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

[Wolfwood2]

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

"Should be" in what sense? I thought simulationism was dead in 4E.

Anyway, I don't think anything has been said about non-lethal takedowns as of yet. Given that it occupied about a paragraph of space in 3.5, it's not suprising that it hasn't made it into the 4E previews.

 

[jaelis]

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

They do have that fancy psychic damage now, you know.

 

[Lacyon]

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

Knocking someone unconscious with a sword should probably be harder than killing them.

Subduing someone with a sword need not be all that difficult (comparatively).

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

It was confirmed in 'Escape from Sembia' that when you reduce someone to 0hp you can decide whether to kill them or knock them out.

Personally I like it.

 

[RangerWickett]

Yeah, if you're trying to subdue, you stop your sword at their throat, and then when they're cringing from the fear of death, you conk them on the noggin with your sword's pommel, knocking them out.

 

[el-remmen]

It was confirmed in 'Escape from Sembia' that when you reduce someone to 0hp you can decide whether to kill them or knock them out.

Personally I like it.

Ugh. I hate it.

I prefer there be hard choices occasionally.

So, if you're fighting a dominated friend or a potential ally who has been misled about you, or a mob of angry villagers who are otherwise innocent, no worries! Just swing away and decide that he is just knocked out if you defeat him. . . No risks!

 

[Plane Sailing]

Ugh. I hate it.

I prefer there be hard choices occasionally.

So, if you're fighting a dominated friend or a potential ally who has been misled about you, or a mob of angry villagers who are otherwise innocent, no worries! Just swing away and decide that he is just knocked out if you defeat him. . . No risks!

Well, if I was wanting to have a somewhat more gritty situation, I'd use a house rule to the effect that

"If you take them to 0hp with a blunt weapon, you can decide whether to knock them out or kill them. If you take them to 0hp with any other kind of weapon they are just dead".

That would mean that most people who wanted to face off angry villagers without killing them would be using something other than their primary weapon (and someone who wanted to use their primary weapon and switch to their blunt weapon to knock them out runs the risk of overshooting with their primary and killing them, or ending up with lots of hp to remove with that blunt weapon).

On the whole, I find it less fiddly and clunky than earlier mechanisms, and just as easier to ramp up the 'realism' if necessary.

Cheers

 

[Mort_Q]

I loath the idea of choosing AFTER the fact.

Given the addition of immediate interrupt actions, a lot more stuff is going to be resolved AFTER the fact in 4e. Personally, I like it.

 

[Wormwood]

Even this slight nod toward shared narrative control makes me squeal with girlish glee.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm a fan of it. Heroes bonking out bad guys is a time-honored trope. I have absolutely no problem with well-trained mighty folk of legend being able to choose how they end the threats against them, and the "fight the villagers" conflict remains interesting for me not because the PC's might accidentally kill the villagers (about half the characters in my games wouldn't have had major problems with that anyway), but that its a distraction while the BBEG does something horrible, and that unconcious villagers are still vulnerable to the orc raid passing through.

I'm totally cool with heroes not "accidentally" killing someone, and not having to deal with a penalty to avoid the murder.