I see a lot of topics on this and most make decent sense.

We had our first player go over threshold. He went prone, knocked out, and incapacitated. As it was the first time beyond threshold, so he also rolled on the crit table.

This was his second roll on crit, so he did so at +10 (He now has 2 crits)

If I am to understand it, he is out of combat, but... and here is my confusion, enemies can simply shoot him all they want now to a maximum of 2x threshold and unless they score a crit, it does nothing?

I'm not saying I don't play my bad guys as bad guys, but apart from an incidental caught in a blast radius, no one is likely to stand over him and just keep shooting.

I don't want my players to die, but I don't want them to feel secure when they are incapacitated that they are just fine.

7 minutes ago, Grungyape said:

I see a lot of topics on this and most make decent sense.

We had our first player go over threshold. He went prone, knocked out, and incapacitated. As it was the first time beyond threshold, so he also rolled on the crit table.

This was his second roll on crit, so he did so at +10 (He now has 2 crits)

If I am to understand it, he is out of combat, but... and here is my confusion, enemies can simply shoot him all they want now to a maximum of 2x threshold and unless they score a crit, it does nothing?

I'm not saying I don't play my bad guys as bad guys, but apart from an incidental caught in a blast radius, no one is likely to stand over him and just keep shooting.

I don't want my players to die, but I don't want them to feel secure when they are incapacitated that they are just fine.

You could simply make each successful attack on an incapacitated character an auto-crit, comparable to Bleeding Out (which is 1 crit for each 5 wounds past WT).

One thing you can do is what I call "narrative kills." If a character has a gun to the head of an imprisoned target, for example, I don't require a roll if they want to kill the target, it just happens. You could do something similar here, allowing the NPCs (or PCs in applicable circumstances) to "execute" incapacitated characters as an action if they are at Engaged range.

Possibly making it a "The End is Nigh" crit on PCs rather than an auto-kill.

OK, and that makes sense, but am I then understanding it correct? As per RAW, unless they trigger a crit, they really can just shoot forever?

I'm OK making changes, but I want to make sure I understand the actual RAW so I can explain and then justify.

48 minutes ago, Grungyape said:

OK, and that makes sense, but am I then understanding it correct? As per RAW, unless they trigger a crit, they really can just shoot forever?

I'm OK making changes, but I want to make sure I understand the actual RAW so I can explain and then justify.

I think so. It never specifies.

You can always target someone who is incapacitated, it just never specifies what that does.

Yes, that is the way I treat it in my games. If they players are down and an NPC wants to finish them off, unless there is something to stop them from doing it like they are engaged, being shot at or other things like that. Then they could bend down and kill the player with their action for the turn.

I believe in RAW they would have to keep shooting until they short a high enough roll on the crit chart, but that seems silly to me so I wouldn't do it.

Why would someone engaged want to finish off a guy who's lying unconscious ? By engaged I mean the guy is actually fighting.

And when an opponent is out of combat with one or more visible wounds and not moving at all, most people won't bother to verify if he / she's already dead, currently dying or just feigning death. They'd let him / her as cold meat because most of the time if something looks like dead it's because he / she is dead.

That's how it goes for PCs at my table, NPCs never finish them if they're unconscious and not moving. They only care if they were asked to make prisoners.

37 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

Why would someone engaged want to finish off a guy who's lying unconscious ? By engaged I mean the guy is actually fighting.

And when an opponent is out of combat with one or more visible wounds and not moving at all, most people won't bother to verify if he / she's already dead, currently dying or just feigning death. They'd let him / her as cold meat because most of the time if something looks like dead it's because he / she is dead.

That's how it goes for PCs at my table, NPCs never finish them if they're unconscious and not moving. They only care if they were asked to make prisoners.

Because 26 Bond movies could have been a lot shorter if he'd just finished off the bad guy during any of the three chances he had before the end of the movie.

My players know leaving a Nemesis or Rival alive means they are likely coming back later. Some they bargain with, some they coerce and flip, some are bargaining tools for the bigger boss.

However, sometimes reinforcements arrive before the job can be done, sometimes "destiny" steps in and they survive beyond means, but rarely is anyone left alive without good reason. My bad guys play the same way.

===

Right now my players are on a prison moon, trying to rescue an old cyborg friend. A rival slave trader has captured their friend and has tortured him, eventually dismantling him and killing him. The players are unaware that all that remains is his brain core. The players suspect, and are correct, that the slave trader is not the big boss. The brain core holds many answers. If my players fall while on rescue they know fully well they will be locked up, tortured and held for the "boss". but Erothus is force sensitive. The slave trader is as well, but she was rejected from every teacher she had. She has an obsession and hatred toward the force. If Erothus falls, he will not be spared.

1 hour ago, Grungyape said:

Because 26 Bond movies could have been a lot shorter if he'd just finished off the bad guy during any of the three chances he had before the end of the movie.

Eh, no. Bond villains refuse to kill Bond AFTER all opponents have been defeated and combat is over, and Bond is sitting tied up in a chair.

This is about villains who take the time to make sure a defeated opponent becomes a dead opponent while there are still undefeated opponents shooting of lightsabering at them.

Also, it would be seriously bad form on the part of a GM, especially in Star Wars game. "The Stormtroopers ignore all the other PCs and execute Andy's unconscious character".

29 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

This is about villains who take the time to make sure a defeated opponent becomes a dead opponent while there are still undefeated opponents shooting of lightsabering at them.

NPCs should always act in a way that makes sense.

In some circumstances, that can include insuring that a character is dead.

For example, the objective is to kill Andy. They incapacitate Andy and overrun his position, but the PCs are closing in with reinforcements and the bad guys know they are outmatched. So one of them spends an action to kill Andy and complete the objective before retreating. This is the NPC acting in accordance with their motivations and objectives.

@Grungyape , you should make sure your players understand the houserule up front and get feedback. Changes may be in order so that there is a chance for prompt medical intervention.

10 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Eh, no. Bond villains refuse to kill Bond AFTER all opponents have been defeated and combat is over, and Bond is sitting tied up in a chair.

This is about villains who take the time to make sure a defeated opponent becomes a dead opponent while there are still undefeated opponents shooting of lightsabering at them.

Also, it would be seriously bad form on the part of a GM, especially in Star Wars game. "The Stormtroopers ignore all the other PCs and execute Andy's unconscious character".

So while valid, this is not even close to what was originally asked.

As stated in the original post, "no one is likely to stand over him and just keep shooting".

The question wasn't about WHEN players/enemies were taking this action, it was that per RAW it didn't specifically have a coup de grâce option listed, so that IF you wanted to do this, it seemed like you'd have to literally stand over them shooting. Wolfrider on the other hand specifically added in the "during combat" aspect.

However, we may play a bit more aggressive than you, and that's OK. Our group are all adults, we like the old school death happens philosophy. We don't make a habit of it, but even in Star Wars movies, important characters lose their lives. My players, when combat is over, not only check the "dead" for gear, creds, and better weapons, but also make conscious decisions on what to do with (rivals/nemesis) still living.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

@Grungyape , you should make sure your players understand the houserule up front and get feedback. Changes may be in order so that there is a chance for prompt medical intervention.

Yep, and we did. They actually prompted the original question after a night of book scanning for rules on instant death or coup de grâce.

For the most part, we decided that normal minions don't likely do anything more then attack until your down, and then hand you over the the boss. Rivals and Nemesis don't normally have a reason to perma-kill unless they have no other options, it's their "job" or it is a known story arc, i.e. our rival slaver.

3 minutes ago, Grungyape said:

our rival slaver.

Rival slaver, or slaver rival?