First rule I don't like

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

"Ok, we need information!"

"...Oops."

You kidding? You gain a TON of stuff from capturing someone. Information, a hostage, potential leeway later on...there's a long list here. Quite frankly, if you don't see the mechanical benefits of subduing someone, why would you want to do it in the first place?

 

[LostSoul]

You kidding? You gain a TON of stuff from capturing someone. Information, a hostage, potential leeway later on...there's a long list here. Quite frankly, if you don't see the mechanical benefits of subduing someone, why would you want to do it in the first place?

DM fiat has little to do with mechanics.

You might want to do it because you want to play a merciful character. Or one with a torture fetish. Either way.

 

[marune]

DM fiat has little to do with mechanics.

You might want to do it because you want to play a merciful character. Or one with a torture fetish. Either way.

And if you get a clue needed to fulfill an optional minor quest ?

 

[LostSoul]

And if you get a clue needed to fulfill an optional minor quest ?

Hmm. Yeah, in that situation, there is a mechanical benefit to subduing someone.

 

[Sir Brennen]

You kidding? You gain a TON of stuff from capturing someone. Information, a hostage, potential leeway later on...there's a long list here. Quite frankly, if you don't see the mechanical benefits of subduing someone, why would you want to do it in the first place?

It's not a mechanical benefit... it's a story benefit. Or no benefit. Up to the DM.

Only thing I don't like is I've seen games grind to a halt with characters (and players) debating what to do with the prisoner *after* they've gotten all the info out of him they can.

 

[Dire Lemming]

The main problem I see with this rule from an as unbiased a perspective as I can muster is that it makes it much harder for DMs to railroad the players into killing everything while making it appear as if they have a choice.

Of course in my opinion it's another needless dumbing down that really doesn't make the game for fun in any meaningful way.

 

[hong]

The only thing that this rule might require is the DM making it clear up-front that capturing people willy-nilly will not provide a significant benefit. Just to avoid endless prisoner wrangles.

 

[Korgoth]

How do you subdue someone with a crossbow bolt?

I hope the rule isn't as stupid as it sounds in the OP's paraphrase. Or else it's getting nixed.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Of course in my opinion it's another needless dumbing down that really doesn't make the game for fun in any meaningful way.

Really?

Fighter: "Remember, we don't want to kill them, we should do non-lethal damage to them, we want to question them afterwords!"

Ranger: "Agreed. Wait. They have an AC of 30, I need 14s to hit them with my bow and I have weapon focus, and a dex of 20. I have a strength of 10 and no magic melee weapons. I'll need 20s to hit them, even if I don't take the -4 for doing non-lethal. Guess I'll roll a dice each round in the hopes I roll a 20. If I DO hit, I'll do 1d8 non-lethal against a creature with 81 hitpoints."

Fighter: "Well, you could always just keep shooting with your bow, and I'll be doing non-lethal. Then, hopefully he won't die."

Wizard: "What do I do? I can't do non-lethal and none of my spells are non-lethal."

Fighter: "Do the same thing as the Ranger."

(2 rounds of combat later)

Ranger: "Woo hoo...I crit, I do THREE times my normal damage. That's...58."

DM: "Alright, that puts him down. Unfortunately, he had 1 hitpoint left. He's taken 40 points of non-lethal, 40 points of lethal and he had 81 hitpoints total. The 58 takes him to -17 with real damage killing him."

Fighter: "What did you DO? Remember, we wanted him ALIVE. How are we going to figure out who killed the King now? He was our ONLY lead! How could you be so stupid?"

Ranger: "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to roll a crit! I just got lucky!"

Fighter: "There's nothing lucky about that crit!"

VS

Ranger: "I hit, I do 27 damage with my attack."

DM: "That drops him, would you like him dead or unconscious?"

Fighter: "Remember, he might be the only one to know who killed the King, keep him alive."

Ranger: "Alright, unconscious then."

-----

I can certainly see the second option being a lot more fun, causing less ill will, and making it easier for the DM to guess whether players will have access to information or not. Since he won't have to rewrite future portions of the adventure to account for the fact that the one guy with the info "accidentally" died.

 

[Blackeagle]

How do you subdue someone with a crossbow bolt?

You shoot them then you patch up the wound before they bleed out.