First rule I don't like

[DJCupboard]

While I don't find anything problematic with this rule, I do find the image of a heavily armored adventurer trundling through a dungeon, happening upon relatively powerful bugbear, stabbing him in the intestines with a large sword as hard as he can a few times, and then deciding to just bonk him on the head with his pommel.

 

[psionotic]

And I hate systems that mechanically penalize players for trying to be merciful.

I agree with you completely... I just don't like it when PCs 'decide' to be merciful after the fact, when it becomes suddenly convenient for them to do so. If killing is intentional, then sparing lives should be as well, I think.


Besides, some PCs would take the 'merciful' approach as a way to torture those they have 'spared' for information that they won't give willingly. Sick, but true.

 

[Vendark]

Why? It's a LOT easier to just run someone through then to subdue them. And quite frankly, you gain MUCH more by capturing someone, so yeah, it should be harder.

Because a game about fantasy heroes shouldn't make it harder for characters to act like heroes than sociopathic murder machines.

I don't care if it's "more realistic." How often do heroes in fiction accidentally kill people they're trying to subdue?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

While imperfect, it is no more imperfect overall that what we lived with for decades. Just imperfect in a different way.

At least this has the redeeming factor of being an incredibly simple rule to employ.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Because a game about fantasy heroes shouldn't make it harder for characters to act like heroes than sociopathic murder machines.

I don't care if it's "more realistic." How often do heroes in fiction accidentally kill people they're trying to subdue?

How often do heroes in fiction not try to kill someone? Honestly now?

And the only time it happens, it happens because they wanted to do so from the very beginning of the fight and held themselves back the entire time.

 

[hong]

I've been doing it this way already. Curse WotC for making a rule that matches my own house rule! AGAIN.

 

[Traken]

I've been doing it this way already. Curse WotC for making a rule that matches my own house rule! AGAIN.

Thank you for coming up with the house rule in the first place.

Not that I'll ever get to use it. If it's ugly enough, my party kills it.

 

[LostSoul]

Why? It's a LOT easier to just run someone through then to subdue them. And quite frankly, you gain MUCH more by capturing someone, so yeah, it should be harder.

You don't gain anything more mechanically by capturing someone.

Whether or not you gain any more fluff from capturing them is the DM's decision, as already stated, so I don't see the big deal.

 

[marune]

Whether or not you gain any more fluff from capturing them is the DM's decision, as already stated, so I don't see the big deal.

It can be a big deal in a "solve the mystery in a way written in stone" kind of adventure.

Of course, IMHO, no important clues should be given without a check. (pure fluff, no problem).

 

[Izerath]

I don't see what the problem is. Prisoners don't know anything the DM doesn't want them to know, so it's not like this rule is going to bring any plots crashing down.

And I hate systems that mechanically penalize players for trying to be merciful.

I happen to think this is a wise answer, but I also must add.....

Who says that this is only an option for the players! I like it, because as a DM I don't have to kill my PCs, and I can capture them instead!!! And on a WHIM!

MWAHAHA!!!!!