subdue rules?

[Garthanos]

Sigh... use the abstraction luke do not let it use you

I like players specifying the end goal of the fight/attack and I do have spells like a certain reskinned cold spell The Little Death : which slows the targets metabolism to induce either sleep or permanent coma.
Point in fact the wizard choose to tie it off intentionally like in WOT or have it behave either way and skin it as random chance.

A jacky chan alike player may skin a large portion of his characters attacks as exhausting the enemy by inducing wasted action and temporary disarmed state inducing multiple opponents to actually harm each other... and using a lot of open handed insulting slaps... a barrage of these sends a minion permanently disarmed and demoralized in to instant retreat almost always...

Use defeated as an abstraction it is a good thing

Treat hit points as a power.
This is even cooler when the player is allowed to describe how there own hit points minimize and nullify attacks against them... at least up until there hit points go below zero.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

But I don't like it's effects in the other two types of games. It means that when the PCs end up fighting a good guy, the importance of not killing them is just fluff without any consequences. And it means that in an investigatory style game where prisoners are more useful than corpses, there are always as many prisoners as you could possibly want, unless the GM (rather cheesily, in my opinion) declares that the enemies all happen to have died. In previous editions (most notably 3.X), you could gain the benefit of subduing by either taking a disadvantage to your attacks or by wielding suboptimal weapons that gave you that added flexibility. I like that trade off, and I miss it in the game that I run.

Regarding 3.X has far better rules for subduing:

1. There is a feat that negates the penalty for causing non-leathal damage /w all (melee) weapon.
2. Healing spells heal an equal amount of leathal and non-leathal damage. The result is if for any reason the target had both types of damage the heal healed twice as much.
3. You can hit the target once /w a leathal attack an guess based on the description of your DM how many attacks the target can take before going down. Then just make the last attack a non-lethal attack. (Oh wow, how 4E like!)
4. Extra book keeping, tracking both types of damage.

Therefore, I conclude the 4E rules are better at least at my table wether I'm the DM or the player.

Your comment on the good guys that want to play nice and must be punished by making there combats harder b/c otherwise there is no trade off/cost for being nice - sounds really odd. Think about it, they are already limited in their choice of actions if they want to behave like good guys yet they must be punished further for doing so. Why?

 

[DracoSuave]

Why would you make it harder to keep an enemy alive?

Isn't it generally considered a worse idea, tactically, to let him live unless he has information, so that he doesn't try to kill you later?

Isn't it actually -harder- to make sure an enemy is dead, rather than merely cripple them?

A lot of clinging is going on to the 3.x way of doing things, as if that game actually had an ounce of realism to it that needed to be followed.

In before someone calls 3rd ed 'simulationist' with a straight face.

 

[Starfox]

BBEG (DM): The hand of the wizard is enveloped in green energy as he speaks some impossible words and then points at Torrick...

Let me rework this example to make it more cinematic (and sensible under 4E rules).

BBEG (DM): The hand of the wizard is enveloped in green energy as he speaks some impossible words and then points at Torrick. The green energy extends from his hand as a thin ray and lashes out at Torrik. The fighter feels the green energy working to rip his body apart.
Torrick (Ben): Mumsy!
DM: Ben, Torrick is hit by the wizard's disintegrate spell for 50 points of damage.
Ben: Ouch.
DM: Is Torrick still standing?
Ben: Yes, but only just.
DM: Torrik desperately throws himself aside, feeling the energy rip trough and by him, tearing at the fabric of reality, leaving him jarred and shocked but still alive and kicking.
Torrick (Ben): Chums, another one like that and I'll be disintegrated; any words of encouragement you can offer would be much appreciated!

My point is that damage doesn't really connect until you are out of hit points; up to that point it is near-misses and scratches.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I recently ran an encounter where the new subdual rules... didn't work so well.

The PCs came across NPCs A, who they wanted to capture, but not kill, but didn't want to escape.

NPCs B were also there, who wanted to kill NPCs A. The PCs disliked NPCs B, but had no real intent to kill them (I run a very "gray" morality campaign - NPCs B were led by a very zealous Paladin).

Problem was, the PC wizard threw down stinking cloud, doing nonlethal damage (so far so good - I like my players to tell me ahead of time whether they want to kill the enemy or not). Note, I was likely playing the LOS restrictions of the cloud wrong (counting it as heavy, rather than total, obscurement).

Problem was, when he knocked out an NPC A, that left that NPC open to a coup de gras by an NPC B. This resulted in the PC cleric using his healing to keep the NPC As upright, which in turn allowed them to escape.

Which was very amusing for me as a DM, but kind of thwarted the PCs intention.

At least for that encounter, the 3e rules (without the negative) would have been much better - despite the extra paper work of tracking lethal vs. nonlethal, it would have better represented what the PCs where trying to do.

That said, said encounter was certainly not typical.

 

[Starfox]

Sounds like a cool, if frustrating, encounter.

 

[vagabundo]

I recently ran an encounter where the new subdual rules... didn't work so well.

I'd say they worked perfectly well - just not in the PC's favour - but it led to interesting story choices and an interesting encounter.

Previous editions subdual rules were too fiddly and ignored by my group.

 

[Kingreaper]

At least for that encounter, the 3e rules (without the negative) would have been much better - despite the extra paper work of tracking lethal vs. nonlethal, it would have better represented what the PCs where trying to do..

The 3e rules would have resulted in the same outcome.

Guy A goes down to non-lethal mixed with a bit of lethal from Guy B, and from all those spells and suchlike that CAN'T do non-lethal. Gets coup-de-graced. Dies, due to being heavily below zero. Sure it might take a bit longer (maybe 1 turn?) for Guy B to coup-de-grace, but the actual outcome is identical.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

The 3e rules would have resulted in the same outcome.

Guy A goes down to non-lethal mixed with a bit of lethal from Guy B, and from all those spells and suchlike that CAN'T do non-lethal. Gets coup-de-graced. Dies, due to being heavily below zero. Sure it might take a bit longer (maybe 1 turn?) for Guy B to coup-de-grace, but the actual outcome is identical.

I'm sure it wouldn't have taken longer b/c in 3.x we had crit multipliers of up to 4 (right out of the box - PHB) and power attack. Which on any crit could lead to ridicolous amounts of damage.

Nevertheless, I still support the 4E subdueing rules.

 

[firesnakearies]

This is even cooler when the player is allowed to describe how there own hit points minimize and nullify attacks against them... at least up until there hit points go below zero.

I like this. There are a lot of ways that someone losing hit points or regaining them as a result of various different effects could be narrated in-game. It's cool to let the player choose this, if s/he wants to. One person could be nimbly ducking out of the way of serious harm, another could be shrugging it off through pure stubborn toughness, and a third could be actually taking wounds but just fighting on through force of will. Either way, they're that much closer to being unable to continue fighting, but there's no reason that it can't be narrated in whatever way the player thinks is interesting and suitable for the character and/or scene.