I've always wondered if I should use 1 hit kills in my games. If a rogue sneaks up behind a guard and attacks, should full combat start, or the rogue just cut his throat and slip past? That seems a way too easy. How about other scenarios? Thoughts?
I've always wondered if I should use 1 hit kills in my games. If a rogue sneaks up behind a guard and attacks, should full combat start, or the rogue just cut his throat and slip past? That seems a way too easy. How about other scenarios? Thoughts?
Depends if the guard is supposed to be a significant obstacle or not. I mean, if you have a single guard at a door, a level 3 can pretty reliably drop them in a single action.
To me it'd depend of the narrative context more than the mechanical feasability as rule-wise, a single attack action, even with Advantage, may miss or hit but damage roll miserably and fail to one shot kill a guard.
But if it's preferable story-wise why not coconut roll the cinematic...
In general, you should be wary of bypassing the standard combat rules like this. If it works on a normal guard, why not the captain of the guards, or the high archmage? If you give players a mechanism like that, they're going to try to use it whenever possible, and you need to be prepared for that.
Now, you can do it (and even arguably should, because it ruins the rogue's schtick if they can't stealthily bypass the guards), but you should make it clear that it's only going to ever work on the no-name mooks.
(And it should work for any PC using their abilities carefully to bypass guards.)
As the DM adjust the HP of a guard and their reaction. If you want a single shot of the guard dead, adjust the HPs to fit the average damage the rouge does.
If the Rouge does too low damage, the guard is still alive, have him "stunned" and in "shock" watching his life essence color his clothing and floor and have him do nothing and let the PC finish the job in his 2nd turn.
If the damage is a good/satisfactory amount, call the the guard dead and move forward.
My take on it is that combat encounters should always have a point to them. A reason.
Now, that reason could be as simple as the player characters are spoiling for a rumble. In which case, that's a choice made by the player and their characters.
However, for set pieces and the like combat encounters are extensions of world building. The reason a dungeon has treasure in it is because of years of Goblin occupation and the goblins are defending their home. The reason there's a guard is to protect something valuable or dangerous. In which case, what does combat add to this world building, what does combat do for the flow of the game.
I'd never personally drop just a single guard into the path of player characters if I wanted a combat encounter. This is largely, because after level one there is no combat encounter there. There's a single attack or a single round and the guard is dead. It serves no meaningful challenge, or reason to be used. As such having the rogue sneak up and knock unconscious, or kill the guard makes complete sense. Now, if there's five guards and five player characters, that's a different prospect here. The extra guards can fight, or run, or sound the alarm. It presents an obstacle to the player characters achieving their goal.
So, it's a bit like skill tests - one-hit-kills are fine if there's no meaningful challenge present. And, like not calling for unnecessary skill tests, don't call for initiative or combat if there's no real obstacle present.
I'm more in favor of using the standard 1/4 CR guard even in higher level campaigns to use as trash mobs, so a higher level rogue's sneak attack can just one shot them. Not to say you make all combat encounters so easy, but it's nice to pepper in a few so the players can have moments like that.
In general though, if it doesn't zero out their hp, it doesn't kill them.
I agree, if you want the rogue to be able to one-shot the guards, just use weak guards in places (guards with hp less than the average damage the PC is likely to inflict). Don't create a new mechanic or rules exception because it will come back to haunt you later (they'll want to use it more and more often, and then there's the whole argument of if it works, why can't it be used against the PCs as well?).
I have found that players want consistency, and their suspension of disbelief only works if they understand the rules of play. In other words, the same rules apply to the PCs as the NPCs.
It really depends what kind of game you want to play. One-hit kills will encourage a sneaky-subterfuge type game where players try to set up elaborate schemes to sneak in and murder their enemies undetected. It will allow the rogue to infiltrate and cut through a goodly part of the enemies without the rest of the party. Is that what you want? Do you want the rogue going off on solo missions? Do you want the rogue sneaking ahead and clearing the way for the rest of the party?
Here's a few of your options:
1) any creature no matter how powerful they are can be one-hit killed in an assassination situation. This turns the game into one of security and subterfuge where the players need to protect themselves at night against assassination, and the players try to assassinate the enemies.
2) Mooks can be one-hit killed but bosses cannot. This encourages scouting ahead, infiltrating the outer layers of enemy security but ensures a classic battle when it comes to the BBEGs.
3) No one can be one-hit killed. This forces the party to always stick together as anyone who wanders off will be at serious risk if they encounter an enemy.
Once upon a time, when rogues were called thieves and sneak attack was known as backstab, thieves could inflict a backstab only if the target was unaware of the thief and the thief had to be behind the target. It was meant to be a stealth kill that started combat, and was very difficult to use once combat had already started.
D&D moved away from that in later editions. Now sneak attack is an ability that allows rogues extra damage that can be applied once per turn, and is so easy to qualify for that it can be applied in almost every turn of every combat.
If you want a rogue (or why limit it to a rogues, this works for any one) to one-shot in a stealth kill, all you need to do it have the target's hp be lower than the PC's average damage. IF the PC hits (likely with advantage if stealthed) and does at least average damage, the one-shot kill is successful.
This also avoids the conversations of 'what is a grunt and what is an important npc that doesn't qualify for the one-shot kill'. If its hp are less than the damage roll - it qualified. If its hp were more than the damage roll - it did not. If the PC misses or rolls minimum damage that isn't high enough to score the kill, then it was a fumbled attempt.
The mechanics to do what you want, are already there. There's no need to make an extra rule or ability to make it happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Once upon a time, when rogues were called thieves and sneak attack was known as backstab, thieves could inflict a backstab only if the target was unaware of the thief and the thief had to be behind the target. It was meant to be a stealth kill that started combat, and was very difficult to use once combat had already started.
D&D moved away from that in later editions. Now sneak attack is an ability that allows rogues extra damage that can be applied once per turn, and is so easy to qualify for that it can be applied in almost every turn of every combat.
If you want a rogue (or why limit it to a rogues, this works for any one) to one-shot in a stealth kill, all you need to do it have the target's hp be lower than the PC's average damage. IF the PC hits (likely with advantage if stealthed) and does at least average damage, the one-shot kill is successful.
This also avoids the conversations of 'what is a grunt and what is an important npc that doesn't qualify for the one-shot kill'. If its hp are less than the damage roll - it qualified. If its hp were more than the damage roll - it did not. If the PC misses or rolls minimum damage that isn't high enough to score the kill, then it was a fumbled attempt.
The mechanics to do what you want, are already there. There's no need to make an extra rule or ability to make it happen.
This does not avoid having to figure out which enemies are or are not mooks, because there are very few monsters with less than 10 health, so the DM needs to lower their health for a one shot to be possible.
What is health in relation to the number 10? I can't find that in the 2024 PHB. I understand it might be in the 2024 DMG, but I am waiting on the a friend that has that book to tell me.
This does not avoid having to figure out which enemies are or are not mooks, because there are very few monsters with less than 10 health, so the DM needs to lower their health for a one shot to be possible.
I'm not sure what you are considering a problem there? If the DM chooses a monster with low enough hit points that it can be killed in one hit, it's a mook. If they don't, it isn't.
To me it'd depend of the narrative context more than the mechanical feasability as rule-wise, a single attack action, even with Advantage, may miss or hit but damage roll miserably and fail to one shot kill a guard.
^^ 100% this.
Sometimes a one-shot makes perfect sense. Sometimes it's easy to forget how unrealistic the hitpoint system is. The simple fact is, a rapier does not do "more damage" to a body than a humble dagger does. 3-4 inches of steel in the right location is a death sentence regardless. What a longer blade does, is allow you to strike from farther away. The best description I've been given is that the hit points represent the endurance of a combatant. "hits" are moves which help break down the enemy's defenses, and only the kill shots really fully get through, in which case a longer, heavier weapon doing more 'damage' makes sense.
For the example given, I'd 100% allow my rogue to 1-shot a guard. It makes thematic sense, and it's cool. The rogue CAN miss which would have catastrophic consequences. When designing the encounter, I'd probably plan on my guard potentially getting oneshot. He's a problem for the team to overcome. If they can do it quickly and quietly, I'd applaud that action and not punish them for it. One shotting a sleeping dragon? Probably not so much, they're going to need a fantastic plan for that.
I think my current DM handles it best. Even if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if the plan entertains him, he'll let it fly if we can pull it off. It's messed up some of his combats before, but those tend to be the ones we come back to when we're talking about great game moments. I think he marks that up as running the encounter correctly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Sometimes a one-shot makes perfect sense. Sometimes it's easy to forget how unrealistic the hitpoint system is. The simple fact is, a rapier does not do "more damage" to a body than a humble dagger does
I'd be cautious about your claims. While the difference in power is unlikely to be particularly relevant against a realistic human scale target, that doesn't mean there's actually no difference.
I've always wondered if I should use 1 hit kills in my games. If a rogue sneaks up behind a guard and attacks, should full combat start, or the rogue just cut his throat and slip past? That seems a way too easy. How about other scenarios? Thoughts?
It really depends on the specific context, but I allow it in my games when it seems most logical, like in the scenario you proposed, but I also don't make it easy for them. I prime example is from a while back the party was fighting this bandit king named Skorm in his throne room. They were fighting him and his minions and the rogue wanted to try a sneak attack exactly like this. In order to pull it off I made her have to do a bunch of stealth checks to get around the room and right behind him unnoticed, with increasing difficulty depending on the locations of the minions. Then she had to do a difficult athletics check to leap up and on to his back, and then roll an attack roll with an increased AC to hit the specific gap between his breast plate and chin, which she managed to do BARELY, so she took him out in one hit (technically he had taken some hits already but he had way more HP left than a single dagger strike would normally deal). I usually say that if the players can pull it of realistically, and pass checks along the way to make it a challenge and earned, it just makes sense ins some scenarios, so let them try,
Honestly, I would love to DM for a group of players who were interested in subterfuge, scheming, and creative problem solving rather than just being fed a story and waiting for the Three Magic Words. That sort of thing shows real investment in the game. Why shouldn't they be able to assassinate a powerful guild leader if their plan is solid enough? If one of my players picked Rogue and went with the Assassin subclass, I would make sure to weave in opportunities for them to assassinate various targets. Maybe they kill the archmage while asleep, but this triggers a defense mechanism and the real boss battle is the golem they have to fight. I'd totally lean into it if that's how my players wanted to play the game.
There's a lot of "stick to the mechanics" advice in this thread, but it can sometimes be better to have the rules get out of the way so your table can play the game how they want. Just my two cents.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have Darkvision, by the way.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've always wondered if I should use 1 hit kills in my games. If a rogue sneaks up behind a guard and attacks, should full combat start, or the rogue just cut his throat and slip past? That seems a way too easy. How about other scenarios? Thoughts?
"That is not dead which can eternal lie;
And with strange aeons even death may die"
-H.P. Lovecraft
Depends if the guard is supposed to be a significant obstacle or not. I mean, if you have a single guard at a door, a level 3 can pretty reliably drop them in a single action.
To me it'd depend of the narrative context more than the mechanical feasability as rule-wise, a single attack action, even with Advantage, may miss or hit but damage roll miserably and fail to one shot kill a guard.
But if it's preferable story-wise why not coconut roll the cinematic...
In general, you should be wary of bypassing the standard combat rules like this. If it works on a normal guard, why not the captain of the guards, or the high archmage? If you give players a mechanism like that, they're going to try to use it whenever possible, and you need to be prepared for that.
Now, you can do it (and even arguably should, because it ruins the rogue's schtick if they can't stealthily bypass the guards), but you should make it clear that it's only going to ever work on the no-name mooks.
(And it should work for any PC using their abilities carefully to bypass guards.)
As the DM adjust the HP of a guard and their reaction. If you want a single shot of the guard dead, adjust the HPs to fit the average damage the rouge does.
If the Rouge does too low damage, the guard is still alive, have him "stunned" and in "shock" watching his life essence color his clothing and floor and have him do nothing and let the PC finish the job in his 2nd turn.
If the damage is a good/satisfactory amount, call the the guard dead and move forward.
Good advice
"That is not dead which can eternal lie;
And with strange aeons even death may die"
-H.P. Lovecraft
My take on it is that combat encounters should always have a point to them. A reason.
Now, that reason could be as simple as the player characters are spoiling for a rumble. In which case, that's a choice made by the player and their characters.
However, for set pieces and the like combat encounters are extensions of world building. The reason a dungeon has treasure in it is because of years of Goblin occupation and the goblins are defending their home. The reason there's a guard is to protect something valuable or dangerous. In which case, what does combat add to this world building, what does combat do for the flow of the game.
I'd never personally drop just a single guard into the path of player characters if I wanted a combat encounter. This is largely, because after level one there is no combat encounter there. There's a single attack or a single round and the guard is dead. It serves no meaningful challenge, or reason to be used. As such having the rogue sneak up and knock unconscious, or kill the guard makes complete sense. Now, if there's five guards and five player characters, that's a different prospect here. The extra guards can fight, or run, or sound the alarm. It presents an obstacle to the player characters achieving their goal.
So, it's a bit like skill tests - one-hit-kills are fine if there's no meaningful challenge present. And, like not calling for unnecessary skill tests, don't call for initiative or combat if there's no real obstacle present.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
DM fiat can always handwave combat and narrate the action.
If initiative is rolled, noting is guaranteed though. Rogue may go first but fail to kill it, or the guard may go first and raise alarm or flee.
It's the whole point of leave to chance.
I'm more in favor of using the standard 1/4 CR guard even in higher level campaigns to use as trash mobs, so a higher level rogue's sneak attack can just one shot them. Not to say you make all combat encounters so easy, but it's nice to pepper in a few so the players can have moments like that.
In general though, if it doesn't zero out their hp, it doesn't kill them.
I agree, if you want the rogue to be able to one-shot the guards, just use weak guards in places (guards with hp less than the average damage the PC is likely to inflict). Don't create a new mechanic or rules exception because it will come back to haunt you later (they'll want to use it more and more often, and then there's the whole argument of if it works, why can't it be used against the PCs as well?).
I have found that players want consistency, and their suspension of disbelief only works if they understand the rules of play. In other words, the same rules apply to the PCs as the NPCs.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
It really depends what kind of game you want to play. One-hit kills will encourage a sneaky-subterfuge type game where players try to set up elaborate schemes to sneak in and murder their enemies undetected. It will allow the rogue to infiltrate and cut through a goodly part of the enemies without the rest of the party. Is that what you want? Do you want the rogue going off on solo missions? Do you want the rogue sneaking ahead and clearing the way for the rest of the party?
Here's a few of your options:
1) any creature no matter how powerful they are can be one-hit killed in an assassination situation. This turns the game into one of security and subterfuge where the players need to protect themselves at night against assassination, and the players try to assassinate the enemies.
2) Mooks can be one-hit killed but bosses cannot. This encourages scouting ahead, infiltrating the outer layers of enemy security but ensures a classic battle when it comes to the BBEGs.
3) No one can be one-hit killed. This forces the party to always stick together as anyone who wanders off will be at serious risk if they encounter an enemy.
Once upon a time, when rogues were called thieves and sneak attack was known as backstab, thieves could inflict a backstab only if the target was unaware of the thief and the thief had to be behind the target. It was meant to be a stealth kill that started combat, and was very difficult to use once combat had already started.
D&D moved away from that in later editions. Now sneak attack is an ability that allows rogues extra damage that can be applied once per turn, and is so easy to qualify for that it can be applied in almost every turn of every combat.
If you want a rogue (or why limit it to a rogues, this works for any one) to one-shot in a stealth kill, all you need to do it have the target's hp be lower than the PC's average damage. IF the PC hits (likely with advantage if stealthed) and does at least average damage, the one-shot kill is successful.
This also avoids the conversations of 'what is a grunt and what is an important npc that doesn't qualify for the one-shot kill'. If its hp are less than the damage roll - it qualified. If its hp were more than the damage roll - it did not. If the PC misses or rolls minimum damage that isn't high enough to score the kill, then it was a fumbled attempt.
The mechanics to do what you want, are already there. There's no need to make an extra rule or ability to make it happen.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
This does not avoid having to figure out which enemies are or are not mooks, because there are very few monsters with less than 10 health, so the DM needs to lower their health for a one shot to be possible.
What is health in relation to the number 10? I can't find that in the 2024 PHB. I understand it might be in the 2024 DMG, but I am waiting on the a friend that has that book to tell me.
I'm not sure what you are considering a problem there? If the DM chooses a monster with low enough hit points that it can be killed in one hit, it's a mook. If they don't, it isn't.
^^ 100% this.
Sometimes a one-shot makes perfect sense. Sometimes it's easy to forget how unrealistic the hitpoint system is. The simple fact is, a rapier does not do "more damage" to a body than a humble dagger does. 3-4 inches of steel in the right location is a death sentence regardless. What a longer blade does, is allow you to strike from farther away. The best description I've been given is that the hit points represent the endurance of a combatant. "hits" are moves which help break down the enemy's defenses, and only the kill shots really fully get through, in which case a longer, heavier weapon doing more 'damage' makes sense.
For the example given, I'd 100% allow my rogue to 1-shot a guard. It makes thematic sense, and it's cool. The rogue CAN miss which would have catastrophic consequences. When designing the encounter, I'd probably plan on my guard potentially getting oneshot. He's a problem for the team to overcome. If they can do it quickly and quietly, I'd applaud that action and not punish them for it. One shotting a sleeping dragon? Probably not so much, they're going to need a fantastic plan for that.
I think my current DM handles it best. Even if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if the plan entertains him, he'll let it fly if we can pull it off. It's messed up some of his combats before, but those tend to be the ones we come back to when we're talking about great game moments. I think he marks that up as running the encounter correctly.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I'd be cautious about your claims. While the difference in power is unlikely to be particularly relevant against a realistic human scale target, that doesn't mean there's actually no difference.
Hit points represent the hard-to-kill-ness of a combatant; attempting to rationalize them is just going to get you in trouble.
I think Maruntoryx means 10 HP, or hit points.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie;
And with strange aeons even death may die"
-H.P. Lovecraft
It really depends on the specific context, but I allow it in my games when it seems most logical, like in the scenario you proposed, but I also don't make it easy for them. I prime example is from a while back the party was fighting this bandit king named Skorm in his throne room. They were fighting him and his minions and the rogue wanted to try a sneak attack exactly like this. In order to pull it off I made her have to do a bunch of stealth checks to get around the room and right behind him unnoticed, with increasing difficulty depending on the locations of the minions. Then she had to do a difficult athletics check to leap up and on to his back, and then roll an attack roll with an increased AC to hit the specific gap between his breast plate and chin, which she managed to do BARELY, so she took him out in one hit (technically he had taken some hits already but he had way more HP left than a single dagger strike would normally deal). I usually say that if the players can pull it of realistically, and pass checks along the way to make it a challenge and earned, it just makes sense ins some scenarios, so let them try,
Honestly, I would love to DM for a group of players who were interested in subterfuge, scheming, and creative problem solving rather than just being fed a story and waiting for the Three Magic Words. That sort of thing shows real investment in the game. Why shouldn't they be able to assassinate a powerful guild leader if their plan is solid enough? If one of my players picked Rogue and went with the Assassin subclass, I would make sure to weave in opportunities for them to assassinate various targets. Maybe they kill the archmage while asleep, but this triggers a defense mechanism and the real boss battle is the golem they have to fight. I'd totally lean into it if that's how my players wanted to play the game.
There's a lot of "stick to the mechanics" advice in this thread, but it can sometimes be better to have the rules get out of the way so your table can play the game how they want. Just my two cents.
I have Darkvision, by the way.