Ok, so this came up in a game yesterday, and I really dislike how Nonlethal damage is handled in Starfinder compared to Pathfinder.
Here's the rule:
Dealing Nonlethal Damage
"Most attacks that deal nonlethal damage work like any other attacks, and they deal damage to your Stamina Points or Hit Points as normal. However, when nonlethal damage would reduce you to 0 or fewer Hit Points, you are reduced to exactly 0 HP and fall unconscious, but you are stable instead of dying."
So to me this reads like the ONLY time its important to differentiate between lethal and nonlethal is during the final "killing blow" that drops a foe to 0 HP. "when nonlethal damage would reduce you to 0 or fewer Hit Points..." It's reinforced by another reference:
Monster and NPC Death
"A monster or NPC reduced to 0 HP is dead, unless the last bit of damage it took was nonlethal damage, in which case it is knocked unconscious."
So call me crazy, but I could on my own do 14 points of nonlethal damage using my stun weapon to a foe NPC with 15 HP as I'm trying to take him alive, and then another PC uses a basic pistol and does 1 point of lethal damage, the target is now dying instead of being unconscious... This seems like a terrible implementation compared to Pathfinder that uses the sum of lethal and nonlethal damage compared to HP to determine when a target falls unconscious or dies outright.
And even worse, in the off-chance the foe NPC happens to have resolve points... if they were knocked unconscious successfully, they can just spend a RP to regain consciousness and stay in the fight one round later.
I just wish I could understand the reasoning behind the change, because it seems unnecessary and less realistic.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not quite sure how "I beat you up and then shoot you and you die" is less realistic than "I beat you up and then shoot you and you go unconscious".
I meant more unrealistic in that "beat up" is using the stun setting on an electricity arc pistol so I'm basically tasing the guy for 99% of his HP, only to have a person apply a paper cut and have him be 18 seconds away from death...
With the way the rule is implemented they could have gotten by with a far easier solution like the have in D&D 5e where the person landing the killing blow just makes the decision to kill or knock out.
A paper cut wouldn't even be damage, if you were just being dismissive of a low level slashing weapon... that's still a weapon meant to kill.
Mechanically, it's a lot simpler than Pathfinder since you don't have to keep track of two different types of damage.
Thematically, it's pretty plausible that a single stab or bullet wound could be fatal. You're tired, your stamina is low, you're not able to defend yourself properly...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get a guy all the way down to 1 HP with your Taser Pulsecaster Pistol. Your ally barely meets AC, shoots him in the foot with a flare gun for 1 damage. He's now dead. Not even dying, this guy's an NPC, so he's flat dead. All your efforts to take him alive were in vain because your ally got one glancing hit in with the weakest possible lethal weapon, and rolled minimum damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get a guy all the way down to 1 HP with yourTaserPulsecaster Pistol. Your ally barely meets AC, shoots him in the foot with a flare gun for 1 damage. He's now dead. Not even dying, this guy's an NPC, so he's flat dead. All your efforts to take him alive were in vain because your ally got one glancing hit in with the weakest possible lethal weapon, and rolled minimum damage.
Wrong.
If you don't deal massive amounts of damage (i'd go with: it's possible up to the negative constitution score), you have 3 rounds to stabilize or heal an enemy that you want to take alive or interrogate.It's in the rules somewhere. ;-)
Starfinder Design Lead
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nonlethal damage isn't gentle knock-out gas. It's physical trauma so severe you can force someone to lose consciousness. People can be and are killed by "nonlethal" attacks in the real world (one reason many groups say the term "less lethal" is much more appropriate.)
If you beat someone to near-unconsciousness with boxing gloves, then, when they are nearly knocked out from constant head battering, stab them in the foot with a nail hard enough to also count as trauma, I have no problem with the shock killing them.
I certainly understand some people don't like the rules working that way, but that is something we considered when simplifying the rule, and I supported this outcome as a perfectly acceptable result.
If you want to take someone alive, don't let your friends shoot them with lethal weapons, even just a little bit.
Which I think is fine advice regardless of game rules.
It also isn't that hard to do non-lethal damage, grab the merciful fusion and now your plasma cannon is safe.
Yeah, I think this rather reflects things a lot better than PF did. The separate damages always was wonky and needlessly complex. On the other hand, I think a guy getting beaten to near unconscious and then killed by a single stab is a lot more reasonable than this stab just knocking him safely unconscious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just seems crazy that the "timing" of the damage is more important than the amount of damage when determining death vs unconsciousness.
Metaphysician seems to have an illness that's affecting his respiratory system ironically:
"A monster or NPC reduced to 0 HP is dead, unless the last bit of damage it took was nonlethal damage, in which case it is knocked unconscious."
That is the first and absolute sentence. What the GM *can* decide to do has no bearing in things like organized play where the rules need to be run exactly with very little room for table variation, and the argument of "well if you wanted tot ake him alive you shouldn't have shot him with a lethal weapon *even a little bit*" can clearly spell the difference between success and failure. You need to time it correctly, and in many cases taking some deep penalties to ensure that the "last bit" is nonlethal. How do we know when we're close? How do we know that somebody won't *accidentally* get a crit doing far more damage than intended? It requires bringing the outside elements of game mechanics into the roleplaying of the combat encounter in a way that I just don't feel makes any sense trying to ever incorporate nonlethal damage ever if you can instead just take them alive using lethal damage.
I appreciate Mr. Stephens weighing in though and giving a little background on why the decision was made though, so thank you!
|
You can make the realism/game mechanics argument either way. Personally I think it's a lot more game-y when my players spend the first round doing a bit of non-Lethal, then can go all out stabbing and exploding the enemy, safe in the knowledge it won't die at the end absent some unlucky crit that does multiple attacks worth of damage.
Taking someone alive should require deep penalties and careful planning. A captured opponent is worth a lot more than a dead one.
Starfinder still doesn't solve the problem that there's a lack of tactical options for subduing opponents whereas in real life, there's plenty of ways to do it.
Attacks that don't drop an enemy below zero are injuring and/or tiring them out and wearing them down. At one hit point, they're on their last leg. The one damage flare gun attack is still 100% of their remaining health- and if that seems unrealistic, it's because it's unlikely. But it's not impossible. They stagger, fall, and crack their skull. They take it straight to the face. Whatever works for you.
As another point of contention though, let's look at this the other way around. You've been stabbing this guy in the gut right up until they're at 1 HP left. Then your ally comes in with their Tempest Arc Rifle, and to add insult to injury they crit, and roll max damage. But it was set to Stun, so all that lethal damage that has been done is now ignored, and most of your 12d6 damage, so the guy is just knocked unconscious. To think, if that switch had been flipped the other way he would probably be ashes right now. Bit amazing.
Nonlethal is one of those things from Pathfinder that falls in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line. There are plenty of changes in Starfinder I like, but this wasn't one.
I'm also not a fan of the "NPC is dead at 0 unless the GM wants them to be alive" rule. A fixed rule like in Pathfinder means I don't have to make a decision multiple times in every single combat. I like leaving things up to fate, and the players know I'm not depriving them of prisoners to interrogate or burdening them with prisoners to look after on purpose. :)
I can understand the Nonlethal change although it was a bit of a shock at how lethal a simple barroom fight could be when you couldn't rely on a round of nonlethal damage to create a cushion. It does mean taking enemies without Resolve Points alive a lot harder, whereas in Pathfinder it was a lot more reliable.
Also, I think the "dead at 0" streamlines the tracking of dying casualties.
As another point of contention though, let's look at this the other way around. You've been stabbing this guy in the gut right up until they're at 1 HP left. Then your ally comes in with their Tempest Arc Rifle, and to add insult to injury they crit, and roll max damage. But it was set to Stun, so all that lethal damage that has been done is now ignored, and most of your 12d6 damage, so the guy is just knocked unconscious. To think, if that switch had been flipped the other way he would probably be ashes right now. Bit amazing.
And you now have an enemy unconscious on the ground who is about to be just as dead, since the rest of the party didn't suddenly contract an acute case of nonlethalitis.
There are more than a few accounts of guys brought into ERs unconscious with multiple stab and bullet wounds because the cops broke up the fight with tasers, billy clubs, and other less-lethal weapons.
There are more than a few accounts of guys brought into ERs unconscious with multiple stab and bullet wounds because the cops broke up the fight with tasers, billy clubs, and other less-lethal weapons.
I think that's kinda the point. ER. Not morgue.
With the way the rule is implemented they could have gotten by with a far easier solution like the have in D&D 5e where the person landing the killing blow just makes the decision to kill or knock out.
That actually came from 4e (And 4e let you do it with ranged weapons. 5e limits it to melee weapons)
What the GM *can* decide to do has no bearing in things like organized play where the rules need to be run exactly with very little room for table variation
Surely it the rules say the GM has to make a call about whether it makes sense for a downed character to survive, that still applies in organized play?
For the situations where the NPC takes 99 points on nonlethal damage then 1 point of lethal damage from standing on a nail, a good GM will rule that the target survives.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm happy with the change, I found the old way quite meta and a bit silly.
HP and Stamina Points in themselves are "meta" that's not the argument or the point. It's that Nonlethal used to be a way to reasonably ensure a target wouldn't outright die as a result of subduing them with a particular type of force. The argument that Pathfinder characters engaging in a round of nonlethal damage to create a buffer to ensure that the target didn't die outright when brought below 0 isn't stupid, or meta, it's realistic. It doesn't matter "when" those less lethal attacks come in as a series of tasers or nonlethal cold damage, or just people using fists. The thing that matters is a portion of their overall hitpoints and their level of ability to stay conscious was reduced by effects that shouldn't be able to outright kill unless they add up to a LOT (literally double the HP + con) of nonlethal damage to be able to kill the target.
I just don't like that a single point of lethal damage as the *last* attack now means the group needs to expend some additional level of effort and resources to keep the victim of a bar room fight alive because they are only seconds away from death's door. I kinda wish it had just been left the way it was so the "differences" between the systems we need to remember and focus on could have just been the bigger things like what triggers AoOs now, or how readied actions apply when a defensive vs. offensive action.
it's worth noting that everything in Starfinder seems a lot more lethal and that even a stable unconscious target is at a major risk of death. Leaving a target unconscious after a fight (if treated like a PC) would still almost spell certain death for them:
Long-Term Stability
If you are unconscious and stable but lack the Resolve Points to stay in the fight, there is a chance you will eventually recover on your own. After 1 hour elapses, you must attempt a Constitution check (see Ability Checks). If the result of this check is 20 or higher, you regain 1 HP and become conscious again. If the result of the check is at least 10 but less than 20, you don’t regain any Hit Points, but you remain stable and you must attempt another Constitution check 1 hour later. If the result of the check is 9 or lower, you die. You must continue attempting a Constitution check once per hour until you regain consciousness or until you die. After 8 hours, if you have not regained consciousness or died, you regain consciousness and recover 1 HP per character level, as if you had a full night’s rest (see Recovering Hit Points Naturally below).
Make 8 constitution checks and don't get less than a 10 or you die.
And that's being "stable."
One point of lethal damage can kill an NPC in 18 seconds if you get the GM's permission to even let him live that long.
The argument that Pathfinder characters engaging in a round of nonlethal damage to create a buffer to ensure that the target didn't die outright when brought below 0 isn't stupid, or meta, it's realistic.No, that's... not realistic at all. Realistically if you spent a while punching someone before shooting them, they would die.
I just don't like that a single point of lethal damage as the *last* attack now means the group needs to expend some additional level of effort and resources to keep the victim of a bar room fight alive because they are only seconds away from death's door.If you're wanting to use NL on an opponent to keep them alive you might want to alert your allies with Lethal weaponry of that fact. Otherwise this situation would occur most likely occur in Pathfinder as well, your "buffer" wouldn't really help much vs a crit.
One point of lethal damage can kill an NPC in 18 seconds if you get the GM's permission to even let him live that long.
Yep, one point of lethal. Lethal damage, no matter how low is not something like a paper cut or stubbing your toe, it's something that has a chance of killing you, like getting stabbed or shot. You weren't stabbed or shot really badly, but you were steal stabbed or shot.
HP is not meat points.
Last hit is the only one that matters, because that is the descriptive action that actually kills you. All damage before that were abstracted away from taking your life.
|
|
That was probably true in Pathfinder, but in Starfinder that's not quite as true. Considering they added stamina to differentiate some abstraction, then the whole Massive Damage rule, and how you can restore HP with medical treatment directly...It may not be solidified what the value of 1 HP is (Yes that is still Abstract) but it's clear being shot is actually being shot now.
Not necessarily. You could still have Stamina represent easily-recovered avoidance (keeping your head on a swivel and just barely stepping out of the way of a shot) vs. HP representing more long-lasting damaging avoidance (you have to slam yourself into a wall and break a rib, get a graze or a burn avoiding). In neither case do you have to say the person took a bullet to the chest.
Saying that HP damage now has to represent direct hits just because it exists separately isn't a sure thing.
|
I'm also not a fan of the "NPC is dead at 0 unless the GM wants them to be alive" rule.This I can agree with though. It makes the whole system feel inorganic when whether or not an NPC lives or dies is essentially just fiat and since the players know the rule is fiat that also has a tendency to engender false expectations because of it.
The way that I run it is if the PCs make a genuine effort to take somebody alive (somebody used non lethal, they rush over to stabilize a foe when they go down) then the NPC has the 3 rounds. Otherwise dead.
At my table, a stabilize (or similar healing) done on a foe who just went down will ALWAYS succeed absent death by huge damage (same as for PC where 1/2 hit points of an NPC are "real" hit points)
I like the new rule, and I like Owen Stephens said.
I don’t like that the PCs are the only creatures to use the resolve system, I know there are some exceptions. I think I will say that each NPC s down will make a Con check, have t decided on DC and if they make it they live else they die. Same for monsters. I don’t like the idea the PCs can survive when brought to 0 but NPCs and most monsters can’t.
The argument that Pathfinder characters engaging in a round of nonlethal damage to create a buffer to ensure that the target didn't die outright when brought below 0 isn't stupid, or meta, it's realistic. It doesn't matter "when" those less lethal attacks come in as a series of tasers or nonlethal cold damage, or just people using fists. The thing that matters is a portion of their overall hitpoints and their level of ability to stay conscious was reduced...
...And I have to disagree, too, given that we have incidents in the news (I don't want to get too explicit or political by naming specifics) of people dying from nonlethal means, or combinations of lethal and nonlethal trauma. I'm glad to have the fantasy of cinematic nonlethal takedowns possible at all. :) Violence is chaotic, random, and messy. What would have one person in the hospital sitting calmly for hours until help is administered, will kill another person within minutes. Having a little bit of that mapped into our nice, orderly, mathematical turn structure and discrete packets of damage is fine by me.
(One day I'm going to run a pathfinder game where all attacks deal 1d20 damage, with crits auto-confirming an extra 10d10 damage, and see how enthusiastic combat is then. :D)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also not a fan of the "NPC is dead at 0 unless the GM wants them to be alive" rule.This I can agree with though. It makes the whole system feel inorganic when whether or not an NPC lives or dies is essentially just fiat and since the players know the rule is fiat that also has a tendency to engender false expectations because of it.
I prefer it that way.
If it's one or the other, then there arises issues when it doesn't work the other way.
For example, if it's "always dead at 0," then we have the same issues as presented above - that last piece of damage is an insta-kill, not ifs ands or buts about it.
If it's "all enemies have resolve and die when they run out," then that's a s&@# ton for me to keep track of everything single battle and can end up dragging battles out.
But letting me pick and choose? Now mooks and unimportant NPCs can be quickly cleared away without me having to track five to fifteen different resolve tracks every battle, while important NPCs have staying power. And if my Players are aiming to knock an opponent out, I don't have to say, "Whelp! He was an NPC, so that last bit of damage killed him. Oh well! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
But letting me pick and choose? Now mooks and unimportant NPCs can be quickly cleared away without me having to track five to fifteen different resolve tracks every battle, while important NPCs have staying power. And if my Players are aiming to knock an opponent out, I don't have to say, "Whelp! He was an NPC, so that last bit of damage killed him. Oh well! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
It would be nice if players had some agency in that regard.
They have some agency. They can use all-nonlethal damage if they don't trust their GM to be reasonable about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an NPC has a name, they have a round to live. Good rule of thumb.
In Pathfinder, it was hard enough to do non-lethal combat that a lot of PFS players never do it. Starfinder makes it a lot easier to not play a sociopath, which is IMO a good thing.
Are undead and constructs immune to non-lethal damage in Starfinder? (I'm still waiting for Alien Archive PDF to be purchasable, so I don't know what's in "undead immunities", even after running an SFS mod that had undead in it.)
Or at lower levels at least they could be bleeding out and then you cast stabilize on someone you want to capture after the fight ends.