Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mugging Rules"

Latest revision as of 12:55, 24 December 2006

Noah: Hmm. I'm not crazy about the way these rules work. Why would, say, a 13th level wizard be harder to sap than a 10th level fighter? Why would CON modify AC to hit? I can see where it could modify the percentile chance of knockout, but not why it would prevent normal dice damage. And if a thief can't take additional rounds to aim a backstab, why should he be able to aim a mugging attack?

I propose alternate rules, spelled out here:

1. A helmeted character cannot be sapped. The sap attack works by applying a sharp blow to a certain point on the back of the skull. You might be able to do dice damage sapping a helmeted character, but the helmet will prevent the chance of knockout.

2. As with a backstab, the victim must be unaware of the thief's presence. The attacker must also have unobstructed access to the back of the victim's head (that is, a halfling might have difficulty sapping a giant).

3. The negative modifier for the called shot to the head (-4) mitigates the thief's bonus for rear attack (+4) so that a sap attack is made using base THAC0. For humanoids without natural armor, the head is considered AC 10; no armor, dex or shield bonus applies (although certain magical bonuses might).

4. After a successful attack, the dice damage is multiplied by 10% and subtracted from the victim's system shock score. The victim then makes a system shock roll with the modified score. Failure indicates a knockout for 3d10 rounds (or some other reasonable amount of time).

EXAMPLE: Stinky Pete (a third level fighter/thief with a strength of 16), saps Gribble (a fifth level dwarven cleric with a constitution of 14) with a warhammer, doing 4 points of total damage. Gribble's system shock is 88%, minus 40% for the damage inflicted, means he must roll below 48% or go unconscious. Gribble rolls a 52 and drops like a stone.

If you think it is still too easy to sap someone in this fashion, the negative modifier for the called shot could be increased to, say, -6 or -8 (anything above that doesn't really seem reasonable, though), or the percentile multiplier could be reduced to 5% (I am more in favor of the former, however -- if you manage to hit with your sap, it should have a good chance of causing a knockout).

Furthermore, there should be some size differential. A medium sized humanoid should have a better chance of knocking out a small size humanoid than a giant size humanoid (and a giant size humanoid should have an easier chance of knocking out a medium sized humanoid than another giant). Thus, I think, the damage multiplier should scale accordingly; that is, a medium size humanoid has a 10%/point chance of scoring a knockout versus another medium size humanoid, a 20%/point chance versus small humanoids, but only 5%/point chance versus a giant.

In any event, the point of sapping is not to grant a thief an easy way to knock out Bardas Phocas so said thief can then slit the pretender's throat. Rather, it is a way of quietly subduing low-level and 0th level humanoids without all the mess of a backstab -- to incapacitate a character without applying lethal force. Of course, if dice damage exceeds the victim's hit points, your mugging may end up a murder anyway. But it is much less likely.

Comments?

thecomicman: do you just not like the concept of easy-to-understand and therefore implement rules? what is this size modifier business? the same rules apply to a mugging as would to a backstab, i.e. if you're not tall enough to backstab, you're not tall enough to mug. and now i'm done mocking your need for overly complex rules.

a 13th level wizard is harder to sap than a 10th level fighter because the wizard's been around the block more often. also, he might not be if the CON scores are vastly different. mugging high-level characters should be super hard. your rules allow Rey to knock out Bardas Phocas, get a drink, do a fucking jig, maybe take a bath, do another jig, and then slit his throat. and if maybe that second jig took too long and Bardas woke, well who cares? Rey'll just mug him again. my rules allow for the ability to quietly subdue 0th and lower level characters and not dance around the prone figure of SuperBadAss 50th-Level Guy.

Noah: You are suggesting that a gnome should have as easy a time sapping a giant (assuming he can reach) as a giant sapping a gnome?

The 13th level wizard may have 'been around the block more often' but I don't see how that relates to reducing your chances of getting hit in the back of the head. It doesn't effect a normal attack roll (that is, the level of wizards and fighters have no effect on their AC (unless, of course, they are monks or barbarians or whatnot)).

I certainly wish to have simple rules, but they must accurately reflect the situation or they aren't any good. I agree it is important to determine a method by which Reynaldo has a great deal of difficulty sapping Gen. Phocas, however I think use of level in the way you have described is not sufficient. Perhaps an easier way to do this is say that humanoids of 4+3 hit die or above cannot be sapped (4+3 hit die being the cut-off for the Sleep spell). Perhaps using difference in levels is acceptable, but it can be applied in some different way than a modified save vs. petrification.

thecomicman: yes, i am. if the giant has a crap CON score or is of a low level, well, i'm sorry, but you're going down like Julie Brown.

"but I don't see how [one's level] relates to reducing your chances of getting hit in the back of the head." neither do i, seeing as how my rules don't say this. CON score modifies the AC to hit and be eligible for mugging. Level modifies your save vs. petrification after the hit has been made and passed the CON test. read the rules again. a level modifying your save makes total sense because that's what it does anyway. the higher your level, the better your save, right? well, we're having the level modify the save some more in the instance of a mugging, that's all.

and i totally disagree with this "4+3 hit die or above cannot be sapped" nonsense. there is no reason a 20th level thief could not sap a 20th level fighter or cleric or whatever.

Noah: Well, I was just putting forth the hit die limit as a suggestion, but practically, no I don't think it works either. I do think a size modifier of some kind is called for, despite your insistence to the contrary. The question is, will Hal agree?

Furthermore, I still don't see why CON should modify AC in this instance. I can see it modifying the percent chance of knockout, but there is no reason why it should modify the chance of a successful attack dealing dice damage. Even if the knockout is a failure, the target should still take dice damage for a successful attack. Getting hit on the back of the head hurts even if you don't get knocked unconscious from it.

I will concede though that a saving throw is appropriate to accurately reflect the level of the character getting sapped (which my rules did not), but I would choose a save vs. paralysis (the easiest save to make). I also don't think that the save should be modified by level again. There aren't any other instances of this being done within the mechanics of the game, and I think it is excessive. I simply can't see a 13th level wizard being harder to sap than a 10th level fighter.

thecomicman: Noah, read my rules. again. when you make the hit, you take the damage. the CON only modifies to see if the target is eligible to be sapped. for example, Rey tries to sap Ivan. Ivan's regular AC is 2. so in order to hit Ivan, he has to roll Thac0 2, but in order to be eligible for sapping, Rey has to hit AC -6 (because Ivan's CON is 8 better than average). if Rey hits AC 0, he will do damage, but Ivan won't have to make a save because Rey didn't hit hard enough. now, nod your head if you're still with me. okay, good. hitting a target's regular AC will always do damage. i think CON should modify AC only to see if a target's been hit hard enough. a tough character with a high CON should be harder to sap than one with a low CON. if we take the previous example, but change Ivan's CON to 11, the average, then hitting an AC 0 will force him to make a save because he will get no modifications. are you still with me? if this is still not clear enough, call me or something and i will explain using words you can understand like "overforce" and "market shares."

Noah: Well, if I were to call you it would not be recorded here for others to read and comment on. Regardless, your method does begin to make more sense to me, although I still think the actual dice damage done should influence the chance of knockout. As it stands, knockout 'eligibility,' as you put it, is determined only on the basis of the THAC0 roll and does not take into account the dice damage done to the back of the head. I think it should not only be technique, but also the force of the blow which renders a knockout (thus a hard-hitting but inexperienced thief could have the same chance of knockout that a weaker but more experienced thief does).

I also still think that modified system shock is better representative of the effects of a character's CON in this situation than subtracting the victim's point total above or below an average CON score from the his AC. Points of CON do not translate directly into thickness of the skull.

Further, I still have reservations regarding the additional subtraction of victim level from the saving throw. A 13th level wizard is not tougher than a 10th level fighter.

And, while we're on the subject, since no rules seem to exist by which a character may gain a bonus to THAC0 for the number of rounds spent aiming a bow, I don't see why a thief should get that bonus when making a sap attack.

thecomicman: okay, i'm starting to see your points now. i'll concede that damage should probably be taken into account. however, i still feel there needs to be some kind of level-gap infringement. it's very important that there be one or else Hal will not go for these rules.

also, aiming actually does give you a +2 to Thac0 for every round spent aiming up to three rounds. this is how we've always done things in Queens.

Noah: Hm... well, as you pointed out before, the typical level-gap infringement is represented in better saving throws as a character levels. I would argue that sapping is essentially the thief version of Hold Person (a spell which, yes, Hal frequently cites as oft abused and too powerful for its level), but is actually less powerful and more difficult to employ. Hold Person requires a save versus spell, sapping would require either a save versus petrification (an easier save to make) or paralysis (the easiest save to make of all). That, plus the rigmarole of getting close and making a successful attack roll seem to greatly increase the difficulty of making a sap attack work against any character of significant level. Plus, if a helmet makes such an attack impossible, it prevents a sap during any sort of combat engagement (except, perhaps, against magic users and other rogues, which sounds legitimate to me...) reducing the opportunities a thief would have to use it quite a bit. So I don't think the technique is over-powered. It is, of course, Hal's vote that counts, though.

I remember that we used to employ the +2/rd THAC0 bonus for aiming, but I never could find any textual evidence to support it. I mean, it's fine for a house rule but could be super scary for the PCs. If you walk into an ambush where all the archers are targeting the same person, and they all hit with +6 to the first arrow... well, I'm just saying. That could be rough. It also means that thieves could get a cumulative +10 bonus to their backstab if they make the necessary skill checks... which seems a bit excessive to me as well. But that isn't really part of this discussion, and since it's a house rule it doesn't affect me so much anyway.

In any event, I gotta go to Chicago. I'll think about it over the weekend and maybe post revised sapping rules on Monday.

Kerry: You guys are both crazy, as either way makes thieves way too powerful. You are saying that you get a free shot against AC 10, doing full backstab damage AND getting a KO chance? Ridiculous. Why would any thief even backstab instead of KO? If my target has chainmail on, that is base AC 5. Even if your non-allowed called shot to the head can be done, as Noah mentioned the +4 and -4 to THAC0 cancel. Thus you get an attack at AC 10 vs your THAC0 instead of AC 9(normal modified backstab). This is crazy. Also, Noah's argument that this is like a thief's Hold Person is nuts. Thieves don't have spells for a reason; in similar fashion clerics can't backstab. The normal rules for backstabbing cover mugging fine. You just use a blunt weapon and do subdual damage. You take a -4 penalty to hit, multiply your damage as normal, and if it is more that the hp of your target they go down. Even a low-level thief can take out a 0th level human with no problem, and a high level thief can take out a low to midlevel fighter. Why the need for special rules, other than to make thieves super powerful? Or, if you must have mugging rules, make a level limit on the victim, and the attack only does 1d3 damage, plus a (low) KO chance. That way if you screw up your KO roll you essentially wasted your backstab.

ps- If either of your rules were applied I would play a thief and mug constantly, slitting throats galore. I bet Adan would too(the fact that he is proposing the rules is itself fishy). The huge power gain is too tempting.

thecomicman: except i'm not you. don't assume that because you would try to do things, everybody would. this has been proven time and time again to not be true.

also, it's not just a matter of getting the hit in. my rules have two very clearly defined catches. i wrote these rules with the express purpose of not making this too powerful. the rules in the Thieve's Handbook are way more powerful, allowing thieves to act like Kerry all the damn time. i've added checks and such to bring the power down. and if Halifax sees these rules and still thinks they're too powerful, he can add more catches and make it even harder to KO.

Noah: Well, I would point out a few things: first, a backstab is different than a sap. Nowhere here did either Adan or I suggest that the backstab multiplier would be relevant. Second, I've suggested that any character with a helmet (which is usually implied with chainmail or better) is immune to a sap, which puts a very explicit limit on the situations in which the tactic can be used.

Now, the idea that a sap could be adjudicated as a backstab with a blunt weapon is interesting to me. Normally, as we all know too well, subdual damage may not be done with a blunt weapon - it is so stated in the rules. However sapping is a special instance... still, I think it will yield far too low chance of knockout. A 3rd level fighter can have sufficient hit points so that all but the strongest of 9th level thieves could not knock him out with a max-damage blow from a footman's mace. This does not seem authentic. Nor does 1d3 damage with a low chance of knockout seem appropriate, since it does not take into account the victim's level (a higher level character should be more difficult to knock out than a lower level character).

But Kerry does raise a valid point. The chance of knockout should be such that a thief would choose to use the attack only when it was actually appropriate. That is, he should have a higher chance of getting a backstab in than of making a successful sap attack. Otherwise he will favor the sap in nearly all situations, which does not seem authentic either.

Kerry: I'm also trying to figure out why you guys want sapping rules. For Noah's "Way to take out 0th-level characters without murder" we already have several options, including subdual backstab, hold person, sleep(which both parties have), and wrestling. You know that Hal wants these rules because he can use them more often and more effectively than we can. I was talking to him last night, and he mentioned how nice it would be to be able to easily take out a PC on watch, leading to the entire party being captured. Even if a helmet protects you, think of who can't wear helmets: Theives, rangers, druids, mages. See if you can think of a scenario where none of those characters has to take watch.

Noah: At the moment, there is no such thing as 'subdual backstab,' which is kind of my point. I am well aware that we have certain means of non-violent combat, including all of those related above, however I am always looking to increase the number available to us. As far as I am concerned, a rule that makes sense can be used equally well by both players and DM. Anything that we can do, Hal should be able to do back. So the point here is to create a rule that is not imbalancing, but authentically reflects an action in gameplay that should be allowed.

That said, it is ludicrous to assert that any given rule introduction will give Hal 'the upper hand.' Hal *always* has the upper hand. Any control that we appear to have is illusory. The party progresses by Hal's willingness to allow it to progress. This is why I have argued in the past that D&D is not so much a competiton between players and DM as a cooperation between them, requiring a largely consistent idea of what constitutes 'fair play.' When we advocate the most favorable interpretation of a rule instead of the most reasonable -- and we are all, players and DM alike, guilty of this at some point, I'm sure -- we are disputing the basic necessity of this cooperation and game mechanics break down. It is why Hal's monsters don't do what is 'smartest' they do what is 'coolest.' It is also why, on occasion, some of us will advocate (in essence) doing the same as PCs.

This might be a discussion for elsewhere, however. I think the best thing to do is modify each of our rule proposals over the next few days, post them on the 'Mugging Rules' main page as three separate options and have Hal make a ruling based on that. Of course, his ruling may be that none of the rule sets are satisfactory, or that he will suggest some other rule set, or that he'll say, 'you shouldn't be able to sap, because it isn't what D&D is *about*.' Or whatever. But I certainly don't think that anyone is out of line by trying to make some acceptable sapping rules. It certainly seems to me like something that a thief should have the option of employing.

Dan: Noah's right, there is no subdual damage with a blunt weapon. Also, I have no idea why Kerry would think that wrestling would be a viable way to take out a guard. Wrestling is loud and takes a while. We, even in the Queen's game thew out the spending rounds to aim rule some time ago when we couldn't find any evidence to support it and Hal protested.

A level limit, of around 4th level like sleep, would relieve all my problem with the concept of these rules. That problem being that a low level character could, even if its very hard, could take out a very high level one with one blow. Sure in the real world is possible, but in the real world one sword thurst, or one arrow, or one stab from a knife can kill anybody, that doesn't mean we should implement that policy in D&D. I like the idea that a thief can go in, sneak up behind the guard and drop him through no magical means. That seems reasonable. I don't like the idea of the thief, I don't care how high level he is, going in, sneaking up and dropping Conan or Aragorn, the same way. One that level limit is in place, I think the rules should be more a little more forgiving than the one proposed so far.

And kerry does have a point, if we start doing this to people, high level poeple, Hal's going to do it to us, and its going to suck really, really hard.

Noah: What you mention above is exactly why I make the distinction between what is realistic and what is authentic. D&D, clearly, is not realistic. The trick is to make it feel as authentic as possible. This is why, for instance, Conan, being barbarian class, only gets surprised with a back attack 1 time in 20 (and that's in addition to all the usual skill checks and dice rolling). I don't support a level limit for sapping, but, as I've said, I do think that using the easiest save to make is appropriate.

Also, while it's true that these rules would be fair game for Hal, I don't see that it really makes things that much different. If Hal wanted to incapacitate the watch, why not just send a dual class thief/magic user to sneak in and cast hold person? He can do it -- and it is (or it should be) much easier than sapping. So I say, if we balance the rules properly -- go ahead and let him have it. My characters aren't going to lose any sleep over it.

Further, it's not as though Hal didn't already do this sort of thing when it suited him. Sebastian got knocked out by a 'stun arrow.' What the hell is that? Can *we* do that? Did Sebastian even get a roll for it (hint: I doubt it)? Deborah could cast magic user spells in full armor with ONE HAND. What the hell is that? Can *we* do that?

Primarily, I'm interested in giving thieves an ability that they should have had all along. I think we can make it work if we're clever. As long as the rules are sane and unbiased I don't see why Hal should take umbrage. I want to kill as few of his low-level humans as possible. Why should he object?

thecomicman: in no way can i support a level-cap for this. thief skills get better with experience, so should sapping. and this "Hal will get it too" argument is bullshit. Hal gets whatever the fuck he wants. he's the goddamn DM. we're lucky in that Hal is a fair DM, and i have faith he wil not use these rules in ridiculous manners. if he wants to sap someone on watch, go the fuck ahead, i say. i don't know about Hoboken, but in Queens, we got three guys watching at all times. let's see him try to take us all unawares. fairly, i might add.

Kerry: How often are we higher level than our non-flunky opponents? How often are they higher level than us?

Noah: I don't see why this is a problem. I still don't see that these rules stand to give Hal so much more of an advantage over the advantage he essentially has already.

Anyway, Kerry -- your revised rules are interesting, and I like the within one size class of your target rule alot. I think I'm going to use that (although I assume an L could still brain an S, even though he is not within one size class). I'm not crazy about making the KO system so based on current HP, though, since that means that a KO of a low-level character is basically a foregone conclusion if you make your to-hit roll. I think there should always be a chance that the KO will fail, since it isn't an exact science. Anyway, I'm going to amend my rules a little and call it soup. I think this discussion has worked very well, and I am starting to dig the whole wiki system more than I did at first.

tcm: so, did we ever decide which of these rulesets to use? i'm itching to try this out in a game situation.