Hitting below the belt. [FEATS]

[Triaxx]

Pommel Hammer [Feat]
Prereq: BAB+4 / Sneak Attack
Effects: Non-Lethal Damage penalties are reduced to -3 for medium weapons, and -2 for light weapons. Does not apply to bludgeoning, or two handed weapons. Rapiers, see description.
Normal: Dealing Non-Lethal Damage incurs -4 penalty.

Where you would normally pull your blows, or strike with the flat of the sword, you have learned to strike with the pommel of your weapon. Most light weapons incur a lesser penalty, but Rapiers are treated as medium weapons due to the length of the blade and comparative difficulty of striking accurately.

Rogues may also use the pommel of their weapon to deal Non-Lethal damage equal to d4 sneak attack damage. (1d4, progressing as normal.)

Choke Hold [Feat]
Prereq: Improved Unarmed Strike, BAB +6
Effect: While grappling, you may attempt to deal Non-Lethal Damage sufficient to knock the opponent unconscious. A DC10+Half hit dice+attackers BAB Fort save is required to avoid unconsciousness, with the victims Strength bonus applied to the save.

I'm not sure how to do Choke Holds save. I know it's Fort, but it should be opposed by the attackers Strength Check. How do I express that?

[Captain van der Decken]

Pommel Hammer seems underpowered..



I'm not sure how to do Choke Holds save. I know it's Fort, but it should be opposed by the attackers Strength Check. How do I express that?


DC= 10+Half Hit die +Str bonus. In other words, strength based, is what I'd suggest.

[InaVegt]

Minor nitpicks, there is no such thing as a medium weapon in 3.5, but let's just assume you meant one handed, then we'd have the rapier which already is one handed and of which you specify specifically it works a medium (which as assumed means one handed) weapon. There is also no such thing as a blunt weapon, but you probably meant bludgeoing there.

[Triaxx]

Captain: Ah, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Gezina: Medium meant anything not considered a light weapon. And yes, I meant bludgeoning.

[cferejohn]

I was actually just designing a choke hold ability for something, so I'll throw in what I did:


After you have pinned someone one size category larger than you or smaller, you can attempt to put a choke hold on them. Make an opposed grapple check. If you win, opponent must make a DC 15 Fort check or become unconcious for 2d6 rounds. If you lose, opponent is no longer pinned (but is still grappled). This check is -4 against non-humanoid creatures (e.g. animals), and cannot be used on creatures who don't have both a neck and a normal blood system (e.g. oozes, undead).

I might like the 10 plus half level plus strength thing better. I thought about making it a 2 or 3 round process, but really, it takes a long time to get to a pin anyway, and in the meantime his friends can be wailing away on you. And really, hold person is a second level spell and can be cast in one round. Maybe it's a full round action and if you take damage you have to make a 10+damage Concentration check (or Fort save) to keep the hold on?

Moving on, I didn't really like representing it with non-lethal damage because a) When you are made unconcious this way, it doesn't really knock you out for that long and b) when you wake up again, you aren't "beat up", just groggy. Maybe a couple rounds of being dazed, stunned, or shaken?

[Fizban]

Pommel Hammer is ridiculously underpowered, considering that there's a feat that just lets you deal non-lethal damage with no penalty all the time. I think it's in BoED.

[Kevka Palazzo]

I think the save for the choke hold should be Fortitude. The opposed grapple for that turn is what's strength based. However, rather than making it come into effect the turn after, the defender should make a fort save each turn that he's being pinned to not lose consciousness, and the DC goes up each round by two.

[Triaxx]

Non-Lethal with no penalty is very over powered, unless it's dealt unarmed. And you're correct, Choke Hold's save isn't right.

[Fizban]

Non-Lethal with no penalty is very over powered, unless it's dealt unarmed.
In a word, how?

[Matthew]

Indeed, how? I would like to know the answer to this as well. I see no reason why you couldn't just eliminate all penalties via a Feat. Improved Unarmed Strike eliminates all penalties and Attacks of Opportunity.

[Triaxx]

I disagree with eliminating penalties in a single feat. I've always made players take Martial Proficiency, Weapon Focus unarmed before letting them take Improved Unarmed Strike.

[cferejohn]

I disagree with eliminating penalties in a single feat. I've always made players take Martial Proficiency, Weapon Focus unarmed before letting them take Improved Unarmed Strike.

OK, but the question remains: how is allowing a feat that lets characters deal non-lethal damage with no penalty "way overpowered"? I mean, all it really means is that if you want to make sure you don't kill something you're attacking you don't have to do the obligatory single attack with the non-lethal penalty so as to assure that the killing blow doesn't kill it. That's pretty corner case...

[Lord Iames Osari]

I disagree with eliminating penalties in a single feat. I've always made players take Martial Proficiency, Weapon Focus unarmed before letting them take Improved Unarmed Strike.

Wait, wait, wait...

Unarmed strikes are simple weapons. Period. Full stop. What's this Martial Proficiency?

[Triaxx]

Because I consider Improved Unarmed to be too powerful on it's own. Therefore I make them take one of the other two before I let them have it.

[TimeWizard]

Really? How so?

Edit: this is confusing, three of us have the same avatar.

Edit-Edit: New Avatar by Neo|Phyte

[cferejohn]

Because I consider Improved Unarmed to be too powerful on it's own. Therefore I make them take one of the other two before I let them have it.

I think what people are asking is *why* do you consider it too powerful? Where's the potential for abuse? I don't see it.

Also, you seemed to say that a feat allowing you to do non-lethal damage with weapons at no penalty is to powerful. Again, how is this abusable?

[Triaxx]

Because it eliminates all the penalties in one feat without any prerequisites that mean anything.

That's exactly what I said. If I swing a one handed sword at you, you duck because it's going to hurt. If I swing the flat of the blade at you, I have to be very careful the air hitting against the wide surface doesn't twist it and chop you off at the neck instead. Even if I know exactly how to hit you with it, there's still the chance it could get caught by the wind and do normal damage. I'm fully against one feat elminating all penalties anyway.

[cferejohn]

OK, so you object because it is not *realistic*, not because it is *overpowered*. That's fine. Just confused why you said it was "way overpowered"...

[Triaxx]

I never said way overpowered, just plain overpowered.

[Mewtarthio]

"Overpowered" is solely a metagaming term. "Unrealistic" has nothing to do with it.

[Misat]

I still don't see just how dealing damage in a less damaging way is more overpowered. Then again I've never looked up how subdual damage works, my parties always turn out um...chaotic evil? so never was the need. If someone could explain that it might shed some light, for me, as to how this less lethal strike is more powerful.

[Mewtarthio]

If you want to question someone later, or if you'd rather not make a martyr out of them, or if you've got a Keeper's Fang Heavy Pick on hand (prevents resurrection when used to deal the final blow) for use in coup de grace attacks (the latter's a touch expensive since Keeper's Fang is a +4 bonus; I'm just making an example).