PDA

View Full Version : Making capture an option using stages of battle intensity



NichG
2011-01-12, 04:18 AM
There are certain outcomes that are highly unlikely once a conflict has been initiated in systems like D&D. Basically, once the fight breaks out, it is likely that one side or the other will have most of its participants seriously injured or killed. Attempts to capture naturally lead to fights to the death. Similarly, it is often the case that if one PC drops, the party will be unwilling to run (since it means giving up on the PC's body and equipment).

As such I present a possible addition to the combat system of such games: a given battle (once initiative has been rolled) has various stages of intensity, which represent a choice on the part of the parties involved as to how much they are willing to put on the line in the fight.

A given fight (once initiative has been rolled) begins at a Low intensity. At Low intensity, all damage dealt is automatically nonlethal, and effects that logically must be lethal (save or die effects) cannot be used by either side. This would for instance represent a bar fight.

A side can increase the conflict to a Medium intensity voluntarily at the beginning of each round, but the intensification is declared to both parties. A fight at Medium intensity can be reduced to Low intensity in the same fashion if both sides call for it. At Medium intensity, all abilities/etc are as per normal combat. At Medium intensity, it is assumed that survivors of the losing side will be stabilized and kept alive.

The fight can be increased yet again to High intensity. This represents a resolve that only one side will leave the conflict alive. Once the fight is in High intensity, it cannot be reduced until one side is defeated, surrenders, or escapes. At High intensity, it is assumed that all disabled survivors of the losing side will be killed.

Certain class features and situations bypass this. Fights against unintelligent or force-of-nature style foes begin in Medium intensity by default and cannot be lowered. A character may make a Bluff check to act at a higher intensity level without declaring it (a failed Bluff check causes an increase in battle intensity), and a Sleight of Hand check to hide their lethal attacks (which, if noticed, automatically escalate the conflict) opposed by Sense Motive and Spot. The target of a lethal attack is always aware that they were attacked lethally barring other abilities that make damage unnoticeable.

A side acting from surprise may choose the initial level of conflict (i.e. a lethal ambush, assassination, etc).

This could be used as a patch on D&D, or as part of a more completely reworked system (in which case there could be certain abilities and spells that only work in certain battle intensities - e.g. you cannot charm person or use diplomacy/bluff/etc at all in a High intensity fight/you can't use save or dies in anything short of High intensity/etc). This is vaguely similar to the death flag idea (a character can only die if their death flag is raised, which gives them some action points or extra abilities - otherwise, they are merely severely injured from things that would otherwise kill them) in that each side bids on how much they want to risk on the outcome of the fight.

Nopraptor
2011-01-12, 10:44 AM
I don't think this is a good idea at all...
the "medium" intensity is kinda weird, why would I want to keep an opponent alive? sure, you cab say that I want to capture him but if I want to do that then using leathal damage in the first place is kinda of a bad idea when you can easily disarm,grapple and the tie up your aversary.

stainboy
2011-01-12, 12:09 PM
It seems a bit strange for Fireball to deal nonlethal damage, or for the flat of a greatsword to deal more nonlethal damage than a greatclub. It's also weird to use edged weapons in nonlethal combat. Bringing an axe to a fistfight should, by itself, escalate the fight beyond nonlethal, even if you intend to strike with the flat of the blade.

If you want to make nonlethal combat a better option I think you'd need to add the weapons, feats, and spells to support it, because in 3.5 only monks and prepared casters are any good at nonlethal combat. If nonlethal combat is something that martial types can be good at, and there are in-game reasons to choose nonlethal combat over fighting to the death, the PCs will do it.

And just to make things harder, the new options would need to be in addition to, not instead of, the players' current configuration options. Nobody's going to take the Nonlethal Specialization feat instead of Power Attack.

Mulletmanalive
2011-01-12, 12:34 PM
Just say that unless otherwise stated, neither side is playing for keeps.

They intend to capture their opponent and will do so by pulling their last blow and having the target fall down at 1 hp. In such a situation, trying to stand triggers an AoO that is considered a Coup de Grace.

If one side or the other starts actively slaying the other [the less profitable option in many cases, at least in the real world] all bets are off, though the initiators can turn it down again if they wish.

It seems like a not-unreasonable house-rule, but your version was...yeah, the non-lethal thing is a bit of a stretch...

NichG
2011-01-12, 01:09 PM
During low intensity, you simply could not use a spell that can only deal lethal damage. So its not that a fireball would deal nonlethal, its that you would have to up the ante to medium intensity in order to use a fireball. But as long as you don't up the ante, you're assured that the other side won't be bringing out fireballs either.

A simple mechanical support here would be to waive the -4 for nonlethal during low intensity fights. That means that all martial characters should be about as good at it. Blaster casters have problems here, but casters have so many options anyhow.

The idea is that low intensity fights are like bar brawls or altercations with guards, medium intensity fights are like battlefield conflicts - no punches pulled, but you take prisoners; pirates boarding a ship would be a medium intensity fight. High intensity fights are matters of revenge, or other fights where each side is interested primarily in the death of the other, rather than their defeat.

I guess the reason to make this explicit is so that the players know explicitly whether the particular situation is one such that if they lose this fight, they will not be killed, versus situations where they will be killed if they lose. Ostensibly this models in-character knowledge about the customs of where they live (i.e. whether guards kill, whether bar brawls turn into knife fights, etc) that the player may not be aware of otherwise.

Stompy
2011-01-12, 07:37 PM
This is actually pretty interesting and good idea. :smallsmile:

My only qualm is that every battle with sentient creatures starts at low, which, in a DnD sense, does not make sense to me. I find it silly that every (non-surprise) battle has to start with one round where many people do nothing (because they can't do anything but wait until medium is declared). This does not make sense to me in terms of combats like elves vs. orcs, gnomes vs. kobolds, PCs vs. orcs, or an assassin that fails to be stealthy but is still desperate enough to go after his mark anyway.

I would think that the DM would declare the starting intensity before the combat officially starts. (with medium being the default setting unless it is a "civilized" combat)

Also, starting at low REALLY hurts rogues that wanted to hurt a flat-footed target, and wanted it to be medium anyway.

NichG
2011-01-12, 10:30 PM
This is actually pretty interesting and good idea. :smallsmile:

My only qualm is that every battle with sentient creatures starts at low, which, in a DnD sense, does not make sense to me. I find it silly that every (non-surprise) battle has to start with one round where many people do nothing (because they can't do anything but wait until medium is declared). This does not make sense to me in terms of combats like elves vs. orcs, gnomes vs. kobolds, PCs vs. orcs, or an assassin that fails to be stealthy but is still desperate enough to go after his mark anyway.

I would think that the DM would declare the starting intensity before the combat officially starts. (with medium being the default setting unless it is a "civilized" combat)

Also, starting at low REALLY hurts rogues that wanted to hurt a flat-footed target, and wanted it to be medium anyway.

I do think its reasonable that some conflicts would start at different intensities by their nature. The main aspect of the system is just the awareness on both sides of the intensity.

For PCs vs orcs or whatever, its a campaign aspect. If you want to play up 'orcs are sentient humanoids too' then starting at low helps with that and prevents the first contact from automatically being a massacre. If orcs are distilled evil and rage in one's campaign, then higher initial intensities would be called for to represent that.

Having the DM declare starting intensity, or just by having the first round of bidding be immediately when initiative occurs would both be ways to handle this, with the second giving the players more flexibility as they can immediately bid up the intensity.