Non-lethal combat

[Mr Happy]

Like Ismaul said, it doesnt seem completely realistic that everyone is going to want to yield. And those who dont might be just the people you want to take down with out killing. Also, the hardcore fighters might not be inclined to listen to pleases at all, so if necessary, maybe a yeild could begin with easily ignored floating text or something.

As a universal solution, I'm still all for a toggle non-lethal/lethal mode or a knockout move like a hilt whack.

 

[Elhoim]

As a universal solution, I'm still all for a toggle non-lethal/lethal mode or a knockout move like a hilt whack.

Yeah, me too. I think all weapons should have a non-lethal move that does less damage and generates an "attack of opportunity" from your oponents.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Too complicated. There is a disarm attack though.

 

[Mr Happy]

A slightly related question: is there a "feint" move in combat, as in Prelude to Darkness?

 

[Kraszu]

Hmm it could not be so hard if you would just make some parts of body that you hit (when hp drops to 0) that would just knock opponent, while other lethal. Clubs could always knock out no mater what part of body you hit. Somebody in game would have to instruct you about it.

 

[Kraszu]

Too complicated. There is a disarm attack though.

Does it make some enemies surrender?

 

[Vault Dweller]

A slightly related question: is there a "feint" move in combat, as in Prelude to Darkness?

Nope.

Does it make some enemies surrender?

No.

 

[Claw]

An individual skilled with a sword, but unskilled with a dagger is more likely to kill an opponent by accident using the dagger, than using the sword.

I assume this was directed at me. I don't know why you keep harping on about about daggers. Then again I don't know why I even read you posts or reply to them anymore.
I don't recall if I ever suggested using a dagger to incapacitate an opponent and can't be arsed to re-read all of my posts. I DO know I suggested other methods of achieving the desired result in sufficient detail to prove that it's possible without introducing new special attacks or other substantial changes to AoD's combat system.
Some slight modifications might be useful, as VD suggested that targeted attacks have a higher chance of critical hits, and I don't know if that is coupled with special effects like disarming an opponent. It would be desireable that a disarming attack doesn't also have a greater chance of killing your opponent, imo. Also, I don't know if a crippling leg hit also reduces the victim's chance to dodge. That might be desireable to increase your hit chance and thus give you an advantage if you try to defeat your opponent without increasing your body count.

If you can think of a way to have things make reasonable sense, I'd agree that you have a point (though I'd still prefer that player choice be emphasized). Otherwise I don't think you do.

I already did. How about you start reading my posts? No? Nevermind then. I didn't read your previous post either. (Except the last paragraph, and then I didn't feel like reading the rest.)

 

[Claw]

Does it make some enemies surrender?

No.

You know, I mentioned that issue before. What does happen if you disarm an opponent? Does he just stand there? Can he just pick up the weapon again? Is the arm crippled? Does he attack unarmed? (I thought there was no unarmed combat.)


I've thought about the implications of the idea that enemies yield at 5HP and die at zero health instead of being unconscious. Considering that so many people seem to dislike the idea of needing to get the enemy's health to drop within a narrow range and for reasons of my own, I feel it would be best to combine that with my suggestion to increase the range for nonlethal defeats. First, there is a chance of the enemy yielding, and if you miss that, there is still a chance he's not dead.
One reason for that is that I'm simply in favour of higher complexity as a matter of principle. More options simply allow a more differentiated gameplay, if the differences are relevant.
Another reason is the question of how likely an enemy is to yield, and how many oppoents would yield at all. Could all opponents yield, or would there be some that simply don't? Is there cannonfodder or are all combatants relevant outside combat?
Clearly, if I want a low bodycount, having opponents that don't yield would be annoying, while it might be unrealistic if all opponents yield.
Also, how relevant is the bodycount and what numbers would be significant? Can I kill a couple of people without bothering anyone, or would two or three "accidental" kills be enough to gain a bad rep? Is a bodycount of zero particularly valuable (making any accidental death particularly annoying to players aware of it)?

 

[galsiah]

I DO know I suggested other methods of achieving the desired result in sufficient detail to prove that it's possible without introducing new special attacks or other substantial changes to AoD's combat system.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that there aren't sometimes good ways to reduce the odds of killing an opponent. I am saying that the most effective way to deal with an opponent non-lethally should make sense at all times.

I.e. it should NEVER be the best course of action for a highly skilled swordsman who is crap with a dagger, to use a fast attack with a dagger. It's not relevant whether you suggested this course of action: the point is that it will be the best course of action under some circumstances. Your proposal creates this problem (i.e. incentivizing nonsensical meta-gaming in some situations).

I'm not saying you've suggested it: I'm suggesting it, and asking what you propose be done about it. If there is a solution, that's great. I don't know why you're getting so shirty about this.

If you can think of a way to have things make reasonable sense, I'd agree that you have a point (though I'd still prefer that player choice be emphasized). Otherwise I don't think you do.

I already did.

No you didn't - you proposed a few (perfectly good) mechanisms for reducing the odds of killing. That's great as far as it goes. However, for the situation to be coherent, you need to make sure that the optimal non-lethal-victory strategy (preferably all non-lethal-victory strategies) ALWAYS makes sense. There are many examples where it might not. My good-Swordsman-inept-dagger-user situation is just one example.

I'm simply asking what you propose be done to avoid incoherent situations. Again - once you can do this, I think your argument is quite reasonable. I just happen to disagree with the emphasis on tactics over high level choice.

 

[Claw]

I'm not saying that there aren't sometimes good ways to reduce the odds of killing an opponent. I am saying that the most effective way to deal with an opponent non-lethally should make sense at all times.

Well, you've not really shown that this isn't the case imo.

I'm not saying you've suggested it: I'm suggesting it, and asking what you propose be done about it. If there is a solution, that's great. I don't know why you're getting so shirty about this.

Obviously because that's now how I interpreted it. I'll explain why too. Here's why:

And would suck IMO - unless the player always has a means of reducing damage that makes sense for his character (i.e. NOT putting away his main weapon, and selecting a dagger he can hardly use to avoid the risk of killing).

With your own words: If the player always has a means of reducing damage that makes sense for his character (i.e. NOT putting away his main weapon, and selecting a dagger he can hardly use to avoid the risk of killing), it would not suck. It appeared to me that I had demonstrated that this is the case, but you weren't acknowleding it.
So you can't blame me for not realizing that your real point wasn't that a sensible strategy should be available, but that a nonsensical one shouldn't be, or at least shouldn't be favourable under any circumstances.

However, for the situation to be coherent, you need to make sure that the optimal non-lethal-victory strategy (preferably all non-lethal-victory strategies) ALWAYS makes sense. There are many examples where it might not. My good-Swordsman-inept-dagger-user situation is just one example.

Well, to be perfectly honest I don't see how you've shown that your example is actually valid. I've seen no evidence that the optimal non-lethal-victory strategy isn't also optimal in the context of your example, or that your suggested nonsensical strategy actually makes sense of the player.

I assume changing weapons costs AP, and as your complaint is based on the idea that the character isn't skilled with a dagger (if he were, using a dagger wouldn't be nonsensical), it would also decrease his chance to hit - against an opponent presumably fighting back, without a gargantuan buffer of hitpoints to protect you while fooling around.
Since swords have the special ability "disam" which may be very helpful for a non-lethal takedown, using fast attacks with the sword actually appears to be a superior way of dealing with an opponent for your swordsman. You could argue that he might switch to a dagger after disarming his opponent, but I am not sure why that would make much sense.
The way I see it, you'll first have to show that the situation where it makes sense for a skilled swordsman to switch to a blunt dagger despite lacking skill with that weapon actually exists.

The main issue I see is how large the range for nonlethal victory is, since that determines how much control the player has over reaching it and whether or not switching to a particularly weak weapon to not do too much damage makes sense.
The way I see it, a threshold of 5HP would be too small. It ought to be more than the maximum damage of a fast attack with most weapons, also taking a possible strength bonus and armour into account.

And last not least, someone else already suggested another mechanism to counter your scenario: Make unconsciousness depend weapon skill, although I'd tweak it so a character would reach a chance of 100% even at a mediocre skill level, otherwise that'd be annoying. Also, not counting synergy.
Of course a character could still train a dagger as take-down weapon, but in that case I wouldn't consider the strategy nonsensical anymore.

 

[JuJu]

I'm against including lethality combat in AoD, because it would make things more complicated for no big gain. Of course those who like to make a lot of tactical decisions would appreciate it, but this is a game for RPG fans not tactics freaks.

The realism won't suffer if people will go unconscious instead of dying, because the only way to instantly kill a person is either to pierce his heart or seriously damage his brain. It takes almost superhuman strength to penetrate ribcage and if the person is wearing armor (even leather) it would be near impossible (if the person isn't running at your spear at full speed). The skull is quite hard too and if a person gets hit in the head so hard that it cracks, he will still be alive and die only later from internal bleeding. Most people in AoD will have someone behind them and that someone will probably know a doctor or healer, which could save a person's lfe.

I believe the combat system is balanced right now. If lethality is introduced it will cause disbalance. The weapons that do the most damage will be underpowered, because using them will take away the decision to kill or let live, thus making game more dependant on luck than decisions. Also in current aimed hit system the greatest risk of killing a person would be by hitting him in torso. It is hard for me to imagine a person getting killed by hit in a torso with, for example, a mace.

Also if lethality is introduced some players won't care if they kill someone or not, making the game less valuable for them.

 

[galsiah]

With your own words: If the player always has a means of reducing damage that makes sense for his character (i.e. NOT putting away his main weapon, and selecting a dagger he can hardly use to avoid the risk of killing), it would not suck. It appeared to me that I had demonstrated that this is the case, but you weren't acknowleding it.

Ok - I see. I wasn't clear.

The way I see it, you'll first have to show that the situation where it makes sense for a skilled swordsman to switch to a blunt dagger despite lacking skill with that weapon actually exists.

If the damage for a fast sword/axe... attack could be greater than 5 in some cases, it pretty much automatically exists (again - in some cases). Where the PC is winning easily, but thinks non-lethal victory is vital, the dagger - or equivalent - would be the way to go.

The main issue I see is how large the range for nonlethal victory is, since that determines how much control the player has over reaching it and whether or not switching to a particularly weak weapon to not do too much damage makes sense. The way I see it, a threshold of 5HP would be too small. It ought to be more than the maximum damage of a fast attack with most weapons, also taking a possible strength bonus and armour into account.

Right (couldn't you have made this clear earlier? ). I agree with that. If a careful PC can be sure of non-lethal victory, without needing to resort to counter-intuitive attacks, I don't see any problem with this. It'd both make sense, and allow the player the more interesting kill/don't kill choice in most circumstances.
I guess that a higher threshold might make killing a highly armoured opponent outright almost impossible - but that probably makes sense too.

I'm not sure how an increased chance for non-lethal victory with higher weapon skill would work in practice. In theory it makes good sense, but if things get annoying for beginning characters as a result, it might not be worth it.

Even if that weren't used (and more-so if it were), this system would give good fighters a level of freedom that other characters lack. Rather than just being better killing machines, highly skilled fighters would also be better at preserving the lives of their opponents. They'd more often have the luxury of being careful at the end, where a character of lesser skill might be forced to go for everything, and kill by accident.

[[VD - how about narrowing the damage range for weapons as skill increases? That way a fighter of high skill is more consistent, and better able to predict the results of an attack (which would be useful here, and in general). For example, a weapon that starts at 1-10 could increase to say 3-9 or 5-8 eventually: both better on average, and more consistent. That way the consistency/wildness follows naturally from higher/lower skill, without having to add some seemingly arbitrary rule.
I know it complicates things further, but it's a good complication damnit!]]

However, for this to be an interesting choice for any character, using fast attacks at the end would need to be less effective in many circumstances. Otherwise there's no go-for-the-win / don't-kill-him trade-off, since fast attacks cover both. I'm pretty sure it'd be a sacrifice sometimes (e.g. where fast attack damage is almost entirely absorbed), but I'm not sure how often.

Of course a character could still train a dagger as take-down weapon, but in that case I wouldn't consider the strategy nonsensical anymore.

Of course I'd have no problem with that - it makes sense in that case.

 

[galsiah]

I'm against including lethality combat in AoD...Of course those who like to make a lot of tactical decisions would appreciate it, but this is a game for RPG fans not tactics freaks.

Sure, but it's also an RPG, not an adventure game. The decisions available should change according to the role you pick.

I think it's important that some characters get to make the kill/don't-kill decision. I don't think it's necessary for all characters to have that choice all of the time. A skilled fighter ought to be able to avoid killing when he chooses to (perhaps with some difficulty). A poor fighter, or diplomat who grabs a sword, shouldn't necessarily have the same options. Combat is the domain of the skilled fighter - it's entirely appropriate that he should be both tactically, and strategically superior in that context.

If handled correctly, I think potential lethality could be an asset - since it provides options to some roles, while limiting options for others. It'd make a nice change for fighters to be good at not killing too.

The realism won't suffer if people will go unconscious instead of dying, because the only way to instantly kill a person is either to pierce his heart or seriously damage his brain.

Blood loss / shock? Can kill in less than a minute.
I agree that unconsciousness isn't a problem for coherence - it might be unlikely for it to happen so often, but it's not impossible.

However, VD usually doesn't care much for realism either way. At Iron Tower, they believe great games are played, not made.

The weapons that do the most damage will be underpowered, because using them will take away the decision to kill or let live, thus making game more dependant on luck than decisions.

Only if there is no reasonable attack with such weapons which would avoid killing. This shouldn't be the case IMO.

It is hard for me to imagine a person getting killed by hit in a torso with, for example, a mace.

Fair enough for an armoured opponent. If you can't imagine it with an unarmoured opponent, you're not trying very hard.

Also if lethality is introduced some players won't care if they kill someone or not, making the game less valuable for them.

The players will care or not depending on the consequences of NPC death - not on the mechanics which lead up to it. I agree they'd feel less involved in the decision to the extent that it was largely random. Therefore I think it shouldn't be random.

 

[Claw]

If the damage for a fast sword/axe... attack could be greater than 5 in some cases, it pretty much automatically exists (again - in some cases). Where the PC is winning easily, but thinks non-lethal victory is vital, the dagger - or equivalent - would be the way to go.

Well, I wasn't operating on the basis of a 5HP threshold. I know I meantioned it early on, but that was just an example and I hadn't started seriously thinking about an appropriate value yet.

Right (couldn't you have made this clear earlier? ).

Is it possible you missed the post where I concluded that the threshold should be larger than half the maximum damage of an (average) weapon, because that's the maximum damage for a fast attack?
From the screenshots, 16 (two-handed hammer) appears to be at the high end of the scale. That means a threshold of 10 would probably be very safe. With most weapons, an average fighter wouldn't have to worry too much about killing his opponent even with a power attack. Hmm, that might actually be too safe. I don't know the maximum damage of an average weapon, but I assume a two-handed hammer is actually above average. Maybe 5+CON bonus?*

I'm not sure how an increased chance for non-lethal victory with higher weapon skill would work in practice. In theory it makes good sense, but if things get annoying for beginning characters as a result, it might not be worth it.

Well, I don't know the exact numbers, but I was kinda hoping AoD would be one of those RPGs where you can actually start with a decent combat skill. And like I said, it could be balanced to make extremely low natural skills unsafe, rather than requiring an actually high skill to be safe.

VD - how about narrowing the damage range for weapons as skill increases?

Interesting idea. There's certainly room for improvement.

However, for this to be an interesting choice for any character, using fast attacks at the end would need to be less effective in many circumstances.

Well, there IS a good degree of uncertainity due to the damage range and the values for DR and minimum damage. We've seen two-handed weapons with a minimum damage of 5, and the strongest armour has a DR of 8.
Presumably a DR of 2-4 wouldn't be unusual, and we can assume that the minimum damage of most fast attacks would fall into that region as well. So fast attacks actually border on not doing any damage. At the same time, a normal attack has a decent chance of incapcaitating your opponent.
If the combat is any challenge in the first place, fast attack wouldn't be a no-brainer, especially if a normal attack might do.


*OK, so NOW I appear to be operating on a basis of 5HP. But what can I do when 8 already seems to be decent limit even when using a very powerful weapon that does alot of damage? Unless you slaughter many weaklings without armour, it shouldn't be too little.

 

[Vault Dweller]

[[VD - how about narrowing the damage range for weapons as skill increases? That way a fighter of high skill is more consistent, and better able to predict the results of an attack (which would be useful here, and in general). For example, a weapon that starts at 1-10 could increase to say 3-9 or 5-8 eventually: both better on average, and more consistent. That way the consistency/wildness follows naturally from higher/lower skill, without having to add some seemingly arbitrary rule.
I know it complicates things further, but it's a good complication damnit!]]

No. That wouldn't work well with out fast/power/aimed attack system. Let's say you have a short sword (gladius). The normal damage is 2-8. Fast attack is 2-4 (min damage - [max damage/2]). Power attack is 4-10. Aimed attack is 3-6. Playing with ranges more would complicate things too much.

I was kinda hoping AoD would be one of those RPGs where you can actually start with a decent combat skill...

Decent is a subjective concept. You will be able to fight human opponents and won't have to practice on rats first, but an experienced fighter (i.e. Rome's Titus Pullo) will kill you without much efforts.

 

[Mr Happy]

(i.e. Rome's Titus Pullo)

A bit of topic, but I was watching that last night, and thinking "damn, a lot of the stuff in there would make a great rpg." Plus, the great portrayal of Rome (not all clean white marble buildings) seems like a perfect setting, especially with all the politics and organized crime going around.

 

[galsiah]

No. That wouldn't work well with out fast/power/aimed attack system. Let's say you have a short sword (gladius). The normal damage is 2-8. Fast attack is 2-4 (min damage - [max damage/2]). Power attack is 4-10. Aimed attack is 3-6. Playing with ranges more would complicate things too much.

Well if you wanted to (and I'm sure there's a 0% chance of this), you could leave the ranges as they are, but have skill affect the probability distribution within the range.

This principle isn't new - it's throughout D&D. E.g.:
1d12+1 vs 3d4
1d20+3 vs 3d8 vs 5d4+1
1d20 vs 3d6
...
The effect of rolling more dice is to increase the chances of an average total, and reduce the odds of extremes. With 3d6 you'll get an 18 once in 216 rolls (that's one character in 36 ). With 1d20 you'll get 20 once in 20 rolls.

On a computer, you can achieve something similar by simply changing the odds of scores behind the scenes. There's no need to have 1d12s and 3d4s - you can simply decide the odds of getting each result for each skill X value (or whatever criteria you use).

I guess you'd object to this on the basis of complexity if shown to the player, and on the basis of non-transparency if hidden. However, I don't see much wrong in hiding such considerations from the player, and relying on his getting an intuitive feel for things. There's not really much need for a player to know that his odds of getting a 1 on a 1-10 with a sword have dropped from 10% to 3% IMO. He just needs to know it's gotten less common.

I don't think mechanical transparency is necessary in an RPG. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that it's harmful in many cases (e.g. (A)D&D systems).

You could add this sort of thing entirely behind the scenes, with only a few in game pointers by way of dialogue / skill descriptions etc. E.g. by saying that skilled fighters are more measured and consistent, whereas beginners tend to swing wildly - giving a wide range of results when they do hit.

...Anyway - we both know you're not going to do it, so I'll shut up now .

 

[Claw]

Aimed attack is 3-6.

Interesting.

Decent is a subjective concept.

Obviously, especially since the issue is hypothetical. I'd say it means that not everyone starts with skills within a range of +/- 10 or 15 skillpoints. I'd like to maybe start with a skill of 60.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Starting skills are determined by stats plus

For example, let's say you have Str 8 and Dex 6.

Dagger - Dex*4 - 24
Sword - Str*2 + Dex*2 - 28
Axe - Str*3 + Dex - 30
Hammer - Str*4 - 32

If you have Str 6 and Dex 9, for example, the numbers change to 36, 30, 27, 24. On top of that you have 15+Int points to distribute.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

However, there should ALWAYS be a small chance of killing the target, even with fists/feet.

Then you negate the whole point of the non-lethal combat. As I've understood it, it will make killing a 100% player choice.

I agree with galsiah, non-lethal combat should only be affected by the player's choice. Otherwise, when you add some chance to fail at it, you negate the whole point of having non-lethal combat.

Can't be repeated enough, it seems.

And, for reference and ideas, a thread of the same name started by myself two years ago.

Ah, I knew that sense of déjà vu came from somewhere.

So, what's status on killing now, VD? If anything, the discussion since you suggested turning 0HP into death has convinced me even more that you should leave it as it were. Going the galsiah-route seems like the only way to do it properly the other way, else I fear the whole non-lethal mechanic could fall between two chairs.