Hello guys. I want to utilize one-hit kills in adventures but there are no rules for them. So if a pc wanted to stealthily slit a gangers throat how would this be handled? Could I just state death occurs, or would he make a check of stealth, melee, or both. Could it be handled as a critical injury? If so, to what degree? Or should the action just be not allowed or treated as a normal hit, using the weapon's ratings? Advice needed.

-user

Well solo minions tend to go down in only one or two hits usually. But if you want something special go to pg 333 and read one-check combat resolution.

If the guard is a minion, let the throat be slit and move on. A rival, you could opt for the same I think. Nemesis? Shouldn't be so easily offed, simple as that... perhaps let some stealth check add Advantages to attack roll, thereby enabling big boost to any crit activated.. perhaps even guarantee the activation of a crit... let's say a Triumph on the Stealth check causes one or two auto-advantage(s) or something...? Pretty powerful, will off a minion straight away, and with any luck add +10 (or more) to the crit roll with that vibroknife in addtion to the Vicious quality

Also I just remembered, Soak isn't mandatory. Its actually optional. So if you are the gm trying to get a player a one-shot kill, just leaving off soak when resolving damage would probably also go a ways to getting that result without having to fudge any rolls.

I'd make him make a stealth check (opposed by perception or vigilance), then a standard melee check. I might just ignore soak given certain circumstances. But there's plenty of opportunities for things to go wrong (or right) depending on the PC's skill so imo it merits a roll. There's another thread on the main forum about something like this, the TL;DR is that a PC not specialized for melee shouldn't be able to coup de grace an enemy without some effort, while a PC invested in melee will probably be able to do it with ease - but will still need to roll.

I agree with Kshatriya. Stealth Check, Melee check with some bonus, maybe 2 boost dice.

A crit automatically takes out a minion in the Core rules, so maybe give an automatic 1 Advantage on a sneak attack.

Or, make it a special attack like standard brawl. Sneak Attack - Pierce 2, Crit 1, Vicious 2

This way Minions will usually go down to a skilled opponent sneak attacking them. Rivals and Nemesis may get a fighting chance.

Hello guys. I want to utilize one-hit kills in adventures but there are no rules for them. So if a pc wanted to stealthily slit a gangers throat how would this be handled? Could I just state death occurs, or would he make a check of stealth, melee, or both. Could it be handled as a critical injury? If so, to what degree? Or should the action just be not allowed or treated as a normal hit, using the weapon's ratings? Advice needed.

-user

Yeah an automatic advantage works, but the PC can still fail then, if he gets +1 threath. But that's fine. First he can get a free check outside initiative with +1 advantage. If he fails to generate a critical (triumphs work too), both participants roll for initiative and the ambushed upgrades his check according to the attackers stealth.

Since you most likely don't want to use this against more important nemesis NPCs, you can still treat rival NPCs the same way when being ambushed.

I'm not sure why you want one hit kills (although minions will likely be that anyway) as it seems to me to take any suspense out of the adventure. I mean if your bad guys aren't a threat then whats the point of having them there at all? No challenge = no fun at least in my book. If you don't want the PCs to get bogged down in combat then just put a few locks to bypass and save time.

I agree with Kshatriya. Stealth Check, Melee check with some bonus, maybe 2 boost dice.

A crit automatically takes out a minion in the Core rules, so maybe give an automatic 1 Advantage on a sneak attack.

Or, make it a special attack like standard brawl. Sneak Attack - Pierce 2, Crit 1, Vicious 2

This is unnecessary and unbalancing. If you get a good Stealth roll you will have a number of Advantages or even a Triumph to spend on bonus dice for the Attack roll that will adequately represent a "Sneak Attack". Basically a "Sneak Attack" is an opportunity to gain Advantages etc. that a normal Attack won't have, this is enough of a bonus any more and you start pushing against the Munchkin barrier.

In any case, if you hit a Minion with a Vibroknife you're pretty much guaranteed a kill, if not it'll be because he has some special armor or some other reason for a high Soak, in which case you shouldn't be able to get a one shot kill anyway unless you want to further Nerf Minions. As for Nemesis and Rival NPCs I agree with the rest that it would be a bad idea to allow a one hit kill because these level NPCs are supposed to be tough and not easy to get around.

Below is what I posted in another thread on this subject: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/92261-throat-slitting-kills/

I disagree. A player feels completely ripped off from a Stealth roll that accomplishes basically nothing (a simple success before the attack roll).I don't really run EotE like Fate, where people are rolling one skill to get a bonus on another. I have characters roll skills to accomplish specific actions. If the only reason someone is rolling stealth is to gain a bonus to their attack, I'm not going to have them roll Stealth. If there is no inherent bonus is saying "I leap out from behind the box and stab him (say a Boost die, or a bonus Advantage) then the player may just as well say "I stab him".

And as to why someone would want one hit kills... well, because it's something that can happen in real life, and its something that should be possible to setup in the game if thats what a player wants to do. It certainly should not be automatic in most cases, but you should be able to attempt it.

But, that's okay! Different GM's different philosophies.

I disagree. A player feels completely ripped off from a Stealth roll that accomplishes basically nothing (a simple success before the attack roll).I don't really run EotE like Fate, where people are rolling one skill to get a bonus on another. I have characters roll skills to accomplish specific actions. If the only reason someone is rolling stealth is to gain a bonus to their attack, I'm not going to have them roll Stealth. If there is no inherent bonus is saying "I leap out from behind the box and stab him (say a Boost die, or a bonus Advantage) then the player may just as well say "I stab him".

And as to why someone would want one hit kills... well, because it's something that can happen in real life, and its something that should be possible to setup in the game if thats what a player wants to do. It certainly should not be automatic in most cases, but you should be able to attempt it.

But, that's okay! Different GM's different philosophies.

It is very doable and quite easy for a well trained PC against a minion. Against a Rival it's not unlikely either, since you can disregard soak and lots of talents give a bonus to the crit roll. That said, it's boring if it's too easy and some random PC who isn't a stealth master shouldn't walk around one shotting people from stealth. It should take skill and there should be risk of failure which would result in combat. The PC can still get the second attack in first and will most likely kill most rivals then and if he doesn't get any despair symbols, then it can be completely silent. Everything you need for this is in the rules already.

Against a nemesis a one hit kill would defeat the whole purpose of having a nemesis.

The advantage to succeeding at Stealth beforehand is anything from me (as GM) deciding the target can't soak, to not letting him raise an alarm as he's killed, to effects like Boost die to the attack. Part of the result would depend on things like Advantage/Threat etc generated, the level of the enemy (very opposed to letting such a 1-shot occur vs a Nemesis but against a Minion it's less of a big deal).

To me the important thing about the roll is dissuading a Brawn 2/Melee 0 player from thinking he's Altair/Ezio because frankly, he's just not with that lack of skill.

Nevermind. Edited on account of not caring enough.

I disagree. A player feels completely ripped off from a Stealth roll that accomplishes basically nothing (a simple success before the attack roll).I don't really run EotE like Fate, where people are rolling one skill to get a bonus on another. I have characters roll skills to accomplish specific actions. If the only reason someone is rolling stealth is to gain a bonus to their attack, I'm not going to have them roll Stealth. If there is no inherent bonus is saying "I leap out from behind the box and stab him (say a Boost die, or a bonus Advantage) then the player may just as well say "I stab him".

And as to why someone would want one hit kills... well, because it's something that can happen in real life, and its something that should be possible to setup in the game if thats what a player wants to do. It certainly should not be automatic in most cases, but you should be able to attempt it.

But, that's okay! Different GM's different philosophies.

It is very doable and quite easy for a well trained PC against a minion. Against a Rival it's not unlikely either, since you can disregard soak and lots of talents give a bonus to the crit roll. That said, it's boring if it's too easy and some random PC who isn't a stealth master shouldn't walk around one shotting people from stealth. It should take skill and there should be risk of failure which would result in combat. The PC can still get the second attack in first and will most likely kill most rivals then and if he doesn't get any despair symbols, then it can be completely silent. Everything you need for this is in the rules already.

Against a nemesis a one hit kill would defeat the whole purpose of having a nemesis.

How does this relate to my post?

The advantage to succeeding at Stealth beforehand is anything from me (as GM) deciding the target can't soak [...]

I like this idea. This makes stealth kills very potent, and makes the player happy as well. I can see a boost die for stealth kill being very underwhelming, but negating soak is nice. Granted, it might be too good (roughly equivalent to breach 1, or 2-5 successes), but I lean to being overgenerous as a GM.

As for always going around to stealth-kill. Environment is rarely conducive to stealth-kills, at least in my games. And if my players were to make this their primary means of disposing of baddies, I might throw in a few hazards that would update their difficulty or add more than a single setback to their chances. But on the other hand, this might be the story they want to experience.

I disagree. A player feels completely ripped off from a Stealth roll that accomplishes basically nothing (a simple success before the attack roll).I don't really run EotE like Fate, where people are rolling one skill to get a bonus on another. I have characters roll skills to accomplish specific actions. If the only reason someone is rolling stealth is to gain a bonus to their attack, I'm not going to have them roll Stealth. If there is no inherent bonus is saying "I leap out from behind the box and stab him (say a Boost die, or a bonus Advantage) then the player may just as well say "I stab him".

And as to why someone would want one hit kills... well, because it's something that can happen in real life, and its something that should be possible to setup in the game if thats what a player wants to do. It certainly should not be automatic in most cases, but you should be able to attempt it.

But, that's okay! Different GM's different philosophies.

It is very doable and quite easy for a well trained PC against a minion. Against a Rival it's not unlikely either, since you can disregard soak and lots of talents give a bonus to the crit roll. That said, it's boring if it's too easy and some random PC who isn't a stealth master shouldn't walk around one shotting people from stealth. It should take skill and there should be risk of failure which would result in combat. The PC can still get the second attack in first and will most likely kill most rivals then and if he doesn't get any despair symbols, then it can be completely silent. Everything you need for this is in the rules already.

Against a nemesis a one hit kill would defeat the whole purpose of having a nemesis.

How does this relate to my post?

I don't see how you can miss how it relates to your post. You want one hit kills. They are already possible per RAW, so what you want, you already have. You're asking for pie, when there is a pie on your left. I just gave you a heads up - oh look... a pie.

I agree that only one check should be made and not first a stealth check and then a melee check. A combination would work or just use stealth for the attack and the sneaking at the same time. But that's just simple GM stuff.

How does this relate to my post?

I disagree. A player feels completely ripped off from a Stealth roll that accomplishes basically nothing (a simple success before the attack roll).I don't really run EotE like Fate, where people are rolling one skill to get a bonus on another. I have characters roll skills to accomplish specific actions. If the only reason someone is rolling stealth is to gain a bonus to their attack, I'm not going to have them roll Stealth. If there is no inherent bonus is saying "I leap out from behind the box and stab him (say a Boost die, or a bonus Advantage) then the player may just as well say "I stab him".

And as to why someone would want one hit kills... well, because it's something that can happen in real life, and its something that should be possible to setup in the game if thats what a player wants to do. It certainly should not be automatic in most cases, but you should be able to attempt it.

But, that's okay! Different GM's different philosophies.

It is very doable and quite easy for a well trained PC against a minion. Against a Rival it's not unlikely either, since you can disregard soak and lots of talents give a bonus to the crit roll. That said, it's boring if it's too easy and some random PC who isn't a stealth master shouldn't walk around one shotting people from stealth. It should take skill and there should be risk of failure which would result in combat. The PC can still get the second attack in first and will most likely kill most rivals then and if he doesn't get any despair symbols, then it can be completely silent. Everything you need for this is in the rules already.

Against a nemesis a one hit kill would defeat the whole purpose of having a nemesis.

I don't see how you can miss how it relates to your post. You want one hit kills. They are already possible per RAW, so what you want, you already have. You're asking for pie, when there is a pie on your left. I just gave you a heads up - oh look... a pie.

I agree that only one check should be made and not first a stealth check and then a melee check. A combination would work or just use stealth for the attack and the sneaking at the same time. But that's just simple GM stuff.

Yeah, I was just answering FuriousGreg who was asking why you would want one hit kills. I wasn't saying that it was impossible in RAW.

A player feels completely ripped off from a Stealth roll that accomplishes basically nothing (a simple success before the attack roll).I don't really run EotE like Fate, where people are rolling one skill to get a bonus on another.

SOME players might feel ripped off, sure. OTOH, my immersion is broken if Stealth But No Melee Guy 1-shots a guard, or if Big Loud Sword Guy manages to sneak up on a guard. Or especially if a guy with low Brawn/Agi thinks he's Altair and the game supports that, which disenfranchises the player who's spent lots of XP to actually BE Altair's skill level.

Where rolling one skill to get a bonus on another is kind of how EotE is written. I'm not saying your GMing decisions are wrong, I'm just saying that the closest-to-RAW perspective is "roll stealth, deal with roll results, then melee."

A player feels completely ripped off from a Stealth roll that accomplishes basically nothing (a simple success before the attack roll).I don't really run EotE like Fate, where people are rolling one skill to get a bonus on another.

SOME players might feel ripped off, sure. OTOH, my immersion is broken if Stealth But No Melee Guy 1-shots a guard, or if Big Loud Sword Guy manages to sneak up on a guard. Or especially if a guy with low Brawn/Agi thinks he's Altair and the game supports that, which disenfranchises the player who's spent lots of XP to actually BE Altair's skill level.

Where rolling one skill to get a bonus on another is kind of how EotE is written. I'm not saying your GMing decisions are wrong, I'm just saying that the closest-to-RAW perspective is "roll stealth, deal with roll results, then melee."

Kshatriya, I agree with you. But I will play the devil's advocate here for the sake of debate. For the most part, I enjoy seeing how other GMs think and reason, so I would like to see how others think on this counterargument.

In the core rules, it points out that skill checks are counted as actions. In my interpretation, that means that skill checks should be made if it's more than just a "trivial" happening.

So by RAW, would a stealth roll be one action, and on the next round the attack be another. As some people pointed out. The successful stealth check would result in some sort of bonus. For the sake of argument, let's go with boost die. If I wanted to get a boost die on my attack, I would have been better off burning 2 strain to walk up to my adversary (1 maneuver), aim (2 strain for a second maneuver), and attack (action). And flavoring that as "Sneak up and attack".

Hm, first it really depends if we're in combat or narrative time, since the former is far more structured in what can be accomplished on a per-roll basis. I'll confine this thought to structured time anyway.

In combat, your way might be better. But adding a stealth check to that could result in more boosts (if the character is good at stealth) which is why a stealthy character might opt for it. OTOH a less stealthy character might not want to risk giving themselves away by sneaking, and instead go for the kind of lunge that would kill the target but not conceal the fact that the target had just been ganked.

I still don't agree that the RAW is that one skill is simply rolled to give a boost to another (like in FATE).

The way I GM is per action.

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows, I say "okay, you hide in shadows."

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows and sneak past the guard patrolling the wall. I have them make an opposed Stealth check. Advantages and Threat apply towards that action.

The Rogue says they want to sneak up in shadows and slit the guards throat. I have them make an opposed Stealth check and Advantages and Threat apply towards that action. I then have them make a melee check and I add a boost die or two because they are concealed (not because they got Advantages on their Stealth roll, they already succeeded at being sneaky.)

I still don't agree that the RAW is that one skill is simply rolled to give a boost to another (like in FATE).

The way I GM is per action.

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows, I say "okay, you hide in shadows."

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows and sneak past the guard patrolling the wall. I have them make an opposed Stealth check. Advantages and Threat apply towards that action.

The Rogue says they want to sneak up in shadows and slit the guards throat. I have them make an opposed Stealth check and Advantages and Threat apply towards that action. I then have them make a melee check and I add a boost die or two because they are concealed (not because they got Advantages on their Stealth roll, they already succeeded at being sneaky.)

I actually agree that many maneuvers can translate to a skill check which ultimately can (and often will) affect their subsequent action. My main point for counter argument is page 204 of the CRB; the very first paragraph of that page "Perform a skill check" which is a subheading of the "Actions" portion of the combat rules.

Again, I fully agree that many actions do not call for an action, and only necessitate a maneuver. My counterpoint was mainly to pick the brains of fellow GMs and see how they reason through certain arguments. I am a programmer by trade (as well as a rules nut. No surprise there), and I also learn by example, so conversations like these offer a great level of insight for me.

I still don't agree that the RAW is that one skill is simply rolled to give a boost to another (like in FATE).

The way I GM is per action.

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows, I say "okay, you hide in shadows."

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows and sneak past the guard patrolling the wall. I have them make an opposed Stealth check. Advantages and Threat apply towards that action.

The Rogue says they want to sneak up in shadows and slit the guards throat. I have them make an opposed Stealth check and Advantages and Threat apply towards that action. I then have them make a melee check and I add a boost die or two because they are concealed (not because they got Advantages on their Stealth roll, they already succeeded at being sneaky.)

But it's really the same thing, you just set a hard number of dice to add. You add boost dice for being hidden, but do not allow a player with good stealth to get an advantage of his skill when doing the killing. One of the strenghts of EotE is that success is not black and white and one action can influence the next.

I don't see it as you just succeed or not. I see the number of successes and advantages/threaths as an indication of how well you did and how close you get to him before having to jump him or from what angle you manage to approach him etc. I think you lose much of the flavour of the narrative dice system if you just handle it as absolutes that are self contained and not influencing other things. You may as well roll percentile.

I'd handle both the attack and sneaking in one strealth roll with a bonus from your melee skill possibly. But if I did it in two checks, I'd certainly let the stealth roll be more than just success or failure.

I still don't agree that the RAW is that one skill is simply rolled to give a boost to another (like in FATE).

The way I GM is per action.

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows, I say "okay, you hide in shadows."

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows and sneak past the guard patrolling the wall. I have them make an opposed Stealth check. Advantages and Threat apply towards that action.

The Rogue says they want to sneak up in shadows and slit the guards throat. I have them make an opposed Stealth check and Advantages and Threat apply towards that action. I then have them make a melee check and I add a boost die or two because they are concealed (not because they got Advantages on their Stealth roll, they already succeeded at being sneaky.)

But it's really the same thing, you just set a hard number of dice to add. You add boost dice for being hidden, but do not allow a player with good stealth to get an advantage of his skill when doing the killing. One of the strenghts of EotE is that success is not black and white and one action can influence the next.

I don't see it as you just succeed or not. I see the number of successes and advantages/threaths as an indication of how well you did and how close you get to him before having to jump him or from what angle you manage to approach him etc. I think you lose much of the flavour of the narrative dice system if you just handle it as absolutes that are self contained and not influencing other things. You may as well roll percentile.

I'd handle both the attack and sneaking in one strealth roll with a bonus from your melee skill possibly. But if I did it in two checks, I'd certainly let the stealth roll be more than just success or failure.

It's like you're not reading my posts. I specifically mentioned Advantages and Threats, and said nothing about black and white success/fail. I love the narrative dice system.

In the end, I think we are both basically in agreement. Where we differ is just that I don't think a player should have to spend Stealth Advantage to get a bonus for being "even more in the dark" when they are already stealthed. Being stealthed should give an inherent boost. You succeeded, you're stealthed.

Now, I can see spending stealth Advantages or Threats for additional boosts or setbacks. Things like the guard turns around to check a noise, or he walks into a lighted area at the last moment.

I still don't agree that the RAW is that one skill is simply rolled to give a boost to another (like in FATE).

The way I GM is per action.

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows, I say "okay, you hide in shadows."

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows and sneak past the guard patrolling the wall. I have them make an opposed Stealth check. Advantages and Threat apply towards that action.

The Rogue says they want to sneak up in shadows and slit the guards throat. I have them make an opposed Stealth check and Advantages and Threat apply towards that action. I then have them make a melee check and I add a boost die or two because they are concealed (not because they got Advantages on their Stealth roll, they already succeeded at being sneaky.)

I don't think this is off the mark from anything anyone has suggested.

Also enough advantages on the stealth roll can be applied to the next roll the character makes, per the RAW. But of course the GM, by the RAW, is also free to add boosts/penalties for environmental circumstances not related to the previous rolls.

I still don't agree that the RAW is that one skill is simply rolled to give a boost to another (like in FATE).

The way I GM is per action.

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows, I say "okay, you hide in shadows."

The Rogue wants to hide in shadows and sneak past the guard patrolling the wall. I have them make an opposed Stealth check. Advantages and Threat apply towards that action.

The Rogue says they want to sneak up in shadows and slit the guards throat. I have them make an opposed Stealth check and Advantages and Threat apply towards that action. I then have them make a melee check and I add a boost die or two because they are concealed (not because they got Advantages on their Stealth roll, they already succeeded at being sneaky.)

But it's really the same thing, you just set a hard number of dice to add. You add boost dice for being hidden, but do not allow a player with good stealth to get an advantage of his skill when doing the killing. One of the strenghts of EotE is that success is not black and white and one action can influence the next.

I don't see it as you just succeed or not. I see the number of successes and advantages/threaths as an indication of how well you did and how close you get to him before having to jump him or from what angle you manage to approach him etc. I think you lose much of the flavour of the narrative dice system if you just handle it as absolutes that are self contained and not influencing other things. You may as well roll percentile.

I'd handle both the attack and sneaking in one strealth roll with a bonus from your melee skill possibly. But if I did it in two checks, I'd certainly let the stealth roll be more than just success or failure.

It's like you're not reading my posts. I specifically mentioned Advantages and Threats, and said nothing about black and white success/fail. I love the narrative dice system.

In the end, I think we are both basically in agreement. Where we differ is just that I don't think a player should have to spend Stealth Advantage to get a bonus for being "even more in the dark" when they are already stealthed. Being stealthed should give an inherent boost. You succeeded, you're stealthed.

Now, I can see spending stealth Advantages or Threats for additional boosts or setbacks. Things like the guard turns around to check a noise, or he walks into a lighted area at the last moment.

Well as you wrote it it seemed that no matter how well or poorly you succeeded on a stealth check you'd give the same flat bonus to the stealth check. That just seems as a binary interpretaion in relation to something that is actually dependant on how well he sneaks up on the guy - how close can he get, how much time does he have etc. could easily influence how easily he can kill the guy. Plus although he manages to sneak up on the guy a threath may indicate him kicking a stone the very moment he strikes, so the guy moves a bit (a black die to the melee check).

Adding two boost dice regardless of how he succeeds his stealth checks just seems binary, when the success of the first logically influence the success of the second directly.