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

[Ydars]

Knocking someone out with an edged weapon is no harder than with a blunt weapon; most people's conception of bladed weapon combat is completely wrong and based on the nonsense from films. Alot of real sword combat involves half-swording (gripping the sword half way along (only when wearing gauntlets obviously)) and once you half sword you can so easily smash someone in the teeth or around the head with the pommel or hilt once you are inside their guard.

Or you can change grip and use the hilt to trip someone by hooking the hilt behind their knee and pulling them over (polearms were actually often used for this as well). There was even a stroke where you hold the blade in both hands and smash someone on the head with the hilt (it was known as the Mortenslag or murder stroke).

Grappling is also absolutely essential to sword combat and once you have beaten someone (overcome their resolve to fight) you could break arms, bring someone to their knees etc with a set of arm locks. If you have someone in this position, you can do what you like with them.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

No, it just makes it potentially a difficult choice. That is not the same thing.

 

[Celebrim]

Knocking someone out with an edged weapon is no harder than with a blunt weapon; most people's conception of bladed weapon combat is completely wrong and based on the nonsense from films. Alot of real sword combat involves half-swording (gripping the sword half way along (only when wearing gauntlets obviously)) and once you half sword you can so easily smash someone in the teeth or around the head with the pommel or hilt once you are inside their guard.

Or you can change grip and use the hilt to trip someone by hooking the hilt behind their knee and pulling them over (polearms were actually often used for this as well). There was even a stroke where you hold the blade in both hands and smash someone on the head with the hilt (it was known as the Mortenslag or murder stroke).

Grappling is also absolutely essential to sword combat and once you have beaten someone (overcome their resolve to fight) you could break arms, bring someone to their knees etc with a set of arm locks. If you have someone in this position, you can do what you like with them.

I have no doubt that you are correct in describing sword combat between two combatants in heavy armor using European weapons, but are you suggesting that everyone proficient in the sword is a master grappler?

And even if we accept all that you say to be true, it doesn't really get us out of the argument in any fashion. After all, I would have no problem with using a grappling technique (and thus using grappling mechanics) to subdue a nearly finished foe. But that isn't the option under consideration here. Likewise, I would freely assume some sword strokes might be bringing the hilt down on the skull of the foe, but would not from that assume that a 'Murder Stroke' is inherently more nonlethal and appropriate for subdueing someone than any other sort of effective sword blow.

 

[Mort_Q]

No, it just makes it potentially a difficult choice. That is not the same thing.

Fair enough.

I'd still rather not have to make that choice, as it really only affects the tone of the story. You still win the fight. The guard is still out of the way for the rest of the encounter/session. Maybe you'll regret it later, but that's a different story.

 

[Hussar]

Reading this thread, I really have to ask, "How often does this come up?"

I must be playing some weird games, because I cannot think of a single time, other than fighting AD&D dragons, where the PC's deliberately tried to go for subdual damage.

 

[Henry]

Reading this thread, I really have to ask, "How often does this come up?"

I must be playing some weird games, because I cannot think of a single time, other than fighting AD&D dragons, where the PC's deliberately tried to go for subdual damage.

I can think of one instance -- in early 3e, we fought a party of bounty hunters who were mistakenly (though legally) hunting us. We subdued them to prove to them we weren't the murderous cutthroats they were told we were, and we managed to parley with them once we had knocked the stuffing out of them with subdual damage.

Very fun, and different, encounter.

In regards to the question, given how hard it is to accidentally kill someone in 4e (knock them to -1/2 hit points) versus 3e (knock them to -10), I wouldn't even worry about it and just go ahead and wail on your foes till they're out, then heal them up. Even in the case of "one hit wonder" minons, just tell the DM you're not trying to kill them.

 

[hong]

In regards to the question, given how hard it is to accidentally kill someone in 4e (knock them to -1/2 hit points) versus 3e (knock them to -10), I wouldn't even worry about it and just go ahead and wail on your foes till they're out, then heal them up. Even in the case of "one hit wonder" minons, just tell the DM you're not trying to kill them.

NPCs and monsters die at 0 hp, just like in 3E.

What, you won't use this rule? How strange of you.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I like the new rule. It means an enemy falling to zero hitpoints is "defeated" rather than simply killed. It opens up a wider variety of possibilities for the outcome of a fight, so you no longer have to assume that every fight is a fight to the death. The old system was flawed because it gave a mechanical incentive for the heroes to be murderous rather than merciful. All it really did was add to the general problem of D&D "Lawful Good reckless murderers," something that I have always despised.

Anyways, the only two arguments I have seen for the "non-lethal at -4 penalty" are based on either simulationist arguments, or a desire to have D&D be a "grim and gritty" game where it is more difficult to be heroic and battles are lethal. I don't think either argument works.

The Simulationist argument fails simple because it exaggerates the added difficulty of subduing an opponent. Certainly it must be difficult to hold back on a strike so that it is not a lethal blow, but that added difficulty is probably absolutely trivial to the kind of truly remarkable warrior called a D&D PC. A high-level swordmaster PC is a far better swordsman than anyone ever seen in history. Someone who can defeat ancient monstrosities like the Tarrasque with a sword, or even lesser threats like hordes of raging orcs, should have no problem whatsoever going for a knock-out blow.

The "grim and gritty" argument (essentially the one Celebrim is making) falters simply because it is a matter of preference. I prefer a cinematic style where death isn't so certain and the hero always saves the day. Since the game as a whole is moving towards the style prefer and away from being grim and gritty, I see no reason for this particular issue to be any different.

Finally, regarding the "nonlethal Fireball" issue... I don't see it as a problem at all. Maybe it is because I have watched too much of the anime Fullmetal Alchemist and seen Roy Mustang the Fire Alchemist in action a few too many times, but I prefer the idea that magic is more like a blade in a swordsman's hand that can be precisely controlled than a grenade that always explodes the same way every time.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Well, actually in 3e, you tended to capture bad guys by having ONE party member hit the guy with subdual while everyone else went nuts. The number of times bad guys passed out due to critical greataxe crits...

 

[Terramotus]

Knocking someone out with an edged weapon is no harder than with a blunt weapon; most people's conception of bladed weapon combat is completely wrong and based on the nonsense from films. Alot of real sword combat involves half-swording (gripping the sword half way along (only when wearing gauntlets obviously)) and once you half sword you can so easily smash someone in the teeth or around the head with the pommel or hilt once you are inside their guard.

Or you can change grip and use the hilt to trip someone by hooking the hilt behind their knee and pulling them over (polearms were actually often used for this as well). There was even a stroke where you hold the blade in both hands and smash someone on the head with the hilt (it was known as the Mortenslag or murder stroke).

Grappling is also absolutely essential to sword combat and once you have beaten someone (overcome their resolve to fight) you could break arms, bring someone to their knees etc with a set of arm locks. If you have someone in this position, you can do what you like with them.

True enough, but you're actually talking more about 14th century and later techniques, which are based on larger weapons and heavier armor, and the tip of the sword being used to try to punch through the armor. In D&D, those are probably what I would term the bastard sword or the hand and a half sword. Earlier swords were shorter, and weren't used in that way so much. I'd call the longsword more of that type, although opinions can differ. I personally think the historical longsword is closer to the D&D bastard sword.

That said, how many of you have played tennis and found it unspeakably difficult to pivot the racket so that the face hits the ball at different angles? It's just as easy to strike with the flat of the blade.

I've got no problem with this.