The Non stunning of Constructs

[BannerMan]

http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?t=20074

I have a Character that is a Robot, with no con score Would any rules there apply to my character?

[Greyman]

Yes.

[BannerMan]

thanks man.

So basically he would be immune to non lethal damage and would only have the lethal damage track.

But would he would have to be repaired in between jobs(so to speak).

[kenseido]

That answer is pretty old because my rulebook shows the Lethal track is also Stunned when failed by 5 or more.

[Greyman]

There is of course a downside. Not only can a construct not be rendered simply Unconcious (a non-lethal condition), one will be Destroyed instead of just Dying like a living character (Ref: Page 167). Meaning they will have no chance of stabilizing until the end of the scene. End of File!

That also means that badly-damaged (Disabled) constructs can still act, but any strenuous activity will immediately Destroy them. This may be quite a heroic sacrifice, but one should be aware of the consequence before trying.

[BannerMan]

There is of course a downside. Not only can a construct not be rendered simply Unconcious (a non-lethal condition), one will be Destroyed instead of just Dying like a living character (Ref: Page 167). Meaning they will have no chance of stabilizing until the end of the scene. End of File!

That also means that badly-damaged (Disabled) constructs can still act, but any strenuous activity will immediately Destroy them. This may be quite a heroic sacrifice, but one should be aware of the consequence before trying.

That´s what the game is all about, being heroic.

[Doctor Devious]

A construct always takes lethal damage: your "non-leathal" damage is done as lethal.
i.e. it's nastier.
(from memory - but I'm fairly sure its right)

Given the endless issues with constructs on these boards, I've come to the slow conclusion that doing character robot types with descriptors and effects and avoiding the construct rules altogether is a lot easier.

[BannerMan]

This is from steve:

Constructs don't suffer non-lethal damage, so they cannot be stunned. Thus, a construct failing a Toughness save is injured, disabled (if it fails by 10 or more), or destroyed (if it fails by 15 or more).

This is paraphrased from the book:

The book says lethal damage applies additionally an injury, the disabled and the dying conditions meaning that the construct would be immune to the nonlethal portions thereoff.

I would generally think that evildoers(and heroes) would go all out(read as inflicting lethal damage) against constructs because that just makes sense.

I think that they dont take non-lethal damage is ok IF they dont have any regeneration shenanigans.

Maybie the fact that regeneration costs constructs the additional points balances it out, but in any case that´s not the path I was planning on.

[FuzzyBoots]

That answer is pretty old because my rulebook shows the Lethal track is also Stunned when failed by 5 or more.

That's because, by default, lethal attacks also inflict non-lethal damage, such as Bruises.

To me, the question always comes as to whether you assume lethal when PCs attack if they normally do non-lethal, thus bouncing the attack.

[kenseido]

Fair enough.

I think the rule is if the attack is capable of doing lethal damage, then it does lethal against a construct. If it is incapable of doing lethal damage, then the attack bounces.

[BannerMan]

Problem Solved(Kinda)

we decided to switch to 3rd edition