PDA

View Full Version : Knocked Out [House rule]



SoD
2007-12-03, 07:02 AM
I've been thinking about characters getting knocked out from a blow to the head recently, and came up with this:

James nervously looked behind him, down the dark alleyway. ''Hello? Who's there?'' he says. Continueing down the alley, nervously watching for movement when suddenly there's a sickening crack! and James fell to the ground, unconcious. ''Well,'' said Nove to the rest of the party, whilst holding his trusty quaterstaff, ''Who needs a rogue when you've got a sorcerer with a staff?''

Knocking an opponant unconcious: as a full round action, a character can choose to forgo all other attacks to make a single attack against an opponant with their highest base attack bonus, at a -4 penalty. This attack against the opponants head must be made with a bludgeoning weapon, although some slashing or peircing weapons may be used at an additional -4 penalty (using the flat of a greatsword, for example). Using a sap or an unarmed attack negates the -4 penalty. The person attacked is then forced to make a fortitude save DC 10+damage dealt, or be knocked unconcious for 1d4 hours, or until woken. The character gets their armour bonus (if any) as a bonus to their save. If they are aware of the attack, or have a reason to expect it, they also get a +4 circumstance to their save. If wearing a helmet they also receive a +4 circumstance bonus to their save. If they have natural armour, they get half their natural armour to their save (rounded up). Depending on the situation, the DM may need to justify the use of skill checks as well, for example, move silently to sneak up on someone, hide to remain hidden as the (potential) victim walks past, or even jump to attack someone taller (halfling trying to knock out an elf). A rogue may use their sneak attack damage if the circumstance would normally allow it.

The reason that I'm throwing in so many modifiers is to make it less abusable in combat, to be more of a nighttime sort of thing rather than a "I try to knock out the BBEG!" type of thing. What do we think? I will happily take critisicm, but I would like more than just "it's no good". Stuff like "Part X is no good, maybe you could try Y instead?" if very acceptable.

Kyace
2007-12-03, 07:28 AM
Might I make a suggestion?

You might consider just rewording it to be a nonlethal coup de grace which requires a flatfooted target. Deals nonlethal damage as a critical strike would and requires a fort save 10 + nonlethal damage dealt or knock out.

Keep everything else from Coup De Grace (such as only working on creatures that can be critical'd and provoking an AoO (however flatfooted people can't take AoO, you just provoke one from everyone nonflatfooted, thus preventing it from being used willy nilly in battle))

Simpler, easier to remember.

Jarchh
2007-12-03, 08:38 AM
I agree with Kyace. I can see it being a tiny bit abused, but making in an un-armed coup-de-grace would fix this somewhat. However It's still very non-standard and i'd probably recomend making it attached to a feat, maybe another fix would be giving it to a rogue in the style of those complete scoundrel "trade xd6 sneak attack bonus for a misc effect" so possibly giving them the ability to trade out their sneak attack for a chance to render a foe unconscious but only if the attack is delivered by a bludgeoning weapon or another feasible option?

FlyMolo
2007-12-03, 10:22 PM
I like it very much.

A non-lethal coup de grace is a good idea, and I don't really think it merits editing the rogue, or adding a new feat. knocking someone out isn't really a sneaky skill. Blunt object + head= sleep.

I could definitely see it used as it is in the fluff, by otherwise non-combat characters.

Chancellor
2007-12-04, 08:05 PM
Might I make a suggestion?

You might consider just rewording it to be a nonlethal coup de grace which requires a flatfooted target. Deals nonlethal damage as a critical strike would and requires a fort save 10 + nonlethal damage dealt or knock out.

Keep everything else from Coup De Grace (such as only working on creatures that can be critical'd and provoking an AoO (however flatfooted people can't take AoO, you just provoke one from everyone nonflatfooted, thus preventing it from being used willy nilly in battle))

Simpler, easier to remember.

What he said. Otherwise its just another special attack to use/abuse.

Umarth
2007-12-05, 11:22 AM
This is wildly broken and will cause serious problems if you implement it.

First though this is actually already covered by in game mechanics. Dealing someone subdual damage will knock them unconscious when the subdual damage is greater than their current hit points.

So in your example the wizard knocks the guy on the back of the head with his staff and deals more subdual damage than he has remaining HPs and he goes down. No new rule needed.

"But wait" you say "The wizard can't do that to anyone but a commoner. How is he supposed to knock out a 10th level fighter?" The answer is he isn't.

Using your rules, or the non-lethal coup de grace, rules it now becomes easier to knock someone out than it is to kill them. That means that players will now focus on knocking things out rather than killing them. Why beat up the giant dragon when, *klock*, a single hit can knock it out?

My recommendation would be to use the current subdual damage rules for knocking people out.

FireSpark
2007-12-05, 01:31 PM
This is wildly broken and will cause serious problems if you implement it.

First though this is actually already covered by in game mechanics. Dealing someone subdual damage will knock them unconscious when the subdual damage is greater than their current hit points.

So in your example the wizard knocks the guy on the back of the head with his staff and deals more subdual damage than he has remaining HPs and he goes down. No new rule needed.

"But wait" you say "The wizard can't do that to anyone but a commoner. How is he supposed to knock out a 10th level fighter?" The answer is he isn't.

Using your rules, or the non-lethal coup de grace, rules it now becomes easier to knock someone out than it is to kill them. That means that players will now focus on knocking things out rather than killing them. Why beat up the giant dragon when, *klock*, a single hit can knock it out?

My recommendation would be to use the current subdual damage rules for knocking people out.


In SoD's original post, there are plenty of points that make the effect quite not-broken in my opinion.

First is the fact that if the target is aware of you, it gets a bonus to it's save. It your target is wearing armor, it gets that armor bonus to it's save. With all these potential bonuses, the only way to make any real use of this effect would be out of combat. Otherwise, if you attempted to knock out a BBEG knight wearing full plate in the middle of a fight, good luck (since he'll be getting essentially a +12 to his save, even if he didn't know you were there).

Second, there's that penalty on your attack rolls (unless using a sap or unarmed attack).

These two facts alone mean that the only people you'd even want to think about knocking out are random NPCs or maybe some BBEG's mooks. Anybody else of decent CR isn't really going to be threatened by this sort of attack.

Finally, in your example of klonking a dragon over the head, there a few things to consider. First: Dragons are typically big. Sometimes they get really freaking big. Managing to actually make a blunt force attack to a dragon's skull would be difficult in the least. Then there's the fact that most dragons have Fort save that make most Fort-save based attacks against them nigh usless. But you do bring up one good point in that scenario, and this is my suggestion to SoD.
Perhaps the target should also gain a bonus to saves from natural armor. omething like "a bonus to the fortitude saving throw equal to one half their natural armor." Or the whole thing if you think it would get too high. Heck you could includ the caveat that the target only gained a bonus to the save from one source, that being the better source.

Just my thoughts.

SoD
2007-12-05, 02:12 PM
This is wildly broken and will cause serious problems if you implement it.

You call it wildly broken. Fair enough, each to their own. In spite of what people are saying (and they all have their own points) about a different rule being used (core rule for subdual, non-leathat coupe-de-grace, etc.) I am still planning on testing it. If it doesn't work, then out it goes, or at least back to the drawing board. By no means stop giving suggestions, I'm always willing to hear more help with this! I know there's a lot of numbers there, but most of it's common sense (helmet=hard to knock out. Sword=hard to knock out with. Etc.)

Umarth, you say ''wildly broken''...in what ways? I beleive it to be balanced. I'm not a hugely experienced gamer, I've got a few years only under my belt, and a few months DMing, and this is my first from-scratch house rule, but I think it's at least mostly balanced. I've put in pelanties that should stop it being used in combat but make it still possible. I think it makes sense bludgeoning-wise. In what ways is it wildly broken? If you don't be more specific, I can't fix it.

FireSpark...thank you very much for your support! The natural armour is in there.

Ashtar
2007-12-05, 02:36 PM
Personally, I like your idea. I would make it usable only on flat footed opponents, so that it represents really the moment before the person expects to fight.
Once in the fight, I wouldn't want the players using this instead of subdual damage.

Do give us some feedback on how this works out!
...
I can just imagine my players being abducted / press-ganged by a bunch of mariners...

SoD
2007-12-05, 03:05 PM
Well, fortunatly, my next session is Saturday evening, so hopefully I should have stuff up in about half a week.

Umarth
2007-12-05, 06:25 PM
Umarth, you say ''wildly broken''...in what ways? I beleive it to be balanced. I'm not a hugely experienced gamer, I've got a few years only under my belt, and a few months DMing, and this is my first from-scratch house rule, but I think it's at least mostly balanced. I've put in pelanties that should stop it being used in combat but make it still possible. I think it makes sense bludgeoning-wise. In what ways is it wildly broken? If you don't be more specific, I can't fix it.


It's broken because a well made melee type can deal so much damage on a single attack that the opponent will never make the save. This means that players will never try and hurt anything that can be knocked out. They will only knock it out and then kill it.

At mid-high levels melee builds can easily dish out 100+ on a single attack. That means that even with a +12 save (due to armor and what not) they are still failing on everything except a 20.

If you really want to see why this is broken make some mid/high level fighter/barb/rogs designed to deal maximum damage in a single hit. Then have them only use this tactic.

This is better than normal attacks for the same reason Save or suck spells are better than damage dealing spells.


All that being said there are a few other points I'd bring up:

1) There is already a mechanic in the game for this. Why not use the current mechanic? What's broken about it?

2) There is no helmet mechanic in the game so giving penalties based on that is iffy.

3) There are enough modifiers that it will slow down game play to use these rules. I'd look at signfigantly reduceing the number of modifiers.

SoD
2007-12-06, 09:55 AM
1) There is already a mechanic in the game for this. Why not use the current mechanic? What's broken about it?

No, the current mechanic is not broken. I feel that it's underpowered. For anything at a higher level than the first few, not that much will be knocked out.


2) There is no helmet mechanic in the game so giving penalties based on that is iffy.

No strict mechanic, but some armours come with helmets. It's in the pictures and (I think) descriptions of the armour.


3) There are enough modifiers that it will slow down game play to use these rules. I'd look at signfigantly reduceing the number of modifiers.

I've got all the modifiers in my head, well enough for me to adjust the characters rolls as need be. Also, to halve the amount of numbers, just devide it onto two sheets of paper, one containing what you need to know if someone's hitting you, and one containing what you need to know if you're hitting someone.




It's broken because a well made melee type can deal so much damage on a single attack that the opponent will never make the save. This means that players will never try and hurt anything that can be knocked out. They will only knock it out and then kill it.

I trust my players not to abuse it at higher levels. Simple as that, I've designed for use out of combat, and my players know that, as a houserule, if either they, or I, consider it too broken or underbalanced, it goes. My players who I've talked to feel that it'll work. Also, I'm not forcing you to use it, but thanks for the comments regardless.

Fiery Diamond
2007-12-06, 10:09 AM
@SoD: I like it. I completely agree with you - it doesn't matter if it can be abused if the players know they're not allowed to abuse it. People who deliberately abuse rules aren't going to contribute to the fun nearly as much, and you appear to have players who are willing to be reasonable. Although, I would agree with what some posters have said - I'd require the opponent to be flatfooted; being not-flatfooted should be a case where the core nonlethal rules should be used, I think. Awesome houserule, take that from a DM who has been playing for about two and a half years and DMing for about a year and a half.

- Fiery Diamond

Mewtarthio
2007-12-06, 10:12 AM
I trust my players not to abuse it at higher levels. Simple as that, I've designed for use out of combat, and my players know that, as a houserule, if either they, or I, consider it too broken or underbalanced, it goes. My players who I've talked to feel that it'll work. Also, I'm not forcing you to use it, but thanks for the comments regardless.

True, but it's best to explicitly state that it can only be used out of combat. Particularly since there's already rules for getting caught by surprise.

Umarth
2007-12-06, 11:52 AM
I trust my players not to abuse it at higher levels. Simple as that, I've designed for use out of combat, and my players know that, as a houserule, if either they, or I, consider it too broken or underbalanced, it goes. My players who I've talked to feel that it'll work. Also, I'm not forcing you to use it, but thanks for the comments regardless.

Sorry my assumption by posting it on the boards was that you wanted it critiqued for balance. If the balance is we've agreed not to abuse it that's fine.

Also keep in mind that I'm not trying to attack your idea in hopes of having you give the idea up. I'm just trying to point out problems with the rule that should really be addressed.


A couple additional questions:
1) You have it as a full round attack. Is this like a spell where the attack occurs at the start of the characters next turn? Can this be started in a surprise round? You probably want to make this a Full Attack Action rather than a Full Round Attack.

2) What about critters like Hydra that have multiple heads?

3) What about critters that regenerate? Do they recover faster? Does the attack have to be with something that can deal real damage?

If I were going to implement something like this in my homebrewed game I'd probably do something along these lines:


Knock Out [General]
Stealthy moving up behind your opponent you deliver a resounding smack that drops them into unconsciousness.
Prerequisites: None
Benefits: As an attack action you may deliver a single attack with a weapon dealing subdual damage to an opponent who is flat footed. If your attack hits your attack is considered to be a critical hit. You must still confirm the critical normally.
Special: This feat may only be taken once.

Or

Knock Out [General]
Stealthy moving up behind your opponent you deliver a resounding smack that drops them into unconsciousness.
Prerequisites: +1d6 Sneak Attack
Benefits: As an attack action you may deliver a single attack with a weapon dealing subdual damage to an opponent who is flat footed. If your attack hits you deal double your normal sneak attack damage. All the damage is considered subdual and you incur normal penalties for using weapons not designed to deal subdual damage when making this attack.
Special: This feat may only be taken once.

I’d probably go with the second one and may actually put that second one into my world.

Advantages I see:
1) Makes it something that takes some training to use (i.e. the feat) so it's not just a new combat option for everyone.
2) Doesn’t introduce new mechanics.
3) Reduces the number of rolls needed.
4) No extra time spent figuring out save bonuses from armor, nat armor, ect.
5) Removes issues with multi-headed, too tall, or regenerating creatures.

SoD
2007-12-06, 02:06 PM
1-Yes, sorry. That should be full attack action, my mistake.
2-For creatures with multiple heads, it would knock out that one head. Also, creatures with no discernable anatomy, or those without brains cannot be knocked out.
3-Hmm. I'll have to think about that one...I think in that case it'll be 1d4 minutes instead.

The reason I don't want to make it a feat is because it's hitting someone over the head...I don't think it's difficult enough to merit a feat. However, that's my personal opinion, and I can see the advantages to it as you said.

Heliomance
2007-12-06, 06:29 PM
Umarth, it should be easier to knock someone out than to kill them. I, as I am now, and armed with a baseball bat, could almost certainly knock you out if you didn't know it was coming. I would probably have less luck trying to fatally stab you with a sword. You would almost certainly have time to react to me. I'd certainly find it easier to knock you out with a quarterstaff than to kill you with one. It's something I've been surprised isn't in the rules, and it's something that many people who play characters opposed to unnecessary killing would find incredibly useful. The way the rules are set up makes it impractical not to kill in most cases.

Umarth
2007-12-06, 09:10 PM
Umarth, it should be easier to knock someone out than to kill them.

Couple points here:

First clarify a couple terms:
Knocked out - unconscious with a HP total above 0.
Beaten Down - unconscious with a HP total below 0. (subdual or real damage)

1) You're not trained to kill people with a baseball bat or a quarterstaff. If you where it is entirely possible that you'd have an easier time killing me with them then you would "knocking me out".

In either situation, I'd guess, you'd have the easiest time Beating me down which seems a lot more likely than "knocking me out". Which is represented by the fact that unless you have a high str or get lucky you'll probably knock me to 0 or fewer HPs with out dropping me below -10.

2) Game Play > Adherence to reality. At least in my opinion. Thus even if something is "realistic" if it's unbalancing in the game then it should be left out.

3) For the players who don't want to kill things I'd give them two options:
a) They can take a feat that lets all bludgeoning weapons deal subdual rather than "real" damage.
b) They can choose, at char creation, to have learned to deal subdual damage with bludgeoning weapons rather than real damage. This would swap the -4 penalty for subdual damage on those weapons to wanting to deal "real" damage.