Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Rage Question - Non-Lethal Damage?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:08:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

One of my campaigns ended recently and we started up a new one. One of the
first barbarian PC's in my games was drafted and the player asked me an odd
question. He wanted to now if a Barbarian could cause non-lethal damage with
their weapon while raging. I dug through the Rage (Ex) section of the PHB
and while the RAW did not diallow it, it seemed to go agaisnt the spirit
one the rules.

Rage (Ex): A barbarian can fly into a screaming blood frenzy a certain
number of times per day. In a rage, a barbarian gains phenomenal strength
and durability but becomes reckless and less able to defend himself. He
temporarily gains a +4 bonus to Strength, a +4 bonus to Constitution, and
a +2 morale bonus on Will saves, but he takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class.
The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian's hit points by 2
points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when
his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are
not lost first the way temporary hit points are; see Temporary Hit Points,
page 146.) While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-,
or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate,
and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or
concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require
a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion
(such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat
Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats. A fit of rage lasts for
a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character's (newly improved) Constitution
modifier. A barbarian may prematurely end his rage. At the end of the rage,
the barbarian loses the rage modifiers and restrictions and becomes fatigued
(-2 penalty to Strength, -2 penalty to Dexterity, can't charge or run) for
the duration of the current encounter (unless he is a 17th-level barbarian,
at which point this limitation no longer applies; see below). A barbarian
can fly into a rage only once per encounter. At 1st level he can use his
rage ability once per day. At 4th level and every four levels thereafter,
he can use it one additional time per day (to a maximum of six times per day
at 20th level). Entering a rage takes no time itself, but a barbarian can
do it only during his action (see Initiative, page 136), not in response
to someone else's action. A barbarian can't, for example, fly into a rage
when struck down by an arrow in order to get the extra hit points from the
increased Constitution, although the extra hit points would be of benefit
if he had gone into a rage earlier in the round, before the arrow struck


I am looking for some opinions on the subject.

Jester
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:08:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chris Christian wrote:
> One of my campaigns ended recently and we started up a new one. One
of the
> first barbarian PC's in my games was drafted and the player asked me
an odd
> question. He wanted to now if a Barbarian could cause non-lethal
damage with
> their weapon while raging. I dug through the Rage (Ex) section of the
PHB
> and while the RAW did not diallow it, it seemed to go agaisnt the
spirit
> one the rules.

I would allow it.

1) Hulk SMASH need not be fatal, or be intended to be fatal.

2) Rage does not require you to attack at all. You can use it to
boost Con and/or Str for other things. Rage is not a berserk frenzy
where you try to kill everyone.

3) It is allowed in the RAW, and not disallowed by my houserules, I
HATE GMs who make off the cuff rulings to not allow the PC's to do
stuff that they reasonably should be able to do. And even though I
typically run with 50 or so pages of houserules I can't imagine
something this trivial being put in them so any ruling against it
would be off the cuff.

4) Anytime a player wants to be more subtle than "kill them all and
take their stuff" it should not be all that actively discouraged. I
am constantly amazed by the number of DMs who can't seem to figure
out why their players will never surrender and rarely negotiate,
the DM sets the tone, and a no on this helps set the tone that you
are not interested in allowing non-lethal conflict resolution. A yes
says you have no problem with non-lethal solutions, and IMAO thus
makes for a better long term game.

5) How would it be unballancing or less fun to allow this? I tend
to think the default should be to allow anything that does not ruin
people's fun (remembering that ballance, consistency, and "realism"
can all be important to people's fun).

DougL
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:08:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chris Christian wrote:

> One of my campaigns ended recently and we started up a new one. One of the
> first barbarian PC's in my games was drafted and the player asked me an odd
> question. He wanted to now if a Barbarian could cause non-lethal damage with
> their weapon while raging. I dug through the Rage (Ex) section of the PHB
> and while the RAW did not diallow it, it seemed to go agaisnt the spirit
> one the rules.
>
> Rage (Ex): A barbarian can fly into a screaming blood frenzy a certain
> number of times per day. In a rage, a barbarian gains phenomenal strength
> and durability but becomes reckless and less able to defend himself. He
> temporarily gains a +4 bonus to Strength, a +4 bonus to Constitution, and
> a +2 morale bonus on Will saves, but he takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class.
> The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian's hit points by 2
> points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when
> his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are
> not lost first the way temporary hit points are; see Temporary Hit Points,
> page 146.) While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-,
> or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate,
> and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or
> concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require
> a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion
> (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat
> Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats. A fit of rage lasts for
> a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character's (newly improved) Constitution
> modifier. A barbarian may prematurely end his rage. At the end of the rage,
> the barbarian loses the rage modifiers and restrictions and becomes fatigued
> (-2 penalty to Strength, -2 penalty to Dexterity, can't charge or run) for
> the duration of the current encounter (unless he is a 17th-level barbarian,
> at which point this limitation no longer applies; see below). A barbarian
> can fly into a rage only once per encounter. At 1st level he can use his
> rage ability once per day. At 4th level and every four levels thereafter,
> he can use it one additional time per day (to a maximum of six times per day
> at 20th level). Entering a rage takes no time itself, but a barbarian can
> do it only during his action (see Initiative, page 136), not in response
> to someone else's action. A barbarian can't, for example, fly into a rage
> when struck down by an arrow in order to get the extra hit points from the
> increased Constitution, although the extra hit points would be of benefit
> if he had gone into a rage earlier in the round, before the arrow struck
>
>
> I am looking for some opinions on the subject.

Obviously if he is punching and lacks the appropriate feats, he'll be
doing non-lethal damage. And if he is using a Merciful weapon, he'll be
doing non-lethal damage.

You want to know if he can choose to do NLD with a standard weapon.

I don't see why not. Maybe he wants to beat the Heck out of someone to
tie them up and question them, or just for the sheer fun of it. A
raging barbarian in a barroom brawl might be smart enough to refrain
from killing people.

- Ron ^*^
Related resources
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:20:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

cjdc@nwlxgen02.jf.intel.com (Chris Christian) wrote in
news:D 5bdl9$gj3$1@news01.intel.com:

> One of the
> first barbarian PC's in my games was drafted and the player
> asked me an odd question. He wanted to now if a Barbarian could
> cause non-lethal damage with their weapon while raging.

A wonderful question! If he's using a blunt weapon - fist, club, or
staff - then I don't see any problem. With an edged weapon, I'd
suggest you're going too far against the spirit of the rules. The
barbarian does go into a frenzy, after all, and cannot use the
Concentration skill or any INT based skills.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:29:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quentin Stephens wrote:
>
> cjdc@nwlxgen02.jf.intel.com (Chris Christian) wrote in
> news:D 5bdl9$gj3$1@news01.intel.com:
>
> > One of the
> > first barbarian PC's in my games was drafted and the player
> > asked me an odd question. He wanted to now if a Barbarian could
> > cause non-lethal damage with their weapon while raging.
>
> A wonderful question! If he's using a blunt weapon - fist, club, or
> staff - then I don't see any problem. With an edged weapon, I'd
> suggest you're going too far against the spirit of the rules. The
> barbarian does go into a frenzy, after all, and cannot use the
> Concentration skill or any INT based skills.

You don't have to make a Concentration check or use any
Int-based skills to deal nonlethal damage with a
weapon, edged or otherwise.

-Bluto
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 7:12:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Suddenly, Chris Christian, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the
darkness and exclaimed:

> One of my campaigns ended recently and we started up a new one. One of
> the first barbarian PC's in my games was drafted and the player asked
> me an odd question. He wanted to now if a Barbarian could cause
> non-lethal damage with their weapon while raging. I dug through the
> Rage (Ex) section of the PHB and while the RAW did not diallow it, it
> seemed to go agaisnt the spirit one the rules.
>

Wolverine did it in the climactic battle of the "Kitty Pryde & Wolverine"
limited series, so I'd allow it. B{D

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 8:33:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:
>cjdc@nwlxgen02.jf.intel.com (Chris Christian) wrote in
>
>> One of the
>> first barbarian PC's in my games was drafted and the player
>> asked me an odd question. He wanted to now if a Barbarian could
>> cause non-lethal damage with their weapon while raging.
>
>A wonderful question! If he's using a blunt weapon - fist, club, or
>staff - then I don't see any problem. With an edged weapon, I'd
>suggest you're going too far against the spirit of the rules. The
>barbarian does go into a frenzy, after all, and cannot use the
>Concentration skill or any INT based skills.

The one item I left out of this discussion in order to avoid muddling it is
that the character has taken a flaw called Blind Rage (Dragon #325 p93).

Blind Rage
Your ability to distinguish between friend and foe is limited once you
enter a rage.
Prerequisite: Rage Ability
Effect: You may not end your rage voluntarily. Once you enter a rage, you
continue to rage for the entire duration. While in a rage, you must attack
a creature every round if able. You can charge or move in order to make the
attack, and you may move to attack a foe rather than stay still to attack
a friend. If there are no creatures within sight, you attack the nearest
object. You may attempt a DC 15 Will save once per round on your turn in
order to stop attacking. If foes become visible, you ay immediately switch
targets and engage them.

The player asked the non-lethal damage question as a possible means to
get around possibly killing allies when all foes are exhausted.

Jester
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 8:33:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chris Christian wrote:
>
> The one item I left out of this discussion in order to avoid muddling it is
> that the character has taken a flaw called Blind Rage (Dragon #325 p93).

Information like this is very often crucial for making
reasonable rulings, however.

> Blind Rage
> Your ability to distinguish between friend and foe is limited once you
> enter a rage.
> Prerequisite: Rage Ability
> Effect: You may not end your rage voluntarily. Once you enter a rage, you
> continue to rage for the entire duration. While in a rage, you must attack
> a creature every round if able. You can charge or move in order to make the
> attack, and you may move to attack a foe rather than stay still to attack
> a friend. If there are no creatures within sight, you attack the nearest
> object. You may attempt a DC 15 Will save once per round on your turn in
> order to stop attacking. If foes become visible, you ay immediately switch
> targets and engage them.
>
> The player asked the non-lethal damage question as a possible means to
> get around possibly killing allies when all foes are exhausted.

Certainly. The flaw's description says your ability to
distinguish between friend and foe is "limited," not
non-existent. If you can choose to "move to attack a
foe rather than stay still to attack a friend," I can't
see any reason why you couldn't *also* choose to punch
your friend rather than run your sword through him.

-Bluto
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 4:53:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chris Christian wrote:
> Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote:
> >cjdc@nwlxgen02.jf.intel.com (Chris Christian) wrote in
> >
> >> One of the
> >> first barbarian PC's in my games was drafted and the player
> >> asked me an odd question. He wanted to now if a Barbarian could
> >> cause non-lethal damage with their weapon while raging.
> >
> >A wonderful question! If he's using a blunt weapon - fist, club, or
> >staff - then I don't see any problem. With an edged weapon, I'd
> >suggest you're going too far against the spirit of the rules. The
> >barbarian does go into a frenzy, after all, and cannot use the
> >Concentration skill or any INT based skills.
>
> The one item I left out of this discussion in order to avoid muddling
it is
> that the character has taken a flaw called Blind Rage (Dragon #325
p93).
>
> Blind Rage
> Your ability to distinguish between friend and foe is limited once
you
> enter a rage.
> Prerequisite: Rage Ability
> Effect: You may not end your rage voluntarily. Once you enter a rage,
you
> continue to rage for the entire duration. While in a rage, you must
attack
> a creature every round if able. You can charge or move in order to
make the
> attack, and you may move to attack a foe rather than stay still to
attack
> a friend. If there are no creatures within sight, you attack the
nearest
> object. You may attempt a DC 15 Will save once per round on your turn
in
> order to stop attacking. If foes become visible, you ay immediately
switch
> targets and engage them.
>
> The player asked the non-lethal damage question as a possible means
to
> get around possibly killing allies when all foes are exhausted.

Since the intent of that drawback is that he may attack and kill
friends he attacks for real. I also wouldn't let him drop his
weapon and pummel them unarmed, or hold back and voluntarily do
less damage or not use his strength bonus, or whatever....

Seriously, if he can use subdual then the "drawback" isn't really a
serious disadvantage. He took the feat, he can live with it.

DougL
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 10:12:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in
news:4279BD43.564BA8DB@comcast.net:

> Quentin Stephens wrote:
>>
>> cjdc@nwlxgen02.jf.intel.com (Chris Christian) wrote in
>> news:D 5bdl9$gj3$1@news01.intel.com:
>>
>> > One of the
>> > first barbarian PC's in my games was drafted and the player
>> > asked me an odd question. He wanted to now if a Barbarian
>> > could cause non-lethal damage with their weapon while raging.
>>
>> A wonderful question! If he's using a blunt weapon - fist,
>> club, or staff - then I don't see any problem. With an edged
>> weapon, I'd suggest you're going too far against the spirit of
>> the rules. The barbarian does go into a frenzy, after all, and
>> cannot use the Concentration skill or any INT based skills.
>
> You don't have to make a Concentration check or use any
> Int-based skills to deal nonlethal damage with a
> weapon, edged or otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure I follow you.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:48:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quentin Stephens wrote:
>>> A wonderful question! If he's using a blunt weapon - fist, club, or
>>> staff - then I don't see any problem. With an edged weapon, I'd
>>> suggest you're going too far against the spirit of the rules. The
>>> barbarian does go into a frenzy, after all, and cannot use the
>>> Concentration skill or any INT based skills.

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>> You don't have to make a Concentration check or use any Int-based
>> skills to deal nonlethal damage with a weapon, edged or otherwise.

> I'm not entirely sure I follow you.

He's saying that you've misidentified "the spirit of the rules," which
prohibit concentration, not mercy.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:50:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

DougL wrote:
> Since the intent of that drawback [Blind Rage] is that he may attack
> and kill friends he attacks for real. I also wouldn't let him drop his
> weapon and pummel them unarmed, or hold back and voluntarily do less
> damage or not use his strength bonus, or whatever....

I agree that such a character should not hold back, but pummeling your
"foe" with fists, kicks, etc. seems quite compatible with blind rages in
my experience.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:00:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:12:55 GMT, Billy Yank
<billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> scribed into the ether:

>Suddenly, Chris Christian, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the
>darkness and exclaimed:
>
>> One of my campaigns ended recently and we started up a new one. One of
>> the first barbarian PC's in my games was drafted and the player asked
>> me an odd question. He wanted to now if a Barbarian could cause
>> non-lethal damage with their weapon while raging. I dug through the
>> Rage (Ex) section of the PHB and while the RAW did not diallow it, it
>> seemed to go agaisnt the spirit one the rules.
>>
>
>Wolverine did it in the climactic battle of the "Kitty Pryde & Wolverine"
>limited series, so I'd allow it. B{D

Err, how the hell do you hurt someone (lethally or otherwise) when they are
intangible?
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:01:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
>DougL wrote:
>>
>> Since the intent of that drawback is that he may attack and kill
>> friends he attacks for real.
>
>How do you know that's the intent of the drawback? It
>certainly doesn't say that anywhere in the flaw's
>description.

What other intent could you possibly infer from the feat description?



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:52:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:

> You want to know if he can choose to do NLD with a standard weapon.
>
> I don't see why not. Maybe he wants to beat the Heck out of someone
to
> tie them up and question them, or just for the sheer fun of it. A
> raging barbarian in a barroom brawl might be smart enough to refrain
> from killing people.

I don't know, though. Doesn't that smack of something that involves
concentration, of which the barbarien is incapable durring his rage?
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:54:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chris Christian wrote:
oncentration skill or any INT based skills.
>
> The one item I left out of this discussion in order to avoid muddling
it is
> that the character has taken a flaw called Blind Rage (Dragon #325
p93).
>
> Blind Rage
> Your ability to distinguish between friend and foe is limited once
you
> enter a rage.
> Prerequisite: Rage Ability
> Effect: You may not end your rage voluntarily. Once you enter a rage,
you
> continue to rage for the entire duration. While in a rage, you must
attack
> a creature every round if able. You can charge or move in order to
make the
> attack, and you may move to attack a foe rather than stay still to
attack
> a friend. If there are no creatures within sight, you attack the
nearest
> object. You may attempt a DC 15 Will save once per round on your turn
in
> order to stop attacking. If foes become visible, you ay immediately
switch
> targets and engage them.
>
> The player asked the non-lethal damage question as a possible means
to
> get around possibly killing allies when all foes are exhausted.

Oh, well screw that. He took the flaw, he can deal with it. Allowing
subdual damage in a blind rage is crazy talk. It was questionable
enough that it can be argued both ways in a normal rage. Forget it.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:54:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
> >DougL wrote:
> >>
> >> Since the intent of that drawback is that he may attack and kill
> >> friends he attacks for real.
> >
> >How do you know that's the intent of the drawback? It
> >certainly doesn't say that anywhere in the flaw's
> >description.
>
> What other intent could you possibly infer from the feat description?

That the character may attack his friends. The "and
kill" part is pure invention on DougL's part.

-Bluto
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:25:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

bradd+news@szonye.com wrote:

> > Since the intent of that drawback [Blind Rage] is that he may attack
> > and kill friends he attacks for real. I also wouldn't let him drop his
> > weapon and pummel them unarmed, or hold back and voluntarily do less
> > damage or not use his strength bonus, or whatever....
>
> I agree that such a character should not hold back, but pummeling your
> "foe" with fists, kicks, etc. seems quite compatible with blind rages in
> my experience.

But I doubt the rager in question had a sword (or something equivalent)
in his hand and actively chose to punch and kick instead...


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:46:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>> You want to know if he can choose to do NLD with a standard weapon.
>>
>> I don't see why not. Maybe he wants to beat the Heck out of someone
>> to tie them up and question them, or just for the sheer fun of it. A
>> raging barbarian in a barroom brawl might be smart enough to refrain
>> from killing people.

Anivair wrote:
> I don't know, though. Doesn't that smack of something that involves
> concentration, of which the barbarien is incapable durring his rage?

If you think it takes concentration to avoid doing lethal damage, I
think somebody should notify your co-workers.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 6:13:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>> Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
>> >DougL wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Since the intent of that drawback is that he may attack and kill
>> >> friends he attacks for real.
>> >
>> >How do you know that's the intent of the drawback? It
>> >certainly doesn't say that anywhere in the flaw's
>> >description.
>>
>> What other intent could you possibly infer from the feat description?
>
>That the character may attack his friends. The "and
>kill" part is pure invention on DougL's part.

Seems to be the logical conclusion to attacking them if you ask me.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 10:25:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The RAW, including the flaw, say nothing about using a weapon. If you
don't want to permanently hurt your allies, drop your weapons as a free
action.

Not sure what happens if you have chained gauntlet though!

Mark
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 5:04:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

monarchy@comcast.net wrote:

> > >> Since the intent of that drawback is that he may attack and kill
> > >> friends he attacks for real.
> > >
> > >How do you know that's the intent of the drawback? It
> > >certainly doesn't say that anywhere in the flaw's
> > >description.
> >
> > What other intent could you possibly infer from the feat description?
>
> That the character may attack his friends. The "and
> kill" part is pure invention on DougL's part.

So he's blind with rage enough that he attacks his friend, but aware
enough that he can go for subdual damage?

Can he try to disarm them? Can he try to disarm them using Power Attack,
so that he gets a penalty on the opposed attack roll and a bonus to
nothing (since there's no damage roll in disarming)? Can he try to
disarm them unarmed lying prone using Power Attack with his eyes closed?

Those are all attacks in D&D and so fulfill the letter of rules for the
flaw: the barbarian is attacking his friends. The spirit, not so much.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 5:04:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
> monarchy@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > >> Since the intent of that drawback is that he may attack and kill
> > > >> friends he attacks for real.
> > > >
> > > >How do you know that's the intent of the drawback? It
> > > >certainly doesn't say that anywhere in the flaw's
> > > >description.
> > >
> > > What other intent could you possibly infer from the feat description?
> >
> > That the character may attack his friends. The "and
> > kill" part is pure invention on DougL's part.
>
> So he's blind with rage enough that he attacks his friend, but aware
> enough that he can go for subdual damage?

So he's aware enough that he can choose to *move 40
feet* before attacking an enemy rather than attack the
friend standing right next to him, but so blind with
rage that he can't drop his weapon first?

> Can he try to disarm them? Can he try to disarm them using Power Attack,
> so that he gets a penalty on the opposed attack roll and a bonus to
> nothing (since there's no damage roll in disarming)? Can he try to
> disarm them unarmed lying prone using Power Attack with his eyes closed?
>
> Those are all attacks in D&D and so fulfill the letter of rules for the
> flaw: the barbarian is attacking his friends. The spirit, not so much.

I agree. That's why I think the flaw is a poorly
considered one, and why I would not approve it if I
were the DM.

-Bluto
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 10:59:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Werebat wrote:
> >> You want to know if he can choose to do NLD with a standard
weapon.
> >>
> >> I don't see why not. Maybe he wants to beat the Heck out of
someone
> >> to tie them up and question them, or just for the sheer fun of it.
A
> >> raging barbarian in a barroom brawl might be smart enough to
refrain
> >> from killing people.
>
> Anivair wrote:
> > I don't know, though. Doesn't that smack of something that
involves
> > concentration, of which the barbarien is incapable durring his
rage?
>
> If you think it takes concentration to avoid doing lethal damage, I
> think somebody should notify your co-workers.

Funny, but missing the point. What does the -4 to attack represent?
Sure, part of it's the suboptimal use of the weapon, but that in and of
itself takes concentration. A sword is made for hacking stuff. you
don't need to give it much thought to do that with it. but using a
sword to not only not hack stuff but to not seriously hurt stuff takes
work. Bear in mind that the difference between the flat of your blade
and a club is very slim. Dealing nonlethal damage should take some
concentration. it's not easy.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 6:39:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

monarchy@comcast.net wrote:

> > > > >> Since the intent of that drawback is that he may attack and kill
> > > > >> friends he attacks for real.
> > > > >
> > > > >How do you know that's the intent of the drawback? It
> > > > >certainly doesn't say that anywhere in the flaw's
> > > > >description.
> > > >
> > > > What other intent could you possibly infer from the feat description?
> > >
> > > That the character may attack his friends. The "and
> > > kill" part is pure invention on DougL's part.
> >
> > So he's blind with rage enough that he attacks his friend, but aware
> > enough that he can go for subdual damage?
>
> So he's aware enough that he can choose to *move 40
> feet* before attacking an enemy rather than attack the
> friend standing right next to him, but so blind with
> rage that he can't drop his weapon first?

That's a good point.

> > Can he try to disarm them? Can he try to disarm them using Power Attack,
> > so that he gets a penalty on the opposed attack roll and a bonus to
> > nothing (since there's no damage roll in disarming)? Can he try to
> > disarm them unarmed lying prone using Power Attack with his eyes closed?
> >
> > Those are all attacks in D&D and so fulfill the letter of rules for the
> > flaw: the barbarian is attacking his friends. The spirit, not so much.
>
> I agree. That's why I think the flaw is a poorly
> considered one, and why I would not approve it if I
> were the DM.

And that's an even better one.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 7:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Werebat wrote:
>> >> You want to know if he can choose to do NLD with a standard
> weapon.
>> >>
>> >> I don't see why not. Maybe he wants to beat the Heck out of
> someone
>> >> to tie them up and question them, or just for the sheer fun of it.
> A
>> >> raging barbarian in a barroom brawl might be smart enough to
> refrain
>> >> from killing people.
>>
>> Anivair wrote:
>> > I don't know, though. Doesn't that smack of something that
> involves
>> > concentration, of which the barbarien is incapable durring his
> rage?
>>
>> If you think it takes concentration to avoid doing lethal damage, I
>> think somebody should notify your co-workers.

> Funny, but missing the point. What does the -4 to attack represent?
> Sure, part of it's the suboptimal use of the weapon, but that in and of
> itself takes concentration. A sword is made for hacking stuff. you
> don't need to give it much thought to do that with it. but using a
> sword to not only not hack stuff but to not seriously hurt stuff takes
> work. Bear in mind that the difference between the flat of your blade
> and a club is very slim. Dealing nonlethal damage should take some
> concentration. it's not easy.

So you're saying, in effect, that a character who wants to deal
nonlethal damage under distracting circumstances should have to make
a Concentration check or else launch a normal, lethal attack 'by
accident'?

--
Klaus Mittag (mittag@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de)
#include <disclaimer.h>
#include <fancysig.h>
spam > /dev/null
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 11:04:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Klaus Mittag hastily scrawled:
>Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>> Werebat wrote:
>>> >> You want to know if he can choose to do NLD with a standard
>> weapon.
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't see why not. Maybe he wants to beat the Heck out of
>> someone
>>> >> to tie them up and question them, or just for the sheer fun of it.
>> A
>>> >> raging barbarian in a barroom brawl might be smart enough to
>> refrain
>>> >> from killing people.
>>>
>>> Anivair wrote:
>>> > I don't know, though. Doesn't that smack of something that
>> involves
>>> > concentration, of which the barbarien is incapable durring his
>> rage?
>>>
>>> If you think it takes concentration to avoid doing lethal damage, I
>>> think somebody should notify your co-workers.
>
>> Funny, but missing the point. What does the -4 to attack represent?
>> Sure, part of it's the suboptimal use of the weapon, but that in and of
>> itself takes concentration. A sword is made for hacking stuff. you
>> don't need to give it much thought to do that with it. but using a
>> sword to not only not hack stuff but to not seriously hurt stuff takes
>> work. Bear in mind that the difference between the flat of your blade
>> and a club is very slim. Dealing nonlethal damage should take some
>> concentration. it's not easy.
>
>So you're saying, in effect, that a character who wants to deal
>nonlethal damage under distracting circumstances should have to make
>a Concentration check or else launch a normal, lethal attack 'by
>accident'?

I think he's saying that you could make a Concentration check to avoid
the -4 penalty.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:50:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chris Christian wrote:
> The player asked the non-lethal damage question as a possible means to
> get around possibly killing allies when all foes are exhausted.

Besides the distinction of edged vs blunt weapons discussed earlier, which I
like, I don't think that it should be tailored to this specifically.

It's one of the traits with rage, the limited vision of friend/foe parties. The
friends should just get out of the way, use foo Defense, or take a penalty to
their fights as they look over their shoulder to avoid the rager.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:52:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

~consul wrote:
> It's one of the traits with rage, the limited vision of friend/foe
> parties.

Since when?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:39:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> ~consul wrote:
>>It's one of the traits with rage, the limited vision of friend/foe
>>parties.
> Since when?

Wasn't that what the poster said was one of the peculiar requirements for his
character?
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 10:44:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

~consul wrote:
>>> It's one of the traits with rage, the limited vision of friend/foe
>>> parties.

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Since when?

> Wasn't that what the poster said was one of the peculiar requirements
> for his character?

Yes. Sorry about the snarkiness. That was really just a nitpick, (badly)
pointing out that the friend/foe confusion is part of a specific feat
and not a trait of rage in general.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:06:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Klaus Mittag wrote:

> So you're saying, in effect, that a character who wants to deal
> nonlethal damage under distracting circumstances should have to make
> a Concentration check or else launch a normal, lethal attack 'by
> accident'?

I suppose that depends on the circumstances. Combat is innately
distracting and I suspect that was taken into account. on the other
hand, if I were attacking a character who had killed my wife and child,
I might force myself (or another player) to make a concentration check
or possibly a will save to do nonlethal damage. There are numerous
types of distractions.

In other words, a lot of things that od not normally involve skill
rolls may still involve those skills. I don't need to make a use rope
check to tie my shoes or to tie up my horse. is that because rope is
not involved? Of course not. it's because the DC is so low and the
situation so munjdane that a roll isn't needed. However, if I had a
curse on my that forced a +5 DC on all my use rope checks then I'd make
it at DC 5, i think, the implecation being that typing your shoes does
involve use rope, just as a normal DC of zero (if that makes sense).

Not that I really care about this theoretical situation anymore. The
zero DC is an idea I've been using for a while and it works for me,
mechanically.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:06:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116241584.518404.296130@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Klaus Mittag wrote:
>
> > So you're saying, in effect, that a character who wants to deal
> > nonlethal damage under distracting circumstances should have to make
> > a Concentration check or else launch a normal, lethal attack 'by
> > accident'?
>
> I suppose that depends on the circumstances. Combat is innately
> distracting and I suspect that was taken into account. on the other
> hand, if I were attacking a character who had killed my wife and child,
> I might force myself (or another player) to make a concentration check
> or possibly a will save to do nonlethal damage. There are numerous
> types of distractions.

Why not leave it to the player in question to roleplay a response
appropriate to his character instead of imposing such a needless
requirement?
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 11:50:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:

> Why not leave it to the player in question to roleplay a response
> appropriate to his character instead of imposing such a needless
> requirement?

That is obviously the best idea.

Clarrify: if this ewre my group I would trust my players to roleplay
that appropriately and that's fine.

But this is someone else's game and so I'm giving a more strict
inperpretation. I think that, when giving internet advice, it's best
to assume some munchkining for saftey's safe. Almost all DM's will be
nicer than my advice dictates anyway.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 7:58:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116427845.149110.39910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Symbol wrote:
>
> > Why not leave it to the player in question to roleplay a response
> > appropriate to his character instead of imposing such a needless
> > requirement?
>
> That is obviously the best idea.
>
> Clarrify: if this ewre my group I would trust my players to roleplay
> that appropriately and that's fine.

OK.

> But this is someone else's game and so I'm giving a more strict
> inperpretation. I think that, when giving internet advice, it's best
> to assume some munchkining for saftey's safe. Almost all DM's will be
> nicer than my advice dictates anyway.

Personally I don't think its ever a good idea to advise a DM to impose
something like this on a character and player and it is indicative of a
very poor version of the "DM is God" school of thought. To my mind it is
irrelevant what the DM thinks the appropriate reactions is. It is the
Player's characer and they should choose. I say that as a virtually full
time DM.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 1:08:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Symbol wrote:
>
>> Why not leave it to the player in question to roleplay a response
>> appropriate to his character instead of imposing such a needless
>> requirement?
>
>That is obviously the best idea.
>
>Clarrify: if this ewre my group I would trust my players to roleplay
>that appropriately and that's fine.
>
>But this is someone else's game and so I'm giving a more strict
>inperpretation. I think that, when giving internet advice, it's best
>to assume some munchkining for saftey's safe. Almost all DM's will be
>nicer than my advice dictates anyway.

Since I was the one who posted he origial question....

In fact this was the decision we decided to go with.
The player was consulted on the appropriate role play actions
depending on the given scenario and he agreed to follow it.

Jester
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 10:52:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:

> Personally I don't think its ever a good idea to advise a DM to
impose
> something like this on a character and player and it is indicative of
a
> very poor version of the "DM is God" school of thought. To my mind it
is
> irrelevant what the DM thinks the appropriate reactions is. It is the
> Player's characer and they should choose. I say that as a virtually
full
> time DM.

That usually true, but this feat is more like a balanced merit/flaw
situation. Anytyime the players tries to get somehting for nothing the
DM should step in. For example, say you're using a flaw system and
your flaw (randomly) is that you are a compulsivy liar. if the playeer
never lies about anyhting, I, as DM, would step in from time to time
and force it. Or I would remove whatever benefit the player got for
the flaw. In situations like that I think the DM needs to be more God
like and take some control.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:49:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:
> That usually true, but this feat is more like a balanced merit/flaw
> situation. Anytyime the players tries to get somehting for nothing
> the DM should step in.

Why? I prefer to avoid interfering with players' stuff unless they're
stepping on each others' toes, and even then my players are often self-
policing.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Why? I prefer to avoid interfering with players' stuff unless they're
> stepping on each others' toes, and even then my players are often
self-
> policing.

But don't you think that, as a DM, you have a responsibility to enforce
the system? In a flaw style system, you trade a flaw that can hinder
you in game for a benefit. If the flaw doesn't hinder you in game,
then the benefit should not apply either. Because then you're getting
somehting for nothing, which is a very munchkin-like things to do.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:38:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Sometimes, but that's just my obsessive-compulsive disorder talking.
If
> it doesn't actually cause trouble for anyone, where's the problem?

The problem is that it's breaking the system. Granted, I'm not in
favor of mechanics, myself. but if you're going touse the system, then
use it and use it peoperly. Conveniently overlooking your characters
flaws isn't different ahan other types of cheating and the DM is in
place to prevent cheating (at least I like ot prevent it). I don't
think it's too hands on to make sure that what's on the paper matches
what's in play.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:21:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116510765.575471.222830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Symbol wrote:
>
> > Personally I don't think its ever a good idea to advise a DM to
> impose
> > something like this on a character and player and it is indicative of
> a
> > very poor version of the "DM is God" school of thought. To my mind it
> is
> > irrelevant what the DM thinks the appropriate reactions is. It is the
> > Player's characer and they should choose. I say that as a virtually
> full
> > time DM.
>
> That usually true, but this feat is more like a balanced merit/flaw
> situation.

I hate those systems too but I don't see this feat as similar. If it isn't
specifically disallowed, you should be able to freely do it.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:59:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Why? I prefer to avoid interfering with players' stuff unless they're
>> stepping on each others' toes, and even then my players are often
>> self-policing.

Anivair wrote:
> But don't you think that, as a DM, you have a responsibility to
> enforce the system?

Sometimes, but that's just my obsessive-compulsive disorder talking. If
it doesn't actually cause trouble for anyone, where's the problem?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 8:48:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Sometimes, but that's just my obsessive-compulsive disorder talking.
>> If it doesn't actually cause trouble for anyone, where's the problem?

Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that it's breaking the system.

So what? You're not going to hurt its feelings. The system only exists
to arbitrate between the players in the first place. If there's no
conflict between players, then you're just favoring a big stack of paper
over the people in your game.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
!