Abusive Feat (RoK)?

[Anonymous]

The feat; Tough as Nails seems broken to me. If I understand it correctly, anyone who has all the damage done to them reduced to 0 by armor suffers one point of subdual damage. So, someone with this feat is virtualy invicincible as they could be hit by hordes of club-wielding savages and simply wade through them without a care. Though, I suppose, this mighty armored warrior would still be vulnerable to grappling.

With this feat, the minimum 1 point of damage mentioned above should now be lethal, rather than subdual.

 

[BhilJhoanz]

If I understand it correctly, anyone who has all the damage done to them reduced to 0 by armor suffers one point of subdual damage.

The Rules as Written states: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage. (pg159)

Nothing about subdual -- If your group has house ruled the nature of minimum damage then you can just house rule it back.

The feat is also a tricky one to get, requiring both Endurance and Diehard. Some classes get those feats for free, but not until 6th level. When the feat was first presented at our gaming site, several people lamented the uselessness of it since we rarely encountered Subdual Damage.

The principal purpose is to represent a person who can go into dangerous environments -- cold weather and the like. And suffer none of the damaging effects.

 

[Leofwyn]

The Rules as Written states: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage. (pg159)

Nothing about subdual -- If your group has house ruled the nature of minimum damage then you can just house rule it back.

As others have noticed - DR is not a penalty so that really should not apply to damage reduced by armor. Big arguement insued where some were doing 1 pt. actual damage or 1 pt. subdual and others went with the rule as written. The actual interpretation is still out until we see the Atlantean Edition unless you are providing a definative errata - in which case I will be going with the rule as originally written.

The feat is also a tricky one to get, requiring both Endurance and Diehard. Some classes get those feats for free, but not until 6th level. When the feat was first presented at our gaming site, several people lamented the uselessness of it since we rarely encountered Subdual Damage.

The principal purpose is to represent a person who can go into dangerous environments -- cold weather and the like. And suffer none of the damaging effects.

Hmm, I thought the principal purpose to me was to make a totally invulnerable bar room brawler - requiring lethal force to always be used. I instantly disliked it. I am thinking of doing my own house rule for this feat providing a certain amount of subdual DR only. Possibly 2 or 3 pts. That would create a guy who is hard to take down - but not impossible.

I am rather worried about many of the new feats in RoK as they still have quite a few references to Armor Class and the like - leaving me to feel that they were cut and pasted into the manuscript. Something that caused many of the problems with the first printing of the Core rules.

 

[BhilJhoanz]

As others have noticed - DR is not a penalty so that really should not apply to damage reduced by armor. Big arguement insued where some were doing 1 pt. actual damage or 1 pt. subdual and others went with the rule as written. The actual interpretation is still out...

Well, I'll let the rules lawyers argue over that -- the feat wasn't intended to negate DR's minimum damage of 1. Fact is, even if it did, 1hp doesn't amount to a hill of beans and poses no threat to a PC. So even if it did negate it, it's not unbalancing or "abusive" in the least. PC's with the ability to strap on plate armor should be facing more ferocious foes than 1st level mooks and when they do face mooks -- the encounter should be for flavor and not to pose a serious threat to their well being.

I thought the principal purpose to me was to make a totally invulnerable bar room brawler - requiring lethal force to always be used. I instantly disliked it.

And what wrong with being an invulnerable barroom brawler? Seems to fit the Conan theme to me. And when DIDN'T (or shouldn't) a barroom brawl turn into a lethal fight with weapons drawn as soon as possible -- this is the Hyborian Age after all. Don't make me start quoting Howard on your asses. Didn't Conan cleave an Argossean judge's head in twain merely for asking him to testify against another man?

I am rather worried about many of the new feats in RoK as they still have quite a few references to Armor Class and the like - leaving me to feel that they were cut and pasted into the manuscript.

An astute observation -- it's true that many of the feats originated prior to the Conan RPG. Corrections were sent after the manuscript was submitted but were apparently overlooked. In any event, it is the GM's obligation to decide what material is appropriate for his own campaign and what isn't. Publications are not intended to present law but option.

 

[AZZA]

Hmm, I thought the principal purpose to me was to make a totally invulnerable bar room brawler - requiring lethal force to always be used. I instantly disliked it. I am thinking of doing my own house rule for this feat providing a certain amount of subdual DR only. Possibly 2 or 3 pts. That would create a guy who is hard to take down - but not impossible.

It doesnt make the fighter invulnerable in a bar room brawl. Check page 174 of Conan book. "Lethal Damage with a Weapon that deals Non-Lethal Damage".
Fighters just have to take a -4 penalty to hit the guy immune to subdual damage. Fighters with improved unarmed don't even have to do that!"
I think as long as the opponent of the fighter with tough as nails gets a fairly clear description that his blows just aren't hurting I think the feat is great as it stands. For Npc's you could make is some kind of skill/level or base attack check to notice. Maybe, in conjunction with a bluff test a fighter could fake out opponents and pretend to be down sneaking up behind them once they turn their backs!
AZZA

 

[Leofwyn]

And what wrong with being an invulnerable barroom brawler? Seems to fit the Conan theme to me. And when DIDN'T (or shouldn't) a barroom brawl turn into a lethal fight with weapons drawn as soon as possible -- this is the Hyborian Age after all. Don't make me start quoting Howard on your asses. Didn't Conan cleave an Argossean judge's head in twain merely for asking him to testify against another man?

Well, avoiding your quoting Howard on my ass, how many times do we have Conan starting a story waking up in a cell after having been beaten down by guards, soldiers, enemies, etc.? How does someone get taken prisoner or take prisoners when you have a feat that totally negates the only form of combat that subdues an opponent? Not to mention games I have played in where the fight was between two players doing the "beat hell out of each other to gain mutual respect" schtick.

Now, as written, it is impossible for a character w/ this feat to be knocked unconscious, starve to death, die of thirst, die from heat exhaustion or cold. They suffer no ill effects what-so-ever where as a mere damage reduction of 2 or 3 points makes the character tough - but not inhumanly so.

In any event, it is the GM's obligation to decide what material is appropriate for his own campaign and what isn't. Publications are not intended to present law but option.

I understand that. But its a game company's obligation to present internally consistant and workable options for GM's to choose from. And before this gets any more nasty - I was only providing my opinion as to why I won't be using this feat and probably most of the feats from this book in my games. I am also more than a little frustraited seeing the same cut and paste mistakes in yet another book in the game line after the admitted fiasco of the Core Rulebook.

 

[BhilJhoanz]

And before this gets any more nasty

Wow, guess I should remember to use more smilies in my posts. Please understand that the "on your asses" comment was merely me being playful, not acerbic. I have tendency to voice my opinions strongly but it doesn't mean that I'm irritated. In fact I was quite enjoying myself.

 

[Qjedi]

Wow, guess I should remember to use more smilies in my posts. Please understand that the "on your asses" comment was merely me being playful, not acerbic. I have tendency to voice my opinions strongly but it doesn't mean that I'm irritated. In fact I was quite enjoying myself.

Ya big meanie!
I understand, man, I do that sort of thing myself.
I do think if the feat was intended to make the character invulnerable to exhaustion, starvation, etc it could have been written better, as it stands the feat is nearly unusable.
Tough as nails doesn't mean Never needs sleep, but I just figured it was copy/pasted with typos in place from some other mongoose product
I look at mongoose products like Palladium or SJG anymore. Good to great background material, don't waste your time trying to follow their rules, most just have errors in them.
It's sad, but our conan game has more house rules than book rules

 

[Shonuff]

Since the feat is related the effects of non-lethal damage, I am considering House Ruling that the feat allows the character to ignore the penalties associated with Fatigue and Exhaustion caused by non-lethal damage.

Although these conditions (Fatigued and Exhausted) are not found in the Conan book, they can be found in DMG 3.5 or perhaps the SRD. You become Fatigued when you take non-lethal damage from extreme exertion or cold/heat/starvation/thirst.

Fatigued: No running or charging. -2 Str and Dex. More exertion or extreme conditions cause exhaustion. 8 hrs rest removes fatigue status.

Exhausted: Half speed. -6 Str and Dex. 1 hr rest results in going back to fatigued status.

Conclusion: This feat would allow a very tough character to keep pushing at nearly 100% even through extreme conditions. However, when non-lethal damage exceeds HP (whether through conditions, exertion, or combat damage), the character will still be prone to dropping like a toilet seat since the change in the benefit of the feat would not allow him/her to simply ignore all non-lethal damage.

This is just a thought so I'd appreciate any feedback or sharing of other possible fixes.

 

[Qjedi]

That sounds like the actual intent of the feat. Sounds good. How is it working out so far?

 

[Shonuff]

In a recent game we tried this. It seemed to work just fine. The group said it was more realistic that they could still get dropped due to great exertion or non-lethal damage, but being able to push without feeling tired made them feel quite tough indeed.

That's only one test though.