Knight9910
2012-04-30, 04:04 AM
I was thinking about this while coming up with a new character concept. It's a bit hard to explain but where this character comes from killing is considered to be the worst crime you can ever commit. As such, nonlethal is always the way to go.
That got me to thinking: I have NEVER seen a DnD character actually try - on a regular basis - to let an enemy live. I'm not just talking about evil characters either. Even a good character will never try to spare an enemy unless extenuating circumstances force the issue.
Why is that like that? Whatever happened to characters who just don't kill? Where's the DnD Rurouni Kenshin with a reverse bladed sword that can't kill anyone? Where's the DnD Yusuke Urameshi who had to have Genkai kill one of his enemies for him because taking a human life would have destroyed him? Even in the real world, military personnel are put through months of psychological training to make them capable of killing and a majority of them still end up with some amount of trauma from the experience. Killing is hard and causes intense psychological damage even in neutral and, yes, evil people. But even the highest pillar of righteousness in every DnD game I've seen has no problem slicing off heads left and right. The only difference is they might wax philosophical about how much they hate killing, right after they take a bath in orc blood with a sponge made from elf lung and soap made from baby guts. (And just like its namesake hyperbolic curve, my hyperbole level is rapidly approaching infinity.)
Then it hit me. The reason no DnD character gives a **** about killing is simple: the game's creators have gone out of their way to make not killing as annoying as it can possibly be. Minus four to attack is very significant, and what rational player would take that much of a hit just to avoid killing a random mook, when it doesn't affect them statistically in any way? Also, what about magic where just to make a spell NOT KILL, you need to spend a feat and add +1 to the spell level, and even then it only works with ONE energy type? What other option do you have, the so-called "diplomancy" that results in no XP or treasure and WILL piss off the DM an every other player at the table?
With that in mind, I propose the following changes.
• Merciful weapon enchantment stays as is. It adds +1d6 to damage and that is worth a +1 bonus. However, I suggest the following NON-magical enhancement.
Merciful
The weapon is altered in some way to make it less capable of killing. Slashing and piercing weapons have sharp points and edges dulled, bludgeoning weapons are rounded to remove hard edges, and may be made softer, arrows are made with blunt, round tips instead of sharp arrowheads, and sling bullets are changed out for lead-filled sacks. The altered weapon has the same abilities as the base weapon, but all damage it deals is non-lethal.
Alternatively, the character may spend an additional 25 gp to make the weapon capable of switching between lethal and non-lethal. Such a weapon can be switched between lethal and non-lethal as a free action.
Special: Bows, slings, and crossbows can not be made merciful, though their ammunition may be. If ranged ammunition is made merciful the listed price below is paid per 50 arrows, bolts, or bullets.
Price: As the base weapon +25 gp OR +50 gp.
• Non-Lethal Substitution metamagic feat is removed. Instead, spells can be used for non-lethal attacks at the normal -4 attack penalty. If there is no attack roll (such as with a fireball) the save DC is reduced by 2. If there is no attack roll or save DC (such as with Magic Missile) then there is no penalty. The only exception is that death effects can not be made non-lethal, nor can disintegrate effects.
(For flavor purposes: Fire damage would become extreme heat instead of flames, causing pain and minor burns. Cold damage would be bitter cold that saps strength instead of liquid nitrogen and sharp shards of ice. Lightning would be reduced in current drastically - remember, voltage doesn't kill, current does! Acid would...um...acid would become like poison, I guess.)
• Keep the -4 penalty to attack for non-lethal, as trying to hit someone with a sword without killing them is in fact rather difficult. However, I propose the following skill trick.
Skill Trick: Non-lethal Training
You are trained in non-lethal combat techniques to the point that you are as adept at non-lethal maneuvers as you are at lethal ones. When using a weapon with which you have weapon proficiency you may deal non-lethal damage with that weapon without taking a penalty to your attack roll. If you are capable of casting spells, damaging spells may also be made to deal non-lethal damage without any penalty to attack or save DC.
Cost: 2 skill points
I think this is fair. For a one-time cost of 2 skill points - the same as a barbarian learning to read and write - the character can do non-lethal damage with no penalty. (In Pathfinder, maybe make this 1 skill point?)
• Just a reminder. From Book of Exalted Deeds.
Truncheon
One handed martial melee weapon. Costs 2 gp. Damage (bludgeoning, non-lethal): 1d6 (S), 1d8 (M), or 2d6 (L). Critical x2. Weighs 15 lbs. A rogue using a truncheon can deal extra non-lethal damage on a sneak attack, but only if he is proficient in the weapon's use.
• A consideration, that I'm still not sure about. If a weapon deals non-lethal damage by default, such as a sap, truncheon, or any merciful weapon, any damaging enchantment placed on the weapon (ie. Flaming, Shocking Burst, et cetera) also deals non-lethal damage of the appropriate type. Note that this only applies if the weapon deals non-lethal damage by default. If the damage is rendered non-lethal by other means, such as a troll's regeneration ability, any extra damage is still lethal.
That got me to thinking: I have NEVER seen a DnD character actually try - on a regular basis - to let an enemy live. I'm not just talking about evil characters either. Even a good character will never try to spare an enemy unless extenuating circumstances force the issue.
Why is that like that? Whatever happened to characters who just don't kill? Where's the DnD Rurouni Kenshin with a reverse bladed sword that can't kill anyone? Where's the DnD Yusuke Urameshi who had to have Genkai kill one of his enemies for him because taking a human life would have destroyed him? Even in the real world, military personnel are put through months of psychological training to make them capable of killing and a majority of them still end up with some amount of trauma from the experience. Killing is hard and causes intense psychological damage even in neutral and, yes, evil people. But even the highest pillar of righteousness in every DnD game I've seen has no problem slicing off heads left and right. The only difference is they might wax philosophical about how much they hate killing, right after they take a bath in orc blood with a sponge made from elf lung and soap made from baby guts. (And just like its namesake hyperbolic curve, my hyperbole level is rapidly approaching infinity.)
Then it hit me. The reason no DnD character gives a **** about killing is simple: the game's creators have gone out of their way to make not killing as annoying as it can possibly be. Minus four to attack is very significant, and what rational player would take that much of a hit just to avoid killing a random mook, when it doesn't affect them statistically in any way? Also, what about magic where just to make a spell NOT KILL, you need to spend a feat and add +1 to the spell level, and even then it only works with ONE energy type? What other option do you have, the so-called "diplomancy" that results in no XP or treasure and WILL piss off the DM an every other player at the table?
With that in mind, I propose the following changes.
• Merciful weapon enchantment stays as is. It adds +1d6 to damage and that is worth a +1 bonus. However, I suggest the following NON-magical enhancement.
Merciful
The weapon is altered in some way to make it less capable of killing. Slashing and piercing weapons have sharp points and edges dulled, bludgeoning weapons are rounded to remove hard edges, and may be made softer, arrows are made with blunt, round tips instead of sharp arrowheads, and sling bullets are changed out for lead-filled sacks. The altered weapon has the same abilities as the base weapon, but all damage it deals is non-lethal.
Alternatively, the character may spend an additional 25 gp to make the weapon capable of switching between lethal and non-lethal. Such a weapon can be switched between lethal and non-lethal as a free action.
Special: Bows, slings, and crossbows can not be made merciful, though their ammunition may be. If ranged ammunition is made merciful the listed price below is paid per 50 arrows, bolts, or bullets.
Price: As the base weapon +25 gp OR +50 gp.
• Non-Lethal Substitution metamagic feat is removed. Instead, spells can be used for non-lethal attacks at the normal -4 attack penalty. If there is no attack roll (such as with a fireball) the save DC is reduced by 2. If there is no attack roll or save DC (such as with Magic Missile) then there is no penalty. The only exception is that death effects can not be made non-lethal, nor can disintegrate effects.
(For flavor purposes: Fire damage would become extreme heat instead of flames, causing pain and minor burns. Cold damage would be bitter cold that saps strength instead of liquid nitrogen and sharp shards of ice. Lightning would be reduced in current drastically - remember, voltage doesn't kill, current does! Acid would...um...acid would become like poison, I guess.)
• Keep the -4 penalty to attack for non-lethal, as trying to hit someone with a sword without killing them is in fact rather difficult. However, I propose the following skill trick.
Skill Trick: Non-lethal Training
You are trained in non-lethal combat techniques to the point that you are as adept at non-lethal maneuvers as you are at lethal ones. When using a weapon with which you have weapon proficiency you may deal non-lethal damage with that weapon without taking a penalty to your attack roll. If you are capable of casting spells, damaging spells may also be made to deal non-lethal damage without any penalty to attack or save DC.
Cost: 2 skill points
I think this is fair. For a one-time cost of 2 skill points - the same as a barbarian learning to read and write - the character can do non-lethal damage with no penalty. (In Pathfinder, maybe make this 1 skill point?)
• Just a reminder. From Book of Exalted Deeds.
Truncheon
One handed martial melee weapon. Costs 2 gp. Damage (bludgeoning, non-lethal): 1d6 (S), 1d8 (M), or 2d6 (L). Critical x2. Weighs 15 lbs. A rogue using a truncheon can deal extra non-lethal damage on a sneak attack, but only if he is proficient in the weapon's use.
• A consideration, that I'm still not sure about. If a weapon deals non-lethal damage by default, such as a sap, truncheon, or any merciful weapon, any damaging enchantment placed on the weapon (ie. Flaming, Shocking Burst, et cetera) also deals non-lethal damage of the appropriate type. Note that this only applies if the weapon deals non-lethal damage by default. If the damage is rendered non-lethal by other means, such as a troll's regeneration ability, any extra damage is still lethal.