I'm looking for some help making a feat for a player to be able to do nonlethal damage to creatures that would otherwise be immune. I'm looking to do something a little more creative than just "You can now deal nonlethal damage to undead, constructs, etc." Sorry for such an open ended question, but I want to come up with something interesting and hopefully fun. The PC is playing a Sap Master build with and Unchained Thug\Scout Rogue. Thanks!
Bypassing immunity to non lethal damage is not a thing that I am aware of. The creatures simply can not take non lethal damage. You are less likely to run into issues if you just make a feat that allows the character to treat non-lethal damage they would otherwise deal to effect undead/constructs as though it was lethal damage.
Just let them deal lethal damage to the undead with the feat and for balance reasons, have all their damage dice decreased by one step.
The reason why it is important for them to be able to do nonlethal damage is because all of their combat abilities are based around that, making it pretty unfun for them to be in fights and it's throwing the balance of the party off because it basically makes a 4 PC party into a 3 PC party.
So to zoom out for a little bit, I think it merits consideration the general case of "I have nothing useful to do in this situation" and for what values of [situation] a GM should make exceptions for a player and which situations a GM should expect a player to specialize less.
Like the reason a kineticist does not usually specialize in doing exclusively fire damage is that fire resistant and immune creatures are fairly common. Characters who do weapon damage are encouraged to figure out something to do when they fight swarms, and regularly consider both the situation "someone is close to me and I cannot escape" and "someone is far away from me and I can only attack them at range" and have a plan for both of those. Like what does the sap master rogue do against a flying enemy here?
Like 100% the downside of "being a sap master rogue" (and the reason one would pick something else, usually) is that "some things are immune to nonlethal damage." Since Sap Master rogues can do damage against basically everything except undead or constructs on par with what a Barbarian can do, I think allowing people to bypass that small limitation with a single feat might be unreasonable.
if it's homebrewin your going for name it 'stracture fractures' or something.
but i for one wouldn't do that. he picked to specilize in a specific thing. doing so would probebly mean he deas more nonlethal damage then any other in the party (and maybe taking down normal enemies faster) that mean he used his resources to sepc in one way. if you grant him more resources to also effects things outside his specilization your favoring him over the others. unless you also help the rest the same way it's just unfair to them who probebly focused on their own things and don't get a boon to take out things outside their scope.
PossibleCabbage and zza ni, thanks for the replies. Normally I would agree with both of you, but this situation is a little different. The player actually asked the DM about this build before the game started and whether they would be fighting a lot of things that would be immune to nonlethal and the DM told them there wouldn't be a disproportionate amount. But, I think because the DM is new to Pathfinder, and table top RPgs in general, he didn't realize how common nonlethal enemies would be in his game, so now we are trying to do damage control just so that the player doesn't have to rebuild the character mid-game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are weaknesses your player inflicted on their own character in return for more damage, and you should think twice before doing away with them. I'd recommend your rogue to find a way to contribute against enemies immune to nonlethal, such as taking the Bludgeoner feat and not using a Sap. Or simply having a lethal backup weapon.
Edit: Rebuilding isn't that big a deal. There's always the retraining rules for that, so just take some time off and let the rogue do push-ups until they know how to deal lethal damage.
That being said, I think a creative solution would be best. Like I said earlier, it would be better if it was something more interesting than "you can do nonlethal to things that are immune to nonlethal".
Unfortunately that's the price of being a one trick pony: if you focus on only one method of fighting, you're going to be useless against thing that have a effective counter to you. And if your build can be beaten by something as simple as being undead, it's a sign that you need a backup plan.
Your player can still deal leathal damage, even if they are not optimized for that. It could be worse. An enchanter in his position (immunity to mind-affecting!) or a rogue fighting elementals or oozes (no sneak damage!) could be totally useless.
As a GM, you can put less encounters with the undead/construct, or to make them easier so that the party could still handle them, or mix-in some other creatures that the player could focus on while the rest of the party handles the things he's not effective against.
I really appreciate everyone's responses, but they really haven't spoken to my original request.
Some of the options we have been thinking about have been:
Can do NL after a successful CMB check.
Can do NL when you would be able to get sneak attack damage.
Can do NL but always do minimum damage.
I really appreciate everyone's responses, but they really haven't spoken to my original request.
Some of the options we have been thinking about have been:
Can do NL after a successful CMB check.
Can do NL when you would be able to get sneak attack damage.
Can do NL but always do minimum damage.
CMB checks would be exceedingly hard to succeed at, since enemy CMD just climbs skyhigh after mid-levels.
Minimum damage might work. Would result in slightly more damage than just doing lethal without Sap Adept/Sap Master.
I really appreciate everyone's responses, but they really haven't spoken to my original request.
Some of the options we have been thinking about have been:
Can do NL after a successful CMB check.
Can do NL when you would be able to get sneak attack damage.
Can do NL but always do minimum damage.
How about requiring a successful knowledge check (maybe with a higher than normal DC)?
You might also consider a special magic item that allows it, perhaps a limited number of times per day.
Isn't it just constructs and undead that are immune to nonlethal damage? Constructs aren't *that* common, so couldn't the player could just invest in something specifically to fight the undead and be okay?
Isn't it just constructs and undead that are immune to nonlethal damage? Constructs aren't *that* common, so couldn't the player could just invest in something specifically to fight the undead and be okay?
We're currently in a city that is home to, and basically only populated by, a race of constructs >.<
Before that we became entangled with a thieves guild of vampires, one of which was heavily implied to be a reoccurring BBEG.
What about a spell for removing a creature's immunity to nonlethal damage for a few rounds, either for the party's spellcasters or available via the Major Magic rogue talent?
It would need to be SR:No to work on golems, and probably no save to be worth casting on a non-DC-optimized character. Maybe a melee touch spell, then. You could make it a swift action to cast to minimally affect the character's combat efficacy, or a standard action if that proves too strong in play.
I'm a bit hesitant to suggest this, but if you really want to introduce a feat path for a non-lethal specialized character to do non-lethal damage to immune creatures then the effect should be weak and take feats to build up.
That's all well and good for game balance in the abstract, but OP isn't asking for a balanced feat to be used in all campaigns. OP is asking for a way to let a sap master meaningfully participate and have fun in a construct-and-vampire-heavy campaign. Waiting six more levels to be able to effectually fight enemies is not fun.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To make this bald face clear, the OP specifically is asking for a cheap trick to allow a character who is all about gaining extra power by limiting what it can effect, and to keep all that extra power while ignoring those limitations that were taken to gain that extra power. We are not talking about meaningful contribution, what he is askiing for is domination of combat in all cases. Pfffft, this is entirely homebrew territory, so just have the GM make up an item that translates your non-lethal damage to disruptive penalties versus your normally immune targets or some similar cheese, but at least recognize that it is a home baked cheesy bean feast casserole, and unlikely to be allowed outside of your table, pretty much ever. It's only a game, do what's fun for your table, just recognize that what you are doing flies in the face of the spirit of clever careful optimization which is what a lot of forum denizens live for. You can have it all for free if you are all ok with it, but there is no good way to do it within the rules based gamestyle, which is where the dissonance is coming from.
These are weaknesses your player inflicted on their own character in return for more damage, and you should think twice before doing away with them. I'd recommend your rogue to find a way to contribute against enemies immune to nonlethal, such as taking the Bludgeoner feat and not using a Sap. Or simply having a lethal backup weapon.
Edit: Rebuilding isn't that big a deal. There's always the retraining rules for that, so just take some time off and let the rogue do push-ups until they know how to deal lethal damage.
Yeah, honestly this is the answer. The player shouldn't be allowed to bypass their own self inflicted problem.
All they need to do is have a backup weapon (or two) and they still can sneak attack and do other things. Sure, they aren't operating at "maximum effectiveness" but they choose to specialize in something to get a bunch of extra damage, with the caveat of not being able to harm undead and constructs.
It's time for the player to take their licks, and use a backup weapon.
Having thought about this now for a while, reading what people have posted here, and talking with some others, I think the best solution might be a magical item. Something like, "This item allows your nonlethal weapons to do lethal damage against creatures that are immune to nonlethal damage. When activated it allows you to do nonlethal damage against creatures that would normally be immune to nonlethal damage for X rounds or maybe minutes a day"
So one thing I would suggest thinking about re: city of constructs, is that whether these constructs are supposed to be PC-equivalent individuals or if the are big scary golems or something.
Since Pathfinder has some races you can play which are plants (Vine Leshys, Ghorans, etc.) and normally plants are immune to mind-affecting effects, but that is a huge range of things and not really appropriate for a level 1 PC. So the PC-equivalent plants just are not immune to mind-affecting.
Androids in Pathfinder, are meaningfully constructs in the sense that they are constructed, but you can still deal nonlethal damage to them. So are the residents of this city closer to androids than they are to iron golems?
The GM is of course able to create a magic item that does anything he wants. So while it is certainly possible to do so the cost an item that allows you to do what is being described should be very expensive. This should be the equivalent to a +6 bonus for a weapon. A +5 bonus will allow a weapon to overcome most DR. Complete immunity to a nonlethal damage is a lot stronger than simply DR so should the ability to overcome it should be more expensive.
It's kind of the juvenile dark side of the optimization philosophy. Not being at or near the best means being worthless to that mindset. You know, niche powers or, gods forbid, non combat powers become traps and suchlike.
On the other hand, it's a Rogue. What are the other party member's classes?
On the other hand, it's a Rogue. What are the other party member's classes?
I wonder how much of this is motivated by the perception that "rogues are a damage dealing class" which is certainly true in other games, but has never really been true in Pathfinder.
I mean, rogues deal damage, but they are far behind the best in class barring extremely specific situations (like it's real hard to get pounce on a rogue.) A rogue's primary contribution to a PF party is supposed to be out of combat.
A rogue's primary contribution to a PF party is supposed to be out of combat.
I think the Rogue's primary contribution to a PF party is that stupid players who think that you need to have "Rogue" written as your class to play a cool, edgy character don't annoy the party with their constant whining, but maybe that's just me.
A rogue's primary contribution to a PF party is supposed to be out of combat.
A shame "supposed to" is the operative word, here.
Because in reality, 3/4th of all classes are better out of combat. Which is why I asked for the other PC's classes - if there's a bunch of tier 1-3 classes, the Rogue does indeed need to be thrown not one, but multiple bones.
Like I said before, he is not looking to power game. The player came up with a personality for the character that goes well with the nonlethal damage build. He actually asked the DM before the campaign started if they were going to be seeing a lot of immune enemies and the DM said no. The DM, however, is very new to Pathfinder and TTRPGs in general and I don't think he realized how commonly they were going to be popping up in his game. So, the group is trying to find a middle ground so the player doesn't have to change his whole character around. I think a magic item is going to work well.
The other members of the party are an alchemist, a slayer, and a hunter.
Being good a role playing doesn't mean you can't be a power gamer.
That's stormwind fallacy.
You can have both a very detailed character including personality and backstory and also try to be stronger than every other character in the party.
I agree. People in this thread have been saying that is what he is trying to do, but it's not. If the situation was different I think I would agree since if you make a nonlethal build you are going to come up against things that are immune once in a while. But again, given this specific situation, we're just trying to solve a problem in a fun, creative, and balanced way.
The Stormwynd fallacy is generally trotted out to distract from some pretty egregious behavior. Just because roleplaying and power gaming are not mutually exclusive, it does not mean that in reality, they are not often at odds.
This is more an issue of inexperience, and lack of concern or understanding with balance, and really has nothing to do with roleplaying. It is a completely wargamey issue.