Making it easier NOT to kill people...

[Kahuna Burger]

I'd like to come up with a set of comprehensive house rules for making it easier to subdue or capture enemies in D&D. I perfer that it not involve feats that people have to take, because I just want it to be a realistic option for someone who hasn't dedicated their character concept to non leathal damage. A few of the idea's I came up with...

Move some weapons around. Saps become simple weapons, nets and bolas are martial, and druids have access to nets as one of their class weapons. Maybe move the whip all the way down from exotic to simple, cause its a commoner's tool just like a sickle...

Adjust the subdual rules, so that the -4 penalty is for doing subdual damage with peircing weapons, slashing weapons take a -2 or -3 and bludgeoning weapons take -1 or -2.

Consider saying that out of every standard damage attack, one point of it is sudual instead... This would give you a situation where going unconsious prior to dying would be the default, without significantly changing the length or difficulty of combat.

Add spells for every class at each level where they have an equivelent leathal damage dealing or combat enhancing spell that will do subdual damage or enhance the ability of allies to subdue/capture.

Standard alchemal and magical items/substances to negate or impair the power of captured enemy spellcasters.

Any suggestions on implementing the above, critiques of balance or further ideas welcome...

Kahuna burger

 

[Mallus]

I think the biggest problem facing a character dedicated to non-[or semi]-violence is the DM. Thus most of the soultions lie is his or her hands.

Mechanical solutions only get you so far. In the end you need a DM willing to create opponents who do novel things like flee when overmatched or critcially wounded. Or even --gasp-- surrender. And there needs to be some kind of social/cultural contract that makes surrender [or some form of combat resolution that doesn't end in the losing side dead] viable.

Too many DM's --that I've seen-- run worlds in which the opponents fight with the robotic valor of videogame enemies [whose wholesale slaughter is morally unambiguous thanks to "alignment"]. That's just so much less interesting...

Here's a suggestion; allow certain groups access to unpenalized non-leathal attacks, but treat there devotion like a religious vow. Bind them to it. So the advantage is couple with a disadvantage. That should work nicely. But again, only in a game that isn't purely kill-or-be-killed.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think the biggest problem facing a character dedicated to non-[or semi]-violence is the DM. Thus most of the soultions lie is his or her hands.

Mechanical solutions only get you so far. In the end you need a DM willing to create opponents who do novel things like flee when overmatched or critcially wounded. Or even --gasp-- surrender. And there needs to be some kind of social/cultural contract that makes surrender [or some form of combat resolution that doesn't end in the losing side dead] viable.

well, I will be the DM in this case, and I do need mechanical options... I think you are underestimating the mechanical hurdles for anyone but a monk capturing foes, especially at low levels.

Also, while surrender is nice, and I use it when logical, it isn't always (or maybe even usually) the issue. In a LEW game, we are facing innocents warped by vile magics to indeed attack us with robotic insistance, and my character would very much like to subdue rather than kill them so she can work on a cure. Both the actions of the enemies, and my characters desires are fine, there's nothing wrong with the way the game is run, it is a mechanical issue that makes it almost impossible for the cleric's goals to be carried out...

The big vow option is a possible mechanic, though as I said, I don't neccassarily want it to be feat based or something you have to take a special class to do... The roleplaying side I'm just fine on, I posted to House Rules not General to talk about how to make it work with the rules.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Piratecat]

Hmmm. I'll disagree about the whip; those suckers definitely require special training to use effectively. If someone handed you a club and me a whip, you'd beat the stuffing out of me.

I like the fact that blunt weapons are easier to use for subdual damage. I would use -4/-3/-2 for piercing/slashing/blunt.

I really dislike the idea of mixed subdual/normal damage in a regular attack. Tracking subdual is a pain in the butt in the best of circumstances, and this would be overly complex for me.

I think there is no reason that any normal damage-doing spell can't have a subdual equivalent. I do this with few spells in my own game, although I also use the subdual spell feat.

 

[Atridis]

I agree with what Mallus said, more or less.

However, that wasn't how I read your question: I don't believe there _is_ a "realistic option for someone who hasn't dedicated their character concept to non lethal damage."

The only time it's possible to use non-lethal force against an adversary who is trying to kill you - and it's never a good idea - is if you are a skilled fighter and your adversary is not. Contrary to the popular image, traditional martial arts are not meant to make an unarmed man capable of defending himself against an armed attacker. Most martial arts involve the use of weapons, and many incorporate "disarms" precisely because facing an armed attacker is such a perilous situation that must be stopped as soon as possible.

In the last half-century or so, martial artists have begun to search for non-lethal techniques that are applicable to actual combat (as opposed to sport fighting). Police departments now train in non-lethal methods of disarming and disabling armed and violent people, and they blend techniques from jiu-jitsu, aikido, Greco-Roman wrestling, and kenpo karate, among others. Furthermore, police officers carry weapons designed to assist them, such as the now-ubiquitous tonfa, and train in their application. As well, scientists and engineers are constantly developing non-lethal weapons systems for law enforcement (and, more recently, for the military). Few of them have proven effective enough to see general use.

Which is to say, police officers actually DO dedicate their character concepts to non lethal damage.

And despite all of that, if you were to go at a police officer with a knife, I'd bet all the money in my wallet that the first thing he'd do is draw his gun. If you neither surrendered nor forced him to shoot you, the second thing he'd do is call five or six of his buddies-in-blue and play "Pig-pile on the Perp."

 

[Ferret]

Why not make aweapon that does lots of damage but it's subduel? Have it be exotic to you can bypass the the penelty(or subduel and exotic) wuth a proficency.

 

[neoweasel]

Mechanical solutions only get you so far. In the end you need a DM willing to create opponents who do novel things like flee when overmatched or critcially wounded. Or even --gasp-- surrender. And there needs to be some kind of social/cultural contract that makes surrender [or some form of combat resolution that doesn't end in the losing side dead] viable.

Other things to consider is giving the PCs a REASON to want to use nonlethal damage. If the PCs need information, for instance. If the PCs are hoping to convert enemies to their side. If the PCs and their opponents are mostly on the same side except one detail that they're fighting over. If the DM wants to make nonlethal damage an important portion of the game, the DM needs to give the players a reason to use it.

Socially, it makes a lot of sense for there to be a "parole" custom. It existed in Europe, and D&D is (generically) based off of European customs. Give them a way to ransom their opponents or some tangible benefit to the PCs and you'll have them lining up to knock enemies out.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I agree with what Mallus said, more or less.

However, that wasn't how I read your question: I don't believe there _is_ a "realistic option for someone who hasn't dedicated their character concept to non lethal damage."

[snip long spiel on the realism of non leathal damage.]

And despite all of that, if you were to go at a police officer with a knife, I'd bet all the money in my wallet that the first thing he'd do is draw his gun.

and each time he shot, I would either continue to function at maximun effeciency or fall unconsious and begin dying, to be completed either instantly or within one minute minimum... because, you know, D&D combat is all about realistic portrayal of real life combat techniques and their effectiveness...

Sorry to be snippy, but D&D is NOT realistic, and the inability to stop someone from functioning but not kill them (either deliberately or not) isn't a point in its realism favor. Realism isn't an issue, except if I was debating the flavor of making non leathal damage easier... and you know, as I said a few posts up, if I wanted opinions on the flavor this would be in another forum.

I've decided on something I want for flavor/story reasons. There are mechanical impedents to using that sort of flavor/story in the D&D system. So I come here to the house rules forum and specificly ask for mechanics input on implementing it. The responses, to put it mildly, have been frustrating. Would it help if I started a thread on the general discussion first and asked those people with rules related input to come here?

Oh and piratecat, I disagree on the whip. Sure its harder than a club, but if I put a scythe in your hands you'd probably cut off your own foot, while I wacked myself in the head with the slingstone still in the sling, or sent it off at a right angle to the fight... on the other hand if you gave me a hand crossbow, I'd hit you more easily than I would with a heavy windlass style "simple weapon". Just saying, the best division of the weapons I can see is not ease of use = simple as much as simple means "available to the common folk" - sticks, stones, peices of cloth, slightly modified farm tools. Nets and whips fit this catagory, and without a mechanical explanation of why they deserve a feat to use, I would move them there. (given a mechanical reason, considering the value to my little project here I would probably move them anyway, but require a feat for any of the overpowering uses...) on the other hand you are probably right about the subdual bookkeeping unless I designed some sort of non-character sheet destroying way to tick leathal and subdual on and off...

kahuna burger

 

[Piratecat]

.. because, you know, D&D combat is all about realistic portrayal of real life combat techniques and their effectiveness...

Sorry to be snippy, but....

If the "rolls eyes" icon disappears, KB, you can know that you are one of my inspirations for deleting it. Maybe it's just me, but it's just impossible to use the damn thing without sounding much ruder than most people originally intend. Criticizing everyone's responses because they aren't exactly what you're looking for will only result in you not getting any responses at all. I know that after reading your post, I don't have much interest in trying to help you. Why should I, if I'm just going to get bitched at? There are better ways of refocusing a thread than being sarcastic.

That being said, your point is interesting: D&D combat doesn't model the real world, so I shouldn't feel bad about changing things to make them less lethal. Interesting thought, and a telling one. How much realism do you want? There are other ways of making combat less lethal as well, such as the reserve hit point rule (more useful for fast healing). You could also just have more weapons (such as all blunt weapons) do only subdual damage.

As for whip, be aware that moving it to a simple weapon effectively gives lashers a free feat (since they won't need exotic weapon: whip.) That may never be an issue in your game, but it's something to think about.

 

[Atridis]

Sorry to be snippy, but D&D is NOT realistic

I agree. I guess I misunderstood when you said you "want it (the set of house rules) to be a realistic option."

I've decided on something I want for flavor/story reasons. There are mechanical impedents to using that sort of flavor/story in the D&D system.

It seems to me that the D&D rules already include a number of ways to handle an adversary in combat without killing them, they're just more difficult to implement. If I wanted to make inflicting lethal and non-lethal damage equally easy, I would simply remove the penalty altogether, allowing everyone to choose whether they're trying to kill their opponent or not.

And frankly, I wouldn't find that to be too unrealistic, given the fact that a "hit" in the D&D combat system represents 6 seconds of pushing and shoving, punching and elbowing, in addition to blows with a weapon. I've never actually fought sword-and-shield while wearing metal armor and a helmet but, from what I understand, the winner is often determined by who gets exhausted first - something that Hit Points could easily be interpreted as representing.

I've heard that, in feudal Europe, it was rare for a knight to actually kill another knight (them both being gentlemen and all, and you never know when it'll be you on the receiving end). They'd simply batter each other senseless until one of them slumped to the ground, unable to continue. Then he'd be ransomed back to his family.

the best division of the weapons I can see is not ease of use = simple as much as simple means "available to the common folk"

I agree. In fact, I've always assumed that the weapon categories were intended to reflect the prevalence of weapons in a typical Medieval Western European campaign. For a campaign set in another region or in another era, the table needs to be entirely reconstructed. But I see this as one of those flavor things, not related to the game's mechanics. The effect of using an unfamiliar weapon, or of using a weapon in a strange manner, would be the same.

Nets and whips fit this catagory, and without a mechanical explanation of why they deserve a feat to use, I would move them there.

I don't know about whips, but nets have certainly been used as a weapon (not in Medieval Western Europe). If they're a common weapon in your campaign world then, imo, they wouldn't require a Feat.