D&D 5E House Rule for Subdual, is it fair?

[CapnZapp]

You're making it more difficult to inflict subdual damage, which means you are going to discourage subdual damage.

Is that your goal? Is the prevalence of subdual damage really derailing your campaign that badly?

If not, just switch it back to the book rule.

Don't assume there's a problem here. You can add a rule because you like the look and feel.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

When there's literally no barrier to taking someone alive, it presents a moral dilemma whenever you choose to kill someone. Under default 5E rules, if you get jumped by normal bandits, then you should probably just subdue them all and turn them into the authorities (or whatever); taking them alive is just as easy as taking them dead, and unnecessary death should be avoided, but it involves a lot more grunt work that some players might find boring.

If you introduce some sort of penalty - even as small as -1 on the attack roll - then you are morally justified in going for the kill. Since trying to subdue them would increase the chance that they instead kill you, you can go ahead and just kill them in self-defense, and now you don't have to worry about dealing with prisoners or anything.

Except now you've put words in the mouth of the OP.

It's much more likely the group likes there to be a cost to be lenient and moral, as opposed to your general murderhobo.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Are you not giving the player advantage effectively? "I try to subdue... an 8 and a 20? Well, that 8 seems low so I guess it is a lethal blow."

I don't like the proposed solution either. You are correct - it encourages murderhoboing, which I suspect is directly contrary to the goals of introducing it in the first place.

(I like a simple -2 before the roll better)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ganymede81]

Don't assume there's a problem here. You can add a rule because you like the look and feel.

You can add a rule for any reason you want. It does not change the calculus here.

Does the benefit of the rule variant outweigh the game group friction it has caused? If no, just drop it.

 

[Blue]

First, does replace the existing rule that when you knock someone to zero you can declare them unconscious, or does that still exist and this is ... well, a way to make sure that it's not just the last person to attack who gets to say if someone is dead or unconscious.

As a side note, by declaring subdual and then not going for it, I'm getting advantage on every weapon damage die I roll. In other words, if I abuse the rule by declaring and then backing out every time I get the higher of the weapon dice. From that perspective the rule is horribly crafted, regardless of it's intent.

 

[CapnZapp]

You can add a rule for any reason you want. It does not change the calculus here.

Does the benefit of the rule variant outweigh the game group friction it has caused? If no, just drop it.

I'm not defending the rule. Particularly that variant.

But I'm also not too keen on players saying "do this or I'll walk". The correct response in all those scenarios is to reply "know what? I was open to compromise but your ultimatum made up my mind. The rule stays with the express hope it means you'll keep your promise to walk away"

Cheers

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Waterbizkit]

Short & sweet: this rule isn't my cup of tea. We just run RAW when it comes to knocking opponents unconscious. While I don't like it, that doesn't make it bad and it's not necessarily something that would chase me away from your table either.

That said, it seems like it works well for the majority of your group so I'd say stick with it. Making the game your own can be one of the most fun and interesting parts of it, and in this case it seems to be working. That the one dissenter has decided to give his opinion by issuing an "all or nothing" style ultimatum, an extreme move on their part, tells me you're better off keeping things as they are.

 

[jasper]

It is an okay rule which I have no problem since the house agreed to it. New player has 3 options.
1. Bye bye.
2. Stay but don't use the house rule.
3. Stay and shut it over this rule.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I think it's a bit of a needless complication for my taste. Perhaps if you want to give the option of having the players have disadvantage with the option of still hitting for damage, it's a new action, Disadvantage on the roll, but nat 20 always hits for lethal. Knocking someone out in the midst on combat while they are most likely trying to kill you, is not easy, even for well trained combatants.
I usually ask my players intentions so I can descibe the combat as the rolls are made. If they are fighting to subdue I can give that feedback in the push and pull of combat. You can also use a rule for dying monsters/creatures that they have 3 rounds, or maybe 1d3 rounds ( or some combination ) until actual death to represent their death saves. I've used it where even with players trying to take prisoners, they dropped creatures in one hit that then bleed out over the next few rounds and died during combat anyways. Once they were trying to subdue, but crit the poor lug of a goblin for three times his health.

 

[Ganymede81]

I'm not defending the rule. Particularly that variant.

But I'm also not too keen on players saying "do this or I'll walk". The correct response in all those scenarios is to reply "know what? I was open to compromise but your ultimatum made up my mind. The rule stays with the express hope it means you'll keep your promise to walk away"

I thought the OP didn't want us getting into that player's attitude.