Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7217850" data-attributes="member: 6775031">It's not the worst rule ever. It's a lot of complexity for a scenario that isn't likely to come up very much. I can't imagine that I would draw the line there, unless this person feels very strongly about their preferred definition of Hit Points.The only user-unfriendly part of the rule that I can see is that you don't always know whether your attack will be the final one until after you hit and deal damage. If the enemy is at 70/210, and you really want to take them alive, then you might feel obligated to attack at disadvantage even though you're in no danger of killing them either way. Or even if you somehow know that they only have 10hp left, if your attack is for 1d8+5, then you might suffer disadvantage and roll 9 for damage anyway.Honestly, if I was playing in a game with that rule and really wanted to take someone alive, I would just ignore the subdual option entirely. Go ahead and nuke them as hard as you possibly can, because nobody actually dies until they go fully negative of their maximum hit points, and you can always stabilize them immediately before they bleed out. Given how easy it is to keep someone alive at zero, it's hard to justify the extra hoops.</blockquote>