What are the rumors on how non-lethal damage

[redkobold]

How is non lethal damage from punches being handled?

 

[neceros]

Unknown at this time. Here's hoping a WoTC staff pipes up!

 

[WyzardWhately]

No clue. Don't see much reason for it to change.

 

[IceFractal]

As long as they don't use the d20 Modern system ...

One thing I'd change is to remove the AoO if you have any combat skill (BAB +1 or better, at least in 3E terms). You're already using an attack for 1d3 damage, and being vulnerable to things like acid skinned demons or fire elementals - is that not penalty enough?

Really, the primary reason for the AoO is NPC-specific - to give the level 1 guards with truncheons better odds over the level 1 surly drunks at the tavern.

 

[DreamChaser]

Really, the primary reason for the AoO is NPC-specific - to give the level 1 guards with truncheons better odds over the level 1 surly drunks at the tavern.

No I believe it is to represent how hard it is to remain effectively offensive when you raise your fists (with no specific training in using them) and your opponent raises a sword...or 3 inch claws...or a big mouth full of pointy teeth.

And how hard it is to parry effectively (human instinct is to pull our hands away from danger not rush it toward it). Since AoO for certain actions exist because you "drop your guard" (i.e. cannot parry effectively for a moment of the round which is assumed to include a constant interplay of dodges, strikes, and parries), it makes sense that a person not trained in marital arts would have trouble being in melee combat with an armed person actually trying to hurt them.

DC

 

[Sadrik]

No I believe it is to represent how hard it is to remain effectively offensive when you raise your fists (with no specific training in using them) and your opponent raises a sword...or 3 inch claws...or a big mouth full of pointy teeth.

And how hard it is to parry effectively (human instinct is to pull our hands away from danger not rush it toward it). Since AoO for certain actions exist because you "drop your guard" (i.e. cannot parry effectively for a moment of the round which is assumed to include a constant interplay of dodges, strikes, and parries), it makes sense that a person not trained in marital arts would have trouble being in melee combat with an armed person actually trying to hurt them.

DC

Yes, I agree but it seems like it should give you an AC penalty not a free swipe. Swords are so good because you can hold your opponent at bay and parry effectively. I wish they would just get rid of AoO's and go with a powers that a martial character can use when a particular situation occurs. Main point is AC penalty not AoO.

I kind of hope that they get rid of non-lethal damage. Since the first half of your HP appears to be panache/luck/combat savvy...

 

[The_Fan]

I would personally find it quite funny if you can attack someone for nonlethal damage and use something like Healing Smite on them at the same time to heal their lethal damage.

"Regdar's bleeding out! We need some healing over here quick!"

*paladin kicks him in the ribs* "Get up you pansy!"

"I don't know which is worse, the fact you just kicked a severely injured man, or that IT MADE HIM BETTER!"

 

[Warbringer]

Probably the Condition Track, of which we've heard nothing of late...

I hope they get get rid of subual damage... ever notice how it's presence strengthens the notion that hps do represent actual damage ...

 

[coyote6]

Probably the Condition Track, of which we've heard nothing of late...

Have we heard anything from WotC about the condition track?

Everything I remember has been all speculation, based on the "bloodied" condition (which is fairly well confirmed) and Saga Star Wars, or based on someone else's speculation.

PS: Hopefully, if they do change subdual/nonlethal damage, they don't use the abysmally stupid d20 Modern version.