House Rule: Subdual

[TerraDave]

Subdual: Striking to avoid killing imposes a -1 penalty to hit and damage. If dropped to 0 HP, the NPC lives if they save. They receive a +2 on the save if the final blow was with a blunt weapon, unarmed attack, or psychic damage. Dragons receive an additional +2.

Rational: The current rule feels a little more "storyish" then I like in D&D, and, if taken in a "gamist" way, creates a moral dilema for the PCs: why not spare more opponents? Given that I was revisiting this, I took the chance to throw in the other bits.

 

[malcolm_n]

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the current rules. As it stands, a character can choose when he drops an opponent to 0 hit points if that opponent is just "knocked out" or killed. Is this wherein the problem lies? I just don't get why the character would suffer a penalty for trying to keep somebody alive; imho it'd encourage more characters to outright kill their enemies.

 

[Pyrex]

I'm with malcom. What exactly about the current rule rubs you the wrong way? What are you trying to fix?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Subdual: Striking to avoid killing imposes a -1 penalty to hit and damage. If dropped to 0 HP, the NPC lives if they save. They receive a +2 on the save if the final blow was with a blunt weapon, unarmed attack, or psychic damage. Dragons receive an additional +2.

Rational: The current rule feels a little more "storyish" then I like in D&D, and, if taken in a "gamist" way, creates a moral dilema for the PCs: why not spare more opponents? Given that I was revisiting this, I took the chance to throw in the other bits.

So... is your problem that you don't like having to make combat NPCs speak? Because this rule is just likely to make PCs never ever take targets alive.

 

[TerraDave]

Interesting.

Do your PCs actually take a lot of prisoners? And if not why not?

There are two issues, are there ways to spare NPCs, and why is there so much killing in this game?

My PCs, through various editions, can take prisoners if they really want to. This rule may force them to be a little more creative in doing so, but thats ok. And of course, someone can surrender before dropping to 0. (ie act normally).

But the rule as written begs the question as to why all damage isn't non-lethal (like a supers game, or the A-team), or, to put it in real world terms, why isn't non-lethal force being used. Normally, the answer to that is: its the only way to stop the enemy who is going to kill you. This is an ancient, time tested concept that goes way beyond the game. But if the rules say otherwise, why are the PCs so murderous?

 

[malcolm_n]

Yes, there are ways to spare NPC's which are well defined within the rules of the game as early as the PH1. You can use Diplomacy or Intimidate in an attempt to put a bloodied enemy out of battle, so long as you share a language with said character; or, as stated above, you can just choose to knock the opponent out when it's reduced to 0 hit points instead of killing it.

How you fluff the damage dealt up to the point of reducing an enemy to bloodied or 0 hit points is entirely up to you. Mind you, bloodied doesn't mean bleeding in a literal sense; from a subdual standpoint, consider it as Winded; thus second wind which lets characters catch their breath while being defensive for a round.

 

[Pyrex]

Knocking Creatures Unconscious

When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it. Until it regains hit points, the creature is unconscious but not dying. Any healing makes the creature conscious. If the creature doesn’t receive any healing, it is restored to 1 hit point and becomes conscious after a short rest.

In what's essentially a frontier-justice system, PC's don't usually take prisoners because it's impossible to care for them.

You're on a mission to save the princess. Two-thirds of the way to the evil lair the party is beset by a dozen bandits. Great, now you've got a dozen prisoners. What are you going to do with them?

You don't have the time to take them back to town, and if you did, the town can't afford to jail them. Your party also probably also doesn't have the resources to spare dragging prisoners along on the quest with them.

In most games I've been in, there are very few reasons for taking prisoners:

a) They're someone important and there is an explicit reward (or some other good reason) to bring them back alive.
b) One out of a band may be taken prisoner to be questioned.

We have also, (usually for one of the cases above) sometimes used either Diplomacy or Intimidate to request a surrender.

 

[malcolm_n]

In one of our campaigns in particular, we had a paladin who would insist we not kill the bad guys when we beat them. He said that, instead, we should let them hash out the problem with nature and leave them in nothing but their birthday suit. Not a huge deal for the longest time...

Then suddenly we entered a bar one night and there was a table of the guys we'd defeated. They had actually been given a ride to town shortly after they came to and found their dilemma. They thanked us for letting them live and offered to buy us a round of drinks. We declined, just in case, but said our farewells and suggested they not get mixed up with the BBEG any more.

 

[TerraDave]

In what's essentially a frontier-justice system, PC's don't usually take prisoners because it's impossible to care for them.

You're on a mission to save the princess. Two-thirds of the way to the evil lair the party is beset by a dozen bandits. Great, now you've got a dozen prisoners. What are you going to do with them?

You don't have the time to take them back to town, and if you did, the town can't afford to jail them. Your party also probably also doesn't have the resources to spare dragging prisoners along on the quest with them.

In most games I've been in, there are very few reasons for taking prisoners:

a) They're someone important and there is an explicit reward (or some other good reason) to bring them back alive.
b) One out of a band may be taken prisoner to be questioned.

We have also, (usually for one of the cases above) sometimes used either Diplomacy or Intimidate to request a surrender.

The idea behind the house-rule is to reinforce this style of play. In most cases, you won't need to worry about prisoners, they aren't an option given the use of lethal force. (and if you still need to take them, you can as noted).

The RAW as written gives two alternatives: a very grim version were one intentional killing stroke after another is administered or a supers style where actual death is rare. Those may be OK, but I think the "D&D genre" should fall in between them.

 

[Pyrex]

Sorry, but I'm still not clear on what it is you're really trying to accomplish here.

Are you saying that because PC's rarely take prisoners anyway, you want to make it mechanically harder to take prisoners?

Or that, for story reasons in your game, you want it to be hard to take prisoners?

Or just that, in general, you think the RAW just makes it too easy/safe to take prisoners?