Nonlethal Damage

[redkobold]

I just read through d20 Modern and I really am impressed. I thought the writing and presentation were superb.

I was only unhappy about one thing...nonlethal damage. The idea that two normal people could pummel each other endlessly with no effect (unless they struck one special critical hit maximum damage strike and the opponent had a low Constitution). Even with the critical hit, the opponent could still pass a save.

Does this bother anyone else? I thought that I had read this wrong but the wording seems to imply using nonlethal damage of an individual attack. What are some alternatives?

This may move this post to the House Rules but here is what I came up with.

Option 1

Every time a target sustains nonlethal damage, he must make a Fortitude Save (DC=nonlethal damage). Since the damage is low, in most cases, he will pass. If the Fortitude Save is passed there is no effect. If it is failed, the target is Stunned for 1 round.

If a Stunned target sustains nl damage , another Fortitude Save is required (DC=5+non lethal damage). If passed, target remains stunned 1 more round. If failed, target is knocked Unconcious 1d4+1 rounds.

If an Unconcious target sustanins nl damage, another Fort Save is required (DC=10+nl dmg). If passed, target remains unconcious +1 more rounds. If failed, treat as if target has sustained Massive Damage (reduced to -1 hit points).

The break in the logic here is that normal damage hits do not require any type of Saves unless they were used to inflinct non-lethal damage. Therefore this may make unarmed attacks too powerful but I do not think so because the DC threshold would be so low (1d3 for a punch) until the attacker had quite a few unarmed attacking feats.

Option 2

Make the non-lethal damage cumulative during an individual encounter. When it equals or exceeds the targets Constitution, roll a Fortitude Save (DC=15). Failure results in a stun as described in the rules. For each subsequent attack where the target sustains nl damage continue to make a Fortitude Save if the character is still standing.

 

[takyris]

This has been brought up a lot. If you search back in this forum, you'll find it addressed a whole bunch of times.

Here's the basic breakdown of my feelings:

1) Nonlethal damage has no chance whatsoever of doing you any permanent harm, and being taken to -1 or -2 is really less "you are near death" than "you have been knocked unconscious". You're thinking of nonlethal damage as being like a wild swing that cracks against your skull -- but that's LETHAL damage. Someone who takes the Brawl feat isn't doing wild swings anymore -- he's making relaxed, almost soft jabs to the target's temple or chin or solar plexus, shots that have no chance to really hurt the person but might knock them out by pressure-point manipulation. He might be doing so because of martial arts training, or he might have learned it as a dirty trick in bar fights -- "you hit 'em here, and you can take 'em down soft with no trouble".

2) It's relatively easy to get nonlethal damage up to levels where you're forcing a save a fair amount of the time. You can't do it at first level, no -- but think about it: You're making a difficult strike that can make somebody unconscious but has NO chance of actually injuring him. That ought to be a bit difficult, don't you think?

In terms of a low-level way to get good at nonlethal damage:

Brawl, Power Attack, Streetfighting, and as much Melee smash as you can get. A 3rd-level Strong Hero with a 16 strength could have:

1d3 base damage
Occupation: Brawl
Level One Feat: Combat Martial Arts (doesn't help with nonlethal, but is nice to round out your character)
Level One Feat: Weapon Focus: Unarmed
Level One Talent: Melee Smash
Level Two Bonus Feat: Power Attack
Level Three Feat: Streetfighting
Level Three Talent: Improved Melee Smash

So now, he's attacking at:

+3 BAB, +3 Strength, +1 Competence from Brawl, +1 from Weapon Focus = +8, with a possible -1 to -3 from Power Attack

He's doing:

1d6(Brawl) +3 Strength +2 (improved melee smash) +1d4 (streetfighting) = 1d6+1d4+5, with a possible +1 to +3 from Power Attack

So, an average of 11 points damage per hit without Power Attacking, and as high as 15 -- and you're a third-level character. I'd consider that not bad.

At 4th level, you'd take Improved Brawl to raise that damage to 1d8. At 5th level, you'd take Advanced Melee smash to get another point of damage per hit. That's a fifth level character whose nonlethal attack is at +11 (improved brawl and BAB bonus) who does 1d8+1d4+6, an average of 13 points damage and as much as 18.

You also should factor in Power Attack -- since nonlethal damage only applies per-hit, you don't care about hitting lots of times -- you care about hitting once for a lot. Flank, charge, do something to get yourself a bonus to hit, and then unload that Power Attack, and you can do some significant damage.

3) Finally, this speaks to two major problems that I've seen a lot of people having. First, it sounds like you have Flavor Text issues -- if the rules aren't matching your flavor text, try changing your flavor text first. Are those two people really doing their best to kill each other with their hands and not doing ANYTHING? No. If they really wanted to kill each other, they'd take the -4 and do LETHAL damage, which DOES add up over the rounds, and will eventually put one of them down. Second, it doesn't bother me at all that you need to take feats to get good at this stuff. d20 Modern is based off of feats and skills. Just putting in your ranks or getting your BAB up there doesn't really cut it in this system. If you want to be good at something for the level that you're at, you need to toss a couple of feats that way. You have a lot of feats to play with in this game, unlike in D&D -- and most of these feats are meant to create what you'd think of as the D&D class abilities.

Anyway, hope this helps.

EDIT: One thing that I've heard as a house rule that sounded reasonable. Change the text to read, "Any time a single hit does more than your Con score OR YOUR CURRENT HIT POINTS." This lets you wear down an opponent and then use little shots to finish them off.

Your way seems to have too much homework involved in it, too much number crunching. They ditched subdual damage in this system because it was annoying to have two separate hit point levels. You're adding in more stuff to keep track of. As it is, it's very easy to keep track of combat modifiers, because it's damage-per-hit, and that's all you need to compare.

 

[Psion]

I was only unhappy about one thing...nonlethal damage. The idea that two normal people could pummel each other endlessly with no effect (unless they struck one special critical hit maximum damage strike and the opponent had a low Constitution). Even with the critical hit, the opponent could still pass a save.

Does this bother anyone else?

In a word, yes. This is one of the most commonly derided aspects of the d20 rules. NB though that the authors (with mothers eyes) and some apologists here vigorously defend it.

I thought that I had read this wrong but the wording seems to imply using nonlethal damage of an individual attack. What are some alternatives?

This may move this post to the House Rules but here is what I came up with.

Option 1
(snip)
Option 2
(snip)

Your option one seems like it calls for too many saves. Your option two seems more reasonable.

Personally, I simply port the D&D subdual damage rules over to nonlethal damage, and then make knockout into a nonlethal parallel of massive damage (which it effectively is anyways.) I never saw the problem with tracking a second number and fail to why anyone would see it as a problem.

 

[Plane Sailing]

EDIT: One thing that I've heard as a house rule that sounded reasonable. Change the text to read, "Any time a single hit does more than your Con score OR YOUR CURRENT HIT POINTS." This lets you wear down an opponent and then use little shots to finish them off.

It bothered me initially, but when I came across this suggestion (I can't remember who originated it) it all fell into place nicely for me.

 

[takyris]

You can't remember who suggested it? I could haved sworn it was you.

Psion, care to attack my argument? Or is my dogmatic pandering too apologetic for you to even touch? I mean, I understand WHY it has gotten a lot of bad press -- it takes a few feats to be useful. However, once you put those feats into it, you can be forcing saves about half the time you successfully hit a person of your level or lower -- and even if they make those saves, they lose their next turn. It's not as cool as a rogue's sneak attack, no, but if you use it as part of a team strategy, your big bruiser can keep somebody dazed more than half the time (even assuming successful saves) while the rest of the party finishes them off.

I mean, martial arts isn't cool until you pop three or four feats into it, either. A pistol is unlikely to force a massive damage check unless you pump some feats into it (Double Tap or Burst Fire, each of which has pre-reqs). The difference between those and nonlethal damage is that nonlethal damage does NOTHING unless you pump those feats into it, at least for unarmed PCs (monsters might have a high-enough strength to overcome the hindrances, and a PC with a three-sectional staff just needs to take a -4 to do 1d10 nonlethal damage per strike, plus strength and so on). Perhaps that's why it generates so much antagonism. They might have been better off from a PR standpoint making nonlethal damage not even available unless you took Brawl...

 

[Psion]

Psion, care to attack my argument?

What is this, an invitation? Perhaps I'll try again to post a more complete rebuttal in a second.

It's not as cool as a rogue's sneak attack

Never said it had to be. My problem isn't with how it handles the well trained pugilists. It is with how it handles the not-so-well trained ones.

A pistol is unlikely to force a massive damage check unless you pump some feats into it

And my problem is not with the massive damage system, either. A pistol may not inflict massive damage, but a pistol will eventually kill someone by depleting their hp.

 

[Mallus]

I used to have a problem with it...

...seeing as my group has an ex-cop bouncer tough-guy character who is going the Brawler route, but refuses to take Combat Martial Arts.

I mean, it takes a lot of talents/feats to really become effective, and that seems like much cost/little benefit...

...unless you're playing a game where the heroes are freelances/dilettantes [such as a high school kid, a bouncer, a bike messenger, and a cook from Chinatown].

Disabling enemies without doing lethal damage is a tremendous advantage. My group learned this the hard way after a big fight in an abandonned warehouse w/some Triad members. The last two characters standing feverously performed first aid --on everyone-- since no-one wanted to face a murder rap. Sure, its easier to use guns, but there are a lot more laws against that....

Leaving a heap of dead foes in your wake is great in Hyperborea, or Grayhawk, but its somewhat problematic in Philadelphia [well, not so much in North Philly].

Mu biggest remaining gripe is that Brawlers don't provoke AoO's. becasue they're not "armed". That's silly. Mike Tyson couldn't take advantage of you dropping your guard, but a 10-year girl wielding a knife could??

 

[Psion]

takyris, I know I am never going to persuade you of the wonkiness of the system, but for the benefit of those who haven't seen my refutation of your defense before:

1) Nonlethal damage has no chance whatsoever of doing you any permanent harm, and being taken to -1 or -2 is really less "you are near death" than "you have been knocked unconscious".

If you beat a guy to -2, he will be losing hp until he makes a save. If he takes 8 more, he will be dead. This is not the same as being knocked out.

You're thinking of nonlethal damage as being like a wild swing that cracks against your skull -- but that's LETHAL damage.

Battering with soft fists typically does not cause the same sort of life threatening trauma and bleeding that knife and gunshot wounds do. That is a very bad simulation.

Someone who takes the Brawl feat isn't doing wild swings anymore

True, but largely irrelevant. That explains why they do more damage, but we already understood that. It still doesn't explain why brawlers who aren't professional boxers can scuffle all day and not do a thing to one another.

2) It's relatively easy to get nonlethal damage up to levels where you're forcing a save a fair amount of the time.

It's fairly easy to design a character who can, but again, a relatively normal human should not require a load of feats to meaningfully engage in fisticuffs. I did that (and had the same done to me) when I was in elementary school.

You can't do it at first level, no -- but think about it: You're making a difficult strike that can make somebody unconscious but has NO chance of actually injuring him. That ought to be a bit difficult, don't you think?

This is nitpicking the abstraction level of the system, and holding it to a standard that your argument doesn't hold to. Professional boxers like you alledge should be the only ones eligible to impair opponents via unarmed combat are much more likely to break bones than untrained fighters; that's
why they wear gloves. You are pegging a convenient abstraction that doesn't really help your case any more than it does ours.

3) Finally, this speaks to two major problems that I've seen a lot of people having. First, it sounds like you have Flavor Text issues

This is, to me, the tail wagging the dog. This "flavor text reassignment" is a rationalization that you may be comfortable with, but many of us see that the behavior the system creates as is does not jive with the behavior that we reasonably expect from a fisticuffs type engagement (cinematic or not.)

 

[Psion]

(yes, the infamous double post...)

 

[takyris]

Hey, Psion,

Well, first off, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. But I suspect that my position is not as inflexible as you make it sound. I enjoy showing people that it's possible to make an effective nonlethal character, true, but I'm not against changes to the system.

If you beat a guy to -2, he will be losing hp until he makes a save. If he takes 8 more, he will be dead. This is not the same as being knocked out.

By the same token, if you beat a guy to -8 and he gets a Treat Injury check by an untrained person who rolls well, that person will be completely hale and healthy again in about a week without surgery or any further treatment. This is not the same as being taken to a near-death situation by blunt-force trauma, which should require a great deal more bedrest and medical treatment.

To be fair, I think that you and I treat this issue (what -hp really represents) from the other side. I treat it by having -1 to -9 as "knocked out" and then added -10 to -19 as "nearing death", which adds House Ruled long-term injury potential. There's little enough combat in my game that it's not a big change, but it IS a house rule on my part. So my bad.

Battering with soft fists typically does not cause the same sort of life threatening trauma and bleeding that knife and gunshot wounds do. That is a very bad simulation.

Hm. I disagree, although possibly this is my death ninja training coming into play. A bunch of punches to the temple, and your brain gets just as mashed up as if it were one or two whacks with a baseball bat. I'm not arguing that fists should do more damage -- the difference in damage levels is accurately reflected by 1d3 versus 2d6. But enough people are killed by single punches to the head that the "it's not life threatening" doesn't hold water with me. Again, I differentiate based on flavor text.

Schoolyard bully doing nonlethal damage: punches to the face, shoving, scuffling headlocks and other stuff that's going to give you a bloody nose but not kill you.

Person actually trying to kill you: punches to the throat or temple, choking, continuing to punch once person is on the ground, throwing person into walls or other unyielding surfaces, and so on.

In the former situation in real life, the fight can go on for awhile until somebody gets tired or gives up because they're obviously being beaten, even though they're not incapacitated. Or, heck, they could get knocked out -- in a two-minute fight (20 rounds), at least one critical nonlethal hit is likely to come up.

In the latter situation, two untrained people are going to be awkward (-4 to hit), but still, somebody is going to go down quickly and not get up. Most genuine-wanting-to-hurt fights don't last very long, as is pretty well represented by two first-level smart heroes taking the -4 to hit, successfully hitting once every two or three rounds, and taking out their opponent after two to three hits.

It's fairly easy to design a character who can, but again, a relatively normal human should not require a load of feats to meaningfully engage in fisticuffs. I did that (and had the same done to me) when I was in elementary school.

Did you ever knock somebody out with a single shot? If you did, did you do it the first or second time you threw a punch, or did it take you awhile (ie, did it happen, say, about 5% of the time)? Were you ever knocked unconscious?

My schoolyard experiences were pretty pathetic, frankly. I came home unhappy and once or twice with a black eye, but I never got knocked unconscious. It was more of a schoolyard dominance thing (bully showing that he can knock me around) than a genuine combat -- which, in my opinion, is represented well by doing a bunch of nonlethal hits that don't knock someone out.

If PCs are taking a lot of nonlethal damage and not doing any, but they're not in danger of having their massive damage threshold breached, they need to roleplay the fact that they're being smacked around by someone who's obviously better at fighting than they are. Just because a bloody nose doesn't affect you in game terms doesn't mean your character should ignore it.

Agreement and apologies on your other points -- you're right. I do tend to rationalize rules via flavor text, but if you're attacking the logic of the rules, the flavor text isn't a great defense. I DO use my flavor text to defend against attacks on the rules that come in the form of "I can't do this flavor text with this rule!", though, because using "my flavor text doesn't work" to change the rules is a bad idea. You weren't doing that, but you the original poster did essentially give a flavor-text reason to change the rules.