No cost to Knock Creatures Unconscious?!

[CapnZapp]

Another way to look at this is asking yourself the question "How many creatures will actually fight to the death before surrendering". IMO it wouldn't be many, most would either attempt to flee or surrender when seriously wounded or when it is obvious they aren't going to win.

I can't be sure of course, but I get the distinct impression the party gets their XP a bit too easy if monsters stop fighting while they still have HP left.

In 4E "real-life" considerations take a back seat (if that), so I wouldn't be surprised if GMs were to be recommended to cut back on the XP of any opponent that gave up before it dropped.

Remember that if you are a monster, even if your own life is forfeit, by sticking around, you can possible cause enough damage for your allies to carry the day (or, more commonly, cause the loss of enough healing surges so that the heroes have to take extended rests slightly more often than they would have had to otherwise)...

It's slightly different at "wrap-up" time. When the DM cuts short the battle when he sees there can be only one outcome to conserve dramatic tension.

But during the height of battle, when no outcome can be clearly seen, if monsters give up at single-digit HP (or worse, when they become bloodied) that should probably mean a significant reduction in XP.


Regards,
Zapp

 

[CapnZapp]

Other than this, my impression is that if the DM wants to attach a price to taking prisoners alive (to pay for the possible information) then a -2 penalty wouldn't be inappropriate.

But that generally, the rules assume that information will be provided by the adventure at no cost - especially at no cost of slowing down combat.

Okay then.

 

[Gavinfoxx]

An easy way to solve this problem is to have monsters that regenerate at the end of every round... so they always get back up if you knock them unconscious. Throw a few wererats (or whatever) at them to discourage this behavior!

 

[monboesen]

I can't be sure of course, but I get the distinct impression the party gets their XP a bit too easy if monsters stop fighting while they still have HP left.

The gist of my idea is treating 0 HP as the point where the enemy flees. surrenders etc. And to leave control of what exactly happens in the players hands except in the special cases of "victory or death" enemies.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

2) What would be a reasonable cost? You're essentially fighting with your blunt side rather than your sharp side of your sword.

I don't think anyone in the history of sword fighting has ever fought with the 'blunt side' of his sword, not even when trying to capture prisoners.

I'm not sure where this idea originate but it is weirdly common in the D&D community. Forget it. No one slaps the broad side of a sword against an enemy while screaming shrilly for him to surrender.

A steel sword isn't very rigid. It can bend. If you hit on the edge side, the sword is a few inches 'thick' so it will not bend, but if you hit on the broad side, it is very thin and it will certainly bend, wasting much of the strenght of the blow. So not only are you spreading the impact on a much larger area, you are losing much of the energy from the blow as it springs back into the blade.

If your opponent wears no armor, it probably barely hurts more than getting whipped with a wet towel. If he does have an armor, the only danger you will inflict to your opponent is the possibility of laughing himself to death.

You want to capture prisoners? Strike with the pommel. Shield bash them. Or... you know... just don't let them all bleed to death after the fight. Realistically, about 75% of your opponent are still breathing at the end of the fight even if you weren't pulling your blows. Bandage the ones who look like they can pull through instead of ruthlessly finishing them off if you want to interrogate someone.

So to answer the OPs question; what cost is reasonable for the benefit of making prisoners? Absolutely none. When you have holy clerics on your side, what would be unreasonable is insisting that all opponents are dead unless the PCs used some kind of penalty on their attack.

But if players insist that ALL their opponents survived, just tell them to knock it off if this doesn't fit the mood of your campaign. This doesn't have to become 'Carebear the RPG'.

As always, some common sense is needed on both side of the gaming fence.

 

[evilgenius8000]

Wow... I seem to have the opposite problem of the OP. I have a hard time convincing my players not to chop enemies in half instead of crippling or whatnot, even when the enemies aren't the real bad guys (the PCs having full knowledge of this fact) and doing so will piss off powerful organizations.

 

[Victim]

The cost to knock creatures out is having to deal with prisoners who can escape, lie, require guards, possibly make reports on your tactics later, and otherwise be a PITA. Basically, the cost of taking things prisoner is that you have to deal with prisoners.

 

[CapnZapp]

Mal, I don't think it's wise to mix "reality" with D&D, especially 4th edition.

Victim, that may be a cost to you. To my players, not so much.

Perhaps your players play good PCs? This isn't a requirement of the rules.

If you capture someone alive, you use your skills (Intimidate) against the prisoner, then dispatch of him when he's no longer useful. No prisoners are kept, regardless of the promises given. In adventures where you clear out dungeon rooms, there are no survivors to tell the tale.

The rules say creatures die at 0 hp. Plain and simple. But the cost to circumvent this rule is... zero. Nothing. Zilch.

Disabling them without killing them thus provides a benefit (possible information) at very little cost. For a game like 4E, this seems... "wrong" somehow... Unbalanced. Not thought through. There really shouldn't be any free lunches like this, if I understand the design mentality correctly.

This is how the rules work by the letter, and this is why I would like (more) suggestions on changes.

 

[Lord Ernie]

But isn't the whole point of 'possible information' the possible part? If you don't want them to know anything useful: bam, you're good. Maybe they lie, or make up stuff just to stop the PC's from hurting them further.

I've had my players do this too, the first few sessions. They knocked out one out of every small-time group of muggers, kobolds, etc. The mugger simply lied his ass off, and snuck off in the darkness. The kobold uttered useless threats in Draconic, telling them they'd meet their end soon; he got killed off after a few minutes.

After that, they started to be a bit more selective with whom they captured (underlings, lieutenants of the bad guys, ...), and I rewarded them with useful bits of info, even used it to further the storyline a couple of times. If you feel like you shouldn't have to do that, proceed as before. I believe that capturing an enemy who's in a position to know something and trying to extract information from him is just a smart thing to do. You know they can do that, so plan for it.

 

[77IM]

2) What would be a reasonable cost?

My party thinks just like yours does, so I've instituted the following house rule:

They have to state they are aiming to knockout rather than kill before they roll attack or damage (they ideally do this on the last hit).

When aiming to knock out have them do 1/2 damage.

They will aim to kill until the last hit. They may accidentally kill them or spend turn after turn hitting half-damage.

(Certain weapons and effects -- staffs, clubs, unarmed strikes, thunder damage, psychic damage -- can deal full damage and still knockout.)

It works extremely well. When the PCs want to capture foes, they are able to do so, with just a round or two of extra work. But it's just enough of a PITA to discourage them from doing it in routine fights.


-- 77IM