My Loremaster has been avoiding utilising No Quarter

No Quarter

If the creature has just knocked out a character, reduce
its Hate point score by one point to immediately roll a
second attack on the same target using the creature’s
secondary weapon (against the usual TN): if the roll
succeeds with a great or extraordinary success, the
target is considered to have been administered a coup
de grace and is killed (regardless of damage inflicted).

Is this 'too powerful' - or should death be a common(er) occurence?
Have other Loremasters been avoiding using this?
What alternative sanction to death would you suggest.

There is a brief discussion here
http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?tr...&showtopic=2585
But they suggest it is a significant villain's power... not as common as my Loremaster suggests? Though he notes the brigands on Page 57 of Tales from the Wilderland. As a group!

Any views on how common the skill should be?

I don't use that power as long as there are other characters standing and fighting. Why spend time (and Hate) to kill a knocked-out character until the fight is over?

That seems to be a good workaround - intelligent villains know to keep their resources (Hate) and focus on those that can do them harm.

However it remains a nuclear option and it take no time (immediate); what if the foe is desperate or has no hope of victory and wishes to lash out? What if the villain wants to make a point of it's power?

It seems precarious to have a power that there is a gentleman's agreement not to use.

Why not swap it out for something actually useful to the villains? If the intent of the module writers was to have a genuine band of cut throat villains ... what could replace it?

I think that No Quarter can work great if the players started the combat aware that their PCs may die there, and when the situation is dramatic enough. If, like, one of the characters first betrayed the others in a Bout of Madness, but soon after that regained common sense and charged into crowd of foes to save his companions, I would No-Quater him with no remorse .

I'm always reticent about using things like this in my games as I don't really like killing PCs due to the work, time, and commitment my players put into the game and their characters. Although, the option is there should the scenario/narrative of the game require such mortal threats, so occasionally I could see a use.

If the "No Quarter" trait wasn't appropriate for the particular circumstances of the game then I'd probably alter the power so that spending a point of Hate after a character was knocked out would allow the creature to immediately attack another opponent engaged with them (or one nearby).

I don't know whether there's a trait similar to this already or not - I don't have my rulebooks to hand!

Well I've wondered about this myself and was a bit concerned about it.
It does seem a little harsh, it makes sense on the Hill Troll chief in the main book, but I'm still in two minds about using it for average goons. Saying that, I've added some more foes that use the ability (more bandits and the like) to my extra adversaries list - see Rich H's document.

I've not used the ability myself yet, but it does concern me. Perhaps human opponents are more cutthroat/decisive in battle.

From a realism perspective, No Quarter does make a certain sense. For high-intensity conflict situations, we train to "double-tap/stab" everything on the objective during the assault. You do this in order to ensure that no opponent is "playing possum" in order to cause mischief after you have advanced past their position.

For those familiar with Tom Clancy's PATRIOT GAMES, (the book) you may recall that during the initial scene, Jack Ryan shoots one of the terrorists after already stunning him in order to ensure the terrorist does not get back into the fight. This is basically the same phenomenon.

That all said (or written), like others, I am uncomfortable with putting an ability like No Quarter in the hands of rank-and-file TOR adversaries because it seems unnecessarily deadly to the heroes. It seems quite appropriate, however, for the worst villains and is far from unrealistic.

I think this is a good idea. I think I'll use that myself, seems fairer.

I've just realised that the Easterlings in TFW have the ability 'No Quarter'. They don't have secondary weapons though....oops

I haven't played any adversaries with No Quarter yet, so I haven't had to confront the matter head-on. I wonder, though, if it would work to houserule it:
Instead of issuing a coup de grace, activating No Quarter changes the victim's health status from knocked-out to dying.

That would preserve the spirit of the ability as it appears in the rulebook, but it would still give the heroes a chance to recover should they survive the fight. I don't like to kill player-characters "out of the blue," but I could see something like this adding some drama--rather than just feeling random.

I dont think this special ability is too powerful. It can be powerful, but like many others(horrible strenght,savage assault,great size,bewilder).

One must keep in mind that to be able to use no quarter on a player character, he must be knocked out by the no quarter"er" ennemy.

And knocked out mean that you got a second wound(without going down to zero Endurance at the same time, in wich case your dead).

And the no quarter ability cost hate and is not guaranteed to succeed.

Looking at the rules about Life and Death, one can see that a character is a fragile thing.

Zero END= Your unconscious.
Wounded= recover Endurance slowly.
Wounded twice but still got END= You are knocked out. (wich lead to unconsciousness).
Wounded and zero END= Passes out and his dying.
Already wounded and wounded again, and at the same moment, going down to zero END= Killed.

I like that idea.

The mobs with No Quarter seem to all have secondary weapon skills of 2, so if I did my math correctly, there's only a 31% chance of getting a second great or extraordinary success. Those are good odds of failure.

Whilst the chances are low per individual - when an entire gang of men have this skill - the odds shift dramatically! Arguing the odds are low only works if it is a rare skill for particularly vicious killers.

Normally when fighting a band of brigands you as a player have some expectation of being able to manage the risks of being wounded. Against a signature villain you expect a steeper challenge and maybe a surprising power.

Equipping a band of men with No Quarter gives them all the ability to do 'surprising' instant kills. This is I think is 'grittier' than the other paths to player death, which generally have an obvious step between one injury rating and the next. They also normally allow you intervene; to change stance after being struck mightily with use of knockback, flee battle once wounded, or be merely in danger of coup de grace once knocked out. The collapse of knockout and death into one villain's swift action denies the player(s) any chance to intervene.

Obviously it is good to occasionally disrupt the players understanding of the game. However a band of No Quarter Easterlings are a hot set of dice away from a total party kill!

[Having re-read the Knocked Out rules though I was blithely unaware it was when enjoying a Second Wound but without Endurance 0. This makes it rarer and mitigates the missing step as the player should be desperate to fight on wounded!]

Yeah I kind of forgot there was a difference between knocked out and unconscious, thanks for pointing it out Blind Guardian.

No Quarter doesn't seem so bad now.

I'm wondering if "No Quarter" actually intends to make the difference between "knocked out" and "unconscious". Why would you finish off a twice wounded guy but not an unconscious one? To bo honest, I'd rather have the ability trigger more often, because I can't remember any of the characters in my group being wounded twice. If one wants to soften "No Quarter" a bit, maybe one could allow the spending of one Hope to avoid it.

Also keep in mind that other characters in defensive position can protect their comrades by taking the hit.

This is one of the few cases that I would warn players at the beginning of the fight that their enemy has an ability. It may be couched in the narrative ("you know that these orcs will show no quarter to those who fall"), but definitely let them know that getting knocked out can be the end.

... then I'd let it ride and see what happens.

Yeah, looking at this again I was thinking something similar.

I'd prefer No Quarter to be used in a wider context but to a less severe degree. So something along the lines of:

No Quarter can be used on any unconscious character and succeeding with the action changes the victim's health status to dying*.

* So, any character dying needs to be treated effectively in 12 hours. Therefore they don't die straight away, but No Quarter can be used on a character that's *just* unconscious (ie, zero endurance) whereas in the RAW it can only be used on a character that is Knocked Out - a specific state in the rules.

Unconscious characters can be killed with a Coup de Grâce. No need to use No Quater there.

And "Knocked Out" characters are:

"immediately ... unconscious." (page 143 of AB)

And such characters can therefore be killed with a Coup de Grâce, so No Quarter is offering nothing different in that reqard as per the RAW. The difference appears to be that No Quarter doesn't require a combat turn to administer in the same way that Coup de Grâce does and can only be used in the specific instance when a character is "Knocked Out" and requires a great or extraordinary success to succeed.

I really don't see the point of it as a trait to be honest. Many LMs will shy away from using it due to PC mortality, when used it costs a Hate and then only succeeds on a great+ success. LMs that "want" to kill a PC (whatever the motivation - eg, just great lethality or because it fits the narrative) will just use Coup de Grâce as that can be used on knocked out characters as well as other unconscious states brought about by other circumstances and is guaranteed to succeed.

I'm personally going to go back to my original suggestion of altering it so that spending a point of Hate after a character was knocked out would allow the creature to immediately attack another opponent in a close combat stance.

That to in my opinion has a broader application that all LMs will use rather than the current one which is extremely rare in its application and many LMs won't like using purely because it could kill a PC.

You would be right if the entire gang were focused on on player. Otherwise, paired off, the chances are the same. However, if the company is already outnumbered by 2-3 to one, then the outcome is already in favour of the opponents, regardless if No Quarter is present.

Rename No Quarter to Cleave.

I don't believe that's an accurate assessment.


6 bad guys are six times as likely to be presented the opportunity to use this skill that they all have, compared to one single creature's chance of activation.



to put another way:

In D&D, Flesh Golems have a 10% of going "beserk" after they take damage. If there were 6 flesh golems present, it's six times as likely that this will happen at least once.

Personally I like the "knocked Out" being transitioned to "dying" idea.

Narrated as the attacker turns the blade wickedly after impaling the PC. (as seen iconically in brutal melee scenes in movies).


"He was twitching."
"He was twitching....because he's got my axe buried in his nervous system!"

Yeah, a 47% of at least one golem cranking up as long as each one takes damage. So if you only focus on one golem at a time, there's still only a 10% of it occurring.


So even with 6 opponents, remember for the overall chance of NQ to increase, the initial criteria still has to be met.

If it is 6 vs 6 and all six members of the company are knocked unconscious that round -- completing the initial criteria which allows six chances of NQ occurring -- then yes, there is a greater chance of NQ happening to a random character....... but with everyone unconscious, NQ is moot point.

Forgive me math was not my strongest subject but i ran this by my 12 year old daughter and she seems to agree with me that even if you attacked the flesh golems one at a time the combat will take longer and thus six times as many combat rounds and thus six times as many opportunities to roll the possible 10% .


Sure each time you roll dice its a ten percent chance. If you drive home drunk; one night you may kill someone. If you drive home drunk six nights your six times as likely to kill someone

To her, she seems to consider it pretty simple math. Ive learned not to disagree with her.

Or as Tyler Durden once put it: given a long enough timeline; the survivability rate of everything drops to zero.

More opportunities, yes, but you can't multiply the probability by 6. After all, even if there were 10 golems, the probability of one of them going berserk would not be 10×10% = 100%.

It's easier to compute the probability of none of them going berserk, which is 90% to the power of the number of occurences. I don't know how the ability works exactly, but if there is one occurence per golem, then you get 0.9^6 = 0.53, so there is a 47% chance of the opposite happening (at least one of them going berserk).

If there is one occurence per combat round and per golem, assuming the combat takes 20 rounds, you get about 0.2^20 = 12% chances of none of them going berserk, or 88% chances of the opposite happening.

Yeah, Yusei is right. If you have a 10% chance of something happening and do it six times then the chance of it happening at least once is not six times 10%. Probability simply doesn't work like that.

You have to calculate it based on the chance of it never happening as Yusei correctly has done.

Could do and simply get rid of No Quarter or replace it with Cleave for those enemies that have it.

Thank you for detailing that.

In the end, I didn't say it would be a 60% chance. Just that it was <more> likely to happen, and that there would be six times as long of a combat with which to potentially enact the ability.

In short: the more combatants that have a certain ability, the more likely it will/can be used - simply by increasing the frequency of attempts.

Whether it's playing Russian Roulette, living a promiscuous lifestyle, walking blindly across a freeway, or fighting a flesh golem, the more often you do it, the more chances of getting shellacked.

All that being said - like many others, I too am reluctant to use such an ability against players except in the cases of a rare truly vile BBEG. Having the ability knock one from "Knocked-Out" to "Dying" makes more sense for other ruffians.

Have to admit, I'm a fan of lethality in a campaign but, I'm a grog and a regular B/X player so, stands to reason.

To the OP - I can see where your LM would be reluctant to use the power (along with CdG) since it could, clearly, be seen by the players as a "Killer DM" move (to borrow a phrase from D&D).

I think, ultimately, it's up to you and the other players to decide, along with your LM, as to whether you, as players, are willing to risk a PC death in your campaign. Your LM could also simply let the dice decide, if/when it ever comes up. I do agree that a little broadcasting from your LM in the way of description will go a long way toward allowing you, as a player, to make meaningful decisions around when, how, and whether to fight or simply run away from an enemy with this skill.

Some enemies are simply beyond you . . . .

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I guess when math gets tossed around, the names start to blur together.

Well I wasn't disagreeing with you Evening but Yusei put out a clearer explanation of the reasoning which I thought was important.

It's hardly a big deal though as this really is very simple mathematics.

Exactly!