I'm going to knock you out..!

[Dayspire]

I have little problem with adventurers going for knock-out blows on their enemies. Heck, it makes for great RPG moments. But the one area I do have a problem is how easy it is. The rules state that if the damage you do to someone is enough to kill, you can instead decide to knock them unconscious. At issue for me is ranged weapons (like the crossbow) and area effect attacks (such as fireball).

Remember - this is an intentional attempt to render someone unconscious. This is not an accidental case of the arrow creasing the head of the foe and fortuitously knocking him/her out. I can see this easily enough with a melee weapon (hilt of the sword, etc) - but with a crossbow bolt? Please, tell me why I shouldn't house rule this.*




* Note, that if I were to houserule this, there would be exceptions to the above rule. Someone crafting a "knockout arrow" for the specific purpose of taking their foe alive is an exception I can live with.

 

[Tale]

Explain to me how a number of crossbow bolts that is of number sufficient to kill an enemy -1 leaves the enemy capable of moving around and taking a swing at me as if I hadn't shot him at all and I'll explain why the next crossbow bolt doesn't kill him, either.

My answer will be summarized easily as "I only wounded him enough that he can't fight back."

 

[generalhenry]

Please, tell me why I shouldn't house rule this.

Balance and easy of play.

 

[Wormwood]

Please, tell me why I shouldn't house rule this.*

If house ruling this makes the game more fun for you and your players, then go ahead.

But if you are just adding a layer of complexity for no net benefit, I'd ask you to rexamine your premise.

 

[Oompa]

You can discuss all you want.. but it is the same as why an level 30 character can take more then 30 bolts point blank to his naked chest and not die..

But if you want an reall opinion..

You can rule.. that if you hit 0 hp you become unconscious because of bloodloss..
If an player say's he attend to the wounds, the creature lives and can be bound..
If an player leaves the creature alone, it dies..

 

[scholz]

You can rule.. that if you hit 0 hp you become unconscious because of bloodloss..
If an player say's he attend to the wounds, the creature lives and can be bound..
If an player leaves the creature alone, it dies..

This strikes me as the sensible position. Just like PCs that won't typically die if they hit 0hps, NPCs and creatures could be rescued. The advantage of this, is that you, the DM, can rule that the NPC dies (because they waited too long, or it would be good for the plot, or because you don't want the PCs to be to cavalier with using powers on random villagers). If it is important to the plot that they KO someone (to get information, or because he was possessed or whatever) you have that power, if not , they just die.
It seems quite easy that way. The only trick, as GM is to be consistent with it. If you kill the NPCs (or PCs whoever) punitively, the players will resent it.

 

[Cadfan]

I can see where a problem could occur, but I find that DM judgment and player judgment cover this pretty well. Remember, it doesn't have to mean "knocked out" as in a hard blow to the skull that leaves one unconscious. It could mean "knocked out of the fight but not dead," which can occur in lots of ways.

Easiest: Hammer: "You smack the hobgoblin upside the head, and he drops like a stone."
Medium: Sword: "You stab the hobgoblin in the shoulder, and as he looks down in agony, you club him upside the head with the hilt. He drops like a stone."
Hard: Fireball: "The blast of flame hits the hobgoblin in the dead center of his chest, and the blast flings him backwards to the floor."
Hardest: Crossbow: "Your crossbow bolt catches the hobgoblin in the shoulder. It spins in a circle from the impact, and collapses to the floor moaning."

Its all in how you describe things. And if you can't come up with a description, just rule that it doesn't work.

 

[DracoSuave]

The funny thing is it almost in practiced worked the same way in 3e. Non-lethal and lethal damage didn't matter, so long as -one- point of damage leading to their defeat was non-lethal, it'd end in a knockout rather than dying.

 

[zlorf]

Hows this for a house rule:
If someone/something was reduced to 0 hit points with a critical hit, then they usually die. The player doesnt have the option to say that the attack wasn't fatal and that it was trying to knock them out only.
Cheers
Sami

I have little problem with adventurers going for knock-out blows on their enemies. Heck, it makes for great RPG moments. But the one area I do have a problem is how easy it is. The rules state that if the damage you do to someone is enough to kill, you can instead decide to knock them unconscious. At issue for me is ranged weapons (like the crossbow) and area effect attacks (such as fireball).

Remember - this is an intentional attempt to render someone unconscious. This is not an accidental case of the arrow creasing the head of the foe and fortuitously knocking him/her out. I can see this easily enough with a melee weapon (hilt of the sword, etc) - but with a crossbow bolt? Please, tell me why I shouldn't house rule this.*




* Note, that if I were to houserule this, there would be exceptions to the above rule. Someone crafting a "knockout arrow" for the specific purpose of taking their foe alive is an exception I can live with.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Remember - this is an intentional attempt to render someone unconscious. This is not an accidental case of the arrow creasing the head of the foe and fortuitously knocking him/her out. I can see this easily enough with a melee weapon (hilt of the sword, etc) - but with a crossbow bolt? Please, tell me why I shouldn't house rule this.*

What makes you say it's intentional? Intentional on the part of the player maybe, but that doesn't mean it's not a lucky accident in the game universe or that the PC is consciously attempting to take someone alive. Unless they are.