Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

[Barghaest]

Originally Posted by Langy

I would only allow that if they had no combat skills. If they have no combat skills, they may not know that hitting someone in the head can be dangerous; but if they have any combat skills, then they've been suitably trained to know what's dangerous and what isn't.

Combat skills aside it depends on culture. There's enough examples to be found today that anyone who has internet access (or decent parents) would be aware of this. I remember (several decades ago) getting lectured by my parents and teachers about a fight I had in grade school... I'd thrown a combination lock at the person who annoyed me before we started wailing on each other and it was made clear to me the risks of if I'd been more accurate (was aiming for his head but caught his shoulder) and I'm pretty sure I had no points in even Brawling at that point as I'd been in no real fights (a few wrestling scuffles) prior.

Any attack which has the potential to be lethal should be penalized (such as a 3d swing by a baseball bat at someone's Torso as the base damage alone could conceivably kill someone... I'd say the -4 penalty would cover "aiming for the gut" and hoping you don't rupture their spleen or intestines - in this case the PC has the option to "pull their ST" to attack no penalty by reducing it to under 2d or so).

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by Barghaest

(such as a 3d swing by a baseball bat at someone's Torso as the base damage alone could conceivably kill someone...)

You need pretty big ST already, like in the 17-20 range, before you're doing 3d of damage with a baseball bat.

Pretty sure it's just sw+1 or sw+2 cr (Two-Handed Axe/Mace), unsure of min ST. So that's about 1d+2 to 2d on most characters who might be using it.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Barghaest

I'd leave the forcing of the person to upgrade to the results of the Fright Check...

If someone thinks pistol whipping someone in the Skull is nonlethal, then ends up killing someone by pistol whipping them in the Skull, they are no longer going to believe this action is nonlethal - hence needing to use a higher level version of the trait.
Part of the idea is that the player is somewhat gaming the system here (by claiming his character doesn't know better). Because of this, the Disadvantage isn't worth as much as it otherwise would be, and he runs a significant risk of upgrading it if he takes such risky actions.

Originally Posted by Langy

I would only allow that if they had no combat skills. If they have no combat skills, they may not know that hitting someone in the head can be dangerous; but if they have any combat skills, then they've been suitably trained to know what's dangerous and what isn't.

If they have combat skills that they learned from individuals who didn't have such misconceptions but knew their students did, and they took what their instructors told them to heart, sure. If their instructors had such misconceptions themselves, didn't realize it was something they really needed to teach, or the student simply didn't believe that part... not so much. Now, this might be such a vanishingly low chance that claiming otherwise is abusive, in which case I'd require characters with sufficient combat skills to take one of the more disadvantageous versions of the trait.

[Barghaest]

Originally Posted by Varyon

If someone thinks pistol whipping someone in the Skull is nonlethal, then ends up killing someone by pistol whipping them in the Skull, they are no longer going to believe this action is nonlethal - hence needing to use a higher level version of the trait.
Part of the idea is that the player is somewhat gaming the system here (by claiming his character doesn't know better). Because of this, the Disadvantage isn't worth as much as it otherwise would be, and he runs a significant risk of upgrading it if he takes such risky actions.

Still, the above example could be easily handled by now considering pistol whipping someone in the skull a lethal action and applying the -4 penalty from this point on (plus the effect of being morose for 3d days for having killed someone).

Originally Posted by Kenneth Latrans

You need pretty big ST already, like in the 17-20 range, before you're doing 3d of damage with a baseball bat.

Pretty sure it's just sw+1 or sw+2 cr (Two-Handed Axe/Mace), unsure of min ST. So that's about 1d+2 to 2d on most characters who might be using it.

That was just an intentionally vague example. I'm not claiming it to be feasible in most games was just citing any attack that possessed the potential to kill in a single hit (or even a few hits for the case of a 2d attack) I'd consider worthy of suffering the penalty. The one advantage of striking limbs or extremities is the damage cap... you can't kill a healthy PC by crippling a leg or arm (apart from complications after the attack) because you're capped at half their HP so I'd allow them to be considered non-lethal attacks by intent (you're deliberately attacking a location that caps the damage you can do much akin to "pulling a punch" but still need the person removed as a threat).

I'd also apply the penalty to punching someone (regardless of punch damage) if they continued attacking someone who was already beat to hell and back (say a bloodied opponent on his last legs but still conscious - say negative HP and struggling to remain standing) because the risk of the blow being fatal has greatly increased.