PDA

View Full Version : Bludgeoning is Less Lethal; Piercing and Slashing are More Lethal. [3.5]



ideasmith
2013-08-07, 11:06 AM
Bludgeoning is Less Lethal; Piercing and Slashing are More Lethal.


When a critical hit occurs with a bludgeoning weapon, the damage from resulting extra dice is nonlethal damage, even when the attack is otherwise lethal.

When a critical hit occurs with a piercing or slashing weapon, the damage from resulting extra dice is hit point damage, even when the attack is otherwise nonlethal.

sreservoir
2013-08-07, 11:10 AM
what does this accomplish?

PeacefulOak
2013-08-07, 11:12 AM
Also: Have you ever been hit hard with a stick?

How about a metal bar, or a metal bat? A frying pan?

All bludgeoning damage, all likely to break bones if you hit hard enough.

I don't see the point of penalizing people for weapon choice.

UglyPanda
2013-08-07, 11:20 AM
Adding to what Oak said, have you seen the effects for: A hammer (ball-peen, sledge, or war), or a mace, or a big metal shield, or a large rock, or a car, or the ground if you jumped out of a window.

This change only makes sense for the rare circumstance you were using something that's soft enough to only cause non-lethal in the first place.

This is an unnecessary and not-thought-through change.

Mr.Bookworm
2013-08-07, 11:27 AM
what does this accomplish?

Totally this.

What purpose does this rule serve? What effect does it have on the game? Does it make the game more fun?

If it's "realism", then it's not actually realistic. Hammers and other bludgeoning weapons have been used in warfare for forever, and the people that get hit really hard with them don't tend to get up perfectly fine a few hours later.


When a critical hit occurs with a piercing or slashing weapon, the damage from resulting extra dice is hit point damage, even when the attack is otherwise nonlethal.

I also don't get what this is supposed to model. If I crit someone while I'm smacking them with the pommel or hitting them with the flat of the blade or whatever, I would expect that I would hit them very well/hard, not accidentally stab them like a doofus.

Lord Vukodlak
2013-08-07, 01:41 PM
I can kinda see where your coming from, it seems more believable in a film or a movie when someone shrugs off a blunt attack then a knife wound.

But its in no way realistic, bludgeoning was actually the weapon of choice for dealing with heavy armor in close quarters because it could cause blunt trauma through the protective plating.

Realms of Chaos
2013-08-07, 01:51 PM
Personally, I don't see how nonlethal slashing damage works. You aren't hitting them with the blunt of the blade or anything like that because that would clearly be bludgeoning. Instead, it must be somehow possible to actually slice people into unconsciousness without any risk of them bleeding out... because potato.

If you wanted to do something like this for realism, I'd actually go in reverse. Let bludgeoning do nonlethal with only a -2 penalty, don't let other forms of damage deal nonlethal, and let all other forms of weaponry deal bludgeoning damage (whacking them with the handle or broad side, for example) by taking another -2 penalty to the attack roll.

That said, I probably wouldn't even do that. the system seems to work fine as is.

TuggyNE
2013-08-07, 05:44 PM
Personally, I don't see how nonlethal slashing damage works. You aren't hitting them with the blunt of the blade or anything like that because that would clearly be bludgeoning. Instead, it must be somehow possible to actually slice people into unconsciousness without any risk of them bleeding out... because potato.

If you wanted to do something like this for realism, I'd actually go in reverse. Let bludgeoning do nonlethal with only a -2 penalty, don't let other forms of damage deal nonlethal, and let all other forms of weaponry deal bludgeoning damage (whacking them with the handle or broad side, for example) by taking another -2 penalty to the attack roll.

That is an excellent point, and I agree. Never quite got to the point of realizing the flat of the blade would have to be bludgeoning, but the fridge logic is overwhelming when it's pointed out.

ScIaDrd
2013-08-07, 07:37 PM
Personally, I don't see how nonlethal slashing damage works.
Like an extraordinarily vile papercut, Iīd guess (:smalleek::smallyuk:). So, bad in fact, that the damage it deals doesīt represent from any meaningful physical injury, but rather the shock and pain that the target suffers and the stress it places on his body. (much like hunger and extreme heat or cold also cause nonlethal damage) Hold on, let me check something real quick... turns out whips (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#whip) deal nonlethal slashing damage, (says so down there in the specific weapon rules under the table) so there is some precedent for it.

To expand on my previous point, and in some way on the topic of this thread, does anybody here have options on how to model nonlethal, energy- based damage in the game world?

(Now it occurs to me if model is the right word to use here, in contrast to fluff, but I think fluffing means to to give a rule an image in the mindīs eye, if you would excuse me using such a lofty phrase, so that the image fits the given setting, without it having any bearing on how the game mechanics function.

On the other hand, modeling a rule IMO means to figure out what image it creates in a given situation, but with an implied possibility that the image of the effect can be used to justify attempting a decidedly non-RAW, DM-May-I? action , if such an action makes sense in the narrative logic of the setting/genre. (And making sense, of course is dependent of how the action is modeled).

To meander from the previous digression to nonlethal, energy- based(Iīm italicising to emphasise a point thatīs bothering me) damage, I think non-lethal fire or cold based damage is already covered by the environmental rules and nonlethal electricity damage can be modeled (here I go again) as acting similarly to a taser, but what about modeling nonlethal sonic damage?(How would you model it anyway?
With the vibrations cracking your tissue like a sopranoīs high c tone breaks a wine glass?) Does force damage act like a taser that shocks your soul given that it can be used against incorporeal creatures? (and can be dialled down to just knock you out when nonlethal.

And whatīs been bothering me the most, how in the world can nonlethal acid damage work? (modelled as extreme skin irrtiation, perhaps, as was the case with mustard gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yperite), as much as a loathe to use such a disturbing example.)

Meh, it is unbelievably late where I am and Iīm rambling now, so Iīll be just happy to hear your responses.

ideasmith
2013-08-07, 10:57 PM
what does this accomplish?

What purpose does this rule serve? What effect does it have on the game? Does it make the game more fun?

It helps represent fiction.

To quote TV Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InverseLawOfSharpnessAndAccuracy).):


In reality, of course, hammers, quarterstaves, and crowbars are known to cause as much physical carnage as sharp edged weapons. It's merely that sharpness invokes our childhood safety intuitions about what will easily break skin and cause blood loss. It's more intuitively plausible that a character hit very hard by something blunt might emerge with only a bruised rib and be capable of re-entering the fight. This is very counter to Real Life, however. Blunt trauma of sufficient force will very often break the skin and cause bleeding as well.

The manner in which fiction tends to differ from real life here is obvious.


Also: Have you ever been hit hard with a stick?

How about a metal bar, or a metal bat? A frying pan?

All bludgeoning damage, all likely to break bones if you hit hard enough.

Adding to what Oak said, have you seen the effects for: A hammer (ball-peen, sledge, or war), or a mace, or a big metal shield, or a large rock, or a car, or the ground if you jumped out of a window.

This change only makes sense for the rare circumstance you were using something that's soft enough to only cause non-lethal in the first place.

This is an unnecessary and not-thought-through change.

If it's "realism", then it's not actually realistic. Hammers and other bludgeoning weapons have been used in warfare for forever, and the people that get hit really hard with them don't tend to get up perfectly fine a few hours later.

But its in no way realistic, bludgeoning was actually the weapon of choice for dealing with heavy armor in close quarters because it could cause blunt trauma through the protective plating.

Since I'm representing fiction here, the real-world lethality of bludgeons is of limited relevance.


I don't see the point of penalizing people for weapon choice.

I have no intention of doing so.


I also don't get what this is supposed to model. If I crit someone while I'm smacking them with the pommel or hitting them with the flat of the blade or whatever, I would expect that I would hit them very well/hard, not accidentally stab them like a doofus.

If inflicting nonlethal damage with a sword involved hitting with the pommel of flat of the blade, it would inflict bludgeoning, rather than slashing damage.


I can kinda see where your coming from, it seems more believable in a film or a movie when someone shrugs off a blunt attack then a knife wound.

Or a novel, or a comic book, or a play, or a roleplaying game. With regards to fiction, seeming believable is generally more important than being realistic.


Personally, I don't see how nonlethal slashing damage works. You aren't hitting them with the blunt of the blade or anything like that because that would clearly be bludgeoning. Instead, it must be somehow possible to actually slice people into unconsciousness without any risk of them bleeding out... because potato.

That is an excellent point, and I agree. Never quite got to the point of realizing the flat of the blade would have to be bludgeoning, but the fridge logic is overwhelming when it's pointed out.

You inflict nonlethal damage by aiming at nonvital body parts.


If you wanted to do something like this for realism, I'd actually go in reverse. Let bludgeoning do nonlethal with only a -2 penalty, don't let other forms of damage deal nonlethal, and let all other forms of weaponry deal bludgeoning damage (whacking them with the handle or broad side, for example) by taking another -2 penalty to the attack roll.

I am not interested in realism, and would rather keep the option of aiming at notvital body parts.


That said, I probably wouldn't even do that. the system seems to work fine as is.

There is always room for improvement. Always.

Realms of Chaos
2013-08-07, 11:31 PM
1. 'imitating fiction' with a rule seems like a rather nebulous aim seeing as fiction is a very very wide space that often consists of various contradictory rules and tropes and whole heaps of exceptions.

2. Your assertion that 'imitating fiction' = better is probably the first time I've seen that argument (outside of extreme examples of overlooking advanced physics for the purpose of game abstractions). I'm not saying that you're wrong but I am still left wondering how the game is actually made more fun or more functional by helping it more closely resembling fiction. Could you explain this in more detail than simply asserting that resembling fiction = fun?

3. what is a "nonvital body part"? If the pain and blood loss you deal by actively cutting someone is enough to knock them out, where exactly would they have to aim so that you don't risk dying without medical attention? I would never pretend to be a doctor so there might be some areas where this is possible but getting such shallow cuts with, say, a battleaxe, sounds like far more than a -4 penalty on a busy battlefield.

LordErebus12
2013-08-07, 11:44 PM
bludgeoning was actually the weapon of choice for dealing with heavy armor in close quarters because it could cause blunt trauma through the protective plating.

Try breathing in that heavy fullplate when the whole chestplate is crushed and caved in.

erikun
2013-08-08, 12:54 AM
I am not quite clear why hitting a person with the pommel of my sword would somehow drive the point through their eye and kill them, but swinging a sledgehammer and their head and hitting a vulnerable point just lightly dazes them.

ideasmith
2013-08-08, 10:26 PM
1. 'imitating fiction' with a rule seems like a rather nebulous aim seeing as fiction is a very very wide space that often consists of various contradictory rules and tropes and whole heaps of exceptions.

It is, and having this rule available gives DMs another tool in influencing what sort of fiction the game creates. A DM who wants bludgeoning to be less lethal and piercing/slashing to be more lethal can use this rule.


2. Your assertion that 'imitating fiction' = better is probably the first time I've seen that argument (outside of extreme examples of overlooking advanced physics for the purpose of game abstractions). I'm not saying that you're wrong but I am still left wondering how the game is actually made more fun or more functional by helping it more closely resembling fiction. Could you explain this in more detail than simply asserting that resembling fiction = fun?

By definition, any good session of a roleplaying game is a fiction. Stuff that works in other media of fiction is therefore likely to work in roleplaying games, and worth adapting to appropriate roleplaying games.

I was not claiming that "fiction = fun" (any more than various poster above were claiming that 'realism = fun'). I was claiming that representing elements from other media of fiction can add to the fun. And that since fiction is generally designed to be fun, while reality isn't, representing fiction is generally more likely to be fun than representing reality.


3. what is a "nonvital body part"? If the pain and blood loss you deal by actively cutting someone is enough to knock them out, where exactly would they have to aim so that you don't risk dying without medical attention? I would never pretend to be a doctor so there might be some areas where this is possible but getting such shallow cuts with, say, a battleaxe, sounds like far more than a -4 penalty on a busy battlefield.

While the rules say that inflicting nonlethal damage can involve striking "at nonvital areas", what these "nonvital areas" are is left to the DM. For humanlike creatures, I would go with arms and legs, since fictional arm and leg injuries tend to be nonlethal.


I am not quite clear why hitting a person with the pommel of my sword would somehow drive the point through their eye and kill them,

It wouldn't. If the pommel is doing the piercing damage in the first place, then any extra piercing damage from inflicting a critical would also be from the pommel.


but swinging a sledgehammer and their head and hitting a vulnerable point just lightly dazes them.

It doesn't. Nonlethal damage does not "lightly daze". The amount you are implying would knock the target unconscious for at least 10 hours, barring magic or such.

Hytheter
2013-08-09, 10:04 AM
Isn't the difference in lethality already represented by the differences in critical hits?

Most slashing and piercing weapons have either a 19-20 or better threat range or a x3 critical damage, whereas bludgeoning weapons just have the standard 20/x2 setup.

exceptions exist, of course

kestrel404
2013-08-09, 10:24 AM
If you're going for realism with this, you're a bit mistaken.

A 'critical hit' generally denotes hitting a vital point on your enemy. In that case, bludgeoning damage is possibly the MOST lethal, since it's really easy to kill someone with a blow to the head from a non-sharp object. Caving someone's skull in is ridiculously simple if done from the correct angle - and a half-hearted whack to a person's temple with a 'kid-safe' whifflebat can be lethal. So, I disagree with your mechanics.

The PREMISE, on the other hand, shows a great deal of promise. As a way of distinguishing the damage types in actual combat, perhaps you could institute the following:

When dealing Bludgeoning damage, you may deal non-lethal damage at no penalty. However, Critical weapon damage is always lethal, and even creatures that are immune to criticals take additional damage from bludgeoning weapons, though only 1/2 the normal (x2 weapons deal normal damage, x3 weapons deal x1.5, etc.) and still take no additional damage from precision attack damage, like sneak attack.

When dealing Piercing damage, critical damage deal 1x more (daggers become 19-20x3 crit, bows deal 20x4 crit, etc.).

When dealing Slashing damage, all damage is accompanied by Bleed damage - this is ongoing damage that continues each round until the target receives magical healing or their bleeding is stopped by a DC15 heal check. This additional bleed damage is equal to the number of damage dice rolled, and is cumulative with any other bleed damage incurred. Any creature that is even partially immune to criticals (as from Light Fortification or similar abilities) is immune to this bleed damage. Any creature that has DR which is not specifically bypassed by the slashing damage also applies that DR to the bleed damage a slashing attack would cause. So a creature with DR 1/- would prevent 1 bleed damage from each slashing attack, while a creature with DR 4/Slashing & Piercing would take all bleed damage.

As a general rule, if a character can make an attack with more than one type of damage (as from a Slashing/Piercing weapon), they must declare the type of damage they are dealing before making the attack roll. Otherwise, assume it is the first type of damage listed for that weapon.

sreservoir
2013-08-09, 11:53 AM
It doesn't. Nonlethal damage does not "lightly daze". The amount you are implying would knock the target unconscious for at least 10 hours, barring magic or such.

well, compared to dying, that's kind of like being lightly dazed.

ideasmith
2013-08-09, 09:42 PM
Isn't the difference in lethality already represented by the differences in critical hits?

Most slashing and piercing weapons have either a 19-20 or better threat range or a x3 critical damage, whereas bludgeoning weapons just have the standard 20/x2 setup.

exceptions exist, of course

I am distinguishing between less damage and less lethal damage here. The threat range and critical multiplier do not impact all that much - or all that obviously - on whether it KOs targets rather than killing them.


If you're going for realism with this,

No, my goals for this homebrew have not changed since 08-07-2013, 10:57 PM.


well, compared to dying, that's kind of like being lightly dazed.

Considering how long the unconsciousness lasts, and how easy it is to kill an unconscious creature, the biggest difference would be that you can choose to keep the creature alive if there is some reason for doing so.

Which is an advantage.

The Rose Dragon
2013-08-09, 09:52 PM
I think I like GURPS's method best, where all hit damage is equally lethal, but not all damage types are equal, and two weapons with the same damage rating can deal different hits depending on the enemy and the damage type they have.

ThatOneGuy79
2013-08-10, 06:47 PM
My two cents is simply this: there is a reason why in 2E, bludgeoning weapons had the most horrific effects. Both in terms of permanent, debilitating things AND chance to kill. I can't see this as a feasible idea. Sorry.

Gnorman
2013-08-10, 08:21 PM
This is basically adding an extra layer of complication into the rules for an effect that harms verisimilitude. While avoiding the latter should not always be a prime principle, it is usually only embraced when it would unduly exacerbate the former. Why embrace TVTropes' depiction of blunt trauma over reality, when reality's is going to be much more intuitive to players? In addition, the rule is so narrowly drawn that affecting the "fiction" of a game will be quite rare. And even when it does come into play, I question just how the slight bit of damage variation will affect a game from a practical standpoint. I suppose occasionally the warhammer-toting fighter will knock a foe unconscious instead of killing him, and the rogue will inadvertently perforate a town guard while attempting to incapacitate him. In that way, this rule seems ALMOST like a fumble rule, which I honestly despise. Of course, it can be planned around - the fighter will only pull out a bludgeoning weapon when using non-lethal damage. But then you're basically penalizing weapon choices. Getting unintended damage types on a critical hit also seems like penalizing the player for their success. Because the rogue with the dagger sneaking up and hitting with the pommel (realism aside, inflicting nonlethal damage with a dagger is still piercing damage) is going to cross his fingers he doesn't get a crit and accidentally kill the warehouse watchman.

I guess I can sort of see some humor in a fighter pulling out a gigantic maul and saying, "Okay, let's go knock some orcs unconscious!" Or the rogue's fingers slip and he plunges the dagger into the guard's neck instead of rapping him lightly on the temple to knock him out. But something tells me "Comical, bumbling adventurers" was not your intent with this rule.

Sythirius
2013-08-10, 08:38 PM
I think I like GURPS's method best, where all hit damage is equally lethal, but not all damage types are equal, and two weapons with the same damage rating can deal different hits depending on the enemy and the damage type they have.

Do tell, I am anxious to hear this.

In regards to the OP, I like what you are trying to do, and I can see that you are not attempting to reflect fiction as a whole, but certain specific tropes. I see a lot of people criticizing the OP due to lack of realism, but that was exactly the point. I'm not a huge fan of the idea myself either, but if he and his group like it, then it seems okay to me.

LordErebus12
2013-08-12, 02:14 AM
How will this affect killing Vampires and Liches?
Both have DR Bludgeoning and are immune to non-lethal damage....

TuggyNE
2013-08-12, 02:25 AM
How will this affect killing Vampires and Liches?
Both have DR Bludgeoning and are immune to non-lethal damage....

They're also immune to critical hits, so nothing changes.

ideasmith
2013-08-13, 12:49 PM
My two cents is simply this: there is a reason why in 2E, bludgeoning weapons had the most horrific effects. Both in terms of permanent, debilitating things AND chance to kill. I can't see this as a feasible idea. Sorry.

2E of what game? I might have assumed AD&D, but in 2nd edition AD&D most weapons, bludgeoning included, are limited to hit point damage, and the limiting clerics to bludgeoning weapons is a significant balance restriction. In fact, this is true of all the earlier versions of D&D.


This is basically adding an extra layer of complication into the rules

Hardly an entire layer, though it is one more rule to remember.


for an effect that harms verisimilitude. While avoiding the latter should not always be a prime principle, it is usually only embraced when it would unduly exacerbate the former. Why embrace TVTropes' depiction of blunt trauma over reality, when reality's is going to be much more intuitive to players?

As I implied above, reality in this case is, as is often the case, less intuitive to players, and this rule helps verisimilitude. (Of course, different people find different things plausible, so YMMV.)


In addition, the rule is so narrowly drawn that affecting the "fiction" of a game will be quite rare.

Later in your post you imply that my rule makes this too common. Which is it?


And even when it does come into play, I question just how the slight bit of damage variation will affect a game from a practical standpoint. I suppose occasionally the warhammer-toting fighter will knock a foe unconscious instead of killing him, and the rogue will inadvertently perforate a town guard while attempting to incapacitate him. In that way, this rule seems ALMOST like a fumble rule, which I honestly despise. Of course, it can be planned around - the fighter will only pull out a bludgeoning weapon when using non-lethal damage.

The fighter would pull out a bludgeoning weapon when:

* Knocking the target unconcious would be more useful than killing the target, but not enough more useful to justify that -4 to hit.
* Factors other than lethal/nonlethal make the bludgeoning weapon the best choice.

By comparison, the fighter would pull out a slashing or piercing weapon when:

* Killing the target would be more useful than knocking the target unconcious.
* Factors other than lethal/nonlethal make the slashing or piercing weapon the best choice.

Looks even to me


But then you're basically penalizing weapon choices. Getting unintended damage types on a critical hit also seems like penalizing the player for their success.

Unintended?

Also, whether a given hit is a critical is luck. If you need a 20 hit with a mace, about 5% of your hits will be critical; if you need a 2 to hit with a mace, about 5% of your hits will be critical.


Because the rogue with the dagger sneaking up and hitting with the pommel (realism aside, inflicting nonlethal damage with a dagger is still piercing damage) is going to cross his fingers he doesn't get a crit and accidentally kill the warehouse watchman.

According to the Player's Handbook, to "deal nonlethal damage" you "have to use the flat of the blade, strike an nonvital areas, or check your swing." Hitting with the pommel is none of these things. Since the improvised weapon rules don't quite apply either, hitting with a pommel seems not to be covered by RAW.


I guess I can sort of see some humor in a fighter pulling out a gigantic maul and saying, "Okay, let's go knock some orcs unconscious!"

Earlier in your post you imply that this sort of thing is unlikely. Which is it?


Or the rogue's fingers slip and he plunges the dagger into the guard's neck instead of rapping him lightly on the temple to knock him out.

Plunging into the neck sounds like entirely lethal damage, rather than partially lethal damage. 'He rapped too hard' seems a better fit.


But something tells me "Comical, bumbling adventurers" was not your intent with this rule.

It wasn't.

Realms of Chaos
2013-08-13, 01:35 PM
The fighter would pull out a bludgeoning weapon when:

* Knocking the target unconcious would be more useful than killing the target, but not enough more useful to justify that -4 to hit.
* Factors other than lethal/nonlethal make the bludgeoning weapon the best choice.

By comparison, the fighter would pull out a slashing or piercing weapon when:

The bolded strikes me as simply untrue 99% of the time for one simple reason. You can't control when you get critical hits!

Look at what you just said above. You seem to suggest that if I want to knock someone out but don't want to take a hit penalty, I should take out a bludgeoning weapon and start hitting them for lethal, hoping to god I roll a critical hit before I simply kill them. That strikes me as a horrible idea.

Further, this ability IS incredibly narrow:

1. First, you need to roll and confirm a critical hit. Even with rerolls, keen weapons, and so forth, this is still a relative rarity.

2. Then, subtract all such situations in which the critical hit would be dealt to an ooze/plant/construct/undead/other creature immune to critical hits.

3. Then, even if you succeed, this rule only possesses potential to come up if it matters whether the opponent is killed or knocked unconscious, which in most games is a great rarity

4. Let's say you get past all of that. Let's say you score a critical hit on a creature vulnerable to critical hits and that you really need to subdue or kill. This rule STILL doesn't come up most of the time! Hell, "messing up" with this system is incredibly unlikely beyond the lowest levels in general. Here are a couple of examples:

Example 1: Let's say you're trying to knock someone out and you brought your sword for some reason. Even if you score a critical hit, that lethal damage probably doesn't matter. Unless the extra damage from your greatsword's critical is enough to kill your target all by itself, that lethal damage still helps you knock the target out as everyone else is probably focusing on nonlethal damage as well.

Example 2: Let's say that you need someone dead as quickly as possible. You foolishly bring your greatclub and score a critical hit. First, there is no guarantee that the target is going to pass out instead of being killed (especially if your group tends towards high damage rolls). Further, even if your target does fall unconscious, they a) only need extra damage equal up to (and likely less than) the greatclub's weapon damage + Strength modifier + 1 to start dying, b) only need 9 damage beyond that to be killed outright, and c) are susceptible to coup de graces.

While there are certainly corner cases where choosing the wrong weapon with this system can mess you up (such as knocking someone out with a sling and being unable to reach and kill them), this rule only seems to have ANY effect on very rare circumstances and so making it a rule at all seems odd.

In any case, the rules seem insufficient to effectively establish bludgeoning damage as being less lethal for practical purposes, kind of defeating the entire purpose of the rule.

Yuki Akuma
2013-08-13, 02:14 PM
Do tell, I am anxious to hear this.

Basically, in GURPS, there's eleven damage types. When determining damage, first you roll your damage dice - say 1d6+2. This is your base damage.

Then, your enemy subtracts the DR of the location you hit. This is your penetrating damage.

Next, you multiply your penetrating damage by the wounding modifier of the damage type. That's how my HP they lose.

Small piercing damage has a wounding modifier of 0.5, burning, corrosion, crushing, fatigue, piercing and toxic damage has a wounding modifier of 1, cutting and large piercing damage has a wounding modifier of 1.5, and impaling and huge piercing damage has a wounding modifier of 2.

So, if I was swinging around a weapon that deals 1d6+2 crushing damage, and I hit an opponent with DR 2, I would roll my 1d6 and add 2. Let's say I got a result of 4. The DR reduces that to 2. Then I multiply that by 1, to get 2 HP damage.

Meanwhile, my friend is swinging a sword that deals 1d6+2 cutting damage. Miraculously, he also rolls a 4, gets that reduced to 2, and multiplies it by the wounding modifier of 1.5 - so the opponent loses 3 HP.

ideasmith
2013-08-14, 07:30 PM
The bolded strikes me as simply false 99% of the time

A 1% chance per encounter of this rule making a difference sounds good to me.


You said that if I want to knock someone out but don't want to take a hit penalty, I should take out a bludgeoning weapon and start hitting them for lethal, hoping to god I roll a critical hit before I simply kill them.

No I didn't. I listed such a desire as one possible reason for using a bludgeoning weapon, in response to a claim that they would only be used if using the nonlethal damage rules.


In any case, the rules seem insufficient to effectively establish bludgeoning damage as being less lethal for practical purposes, kind of defeating the entire purpose of the rule.

I didn't and don't intend for using lethal weapons to knock opponents out to be practical. Merely less impractical. I apologize for giving the contrary impression.