Two simple questions:
1) can I choose to do the minimum weapon damage if I want?
2) can I choose to NOT apply STR/DEX/whatever modifier to damage?
In any case, can someone point me toward rules about that?
Two simple questions:
1) can I choose to do the minimum weapon damage if I want?
2) can I choose to NOT apply STR/DEX/whatever modifier to damage?
In any case, can someone point me toward rules about that?
There is no rule for it. As with most mundane things it makes sense to allow it. Don't let the "it doesn't say I can't" hate crowd give you grief either, this is a mundane choice not a su, sp, ex, or feat ability you just decided to claim.
The closest rule is probably that for voluntarily failing a save.
The rules assume you are trying your best to hurt someone so the rules language is written in that regard. The only way to not do so is ask the GM for a houserule or use nonlethal damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two simple questions:
1) can I choose to do the minimum weapon damage if I want?
2) can I choose to NOT apply STR/DEX/whatever modifier to damage?
In any case, can someone point me toward rules about that?
There is no rule for it. As with most mundane things it makes sense to allow it. Don't let the "it doesn't say I can't" hate crowd give you grief either, this is a mundane choice not a su, sp, ex, or feat ability you just decided to claim.
The closest rule is probably that for voluntarily failing a save.
Well, that could be the same argument for "can I choose to deal maximum damage?"
Two simple questions:
1) can I choose to do the minimum weapon damage if I want?
2) can I choose to NOT apply STR/DEX/whatever modifier to damage?
In any case, can someone point me toward rules about that?
There is no rule for it. As with most mundane things it makes sense to allow it. Don't let the "it doesn't say I can't" hate crowd give you grief either, this is a mundane choice not a su, sp, ex, or feat ability you just decided to claim.
The closest rule is probably that for voluntarily failing a save.
Well, that could be the same argument for "can I choose to deal maximum damage?"
No. The game represents "I choose to use all my str," as a die roll plus a static modifier. It makes sense to be able to choose to do less. Otherwise you couldn't have surgeons or even barbers in pathfinder.
Two simple questions:
1) can I choose to do the minimum weapon damage if I want?
2) can I choose to NOT apply STR/DEX/whatever modifier to damage?
In any case, can someone point me toward rules about that?
There is no rule for it. As with most mundane things it makes sense to allow it. Don't let the "it doesn't say I can't" hate crowd give you grief either, this is a mundane choice not a su, sp, ex, or feat ability you just decided to claim.
The closest rule is probably that for voluntarily failing a save.
By the rules you roll the dice to determine damage. If you are not rolling to determine damage then it is a houserule. The save rule is specific to saves.
When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result.
By the rules you roll the dice to determine damage. If you are not rolling to determine damage then it is a houserule. The save rule is specific to saves.Two simple questions:
1) can I choose to do the minimum weapon damage if I want?
2) can I choose to NOT apply STR/DEX/whatever modifier to damage?
In any case, can someone point me toward rules about that?
There is no rule for it. As with most mundane things it makes sense to allow it. Don't let the "it doesn't say I can't" hate crowd give you grief either, this is a mundane choice not a su, sp, ex, or feat ability you just decided to claim.
The closest rule is probably that for voluntarily failing a save.
Did you see the first line I wrote, "there is no rule for it." Yes, seems like I wrote that. Sure did.
See my edit. There is a rule for determining damage.
Anything else is a houserule.
Keep in mind I have nothing against houserules, so this is not a case of "sticking it to the man." I am simply answering a rules question because this is the rules forum. You seemed to come in here with an assumption that is not warranted.
If this was the advice forum I would have given a different response because questions there are normally asked with a different mindset.
Now if the OP ask "Is ____ reasonable?" then I will give another answer.
2: sure... Use a crossbow.
I don't think that crashing crossbows in the head of the people is the intended use of those :)
Both: why would you?
Oh, it could be useful: think just the slumber hex. A bit of damage, and you're awake.
I would have no problem with someone choosing to lessen the damage by pulling their punches. If they don't want to use their full strength it applies to hit and damage. They can choose not to use feats and abilities. They must deal the base weapon damage plus magic. This is how I would house rule it.
2: sure... Use a crossbow.
1: not by raw... Ask your gm
Both: why would you?
I could see why, need to hurt a dominated/charmed ally to get them to stop hitting you without killing them, or wake slumbered allies. The old "uberkill" destroys loot houserules that many GM's seem to prefer (do +300% enemies health in damage with your greataxe, destroy their valuable armor).
Allies forced into an arena, need to put up a good fight and draw blood while they wait for their party to help them...To "encourage" an NPC to run back to his hideout so you can track him without him dying (or going unconscious and revealing nothing under interrogation).
I just had a player try to do nonlethal to a child a week ago, he crit and destroyed the kid
No. The game represents "I choose to use all my str," as a die roll plus a static modifier. It makes sense to be able to choose to do less. Otherwise you couldn't have surgeons or even barbers in pathfinder.
Yes, it does. That's why there is a special rule that you can deal non-lethal damage with a weapon by taking a penalty to your attack roll. That represents you pulling your punches.
By trying to inflict less damage on an enemy, you are essentially holding back your strength and fouling your own attacks. Anyone who's ever served in the military will tell you it is far harder to capture an enemy alive than to kill that enemy.
I just had a player try to do nonlethal to a child a week ago, he crit and destroyed the kid
Holy crap man, what'd the dude hit him with? Even assuming the kid has a fragile 6 hp and 10 CON he'd need to do 22 points of damage to outright kill him.
No. The game represents "I choose to use all my str," as a die roll plus a static modifier. It makes sense to be able to choose to do less. Otherwise you couldn't have surgeons or even barbers in pathfinder.Yes, it does. That's why there is a special rule that you can deal non-lethal damage with a weapon by taking a penalty to your attack roll. That represents you pulling your punches.
By trying to inflict less damage on an enemy, you are essentially holding back your strength and fouling your own attacks. Anyone who's ever served in the military will tell you it is far harder to capture an enemy alive than to kill that enemy.
I just had a player try to do nonlethal to a child a week ago, he crit and destroyed the kidHoly crap man, what'd the dude hit him with? Even assuming the kid has a fragile 6 hp and 10 CON he'd need to do 22 points of damage to outright kill him.
This happened in our game as well, a player (scythe 2d4, crit x4) did a non-lethal natural 20 (confirmed with natural 20), STR was +4, so min dmg =20, max =48 dmg. GM ruled instant death on the child NPC we wanted to rescue from the burning town (that our ally may or may not have started). (non-lethal in excess of current hp + con becomes lethal damage).
|
Two simple questions:
1) can I choose to do the minimum weapon damage if I want?
2) can I choose to NOT apply STR/DEX/whatever modifier to damage?
In any case, can someone point me toward rules about that?
1) No, you will always have to roll the damage dices dice.
2) Yes, you can decide not to apply some bonus, but you have to decide how much before rolling the dices.
You can't do that with penalties.
That is fairly clear with spells, where you can willingly lower your caster level down to the minimum CL required to cast the spell, but it should be applicable to weapon too, allowing you to forego some of the bonuses. Deciding what can be forego and what not is more difficult.
Strength/dexterity bonus? Sure, you can apply less than your max, but it would affect both the to hit and damage.
Specialization? Yes, you can try to hit less skilfully.
Bard bonuses? You can "chose" not to be the bard ally.
Weapon enhancement? Doubtful.
Weapon damage dice? No.
|
|
This happened in our game as well, a player (scythe 2d4, crit x4) did a non-lethal natural 20 (confirmed with natural 20), STR was +4, so min dmg =20, max =48 dmg. GM ruled instant death on the child NPC we wanted to rescue from the burning town (that our ally may or may not have started). (non-lethal in excess of current hp + con becomes lethal damage).
No. The game represents "I choose to use all my str," as a die roll plus a static modifier. It makes sense to be able to choose to do less. Otherwise you couldn't have surgeons or even barbers in pathfinder.Yes, it does. That's why there is a special rule that you can deal non-lethal damage with a weapon by taking a penalty to your attack roll. That represents you pulling your punches.
By trying to inflict less damage on an enemy, you are essentially holding back your strength and fouling your own attacks. Anyone who's ever served in the military will tell you it is far harder to capture an enemy alive than to kill that enemy.
I just had a player try to do nonlethal to a child a week ago, he crit and destroyed the kidHoly crap man, what'd the dude hit him with? Even assuming the kid has a fragile 6 hp and 10 CON he'd need to do 22 points of damage to outright kill him.
The minimum is 32, the scythe is a 2 handed weapon. :-P
And NPC don't have maximum hp at first level, they have average hp, so a child would have 4 hp (commoner) and probably 10 constitution.A str 20 fighter with a greatsword sword do 2d6+7 damage, on a critical 4d6+14, the minimum is 18, average 28, so a critical has a noticeable risk of killing a commoner with 11 constitution and 1 level even if it hasn't suffered other damage.
you just can't ensure that a weapon won't hurt someone. especially when it's being swung at children.
you just can't ensure that a weapon won't hurt someone. especially when it's being swung at children.
That's when Sleep or Colour Spray is great to have even though you long since leveled past five...
I worry about why you were trying to non lethal scythe or great sword the kid instead of punching. Who thought that was a good idea?
Our Barbarian was in a hurry, and had no casters present at the time. It was silly to try with a scythe, obviously, but it was a lot faster than trying with unarmed.
2: sure... Use a crossbow.I don't think that crashing crossbows in the head of the people is the intended use of those :)
Both: why would you?Oh, it could be useful: think just the slumber hex. A bit of damage, and you're awake.
So just do an open-handed slap for d3+STR nonlethal.
So just do an open-handed slap for d3+STR nonlethal.2: sure... Use a crossbow.I don't think that crashing crossbows in the head of the people is the intended use of those :)
Both: why would you?Oh, it could be useful: think just the slumber hex. A bit of damage, and you're awake.
And take an attack of opportunity, sometimes a risky action to take. Better to do minimum lethal damage if at all possible.
And take an attack of opportunity, sometimes a risky action to take. Better to do minimum lethal damage if at all possible.So just do an open-handed slap for d3+STR nonlethal.2: sure... Use a crossbow.I don't think that crashing crossbows in the head of the people is the intended use of those :)
Both: why would you?Oh, it could be useful: think just the slumber hex. A bit of damage, and you're awake.
Was the kid armed? There's no attack of opportunity from an unarmed person unless they have Improved Unarmed Strike or some other ability that says so.
And take an attack of opportunity, sometimes a risky action to take. Better to do minimum lethal damage if at all possible.So just do an open-handed slap for d3+STR nonlethal.2: sure... Use a crossbow.I don't think that crashing crossbows in the head of the people is the intended use of those :)
Both: why would you?Oh, it could be useful: think just the slumber hex. A bit of damage, and you're awake.
Why would you take an attack of opportunity from someone who's asleep, and is most likely an ally affected by an enemy's slumber hex?
And if you're worried about an AoO from a child, I don't know what to tell you.
Why would you take an attack of opportunity from someone who's asleep, and is most likely an ally affected by an enemy's slumber hex?
And if you're worried about an AoO from a child, I don't know what to tell you.
Well, technically theres a -10 perception to notice stuff while you are asleep, but still...
If you really worry what a child can do to you... you might want to invest in your con-stat.
Adding to the list of kneejerk reactions:
PC used Mind Drain on a soulbound doll to, quote, "see if it had a mind."
Another player was trying to talk to it, someone else made the compassion, "that was like checking to see if a donut is jelly filed by sticking a straw into it and sucking."
Doesn't attacking with unarmed allow for AOO's from all enemies whose threatened square you are in (like drinking a potion or casting a spell?)
That is how our GM rolls it.
Doesn't attacking with unarmed allow for AOO's from all enemies whose threatened square you are in (like drinking a potion or casting a spell?)
That is how our GM rolls it.Here are the official rules on the matter:
Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
Thank you, I will have to have a chat with my GM.
If capturing rather than killing is required I allow the attacker to do half weapon damage without any STR or other damage bonus. Makes total sense.
If through lethal damage you have reduced the opponent from 30 to 5 hit points and you want to knock the foe out, then it is absurd to then suddenly start doing nonlethal damage because you have to then do the same anmount of nonlethal damage as 30. Instead allow pulled blows of have lethal damage to nudge the foe into unconsciousness. Makes perfect sense. but an accidental crit may occur, so dont roll a 20. As a DM I run it like that (and see my post above)
Sorry, just read this in the rules... "Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered, and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. It doesn’t matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds your current hit points because the nonlethal damage has gone up or because your current hit points have gone down." So I think if the opponent has very low hit points you can resort to nonlethal damage and use a -4 to hit. And also I would maintain my house rule of doing half damage and not applying the strength bonus. Not sure whether I would still allow a crit to be judged as an accidental real damage blow.