Hitting to subdue and criticals

[Mort]

In the .would this be evil? thread a secondary topic seems to be a recurring issue.

When someone attacks to subdue and rolls a critical hit, should there be any chance of killing the target?
[edit: the relevant quote from the post]

You hit her with the back of your sword to subdue her, but crits. the DM rules that you hit her so hard that she is bludgeopned to death.

[edit]

Before the prev. thread I thought the answer was pretty cut and dried, but there seems to be a disagreement going on so I thought I’d open it up for general discussion.

 

[Speaker]

Correct me if I'm wrong (please do! I want to know!), but the threshold between knocking a human unconscious and killing them outright is supposed to be fairly low under some situations.

For example, those few seconds while blocking someone's windpipe, the minute difference in the forces used to club someone over the head, so on and so forth.

Perhaps this should translate into a chance for failure when knocking someone else. Or perhaps that's just going into too much detail in what should remain an abstract system.

What do ya all think?

 

[jgbrowning]

well, this probably belongs in the rules board.

but my answer is that, no subdual crits can't accidentaly kill. You take a peanalty to hit because your're trying to not do real damage. If you hit, you always do subdual damage never real damage.

but, the idea could be an interesting house rule.

personally i'd rather say that when attacking, if you'd have hit with a regular attack, but you missed due the subdual attempt to hit peanlty, you hit and do REAL damage. makes trying to knock out people more dangerous and IMHO more realistic.

joe b.

 

[Tsyr]

Correct me if I'm wrong (please do! I want to know!), but the threshold between knocking a human unconscious and killing them outright is supposed to be fairly low under some situations.

For example, those few seconds while blocking someone's windpipe, the minute difference in the forces used to club someone over the head, so on and so forth.

Perhaps this should translate into a chance for failure when knocking someone else. Or perhaps that's just going into too much detail in what should remain an abstract system.

What do ya all think?

No no, I agree that there should be a chance of the death happening. I just disagree that it should be on a critical hit (20), which is a critical success to me. Best possible result. A critical fumble (1) should be the killing blow.

I'm not exactly sure how that last bit stands up when held up to the existing rules, granted, but that's how I run it, and that's how my players like it.

 

[Corinth]

The GM may've goat-screwed the PCs with that call. A critical hit when a character strikes to subdue cannot kill the target unless all of the following applies:

1. The target takes subdual damage in excess of his hit points.
2. The target then--using the same damage pool--takes enough normal damage to drop his HP total to zero.
3. The target--ditto--then has his HP total drop below zero, and either he bleeds out (i.e. fails all of his stablization checks, so he hit -10 HP and dies) or is slain outright by the blow (i.e. takes subdual damage equal to (HPx2)+10).

Given that the target in the other thread is said to be a child, it is not unreasonable for that threshold to be as low as 12 (1 HP x2, and then another -10 or more). That's doable if the weapon used was a longsword, and the wielder had damage bonuses w/ that weapon. (1d8+2 is enough to hit that threshold w/ a critical hit, using average damage: 2d8+4 averages to 13 damage.)

I can't say for certain if the GM screwed the PCs with that call unless the GM had the PC in question inflict normal damage, not subdual, with that blow. (If this if so, then the GM is in the wrong and the players have quite a case against him for falsing making a bad situation worse.) I'd have to see the relevant stats (HP of victim & damage roll of PC) to be certain.

 

[Janos Audron]

Corinth, is that in the PHB or is that a houserule?

I'm pretty sure all damage you do is subdual, even if you crit, even if you roll a 20 - 20 - hit (I'd give HP + 10 subdual damage, but I don't think there are any rules supporting that).

I don't think it'd be a good idea to let an attack for subdual damage deal normal damage on a crit. It might be more realistic, but as a player, you can just get the wrong result (a crit this time) where you could least use it...

And besides, with magic, who cares about reality ...

 

[S'mon]

I care about reality (more than about the letter of the rules) - D&D is a roleplaying game, not a tactical wargame, suspension of disbelief is more important IMO than a poorly worded combat rule. I agree that subdual hits in combat should be treated like other subdual damage, so damage in excess of the target's hp is 'real', at least assuming you're using a lethal weapon like an iron bar or sword (a sap blow might kill, but this should be rarer - maybe on a 20). Ergo if the target has 2 hp and takes 14 hp damage from a subdual strike, that would kill them. I think generally victims shouldn't 'bleed out' from a subdual blow so if they took 13 hp dmg and were reduced to -9, they'd be stable at -9.

 

[Darkness]

well, this probably belongs in the rules board.

Exactly my take on it as well.

Moved.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Can someone remind me where the rule about subdual damage "turning real" when you accumulate enough is? I can never find it

-Hyp.

 

[Darkness]

Can someone remind me where the rule about subdual damage "turning real" when you accumulate enough is? I can never find it

-Hyp.

I'm not sure whether it even does.

PHB, p.135: When your subdual damage exceeds your current hit points, you fall to the floor unconscious.

Nothing more is given...