Non-Lethal Damage Rules

[Tellerve]

I think there's a danger to reading the rules in a vacuum. You're looking at a worst-case scenario and then implying that most adventures will be like that, and I don't entirely believe that to be the case.

Ok first off I just wanna say how this struck me as kinda funny considering your "brawler" build is pretty much a "best-case" for knocking people out. One of the things Psion has been saying is that he wants more normal people to be able to knock people out. Although as someone noted it was possible with a 1d3+2 crit for max damage to force a knock out.

Some more generalized concerns/gripes/thoughts I have on the non-lethal. You mentioned that it is really easy to make the Fort DC 20 saves to resist loosing hitpoints when your at -1. Then wouldn't that fort dc 15 to resist getting knocked out be just really easy?

I also really don't like the fact that they made brawl and combat martial arts different. It would appear you would agree, although you don't say so, when you say that being able to knock people out without harming them requires more skill. But by d20 modern has a nonlethal combat master, "brawler" is better at hitting and doing more damage. I just think what they should have done is this, make a martial art feat and that's it. Make it be brawling, jujitsu, kung fu, arnis, whatever...you learn to hit and hurt people.

By making brawl the requisite for knock out you can't have your "ninja" spy guy who is all combat martial arted up get it without brawl, which gives no synergy and doesn't help damage...not well thought out IMO.

The brass knuckles thing is I think fine as written, assuming my other annoyances with Brawl. The, ohh it is lethal now and you do less (1d3 vs 1d6) is just silly.

Finally a question about your unconsious character. Maybe I misread but I thought you said something about an unconsious character being at -1. However, considering what is said on page 141 about going unconsious for 1d4+1 rounds after failing that tiny DC 15 fort save you wake up. So I'm not sure how your dude gets knocked on the head and goes to -1. That doesn't happen as far as I can tell, he just goes unconsious, but retains his hps.

eh, those are some thoughts

Tellerve

 

[takyris]

Ok first off I just wanna say how this struck me as kinda funny considering your "brawler" build is pretty much a "best-case" for knocking people out. One of the things Psion has been saying is that he wants more normal people to be able to knock people out. Although as someone noted it was possible with a 1d3+2 crit for max damage to force a knock out.

Well, that wasn't my reply to Psion. That was my reply to the guy who said "It's so hard to knock people out." I showed that it was possible to build a third-level character who forces a save at least 50% of the time he hits a standard array character.

That said, if he could do this and still be great at other things, he'd be wildly overpowered. I believe that a third-level character should not be a master ninja. He should not be particularly good at combat, unless that's what he has specialized in to the exclusion of other areas.

Psion and I hashed, rehashed, and eventually dehashed the "kids fighting in schoolyard" idea. Normal people can knock each other out. They just can't do it safely, and they can't do it easily barehanded.

Side note: I just watched Fred, a nonfighting person on Angel, knock somebody out with one shot. She did it by getting him to turn his back, and then she clocked him with a lamp. Somebody's gotta start an improvised weapons thread, where we can hash this stuff out.

Some more generalized concerns/gripes/thoughts I have on the non-lethal. You mentioned that it is really easy to make the Fort DC 20 saves to resist loosing hitpoints when your at -1. Then wouldn't that fort dc 15 to resist getting knocked out be just really easy?

It's easy(ish) to make a DC20 Fort save when you have nine tries to do so. It's hard to make a DC15 Fort save over and over again when one single failure takes you down. Statistics.

I also really don't like the fact that they made brawl and combat martial arts different. It would appear you would agree, although you don't say so, when you say that being able to knock people out without harming them requires more skill. But by d20 modern has a nonlethal combat master, "brawler" is better at hitting and doing more damage. I just think what they should have done is this, make a martial art feat and that's it. Make it be brawling, jujitsu, kung fu, arnis, whatever...you learn to hit and hurt people.

Ditto. Massive Ditto. Heck, I wished they'd just called it "Unarmed Fighting", so that people who wanted to be barroon bruisers but didn't want the Martial Artist imagery of pajamas and bowing wouldn't feel compelled to get Brawl instead -- which doesn't really do what it says it does.

Nonlethal Expertise is a great idea, but it's got all the wrong flavor text for what it actually does. I tend to go with the mechanic and rewrite the flavor text to make it more appealing (like when I rewrote my barbarian's flavor text so that his "rages" were actually episodes of him channeling the power of his ancestors -- he was a peaceful, contemplative nomad who only wished to defend his people).

Finally a question about your unconsious character. Maybe I misread but I thought you said something about an unconsious character being at -1.

Either you misread or I miswrote. When you come out of unconsciousness due to nonlethal damage, you're fine. You never take lethal damage from a nonlethal attack. Sorry if I wrote something ambiguous.

 

[Tellerve]

Yes, improvised weapons could possibly use a rework, although I just think maybe instead have something non feat related to getting surprise on someone. This obviously would open another can of worms but it helps to largely make up for the huge amount of scenes in movies where people use lamps, frying pans, whatever to wack people that usually are surprised or from behind and knock them unconsious. Now, having said that I do NOT think it should be close to automatic, as one movie, I can't remember which, had the people hit still awake and the hittie asked him if he was out and the guy replied that he wasn't so he got hit again. It was quite funny as movies do portray it as very easy to knock someone out and I agree that to belt someone on the back of the head, knock them out, and they be "relatively" fine would take some skill.

So, then, have you found or even thought of a way to mesh/knock out brawl and roll it into combat martial arts? I'm already not a fan of brawl and having it just go bye bye in my campaign I think could work. You could still have the knockout tree just tack it onto CMA. What do you think...what other problems do you forsee? Would it be just too hard to try and wrangle them together considering the different feat and damage hierarchy?

I also noticed last night as I was going through the feats, Improved Feint. Which to me is right up there with what a good boxer would have, with all the dodging, weaving, and light jabs to set up the hook. However, it requires 13+ int and Streetwise, which just annoys me. Obviously I can change the flavor text to have streetwise not be "streetwise" so it isn't a huge annoyance...just a wee one.

Tellerve

 

[Tellerve]

EDIT: double post

dang site is slower than a snail on labor day.

Tellerve

 

[takyris]

Well, that's the problem with tinkering with feats. I'd love to reorganize the whole Brawl tree somehow, but I don't wanna shake it up too much -- because I firmly believe that Improved Feint is where it is for a reason. If you want it for unarmed attacks, it's in a pretty good spot -- Brawl is of course good, and Streetfighting is nice for the 1d4 extra damage on that first hit -- makes a knockout a lot more likely. If you want it for fencing, though, you have to take a few "useless" feats to get it -- and I think that's a good thing, because fencing is deadlier than brawling, and it SHOULD be an expensive feat for a fencer to get.

Agile Riposte, on the other hand... man, I could drool over that feat all day. Yes, I WOULD like another attack, thank you for asking.

 

[Tellerve]

I agree messing with the system has very likely annoying and hazardous outcomes. But oohh, it begs to be fixed IMO.

As for feint, eh, I just dunno about your fencing example. In the system yeah the fencing guy is more "dangerous" 'cause he is using a lethal weapon but a boxer like your type would be as dangerous if not more so as he'd have knockout or improved knockout punch. Once the guy is unconsious it'd be really easy to kill him. The fact that they ally feint specifically with "streetwise" dirty fighting and brawling doesn't fit right with me. Boxing and fencing I think are two martial disciplines where feinting is used well if not heavily. From the martial arts of the various kung fus (wing chun, xing yi, tai chi chuan) and tae kwon do there wasn't any feint that I ever learned. Not saying there isn't any, but I didn't learn it. So as you put it, my fencer build has to learn how to be a barroom brawler and be a dirty street thug to gain a facet of his art.

*shrugs*

Tellerve

 

[takyris]

Well, the boxer is provoking an AoO every time he attacks -- by the core rules, I'd take the fencer over the boxer. According to Charles Ryan, even if that boxer has Combat Martial Arts, he still provokes an AoO with an unarmed attack if he wants to use his Brawl skill. Now, admittedly, I think that this ruling is full of poo, and I say that if you buy CMA AND Brawl, you get to make Brawling attacks without provoking an AoO. Nevertheless, that's another feat that the boxer would have to take.

As for the fencer, I'd suggest that the little feints that they ordinarily make are just part of standard attacks -- it's only big gigantic "trick" feints that count as feints by D&D rules. And the few times I've seen "big" feints instead of little "Am I attacking here? No, I'm attacking HERE" redirections, it did cost the person a bit of time. So I'm fine with Improved Feint not being easy to get -- and requiring a bit more experience in fighting dirty (ie, Brawl & Streetfighting).

The ability to bypass Dex and Dodge bonuses to Defense is huge. If it were available either as a primary feat (no feat pre-reqs) or as a feat that a melee fighter could get after taking feats that were obviously good for him already, then there'd be no drawback, and everyone in the world would have this feat. As it stands now, some of my fencer PCs have it, and some don't. It's not always worth it (sometimes I sacrifice it for two-weapon fighting or power attack and sunder), but it often is. Seems balanced to me.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Tellerve]

Are you playing a Modern d20 game? I only ask as you mention fencers, and sundering and well, I dunno, not the feats I typically bring to mind for modern d20.

Anyways, I agree Charles Ryan is full of poo with a boxer provoking an AoO. I really don't care that he was a tank commander...it just doesn't make sense. I agree as per core rules I would take the fencer as well. But again, in a "typical" modern d20 a fencer seems like it would be a tiny bit more conspicuous, and not to mention having a tough time every flying anywhere. But anyways...

As for a person with CMA and Brawl and not being able to have synergy between them, *sigh* more poo.

Well, about the feinting thing, I agree it should take some feats. But your example of a brawler had the feats required, he would only need the int 13+. I don't see it as a necessity for a fencer...i was just saying feinting is a pivotal point of fencing yet the feat is more for boxers/brawlers. Again, something that some better wording/naming would have been great here. As it is obviously geared for the brawler character you made up as you could pair it with the knockout punch tree and level people/monsters/whatever.

Tellerve

 

[Dismas]

Anyways, I agree Charles Ryan is full of poo with a boxer provoking an AoO. I really don't care that he was a tank commander...it just doesn't make sense.

Tellerve

Rich Redman was the Desert Storm tank commander.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Anyways, I agree Charles Ryan is full of poo with a boxer provoking an AoO. I really don't care that he was a tank commander...it just doesn't make sense.

Really? I think it makes perfect sense. What surprizes me is that CMA allows someone to bypass that AOO. Weapons typically give greater range than unarmed attacks. Not to mention that if you punch, and I parry with my knife, you've just got a cut across your forearm. That is a really tough weakness to overcome.

Some CMA brawl synergy would be nice though, simply for making some of this stuff make more sense.