Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 633489" data-attributes="member: 2525">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 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.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.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?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?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.</blockquote>

Verification