D&D 5E House Rule for Subdual, is it fair?

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not really interested in opinions on this players attitude,

Fine. I don't think I'd need to explain them, anyway.

but whether or not others think that this mechanic is really that out of line in terms of fairness.

It seems suitable for a darker, 'life is cheap' sort of feel that low-level D&D can easily be used to evoke. If that's what you're going for, great. It'd dovetail neatly with 'gritty healing' for instance.

And, it does give you levels of commitment to swimming against that current: You can just kill anyone you fight as a matter of course; you can roll to subdue when there's a reason, but take the higher die any time the lower misses, giving up no effectiveness but putting the target's life in jeopardy; or you could essentially accept disadvantage to avoid killing...

...oh, BTW, how does that mechanic interact with Adv/Dis?

 

[Kobold Stew]

First off, welcome to the boards. I hope you enjoy your time here. Thanks for an interesting question.

When I see a rule like this, I ask what would happen if it were reversed: what if you applied (effectively) disadvantage when attempting to kill an opponent rather than subdue them. In a moral society, it should (we hope) be easier to knock someone out than kill them. Anyone could argue more fully, then, that's more "realistic".

It would also kill the game, making combats miserable.

Subdual is straightforward, but (in my experience) it is seldom done. I would want to reward players who want this, because it then asks them to engage with NPCs, develop personalities, and think about the worlds and character motivations. Enemies can escape and return; so much potential. That's a win, if you want it to be.

So, to that extent, I agree with your new player.

There are tweaks to the rules you might want to consider, but the morality of killing evil creatures remains the same regardless, if that is the concern.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Here are some tweaks to the PHB rules that I have considered trying:

1. Knocking a creature out (as per PHB 198) requires the use of bludgeoning damage.
2. There is a simple weapon, the sap, that does 1 point bludgeoning damage but is a finesse weapon (and so benefits from rogues' sneak attack).

 

[Saeviomagy]

I agree with Saelorn's stance somewhat: it seems morally undefensible to simply kill opponents if knocking them out is risk-free and has 100% effectiveness.

Unfortunately that means that you have to deal with the logistics of taking prisoners and returning them to town for justice.

Additionally there's some merit to stories where you want to take someone prisoner and fail for some reason - doubly so if you fail because of your own recklessness.

So the current risk-free completely effective knockout rules have some flaws that block certain stories and introduce illogicality to the world.

Your house rule seems elegant. It's simple, and it ticks the boxes. Unless your renegade player specifically wants to capture every opponent they fight (which would prove fairly disruptive if other's aren't keen on it), I don't see why they're pitching a fit. Certainly the arguing tactic of "you all have to do what I want or I'm leaving" suggests you might be better off without them.

 

[Ganymede81]

Unfortunately that means that you have to deal with the logistics of taking prisoners and returning them to town for justice.

I'm not sure how this is a negative. It is a challenge that can lead to further adventure, what's to hate about that?

 

[thorgrit]

Just wanted to jump in and say you can only choose to ko an enemy with a melee attack, by the rules.

Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable.

This leaves out ranged weapons and most spells (though some spells are delivered through a melee attack, like Shocking Grasp)

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree with Saelorn's stance somewhat: it seems morally undefensible to simply kill opponents if knocking them out is risk-free and has 100% effectiveness.

Unfortunately that means that you have to deal with the logistics of taking prisoners and returning them to town for justice.

Additionally there's some merit to stories where you want to take someone prisoner and fail for some reason - doubly so if you fail because of your own recklessness.

So the current risk-free completely effective knockout rules have some flaws that block certain stories and introduce illogicality to the world.

Your house rule seems elegant. It's simple, and it ticks the boxes. Unless your renegade player specifically wants to capture every opponent they fight (which would prove fairly disruptive if other's aren't keen on it), I don't see why they're pitching a fit. Certainly the arguing tactic of "you all have to do what I want or I'm leaving" suggests you might be better off without them.

It's not eliminating those stories, it simply relegates narrative control of such events to the players. For example, under the RAW a player might declare that his character attempts to subdue but inflicts lethal harm by accident.

I'm of the opinion that if you make subual too harsh a penalty, your players won't want to engage with those mechanics and you'll lose out on opportunities for role playing (interrogating the enemy, showing mercy to a foe, and so forth).

I'd suggest talking to the player to find out why they are so strongly opposed to this house rule. Perhaps the player enjoys characters who refuse to kill (but doesn't want their RP choices to be a burden upon the party), in which case eliminating the penalty for just those characters (who would logically be more experienced than the average person at subduing foes) might be sufficient.

 

[CapnZapp]

I just say that any attack roll the player takes a -2 penalty roll on means a foe is unconscious and stable if brought to 0 hp (as opposed to dead).

You don't need to take the -2 if you believe the foe has lots of hp left. It's only the downing strike that counts.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Honestly, if I was playing in a game with that rule and really wanted to take someone alive, I would just ignore the subdual option entirely. Go ahead and nuke them as hard as you possibly can, because nobody actually dies until they go fully negative of their maximum hit points, and you can always stabilize them immediately before they bleed out. Given how easy it is to keep someone alive at zero, it's hard to justify the extra hoops.

You can safely assume that the result for NPCs at 0 hp is death.

That is, yes of course you can ignore the risk of insta-death if a monster uses PC rules with death saves.

Which is a compelling argument *this is not the case* anytime people discuss subdual damage...



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

What exactly is the problem this rule is trying to fix?

Probably no problem, just a matter of what feels right to that group.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app