Nonlethal comment

[Jared Walter 356]

Zapp wrote:

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?
<SNIP>

Yes taking things alive is clearly intended to be harder. Why else the -2 for using a lethal weapon to deal non-lethal damage?

[Ixal]

Zapp wrote:

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

It is.

From a "realism" point of view, weapons are made to seriously injure and kill. Sure they sometimes fail to do so leaving the opponent to slowly bleed out instead of being killed, but keeping the opponent alive is not what weapons like swords and axes are designed to do so.
Nonlethal weapons on the other hand make bad weapons for killing enemies as they were specifically designed to not apply lethal force.

So either way the PCs have to use nonlethal weapons which are worse at dealing damage than lethal ones or have to use weapons for something they are not intended to and designed for, making it only logical for there being a penalty when doing so.

From a game point of view, capturing an enemy instead of killing is better in most cases as it allows the PCs more options like interrogating them, etc. And if the PCs don't want to, they can still kill them after knocking them out.
So as knocking enemies out offers more options it should also come with a cost like a penalty to attacks or lower damage when using nonlethal weapons.

[Claxon]

I don't think the argument tracks, to be honest.

Primarily because our "lethal weapons" in game don't work a lot like weapons in our reality. You get run through by a sword on your torso and you're not still continuing to fight. Arms and legs you might survive to continue fighting, but you more than likely need medical attention or you will bleed to death in a few minutes. The game doesn't reflect this, because it would make combat terrible unfun and lethal for both players and enemies. First one to land a solid hit wins!

Personally I think it's more fun to make a system that allows players to more easily effect the outcome to be able to knock someone unconscious and take them. It's why I preferred PF1's method, because you only needed one good hit to reasonably assure they would be unconscious above 0 hp. And that was still done with a penalty to hit, unless of course you took one of the many options to negate it.

[Ravingdork]

As hit points are abstracted a "hit" doesn't necessarily mean that you've "run someone through." Unless it's the attack that knocks them down to 0 hit points, it could be a glancing blow, or even a near miss that reduces their stamina setting them up for the final lethal blow.

I'm not sure why, after decades of games using hit points, that this still doesn't appear to be common knowledge.

[Claxon]

Ravingdork wrote:

As hit points are abstracted a "hit" doesn't necessarily mean that you've "run someone through." Unless it's the attack that knocks them down to 0 hit points, it could be a glancing blow, or even a near miss that reduces their stamina setting them up for the final lethal blow.

I'm not sure why, after decades of games using hit points, that this still doesn't appear to be common knowledge.

It is, I'm aware. But it's also a bad abstraction (IMO).

Starfinder stamina does a much better job.

And aside from that, it still means that it has weird interactions with non-lethal damage.

What would've made sense (IMO) is that you have an HP pool, based on race/ancestry, and class and that it never scale (or only minimally scales) while you have a stamina pool that scales as you level up. Then the 16 hp you have is far more meaningful compared to the 100. And the way that interacts with things like poison, make it far more terrifying since it can do direct damage to HP.

And then, if there is a mechanic for knowing "Hey this guy is out of stamina!" because in game your character will actually "draw blood" as opposed to not landing solid hits and exhausting the enemy's ability to fight.

And the whole thing is made more complicated by the lack of written rules for an average character to identify when someone is close to 0 hp.

[Gisher]

Claxon wrote:

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

I do love bread and deep fried things. I'm not a fan of dry heat or sand, so I can take or leave deserts. ;)

[Jokey the Unfunny Comedian]

Gisher wrote:

Claxon wrote:

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

I do love bread and deep fried things. I'm not a fan of dry heat or sand, so I can take or leave deserts. ;)

It's rough, and coarse, and irritating, and it gets everywhere.

[Tristan d'Ambrosius]

Jokey the Unfunny Comedian wrote:

It's rough, and coarse, and irritating, and it gets everywhere.

Yeah, politics suck.

[Diego Valdez]

This thread has been moved to the house rules forum.