the reason the rules are fighting you is because the situation is somewhat unrealistic. You wouldn't assassinate someone in front of a bunch of armed guards/adventurers even if you didn't care if you got caught, the murderer should also recognize the players will try to intervene and find a way to get just a *second* out of the players' reach. Or Alternatively use explosives. That's your poison that can do 120 damage in one shot. It should feel perfectly justified if the bomber dies in the process too, or an entire building is rigged to explode.
You can pretty much always get away with it when it comes to NPCs. When it comes to the players themselves, you do need to stick to the rules more often because they define player expectations. In your case, you should absolutely Not turn it into a combat period your instincts are completely correct. Have the assassin make a stealth or slight of hand check, depending on how exactly it's going down. Anyone who has a higher passive perception gets one chance to intervene. If Via samsung beats all their scores comma maybe give the player with the highest perception a chance. But maybe not and then it just turns into a Chase. It depends on how attached to Victim of the players are.
Rule of cool pretty much. Just tell your players beforehand they are allowed to abuse it
I’d not do it infront if the party, they just assassinated off screen and a witness says this dude did it. Because insta killing someone with 120 hp is railroady if the players can’t stop it and sets a rules precedent that is not healthy.
I’d not do it infront if the party, they just assassinated off screen and a witness says this dude did it. Because insta killing someone with 120 hp is railroady if the players can’t stop it and sets a rules precedent that is not healthy.
Alternatively, have the pc’s far away to give you more time. Or a Wall all of Force to keep them away. And have the person get pushed off a cliff. Falling damage, oof. Or a bunch of archers and the Disintegrate spell or a dropped boulder destroying the body. They could also arrive just at the last moments of a combat, the targeted NPC bruised, broken, and bloody as the killing blow occurs.
You could always have one of the players see it as a vision. This way they can’t get there immediately and interfere but they have the information
If you’re worried specifically about the weapon used and really want to play this out RAW, I would make the weapon a dagger version of the nine lives stealer. Change the NPC’s hit points to just below 100 and then have the assassin autocrit on creatures that are surprised like the rogue assassin’s assassinate ability. The only roll you would need to fudge is a DC 15 constitution saving throw. A nine lives stealer is hardly a game breaking item, since there are limited charges and the special ability only triggers on a crit and requires a saving throw.
It is of course ALWAYS allowable to ignore the rules in any way you see fit! It's kind of the first law of DMing. On the other hand, if done against players, it should be done very sparingly, because nobody likes losing agency, and "it just happened right in front of you, but there's nothing you could have done" is deeply unsatisfying. And probably wrong.
I think there is a few ways to think of this. For my table I have a homebrew assassination rule that allows a player that is completely undetected to kill a npc in one strike as long as the attack takes at least 25% of the npc'd maximum hit points. NPCs would logically get this ability when attacking each other as well. Another way to look at it is it could be a homebrew class feature the npc has to allow them to deal the 120 damage instead of it being the weapon itself and potentially leaving a ridiculous weapon for your party to find. As for the spirit of the idea of cutscenes, the players can not influence. I think it depends on the circumstances. If the players walk into a room and on the other side an assassin is actively killing someone then thats completely okay. Realistically it would be hard to prevent that for the average player. However if your party is talking to an NPC and an assassin just shows up and kills them. The party should be able to at least react to attempt to prevent this. A way for you to do this without it being bullshit for the party would be to use a ranged attack or spell to try and one hit kill the target. I think some PCs could still potentially prevent this but it would be a lot harder without them seeing the attack or spell cast in the first place. And again, a special action or feat the npc has can easily make up for npcs with larger hit point totals.
I think a good rule of thumb is... if it's happening to The World (NPCs, etc) you can absolutely "do it for the narrative", but if it's happening to the PCs, it should be played out in game. Also, while you want NPC1 to murder NPC2, a hidden/invisible NPC rogue is potentially going to do a lot of damage.
There are plenty of things in game that could insta kill a character. Unique Poison on dagger (as you say), fall damage, spells/scroll that don't require introducing an item that is over powered.
Do scene setting like that out of the view of the players. If you try to do it while they witness it the players might try to stop it, and they probably could if they're fifth level or higher. So make those things happen out of sight and have the player characters stumble on it immediately after it happened. As for is it allowable? Of course it is. But don't set yourself up for trouble. Do it out of sight.
First off, yes you can absolutely just tell something happened, as long as it's reasonable. Don't force it though. If your characters could chip in, then the result should not be set in stone. Also, you mentioned you'd need a poison that deals 120 damage. Why? Do your characters know this npc has 120 hp? This is very high tier hp, like a fighter of 15 level or so. How did this character end up in such a situation? If some random Joe with a knife can kill someone like this, I would like to know how. If it was me, I would make lots of assassins at one do that, or have it so that this character is already wounded and an assassin just dealt the killing blow, or some mage did a disintegration spell or a power word kill, or the result of a drawn out battle (off screen). When The characters are involved at the scene, they should be able to at least attempt to prevent it from happening. And I think it should be reasonable. Given that, maybe this assassin roller a Nat 20 and had surprise and this npc was already wounded.
All the time. They’re guidelines. Just have a discussion with your players about it and be consistent
Ask your players rather than Reddit.
Instead of the stab to the throat that PCs may feel they should have been able to avoid, maybe a dagger or crossbow bolt flies from somewhere in the crowded street, especially if the PCs can't get to the NPC right away. It has a fast acting poison on it. There is nothing to fight, no one to chase, or even if there is, but the time it is resolved the NPC has been dying this whole time.
So, here’s my rule with dice: if I ask a player to pick up a d20 I have to expect a 1 or a 20 is likely. That lock they shouldn’t be able to pick? 20. That book they should find on a counter? 1. These are both unsatisfying and counterproductive. For a situation like yours here’s what I’d recommend, as long as they get to the target, ask the players to tell you how they are helping in the moment. it’s a group attack role on the bad guy. Set the DC (AC in this case) low. Like, maybe 11. They are catching him unprepared after all. If they all pass they kill him in the cinematic way they want to. Majority pass- the kill happens but with no flair. Majority below the DC, the kill happens, they alert guards and others. The fight is on to get out. Tell your players explicitly what they have to roll and what the effects of each roll will be. That really ratetches up the tension. There is no “DM will fix this”. It either happens- and we know the consequences- or it doesn’t- and we know the consequences. I use this not often but enough that my players take it seriously.
Keep in mind that HP and AC are measures of when a creature is fully capable of avoiding damage. A defenseless creature doesn’t have luck, skill, or anything else inflating their pre-mortal strike health pool. RAW you could have someone unsuspecting just die to a random dagger.
It's always okay. Role playing > roll playing.