How is modern?

[Dismas]

Hey Khur,

All good. And you're totally right. I won't lie and say that it fits in perfectly with the rest of the game. I really wish that they had stun grenades that did nonlethal damage, or rules for something like a bigass bale of hay falling on you doing 4d6 nonlethal damage, or, you know, other places for it in the game. As it is, it feels tacked-on, and even though I like the mechanic for determining how it works out, it feels wrong anyway because that's the only place in the game where that particular mechanic gets used.

As a stun grenade causes the character to be dazed (which means they take no actions) what is to stop you from just bind and gagging them? Dumping a bigass bale hay on someone just sounds like GM common sense (to me). Also riot rounds (Ultra Modern Firearms & Modern Players Companion) turn shotguns into dealers of serious nonlethal damage dealers (Browning BPS - 2d10 nonlethal per shot).

 

[olethros]

If you make a successful feint in combat using the bluff skill can you use the Knockout Punch feat?

 

[Khur]

Well sort of. He was an admin pogue of the first order.

Huh? Sorry, but I don't get it.

As a stun grenade causes the character to be dazed (which means they take no actions) what is to stop you from just bind and gagging them? Dumping a bigass bale hay on someone just sounds like GM common sense (to me). Also riot rounds (Ultra Modern Firearms & Modern Players Companion) turn shotguns into dealers of serious nonlethal damage dealers (Browning BPS - 2d10 nonlethal per shot).

On the stun grenade thing, the fact that the person has his or her full bonus to Defense stops you from just binding and gagging them, first off. Secondly, I don't have info on the stun grenade (where is it?), but if the effects last only a round or two, that's not enough time to effectively bind and gag. If you're talking about the flash-bang, that's 1d6 rounds dazed, which is perhaps enough time barring the fact that the character has no penalty to Defense. As for 2d10 (avg. 11) nonlethal damage—pretty light if you ask me.

If you make a successful feint in combat using the bluff skill can you use the Knockout Punch feat?

My first instinct as a GM is to say yes. Unfortunately, a successful feint doesn't render a subject flat-footed, but only makes him lose his Dex bonus to Defense. That's not technically the same thing, so the rules don't really support my instinct. Perhaps the Q&A (Bullet Points?) on the WotC Modern site has more on this sort of thing.

 

[takyris]

Yeah, the designers officially said "Nope, you only get it if they're flat-footed". Which really means that "Knockout Punch" should really be called "Sucker Punch", since it's only useful at the very beginning of the combat.

It'd be a bit too powerful otherwise, though. Feint, Knockout Punch, which forces a nonlethal save, and even if they save, they lose their next round, during which you can Feint again... You could build a 6th or 8th level character who could, in a one-on-one fight, utterly trounce people far higher in level than him.

 

[Dismas]

Huh? Sorry, but I don't get it.

On the stun grenade thing, the fact that the person has his or her full bonus to Defense stops you from just binding and gagging them, first off. Secondly, I don't have info on the stun grenade (where is it?), but if the effects last only a round or two, that's not enough time to effectively bind and gag. If you're talking about the flash-bang, that's 1d6 rounds dazed, which is perhaps enough time barring the fact that the character has no penalty to Defense. As for 2d10 (avg. 11) nonlethal damage—pretty light if you ask me.

Yes I was talking about the flash bangs, they still have their full defense, but they can not take any actions. As a GM I would rule that you could bind and gag someone that was stunned.

Avg. 11 damage is good enough to force a check on an Average person. Sawn-off shotgun with riot rounds, both barrels will do 3d8 (avg. 13), double tapping with the Browning will give you 3d10 (avg. 17), both of these methods would be capable of doing enough nonlethal damage to force a check on an elephant (OK, they would need to roll a 1 to fail).

 

[Khur]

Yes I was talking about the flash bangs, they still have their full defense, but they can not take any actions. As a GM I would rule that you could bind and gag someone that was stunned.

Avg. 11 damage is good enough to force a check on an Average person. Sawn-off shotgun with riot rounds, both barrels will do 3d8 (avg. 13), double tapping with the Browning will give you 3d10 (avg. 17), both of these methods would be capable of doing enough nonlethal damage to force a check on an elephant (OK, they would need to roll a 1 to fail).

As the GM, of course, you're free to rule as you like, but dazed is not the same thing as stunned. (As an aside, nobody's trying to tell you how to run your own game--that's your business.) Someone hit by a flash bang is not helpless--they can still struggle. Someone who's stunned (a worse condition than dazed, because you get no Dex bonus to Defense and an additional -2) still isn't helpless enough, technically, to just be bound and gagged at the whim of an attacker.

This should still require at least an initial grapple of some sort. The initial hold to start a grapple is remarkably easy, yes, (victim has no attack of opportunity, no ability to tke the free action to oppose the grapple check, and so on). Should it be automatic? No.

So, what you really have then is the ability to at least start a grapple with the dazed/stunned person easily. It's easy to subdue them while they're dazed because they can't take a free action to oppose your subsequent grapple checks, However, it still takes 2 rounds to pin someone (round 1 touch attack and establish hold, round 2 pin, and etc.) Even a pin only means the victim is at a further -4 to Defense (not helpless).

Now, if the opponent were dazed for 3 rounds by a flash-bang, I've established it'd take 2 to subdue him with easy grapple checks. Record-holding rodeo jocks can tie a cow (a creature with no fine manipulators, and weak on its back) in about 4 seconds. Thus, in a really cinematic campaign a hero might be able to subdue and tie a dazed/stunned opponent in about 3 rounds. Hard-lining the rules, though, he should have to have help--maintaining the pin, while someone else ties the victim. However, neither scenario should garner the attacker(s) +10 bonus to tie the victim listed in Escape Artist.

As a player, I have to tell you that even the above scenario (the 3-round hogtie on my dazed character) would make me feel like a victim of GM fiat, if one person accomplished it. Railroaded. These loopholes in the rules would allow a couple of one-armed midgets to hogtie a water buffalo. Still, following them thusly is fairer than just being able to bind and gag a dazed (or stunned) character automatically.

As for nonlethal damage, I concede that 11 points of damage is enough to force a save on an average person, which does make the damage "enough" perhaps. The other things you bring up are interesting, but have nothing to do with the original argument you made, really.

My 5th-level Strong hero delineated earlier can do "enough" nonlethal damage to force a save on an elephant too. This is wonderfully cinematic in the concept, but the elephant's +12 Fortitude (statistics from the Monster Manual) pretty much precludes an actual knockout, due to the static Fort save DC of 15 (changeless, no matter how much nonlethal damage is done). In the occasions the elephant did roll a 1 or 2 on the save, it's still only out for 1d4+1 rounds (no matter how much nonlethal damage was done).

Of course, any GM would concede the KO'd elephant could be bound, assuming more than one round to act on the helpless creature. The elephant's 30 Str would make its escape from average rope bonds fairly easy, though.

Thanks for the lively discussion. These are just my opinions, whether supported by the rules or not. Once again, it's your game. This is all academic if everyone accepts your ruling and is still having fun. It's fun to talk about this stuff, to me, because it never fails to make the rules clearer in my mind, and therefore easier to use in play.

 

[Dismas]

Thanks for the lively discussion. These are just my opinions, whether supported by the rules or not. Once again, it's your game. This is all academic if everyone accepts your ruling and is still having fun. It's fun to talk about this stuff, to me, because it never fails to make the rules clearer in my mind, and therefore easier to use in play.

Ditto

 

[Spatula]

But the really bad thing about the vehicle rules is the way damage to passengers is handled. Any vehicle that provides three-quarters or more cover (including most passenger cars) allows occupants to avoid all damage from a collision. Airplanes provide nine-tenths cover. You see my meaning?

I've run into this. The cover also makes it pratically impossible to shoot anyone inside a car, especially during a chase. Seems the only way to end a chase is to ram the other car until it stops moving (which is okay, since you won't take any damage from the collisions). Modern's vehicle rules are... blah.

I'm also not fond of the non-lethal rules. It really is pointless unless you've devoted a lot of feats to it. Not very cinematic when the heroes can't KO a low-level goon without being totally devoted to knocking people out.

Several actions (burst fire, force stop, etc.) should be possible to attempt without having a feat. You'd be taking extra penalties, sure (like two-weapon fighting or autofire), but the way things are set up now feels very artificial. It is, again, not very cinematic when the heroes can't even attempt to do something without having been designed with that action in mind.

Some of the gun rules are a little screwy, like autofire. And the wealth system has its quirks.

Hmmm, I didn't mean to bitch quite so much. I guess the reason to get d20 Modern is the classes, and the occupations. Occupations are a wonderful character customization tool, and should have been imported into D&D when they did the revision. A really, really, just great idea.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

Zip Ties.
They're as simple to use as, "insert Tab A into Slot B", so taking time to tie a knot isn't an issue. They have a break DC of 25, Disable Device and Escape Artist checks against them automatically fail, they're cheap, and you can carry a whole pocket-full of them more easily than a single pair of handcuffs.
Love 'em. There's no better way to restrain someone in D20M unless you include killing them or sealing them in cement in the restraint category. Effective though those methods are, they still aren't as convenient as the zip ties.

If you don't carry the proper equipment, you can't expect optimum results.
Ditto for training. Nobody is a one-punch machinegun like Mickey O'Neil unless they have a decent strength score and lots of fighting experience (and in D&D that translates to levels and feats). Maybe it should be a little easier to KO someone, maybe not. Some people have gone with VP/WP to fix this or use a similar house rule. Maybe WoTC just didn't want to change the whole system around just to fix one thing. I 'dunno'.

The burst rules seem pretty spot on to me.

If I sound sort of like I could care less it's because this issue has been rehashed about a thousand times on these boards alone.

 

[Khur]

Zip Ties.

*snip*

Some people have gone with VP/WP to fix this or use a similar house rule. Maybe WoTC just didn't want to change the whole system around just to fix one thing. I 'dunno'.

The burst rules seem pretty spot on to me.

If I sound sort of like I could care less it's because this issue has been rehashed about a thousand times on these boards alone.

Interesting that you choose to respond even though "you could care less", but I'm glad you did. Zip ties are a brilliant solution, and one I had considered. They weren't entirely relevant to the argument above, because we were really talking about whether you should be able to bind someone "at will" when they're dazed. Zip ties don't provide a gag, either.

Just as asides, WotC wouldn't have had to change anything to use the Wound Point system. It was already developed for Star Wars. Secondly, if there are a lot of threads complaining about these issues, that is at least some evidence that there are problems with the system. Whether these are problems in perception is really irrelevant.

If the burst rules seem spot on to you, why? Do you have some relevant experience in real world burst fire? If so, the information you have to share is very valuable. If not, your assessment is just speculation. A friend of mine wrote an article for d20 Magazine Rack in which he, not being a military man himself, interviewed some infantrymen on the subject of burst fire.

Long story short, the infantry men said that burst fire is mainly a way to lower ammo consumption on the battlefield, while keeping a lot of lead in the air (suppression fire). The training is relatively simple, and virtually everyone who gets it can master it (no Wis 13+ for the Burst Fire feat, at the very least). Mechanical governance on weapons (3-round or 5-round burst setting) is to prevent the average soldier from firing about 6 shots with a controlled, full-auto burst. On burst fire (3-round), the first shot is usually quite accurate, the second shot will hit a target at a reasonable range, and at short range (say, one increment) the whole burst will hit. The second and third bullet, when they do hit, do full damage to the target. Even Charles Ryan, who wrote Bullet Points on WotC's site to support the design of the d20 Modern system, seems to agree with this because he says (emphasis mine), "...after the first couple of bullets have left the weapon, the others invariably fly wide and wild". Of course, if the bullet misses, it has flown "wide" of its target—what he means by wild is another question.

Now if you want to simulate the A-Team, all the gunplay rules are fine. If you want more realistic action, you may have a hard time with Modern. While this is fine for the veteran GM, who can modify the rules and do so well, the novice is left without any tools to adjust the danger level.

A simple system would put recoil penalties (a fixed figure, possibly different for each gun) on shots after the first. Using one attack roll, one could determine any number of hits. Feats could mitigate such penalties. Then the poor fool hit by multiple rounds takes full damage from all of them. A hail of bullets is not at all like a fireball, it's more like a swarm of magic missiles. Thus, it's arguable that a dragon that totally occupies a square filled with autofire should take damage from all 10 rounds. (It's also arguable, though less so, that a creature who takes up more than one square should take more damage from a fireball, but I digress.)

What the rules for both nonlethal damage and guns in d20 Modern really provide is tight control of "fight-ending" mechanics. The designers didn't want powerful characters (especially PCs) going down in one attack. Thus, they leveled gun damage, put restrictive, unrealistic, and un-cinematic restraint on gunplay, and did the same to nonlethal damage.