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

[Wolfwood2]

Mind you, "choose at 0" is a useful tool for the DM as well. Once you've established the precedent by having the PCs capture a few enemies this way, it feels much less contrived to arrange a PC capture. Simply present them with an overwhelming force and take them down to zero HP in a hopeless fight.

Sure you could have done this in 3E with 'striking to subdue', but having the bad guys take a -4 the whole fight made it feel like you were handling them with kid gloves.

 

[Dragonblade]

Mind you, "choose at 0" is a useful tool for the DM as well. Once you've established the precedent by having the PCs capture a few enemies this way, it feels much less contrived to arrange a PC capture. Simply present them with an overwhelming force and take them down to zero HP in a hopeless fight.

IMO, this is the best reason for the new system right there. You can now actually capture PCs even if they try to fight to the death (which they always do).

 

[RigaMortus2]

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

Realistically, yes.

To make the game more fun, no.

Otherwise, you run into what we have now (the -4 modifier). If you are penalized for trying to defeat an enemy in a nonlethal manner, why even bother? When our group wants to subdue someone, 99% of the time we do standard lethal damage until the DM describes to us that it looks like he is about to fall any minute, then the last blow we make as nonlethal. Realistically we should have been doing nonlethal the entire time, but that would make the fight last twice as long.

 

[olshanski]

Can you choose to subdue someone by hitting them with a club?
Can you choose to subdue someone with a hurled sling stone?
Can you choose to subdue someone with a crossbow bolt?
Can you choose to subdue someone with a flask of acid?
Can you choose to subdue somone with a fireball?
Can you choose to subdue someone with disintegrate?

 

[Wormwood]

Can you choose to subdue [with any attack]?

I don't see why not.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225835

That's my solution to the highly abstracted hit points/healing surge problem in 4e. It maintains the feel of 4e through the Endurance / Recovery mechanics and adds a little plausibility to combat with Wounds that require actual healing or bed rest to recover from.

 

[Celebrim]

Realistically, yes.

To make the game more fun, no.

For some peoples definition of fun.

When our group wants to subdue someone, 99% of the time we do standard lethal damage until the DM describes to us that it looks like he is about to fall any minute, then the last blow we make as nonlethal. Realistically we should have been doing nonlethal the entire time, but that would make the fight last twice as long.

But isn't that conceptually and perhaps even mechanically what you are advocating in 4e, with the only difference being a) that final blow where you pull your punch might not have to be at a penalty and b) you can always perfectly sense how much to pull your final blow to prevent it from being lethal. I would hope that 'a' is something we can both agree is fairly trivial. The only real disagreement seems to be over whether 'b', being somewhat unrealistic, adds to the fun by giving better correspondance between player intention and outcome or subtracts from it for the same reason. That is to say, are you the sort of player that prefers high heroics, being cool, and always getting what you want, or do you prefer the tension, difficulty, and realism of not always getting what you want?

There is no right answer there, and to a certain extent for me, it depends on the game I'm playing. But the new D&D is obviously not going to be the D&D I always played and in more than just mechanical changes.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

Preferably while saying something along the lines of, "I would sooner destroy a stained glass window as an artist like yourself. However, since I can't have you following me either..."

 

[Dragonblade]

Preferably while saying something along the lines of, "I would sooner destroy a stained glass window as an artist like yourself. However, since I can't have you following me either..."

Nice!

 

[Mort_Q]

That is to say, are you the sort of player that prefers high heroics, being cool, and always getting what you want, or do you prefer the tension, difficulty, and realism of not always getting what you want?

I prefer the tension, difficulty, and realism of not always getting what I want to come from the dice, and bad choices.

I like the cinematics, for lack of a better word, of being able to knock out the hired guard instead of killing him. Making subdual/non-lethal damage mechanically more difficult makes it a bad choice.

There is no right answer there, and to a certain extent for me, it depends on the game I'm playing. But the new D&D is obviously not going to be the D&D I always played and in more than just mechanical changes.

Certainly a different game, but for me, it's the one I was hoping for.