Wasn't the example a fist? (It simply had Str & a crit behind it).
The issue is with a crit possibly doing more damage than 2x the hp of a "1st level commoner": 2d4+17 is a lot more likely than a straight 2d6. Hence the reason to pick something that doesn't add strength damage [x2].
It could take way too many hits with a blowgun!
*shrug* if it's a "1st level commoner" vs a party of 20th level people, you can hit with 3 attack so a party of 4 can do 12 points of damage min and likely several crits which should knock them out. Toss a normal shortbow into the mix and it's a lot quicker.
From what I understand the question was 'how do you knock out a "1st level commoner" without killing them as a higher level character' not 'how can I do it in 1 action'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't the example a fist? (It simply had Str & a crit behind it).The issue is with a crit possibly doing more damage than 2x the hp of a "1st level commoner": 2d4+17 is a lot more likely than a straight 2d6. Hence the reason to pick something that doesn't add strength damage [x2].
It could take way too many hits with a blowgun!*shrug* if it's a "1st level commoner" vs a party of 20th level people, you can hit with 3 attack so a party of 4 can do 12 points of damage min and likely several crits which should knock them out. Toss a normal shortbow into the mix and it's a lot quicker.
From what I understand the question was 'how do you knock out a "1st level commoner" without killing them as a higher level character' not 'how can I do it in 1 action'.
Why did you skip the part about shortbows doing +1d10 w/ a crit only to reintroduce them as viable options (when they aren't)?
Hand crossbows might be the best option, though it seems awfully strange to fire one "nonlethally" w/ a standard sharp bolt. And also odd to only carry one for knocking out guards.Even a blowgun, in the hands of a 19th+ Fighter, does 9 damage, 18 w/ a crit, which will "nonlethally" kill a commoner.
Arguably, by RAW, a pillow will kill a commoner if high level characters aren't allowed to scale back their damage.
That seems obviously absurd, and why RAW should be set aside. A skilled PC shouldn't have to go to great lengths and carry specific weapons because their slap's too deadly. It should be routine for an elite warrior (especially a Monk!) in a high fantasy game to conk out a simple town guard (perhaps fooled by an evil mayor), raving citizen under a spell, or defiant child. It's a standard narrative trope.
I think it really should be as simple as "I'm aiming to subdue rather than kill" and the GM working with the player to allow that in a straightforward manner.
Imagine Spock doing his nerve pinch and tearing the guy's shoulder off.
Whoops I rolled a 20.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine Spock doing his nerve pinch and tearing the guy's shoulder off.
Whoops I rolled a 20.
Has the guy a red shirt?
Why did you skip the part about shortbows doing +1d10 w/ a crit only to reintroduce them as viable options (when they aren't)?
Meant to replace with a hand crossbow. A 20th level sorcerer does 2d6+4 on a crit so it's not killing a level 1 NPC.
Even a blowgun, in the hands of a 19th+ Fighter, does 9 damage, 18 w/ a crit, which will "nonlethally" kill a commoner.
So have the sorcerer do it for 3 or 6 damage? Doesn't take many of those to knock out a -1 level Commoner.
in the hands of a 19th+ Fighter
The moral of the story is that is you want to knock out someone 20 levels lower than you, pick someone other than the fighter...
Note that the thread question has been clarified by the OP and their GM to be about 1st-level PCs trying to knock out a couple NPCs.
Also note that the GM explicitly offered the fighter the option to pull their punch and they declined... even after the first NPC died.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as level one characters trying to be nonlethal, I'd chalk this up to bad luck on the player's part maxing out damage twice. But this does leave a hole in design space.
Grapple doesn't give you the option to really do much (I'd asked with an earlier thread) aside from knees to the gut (unarmed attacks), or your friends joining in..and we're back to where we started. In heroic fiction there should be a way to let others survive a scuffle or tavern brawl.
This also ends up causing a nasty trap of sending a bunch of level 1s at a high-level fighter who isn't allowed to kill them ... suddenly that fighter is in trouble. Something like, say, a tavern brawl. Or a little kid that won't get the hint and has to be knocked out. In these cases, I'd honestly give the attacker some options to mitigate the issue (especially since these can be seen as a little contrived on the GM's part).
For first-levels or even(ish) fights, combat should probably play out with nonlethal damage working as normal. Don't forget the normal rules. It'll rarely happen but it makes sense there. However, if you're going to go with subduing commoners, I'd almost make that a hybrid combat/social encounter. The level one princeling who's been compelled to attack the level twelve barbarian is not really a <i>combat</i> threat as such, is he?
|
Note that the thread question has been clarified by the OP and their GM to be about 1st-level PCs trying to knock out a couple NPCs.
Also note that the GM explicitly offered the fighter the option to pull their punch and they declined... even after the first NPC died.
The GM did not offer the option before from what I remember. He would have allowed the Fighter to pull his punches if the player had asked, which the latter did not.
GM do not hesitate to correct me if I misremember. BTW you GMed that adventure really well IMO :-)
Note that, having completely forgotten about massive damage and not knowing it applied to Non-lethal, I really thought we could not inadvertently kill the NPCs. Hence why I was a bit shocked though not that upset when the first died.
Note also that I do not know of any RAW way to pull punches and I honestly believed this was what Non-lethal was for.
I note for the future that grappling is the only surefire way to subdue a NPC with zero chance of accidentally killing them. Even though a poster above seems to say that it is not really efficient at low level, if I understood that well.
Considering the Agents of Edgewatch Player Guide's absolute recourse to Non-lethal damage as a way for the police PCs to avoid killing innocent people, I wonder if all Paizonians realize that the massive damage rule can still end up in accidental killing, especially when high-level agents face low-level people. It feels like a hole in the ruleset TBH.
Note that the thread question has been clarified by the OP and their GM to be about 1st-level PCs trying to knock out a couple NPCs.
Also note that the GM explicitly offered the fighter the option to pull their punch and they declined... even after the first NPC died.
The GM did not offer the option before from what I remember. He would have allowed the Fighter to pull his punches if the player had asked, which the latter did not.
GM do not hesitate to correct me if I misremember. BTW you GMed that adventure really well IMO :-)
My bad for misremembering SuperBidi's post. Thanks for the correction.
Considering the Agents of Edgewatch Player Guide's absolute recourse to Non-lethal damage as a way for the police PCs to avoid killing innocent people, I wonder if all Paizonians realize that the massive damage rule can still end up in accidental killing, especially when high-level agents face low-level people. It feels like a hole in the ruleset TBH.
Maybe it should be reported in the current CRB errata thread? One way or another, the Massive Damage rule needs clarification---either "even if it's a nonlethal attack" or "unless it's a nonlethal attack."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hence why I was a bit shocked though not that upset when the first died.
Same for me, the first time it happened to me in PF1. But I got used to this (silly) rule.
Anyway, massive damage rule is a bit problematic. I see why Paizo added it, to avoid a first level character to survive a meteor swarm, but in most circumstances, it's more of an issue. There's another thread about how this rule increases one hit kills at first level while being non existent at higher levels.
I think intent is actually important here.
Are you attacking using nonlethal damage because you do not wish to inflict lethal damage? Or are you attacking using nonlethal damage because your means of attack is inherently nonlethal?
If it's the latter you should be absolutely able to kill someone accidentally using massive damage.
|
|
I think intent is actually important here.
Are you attacking using nonlethal damage because you do not wish to inflict lethal damage? Or are you attacking using nonlethal damage because your means of attack is inherently nonlethal?
If it's the latter you should be absolutely able to kill someone accidentally using massive damage.
I still think "accidentally killing" should not be the result of a critical SUCCESS. Sounds more like an epic failure.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any GM that pits a high level party against extraordinarily weak opponents, doesn't simply narrate out their obvious victory (or permit the players to do so), and then traps the PC(s) with a murder charge even though they were attempting to take prisoners is a toxic GM.
And that's the nicest possible way I can bring myself to put it. It makes me angry to even think about.
Has the guy a red shirt?Imagine Spock doing his nerve pinch and tearing the guy's shoulder off.
Whoops I rolled a 20.
Well it certainly is red now! XD