House rule: Knockouts and the Average Joe

[Mistwell]

Originally posted by jonrog1 Ah, but unfortunately -2 is DYING in the D20 Modern rules.

It's unconscious, with a good chance you will recover on your own without any attention at all. You might die, but you have a decent chance also of living. And pretty much any attention from a third party, and you will live just fine (which is what usually happens in real world fights).

And an unarmed schmuck can't do that damage without "training" (a feat).

And that is where your arguement breaks down, because you are totally incorrect. ANYONE can do lethal damage with your fists. You just take a 20% decrease in the chance you will hit (actually usually less, but that is the worst case senario). Translated, you take a -4 to attack to convert to lethal damage.

Plus, you're contextualizing the rules, giving intent to the characters, where good rules are context free.

Look who is contextualizing the rules here! You take the titles - lethal and nonlethal - and you attribute their titles to their functions (killing and unconcious) even though, when viewed context free, either could be used for killing or knocking unconscious (the nonlethal can be used for this by following it up with a lethal coup de grace). Lethal unarmed damage, viewed context free, is a very effective way of knocking someone out without killing them.

Now, all the above is the "this is why a few people are looking for a House Rule for something they don't quite think works." The following's a mini-rant:

Dude, what up? JPL wants to tweak a rule. ForceUser comes up with a nice broad-based tiny rules-fix. Compliments all 'round, and a discussion on making sure it's not overpowered. Then you paratroop in here basically to say that "none of this discussion is necessary. The system's fine. Look, here's my shiny math showing so." What's the point of that, man? Why jump in here with the big buzzkill, and a flawed argument to boot?

We don't want vulcan nerve pinches. We never said that. We frikkin' agree that to regularly knock people out requires training. We just want it to be SLIGHTLY more likely that in a fight, somebody might get stunned or knocked out, a situation that seems to mirror reality just a little bit more. I state that this is the motivation for the ruels tweak REPEATEDLY (tediously, one might say...). Yet you ignore that and reframe the discussion in a way that makes sense for your point. You're not disagreeing with the way we're tackling the problem, the way you're posting comes across as saying our problem is invalid.

I'm making a point of telling you why it is unecessary for you to change the rules simply because we are talking about a group of people here that, for the most part, NEVER EVEN TRIED THE RULES AS WRITTEN TO BEGIN WITH, but somehow think they are WAY smarted than the authors and can "fix" the system before it is broken. You call it a "tiny fix", but it is FAR from tiny. I really don't think you have considered the consequences to balance. WOTC playtested a similar rule to the one proposed here, AND REJECTED IT FOR BALANCE REASONS. It totally changes the impact of some feat chains, some of the talents, and the use of future products. It isn't a tiny change, which is why I am speaking up!

Granted, some have actually played the rules as written (though the one that comes to mind totally forgot he could convert unarmed damage to be lethal by simply taking a -4, and it would have totally changed the result of the combat that made him upset about the system to begin with), but most have not even encountered the "problem" before trying to "solve" it.

And then look at yourself - the primary fix for the situation you are upset with is converting unarmed combat to lethal by taking a -4 attack penalty (and Charles Ryan even said that is the whole reason for that rule) - and it seems like you never considered it. Doesn't that tell you that the rules work together in a fairly complex way that MIGHT just make the rule, as written, result in more realistic and balanced results?

Arrogantly, as relatively bright humans, we believe our small problem may be valid. Crazy us.

Maybe it's the flat-affect nature of posting, but you tend to come across as discourteous and condescending.

Hey, I never insulted a single person in this thread. I just said "here is my perspective - try the rules as written first, I think you will find they work better than you think they will". I spoke up because, having read every damn word Charles Ryan has said about d20 Modern so far while compiling the FAQ, I have seen a LOT of discussion about rules changes and this rule in particular, and nobody else was offering the other sides that I had seen, so I figured people would want to hear it.

However, in your rant, you have called me discourteous, condescending, a paratrooper, a buzzkiller, and a worker of "shiny math", not to mention serious sarcasm, none of which was provoked by any similar behavior. So what gives? Why the attack?

We get it, You think the system's fine. What we're trying to do makes no sense to you. Can we go back to discussing our little changes, now?

And I get you loud and clear. You think any dissention, any discussion of use of the rules as written, and any debate about alternatives should not be discussed in this thread, since it is all just a buzzkiller without any relavance to the discussion. Nice.

 

[Forcegypsy]

Harsh.

Look before this degenerates any further, I think we should take a breath. I just read through the whole thread and for the life of me I can't tell which 'fix' is being talked about there at the end.

Mistwell, what is your specific objection and to which house rule?

- small aside here, thanks btw for keeping track of CR's rulings both here and on the WotC board, much appreciated. -

I'll clarify my position so there is no misunderstanding. I like the way d20 Modern deals with damage, both lethal and non-lethal. I have an established group of experienced roleplayers and I have GM'd d20 Modern for a few months now. In my d20 modern game I like the action to be a blend between realistic consequences and cinematic action.

A few times in game, there have been situations where it was appropiate for the pc's to attempt to in movie-like fashion, knock-out a flunkie without doing any permanent damage. I felt that the rules as written didn't allow for that without considerable focus on the brawl chain of feats or the use of exotic materials.

I didn't want to nerf someone who actually took the feats, but I wanted it to be possible for low level flunkies (1st or 2nd level) to be dropped relatively easily. From discussion the rule I proposed evolved.

Here it is again (slightly edited for clarity):

Non-lethal damage from a single blow results in a Fort save (DC 15) to avoid knock-out under the following conditions:

1- non-lethal damage equals or exceeds current Con score

2- non-lethal damage equals or exceeds current hit points;

No muss, no fuss, no extra calculations and gives the desired movie-style takedowns of low level mooks.

It is meant for a specific style of play. It is not meant to 'fix' any perceived flaws in the game. It is a tweak that fits my gaming table. I offered it here for anyone who might have had the same issues crop up.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it is being playtested. So far, it seems to fit seemlessly into the regular rules. Best of all, it is transparent to the players. They don't have to deal with it, no extra rolls, nothing.

I'll wait for a response then offer constructive criticism of the other house rules on this thread.

 

[Skanth]

I have a problem with the rules as written because they just don't make sense to my mind.

An ordinary joe in a bar fight doesn't know about about lethal punches, non-lethal punches, he just hits.
My players will say something like "I smash my fist into his face!" I don't want to ask them if they are doing it in a lethal or non-lethal way. What's the difference?
Also my players wont accept that they can kick and punch a guy x times and have no affect whatsoever on him.
In fact changing from one style of attack (non-lethal) to another (lethal) actually implies some sort of skill and training and sounds more like a martial art.
Also a -4 is a big deal to low level characters.

What am I going to go with?
Something like pbartender's idea I guess or maybe stick with subdual damage but increase its healing time.

 

[JPL]

Oh, Mistwell's just an argumentative shyster, that's all. I'm familiar with the type.

But I did, in fact, GM a d20 game a few weeks ago which had lots of fisticuffs, and I'd just like to tweak something so KOs are more frequent --- for dramatic purposes, it's handy to be able to take out a PC but leave them with plenty of HPs for the next fight.

In my Victorian pulp game, I had a giant Scottsman pummeling two of the heroes at once. Despite an 18 Strength and Melee Smash, I just couldn't get a KO --- those PCs had high Constitutions.

Finally, I was inspired. The game was set in Hong Kong and the jungles of Indochina...so suddenly in mid-fight, Angus the kilted Highlander suddenly fell into a Seven Dragons Stance and started fighting with the Combat Martial Arts. He was a giant redheaded Shaolin warrior.

 

[Forcegypsy]

JPL - The difference to my mind between lethal and non-lethal unarmed damage is very apparent. It is up to the GM to describe it. It is the difference between just punching away and going for the throat and kidneys.

I don't know how many real life fights any of you have seen or been in. I am unsure what to think when I read posts about people falling unconcious willy-nilly.

In my experience most fights end when one person submits, or the antagonists just get exhausted (this happens very quickly with peoply unused to fighting). I have only ever seen one person go unconcious from injury and let me tell you it was scary. Unconciousness brought on by injury always warrants a visit to the doctor (if you have free medicare ) as it can be a warning sign of a life threatening condition.

I personally have fallen unconcious only once. It turns out I had pneumonia and had exhausted myself shoveling.

The knocked-out condition is really more of a semi-concious state. It only lasts for a few rounds and not the minutes/hours (?) you get from subdual damage.

JPL - was the purpose of your encounter to get the pc's in a helpless condition? Assessing threat can be the hardest part of being the GM (mechanics part anyway). Was your scotsman alone? Against how many PC's? What was the difference in levels.
Did you think of using grappling?

I've lost count of how many times in the past an encounter didn't go as planned because the PC's were more resilient than I had anticipated. Throwaway npc's generally have to designed specifically for the purpose they are intended for otherwise they can get walked over. Generally it is almost always a good idea to outnumber the pc's. Let them calculate the odds and give themselves up. K-O's are really only usefull from surprise anyway.

Pbartender - Is your fort save mechanic triggered whenever non-lethal damage is taken? An immediate problem I see with that is that it hardly matters how good your save is. This will really favor the npc's. The more rolls you force your pc's to make, the more likely they will fail regardless of their save (1 in 20 chance to fail - increasing the statistical chance of failure with every roll made)

 

[Pbartender]

Pbartender - Is your fort save mechanic triggered whenever non-lethal damage is taken? An immediate problem I see with that is that it hardly matters how good your save is. This will really favor the npc's. The more rolls you force your pc's to make, the more likely they will fail regardless of their save (1 in 20 chance to fail - increasing the statistical chance of failure with every roll made)

Yes, but...

The consquences are also different for my roll. In the original rules, you roll less often, but even if your save succeeds, you are still stunned. For mine, nothing happens for success, but what happens when you fail depends on how badly you fail.

It could be changed to "Knocked Out if the save fails by 10 or more" instead only 5 or more... Stunned more often, with a slim chance of being KO'd.

And don't forget... "What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander." Anything that NPCs can do, so can the PCs, and vice versa. So, if I'm increasing the chances of a PC getting KO'd, then the same goes for the NPCs. And on average, the PCs will be better (stronger, better equipment, more feats, higher Forts, etc.) at this sort of thing than their enemies.

 

[Forcegypsy]

Pbartender -

Understood. I agree that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I was, however, referring to the fact that there are always more npc's than pc's. Your pc's will always end up making more rolls.

I have seen variations of your rule. It resembles the save used in the v/wp alternate system except that you only have to roll that save when a character takes Wound damage. I hope it works at your table. Keep in mind you are changing the system in a way that might have unintended effects at higher levels. Only playtesting will tell you for sure. I can't use your proposal at my table for two reasons:

1- I have a real aversion to extra rolling and more importantly so do my players.

2- I try to change as little as possible when I make a house rule so that there aren't any unintended effects.

 

[JPL]

Well...the bad guys were the Scotsman [Strong 6], a Hungarian saber master [Strong 3/Fast 3], four trained albino attack apes, four beautiful scantily clad slave girls/bodyguards [Fast 2], and Hanoi Xan, the Scourge of Burma, the Eternal Spider [so deadly I didn't even bother to stat him out].

The good guys were all 6th level --- a British gentleman-detective, a Swedish assassin [oddly enough], a Spanish bullfighter, an Aussie ex-con, a Japanese kendo instructor, and a Legionnaire turned jungle guide.

Earlier, the heroes had been drugged [damn blowdarts] and abducted. They awoke disarmed and chained to stakes, part of an unholy ritual.

They managed to escape [some sooner than others] and mix it up with three waves of bad guys --- henchmen, apes, and ladies. But other that one guy with a knife and one who grabbed a sword, they did it with only the chains that had bound them as weapons.

So anyway...I realized that they were badly outmatched and low on HP, so I had Angus start with some non-lethal fisticuffs. Better to get KO'd and then make a dramatic recovery than get taken out completely through loss of HP.

But Angus went five rounds or so without scoring that KO, so I decided to mix it up a little --- for a big guy, he wasn't doing too much.

All of these guys were trained fighters, so the proposed house rule wouldn't've mattered...but it just made me think, I like KOs, and I'd like to see them a little more often.

 

[Mistwell]

Oh, Mistwell's just an argumentative shyster, that's all.

Excuse me? You're now calling me professionally unscrupulous? What the hell! How is that called for?

 

[Forcegypsy]

Mistwell,

I think JPL was kidding (dismissive humour or something like that, but I think that was the intent, at least that's how I read the smiley at the end of that - sometimes I hate the internet.) If you were truthfully offended then simply ask for an apology.

Otherwise, anything to add to the topic at hand? I've played with the rules as written and simply added seasoning for style of play. Fundamental changes are anathema. As an aside, I'm glad to see CR has clarified the official position on the brawl feats. Like 'em or not at least now you can see how they are supposed to work.