The Case of the Unlucky Crit

[Fauchard1520]

We've all heard stories about silly GMs ruing that player's have "rolled so high they fail." I'm talking about acing a jump check and concussing yourself on a ceiling. Or intimidating so hard all the other NPCs in the room now hate you. Aside from the fact that there aren't any crits outside of combat, this sort of thing is generally frowned upon. But there is one spot where it seems to be designed into Pathfinder 1e. I'm talking about nonlethal damage.

"I gently tap the guard on the head to knock him out. Crit success! 105 nonlethal damage! What do you mean he's dead?"

Do you play it RAW, where all nonlethal damage dealt to an unconscious creature is treated as lethal damage? Or do you like to rule that player intent matters, and that knocking out a low-level guard should be possible even for a very-strong barbarian?

Comic for illustrative purposes.

 

[Count_Zero]

I generally rule that player intent matters - that if players are dealing non-lethal damage, they are deliberately attempting to pull their punches to knock opponents out. And if they roll a crit and deal enough damage to KO, then the crit signifies that they knew to deal exactly enough damage to KO.

 

[kenada]

I ran PF1 non-lethal damage RAW, but it almost never came up. I prefer the way it works in 4e, 5e, and PF2 where you just declare you want to knock out the creature, and then you do if you drop it to 0 hp. Tracking two pools of damage in 3e and PF1 was just too fiddly.

 

[Imaculata]

If you deal non-lethal damage, then by definition it can't be lethal, no matter how well the players roll. In fact, a critical success should mean that they succeed in knocking an opponent out effortlessly. I tend to always lean towards player intent.

Besides, if the players are deliberately trying not to be murder hobos, then why would you want to discourage that as a DM? By all means, give them their success and bonus exp on top for making an effort not to kill people.

 

[CapnZapp]

Besides, if the players are deliberately trying not to be murder hobos, then why would you want to discourage that as a DM? By all means, give them their success and bonus exp on top for making an effort not to kill people.

If you read the link, you know you're dealing with true roll-players: getting 3d6 damage for peering through reality on a Perception crit is hilarious, but also tells you what you can expect for being so nice and reasonable...

 

[kenada]

If you deal non-lethal damage, then by definition it can't be lethal, no matter how well the players roll. In fact, a critical success should mean that they succeed in knocking an opponent out effortlessly. I tend to always lean towards player intent.

In Pathfinder 1e, taking nonlethal damage past your maximum hit points deals lethal damage instead. This is a change from 3.5e, and it’s what I assume the comic references.

 

[Fauchard1520]

In Pathfinder 1e, taking nonlethal damage past your maximum hit points deals lethal damage instead. This is a change from 3.5e, and it’s what I assume the comic references.

Can confirm: it's what the comic references.

I wrote this one a while back, but it just came up again last session in a Strange Aeons game. I've got a pacifist druid in that one, and he wants to avoid doing any of the actual killing himself.

He crit an enemy that was at single-digit health, and was freaking out about accidentally killing the person rather than merely rendering them unconscious. I want to support the pacifist trope, but it's also possible to tap someone just a little bit too hard from a simulationist standpoint. Which way to go on that one is still something that bugs me.