Game Breakers

[Supplement Four]

i was thinking of letting the attacker decide which to use between lock weapon or weapon damage. although letting fate decide would be cool i think and represent the randomness of combat a little more.

You'd have to come up with something different. I just realized that what I said above in my EDIT would work in my game, because I'm rolling for Defense. But, if you use a static target for Defense, as in the vanilla game, there would be no randomness to it.

because with the maneuver, these off hand attacks with random stuff are all done at your highest base attack and somehow allows you to pick things up with a free action and no AofO's. don't make sense to me. so i Xed it lol. along with the to the hilt thing.

I agree that many of the Feats and especially the attack manuvers are not well-thought-out. Before I allow any in my game, I'm going over them with a fine toothed comb.

i also decided that the permanent damage chart will be used anytime a guy is brought to negative hit points.

I'm doing that, too. It just makes sense.

 

[FistofValhalla]

What permanent damage chart are you talking about?

 

[Supplement Four]

What permanent damage chart are you talking about?

It's in the Warrior's Companion.

 

[Supplement Four]

This really isn't a game breaker, per se. But, I do think that a GM in this game must inspect each and every Feat before he allows a player to use it to see if the Feat should be allowed or see if the Feat needs some tweaking.

I think Tough As Nails, from the Road of Kings book, is one that needs tweaking.

Vincent, what were you thinking with this one?

You get the Feat, and it makes you impervious to subdual damage. Or, in other words, if you get in a fist fight, and have this Feat, you will automatically win unless your opponent figures out that he's got to use a -4 attack penalty to hurt you with normal damage.

I think the Feat should be tweaked in one or two ways if its going to be allowed in a game.

Tweak its prerequisites: The only prereq for this Feat is Diehard. Shouldn't there be some stat minimums too? I mean, we're basically talking about the character equivalent to Rocky Balboa--someone who can go the distance (except Rocky got hurt from all those punches--and this feat makes you Iron Man).

I can see a character with a STR 10 and CON 11 using this Feat, or, the gods forbid, some puny character with STR 8 and CON 7.

I think STR 13 and CON 15 should be added to the Feat's prereqs. This way, you've got a character at least resembles Rocky or Brad Pitt as Achillies when the character is shrugging off punches.



What the Feat does: And, maybe instead of making the character invincible against subdual damage (isn't that a bit much?), how about just givine him a bonus DR vs. subdual damage only?

Do that, and the Feat because worthy of getting but does not necessarily make the character who gets it such a super hero.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Diehard has Endurance as prerequiste, but I agree that Endurance should have a prereq of Con 13+. (Maybe it does in 2E?)

But I think I've read before that Tough As Nails is broken. Then again, so are most feats published in supplements: either lousy benefit, way too expensive, or uber-powerful. Eventually I decided to flatly disallow all supplement feats, skills and equipment. Saves a lot of trouble.

 

[Supplement Four]

Then again, so are most feats published in supplements: either lousy benefit, way too expensive, or uber-powerful.

I'm starting to believe that. I haven't found too many Feats in the supplemental books that I like.

 

[treeplanter]

Brawl and Imp. unarmed strike negate tough as nail. Otherwise you take a -4 to attack roll. That don't seem to broken too me?

Also there's a clarification, it do not work on subdual damage from weather, drowning, fatigue, ect...

 

[VincentDarlage]

I think Tough As Nails, from the Road of Kings book, is one that needs tweaking.

Vincent, what were you thinking with this one?

I was trying to emulate the "iron man" from Robert E. Howard's boxing stories - the guy who just absorbs punch after punch after punch; you have to do real damage before he falls. I did tweak it somewhat for the Player's Guide, which supersedes the version in RoK.

But treeplanter is right... it is easily beaten. The feat is really for gladiators in pit fights and that kind of thing. Most PCs who take it are rarely going to see benefit out of it. Most people in Conan seem to have weapons or do something other than subdual damage.

 

[VincentDarlage]

What the Feat does: And, maybe instead of making the character invincible against subdual damage (isn't that a bit much?), how about just givine him a bonus DR vs. subdual damage only?

That would have been a good idea, but I didn't think of it - and I wrote the feat during the playtest, and how DR worked changed from week to week at the time.

 

[Supplement Four]

Brawl and Imp. unarmed strike negate tough as nail. Otherwise you take a -4 to attack roll. That don't seem to broken too me?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but Tough As Nails is not negated at all by Brawl and Improved Unarmed Strike.

Tough As Nails makes you impervious to subdual damage, so even using Brawl and Improved Unarmed Strike, an attacker could not subdue you. He'd have to use normal damage on you.

Should anybody be 100% resistant to subdual damage? If so, shouldn't there be some Stat prerequisites?

Also there's a clarification, it do not work on subdual damage from weather, drowning, fatigue, ect...

I saw that once Vincent pointed it out. Still...

 

[VincentDarlage]

I am not sure why all the fuss on that feat. I've been playing this game since the playtest, and playing AD&D since 1981... and subdual doesn't happen all that often.

I had one player take that feat, and he eventually begged to switch it out because it never got used. Do you generally play games where the bad guys try to knock the good guys unconscious?

I could see it being overpowering if subdual hits were common in your game, but if it is just a once in blue moon type thing, then so what if one PC simply refuses to be knocked out? Again, it is emulating a very specific type of character REH liked to write about and admired, so I think it is in keeping with REH's style.

See if you can't find a volume of "The Iron Man" by REH on ebay if you haven't already read some of his boxing stories. You'll see what I tried to accomplish with that feat. I'm not saying the feat couldn't have been better (I like the idea of additional DR), but I don't think it is all that bad in most campaigns. I doubt PCs would take the feat unless they wanted a specific type of brawler, and even if they did, I don't think the feat will come in as generally useful as most feats.

 

[Supplement Four]

I am not sure why all the fuss on that feat. I've been playing this game since the playtest, and playing AD&D since 1981... and subdual doesn't happen all that often.

If the Feat is broken, it doesn't mean it ain't broke just because subdual damage doesn't happen often.

I'm not 100% convinced that it is broken, but I am highly suspect of it. And, if a game did feature a lot of subdual damage, it would be an issue having an NPC with that Feat that couldn't be taken down except with real damage.

I had one player take that feat, and he eventually begged to switch it out because it never got used. Do you generally play games where the bad guys try to knock the good guys unconscious?

Not generally. But, the reason I looked at this Feat in the first place was because one of my players (and we're all new to the game, remember) specualted that, in a game this deadly, subdual damage might be used more often than in other games.

In a bar fight, with people who want to "take it outside", for example. They might be more likely to go into a brawl with fists rather than a dual with weapons--meaning subdual damage vs. real damage.

That same player is looking at the Feat, and we're questioning how well it's written and throught-out.

I really think that the Feat, if taken as written, needs some prereq stats, too. I can't see a character with straight 10's being the "iron man", but I could with someone with a very high CON (and possibly a high STR, too).

I think my player had a good comment, and I'm seriously considering having a lot more (than a usual AD&D game) fist fights and brawls--especially among clanmembers.

See if you can't find a volume of "The Iron Man" by REH on ebay if you haven't already read some of his boxing stories.

I will. I love boxing stories and I love REH's writing.

I just bought the El Borak volumn.





Question about my DR idea: How would you implement it with this Feat? What do you think is a good call? An extra DR1 vs. subdual damage only? Maybe as much as DR3? More?

An unarmed strike with a bare fist has AP 0, which means STR cannot be added to it. Therefore the DR rating will always be in place vs. fists, so I'm thinking DR 4 might be the way to go.

Then, if someone were being slapped around by someone wearing gauntlets (AP 1), it'd take a pretty strong character (STR 16 or better) to cut the Feat's protection in half.

I'd also use the Minimum Damage rule, even with this Feat, so that each blow is basically reduced to 1 point of subdual damage instead of making the owner of the Feat 100% impervious.

What are your thoughts?

 

[VincentDarlage]

I would go with DR 1+Con bonus. That way a higher Con person gets more benefit from the feat. I like that better than assigning a Con prerequisite.

 

[treeplanter]

Brawl and Imp. unarmed strike say you can do lethal damage with no penalty. So tough as nail's useless agains those 2 feats...

 

[Supplement Four]

Brawl and Imp. unarmed strike say you can do lethal damage with no penalty. So tough as nail's useless agains those 2 feats...

If you're trying to do real damage, sure. But, that's not what we're talking about. Sometimes, subdual damage is the goal.

Sometimes you want to take a prisoner alive. Sometimes you want to beat the crap out of someone but not kill them. That's what subdual damage is for.

 

[Supplement Four]

I would go with DR 1+Con bonus. That way a higher Con person gets more benefit from the feat. I like that better than assigning a Con prerequisite.

Good thought. I agree. Cleaner, too.

So be it. I'm going to change the Tough As Nails description in my game to include a line about how it provides a DR 1 + CON bonus vs. subdual damage.

That's a much better rule. I'm even going to write it in the book.







TOUGH AS NAILS [General]

Prerequisite: Diehard

Benefit: You are able to pull from inner reserves and stand against punishment caused by weapons. In effect, this means the character gains natural armor of 1 + CON modifier against subdual damage only. This does not apply to magic or natural subdual damage such as that caused by a forced march or starvation.

 

[Supplement Four]

...but I agree with your end version of Feat S4, looks alot better!

I like the new version a lot, too. It singles out those "Iron Men" Vincent was talking about, which would be characters with high CON ratings that can take the punishment.

I ran a few sample hits using the feat against enemies with different STR ratings and Feat users with different CON ratings. The results are very pleasing in that, if you've got just a CON 12, the Feat is still useful to you, but if you've got a CON 17, you're likely to be an Iron Man.

 

[Supplement Four]

TOUGH AS NAILS [General]

Prerequisite: Diehard

Benefit: You are able to pull from inner reserves and stand against punishment caused by weapons. In effect, this means the character gains natural armor of 1 + CON modifier against subdual damage only. This does not apply to magic or natural subdual damage such as that caused by a forced march or starvation.

This needs one more tweak: A prerequisite of CON 10+.