Knocking people out.

[Worbah]

I think we can all agree that the current system is rather simplistic (although working).

Blunt weapons can kill people, but they are more likely to knock people out. So what I suggest is that when you attack a guy so that his HPs fall below zero, he'd either fall unconscious or die based on the amount of negative hitpoints he has. The limits could be -10 for piercing, -15 for cutting, and -25 for blunt.

 

[Jackman_2]

I also agree on this and I think it would be a good Idea to be able to knock them out and when they r on the floor, stab them to kill them.

 

[Nahkuri]

In all it's simplicity, that works. Better than the other suggestions I've heard. But for the idea itself... why? For the sake of realism?

I don't know... I can already see myself tearing my hair off because I bought a maul since it was the only blunt weapon I was able to get before the nobleman reached his destination, and I accidentally hit the bastard a little too hard.

Nahkurin orsilla tavataan.

 

[Kissaki]

I think something like that is in the game already, albeit unintentionally. I've often gone into the first round of battle with a blunt weapon, and counted off the number of enemy unconscious. "13..., 14..., 15! There, that's my prisoner quota filled up, now I can start wasting these bastards!"

But then, when the subsequent rounds are over (and I've used something sharp and pointy), I find I get a lot fewer prisoners than I'm supposed to. I guess the first batch of prisoners died from the blunt trauma.

 

[thesneakster]

Uhh.. were you fighting with an ally? they always take some of the prisioners, depending on the sizes of yours and their party.

 

[Manitas]

I think we can all agree that the current system is rather simplistic (although working).

Don't know about we all, but I do agree

I been thinking of a different approach:
- damage a weapon can deal is initially undefined
- weapons have a shape factor.
- when weapon hits, then a weapon-against-armor check is performed
- the portion of damage equal to the armor resistance is converted to blunt damage, the rest remains as 'sharp' damage. (then, if armor resist is greater than weapon strength, all damage done is blunt regardless)

Btw, have you noticed that in every thread about blunt weapons, somebody mentions the nobleman quest eventually? Then one justifies the other: we need blunt weapons as they are needed to capture the Nobleman, and we need the nobleman quest for blunt weapons to be needed
My opinion is: both need some redesign.

 

[Kelpo]

I think we can all agree that the current system is rather simplistic (although working).

Blunt weapons can kill people, but they are more likely to knock people out. So what I suggest is that when you attack a guy so that his HPs fall below zero, he'd either fall unconscious or die based on the amount of negative hitpoints he has. The limits could be -10 for piercing, -15 for cutting, and -25 for blunt.

Aye, that would be good. Also, it might be good to have the option of trying to deliver non-lethal blows, eg. hitting with the blunt of the sword/axe or just not hitting quite as hard with that mace of yours. This would transform the damage delivered into blunt damage, and reduce the damage dealt by 50% for example. Maybe holding ctrl or somesuch while attacking should deliver such blows.

 

[Skanky Burns]

A similar system would be to give each "kill" a chance to just be knocked out instead. For piercing or cutting weapons, the chance to survive would be low while blunt weapons would give a higher chance for the target to be knocked out instead of killed. This would be fairly easy to implement.

 

[Kissaki]

Uhh.. were you fighting with an ally? they always take some of the prisioners, depending on the sizes of yours and their party.

Could be. Not as I recall, but definitely could be.

 

[luigi]

i have an other idea that might interest you : why arent your ennemies giving up ? why don't they simply surrender ?
hitting someone on the head with a maul is something i don't suggest to any slavers who wants to make a profit : it usually kill the prey.
it lead to the fact that it will be a good idea to add more behaviours to the npc.

 

[Kissaki]

i have an other idea that might interest you : why arent your ennemies giving up ? why don't they simply surrender ?
hitting someone on the head with a maul is something i don't suggest to any slavers who wants to make a profit : it usually kill the prey.
it lead to the fact that it will be a good idea to add more behaviours to the npc.

But you can subdue your prisoners by sheer authority:

"Don't try to run away or anything. I'm watching you."
"No, I swear I won't."

 

[luigi]

why not !
usually, in the Middle Age, the goal of the knights was to make as much prisonners as they can for ransom. That's how they got rich!
in M&B, the concept is there but it can get much more complex and interesting.
we should be able to make an ennemy knight ask for mercy ! foot soldiers are not that important, so a knock on the head with a maul is always a good idea.
but knights, if defeated - let say : less then ten hit points- will drop their weapons and your soldiers will stop fighing them and leave them with hands tied behind their back , go to an other ennemy and leave you with the choice of executing the defeated knight or taking him as a prisonners...

 

[Daffygremlin]

eh i like the current system

 

[TheMany]

I think we can all agree that the current system is rather simplistic (although working).

Blunt weapons can kill people, but they are more likely to knock people out. So what I suggest is that when you attack a guy so that his HPs fall below zero, he'd either fall unconscious or die based on the amount of negative hitpoints he has. The limits could be -10 for piercing, -15 for cutting, and -25 for blunt.

amen