D&D 4E 4E Definition of Hit Points & FIghting to Subdue

[el-remmen]

Forgive me if this has been covered somewhere and I missed it. . . But has there been word on how fighting to subdue works now?

It struck me last night that if the definition of HPs is being changed to be less about actual physical damage, then the non-lethal rules as they exist in 3E (and basically how they existed in 2E) don't really work anymore conceptually.

 

[Lacyon]

Forgive me if this has been covered somewhere and I missed it. . . But has there been word on how fighting to subdue works now?

It struck me last night that if the definition of HPs is being changed to be less about actual physical damage, then the non-lethal rules as they exist in 3E (and basically how they existed in 2E) don't really work anymore conceptually.

It has been speculated (I'm not sure if it was confirmed anywhere or not) that basically, the guy who knocks you down to 0 hit points decides if he kills you or not.

 

[Engilbrand]

If we take HP to be purely abstract, it still works. 2 people are fighting for a long time. Neither has been hit, but they've each lost a lot of HP. At the very end, one of them gets lucky and knocks the other unconscious with a blow to the head. Basically, the guy had 10 HP and took 15 subdual damage, which knocked him out. If you want to say that you're trying subdual from the beginning, I would just say that it's a way of hedging your bets to make sure that you don't accidentally kill the guy.
For minions, I'm just going to say that, once hit, the PC can do anything to the minion, from knocking him out to cutting off an arm to killing him.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I'm going to be more brutal to my players. When they get hit, they get hurt and they'll stay hurt until healed. This won't necessarily have any effect on their HP totals, but I'll work it in some other way. (See Raiders of the Lost Ark.)

I like the idea of simply deciding at the zero-blow whether or not to kill or subdue.

 

[frankthedm]

I loath the idea of choosing AFTER the fact. The choice to swing for lethal or non lethal ought to have to be made before the blow is struck.

 

[Celebrim]

I'll accept that hit points are purely mental when fear spells start doing the same amount of damage as fireballs.

 

[Lacyon]

I loath the idea of choosing AFTER the fact. The choice to swing for lethal or non lethal ought to have to be made before the blow is struck.

Doesn't make any difference if you aren't applying any modifiers to the roll based on that decision.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I'll accept that hit points are purely mental when fear spells start doing the same amount of damage as fireballs.

They aren't purely mental, they're abstract. They represent lacerations, morale, bruises, pulled muscles, broken bones, fatigue, frostbite, brain damage, burns, infections, dented armor, dulled reaction time, courage, and/or a number of other factors. They don't mean any one, particular thing, and they never have--unless that one thing is "capacity to keep standing up."

 

[frankthedm]

Doesn't make any difference if you aren't applying any modifiers to the roll based on that decision.

And that's another problem! Not killing with a lethal weapon SHOULD be harder to do!

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

If the decision is made at the time of the blow, will that only work with melee weapons? Can the Ranger decide that his arrow somehow subdued the target, rather than killed him?