Nonlethal Damage

[Water Bob]

Yes, I see what you're saying.

But they're both measured in hit points (and even use the same scales), so anything that applies to the oddness of hit points similarly applies to nonlethal damage. Ergo, you can do nonlethal slashing and piercing damage with a knife, overcoming DR 5/Slashing.

Therefore, there's no mandate to describe it as being done with the pommel of the knife.

I'm afraid you've lost me. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make or the direction you're taking the thread.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You asked:

And, another queston: If you've got a dagger, how do you deliver nonlethal damge with it? Using the pommel, not the blade?

The answer is, "You do nonlethal damage in exactly the same way as you do normal damage; it's measured in hit points, which includes all of the bizarre abstractions that hit points require; it is not required that you hit them with the pommel, because nonlethal damage from a dagger still carries the piercing and slashing types (it will overcome DR 5/Slashing, for instance, while pommel-smacking for bludgeoning damage would not); if you applied injury-type poison to your dagger, you'd still apply it even if you were doing nonlethal damage. The only differences are that it heals faster, counts up, and knocks you out instead of killing you."

 

[Water Bob]

The answer is, "You do nonlethal damage in exactly the same way as you do normal damage; it's measured in hit points, which includes all of the bizarre abstractions that hit points require; it is not required that you hit them with the pommel, because nonlethal damage from a dagger still carries the piercing and slashing types (it will overcome DR 5/Slashing, for instance, while pommel-smacking for bludgeoning damage would not); if you applied injury-type poison to your dagger, you'd still apply it even if you were doing nonlethal damage. The only differences are that it heals faster, counts up, and knocks you out instead of killing you."

OK, gotcha. I'm back with you, now.

You see, I was asking for a rationalization of where'd a dagger would deliver nonlethal damage. But, I understand you thought I was asking about game mechanics, since the thread discusses both.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

OK, gotcha. I'm back with you, now.

You see, I was asking for a rationalization of where'd a dagger would deliver nonlethal damage. But, I understand you thought I was asking about game mechanics, since the thread discusses both.

... which brings us back to my first point:

"pommel, really shallow slashes that are more painful than deadly, intentionally missing so that your opponent has to dodge-but-not-as-hard-as-if-you-were-fighting-for-reals ..."

Hit point damage - lethal or otherwise - is abstract. Describing someone who has taken a couple points of damage as having been forced to dodge out of the way, winding themselves slightly, is perfectly acceptable (and, given the "I can take 4 attacks from a longsword-wielding opponent without flinching," somewhat required).

Nonlethal damge follows the same logic.

 

[Water Bob]

"pommel, really shallow slashes that are more painful than deadly, intentionally missing so that your opponent has to dodge-but-not-as-hard-as-if-you-were-fighting-for-reals ..."

Understood.

Hit point damage - lethal or otherwise - is abstract. Describing someone who has taken a couple points of damage as having been forced to dodge out of the way, winding themselves slightly, is perfectly acceptable (and, given the "I can take 4 attacks from a longsword-wielding opponent without flinching," somewhat required).

And, agreed.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So ... uh ... Next question, then?

I don't always agree* with the direction you want to take things, but you certainly ask interesting questions.

* As in, I don't think I would particularly enjoy them in a long-term campaign; not that they're bad ideas or wrong.

 

[Water Bob]

So ... uh ... Next question, then?

Done!

Look for my question on when to roll Initiative!

I don't always agree* with the direction you want to take things, but you certainly ask interesting questions.

* As in, I don't think I would particularly enjoy them in a long-term campaign; not that they're bad ideas or wrong.

I get the impression that many people think my game is a mish-mash of house rules. They'd really be surprised if they came and gamed with me. I just ran a session yesterday.

And, just yesterday, I incorporated my first house rule! The rest of the game is completely RAW (but I do use the optional Active Defense rule--I don't consider that a "House Rule" as it's an official option).

The House Rule I implemented was the 1d8 or 1d4 throw (see other thread) to determine if nonlethal damage actually delievers lethal damage.

I think of a lot of scenarios and investigate a lot of things. I enjoy talking mechanics and "what ifs".

But, none of that stuff touches my game until it is fully tested and thought out--and much I post about is just me thinking out loud, not looking to alter my game.

Doesn't look like I play that way from the outside, though, does it?

Heck, you probably have more house rules in your game than I do (if you have two house rules, then you do!)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Heck, you probably have more house rules in your game than I do (if you have two house rules, then you do!)

Heh - the current PF game I'm playing in, the only house rule I know of is "Max HP at level-up."

The last game I ran, right before this current game, had me turning 3.5 into 3.75 by stealing a lot of 4E and Star Wars Saga Edition, so I had about two typed pages of house rules.

So, guilty as charged.