|
Post by Arcona on Dec 30, 2013 13:20:55 GMT -8
@ Stork: Thanks for the Link!
@ Malifer: It off course exists in 3.X. Its called a subdual attack and a character can even use a Big Fucking Sword and do it (assume hitting with the flat or hilt) by taking a penalty (as the weapon is not balanced for it).
Some classes (Bounty hunter style characters) have a feat/ability that makes these non lethal attacks with no penalty and I believe there is a feat that also does the same. You could also simply say to the DM that you sacrifice a weapon proficiency to be proficient with dealing subdual.
Essentially subdual pile on until a character goes to 0 hp where he falls unconscious.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
HJRP-1108
Dec 30, 2013 13:33:36 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by maxinstuff on Dec 30, 2013 13:33:36 GMT -8
Isn't there at least one weapon in the game that does only subdual damage?
Surely there is a sap or club or something made for this.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 30, 2013 13:34:16 GMT -8
To extrapolate this on my mention of 'real' medieval setting and women (something I have faced) I would mention the one exception where a woman in that era can be anything other than a trophy/property/alliance material is... Joan of Arc. The one who claimed to have visions and ended up burned at the stake. To play 'Jane the milk maid' and then to scoff when told by the DM 'no, your character doesnt know how to use a sword, ride a horse, talk to nobles, curtsy and in general do anything other than milk cows and cook and also no, you wouldnt throw pig shit at the Sheriff because you know your husband, children, parents and neighbors will all be hanged for it.' is foolish. And Hildegard of BingenIm not trying to hijack the thread, but shes a really interesting person if you don't know about here Back to the topic now. BTW isn't it Mike and Brian? Is Dave the GM? Boudica The Order of Saint MaryThe Order of The HatchetAaron
|
|
|
Post by arturick on Dec 30, 2013 13:53:19 GMT -8
Isn't there at least one weapon in the game that does only subdual damage? Surely there is a sap or club or something made for this. Saps only do subdual damage (unless you take a penalty to hit someone REALLY HARD). Basic clubs do subdual with a penalty. IRL you CAN hit somebody with a rod or basic bludgeon in a "subduing" fashion, but you're not going to leave someone largely uninjured after beating them with a hammer.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Dec 30, 2013 14:23:32 GMT -8
@ Stork: Thanks for the Link! @ Malifer: It off course exists in 3.X. Its called a subdual attack and a character can even use a Big Fucking Sword and do it (assume hitting with the flat or hilt) by taking a penalty (as the weapon is not balanced for it). Some classes (Bounty hunter style characters) have a feat/ability that makes these non lethal attacks with no penalty and I believe there is a feat that also does the same. You could also simply say to the DM that you sacrifice a weapon proficiency to be proficient with dealing subdual. Essentially subdual pile on until a character goes to 0 hp where he falls unconscious. Right on I figured it must still be around, but my brief knowledge of 3.5 is hazy.. So I figure the Player could have said "I'm trying to stab the man or aim for his neck" and it's his fault, but otherwise the standard interpretation of the d20 mechanic needs to be readjusted for this Paladin PC. The standard Natural "20" Double Quantum Damage Instant Kill ruling isn't very considerate when player is so obviously Roleplaying a character concept that can give the GM hours of material. Especially if you consider that the game is meant to make the PC better at killing things, his entire concept will go out the window.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
HJRP-1108
Dec 30, 2013 14:36:48 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by maxinstuff on Dec 30, 2013 14:36:48 GMT -8
@ Stork: Thanks for the Link! @ Malifer: It off course exists in 3.X. Its called a subdual attack and a character can even use a Big Fucking Sword and do it (assume hitting with the flat or hilt) by taking a penalty (as the weapon is not balanced for it). Some classes (Bounty hunter style characters) have a feat/ability that makes these non lethal attacks with no penalty and I believe there is a feat that also does the same. You could also simply say to the DM that you sacrifice a weapon proficiency to be proficient with dealing subdual. Essentially subdual pile on until a character goes to 0 hp where he falls unconscious. Right on I figured it must still be around, but my brief knowledge of 3.5 is hazy.. So I figure the Player could have said "I'm trying to stab the man or aim for his neck" and it's his fault, but otherwise the standard interpretation of the d20 mechanic needs to be readjusted for this Paladin PC. The standard Natural "20" Double Quantum Damage Instant Kill ruling isn't very considerate when player is so obviously Roleplaying a character concept that can give the GM hours of material. Especially if you consider that the game is meant to make the PC better at killing things, his entire concept will go out the window. I think that depends. I am assuming the Paladin was using a sword of some sort. Subdue enough people with a weapon designed for murder and someone's gonna lose an eye. I would say it was the Paladin's reckless use of murder weapons that killed the person. The GM's ruling in this specific situation might not have been ideal, but whether you say they are killed due to rolling "too well" or "too badly", someone still gts killed eventually. If he were serious about not killing people he would use a sap or fists or whatever - not a pig-sticker. The GM may have reasoned that this was a good time to lever the PC's disads by having someone be killed by his recklessness.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Dec 30, 2013 15:36:30 GMT -8
This is one thing I really like about Dresden Files (though it can be pushed to unrealistic levels) - being able to choose the method "taking out" someone manifests.
|
|
|
Post by jughead5187 on Dec 31, 2013 0:22:27 GMT -8
Greetings all, This is Tarin (with that paladin) One of the cool things i realized about pathfinder was that the gods seems to be more fleshed out that a lot of the d&d pantheon.
for instance, my pally serves iomedae. shes LG, kightly, etc. she hates ALL evil gods EXCEPT asmodeus (hes LE) for some reason they are kinda frenemies.
i read up about asmodeus. i talked it over with the gm as well and he said that my order could have taught something like the following (which is based off the pathfinder pantheon) asmodeus (like all evil gods) require blood sacrifice. but his priests usually use their own blood rather than human sacrifice to gain their power.
so my pally has the following code regarding evil beings- as long as they arent actively trying to harm someone/something, im willing to let them go about their business. if they attack me or my allies, or start to do something suspect, thats when i "paladin the shit out of them"
my character is more willing to go after those that have done harm/ are in the middle of doing harm rather than those that arent actively being evil.
thoughts?
Happy gaming, Tarin
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Dec 31, 2013 0:56:49 GMT -8
Greetings all, This is Tarin (with that paladin) One of the cool things i realized about pathfinder was that the gods seems to be more fleshed out that a lot of the d&d pantheon. for instance, my pally serves iomedae. shes LG, kightly, etc. she hates ALL evil gods EXCEPT asmodeus (hes LE) for some reason they are kinda frenemies. i read up about asmodeus. i talked it over with the gm as well and he said that my order could have taught something like the following (which is based off the pathfinder pantheon) asmodeus (like all evil gods) require blood sacrifice. but his priests usually use their own blood rather than human sacrifice to gain their power. so my pally has the following code regarding evil beings- as long as they arent actively trying to harm someone/something, im willing to let them go about their business. if they attack me or my allies, or start to do something suspect, thats when i "paladin the shit out of them" my character is more willing to go after those that have done harm/ are in the middle of doing harm rather than those that arent actively being evil. thoughts? Happy gaming, Tarin Sounds fair enough. Although where does the 'no killing' rule come from? That deity setup sounds cool - would Paladin's ever defect from Iomedae to Asmodeus (or vice versa)?
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Dec 31, 2013 4:18:05 GMT -8
Greetings all, This is Tarin (with that paladin) One of the cool things i realized about pathfinder was that the gods seems to be more fleshed out that a lot of the d&d pantheon. for instance, my pally serves iomedae. shes LG, kightly, etc. she hates ALL evil gods EXCEPT asmodeus (hes LE) for some reason they are kinda frenemies. i read up about asmodeus. i talked it over with the gm as well and he said that my order could have taught something like the following (which is based off the pathfinder pantheon) asmodeus (like all evil gods) require blood sacrifice. but his priests usually use their own blood rather than human sacrifice to gain their power. so my pally has the following code regarding evil beings- as long as they arent actively trying to harm someone/something, im willing to let them go about their business. if they attack me or my allies, or start to do something suspect, thats when i "paladin the shit out of them" my character is more willing to go after those that have done harm/ are in the middle of doing harm rather than those that arent actively being evil. thoughts? Happy gaming, Tarin Is he trying not to kill people with a sword?
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Dec 31, 2013 4:35:28 GMT -8
Right on I figured it must still be around, but my brief knowledge of 3.5 is hazy.. So I figure the Player could have said "I'm trying to stab the man or aim for his neck" and it's his fault, but otherwise the standard interpretation of the d20 mechanic needs to be readjusted for this Paladin PC. The standard Natural "20" Double Quantum Damage Instant Kill ruling isn't very considerate when player is so obviously Roleplaying a character concept that can give the GM hours of material. Especially if you consider that the game is meant to make the PC better at killing things, his entire concept will go out the window. I think that depends. I am assuming the Paladin was using a sword of some sort. Subdue enough people with a weapon designed for murder and someone's gonna lose an eye. I would say it was the Paladin's reckless use of murder weapons that killed the person. The GM's ruling in this specific situation might not have been ideal, but whether you say they are killed due to rolling "too well" or "too badly", someone still gts killed eventually. If he were serious about not killing people he would use a sap or fists or whatever - not a pig-sticker. The GM may have reasoned that this was a good time to lever the PC's disads by having someone be killed by his recklessness. I agree somewhat. The weapon choice is a factor. Here's the thing that really bugs me though. You are a sneaky as hell Thief. Roll the d20. On a 1 you fail and everyone can see you. On a 20 you're a ghost. You are a silver-tongued Bard. Roll the d20. On a 1 you fail and everyone knows you're lying. On a 20 you can sell ice to an Eskimo. Now you are a nonlethal Character in a fight. Roll the d20. On a 1 you fail to hit and on a 20 you can potentially hit so well there is instant death. There are outcomes a player is looking for, a lot of new wave-y game start with this question from the GM "What are you trying to do?" In D&D it is assumed the PC is trying to sneak, lie, and murder. But I doubt a GM would ever tell the Bard "You rolled SO WELL that your lie is too grandiose to be believable by anyone." To make things even worse as the go up in level, the Thief will become better as sneaking, the Bard better at Lying, and the nonlethal Character better at killing. I like the idea of the PC dealing with killing someone, but with the standard system it will become normal for him to do so. A better option would be to allow the PC to successfully remove the foe without killing him on a success, but perhaps he doesn't pull his punch so well on a 1. Don't Paladins have healing? I like the idea of him trying to heal someone he accidentally kills.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 31, 2013 4:41:57 GMT -8
Greetings all, This is Tarin (with that paladin) One of the cool things i realized about pathfinder was that the gods seems to be more fleshed out that a lot of the d&d pantheon. for instance, my pally serves iomedae. shes LG, kightly, etc. she hates ALL evil gods EXCEPT asmodeus (hes LE) for some reason they are kinda frenemies. i read up about asmodeus. i talked it over with the gm as well and he said that my order could have taught something like the following (which is based off the pathfinder pantheon) asmodeus (like all evil gods) require blood sacrifice. but his priests usually use their own blood rather than human sacrifice to gain their power. so my pally has the following code regarding evil beings- as long as they arent actively trying to harm someone/something, im willing to let them go about their business. if they attack me or my allies, or start to do something suspect, thats when i "paladin the shit out of them" my character is more willing to go after those that have done harm/ are in the middle of doing harm rather than those that arent actively being evil. thoughts? Happy gaming, Tarin Is he trying not to kill people with a sword? LARPing Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Arcona on Dec 31, 2013 6:52:50 GMT -8
I think that depends. I am assuming the Paladin was using a sword of some sort. Subdue enough people with a weapon designed for murder and someone's gonna lose an eye. I would say it was the Paladin's reckless use of murder weapons that killed the person. The GM's ruling in this specific situation might not have been ideal, but whether you say they are killed due to rolling "too well" or "too badly", someone still gts killed eventually. If he were serious about not killing people he would use a sap or fists or whatever - not a pig-sticker. The GM may have reasoned that this was a good time to lever the PC's disads by having someone be killed by his recklessness. I agree somewhat. The weapon choice is a factor. Here's the thing that really bugs me though. You are a sneaky as hell Thief. Roll the d20. On a 1 you fail and everyone can see you. On a 20 you're a ghost. You are a silver-tongued Bard. Roll the d20. On a 1 you fail and everyone knows you're lying. On a 20 you can sell ice to an Eskimo. Now you are a nonlethal Character in a fight. Roll the d20. On a 1 you fail to hit and on a 20 you can potentially hit so well there is instant death. There are outcomes a player is looking for, a lot of new wave-y game start with this question from the GM "What are you trying to do?" In D&D it is assumed the PC is trying to sneak, lie, and murder. But I doubt a GM would ever tell the Bard "You rolled SO WELL that your lie is too grandiose to be believable by anyone." To make things even worse as the go up in level, the Thief will become better as sneaking, the Bard better at Lying, and the nonlethal Character better at killing. I like the idea of the PC dealing with killing someone, but with the standard system it will become normal for him to do so. A better option would be to allow the PC to successfully remove the foe without killing him on a success, but perhaps he doesn't pull his punch so well on a 1. Don't Paladins have healing? I like the idea of him trying to heal someone he accidentally kills. For the record in 3.X skill checks do not auto fail/succeed with a 1 or a 20. This serves the purpose of explaining how someone insanely skilled (lets say 15 ranks) will STILL beat the average person when he makes a mistake at his chosen craft. Furthermore I remember reading how awesome it was that high skill rolls can achieve the amazing. It was an effort to 'balance' a rogue with a caster class. So for example a rogue with 40 ranks in climb and a 20 could climb up a waterfall... sounds crazy? Well, thats what you get when you are so insanely skilled... when skill becomes close to magic. Meanwhile a thief with 30 ranks of hide STILL cant sneak in broad daylight (unless if he has Hide in Plain Sight) but he could always create a diversion and hide behind a corner, in a barrel, under a table or whatever. In the case of the Paladin being essentially penalised for rolling well... I would call out a bad DM call. Or even a douchy one. A critical hit causes double (or triple or quadruple) damage on an opponent. This damage CAN BE SUBDUAL. It most certainly doesnt auto kill... unless if the DM is willing to have his BBG killed by a single 20... or how about that Ancient Red Wyrm... should one 20 kill him? No? Well then you are not playing fair. The only damage that cant be subdual (unless using a sap as mentioned earlier) is the damage from a rogues sneak attack as that represents hitting a vulnerable spot and doing internal damage etc. Rolling a 20 in DnD (any edition) means doing what you wanted to do EXCEPTIONALLY well. So if the Paladin wanted to catch the man alive and rolled a 20 it means he was so efficient that he knocked the man out cold where he was standing without even breaking his nose in the process. Call it luck, call it skill, call it divine intervention or however you want to. The same way thats its bad form to use 1s to harm other party members (i.e. when rolling a botch it should be the character that botched that gets 'harmed' not the others) its the same to say your good roll of a 20 causes you problems... Now if he had rolled a 1 and the enemy was not a major antagonist who the GM needs the players to defeat etc. I could THEN see the DM saying he wounded him mortally (even though technically he would have missed) as it is then that a penalty for the botch should be inflicted. Edit: Oh an the non lethal character ALSO becomes better at being non lethal when he levels... he gets for example +1 to attack which is still usable when he tries to do subdual. And secondly... the Paladin really SHOULD get a Merciful weapon enchantment. It converts all damage you do to subdual and also adds a +1d6 to it! And you can 'turn it off' in case you are fighting creatures immune to subdual (undead, constructs etc.)
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Dec 31, 2013 6:57:32 GMT -8
Apology accepted. I think the NPC-as-setting-guide might work, but is it really that different that the GM saying, "your character would know not to do that," over and over again? Well it worked for me, because the NPC was able to occasionally be more gentler than a GM saying "your character wouldn't do that" (which must be one of the most anti-immersion things than can happen in RPGs). The player is able to make smaller mistakes and deal with the consequences in-game, where the NPC can be more scathing in character that then GM should be. And the NPC is able to stop the PC making larger mistakes that might disrupt the game world. The NPC can role-model the correct behaviours. And as CC points out, the NPC can reward good play in-game. In my own particular case, the player in question was encouraged enough to download (I think pirate copies of) loads of L5R material and now know more than I do about what correct behaviour in Rokugan might be (without turning into a Brian) I also want to point out the obvious that may be too easily overlooked in a discussion about how to play RPGs right: the NPC-way fredrix and I espouse keeps the players' focus on the shared fantasy in game play rather than on the objective (rules immersive) game system itself. Using a chess analogy, what I espouse is to facilitate the player to become the chess-piece with an abstract reasoning why it moves as it does rather than explaining the move with a manual to the seated chess-player. Thus the world operates according to the player(s)' shared interpretation of it, and it requires patience (a virtue when lacking that informs munchkinism). A player struggling in an unfamiliar role may have a few bumps along the road in the game. But playing a new game at an introductory level (as Gygax advised - to X-ref another Thread), should not lead to total disaster for the player. If it does, and a (metagame) lesson is learnt? What's the big deal about rolling up a new character to play a game together with friends? Check out my sig for another Gygax quote….
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 31, 2013 7:23:49 GMT -8
Yeah - a natural '20' doesn't have to be 'taken' . . . like several other posters have pointed out I smell a douchey DM in operation - one probably that wanted to deliberately fuck with the Batman as Paladin idea because, well you know, Batman . . . though I'm mixing 'Universes' I think Nick Fury would be a better Paladin archetype or even The Punisher (because where does it say Paladins shouldn't kill, the Punisher is absolutely dedicated to a cause to the exclusion of all else). I'm sure if the player stated as his intent that he was going to subdue from the start then a natural '20' should have been an automatic knockout with minimal temporary harm (eg: a precision strike to the solar plexus causing the opponent to be winded and triggering a vasovagal reaction which would cause a sudden drop in blood pressure resulting in a faint) I'm intrigued as to when Asmodeus got his balls cut off and became an Emo . . . "gee guys I know I'm the ultimate diabolic evil and all and I like the blood but the whole human sacrifice thing is just so not me anymore, I do like to watch when you cut yourselves though it gives me a thrill . . . go on just one more cut right there so I can taste it . . . " Aaron
|
|