Nonlethal comment

[Zapp]

I was searching for any official input on the question how persistent damage impacts your ability to knock someone out with nonlethal damage. For instance, you have a Fire rune on your weapon that sets the target on fire on a critical. Or you're a high level Barbarian who always causes foes to start bleeding when you crit 'em.

One of the few threads discussing "nonlethal" and "persistent" together is/was this one:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz6f?Nonlethal-Damage-Do-people-prefer-PF1sty le-or

It's a prerelease thread which is archived (read-only), so when I read the following passage, I had to start a new thread (this thread) to respond.

Quote:

If I bring a character to the table that doesn't like to kill people, in PF1 that is entirely doable. As long as I get one solid hit of nonlethal, it's very likely the opponent will not die during the combat.

In my mind that's hardly better than how PF2 works.

The only way I think it's worth to add more tracking is if the rule is:

"When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless they have taken more nonlethal damage than lethal damage, in which case they are instead knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 1 minute or more)."
(changes from 2E RAW in bold)

Just managing to get in two or three points of non-lethal should not matter in the slightest. If you want to take someone alive, you should need to suffer the -2 penalty for the majority of the fight.

If that's not to your liking, the RAW rule (where only the final attack matters) is good enough for me.

[Salamileg]

Honestly, I've considered just removing the penalty for making nonlethal attacks, the same way Agents of Edgewatch does it.

But, as far as I'm aware, there's no way to make nonlethal persistent damage, and I also don't believe there's been any developer commentary on it. However, for persistent damage that comes from critical specializations you can always choose to not apply the crit spec. The same is not true for things like flaming runes or tiger stance, however.

I actually lost a character to this once when my champion got dominated by a succubus. My ally monk crit me with her last attack nonlethally, but the persistent damage from tiger stance ended up taking me down before the party's other healer could get to me.

[Malk_Content]

I like that setting someone on fire means you probably aren't trying to take prisoners. If the team wants to try and be non-lethal then they should put some effort into in my opinion.

I will note though as a GM if someone told me they were trying to take prisoners, I wouldn't insta kill an enemy either. Your team has a whole round to try and save the downed combatant after all.

[Claxon]

I liked PF1 versions of non-lethal, though it was definitely more work for a GM.

You had to keep track of non-lethal and lethal damage separately, and non-lethal was kind of like raising the floor for when someone got knocked out. Instead of happening at 0, it would happen earlier. And with PF1 people weren't dead at 0 removed from play, they still had till their negative con for death. So with a good whack of non-lethal (not too hard to cause 20+ points of non-lethal damage in a single go) it was very likely your enemy would have a substantial margin above 0 hp when being knocked unconscious. Even if they were taking persistent damage it was usually feasible to rid them of the status, tie them up and then go about your business.

In PF2, you basically have to handwave it unless you're whole party is on -board with taking prisoners.

[Squiggit]

Personally I like the idea of handwaving it more than PF1's one single point of nonlethal damage being enough to eventually knock someone out and disabling features that revolve around being down on HP.

Just felt super clunky to me.

[Zapp]

Great stuff.

I can add that I don't plan on forcing players (and myself!) to keep track of two pools of damage (lethal and nonlethal).

Instead I'm using the concept (or condition if you will) of Bloodied.

(Details about Bloodied moved to next post)

---

Now then, my proposed variant for how nonlethal interacts with Knocked-Down:

Variant cut out into its own thread over in Homebrew, so this entire thread isn't move there:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43avu?nonlethal-and-knockeddown#1

This means
1) no need to track separate damage poools! :)
2) you can’t just use a nonlethal attack at the very end of a combat - you need to inflict roughly as much nonlethal damage as lethal damage to safely knock the creature out without killing it.

This last point deserves an example:

Yes, it means that if a monster has 2 hp more than its Bloodied value, and gets a Critical that brings it down to 4 hp total, then you only need to deal 4 points of nonlethal to avoid killing it.

But the more general case is that the monster isn't Bloodied until it is, when it will have slightly less hp than its Bloodied value; meaning the variant accomplishes "you need to inflict roughly as much nonlethal damage as lethal damage" with no extra counting needed!

It doesn't have to be an exact science. It just means the normal case requires heroes to go nonlethal for a significant number of attacks, and seldom just one :)

[Zapp]

If you have played 4th Edition you know that Bloodied is a state you're in when you've lost half your hit points. For example, a character with 50 maximum hit points has a Bloodied value of 25, and is Bloodied whenever the character's hit points are equal to or less than 25.

We have used this concept for years while playing 5E and now PF2 simply because it's convenient: characters can't tell exactly how many hit points monsters or their allies have taken. But they can always tell whether a critter is Bloodied or not. This way, we use it to give healers and others some guidance for which creatures are wounded without the very meta feeling of reporting exact numbers.

Instead of the healer asking "who's hurt" and getting the responses "I need 87 hp" or "I've taken 40 damage" you can only report whether you're Bloodied or not. It works especially well in PF2 where hit points total swing wildly.

(In 5E you could argue more detail could be helpful since "barely Bloodied" means you're fine for a time so the healer should help the "very Bloodied" character instead. But since monsters will easily take you from full hp to zero in a single round, this distinction loses in value. If a character is Bloodied it needs healing, full stop. The extra risk from being very bloodied vs just barely blooded isn't as pronounced in PF2 - both characters will simply fall if targeted.)

<end aside>

[Ascalaphus]

I never really got into 4E but the concept of "bloodied" always struck me as a really elegant compromise between "don't tell people your exact HP" and "but surely I can tell if he's hurt without spending an action on a skill check?"

As I understand, there were also some Barbarian abilities that triggered off either yourself or an enemy being bloodied, which is cool design space if you want to emphasize the savage barbarian vs the more formally trained fighter.

[Ascalaphus]

@Zapp to get back to your original question. I would say that most abilities that inflict persistent damage should have some way of not doing that persistent damage.

- Choosing not to use a feat should usually be possible, with some exceptions (like a feat that constantly gives you dragon scaled). Just because you know a technique doesn't mean you always have to apply it.

- In 1E you could turn Flaming weapons on and off. The 2E Flaming rune doesn't have that option. I might allow turning them off anyway (as an action). Alternatively, you could just use a different weapon or your fists.

In most cases, not using all your Stuff will probably make you a bit less powerful. Then again, if taking people down nonlethally is something you plan to do regularly, maybe the Flaming rune just isn't optimal for the character you want to play..

Also, usually you need to make that decision before you make the attack. Not necessarily right from the beginning of the combat, but like taking a -2 to hit for nonlethal, you have to be careful. So very many plot NPCs got killed by a player getting a surprise power attack crit in 1E, and 2E is just the same. Being able to tell if an enemy is at least Bloodied, or in a platform like Roll20, maybe being able to see the health bars of monsters but no exact numbers, allows the player a reasonably informed decision.

[Ravingdork]

Zapp wrote:

The only way I think it's worth to add more tracking is if the rule is:

"When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless they have taken more nonlethal damage than lethal damage, in which case they are instead knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 1 minute or more)."
(changes from 2E RAW in bold)

There is no nonlethal damage in 2nd Edition, only nonlethal attacks.

This wouldn't be a small change, but a whole new subsystem.

[Loreguard]

Well, sticking to the original post. Certainly many feats allow abilities that are/should be considered optional by the wielder. So certainly many abilities, you should be able to choose when making the strike, to use the ability, or choose not to. As pointed out, using the Critical Specialization is as the attacker's discretion.

If you have an ability that allows you to add the non-lethal trait to an attack, then it may be perfectly valid interpretation that all damage caused by the attack (which could include persistent damage) could have the nonlethal trait, and thus, potentially you might be able to have non-lethal bleed.

If the attack was nonlethal, then the damage tied to the attack, by the rules does not cause death when the target reaches 0 HP.

If someone considers the damage from the fire rune as being a different source than the nonlethal attack made with the sword, then the GM could rule it being a source of damage that doesn't have the nonlethal trait on it's effect. But technically, as mentioned. Since the damage types itself don't have a non-lethal attack, it goes back to the attack that created the effect to determine if it is lethal, or nonlethal.

So I think, by the rules, you GM would be completely in their rights to decide an attack doing bleed damage from a nonlethal attack, the target would bleed out until they go unconscious and then stay unconscious.

If the Dev's meant for every instance of persistent damage being received being treated a a new attack, and therefore the nonlethal effect being lost, that would have impact on items such as resistance from a Champion's reaction that is supposed to be applied to all damage from a given attack.

[Zapp]

Ravingdork wrote:

Zapp wrote:

The only way I think it's worth to add more tracking is if the rule is:

"When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless they have taken more nonlethal damage than lethal damage, in which case they are instead knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 1 minute or more)."
(changes from 2E RAW in bold)

There is no nonlethal damage in 2nd Edition, only nonlethal attacks.

This wouldn't be a small change, but a whole new subsystem.

First read this:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43avu?nonlethal-and-knockeddown#1

Then I am happy to respond to any comments, but over there.

[Zapp]

Loreguard wrote:

you GM would be completely in their rights to decide an attack doing bleed damage from a nonlethal attack, the target would bleed out until they go unconscious and then stay unconscious.

I am not denying a GM the right to rule however he wishes.

Per the RAW I would say persistent damage kills, though.

[roquepo]

Salamileg wrote:

But, as far as I'm aware, there's no way to make nonlethal persistent damage, and I also don't believe there's been any developer commentary on it.

Just here to point out that Nonlethal Spell exists.

[Zapp]

roquepo wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

But, as far as I'm aware, there's no way to make nonlethal persistent damage, and I also don't believe there's been any developer commentary on it.

Just here to point out that Nonlethal Spell exists.

The link goes to a Wizard feat.

If other casters could take it, you could say it's a solution.

[Loreguard]

I was going to say that I thought there was cannon information in Agents of Edgewatch with regards to having an option to make all weapons attacks be able to be nonlethal without taking a penalty, which is the typical thing required to convert a normal lethal strike to nonlethal. However, looking at the book again, it merely suggests it as a viable, or even recommended house-rule, but it does call it a house rule, as opposed to official option.

So despite it being in a published book, it sounds like it would still be a houserule to just grant nonlethal option across the board. Even if it is recommended within a published book.

Honestly, if they are attempting to take them alive, if they put effort into it, I'd suggest that in most conditions, handwaving it as possible makes the most sense to me. When handwaving, I could imagine some conditions that might be outliers, such as someone getting a crit that does more than 2x a target's max HP with a nonlethal weapon, I could easily see that meriting a potential accidental kill, even if they were intending on taking them alive, if such a result didn't spoil the story significantly.

The end goal, should be letting the heroes of the story, be the heroes. So if it's reasonable for the enemy to have been knocked out, let them be knocked out. If they took tons of lethal damage, let them need bandaging, but make it apparent such is true, and let them slowly go dying 1 and increment a step each round without rolls to either drop 2 or stabilize. [I'm not saying jump to house rule here. Use of Dying rules on NPCs is by RAW optional/discretionary for the GM to decide according to the core rules]

If killing the prisoner they were supposed to catch, ruins the story for the players, then don't let it happen. If it throws a wrench in the story, that you know that your particular players will, in the end appreciate, I say roll with it.

If players are willingly undermining the plot of the story and using lethal attacks against someone that needs to be taken alive when they know they are close to being unconscious, it really isn't a nonlethal usage question, but a player 'story disruption' question. And your solutions won't be related to nonlethal usage, but identifying why the player is disrupting. (are they not having fun, is there unresolved interpersonal issues going on, etc.)

[roquepo]

Zapp wrote:

roquepo wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

But, as far as I'm aware, there's no way to make nonlethal persistent damage, and I also don't believe there's been any developer commentary on it.

Just here to point out that Nonlethal Spell exists.

The link goes to a Wizard feat.

If other casters could take it, you could say it's a solution.

I was just pointing out that there are indeed precedents of Nonlethal persistent damage.

I never intended to answer you directly or try to solve your problem.

[Loreguard]

roquepo wrote:

Zapp wrote:

roquepo wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

But, as far as I'm aware, there's no way to make nonlethal persistent damage, and I also don't believe there's been any developer commentary on it.

Just here to point out that Nonlethal Spell exists.

The link goes to a Wizard feat.

If other casters could take it, you could say it's a solution.

I was just pointing out that there are indeed precedents of Nonlethal persistent damage.

I never intended to answer you directly or try to solve your problem.

Yes, actually, I believe it points out that I don't believe that there is any established rule that causes damage/effect caused by a nonlethal attack via nonlethal weapon (or spell if by that metamagic) to suddenly become lethal (loses nonlethal trait) because it has the persistent trait.

So actually, presuming you can use Nonlethal spell on acid splash, and it s persistent acid damage is nonlethal, that would be just as valid for a blowgun's persistent bleed damage from its critical weapon specialization. They both apply nonlethal to the damage coming from it.

Metamagic spell just allows you to access the nonlethal trait with many spells, instead of with a weapon.

[BishopMcQ]

Loreguard wrote:

I was going to say that I thought there was cannon information in Agents of Edgewatch with regards to having an option to make all weapons attacks be able to be nonlethal without taking a penalty, which is the typical thing required to convert a normal lethal strike to nonlethal. However, looking at the book again, it merely suggests it as a viable, or even recommended house-rule, but it does call it a house rule, as opposed to official option.

The Player's Guide makes it hard and fast

Player's Guide - Agents of Edgewatch wrote:

This means that, during combat encounters, your character is always dealing nonlethal damage; you are never allowed to deal lethal damage. You take no penalty to attack rolls for dealing nonlethal damage, and all types of damage you deal (whether from weapon attacks, spells, or even poisons) are nonlethal. You gain no bonuses or added benefits for making attacks using weapons with the nonlethal weapon trait. As usual for nonlethal damage, when you reduce a creature to 0 Hit Points using nonlethal damage, the creature falls unconscious instead of dying.

Though the adventure on the GM side calls it a houserule.

[Ascalaphus]

Honestly if you're comparing the tone of the Edgewatch Players' Guide to the first book, it's like those two authors are living in entirely different worlds. The PG is all about nonviolent policing and the first book is all "oh you tried to talk them down.. that just gives them a chance to get reinforcements and pull together multiple encounters, silly you, you should have started by hitting first and asking questions later".

[Ascalaphus]

graystone wrote:

Zapp wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

wrong forum, this is 100% houserule/homebrew discussion and there is a forum for that

No, we need to be able to discuss rules without getting shunted out to the houserules forum.

You might have a valid point if we where talking about the rules forum: we're in General though which is "for topics that don't fit other places." It doesn't matter is it's either talking about rules or houserules, this would be the wrong place for it as BOTH of those have their own forum. :P

I feel like this thread is exploring both the regular rules *and* whether homebrew might be desirable. If it belongs in more than one forum at the same time, then the General forum is exactly the right place for it.

Also, could we all be a little less aggressive about trying to dismiss other peoples' ideas by trying to exile them to another forum all the time?

[Zapp]

roquepo wrote:

I was just pointing out that there are indeed precedents of Nonlethal persistent damage.

I never intended to answer you directly or try to solve your problem.

Acknowledged!

Have a nice day,
Z

[Zapp]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Also, could we all be a little less aggressive about trying to dismiss other peoples' ideas by trying to exile them to another forum all the time?

Thank you.

[Zapp]

Loreguard wrote:

Yes, actually, I believe it points out that I don't believe that there is any established rule that causes damage/effect caused by a nonlethal attack via nonlethal weapon (or spell if by that metamagic) to suddenly become lethal (loses nonlethal trait) because it has the persistent trait.

It is an interesting rules question to ponder.

[Zapp]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Honestly if you're comparing the tone of the Edgewatch Players' Guide to the first book, it's like those two authors are living in entirely different worlds. The PG is all about nonviolent policing and the first book is all "oh you tried to talk them down.. that just gives them a chance to get reinforcements and pull together multiple encounters, silly you, you should have started by hitting first and asking questions later".

That is because those two authors are living in entirely different worlds.

:)

No really, the player's guide was edited very late in the process - it was the only AoE product still open to edits without throwing the entire publication schedule out of whack.

That this edit comes across as hasty and crude was a price Paizo felt it could pay to take the edge off the criticism.

So one author lived in the pre BLM law enforcement controversy world, while the other lived in the post BLM law enforcement controversy world, and it shows.

Hope that explains it (without me offending any party)

[TheGoofyGE3K]

To answer the question, the original wording says "most creatures die at zero hp" which implies not all do. Using the dying rules on an npc who someone crit with a nonlethal attack that deals persistent damage would likely be a good thing for the GM to do, giving people time to stabilize them. Boars gave a reaction that supports the use of these rules. May help.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

In my case I didn't post to be antagonistic but to explain my flag reasoning to any moderator who has to figure out why it was flagged and make a decision.

Minor aid makes a fairly thankless job easier, in my experience,

On a personal note I don't think the general thread should be used because it gets more traffic. I am a big fan of maintaining a semblance order when it comes to forums. Having houserules and houseruling discussions here makes it harder for people to find it who do want to find a "Fix" as well.
Similar to if I were to advertise my services as a paid GM on a primary subreddit that tells people not to post advertisements on the main feed and only to post them in the advertisements mega thread. But then I posted on the main thread anyway because it will get more views as people avoid the advertisement mega thread.

[Zapp]

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

To answer the question, the original wording says "most creatures die at zero hp" which implies not all do. Using the dying rules on an npc who someone crit with a nonlethal attack that deals persistent damage would likely be a good thing for the GM to do, giving people time to stabilize them. Boars gave a reaction that supports the use of these rules. May help.

You can obviously decide on using the "full" dying rules on any NPC on a case by case basis.

It's just that I think many gamers would appreciate a general rule. Some GMs don't want to decide on the spot whether people die or not, they want a consistent rule deciding that for them.

Currently that rule (arguably) says "any time you get persistent damage, you're likely done for".

It would have been better if the official Paizo rule indicated a stance on persistent damage. Currently it is as if the Knocked-Out rule was written by someone never even considering how persistent damage is a prevalent thing in this new edition of Pathfinder.

Cheers

[Malk_Content]

Zapp wrote:

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

To answer the question, the original wording says "most creatures die at zero hp" which implies not all do. Using the dying rules on an npc who someone crit with a nonlethal attack that deals persistent damage would likely be a good thing for the GM to do, giving people time to stabilize them. Boars gave a reaction that supports the use of these rules. May help.

You can obviously decide on using the "full" dying rules on any NPC on a case by case basis.

It's just that I think many gamers would appreciate a general rule. Some GMs don't want to decide on the spot whether people die or not, they want a consistent rule deciding that for them.

Currently that rule (arguably) says "any time you get persistent damage, you're likely done for".

It would have been better if the official Paizo rule indicated a stance on persistent damage. Currently it is as if the Knocked-Out rule was written by someone never even considering how persistent damage is a prevalent thing in this new edition of Pathfinder.

Cheers

I don't think a GM has to decide on the spot at all in pretty much any circumstance.

NPCs die at 0, with the following being fairly obvious exceptions.

1) The GM wants the NPC to have a chance to survive for story reasons.
2) The NPC or allies have abilities to undo or interact with the dying conditions (like regeneration or a friendly cleric.)
3) The players indicate they are trying to take captives (by either announcing such, or by using non-lethal.)

The only one of those that really requires any discretion by the GM is 3, and I would say any decent player agency minded GM wouldn't actually need to think about it.

Then with persistent damage the party has a whole round to try and deal with it. If you want to take prisoners AND are using persistent damage and don't actually have a means to restrain and heal the prisoner... are you actually trying to take prisoners?

[Zapp]

That's the question, not the answer, Malk!

Many parties would find it a great inconvenience to switch out their main weapons "just" to make sure a monster stays alive.

So the questions remain relevant:
a) is persistent damage affected by the lethal/nonlethal status of the attack?
b) can you choose to not apply persistent damage?
c) is it reasonable to put the onus of deciding who gets the full PC dying rules and who doesn't on the GM?

As for question c) remember we're specifically dealing with the suspicion it really is just the players who want to avoid having to pay a price for nonlethal? That it would be much more convenient to just have the GM solve your problems for you?

Best regards,

[Ixal]

Zapp wrote:

That's the question, not the answer, Malk!

Many parties would find it a great inconvenience to switch out their main weapons "just" to make sure a monster stays alive.

So the questions remain relevant:
a) is persistent damage affected by the lethal/nonlethal status of the attack?
b) can you choose to not apply persistent damage?
c) is it reasonable to put the onus of deciding who gets the full PC dying rules and who doesn't on the GM?

As for question c) remember we're specifically dealing with the suspicion it really is just the players who want to avoid having to pay a price for nonlethal? That it would be much more convenient to just have the GM solve your problems for you?

Best regards,

Some parties also think tracking HP is inconvenient.

For me it sounds like a feature that taking someone alive while wielding lethal weapons designed to kill is harder. So either switch weapons or accept the increased difficulty.

Sadly nonlethal damage is one area that has been too simplified in recent times, not only PF but also D&D itself.

[Zapp]

Ixal wrote:

For me it sounds like a feature that taking someone alive while wielding lethal weapons designed to kill is harder. So either switch weapons or accept the increased difficulty.

But... but...

The point is: is it really?

You simply assume, and then fully accept, take it alive = increased difficulty.

But if you don't simply accept that, you want actual rules arguments.

What if you can simply go "no thanks to persistent damage" or "I'll simply let the GM save the monster; if she decides not to use the full dying rules its death is on her not me".

Not saying this because you're wrong. Trying to explain why the discussion will remain alive until we get clarity where none exist today.

Cheers

[Malk_Content]

Taking someone alive is more difficult (physically not emotionally) than killing them yes. If it was easier we'd probably be doing it a heck of a lot more in wars because life captives are a powerful batering tool.

[Claxon]

Malk_Content wrote:

Taking someone alive is more difficult (physically not emotionally) than killing them yes. If it was easier we'd probably be doing it a heck of a lot more in wars because life captives are a powerful batering tool.

A battering tool you say?

So like you make the batter food?

Or you use them to batter down doors?

;)

[Malk_Content]

Claxon wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Taking someone alive is more difficult (physically not emotionally) than killing them yes. If it was easier we'd probably be doing it a heck of a lot more in wars because life captives are a powerful batering tool.

A battering tool you say?

So like you make the batter food?

Or you use them to batter down doors?

;)

According to my phone I talk about batter more than I barter I guess.

[Claxon]

I mean, who doesn't love bread, deserts, and deep fried things?