Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MrCelsius 02-20-07, 04:17 PM	As there is no mechanic for this in the rules, I thought I'd cook one up. :duel:Pulled Punches:duel: When making a melee attack, players have the option to subtract up to the full amount of any stat-based damage they deal. Typically, this will be a character's strength bonus to damage. A character may further subtract from their weapon damage an amount equal to their attack-modifying stat. Again, this will typically be strength, but those using Weapon Finesse could subtract up to their full dexterity modifier, for example. It is possible, by such means, to reduce a weapon's damage to zero. Negative amounts of damage, however, are impossible. Players may count numerical enhancement bonuses (+1, +2, etc) as reducible weapon damage for this purpose, but enhancement effects (such as fiery or frost) cannot be reduced by these means. All such subtraction is done after damage has been rolled normally. For example, a Fighter with 24 strength (for a +7 modifier) wielding a +1 fiery bastard sword in one hand could deal 1d10 (weapon) +1 (enhancement) +7 (strength) + 1d6 (fiery) normally, or could instead choose to deal 1d10 (weapon) +1 (enhancement) +0 (waived strength bonus) -7 (strength subtracted by pulling the punch) +1d6 (fiery). Since wielding a weapon in two hands yields a greater level of control, any such circumstance in which a stat like strength would be multiplied by 1.5 for damage, it may also be thus multiplied for damage subtraction. Thus the above fighter, wielding zir bastard sword two-handed, could choose to deal 1d10 (weapon) +1 (enhancement) +10 (strength x 1.5) + 1d6 (fiery) normally, or could instead choose to deal 1d10 (weapon) +1 (enhancement) +0 (waived strength bonus) -10 (strength x 1.5 subtracted by pulling the punch) +1d6 (fiery). The larger the weapon, the harder it is to fully control, thus one would need a strength modifier of +9 (multiplied by 1.5 to 12 by two-handed wielding) to be certain of dealing no damage with a nonmagical greataxe (1d12). The reverse is also true; smaller weapons are easier to control. Were that Fighter wielding a nonmagical dagger, zie could easily deal no damage, as the dagger's 1d4 is easily eliminated by zir +7 strength modifier. The individual cannot subtract from base weapon damage unless all stat-based bonus damage has first been subtracted. As this maneuver requires control, it cannot be performed by anyone under the effects of rage, frenzy, or similar abilities. All pulled punch subtractions are made before multiplication in the event of a critical hit. Since a character's own extremities are easier to control than any manufactured weapon, characters may subtract double their attacking stat's modifier from their base weapon damage when striking with unarmed or natural attacks. In circumstances where an individual would be able to deliver sneak attack damage to a target, they may instead opt to use their precise control to deal less damage rather than more. For each die of sneak attack damage a character foregoes, they may subtract one additional point from their weapon's base damage. I felt this would be a good dynamic for any number of situations in which dealing full, or any, damage (lethal or non) would not be ideal. This mechanic allows for playful punches and warning shots, not to mention dramatic moments where one demonstrates that a mighty blow could have been delivered (beat AC) but was held back (example: any Jet Li movie ever). While reduced damage would be a gentle strike, damage negated to zero could be a deliberate miss, or the lightest of touches. Roleplay (and applicable bluff checks) determine whether the act is a deliberate display or a covert mock-blow meant to fool others. What are your thoughts? Is my math all right? Any unforeseen ramifications of this dynamic of which I should be aware? Anything else? NECTARINE. No, wait, that other one... PEACH. :D
Sunblast 02-20-07, 05:16 PM	Well, I'm far from qualified to PEACH this, but I do like the way it sounds. I was getting sick of punching an ally's arm playfully only to deal HP damage. :mad: I really like that you set it up in such a way where it would be more difficult to deal less damage when using larger, stronger weapons. I imagine it'd be tough to swing a glaive at someone and try to stop it right in front of his/her face. :eek:
Thomar_of_Uointer 02-20-07, 07:24 PM	As a DM, I'm perfectly fine with a player deciding to suffer any penalty he wishes to any roll. I can't remember if the rules say you can automatically choose to fail a roll or not.
Krusk 02-20-07, 07:51 PM	we usually run pulled punches where a character may choose to deal damage up to the number rolled on the die+mods. Anything less than that is acceptable as well. i roll 1d3+str on my punch? get 6 damage, i choose to do 1.
Fargren 02-20-07, 09:01 PM	Isn't hitting for subdual daamge enough? It's only a -4 penalty...
MrCelsius 02-20-07, 09:30 PM	Because subdual damage hurts. Subdual damage is only the difference between beating someone to death and beating them unconscious. Hauling off and clobbering someone with the flat of your greatsword (at a -4 attack penalty) isn't anything like giving them a prod in the arm with it. This isn't a dynamic meant to replace subdual damage; it's just another option. For example, if an NPC moves to oppose you and you whip your blade straight to their throat, drawing only a single drop of blood, you communicate an entirely different intent than if you used the sword's pommel to bash them in the skull. One says 'I am skilled, but choose to avoid violence', the other says 'I will beat you unconscious for opposing me'. By all means, use subdual damage when you want to beat someone unconscious. But if the situation calls for more finesse, I think this mechanic works much more appropriately. As for letting people simply reduce their damage done by however much they want... well, you are of course free to do as you like in your campaigns, but I simply can't abide it. Frankly, one cannot perform surgery with a greataxe. You try picking up a weapon that size, swinging it optimally (so as to bypass the target's defenses), and then dealing exactly 1/10th of its potential damage on impact. It's not easy. It shouldn't be easy in-game. Indeed, it should be impressive if done. So I'm providing a dynamic by which a strong or skillful character can make such a display of skill. Incidentally, I'm thinking of doubling the amount of weapon damage that can be subtracted in the case of unarmed and natural attacks. This keeps Monks from being, ridiculously, too skilled to control their unarmed damage, and represents that people/monsters have more control over natural extremities than manufactured weapons. I'll stew on it a bit more, wait on feedback, and maybe edit into the original post in a day or two. I really appreciate the responses I've received thus far, and look forward to further insights you might have.
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-21-07, 01:06 AM	I can't remember if the rules say you can automatically choose to fail a roll or not. One could assume that you could just by using a bit of common sense (yes, even some common sense can apply to D&D). For example, saving throws. Making a saving throw, I think, assumes that the character is trying to resist whatever they're saving against, therefore you could voluntarily fail it. Same applies with AC in a sense. Having AC assumes you're trying to defend against the attack trying to hit you. For AC, though, I'd only allow the character to voluntarily negate their AC bonuses they're in control of, such as Dex bonus, shield bonus, and dodge bonus. I'd also let them remove the base AC of 10. Okay, now I'm too far over my head to try and re-rail any point I'm trying to make. I'm done typing now.
FriendlyBiscuit 02-21-07, 01:19 AM	I like the mechanic a lot; and you have some pretty good points.. One says 'I am skilled, but choose to avoid violence', the other says 'I will beat you unconscious for opposing me'.I've been somewhat unsatisfied with the mechanic for subdual damage for awhile. First of all, there's your point, which is true. And second of all, that big -4 penalty makes most players decide not to deal with the hassle, and just beat the guy by normal means and hope he winds up somewhere between -1 and -9, to then revive him later. No one has asked me if they could, but I've been okay with the idea of letting people reduce their damage by any desired number... your point in paragraph 2 is good, though. It *is* hard to be careful with that axe, Eugene.
JustinA 02-22-07, 10:08 AM	And second of all, that big -4 penalty makes most players decide not to deal with the hassle, and just beat the guy by normal means and hope he winds up somewhere between -1 and -9, to then revive him later. This is fairly realistic, so I don't mind it in D&D. But when I'm doing superheroes, I enforce the genre convention by switching it around: Doing lethal damage requires a penalty to your attack roll. When my players are going for the knockout, they tend to metagame: "We don't need to knock them all the way down with subdual damage. We just need to do enough subdual damage that we won't accidentally kill them in a single blow." So when they're doing 1-10 points of damage on each hit, they'll deal out ten points of subdual damage and then go lethal. It creates a very low risk that they'll actually kill somebody, but lets them spend most of combat dealing out lethal damage.
JustinA 02-22-07, 10:14 AM	When making a melee attack, players have the option to subtract up to the full amount of any stat-based damage they deal. I'd change the wording here slightly. Your example clarifies, but this could easily be read as "simply don't add your stat-based bonus to damage". Maybe something like: "When making a melee attack, players have the option to forego any stat-based bonus to damage and can also subtract up to the full amount of the stat-based bonus from the damage rolled." Also: Does the decision need to be made before damage is rolled? (Allowing for "whoops, I pulled that one too much".) Or is the damage rolled and then the decision made regarding how much to subtract? Suggestion: Rogues' sneak attack ability represents the ability to precisely place a blow. Might make sense to let them use their sneak attack dice (as many as they wanted) to pull the punch, too.
MrCelsius 02-22-07, 02:55 PM	I'd change the wording here slightly. Your example clarifies, but this could easily be read as "simply don't add your stat-based bonus to damage". Maybe something like: "When making a melee attack, players have the option to forego any stat-based bonus to damage and can also subtract up to the full amount of the stat-based bonus from the damage rolled." Hm. I don't think I'm following you here. 'May subtract up to the full stat-based damage they deal' seems clear to me, and I don't understand how it could be misinterpreted. To be honest, yours looks more questionable to me, as it looks like it says they can first forego the entire stat-based bonus (and only the entire, without specifying 'up to') and then subtract that bonus again from rolled damage, which is only accurate in the case of strength modifying both damage and attack. I don't mean to counter-nitpick, just reasoning it out. If I'm missing something, please help me understand it. Also: Does the decision need to be made before damage is rolled? (Allowing for "whoops, I pulled that one too much".) Or is the damage rolled and then the decision made regarding how much to subtract? Good question! Thank you! Hm. Overpulling would be a significant problem, especially in the case of larger, more random weapon dice. Indeed, I think it would defeat the 'display of precision' purpose of the maneuver, since one would have to get lucky to deal the one point they opt to allow. I see two ways to go with this: either A) the pull is made before the damage is rolled, but subtracts from maximum damage rolled, or B) it's simply made after the damage roll. An example of A: I opt to subtract my full +6 strength mod from my 1d12 greataxe's damage. It does not subtract from my damage rolled, but rather from maximum potential damage (12). Thus, if I rolled a 4, I would deal full damage, but an 8 would get kicked down to 6 because that's the highest I can roll. It effectively narrows the potential range of the weapon die. I think this is the most accurate technique, but I recognize that it's not the clearest mechanic. B feels less realistic (since one doesn't get to stop and think at the moment of impact when swinging a blow), but I think it may be the more elegant solution. One could say that the character gets a feel for the strength of a blow as they swing, and can modify based on that instinct just before the blow lands. The mechanic doesn't feel as pure as A's to me (I can see subtracting from actual damage rolled instead of potential damage rolled being arguable as both realistic or metagaming, so I'm torn), but it'd probably lead to less confusion. As with the natural and unarmed attacks, I'm going to let this gestate for a while before I make any changes. I'd really appreciate any further input on this point anyone could provide. Suggestion: Rogues' sneak attack ability represents the ability to precisely place a blow. Might make sense to let them use their sneak attack dice (as many as they wanted) to pull the punch, too. Ooh, another good thought. Certainly very flavourfully correct, as sneak attack is entirely precision-based. My initial qualm is that it would allow for the subtraction of so much damage, arguably just because the Rogue is hitting a non-vulnerable part of the body. Even 2d6 of sneak attack has the potential to negate a greatsword; if you can show me the spot on the body one of those can hit and deal no damage, I'll be fully behind the idea. :gah: I also don't like the idea of a randomly-determined value (sneak attack) being subtracted from a randomly-determined value (weapon damage) in a maneuver that's about precision and predictable results. I do, however, think the Rogue's expertise in precision combat strikes might have room in this dynamic. How about this: if the Rogue could deal sneak attack damage to the target, each die of sneak attack may be converted into one additional point which may be subtracted from the weapon's damage. Since this precision is essentially based on striking nonvital areas, though, the pulled attack would have to land a blow rather than narrowly miss, even if it dealt no damage (to geek out, think of the fight between the protagonist and Snow in Hero). As above, I'll consider this sneak attack dynamic for a while before adding it or ruling it out. I'd really like any input anyone has to share on it, since I'm not sure about it yet. Thanks a lot for the insights! Keep 'em coming, if you please. :bow:
MrCelsius 02-24-07, 05:02 PM	All right, it seems nobody else has input on the dynamic. I added the sneak attack dynamic and specified that subtraction is done after damage is rolled, thus eliminating the chance of 'overpulling'. I like the looks of the dynamic as it stands, and will consider it tentatively final. Further comments, criticisms, and input are always welcome, however. Thanks for the help with it. :tiphat:
MrCelsius 11-28-07, 11:42 AM	Since this is the cleanest, most useful bit of house rule I've invented to date (sad, isn't it?) I decided I'd throw mention of it into my sig, in case anyone else found it useful. Before doing so, I added a little more polish to the mechanic, specifically allowing for more control of any item wielded with both hands. Due to this minor modification, and just for the heck of it, I'm giving the thread a little bump. :bump: Comments welcome.
trapspringer 11-28-07, 04:24 PM	There's no real mechanical advantage to be derived from doing this, so I can't think of any mechanical reason not to allow it. In real life it is easy to refrain from damage despite throwing a proper technique (martial artists do it all the time in light contact sparring), so I'm not really sure why you'd limit the attacker's ability to do so in any way. Why not let the player make the attack as normal, but instead of inflicting damage they gain a bonus on their next intimidate roll against that opponent equal to the damage dealt? Maybe give the NPC some kind of bonus based on their relative HP?
nonsi 11-29-07, 09:06 AM	How about the following simplified mechanics: Pulling your punch successfully works just like attacking for subdual damage. You still roll for damage normally - to relay the potential of your attack to your opponent. You can choose to cause just 1 HP damage, to more affectively illustrate your readiness to draw blood. (this amounts to a simple yes/no) If your attack hits but would've missed for subdual damage, you cause your weapon's base damage plus the carried weapon's traits (magical bonuses/effets etc). From this you can subtract: - your DEX-mod (your hand-eye coordination) - Weapon Focus bonuses to-hit (your improved control over your weapon) - 1 / precision-damage-die (hitting wher it hurts least). That's more than enough to minimize your misplaced strike (this amounts to just 3 well-defined and reasonable parameters) When attacking for subdual damage, you never cause precision damage unintentionally and crit only on a natural 20 (which is calculated after all reductions). (this minimizes mishaps)
Tectorman 11-29-07, 02:55 PM	For an attempt to hit an opponent but not actually do anything, I'd just call it a touch attack. You roll to hit, if you miss the touch AC, you fail to hit them. If you hit the touch AC (but not enough to hit their full AC), then you've successfully hit them, but without any ability to do damage because you didn't hit hard enough to get past their armor/shields/natural armor. If you beat both their touch AC and their full normal AC, then you hit them, your original intent was to touch them and so you have. You wouldn't be forced to deal damage, anymore than if you rolled for a grapple attempt and succeeded on a would-be disarm roll.
trapspringer 11-30-07, 10:12 AM	Yea, but that wouldn't accurately convey your ability to eviscerate their earthly trappings with a mere thought. (...Or rather, a commoner would be almost as capable of pulling that off as a fighter, so it wouldn't prove much of anything.)
Knightblde 11-30-07, 02:34 PM	I like this idea, you wanna pull a punch, you can't wait to see how hard you hit then pull. 1) No precision damage. Including criticals. Roll play that the hit could have hurt a lot more if you can make precision damage and critical attacks (ie, that is when you say, "I nick his throat", you don't get to say that all the time). 2) Decide how much you want to hit the target for BEFORE you swing. Minimum damage is number of dice. (long sword = 1, great sword = 2) Maximum damage is number of dice plus all non dice bonuses. 3) Any bonus you subtract from damage, you subtract from the attack roll. If you want to take a -2 to strength damage, you don't get it to hit. This way the mechanic is real easy and already on your character sheet. Normally if you attacked with a long sword your bonuses would be written like 1d8+5+1d6. So you know, real fast, you can choose 1-6 damage, and take the same penalty to the attack. 1 damage = -5 to hit 3 damage = -3 to hit 6 damage = -0 to hit Only thing that makes it harder is Weapon Specialization. If you have it, it should not hurt you here. You would have to account for that seperatly. If the above 1d8+5+1d6 was partly from weapon specialization, the penalties would be 1 damage = -3 to hit 3 damage = -0 to hit 6 damage = -0 to hit Weilding a weapon in 2 hands does not always give more control. That is only if the weapon is two heavy to wield in one hand. Take a hammer. Nail in a nail using one hand, then two. If the hammer is not too heavy for you, it will work better in one hand. If it is too heavy but you really know how to use it, you can still use it better in one hand. (Took a month to teach my wife that, but now she can use my 28oz framing hammer like a tack hammer and she would only count as small size in D&D) Ah well, just an idea.