No cost to Knock Creatures Unconscious?!

[CapnZapp]

Thanks everyone.

I appreciate the input, but...

1) Is the rule really written like this? There really is no mechanical cost to choosing the Knocking them Unconscious option?

2) What would be a reasonable cost? You're essentially fighting with your blunt side rather than your sharp side of your sword. Would a to-hit penalty be appropriate? Or some damage penalty? (The cost should be enough to encourage players to use this option only when it really matters to them, but not so big so they feel the option isn't there at all)

Hasn't this been discussed already? I sort of expected links to previous threads on the topic

 

[Mallus]

1) Is the rule really written like this? There really is no mechanical cost to choosing the Knocking them Unconscious option?

It looks intentional to me.

You're essentially fighting with your blunt side rather than your sharp side of your sword.

To my mind, this is the wrong way to look at the question. 4e makes no bones about not trying to simulate the effects/behaviors of real weapons --witness the fact my paladin PC drives his battleaxe home using using charm.

The better question is "What tone do I want in my campaign? Grim-and-gritty or the A-Team?"

(The cost should be enough to encourage players to use this option only when it really matters to them, but not so big so they feel the option isn't there at all)

Why do you want to discourage it, exactly? Anyway, a -2 or -4 to hit on the attack that drops the doe below 0 HP should do.

edit: the easiest way to prevent captured enemies from being a source of information is to make them badly-informed. Most hired muscle wouldn't/shouldn't know anything important. And the foes that do are harder to make talk, or talk reliably.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Thanks everyone.

I appreciate the input, but...

1) Is the rule really written like this? There really is no mechanical cost to choosing the Knocking them Unconscious option?

2) What would be a reasonable cost? You're essentially fighting with your blunt side rather than your sharp side of your sword. Would a to-hit penalty be appropriate? Or some damage penalty? (The cost should be enough to encourage players to use this option only when it really matters to them, but not so big so they feel the option isn't there at all)

Hasn't this been discussed already? I sort of expected links to previous threads on the topic

It has come up before, although they've probably dropped off the front page.

In general though, with the PCs, going unconcious isn't a case where you either die or you live, you could concievably be "dying" for the rest of the fight. If no one stabilizes you (and you don't pop up with a 20 for your save) you would probably die eventually.

For the NPCs, it's basically a matter of whether the PCs try to save them or not. It's another case of simplification ... the PCs either decide that at some point in the fight, they did enough non lethal damage to knock the person out instead of kill them (if you want to look at it that way). Or they stabilized the person before their 3rd failed death save. Instead of making things complicated, they just said "the PCs can choose to have the opponent's survive being knocked out". Very rarely does a monster die before it hits the ground, most "death" in D&D is basically passing out and dying of shock to some extent, rarely, in 4e, does someone go to negative bloodied unless they are under som sort of ongoing damage or get caught in an aura/blast/burst that finishes them off.

Instead of making it harder in combat to take someone alive, have the choice between letting the opponent's live or die by an out of combat issue. The players see the benefit of questioning the bad guys after the fight ... if they have all upside and no downside, they'll keep the badguys alive. It is probably best if either option is viable, so it's not a case of railroading the PCs, or punishing a player that might be playing a character that wants to redeem evil people, or bring them in alive, etc. In general, if they keep the bad guys alive longer than just for interogation, have the bad guys become a drain on resources and a nuisance, but perhaps with an upside (the town has posted a reward dead or alive, and will pay more if they bring them in alive). If they get the information and let them go, they may end up with enemies willing to surrender to them and offer up information in the future, or they may end up with recurring foes and perhaps better prepared enemies in the future that know how they fight. If they kill their prisoners after getting the information they want, it may get out and cause people to be less trusting of the PCs, less willing to talk, etc ...

 

[Kalbutt]

When it's clear with your players that they won't miss a critical piece of information just because they turned left instead of right or didn't ask a very specific question to a prisoner, they will understand that interrogating each and every no-name NPC can only slow the game with no benefits for them.

The suggestions above are good, but maybe you should just explain to them that they won't lose anything by 'just' killing their enemies.

 

[Nebulous]

As someone else suggested, tell your players that this is not fun for you, interrogating every last foe, and that if there is a critical piece of information they have, you will drop hints that NOW is the time to capture someone and not kill them.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Or tell them that while it's ok to kill someone in the heat of combat, killing a prisoner of war is an evil act.

 

[Kalbutt]

Or make the underlings NOT speak common (or any language unknown by your PCs). At least they'll only try to interrogate the big fish, and you can roleplay a bit or make a skill challenge.

 

[Solodan]

Good call on the language bit. This only works on humanoids that speak the same language, so unless your interrogator can speak all the goofy languages.. not an issue.

But yea, there seem to be a less lethal D&D now.

VERY VAGUE SPOILER ALERT FOR LFR ---

Some modules reward players for not killing things too.

D&D is just more marketable to more groups of people if things don't always bleed when you hit them.

 

[monboesen]

Another way to look at this is asking yourself the question "How many creatures will actually fight to the death before surrendering". IMO it wouldn't be many, most would either attempt to flee or surrender when seriously wounded or when it is obvious they aren't going to win.

So allowing players to determine whether an enemy is dead, unconscious or have surrendered at 0 HP can be seen as a sort of narrative control that actually brings reasonable results.

Then feel free to make a DM decision that those crazy suicidal cultist that fight to death and/or stab themselves as their last action, are not within the players narrative control, and will be dead at 0 HP. Unless the players take exceptional actions to keep them alive.

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

How about they have to state they are aiming to knockout rather than kill before they roll attack or damage (they ideally do this on the last hit).

When aiming to knock out have them do 1/2 damage.

They will aim to kill until the last hit. They may accidentally kill them or spend turn after turn hitting half-damage.

This may put a stop to constant knock-outs and makes sense to me at any rate.