First rule I don't like

[D'karr]

As the DM if the rule bothers you so much you could house rule that at 0 hit points you can attempt to subdue them. But if you do not provide "healing" within 3 rounds the target will probably die anyway and you have to "tie them up" or something similar.

When a "subdued" opponent goes to 0 roll 3 times for them unless you roll a nat 20 the target dies if "first aid is not given". If you roll a 20 give them a healing surge (even if they don't have one) and let them get back up and start fighting again or run away.

This should never work with mooks (minions) they will always die.

How do you subdue with a crossbow? Shoot him in the foot and just cause him to go into shock. It still has the possibility of killing him but is not immediately lethal. Its all in the description as hit points are abstract.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

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?

So...it opens up opportunities for actual role-playing (as opposed to "roll-playing")? And this is a bad thing?

 

[SableWyvern]

So...it opens up opportunities for actual role-playing (as opposed to "roll-playing")? And this is a bad thing?

For some people, yes it is a bad thing. The fact that it "opens up opportunities for actual role-playing" is completely irrelevant to that issue. Getting into some elitist "roll vs roleplaying" argument doesn't help your case at all -- in fact, it shows you've completely missed the point.

Being able to negotiate with mindless, killer statues also "opens up opportunities for roleplaying". Doesn't mean it makes sense or would be a good thing to introduce as the norm.

For some of us, being able to subdue enemies by simpe player fiat causes complications and damages suspension of belief (the latter, btw, makes "role" playing harder and/or less fun for some people). Some play styles will be enhanced by the new subdual rules, and others will be diminished. In either case, "Opportunities for roleplaying" have nothing to do with it.

 

[hong]

For some of us, being able to subdue enemies by simpe player fiat causes complications and damages suspension of belief (the latter, btw, makes "role" playing harder and/or less fun for some people). Some play styles will be enhanced by the new subdual rules, and others will be diminished. In either cas, "Opportunities for roleplaying" have nothing to do with it.

There is no more "player fiat" involved in subduing than there is in deciding "I want to attack". As opposed to, you know, "I don't want to attack".

 

[Pbartender]

Let's use the rules we have to get what we want, shall we?

• Unless otherwise specified, characters deal lethal damage with their attacks and will kill a target when its hit points drop to 0 or lower.
• If a player specifies that their character is dealing non-lethal damage before the attack is resolved, the attack cannot kill the target, but will instead knock the target unconscious if its hit points drop to 0 or lower.
• If a player decides to deal non-lethal damage after the attack is resolved for any attack drops the target to 0 hit points or lower, then the target must make an immediate saving throw. Success indicates the target is inconscious, failure means the target dies.

Simple enough.

 

[Byronic]

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.

No, the real question is how do you subdue someone with a fireball. Or with Witchfire. I'm sure you can gently burn out his mind...

 

[Pbartender]

Oops. Mispost.

 

[SableWyvern]

Hi Hong. I've been away from EnWorld for a long time, and I've missed you. (Although I didn't realise that until I arrived back here.)

There is no more "player fiat" involved in subduing than there is in deciding "I want to attack". As opposed to, you know, "I don't want to attack".

Correct, to a point.

If one presumes that Gug the Paladin has more control over his ability to attack or not attack than his ability to successfully subdue or unsuccessfully subdue, then it may follow that Gug's player should have more control over the former than the latter.

The biggest problem I have with the subdual rules is this, though -- assuming the PCs have time to interrogate their captives, subduing is almost always of greater benefit than killing. Easy subdual also makes it very difficult to have the party attacked by ninjas sent by an anonymous enemy for unknown reasons, without giving the game away as soon as the encounter ends.

Preventing captured opponents from giving away too much information is fairly trivial - perhaps they don't know anything worthwhile, or are immune to intimidation. However, IMO, persistently using these techniques disempowers players and is far more artificial than making subdual more difficult in the first place. And PCs acting intelligently will be subduing all the time if it's easy to do. Player's metagaming to prevent this situation is another solution, but I like to avoid placing players in situations where they feel the need to make sub-optimal choices.

If subdual is more difficult, players are forced with a choice -- take the harder route for greater reward, or the easy, lower risk route with less reward. That, to me, is a nice, simple, in-built balance that sweeps all these issues away.

For those who like the subdual rules, go for it, I say. For me, they don't work.

 

[LowSpine]

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.

Besides there is nothing to say the creature wants to be taken prisoner.

'You'll never take me alive.'

Roll dex vs relflex to knock the dagger from his hand.

Or any number of ways to deal with this sort of thing.

Another thought - if you opt to subdue at the end rather than just kill then your opponent should have a save (or something similar) to get a healing surge type effect.

Rinse and repeat until you manage to subdue him or give up and just kill him. This way you will not accidentally kill an enemy you really want to capture - but you will have to work for it.

It will be about more player choice rather than 'doh, I hate this game.'

 

[hong]

Hi Hong. I've been away from EnWorld for a long time, and I've missed you. (Although I didn't realise that until I arrived back here.)



Correct, to a point.

If one presumes that Gug the Paladin has more control over his ability to attack or not attack than his ability to successfully subdue or unsuccessfully subdue, then it may follow that Gug's player should have more control over the former than the latter.

The biggest problem I have with the subdual rules is this, though -- assuming the PCs have time to interrogate their captives, subduing is almost always of greater benefit than killing. Easy subdual also makes it very difficult to have the party attacked by ninjas sent by an anonymous enemy for unknown reasons, without giving the game away as soon as the encounter ends.

The preferred solution is to make it clear, out of game, that pointless capturing and interrogating won't achieve anything; in particular, mooks are almost certainly not going to have/know anything worthwhile. I've certainly never had problems with people subduing everyone they fight -- unless it's a bar fight like in Crouching Tiger, where you WANT people to be able to KO without killing.

As for ninjae, that's why smart operators always work through intermediaries. Any DM who's had to deal with the issues of speak with dead should be familiar with this.

Preventing captured opponents from giving away too much information is fairly trivial - perhaps they don't know anything worthwhile, or are immune to intimidation. However, IMO, persistently using these techniques disempowers players and is far more artificial than making subdual more difficult in the first place. And PCs acting intelligently will be subduing all the time if it's easy to do. Player's metagaming to prevent this situation is another solution, but I like to avoid placing players in situations where they feel the need to make sub-optimal choices.

Whether something is optimal or suboptimal is entirely up to you. If capturing all the time is suboptimal, then no disruptive metagaming is involved.